Re: [Dovecot] Standards of expectations for software installs
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:58:38 +0200 Marc Haber articulated: > That depends on what you define "standard". Why do so many software > authors ship a default configuration which violates posix and fhs? Probably due to the fact that while many *.nix/BSD OSs claim to support 'posix' etc. they don't fully do so. The problems involved in getting certain program to operate between *.nix and BSD alone is enough to make a grown man cry. Vendors are simply doing what they have to in order to insure that their applications will work on as wide a scale as possible. The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) is not even standard between various *.nix and BSD systems, let alone a Microsoft one. It seems that everyone has to reinvent the wheel. -- Jerry ✌ dovecot.u...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ Why is it called a funny bone when it hurts so much?
Re: [Dovecot] Standards of expectations for software installs
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 08:19:03AM +1000, Noel Butler wrote: > I will admit, certain distro vendors such as debian/RH/Fedora/Ubuntu , > do, do much software a dis-service by their hacks and non standard > file locations, That depends on what you define "standard". Why do so many software authors ship a default configuration which violates posix and fhs? Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190
Re: [Dovecot] Standards of expectations for software installs
Marc Perkel put forth on 8/16/2010 12:22 PM: > No - I'm saying that an upgrade that does exactly the same thing as the > earlier version should "just work" without having to research cryptic > error messages you get after the new software fails to load. What I'm > saying is that Linux should be as easy as Windows. Would you like Linux based operating systems/applications to be as insecure as Windows? Would you like Linux based operating systems/application log entries to be as worthless when attempting to troubleshoot something as with Windows? Would you like Linux based operating systems/applications to change the location of menu items and configuration options with each upgrade just for the sake of "change"? So people don't think "what the hell did I just pay $500 for? Nothing changed!?" Etc, etc, etc. Everything is a trade-off Marc. All the effort that Microsoft puts into making things "easy" takes resources and focus away from other areas, often critical areas. Those other areas are more critical for Linux/Unix systems and applications because people need reliability from them more than they need ease of installation. The Linux world doesn't do everything right, and the MS world doesn't do everything wrong. But overall I think the Linux world tends to strike a better overall balance. It all comes down to expectations. You _expect_ MS things to work a certain way. The Linux world is inherently different. So you shouldn't automatically expect things in the Linux world to work "The Microsoft Way". And frankly you shouldn't want it that way either. -- Stan
Re: [Dovecot] Standards of expectations for software installs
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 10:22 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote: > a > > > No - I'm saying that an upgrade that does exactly the same thing as the > earlier version should "just work" without having to research cryptic > error messages you get after the new software fails to load. What I'm > saying is that Linux should be as easy as Windows. A new MAJOR version release should ring bells that you need to read for any possible problems. This is true for other widely popular software, ie: apache. I will admit, certain distro vendors such as debian/RH/Fedora/Ubuntu , do, do much software a dis-service by their hacks and non standard file locations, because people with problems come to us for support expecting us to fix a mess created by someone else. That I know annoys a lot of people trying to convert to linux from windows and you're right, then they say bugger it and go back to windows. but.. everyone wants to be special I suppose :)
Re: [Dovecot] Standards of expectations for software installs
Am 16.08.2010 um 19:22 schrieb Marc Perkel: > No - I'm saying that an upgrade that does exactly the same thing as the > earlier version should "just work" without having to research cryptic error > messages you get after the new software fails to load. What I'm saying is > that Linux should be as easy as Windows. And that's the point. It does not do things like the earlier version as privileges have been removed from processes. All of that has been noted on the list during development and in the documentation. There was even a poll around the actual name to be used.
Re: [Dovecot] Standards of expectations for software installs
On 8/16/2010 7:37 AM, Thomas Leuxner wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 07:23:50AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote: Timo's software standards, and mine, are higher than the average open source project. When an install id done right then you don't have to go to the wiki for anything. You run it and it just works. That's why people pay for Windows and Macs and more people use it than Linux because it just works. You start an upgrade anf click NEXT AGREE NEXT NEXT NEXT FINISH and everything just works. That's the way Linux should be. So - even though something might be a minor detail, when you get the minor details right then you get software the "it just works" which is in my opinion the highest thing one can say about a program. And it's who dovecot is so popular. So are you saying a server software which brings a lot of new features to cope with complex environments shall tweak itself by magic, as any good software should upgrade without user intervention? You wouldn't even need documentation as the new features would be self-explanatory? *NO FRIGGIN' WAY* No - I'm saying that an upgrade that does exactly the same thing as the earlier version should "just work" without having to research cryptic error messages you get after the new software fails to load. What I'm saying is that Linux should be as easy as Windows.
Re: [Dovecot] Standards of expectations for software installs
On 2010-08-16 10:23 AM, Marc Perkel wrote: > That's why people pay for Windows and Macs and more people use it > than Linux because it just works. You start an upgrade anf click NEXT > AGREE NEXT NEXT NEXT FINISH and everything just works. That's the way > Linux should be. You're not serious?? I can't count how many times an update of Windows or a windows program didn't go as expected or planned, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that your question was posted to this list because you were too lazy to even make a half-hearted attempt to figure out the problem yourself. > So - even though something might be a minor detail, when you get the > minor details right then you get software the "it just works" which > is in my opinion the highest thing one can say about a program. And > it's who dovecot is so popular. Irrelevant. Sure, I'd love for it to just work like magic every time, but reality is very different, and if you are going to be too lazy to try to fix something yourself, you should expect the kind of responses you have gotten. -- Best regards, Charles
Re: [Dovecot] Standards of expectations for software installs
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 11:42 -0300, Leonardo Rodrigues wrote: > hey Marc, you're not alone !!! As well as you, i also expect > software updates to be always perfect and magic so i dont have to > have a clue of what i'm real doing, as softwares will take care of all > the inteligence that i should have. Yes, that's what I expect distribution packages to do. But upstream packages can't do that. There are just way too many different ways people use them.
Re: [Dovecot] Standards of expectations for software installs
Em 16/08/2010 11:23, Marc Perkel escreveu: Timo's software standards, and mine, are higher than the average open source project. When an install id done right then you don't have to go to the wiki for anything. You run it and it just works. That's why people pay for Windows and Macs and more people use it than Linux because it just works. You start an upgrade anf click NEXT AGREE NEXT NEXT NEXT FINISH and everything just works. That's the way Linux should be. So - even though something might be a minor detail, when you get the minor details right then you get software the "it just works" which is in my opinion the highest thing one can say about a program. And it's who dovecot is so popular. hey Marc, you're not alone !!! As well as you, i also expect software updates to be always perfect and magic so i dont have to have a clue of what i'm real doing, as softwares will take care of all the inteligence that i should have. but, i think different from you, i understand and accept that there's no magic. upgrades on complex environment MUST be planned, new version features should be understood and in almost all cases, including some M$ updates of complex software/ environment, lots of pre-upgrade and post-upgrades actions should be taken. i would love to just click yes yes and everything works as magic but, unfortunelly, i accept that wont happen in the real (and most all the times complex) scenarios we have. -- Atenciosamente / Sincerily, Leonardo Rodrigues Solutti Tecnologia http://www.solutti.com.br Minha armadilha de SPAM, NÃO mandem email gertru...@solutti.com.br My SPAMTRAP, do not email it
Re: [Dovecot] Standards of expectations for software installs
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 07:23:50AM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote: > Timo's software standards, and mine, are higher than the average open > source project. When an install id done right then you don't have to go > to the wiki for anything. You run it and it just works. That's why > people pay for Windows and Macs and more people use it than Linux > because it just works. You start an upgrade anf click NEXT AGREE NEXT > NEXT NEXT FINISH and everything just works. That's the way Linux should > be. > > So - even though something might be a minor detail, when you get the > minor details right then you get software the "it just works" which is > in my opinion the highest thing one can say about a program. And it's > who dovecot is so popular. So are you saying a server software which brings a lot of new features to cope with complex environments shall tweak itself by magic, as any good software should upgrade without user intervention? You wouldn't even need documentation as the new features would be self-explanatory? *NO FRIGGIN' WAY*
