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

Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #253338 > unrolled thread

"Linux is not fragmented; it's united"

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.freeware

Contents

  "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

#253338 — "Linux is not fragmented; it's united"

"One of the things that some people say about the Linux platform is
that it's fragmented (...)."
Using the term fragmented to describe Linux is not correct. If
anything, Linux is one of the most cohesive platforms available right
now and that's actually really easy to prove. The biggest problem
Linux has seems to be the large number of distributions available, but
that's only an illusion.
For the most part, there are only a few big ones, and the rest are
pretty much filling various niches.(...) They all share the same core,
the Linux kernel.
This is the backbone of the operating system and its single piece of
code. The illusion of fragmentation is also given by the many desktop
environments and window managers available right now, but that's also
related to user preferences, more than anything else.
The glue that keeps all the Linux platform together is something that
prevents the very idea of fragmentation, the GPL license.(...)
Linux is not fragmented at all. It's a solid block of code that moves
in all directions and a single direction at the same time. This is the
reason for its security and the huge diversity it is capable of.
<http://news.softpedia.com/news/saying-linux-is-fragmented-is-wrong-this-is-why-499386.shtml>

Hear, hear!

Yrrah

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#253339

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253346

On 1/25/2016 9:15 AM, Mike Easter wrote:
> 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.
>
>
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.  All they can do is throw it over the transom and let the
users figger out all the compatibility issues.
For commercial hardware and software vendors, that translates
into support costs that they can't recoup with sales revenue.

On the user end of that stick, if you have a problem, you google for
a solution.  You get a zillion hits.  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.  So, you try to load
those tools and run into another layer of potential incompatibilities
to deal with.  It's the linux onion of tears.
Fix one thing and another lies beneath.
Often it works, but there are still many cases that don't.  Bad news
travels faster than good news.  All it takes is one thing you
absolutely need, but doesn't work for you.

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

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.  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.
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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253352

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253353

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:26:54 -0800
mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:

> On the user end of that stick, if you have a problem, you google for
> a solution.  You get a zillion hits.  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.  So, you try to load
> those tools and run into another layer of potential incompatibilities
> to deal with.  It's the linux onion of tears.

The hypothetical user you've introduced for rhetorical purposes, to
whom you refer as "you", needs to pick a distro with better
documentation and support forums.  I haven't hit a problem even remotely
close to what you describe in over a decade, and even then nothing
close to the severity you express.

> Desktop linux needs to ATTRACT developers and users alike.  

AFAIAC, there are plenty.

> Current strategy of driving newbies away isn't working.

If you're failing to drive away newbies (how do you measure that?),
maybe it's because you consistently make transparently outrageous posts
about how allegedly terrible things are.  I'm sure you've driven away
at least a few, though.

> 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.  

When are you going to get started on that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253357

On 1/25/2016 4:05 PM, »Q« wrote:
> mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On the user end of that stick, if you have a problem, you google for
>> a solution.  You get a zillion hits.  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.  So, you try to load
>> those tools and run into another layer of potential incompatibilities
>> to deal with.  It's the linux onion of tears.
> 
> The hypothetical user you've introduced for rhetorical purposes, to
> whom you refer as "you", needs to pick a distro with better
> documentation and support forums.  I haven't hit a problem even remotely
> close to what you describe in over a decade, and even then nothing
> close to the severity you express.

He's in a singular class of stupid.

-- 
Mark Warner
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253361

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:26:54 -0800, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:

>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.  All you'd need to create any custom distro would
>be an install script running off the same repository. 

	It's called Debian. Still having trouble "installing" Firefox
? Or is it LibreOffice this time ?
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253391

mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote in <news:n860a8$os8$1@dont-email.me>:

> On 1/25/2016 9:15 AM, Mike Easter wrote:
>> Yrrah wrote:
>>> "One of the things that some people say about the Linux platform is
>>> that it's fragmented (...)."
<SNIP>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 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.  All they can do is throw it over the transom and let the
> users figger out all the compatibility issues.

Ho, hum. No developer tests their software along the entire breadth of
the target OS and hardware combination. In the case of Windows there
might be XP with its service packs up to Windows 10. A Windows
developer might test software on a limited number of machines running
various Windows versions yet some incompatibilities may only be
revealed following publication of the software via feedback. 

> For commercial hardware and software vendors, that translates
> into support costs that they can't recoup with sales revenue.
> 
> On the user end of that stick, if you have a problem, you google for
> a solution.  You get a zillion hits.  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.

So you download a program and it will work with XP SP3 but not SP1
(I think that is the case with process hacker for example)

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

Broad sweeping assertion.

> 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

Not for me, thanks.


> the single repository where everything has been vetted

Vetted by whom? Some monopoly? A single distro may well result in
the Ubuntufication of Linux with phoning home and systemd whether
you want it or not.

> and works with
> everything else.  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.

Yeah, right. These custom distros could /never/ acquire the character
of a new distro, perish the thought.

(At least so far) the Linuxes I have ever used have the same ELF
struture for fully compiled binaries. By and large a static linked
binaries can work over many distros OOTB. There may be an issue with
dependencies that can make current binaries incompatible with previous
versions of the same distro. There can be issues where some GUI 
applications will only work with KDE or GNOME etc but that does not
have to be the case. Even a massive project like firefox has been able
to produce binaries that work with many distros and window managers.

> 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.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253398

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:49:22 +0000 (UTC)
Spamblk <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:

> mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote in <news:n860a8$os8$1@dont-email.me>:

> > the single repository where everything has been vetted  
> 
> Vetted by whom? Some monopoly? 

IIRC, mike's plan is for all the people currently working on Linux,
Gnu, and distros to do that vetting.  This starts happening right after
they all accept mike's vision.

> > and works with everything else.  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.  
> 
> Yeah, right. These custom distros could /never/ acquire the character
> of a new distro, perish the thought.

And neither could any of the distros which would ignore mike's One
Repository To Rule Them All.  I think his vision for this is that
there simply wouldn't be any such distros;  all developers would be on
board with mike, so all of them would use only the One Repository.  All
the cats in one big happy uniform herd, with the very idea of changing 
any ABI in place in the One Repository an anathema.

AFAICS, the first step towards realizing utopia is for mike to convince
us all that Linux is just way too hard to use;  once we all stop using
it, the developers will wake up and accept mike's leadership.  He's
still working on the initial phase of that first step, trying to
convince newbies not to try Linux.

  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253413

=?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars@gmx.net> wrote in 
<news:20160126091020.25548d2c@sepulchrave.remarqs>:

> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:49:22 +0000 (UTC)
> Spamblk <ZapSpam@SpamMeNot.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote in <news:n860a8$os8$1@dont-email.me>:
> 
>> > the single repository where everything has been vetted  
>> 
>> Vetted by whom? Some monopoly? 
> 
> IIRC, mike's plan is for all the people currently working on Linux,
> Gnu, and distros to do that vetting.  This starts happening right after
> they all accept mike's vision.

I guess under Mike's vision any need for any "custom distro" would be
strictly limited as his quote "single repository where everything has been
vetted" would be so good it would satisfy everyone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253358

On 1/25/2016 11:53 AM, Yrrah wrote:
> "One of the things that some people say about the Linux platform is
> that it's fragmented (...)."
> Using the term fragmented to describe Linux is not correct. If
> anything, Linux is one of the most cohesive platforms available right
> now and that's actually really easy to prove. The biggest problem
> Linux has seems to be the large number of distributions available, but
> that's only an illusion.
> For the most part, there are only a few big ones, and the rest are
> pretty much filling various niches.(...) They all share the same core,
> the Linux kernel.
> This is the backbone of the operating system and its single piece of
> code. The illusion of fragmentation is also given by the many desktop
> environments and window managers available right now, but that's also
> related to user preferences, more than anything else.
> The glue that keeps all the Linux platform together is something that
> prevents the very idea of fragmentation, the GPL license.(...)
> Linux is not fragmented at all. It's a solid block of code that moves
> in all directions and a single direction at the same time. This is the
> reason for its security and the huge diversity it is capable of.
> <http://news.softpedia.com/news/saying-linux-is-fragmented-is-wrong-this-is-why-499386.shtml>

That was lame in so many ways. Someone had a deadline to meet and just 
threw out some babble. Wish I could get paid for putting out crap like 
that.

-- 
Mark Warner
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#253393

Linux *distributions* fragments, not the kernel and various applications! ;)

On 1/26/2016 12:53 AM, Yrrah wrote:
> "One of the things that some people say about the Linux platform is
> that it's fragmented (...)."
> Using the term fragmented to describe Linux is not correct. If
> anything, Linux is one of the most cohesive platforms available right
> now and that's actually really easy to prove. The biggest problem
> Linux has seems to be the large number of distributions available, but
> that's only an illusion.


-- 
   @~@   Remain silent. Nothing from soldiers and magicians is real!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and farces be with you!
/( _ )\ (Fedora release 23)  Linux 4.3.3-301.fc23.x86_64
   ^ ^   17:57:01 up 19:22 0 users load average: 1.11 1.07 1.05
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.freeware

csiph-web