Excuse me? You are giving out the impression that your small company somehow managed to grab not one but two most influential people in the open source business. Sorry, but the odds are against you: it's Occam's razor you need to fight here, not tin foil hats. Now, I know you are saying this isn't just your opinion but a survey. There are two things that make this article still smell very, very fishy:
1. You do not say anything about the possible biases your research may have. Anyone with a clue will be able to guess that the sample selection is probably biased to include people involved with MindTouch, Augustin and Asay, but we just don't know. If your sample was "people who responded to the last blog post"... well, that would explain a few things.
2. You never disclose your relationship with Asay and Augustin in the article. Even if your research was sound it would be the right thing to do. Isn't this basic journalism?
A fast update cycle means shorter support times for specific versions. How surprising.
Really, pick the right OS for your needs, FC sounds like a really bad idea if you're looking for longevity. I'm a Debian guy myself but I picked Ubuntu 6.06 for my media server three years ago because Ubuntu had an actual schedule for support and I didn't want the continuous upgrade treadmill for that machine (I just want it to work). I intend to use it until end of life in 2011.
Lack of knowledge of a specific area technology is something that can happen to the best of us. It only becomes unpleasant stupidity when you cling to your ignorance even when you are given fairly strong hints that should make you either shut up or read up on the subject.
That's what I have to assume you meant since you didn't give any details... The market wasn't born because someone just came up with a new term, in my opinion it emerged because Asus found out that $200-400 is a really, really good price point for small laptops. It turned out that a lot of people don't mind missing some features as long as the price is right.
Intel doesn't care what OS runs on their chip. I think their Linux distro is Moblin? As long as they have orders, they don't care what the consumer uses.
Yeah, that part about Intel betting on Windows is just bogus nowadays. Intel is one of the 4 largest contributors to the linux kernel, has moblin as their own mobile "base" distro and mostly provides good linux support for their hardware.
Of course their investment in Windows is even larger (makes sense when you look at the market shares) but saying that Intel is somehow "betting on Windows" is just idiotic.
There is nothing that stops you from accessing mailing lists via web (see gmane et al), but please don't force the rest of us to do that.
Don't get me wrong, web forums can be ok for some things. Mailing lists are just so much more powerful in many situations that your suggestion is not even funny -- in other words, don't judge a technology because you don't know how to use it.
Most OS installs probably happen from a rescue partition in the HDD...
Netbooks and smaller laptops no longer have optical drives (even my thinkpad doesn't have one by default). More machines can probably boot from USB today than from CD.
What is your point? Are you really saying that keeping desktop software updated is a bad idea?
Your delivery makes it hard to tell what you actually suggested as an alternative -- it almost seems as if you just saw something you could use to taunt and went for it without thinking how it relates to the conversation.
The issue here is Zobeids suggestion that package management should not be used for desktop applications. Please offer an alternative if you have one, and remember to explain how the updates (or the lack of) are inherently more secure than the ones in Debian.
Help me out here. I just want my CNC milling software to work on Linux.
I already answered to you about the dependency problems in another thread (short version: no, you do not host 3rd party dependencies. You use the ones provided by the OS or include things in your app), but thought I'd commment on this.
The linux ecosystem is very, very different, that's a fact of life. Being bitter about "linux not being Windows" isn't going to help your bottom line. Expecting irrelevant details like universal binaries to solve your problem is also futile. It's another world, get used to it or stay out if it sounds like too much trouble.
Working the same way as you do with Windows and OS X may actually work for you but in that case you need to accept that you aren't giving your clients the best service possible (nothing wrong with that, just a decision to make).
If you want your software to be a "good citizen" in this environment, you will package it for specific distros. I mentioned Opensuse Build Service already and I really suggest you ask OpenSuse whether they can offer you the packaging/hosting service you need.
OBS can't do testing for you of course but that's another problem that needs to be solved in any case before you can advertise "Compatible with Ubuntu x, Debian y and Opensuse z" on your website.
Yes, I said "Debian". Debian is an Operating System, Linux isn't. Operating System is the smallest unit of supportable entity that Logitech has available. Trying to do anything else will lead to problems.
This is problematic of course if you imagined you could support "Linux" with a single binary package and achieve good quality. That's just not the reality (sorry). The situation isn't that bad though: I'm sure people like Opensuse will sell Logitech a license or a copy of OBS that they can use to build their app for 30 or so distribution versions in a jiffy.
Your question about libapr is... a little contrived: It's fairly obvious that you can only use libapr 1.2 if it is available in the distribution you support. If it's not and you still need it, you probably want to include it in your app -- unless you really want to be in the libapr1.2 providing business from now on (you don't, that was rhetorical).
The above is just common sense, I would think. An "extra" repository (like logitech) should only carry packages for their software. Upgrading the operating system with new base libraries is definitely not appropriate. 3rd party libraries should probably just be included in the app. I don't want to sound confrontational, but... you seemed to understand the possible problems related to this: why did you then suggest a totally stupid solution when sane ones exist?
If you dont address the concerns of that 95%, you are never gonna get linux in the mainstream.
"Linux" as an entity will never be mainstream, imagining that it could by following some specific advice is delusional. Linux is already a thousand different things and it just spreads out more and more. Specific operating systems may well become mainstream -- personally I think they are already with Maemo in Nokia N900, but feel free to pick another metric.
I disagree with your opinion about "[open sourcing] not happening for 95% of the software" by the way. This is already happening with drivers: more drivers are being released as open source than ever have been. I imagine a lot of companies (like your example Logitech) will likewise realise that their real expertise is not in the crappy software they had to produce, and that allowing copying is just going to help their actual product... It just takes time.
Your whole post is based on a straw man. I am not advocating a single repository for the whole world, or even for a single user.
If Logitech wants to support e.g. Debian, then their best option would be open sourcing the software and letting Debian take care of packaging. If that's not possible they should tell their clients to add logitech.com as a software source -- in this option they'll need to do testing, building and packaging themselves.
This is not some crazy-ass idea, this is how responsible closed source companies that want to support Debian operate already. There is no need for a "stable API" for this...
That Apple downloads site is nice, thanks for the pointer. Very useful for a "mom" install in the same way that a simple package manager is.
You can't compare Linux package managers which are practically designed to be anti-commercial to a commercial environment. Its just not the same ballgame.
Oh, I can. I didn't do it in the previous post (I was just pointing out how stupid the GP comment was) but we certainly can and should compare them. IMO both approaches have room for user experience improvement and both have some inherent problems that must be 'worked around' (you touched on some of these already). The good and bad features of both approaches are closely related to other features of different OSes, like source licenses of course -- in other words Microsoft can't just start a comprehensive Windows software repository -- but that doesn't mean we can't compare the systems as wholes.
I meant exactly what I said. "Add/Remove Applications" is pretty usable UI that, as far as I can see, has none of the problems you refer to. This is on Debian so I'm fairly sure it's in Ubuntu as well.
My recollection is that this app has been available and well promoted for quite a while already (I imagine several Ubuntu versions) so I really don't understand what you are talking about.
The whole Linux distribution and installation system (such as, with apt-get) is great for setting up a server, but it's very awkward and unnatural for desktop apps. Apple is far ahead in that respect, and I see no reason why Linux shouldn't follow their lead.
You've got to be kidding? Super-easy installation and automatic security updates for all applications is 'awkward'?
If I understood you correctly, your suggestion is that desktop software should be hard to find, it should be installed from whatever website I happen to ultimately find and it shouldn't automatically get security updates. Sounds fabulous.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that package management systems have their flaws (even inherent ones) but you just aren't making a good case against them... You could start with explaining what's unnatural about "Open 'Add applications', check what you want, click Install", and then continue with explaining what's awkward about totally automatic security updates.
Oh yes, maintaining packages for several archs is real work, I'm not claiming otherwise. I just don't see how universal binaries makes things easier. Coding, compiling, testing, patching -- all of those need to be done with all supported archs in mind in any case.
...it's convenient on the end-user and on software vendors for distributing their applications.
Sofwtare vendors? This only makes life easier for _closed source_ software makers. For everyone else this is a solution looking for a problem as package management and repositories don't really have a problem with different arches and versions.
I'm not saying this is useless (people do want to run closed source software), but the kernel, glibc and other patches better be good and non-invasive if this guy wants them to land...
Fine, let's call them small laptops if it makes a difference.
The point is, customers and OEMs obviously think $200-$400 is a good price point for a major segment of the laptop market. Microsoft has to offer something for this segment whether they like it or not. It seems they are offering Win 7, the only question is the price...
Telling people that these are toys may work for a short while but not very long: it's obvious to anyone that the price of a decent "web" laptop has gone down fast, and that there is no going back... If MS keeps their price at $100 that will fairly soon be 50% of the total price of a laptop. That is not a long term solution and they must know it.
Oh, that may well turn out to be a major decision: if OEMs and end users now expect to get their (netbook) operating systems for ~$20, how can Microsoft raise the price to $100?
That is a _major_ price hike for devices that now cost $200-$400 total...
Excuse me? 88% of the parliament used to be for the amendment in its previous form (at least in a preliminary way). The amendment was changed, no doubt because of political compromises that the EP is famous of, and it still passed. Your interpretation is just wrong: these are the same people voting, the original amendment just never ended into a vote.
The story has a similarly biased interpretation: The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting their customers from the Internet. This is not true at all: The original amendment would have made sure ISPs could not do that without a ruling, but the current text doesn't give any legal ground for governments because it doesn't really change anything.
There may be some fishy deals behind this, but let's stick to the facts.
I'd probably go back to the paid subscription if their "Music you may like" feature worked.
Tell me about it. I'm not interested in country music (last.fm tells me I've played Carrie Underwood twice, otherwise I can't find anything that could be in that genre)... So, what's in my "Music you may like"?
Country, bluegrass, progressive country, rockabilly, traditional country and more country. Well done!
What this means is that you can have a config file that is formatted very strangely but works perfectly fine, and the package tool has to make some sense of it - consequently there is some scope for error here.
This is why the package manager asks what I want. That was my whole point. You do not get any advantage using a source based distro here AFAICT, the situation is exactly the same: The package manager informs you if there are config changes and you may need to check the configuration manually.
What is the exact advantage of a source based distro you are referring to?
Slashdot Mirror
Atom is fully compatible with the x86 instruction set so they will have to actively prevent Atom CPUs.
Excuse me? You are giving out the impression that your small company somehow managed to grab not one but two most influential people in the open source business. Sorry, but the odds are against you: it's Occam's razor you need to fight here, not tin foil hats. Now, I know you are saying this isn't just your opinion but a survey. There are two things that make this article still smell very, very fishy:
1. You do not say anything about the possible biases your research may have. Anyone with a clue will be able to guess that the sample selection is probably biased to include people involved with MindTouch, Augustin and Asay, but we just don't know. If your sample was "people who responded to the last blog post"... well, that would explain a few things.
2. You never disclose your relationship with Asay and Augustin in the article. Even if your research was sound it would be the right thing to do. Isn't this basic journalism?
I doubt you can just explain this away.
A fast update cycle means shorter support times for specific versions. How surprising.
Really, pick the right OS for your needs, FC sounds like a really bad idea if you're looking for longevity. I'm a Debian guy myself but I picked Ubuntu 6.06 for my media server three years ago because Ubuntu had an actual schedule for support and I didn't want the continuous upgrade treadmill for that machine (I just want it to work). I intend to use it until end of life in 2011.
Lack of knowledge of a specific area technology is something that can happen to the best of us. It only becomes unpleasant stupidity when you cling to your ignorance even when you are given fairly strong hints that should make you either shut up or read up on the subject.
how do you get more real-time than IRC?
"I don't want one" == fabricated market, right?
That's what I have to assume you meant since you didn't give any details... The market wasn't born because someone just came up with a new term, in my opinion it emerged because Asus found out that $200-400 is a really, really good price point for small laptops. It turned out that a lot of people don't mind missing some features as long as the price is right.
Yeah, that part about Intel betting on Windows is just bogus nowadays. Intel is one of the 4 largest contributors to the linux kernel, has moblin as their own mobile "base" distro and mostly provides good linux support for their hardware.
Of course their investment in Windows is even larger (makes sense when you look at the market shares) but saying that Intel is somehow "betting on Windows" is just idiotic.
There is nothing that stops you from accessing mailing lists via web (see gmane et al), but please don't force the rest of us to do that.
Don't get me wrong, web forums can be ok for some things. Mailing lists are just so much more powerful in many situations that your suggestion is not even funny -- in other words, don't judge a technology because you don't know how to use it.
What? .pst is a import/archive format, it has absolutely no relation to Evolution talking to Exchange.
Most OS installs probably happen from a rescue partition in the HDD...
Netbooks and smaller laptops no longer have optical drives (even my thinkpad doesn't have one by default). More machines can probably boot from USB today than from CD.
It should be quite hard to confuse Isle of Man and South Africa, so maybe I'm missing something...
Could someone explain how this is informative?
Yes, of course I remember.
What is your point? Are you really saying that keeping desktop software updated is a bad idea?
Your delivery makes it hard to tell what you actually suggested as an alternative -- it almost seems as if you just saw something you could use to taunt and went for it without thinking how it relates to the conversation.
The issue here is Zobeids suggestion that package management should not be used for desktop applications. Please offer an alternative if you have one, and remember to explain how the updates (or the lack of) are inherently more secure than the ones in Debian.
I already answered to you about the dependency problems in another thread (short version: no, you do not host 3rd party dependencies. You use the ones provided by the OS or include things in your app), but thought I'd commment on this.
The linux ecosystem is very, very different, that's a fact of life. Being bitter about "linux not being Windows" isn't going to help your bottom line. Expecting irrelevant details like universal binaries to solve your problem is also futile. It's another world, get used to it or stay out if it sounds like too much trouble.
Working the same way as you do with Windows and OS X may actually work for you but in that case you need to accept that you aren't giving your clients the best service possible (nothing wrong with that, just a decision to make).
If you want your software to be a "good citizen" in this environment, you will package it for specific distros. I mentioned Opensuse Build Service already and I really suggest you ask OpenSuse whether they can offer you the packaging/hosting service you need.
OBS can't do testing for you of course but that's another problem that needs to be solved in any case before you can advertise "Compatible with Ubuntu x, Debian y and Opensuse z" on your website.
Yes, I said "Debian". Debian is an Operating System, Linux isn't. Operating System is the smallest unit of supportable entity that Logitech has available. Trying to do anything else will lead to problems.
This is problematic of course if you imagined you could support "Linux" with a single binary package and achieve good quality. That's just not the reality (sorry). The situation isn't that bad though: I'm sure people like Opensuse will sell Logitech a license or a copy of OBS that they can use to build their app for 30 or so distribution versions in a jiffy.
Your question about libapr is ... a little contrived: It's fairly obvious that you can only use libapr 1.2 if it is available in the distribution you support. If it's not and you still need it, you probably want to include it in your app -- unless you really want to be in the libapr1.2 providing business from now on (you don't, that was rhetorical).
The above is just common sense, I would think. An "extra" repository (like logitech) should only carry packages for their software. Upgrading the operating system with new base libraries is definitely not appropriate. 3rd party libraries should probably just be included in the app. I don't want to sound confrontational, but... you seemed to understand the possible problems related to this: why did you then suggest a totally stupid solution when sane ones exist?
"Linux" as an entity will never be mainstream, imagining that it could by following some specific advice is delusional. Linux is already a thousand different things and it just spreads out more and more. Specific operating systems may well become mainstream -- personally I think they are already with Maemo in Nokia N900, but feel free to pick another metric.
I disagree with your opinion about "[open sourcing] not happening for 95% of the software" by the way. This is already happening with drivers: more drivers are being released as open source than ever have been. I imagine a lot of companies (like your example Logitech) will likewise realise that their real expertise is not in the crappy software they had to produce, and that allowing copying is just going to help their actual product... It just takes time.
Your whole post is based on a straw man. I am not advocating a single repository for the whole world, or even for a single user.
If Logitech wants to support e.g. Debian, then their best option would be open sourcing the software and letting Debian take care of packaging. If that's not possible they should tell their clients to add logitech.com as a software source -- in this option they'll need to do testing, building and packaging themselves.
This is not some crazy-ass idea, this is how responsible closed source companies that want to support Debian operate already. There is no need for a "stable API" for this...
That Apple downloads site is nice, thanks for the pointer. Very useful for a "mom" install in the same way that a simple package manager is.
Oh, I can. I didn't do it in the previous post (I was just pointing out how stupid the GP comment was) but we certainly can and should compare them. IMO both approaches have room for user experience improvement and both have some inherent problems that must be 'worked around' (you touched on some of these already). The good and bad features of both approaches are closely related to other features of different OSes, like source licenses of course -- in other words Microsoft can't just start a comprehensive Windows software repository -- but that doesn't mean we can't compare the systems as wholes.
I meant exactly what I said. "Add/Remove Applications" is pretty usable UI that, as far as I can see, has none of the problems you refer to. This is on Debian so I'm fairly sure it's in Ubuntu as well.
My recollection is that this app has been available and well promoted for quite a while already (I imagine several Ubuntu versions) so I really don't understand what you are talking about.
You've got to be kidding? Super-easy installation and automatic security updates for all applications is 'awkward'?
If I understood you correctly, your suggestion is that desktop software should be hard to find, it should be installed from whatever website I happen to ultimately find and it shouldn't automatically get security updates. Sounds fabulous.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that package management systems have their flaws (even inherent ones) but you just aren't making a good case against them... You could start with explaining what's unnatural about "Open 'Add applications', check what you want, click Install", and then continue with explaining what's awkward about totally automatic security updates.
Oh yes, maintaining packages for several archs is real work, I'm not claiming otherwise. I just don't see how universal binaries makes things easier. Coding, compiling, testing, patching -- all of those need to be done with all supported archs in mind in any case.
Sofwtare vendors? This only makes life easier for _closed source_ software makers. For everyone else this is a solution looking for a problem as package management and repositories don't really have a problem with different arches and versions.
I'm not saying this is useless (people do want to run closed source software), but the kernel, glibc and other patches better be good and non-invasive if this guy wants them to land...
Fine, let's call them small laptops if it makes a difference.
The point is, customers and OEMs obviously think $200-$400 is a good price point for a major segment of the laptop market. Microsoft has to offer something for this segment whether they like it or not. It seems they are offering Win 7, the only question is the price...
Telling people that these are toys may work for a short while but not very long: it's obvious to anyone that the price of a decent "web" laptop has gone down fast, and that there is no going back... If MS keeps their price at $100 that will fairly soon be 50% of the total price of a laptop. That is not a long term solution and they must know it.
Oh, that may well turn out to be a major decision: if OEMs and end users now expect to get their (netbook) operating systems for ~$20, how can Microsoft raise the price to $100?
That is a _major_ price hike for devices that now cost $200-$400 total...
Excuse me? 88% of the parliament used to be for the amendment in its previous form (at least in a preliminary way). The amendment was changed, no doubt because of political compromises that the EP is famous of, and it still passed. Your interpretation is just wrong: these are the same people voting, the original amendment just never ended into a vote.
The story has a similarly biased interpretation: The new update has completely removed this, meaning that governments now have legal grounds to force UK ISPs into disconnecting their customers from the Internet. This is not true at all: The original amendment would have made sure ISPs could not do that without a ruling, but the current text doesn't give any legal ground for governments because it doesn't really change anything.
There may be some fishy deals behind this, but let's stick to the facts.
Tell me about it. I'm not interested in country music (last.fm tells me I've played Carrie Underwood twice, otherwise I can't find anything that could be in that genre)... So, what's in my "Music you may like"?
Country, bluegrass, progressive country, rockabilly, traditional country and more country. Well done!
This is why the package manager asks what I want. That was my whole point. You do not get any advantage using a source based distro here AFAICT, the situation is exactly the same: The package manager informs you if there are config changes and you may need to check the configuration manually.
What is the exact advantage of a source based distro you are referring to?