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

Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #253352

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

Show all headers | View raw

mike wrote:
> Problem with that "boon" is that there's no way for a developer to
> test his app in combination with any combination of all the other
> stuff in the biosphere.

That is not correct.

> All they can do is throw it over the transom and let the
> users figger out all the compatibility issues.

That is not sufficiently accurate either.

> For commercial hardware and software vendors, that translates
> into support costs that they can't recoup with sales revenue.

The commercial hardware people have progressed to the point of having 
figured out how to deal with their driver support info.

I suppose your software vendor issue is some kind of approach to 
'handling' proprietary ware in an open source world.

> On the user end of that stick, if you have a problem, you google for
> a solution.  You get a zillion hits.

I've heard of your approach to how you identify and solve problems.  It 
isn't a good one.  Describing what is wrong with how you do things 
doesn't benefit your argument.

> The one you pick won't work for you because your version of this
> distro with that user interface came with a different set of tools
> and utilities.

How a novice linux user should deal with looking for software for a 
purpose isn't the same as how an experienced linux compiler would look 
for a solution to a software aim.  The newb should mostly stay in the 
repos.  The experienced might write a little script or he might compile 
something.

> It's the linux onion of tears.

Inept users such as you are describing are going to meet tears in every 
OS, because of their misguided approach.

> Desktop linux needs to ATTRACT developers and users alike.  Current
> strategy of driving newbies away isn't working.  CHAOS is not better.

You seem to think 'desktop linux' is 'an operating system'.  It is not. 
As I said earlier; it is a related family.

> A first step to the solution might be a single desktop linux distro
> with fixed defaults and a VERY EASY GUI way to make it anything you
> want from the single repository where everything has been vetted and
> works with everything else.

We have all heard this confused idea over and over again.  No one is 'in 
charge' of anything but their own linux distro.  How google chooses to 
use its linux is different than how RedHat chooses to deploy its linux 
which is different from what MS wants to do with its linux or what 
someone else wants to do with their linux.

> All you'd need to create any custom distro would be an install script
> running off the same repository.  It would all stay updated with
> fully evaluated updates to the repository and JUST WORK.

The compatibility road of posix or linux base isn't 'compatible' with 
what the various linux developers want to do.

A great many users have found their way to adopting a particular linux 
distro that they like which is well supported in the way they like.  The 
example of how Mint has attached itself to Ubuntu but not exactly and 
how Ubuntu has attached itself to Debian but not exactly works out very 
well and your confused way of NOT 'adapting' yourself to a linux distro 
and associated software which works just fine is your own problem, not 
the 'philosophy' of the wealth of linux distros.

> When you googled a problem, the solution would use tools you already
> have installed and work on files in fixed/known locations and
> formats. All it really takes to make it happen is LEADERSHIP and a
> community willing to follow.

Apparently you attempt to use 'google' the wrong way to achieve your goals.



-- 
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