James Tremblay wrote:
<snip>
It's not Linux that is the problem it's the hardware manufacturers,
I'm sure that even the guy doing the same thing at Apple takes a few
days to get a new platform running smooth and Apple is it's own hardware
supplier.
<snip>
When the Mac OS blows up (and it did for me once many moons ago early
in the OS 10.3.early release) the reinstall is absolutely painless.
I've done installs to external hard drives that I use for a backup
system for defrag (yes, even a Mac needs defrag once in a very great
while) and they could be done by a small child. And if you've upgraded
the system beyond your original install, the upgrades happen absolutely
automatically, transparently, and painlessly on-line with virtually no
user input needed ("select which packages you'd like") from on-line.
I am not trolling here or trying to stir up the pot, but a Mac is a
gorgeous example of what Linux can be. Frankly, my Mac has given me new
hope that Linux can one day be successful, because the Mac (freeBSD with
a lot of GUI in between kernel and user)should be a model.
Your point about "Apple is it's own hardware supplier" is absolutely
correct and relevant. But surely those who decide on such things as a
Linux Standard Base could decide on a Standard Hardware Base, and
vendors could be encouraged to advertise their products as Linux
Standard Hardware Base compatible. Surely everyone at SuSE "knows"
their own box; this could serve as a basis for a list of "known
functional systems". This is what I did for my first Linux box eight
years ago: I went down to what was at one time VA Research and I said
"I'm stupid, build me a box that works".
--
Tony Alfrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"I'd Rather Be Sailing"
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
