On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Randy Edwards wrote:
> Despite my liking that idea and attitude, imagine it a couple of years
> from now. Let's say SO, for an example, is as widely used on GNU/Linux as
> is MSOffice on Windows. Let's say that GNU/Linux is big -- really big.
> Would those same developers be able to take such a technically correct
> position? Would GNU/Linux be forced into compromises for backward
> compatability like Windows is today?
What are you saying, that this doesn't happen in the windows world? Ask
anyone who's supported Windows for a long time, and they'll tell you that
they've seen Windows service packs break applications. Either the
application vendor releases a fix, or the software just stops working...
> themselves, they have to be different. I fear this is going to result in
> fragmentation along the lines of Unix. Sure, techies will be able to
> navigate the differences, but end-users are going to throw their hands up
> at such a marketplace mess.
That's an argument that I keep hearing, year after year. There are
hundreds of distros and still people are warning of the fragmentation
that's to come. There's a limit to how much fragmentation can occur,
because they're all still based on the same kernel. I guess this is where
my techie prejudices get in the way, because I don't really see this as an
issue.
For the non-technical user, how much administration do they need to do?
Add themselves a user, add a printer, and that's about it. Installing
software has become very easy with RPM or .deb files, and there are an
assortment of choices of tools to make it even easier. As for the other
administration tools, that's what documentation is for. I haven't seen
other Distro's documentation since early versions of slackware
(admittedly, I rarely need lots of docs to install a different version of
Linux -- they're easy enough to figure out), but Redhat's is very good,
and that's the direction most newbies go.
> file differences. We need standards here to enable relatively new users to
> migrate between a SuSE, Red Hat, Debian, Caldera, etc., system without
> becoming a GNU/Linux pro.
Why? Why does the average, non-technical user need to be able to migrate
from distro to distro? The average user only has one machine, and doesn't
change operating systems very often, if ever. So I don't see the validity
of that argument.
If you're just talking about being able to run applications, that's what
the various DTEs are designed to do. Run Gnome, and you'll have a gnome
menu option for the app you want. Just click on it.
No problem. At least I can't see one... :)
> --
> "If the current stylistic distinctions between open-source and commercial
> software persist, an open-software revolution could lead to yet another
> divide between haves and have-nots: those with the skills and connections
> to make use of free software, and those who must pay high prices for
> increasingly dated commercial offerings." -- Scientific American
Poppycock! :) Linux is getting easier and easier for the non-techie to
use. It may be that different distros are different, but I don't see the
need for a non-techie to go between them. The main issue that I see there
is will binaries from one system run on another.... the answer should be
yes, as much as possible.
--
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Who watches the watchmen?"
-Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347
Derek D. Martin | Senior UNIX Systems/Network Administrator
Arris Interactive | A Nortel Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
