Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #253339

Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united"

Show all headers | View raw

Yrrah wrote:
> "One of the things that some people say about the Linux platform is
> that it's fragmented (...)."

article:  "This means that some vulnerability found in Android, most 
people won't even get an update for it. It also means that the Android 
platform, in its entirety, is the most exposed. That is fragmentation."


IMO, the first point the article wanted to express was to contrast one 
concept of 'fragmentation' of the android platform as opposed to what 
one might call the 'diversity' of the gnu/linux platform.

(other article) Today's DistroWatch had a section addressing the 
comparison of the gnu/linux platform with the BSD platform.

The words used to address that were that gnu/linux wasn't an operating 
system, but a family of closely related OSes, as is BSD.

So, whether you want to call the android family (or the gnu/linux or the 
BSD) family diverse or fragmented or to turn it on its head and call it 
'unified', you/one must surely conclude that the variables make for 
differences that must be dealt with somehow.

Those similarities and differences, including their differences from 
other evolving OSes such as the Wins and the Apples are part of what 
their 'operators' and administrator/users have to deal with.

Many people who use the OSes of their mobile and stationary devices 
would like to have LESS learning curve to deal with rather than more. 
What is a 'boon' to a developer in terms of the power of flexibility of 
a platform may be a bane to those who are new or less experienced with 
the nuances of their device's OS.


-- 
Mike Easter

Back to alt.comp.freeware | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

"Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Yrrah <Yrrah-acf@acf.invalid> - 2016-01-25 17:53 +0100
  Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2016-01-25 09:15 -0800
    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-01-25 12:26 -0800
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2016-01-25 12:57 -0800
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-25 15:05 -0600
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Mark Warner <mhwarner.inhibitions@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:25 -0500
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-01-25 20:24 -0200
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Spamblk <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> - 2016-01-26 13:49 +0000
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" »Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> - 2016-01-26 09:10 -0600
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Spamblk <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> - 2016-01-26 19:34 +0000
  Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Mark Warner <mhwarner.inhibitions@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:28 -0500
  Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 22:05 +0800

csiph-web