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

Groups > alt.os.linux.ubuntu > #186716

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

From mike <ham789@netzero.net>
Newsgroups alt.os.linux.ubuntu, alt.os.linux
Subject Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united"
Date 2016-01-26 22:45 -0800
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <n89oul$v84$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (2 earlier) <n860a8$os8$1@dont-email.me> <n87th1$1d9$1@news.albasani.net> <0tueabt95iasf1gm0e1692ne2m19ik5qrf@4ax.com> <n88uij$k9v$1@dont-email.me> <n8928i$ul4$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/26/2016 4:16 PM, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2016-01-26, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:
>> On 1/26/2016 6:04 AM, Shadow wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Say there are a hundred distros.  Each has someone determining what
>> goes in the distro and how it all works together and is compatible with
>> all the rest of the desktop linux stuff in the repository they use.
>
> ?? The whole reason for many distros is that people disagree on what
> should be in the distro and what tools should be available to run the
> distro. Some people like systemd, some do not. Some want to make a good
> server, some what to make a good desktop, some a good laptop distro.
> etc.
> And if you start telling volunteers what to do, they start leaving if
> they do not understand the necessity (rather than the prejudice) of the
> decisions. They are giving their time. Why should they listen to some
> dictator?
>
>>
>> You have a HUNDRED volunteers who could be coordinated by a team leader
>> to manage the standards, maintain the (ever improving) automated
>> first-line compatibility test
>
> And they would stick around why?
>
>> suite and keep THE repository up to date and self-consistent.
>> It's the same damn people.  You just have to get them to agree
>> on standards and practices and pledge their support of those standards
>> and practices.
>
> But there would be three different groups and each would "agree" on
> different things. You do what at that point? Fire them?
>
>
>>
>> Creating a custom distro would be as simple as writing the install
>> script.  If there's a problem with the distro, you fix whatever is busted
>> in the repository or the dependency management system and the test
>> suites that should have identified the issue...because everything
>> has been designed so it JUST WORKS.
>>
>> Some monopoly? A single distro may well result in
>>>> the Ubuntufication of Linux with phoning home and systemd whether
>>>> you want it or not.
>>
>> Well, YOU get to decide, through the various coordinated teams.
>
> YOU? Team? So it is not YOU. Any team will have dissent.
>
>> If you don't want it to phone home, you write the compliance tests
>> to reject any that do.  That won't prevent non-compliant rogue distros
>> from emerging.
>> But anything calling itself LINUX must comply with standards evolving
>> as the governing teams see fit.  If it's not LINUX, it
>> is not guaranteed to work with the rest of LINUX.
>> If it is LINUX, you can expect that intuit(turbo-tax), nvidia and everybody
>> else has a stable target and the ability to make a net profit from their
>> LINUX development/support efforts.
>>
>
>> Users don't want systemd or any other operating system characteristic.
>> They want APPLICATIONS that just work.
>> Fight about it among yourselves all you want.  But present a unified
>> front to the industry and users.
>>>
>>> 	Believe me, he wants it.
>>
>> Your input suggests that you have no clue what I want, but that doesn't
>> inhibit your vilification.
>>
>> Every post he's made so far has been
>>> about "privatizing" Linux, and making it a business model. For your
>>> "safety"
>>> 	[]'s
>>>
>> Yes, that's the party line.  Call standardization privatizing and
>> cast it as evil.
>
> No, just short sighted and blind to realities.
>
> The same argument was made about goods in stores. Why have 20 different
> brands of peas. Only one is needed.

That's absurd.  Desktop linux is EVERYTHING in one place, the repository.

If you ask the clerk to bring you everything you need for dinner,
you get the store brand peas and the store brand everything else.
The store brand has been tested with the recipe and is guaranteed to
cook up as advertised and taste like the recipe should, according
to the majority of cooks involved in the process of dinner.

If you find you like the taste of different peas, you specify
them my name by checking the box on the order form.  But you use it
just like the store brand.  It's in the same type of can.  Works
with the same can opener...unless they're frozen, in which case
it comes with scissors to open the plastic.  And the recipe changes to 
add the thawing process...dependencies automagically
resolved.

The new brand of peas has been tested against the recipe
and gives you a slightly different experience, per your request.

If you don't like that, you can call your friend and ask for advice.
Your friend suggests a third kind of peas might be better for you.
So you go back to the store and check a different box for peas.

You want a dinner recipe from Chef Ubuntu, check that box instead.
Same store, same clerk, same configurability.  Only difference is
that you always get a can opener, even if this dinner doesn't need it,
because you are likely to need one eventually, according to the majority
of cooks at Chez Linux.  But, if you really don't want one, you can prevent
shipment or ship it back later.  You'll get a new one next time
you select something that requires it.  Problem is that you won't
have one that everybody else assumes.  So, when the craft newsgroup
tells you how to make something out of tin can parts, you won't have
the tool.  And they'll be calling you stupid for not understanding.

At any time, if you want breakfast, you can check a different set
of boxes and you get a breakfast recipe and ingredients.  You can
even have peas for breakfast if you check the box.

If your a farmer and want to have your peas added to the store inventory,
you know EXACTLY who to call to submit your sample.  You only need
ONE phone number.
The TEAM evaluates your submission.   If it works in every recipe
without materially changing the result, and is free of disease,
you get to add it to the peas category.  If it doesn't, they tell
you why and suggest how to modify it for compliance.  If you don't
want to change anything, you can resubmit it as "peas-adjacent".

If Chez Wolfgang wants to redesign your whole kitchen, he can do
that with a new page of checkboxes that work with the existing
repository.  If he wants something that is not in the repository,
he has to write it and get it submitted/accepted to the repository.
Everything still works.
If he doesn't want that, he can go rogue and do his own support.
He loses the license to call it LINUX and his support requests
go to the bottom of the LINUX-adjacent pile.

Note that during this entire process, nobody EVER had to type in
any commands with a bunch of unfathomable  options.
GUI interface.  ALL options in a hierarchy of checkboxes and
menu selections.  You don't have to guess what might be required.

This is not rocket science.  It's transparency for vendors and
users alike.  It tells you what
you get automagically and gives you to option to change it to
something else at any time with a few clicks of the mouse.
And nobody lost any freedom at all.
And no privatizing at all.

The only thing required is the decision to do so.

Having said all that, I do acknowledge that the existing bunch
of players like the attention they get from forking up
everything with which they disagree and will oppose
any attempts to standardize/consolidate with prejudice.
The chaos is likely to persist. Sad!

While I wrote this, I downloaded and installed Ubuntu 14.04.3.

First try, vlc plays .wtv files over the network from a windows
machine.  Definitely an improvement from my last venture into
ubuntu...so far...


>
>>
>> I've never, ever advocated privatization.  I've talked
>> about standardization, coordination, cooperation, JUST WORKS
>> and LINUX as a viable desktop alternative for joe average.
>>
>> In the above, I've used the term "LINUX" as a moniker for the
>> coordinated desktop computing platform.  I care not one bit
>> what it's called or what's under the hood.  To the user,
>> it's a set of apps that just work without endless, complex configuration
>> issues.  To commercial developers, it's a means to make a buck.
>>
>>

Back to alt.os.linux.ubuntu | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2016-01-26 12:04 -0200
  Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-26 09:56 -0600
    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2016-01-26 09:36 -0800
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-26 11:59 -0600
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2016-01-26 10:11 -0800
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-27 04:59 -0700
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-01-26 19:39 +0100
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-26 13:10 -0600
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-01-26 13:12 -0600
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-27 04:58 -0700
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" gamo <gamo@telecable.es> - 2016-01-27 13:16 +0100
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-27 06:37 -0700
    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2016-01-27 10:23 +0100
  Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-01-26 15:15 -0800
    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2016-01-27 00:16 +0000
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.inwalid> - 2016-01-27 02:26 +0000
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-27 06:12 -0500
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-01-27 09:00 -0500
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 09:03 -0500
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 00:46 -0500
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-01-26 22:57 -0800
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 03:35 -0500
            Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-27 08:55 -0600
              Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 10:10 -0500
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-27 09:15 -0600
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 10:20 -0500
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 10:28 -0500
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-01-27 10:06 -0600
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 11:19 -0500
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Wildman <best_lay@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-27 10:58 -0600
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 16:11 -0500
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-27 10:36 -0600
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-27 10:41 -0600
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 16:08 -0500
              Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 10:13 -0500
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-01-26 22:45 -0800
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 03:28 -0500
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-01-27 05:57 -0500
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-27 13:08 +0100
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 07:49 -0500
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-27 23:41 +0100
          Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> - 2016-01-29 07:27 -0600
            Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-29 08:49 -0500
              Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@WizardsTower.invalid> - 2016-01-29 10:23 -0600
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-29 12:59 -0500
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Catzilla <catzilla@pussyboss.invalid> - 2016-01-29 21:26 +0000
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-29 20:01 -0500
                Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" Catzilla <catzilla@pussyboss.invalid> - 2016-01-30 12:41 +0000
    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 00:41 -0500
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2016-01-26 22:56 -0800
        Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 03:32 -0500
    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 00:41 -0500
    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 00:43 -0500
    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 00:44 -0500
    Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-27 05:41 -0700
      Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united" DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2016-01-27 07:52 -0500

csiph-web