Maybe you are using the wrong Distro. since that is what Mandrake is about. maybe you should look at Gentoo :)
<snip> Sorry, I simply don't agree. If making it easier means sacrificing features, freedom, customization, then I don't want it to be any easier."</snip> On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 19:00, Bryan Phinney wrote: > On Thursday 23 September 2004 16:25, Lanman wrote: > > > Feel free to get as annoyed as you want, but I beg to differ on some of > > your points of view. Still, I respect the fact that you have a right to > > them, and I'm not saying that mine is better than yours but consider > > this,... > > Differences are what makes the world an interesting place. > > > I find that many times, scripts are written from the personal point of > > view. That is, from the perspective of a person who has done several > > installs of a program, and has prepared the system in advance. Many > > things which would normally be included in a script file, are omitted on > > purpose - since the person writing the script didn't need it for their > > own install (assuming that their database or apache config had already > > been completed), or by accident simply due to the fact that the script > > writer felt that anyone using the script would have already done these > > preparations. I can think of a multitude of other reasons, all of which > > would point to the human-factor. > > We have nothing to disagree about here. Again, I was suggesting that the > script be used as a guide. See their steps, figure out if something is > missing and fill in the blanks. > > I always keep in mind that an RPM usually installs the necessary files but > doesn't necessarily configure the environment. I have worked with a lot of > packages so far that needed to be configured after I installed the RPM, I > don't count on those to be one-stop installations. > > > You can count me into the "Others" category here. Helping others is one > > of the way that my company contributes back to the Linux community. I > > make it the responsibility of every employee to contribute something, > > even though I'm the one paying their salaries while they're out helping > > on a volunteer basis. They select the person or persons or groups they > > will assist and we allot a salary incentive to those staff members who > > can track and vouch for that time. > > > > When I "waltz" in and ask for help, I'm not asking for a lecture or > > perspective on whether or not the help is "billable" or not. I've taken > > hours and days out of my time to help others on this list (past and > > present), and will continue to do so in the future. For me, it's not > > always a question of money. If you're curious, I'd be willing to send > > you a short list of some of the most recent times I've helped others. > > I don't really need one, and I am not questioning whether you have contributed > or helped someone. I am questioning the tone of your second message that was > basically, if I can't get this to work and no one helps me to get it working, > then Gnu/Linux isn't <insert FUD phrase here>. First of all, whether ogo > works or not is no reflection on Linux. Second, whether or not that > particular package works for you is not a reflection of anything more than > that that particular package is not working for you. I never fault anything > else first before I fault myself. > > That said, I have often come out vigorously against people who have seemed to > suggest that if they didn't get what they wanted, then somehow Linux was at > fault and it was not worth bothering with. I still find the tone of such a > suggestion infuriating. > > > Fortunately for both of us, I wasn't saying "I can't get something to > > work, can someone give me exact instructions to make it work in my > > environment, with my installed software, telling me exactly what to do", > > I was asking if anyone had managed to get it working in Mandrake and > > whether they could help or not. If you need a reminder of that, I'll be > > happy to re-post my original message. > > I remember the first message, and I will note that I did not GRRR until you > posted your second one. > > "Like I said in my > previous post, I fail to see why anyone would bother to make and include > the RPM's for something that can't be installed easily. If Linux is > going to make a bigger dent in the world, it's going to have to fix this > type of problem." > > > FYI, I consider 4 days sufficient time. > > Well, you know your own levels of expertise better than do I. Usually, I get > something working the first time and then calculate sufficient time in future > against the baseline. For what it is worth, my first Linux > installation/configuration took about 6 months before I got things working > well enough that I felt comfortable dumping Windows entirely. YMMV. > > > However, like any smart > > consumer, I am not about to buy a package or pay for support for > > something that I haven't seen, and I would hope that you wouldn't > > either. All I've seen are a few screen shots which don't tell me whether > > or not the product is stable or flexible or how customizable it may be. > > No, I probably wouldn't myself. Then again, I am not in need of an enterprise > level groupware application and my understanding is that enterprises who are > in that market do so all the time. Not that it is a good idea, mind you, but > they do buy them sight unseen. > > However, for the record, the web site has an image of a Live-CD based on > Knoppix that they say that you can pop into a CD-Drive, boot the machine up > and then immediately use for testing and demo purposes. Would this not serve > that particular purpose for you? > > > I can relate to your points here, but again it brings me back to the > > point that if the script file can't find these answers or ask the person > > installing it for the answers, then they should make a point of locking > > down the dependencies so that it's easier to install. I've seen many > > scripts do exactly that, and they have worked flawlessly for me and > > probably for many others. > > Well, to be fair, many applications are installed much more often than are > enterprise level groupware apps so it is possible that over time, those > scripts were able to be polished. More use, usually means better > anticipation for deviation. Also, the more complex a package is, the harder > it is to tailor an installation script that works out of box. But, I am > repeating myself. > > Fact is, some of these scripts were built by people for themselves, not > necessarily for the use of others. One shouldn't expect them to have > anticipated anything really. > > > This makes perfect sense, since they are written for XFree and not > > necessarily for Xorg, even though the two are relatively > > interchangeable. > > No, the Nvidia script fails while trying to compile the driver, xorg has > nothing to do with it. Just pointing out that the most polished of > installation scripts can sometimes bork on something that we might consider > relatively easy to handle, even when it has handled it in the past. > > > > > And install scripts for Microsoft Exchange might be easier than ogo as > > > well. That is very much totally beside the point. You are not working > > > with those packages or those developers, you are working with ogo. > > > > Well, since I'm not now, nor never have used MS Exchange, despite > > acquiring and maintaining my MCSE status for the last 6 years, but my > > point was simply that programs that install on MS-Based PC's and Servers > > are specifically written so that installation and configuration are as > > easy as possible. With all the additional functionality and power than > > Linux and Open-Source provide, putting together a clearly defined list > > of dependencies (Ie; MySQL and PostgreSQL, Apache 1.3.X and Apache2) > > would narrow down the variations in the script file, thereby alloowing > > the writer to put a single, comprehensive install script together. After > > all, it's not like we're unfamiliar with dependencies, now are we? > > And the point that I made still stands. When you have a multi-variable > environment, it is harder to anticipate. When you have a unified > environment, it is easier. When you are being paid to deliver ease of > installation, that is what you deliver. When you are being paid to develop > new features, that is what you deliver. Every single thing in life involves > making trade-offs and this is simply one of them. > > > Feel free to handle that in any which way you like, but tone or no tone, > > I expect certain things to work. If they don't I'll take some very > > expensive time and try to make it work. If I can't, I'll then ask for > > help, and yes, maybe I'll vent a little about what I perceive as the > > problem. > > Well, I consider this part of the price we pay for an absolutely stunning and > "free as in speech" product. So, my personal frustration is always tempered > by my appreciation. And, nothing personal, but my usual response to venting > about the quality of the gift that I use and supremely enjoy is along the > lines of David Spade's steward(ess) character on SNL: "Buh-bye" > > > Whether or not you or I or anyone else in the Linux community likes it > > or not, Linux will be getting compared to Microsoft-based products for > > some time to come. That's just the reality of it. > > Certainly, and I personally feel that they compare very well. Just not on the > same points. You don't compare a Formula 1 to a Bentley by noting that the > suspension on the race car is stiffer and that there is more noise. Or you > just end up looking like a complete idiot. Not that people looking like > complete idiots is newsworthy or anything. > > > Consumers are more concerned about getting it to > > work quickly and easily than they are about our perspectives on which is > > better. > > Then they should BUY a product then. Buy a computer with Linux preloaded or > pay someone to come and install and configure it for them. Then they will > get quicker and easier. If they want better, reflecting their own needs and > uses, cheaper, customized, then perhaps they should consider investing the > effort to do things themselves. If all the consumer wants is quicker and > easier, then let them eat MS. It is very quick and supremely easy. > > > The trick is to make Linux easier. > > Sorry, I simply don't agree. If making it easier means sacrificing features, > freedom, customization, then I don't want it to be any easier. > > (We can, of course, argue about this point, but bottom line, every minute > spent on improving ease of use is a minute not spent on features, > customization, etc. Some ease of use is necessary, but making something so > easy that a braindead consumer can do it, is not only unnecessary but, IMO, > it should cost money for the consumer, they should provide something. And a > lot of the ease of use currently being discussed involves standards and > unifying the platforms and that will inevitably reduce security, > customization, etc unless it proves impossible.) > > If you can get easier without sacrificing in any other area, then I am fine > with it, but, and this is most important to me, I have no right to DEMAND > anything unless I am willing to do it myself or pay someone to do it for me. > > > It's already better than the > > commercial closed-source alternatives - no question. But it needs to > > surpass, not to be the same. > > > > > Linux requires more effort than something that you buy from someone. > > > That is the nature of it. Comparing a free product that was given to you > > > with a product that earned the authors millions of dollars in revenue is > > > simply not a material comparison. Give me money and I have an incentive > > > to make you happy. Give me nothing, and my only incentive is what makes > > > me happy. If that also makes you happy, then great, if not, oh well. > > > > Your absolutely right about Linux requiring more effort, but my point is > > that it doesn't necessarily have to require more effort. > > Well, we will just have to disagree about that. Either it requires more > effort or it requires more resources. One or the other. You don't get > something for nothing. > > > Linux is/was > > developed by technical people with technical minds and perspectives. > > This was/is a necessary part of the whole process. But Linux needs > > people who are just regular people, who can look at it and say that this > > or that is too complicated and needs to be made easier. If the technical > > powers that be are smart enough to pay attention to that, we'll see a > > faster adoption of Linux throughout the world. > > We are already seeing the commercialization of Linux, Sun has announced plans > to compete against Linux and MS is in the process of redefining Linux from a > free/better software method, design architecture to just another software > company (IBM) so they have a target to go to battle with. I don't > necessarily agree that that is the right path to go down. Obviously, there > is room for disagreement about that as you seem to be sitting on the other > side. > > If you redefine Linux to be just like MS, you are going to have to sacrifice > what makes Linux special and ultimately gives Steve Jobs and Bill Gates the > night sweats and you will end up with just another company going head to head > against a business that has crushed all of its competition ruthlessly up to > now. > > If that is the future, I just may have to go the Debian route and become > religious. > > > But to be more specific, the fact that OGO is included as a significant > > or even a contributed application implies that it should be ready and > > able to install with little help, not that it should be virtually > > useless. From a common sense standpoint, why bother making Mandrake > > specific RPM's if it doesn't work? > > Look, I can configure, make and build source and produce RPM's automatically > using Checkinstall. Doesn't mean that because someone did it and contributed > the RPM's that they were vouching for the completeness of the install > package. Fact is that the reason that they are in contrib and not in the > official repository is because no one was willing to vouch for it. > > > You implied that it has to do with the fact that I've made a mistake, > > since the author of the script got it to work, but looking at the > > script, it seems fairly simple, and yet 4 of my developers who are far > > smarter than you AND I put together could figure it out either. > > Well, you could start with the Live-CD version, get it up and running and then > go and look at the configurations that they are using to see how they have it > running and then compare to yours. Not that you need me to tell you how to > do things but I know a lot of developers who are absolute idiot's when it > comes to troubleshooting and diagnosing problems. That is why QA people like > me have jobs. Or at least that is what I tell myself with when the > nightmares of homelessness come. > > > So, while I can understand your views, I also see that you haven't tried > > installing it which means that you don't know what the difficulties are > > any more than I do. > > > > There is no such thing as a free lunch. And that is not a poor > > > reflection on Linux/OS, it is merely the reality of the world that > > > Linux/OS resides in. > > > > Well, here we are at a crossroads again. The world that the Linux OS > > resides in IS a Microsoft world. That's just a fact that we have to deal > > with. None of us like it much, but that's the way it is. Until Linux > > dominates the OS world and Open-Source applications dominate the > > software world, we'll just have to bear the stress on our collective > > shoulders. > > Again, we violently diverge. Linux is not about crushing Microsoft or > becoming a dominant player. Linux is about choice. Co-existence. Options. > Go peddle the "we need to do this to beat MS stuff" to the anti-MS zealots, > that is not what it is about to a lot of us who are dedicated to Linux. > > The whole philosophy of free software is not about beating MS. It is about > being free to choose what works for you. > > > In order to succeed, it will have to show the world how MUCH better it > > is. Until it becomes more install and config and user friendly, the > > battle will be a lot harder than it NEEDS to be. End of story. > > Again, IMO, you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. 180 degrees different from my > viewpoint and I suspect, Linus Torvald's, Richard Stallman's and many of the > biggest forces behind Linux and free software. > > > I don't have a problem with your "free lunch" point of view, since I pay > > for virtually everything as it is. But I'm not going to buy OGO or > > anything else without seeing it perform and without knowing the ins and > > outs of the install and configuration process. No one should have to. > > If they download the Live-CD and they shouldn't have to. > > > I'll tell you something that may shock you, and anyone who can't handle > > the truth should plug their ears and close their eyes, cuz it won't be > > pretty. People don't want that much choice. Of course, I'm not talking > > about us Linux newbies, experts, geeks or guru's, but about the general > > consumers. They certainly don't want as much choice as Linux and > > open-Source provides. > > Yes, they do. They want to be able to choose to buy something that just works > and that doesn't require any learning. Others want to be able to get > something that requires learning but works better. Still others want > something that is complicated and works fantastically, like it reads your > mind. The diverse marketplace is a reflection of what people want. Every > time someone tells me what people want or don't want, I automatically write > them off as hopelessly clueless. There is nothing in this world that > someone, somewhere didn't want. If this is a vibrant, thriving marketplace > of ideas, software, etc., it is because that is what people want. If they > don't want choice, we would probably all still be running Unix. > > <rest snipped because I found it useless> > > > Calm down Bryan. You're gonna wear out the G & R keys on your keyboard! > > Lanman, if I thought you were a total troll, I would simply ignore it. It is > when someone that I think is reasonable spouts what I think is totally > unreasonable stuff that I get irritated. > > > First, I used the word "apparently", which means that it's not > > necessarily the case. Secondly, I return to my statement about being > > able to test and evaluate the O-S version before buying the commercial > > version. I have NO problem with buying a good product, but unfortunately > > I can't determine if it's good or not and you already know why. Thirdly, > > it would also be a good idea if they considered selling the install > > script for a small fee instead of only including it in the commercial > > version, if my previous statement holds water. > > To answer your points > 1. Perhaps, but it is immaterial > 2. You can't possibly have done very much research without noticing the > Live-CD link. So, I have to assume that either you didn't research it or you > couldn't get the Live-CD to work. Which is it? > 3. Unless they have bundled support alongside the installation script which > they would hardly offer for a small fee depending on how much might be > needed. Many companies bundle support with their commercial GPL offerings > for very good (financial) reasons and I don't see anything wrong with that, > in practice or in spirit of the GPL. The GPL was always about free speech, > never about free beer. > > > But even I have to face reality and deal with the real world, and that > > world is a Microsoft one. > > Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take > the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so > good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, > to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. > - Sun Tzu > > > I'm very good at showing clients why Linux is > > better. Part of my job is to evaluate the possible solutions out there, > > and to define an easy installation and procedural process for any new > > products we take on. If I can't install it for testing purposes, I'm not > > going to consider it as a viable option. If my developers can't get it > > to work, then it's not going to be easy for my technical or sales staff > > to sell or maintain. That is what will hurt Linux and O-S software in > > the long run. The inability for the general consumers to try it for > > themselves before buying it. Plain and simple. The fact that OGO is > > either missing a clear and precise installation document or simply > > doesn't work without some significant step that seems to be missing, > > means it's not quite there yet. End of story. > > Yeah, I got that point, however I still don't understand this lack of trying > the Live-CD. You really need to clear that up for me. > > > Looks like your two cents turned out to be wooden nickels Bryan. There > > was NO reason to be insulting or demeaning in your reply. I asked for > > help not for judgments. > > Well, I will grant that you asked for help the first time out. The second > time, however, I disagree. You were making judgements and I just reflected > those back at you. > > > Perhaps you should reconsider your comments. > > Okay, done. I stand by what I said. If you think that Linux will die if only > it doesn't fulfill what you have stated that it needs to do, which if I read > correctly, is to replace Microsoft in all things, then I disagree and think > that you are misguided at best and dangerous to my own vision of what I want > at worst. If I thought that the powers that be were going to take your > counsel and trod down that path, I would immediately begin looking for some > other OS that would stick with technical excellence and free as in speech, as > the primary goals with quality, security, features, performance, and ease of > use coming in dead last. > > I > > deal in the real world, and it would be nice if you did too. > > Well, I do. I work in the software world and have to deal with the problems > caused by monolithic software structures centered around ease of use. Linux > has put a jump in my step and a sparkle in my eye that was almost squashed > out by having to deal with people convinced that they could be stupid because > the software they used encouraged it. I am not eager to go back down that > road again. I would rather raise sheep. > > > We're in > > for a hell of a fight against the Big Bad in Redmond, and it would be > > nice if we could stop fighting amongst ourselves before we try to take > > them on. > > MS may be fighting us but we are NOT fighting them. And discourse and > disagreements, vigorously discussed makes us stronger, not weaker. If you go > along to get along, you won't get very far at all. > > > No matter how good linux is or will become, it won't make a bit > > of difference if the community as a whole is constantly at odds with > > each other. Like the saying goes,... if you're not part of the > > solutions, you're part of the problem. > > Well, we seem to both be pointing back at the other and saying that you are > the problem. I guess that goes with the territory. -- Scott R. Rineer M.C.S.A., M.C.S.E Network Administrator STABLER COMPANIES INC. 635 Lucknow Road Harrisburg, PA, USA 17110 Phone (717) 236-9307 X 248 Mobile (717) 571-9369 Fax (717) 236-1281 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stablercompaniesinc.com
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com ____________________________________________________
