On Wednesday 11 October 2006 19:56, Hubert Figuiere wrote: > Eric Buttler posted a reply: > http://eric.extremeboredom.net/2006/10/08/265
I found that reply positively embarrassing to anyone connected with Linux, open source software, or even those of us who just use it to get stuff done. It seems as though the vast majority of people really are truly clueless as to what is required in creating a desktop OS that can be called one whole, and just what ISVs require to port anything. I mean, even if Adobe do create a Linux desktop port, how does Adobe package it up and how on Earth is anyone going to install it? Anybody think of things like that? Where are the development tools? What licenses do I have to buy for development tools? Yes - ISVs *will* ask that question. Where are the stable libraries I use on the platform, akin to the Win32 API on Windows, or are there separate libraries that all have completely different looking interfaces? By that I don't just mean having libraries at a desktop level, but libraries with the same kind and style of APIs for doing all manner of things throughout the OS. And by 'APIs', no I don't mean just throwing out a CLI command and 'parsing' the 'stuff' that comes back. Many programmers in organisations with lots of servers and desktops to deploy on will ask if you can do things remotely as well. How does someone install, and configure, a piece of software graphically? This is a desktop, right? Will all those interfaces stay sane and compatible for any period of time? What can I at least guarantee to my customers that it will work on? How can I support it if the interfaces are there but the implementations are all different? The last point is relevant to something like the LSB. People want a set of known and set binaries they can build against and use. Heck, even doing that can be difficult enough. Anything else is useless, no matter how many test suites it's been through. Where's the online documentation for doing all of this? Tick the boxes on most of this and you also start attracting people who write 'free' and open source software on Windows as well. By doing this you also start to attract a wider userbase. Criticise Microsoft all you like, and I personally think Adobe are slitting their own throats in the long run, but Microsoft provide all that - for all the ways in which they inexplicably screw many things up that should be good. The only part of something like xdg-utils I would find even remotely interesting is that it is at least the start of an API that programmers can use beyond what they have in the desktop 'boundaries'. You're not just programming within a desktop environment, but within an operating system. However, all of these things have seemingly got lost in a world where 'standards' can solve absolutely everything and where political correctness over 'desktop neutrality' rules rather than actually solving anything. Heck, functionality isn't even being pushed forwards. All that's happening is that 'standards' and interfaces are being built on top of things that perform exactly the same function in order to provide something that looks uniform. Let me tell you something about 'standards'. They're very useful in that people have recommendations as to what they should be using and doing, and why. However, 'standards' that really only use standard interfaces but have different implementations become very problematic for people, particularly when they approach any complexity. This applies to things like the LSB or ODF. Don't believe me? Just ask Mr. Torvalds about ACPI or EFI. regards, David _______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list Desktop_architects@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
