Comments on: On Linux Platforms http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2011/01/23/on-linux-platforms/ World Organi[sz]ation Of Broken Dreams Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:35:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Andrew Clayton http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2011/01/23/on-linux-platforms/comment-page-1/#comment-134625 Andrew Clayton Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:16:17 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=1049#comment-134625 Hmm, so currently if you have 10 packages installed that use libfoo, then you only have one copy of libfoo that they all use. Only one copy to worry about updating for bug/security fix's. Only one copy taking up RAM. In your world, are you saying that each app would bring a long its own copy of libfoo? Hmm, so currently if you have 10 packages installed that use libfoo, then you only have one copy of libfoo that they all use. Only one copy to worry about updating for bug/security fix’s. Only one copy taking up RAM.

In your world, are you saying that each app would bring a long its own copy of libfoo?

]]> By: jcm http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2011/01/23/on-linux-platforms/comment-page-1/#comment-134490 jcm Tue, 25 Jan 2011 05:20:14 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=1049#comment-134490 Yes, and this is why Linux will never be as "mainstream" as other consumer Operating Systems. The answer is to empower third parties to ship software and tools, not require them to submit to the whims and processes of the Linux distribution. As I said, "Enterprise" Linux distros kinda fix this problem by working around the flaws of the distro-centric model in providing a stable target that's not moving all the time, but it's not a perfect solution (yet). Yes, and this is why Linux will never be as “mainstream” as other consumer Operating Systems. The answer is to empower third parties to ship software and tools, not require them to submit to the whims and processes of the Linux distribution. As I said, “Enterprise” Linux distros kinda fix this problem by working around the flaws of the distro-centric model in providing a stable target that’s not moving all the time, but it’s not a perfect solution (yet).

]]> By: Adam Williamson http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2011/01/23/on-linux-platforms/comment-page-1/#comment-134480 Adam Williamson Mon, 24 Jan 2011 08:06:41 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=1049#comment-134480 yeah, Kevin's right. The repository approach is one of the main strengths of the Linux distro model. I absolutely do not want to have to rely on a hundred different third party repos for my software; I want a single project's throat to choke. yeah, Kevin’s right. The repository approach is one of the main strengths of the Linux distro model. I absolutely do not want to have to rely on a hundred different third party repos for my software; I want a single project’s throat to choke.

]]> By: jcm http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2011/01/23/on-linux-platforms/comment-page-1/#comment-134474 jcm Mon, 24 Jan 2011 05:07:02 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=1049#comment-134474 Kevin, you and I couldn't disagree more :) Having a "free for all" approach to updates works great if software doesn't have bugs, works perfectly, and everyone is willing to upgrade daily, weekly, or whatever. Meanwhile, in the real world, there are people like myself who want a computer that just works, against which software can be shipped and updated without it having to be in-distro and for me to be running rawhide for my system to be "usable". But I don't foresee us agreeing. Your approach to updates and mine is so fundamentally opposite. I think you are wrong, and you think I am wrong. Kevin, you and I couldn’t disagree more :) Having a “free for all” approach to updates works great if software doesn’t have bugs, works perfectly, and everyone is willing to upgrade daily, weekly, or whatever. Meanwhile, in the real world, there are people like myself who want a computer that just works, against which software can be shipped and updated without it having to be in-distro and for me to be running rawhide for my system to be “usable”.

But I don’t foresee us agreeing. Your approach to updates and mine is so fundamentally opposite. I think you are wrong, and you think I am wrong.

]]> By: Kevin Kofler http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2011/01/23/on-linux-platforms/comment-page-1/#comment-134472 Kevin Kofler Sun, 23 Jan 2011 23:32:44 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=1049#comment-134472 PS: The real solution for implementing your wish of having current applications on a stable platform is to have less restrictive update policies for stable distribution releases, i.e. the new Fedora "stable update vision" needs to be overturned. (I actually think what users really want is actually not a completely unchanging base, they just want changes like that libata migration in the kernel which changed HDD device names 3-4 years ago or the big move from KDE 3 to 4 withheld, but they DO want new improved kernels, 3D acceleration support for their new graphics card etc.) PS: The real solution for implementing your wish of having current applications on a stable platform is to have less restrictive update policies for stable distribution releases, i.e. the new Fedora “stable update vision” needs to be overturned. (I actually think what users really want is actually not a completely unchanging base, they just want changes like that libata migration in the kernel which changed HDD device names 3-4 years ago or the big move from KDE 3 to 4 withheld, but they DO want new improved kernels, 3D acceleration support for their new graphics card etc.)

]]>