On Wednesday 29 October 2003 12:53 pm, robin wrote: > > Of course, in your view, you test on software that is available for free. > > So, when IE becomes non-standalone with the next version and the only > > way to obtain the newest version is to purchase the entire Windows OS for > > $$$, is your view going to remain the same about testing on IE? IOW, are > > you going to buy the OS and a box to install it on in order to test your > > web design? And, BTW, you will need a dedicated box because the > > palladium, er trusted computing initiative stuff will guarantee that you > > need the entire box dedicated to Windows. > > In that case, I'd email a friend and say "Can you check this website?"
With one type of browser as opposed to how many types of drives? At a certain point, one has to understand that funding for open source projects is, by definition, limited and respond accordingly. > > The reason that standards exist is to eliminate the need for developers > > to buy one of each different type of drive and test it. That is really > > the only way to insure compatibility. On the other hand, it would have > > been trivial for LG to test each of their drives on Linux to insure > > compatibility and if they did not do so, it is up to the user who chooses > > to install Linux on his hardware to test and insure that it is okay > > before they commit to it. > > I already mentioned that LG are culpable. As for the responsibility of > the user, it is not fair to the user to expect him or her to retest > hardware that has worked successfully with previous versions of Linux. ????? Each time new software comes out, there are possibilities of incompatibilities with legacy applications as well as legacy hardware. Granted, expecting users to follow changelogs and make informed decisions about risk mitigation in deciding what to test is probably asking quite a bit. However, that is why people who are not prepared to do these things should be smart enough to not be FIRST ADOPTERS and rush out to load the newest version of Linux before it has been properly vetted by those who are prepared to do so. If the user is not prepared to accept the responsibility, they should wait for those who are. Trying to stay on the bleeding edge and expecting no problems is simply asinine and stupid and there is no one capable of protecting someone from their own stupidity. Case in point, LG. > We expect that hardware my not work under a new version (for a while I > had to keep an old kernel on my system for this very reason) but we do > not expect the hardware to be damaged (well, not since the days when X > could blow up your monitor!). No one expects this, least of all probably those who coded the new versions of the Linux Kernel. In fact, it should be practically impossible for software to damage hardware in this fashion, however the fact that it can do so is yet another item to bring up with LG, not the kernel coders. Someone else has already pointed out that we can probably expect another MS virus to propagate soon, this one destroying CD-ROMS. I expect that LG is going to wish that they had followed proper standards before too long. > > Buyer beware is a VERY small price to pay for what we have been given > > with Linux. This endless bitching about someone else not assuming all > > responsibility for what each of us do ourselves is really starting to > > wear thin on me. > > The outraged reactions to anyone criticising Linux are starting to wear > thin on me. It is not outrage, it is simply annoyance that there are so many more people prepared to bitch and look a gift horse in the mouth than there are people prepared to contribute and offer support, or accept personal responsibility for knowing about their own computer equipment. Criticism of something that should not have been done is one thing, blaming a linux developer because he wasn't smart enough to protect an idiot designer at LG from his own stupidity is something else entirely. At the point that MS starts to deploy closed box console computers to the general public, I am sure that they are going to point to this particular incident to explain why it is preferable for people to not install their own OS or software, and not to buy separate computer components. Since it is impossible for any developer to plan for and take into account all of the possible variations in what others do, I hope that those people who consider this a failure of the Linux Developers to not properly mitigate risk for their own decisions, take that message to heart and buy accordingly. > > For anyone that doesn't want to take responsibility for learning, knowing > > and understanding their own hardware and software, there is an > > alternative. It is called Windows. > > Sure, keep on with this attitude and help ensure the safety of the MS > monopoly. In any case, we all know that if you don't want to have to > learn about your hardware and software, the alternative is a Macintosh ;-) Unlike some others in the community, I am not at war with MS, I do not seek the destruction of MS, I am not on a holy crusade, nor am I an evangelical pushing a philosophy. I am simply someone who enjoys the fruits of labor that have been given to me and tries to contribute back when I am able to do so. If the price of getting someone to use Linux is that I have to dummy it down to the point where I replicate the same mistakes, bad design and idiotic marketing bullshit that MS has propagated, then I say that price is too high. I wouldn't consider trying to perform electrical design in my home or car because I am not qualified to do so. Buying a particular OS does not make someone qualified to configure or maintain a computer. If someone wants something that is just like Windows, I say, let them use Windows. > > Actually, I disagree. The fault is with a manufacturer that deviated > > from known and published standards, and then failed to notify their > > customers that they had done so, and in doing so, created the potential > > for disaster. > > Note what I said: "the fault at the Linux end". We are all in agreement > about the primary fault lying with LG. Well, we are not in agreement because, I think that the total fault lies with LG. The instruction issued by Linux is a common instruction that works on all BUT LG cdroms. I figure that is a pretty good indication that they had every reason to believe that the instruction was valid and harmless. If someone puts out an OS that looks like DOS where the DIR command actually formats the drive and my application deletes their software because it relies on the DIR command, I am not going to lose a minute's sleep over the fact that they think that I am partially to blame. > > I really don't get the point back to Linux kernel developers. How could > > they have ever expected any hardware manufacturer to do something as > > stupid as match up a firmware upgrade command to something as common as a > > clear buffer command? Given that they are volunteering their time to all > > of us, why don't some of the current crop of complainers pony up their > > own resources and start sending hardware to the developers so that > > testing can be done? Instead of pointing out problems, start providing > > solutions. > > Pointing out problems is a valuable form of support, or would be if > people weren't so defensive. When I file a report in bugzilla, I don't > expect someone to mail me back and say, "OK, smartypants, where's the > patch then?" No, but asking developers to keep fully stocked hardware labs for testing purposes is hardly a simple criticism. You do not provide any mechanism for them to easily implement your suggestion and leave the onus of doing so entirely on them. Not to mention the extra time and resources required to conduct such testing. I do have some knowledge of what is involved and it is NOT trivial. For those that wanted to gain the benefits, the only thing that they needed to do was actually WAIT before installing until others had had a chance to do the same type of testing that you propose. > > Given the difference in licensing costs on software, I imagine that > > pointing out that the loss of a bunch of $12 drives not exceeding the > > cost of paying some $200+ per computer (for windows) would help deflect > > that particular criticism. > > Not if they've already paid for the licences. With License 6, there is no such animal. You may have originally bought the license but you will need to renew, upgrade and pay for support. And, if they have a professional working for them to configure machines, the error in the kernel wouldn't be a problem for him, he would have been smart enough to wait for a couple of months after the initial release and watch bugtraq to see if there were any issues prior to committing to a full release on his machines. There are some of us who have yet to upgrade, even though we bought the new release because we are smart enough to not risk production machines on a brand new release. Not to mention that this is still not anything that could not have happened just as readily as using Windows or Macintosh for that matter with the only vendor response being, "Was the hardware marked <insert OS choice here> compatible, and did it carry our logo? Well, then we are not responsible." I might not like a company like Apple or MS not accepting responsibility for being compatible with every possible type of hardware on the market, but I also don't blame them for not doing so, it is a near impossible task. Why would I expect any more from Linux? -- Bryan Phinney Software Test Engineer
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
