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

Groups > alt.comp.freeware > #253391

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

Show all headers | View raw

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.
> 

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