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

Groups > alt.os.linux.ubuntu > #186740

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

From crankypuss <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups alt.os.linux.ubuntu, alt.os.linux
Subject Re: "Linux is not fragmented; it's united"
Date 2016-01-27 05:41 -0700
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <n8ado3$keq$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <dgn3ieF4odsU1@mid.individual.net> <n860a8$os8$1@dont-email.me> <n87th1$1d9$1@news.albasani.net> <0tueabt95iasf1gm0e1692ne2m19ik5qrf@4ax.com> <n88uij$k9v$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

mike 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.
> 
> 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
> 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.

Demands and promises only work when there is a stick to enforce 
compliance.  The money-stick is what keeps the proprietary world in a 
constant state of eat-each-other-ness, like a school of piranhas each of 
which sees everybody else as food.

The money-stick is reaching for linux.  Fuck that.

Linux is as much an idea as it is an implementation, it is a playing-
field leveled by the ability of anyone to jump in and do whatever they 
choose.  Linux can be about the perfection of the computing Art, or it 
can be about making a bunch of money, or about becoming famous as the 
guy who figured out how to such-and-so, or whatever one chooses.

People are either in it for the Art, or they're in it for the money.

History remembers a few starving artists, a few madmen, a few 
plutocrats; pick your poison.

> 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.

The best code comes from people who wrote it because they needed it, and 
who are infected with a touch of perfectionism.  

The code that emerges from desire-for-profit generally meets the poorly-
stated requirements, more or less, if you don't mind shipping with a few 
hundred bugs left pending; but that's fine with Marketing and Executive 
Management because what they care about is the money, and not even the 
money the company will eventually receive, they money they care about is 
their personal wealth.  Fuck that.

> 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,

I already get to decide.

> through the various coordinated teams.

Which are "led" by "leaders", oh my.

> If you don't want it to phone home, you write the compliance tests
> to reject any that do. 

Yes, that is something I am for, compliance testing; but not for 
compliance with standards and specifications, I much prefer compliance 
with the goal of quality.  Anybody can recognize shit once they've 
stepped in it, that's one of the driving principles of traditional 
economics, that people won't keep buying shit over and over.

On the other hand when you see the way the market is actually working, 
you'd be an idiot to believe that brand of economics, because if it was 
correct the only way people would keep buying shit is if the only thing 
on the market was shit.  You'd have to believe in unstated collusion 
between manufacturers, oh my, that's just compliance with standards, 
standards set by committees loaded with for-profit voters.

> 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.

I have had about a bellyful of "the industry", since the only thing I'm 
finding for sale in my preferred form-factor is basically shit.

>>
>> 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.
> 
> 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.

Suppose we let Joe Average learn enough about what is possible to get 
pissed off about the garbage The Industry is offering and stop buying 
shit.

> 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.

Commercialism sucks unless you are under its thumb, then it's God 
Almighty.

-- 
http://totally-portable-software.blogspot.com
  [Sun Nov 22: "Total Portability is not binary"]

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