Granted it took me three attempts (1st doing the bulk 'rpm -Uvh' (which I had to modify by throwing in --force and --nodeps...ack) suggested on the GNOME website..nothing but coredumps and grief, 2nd trying to compile the whole damn thing from tarballs...too many compilation errors that I couldn't bother to chase down, and 3rd going back to the rpms and installing them in a logical order and respecting dependencies and installing E0.15.2...success!), but I must say that GNOME IS WORTH THE TROUBLE TO INSTALL.
I really like the fact that it and Enlightenment are *highly* configurable; this allows me to create an environment that's highly tuned to my preferences. In comparison, I always found KDE to be a bit rigid and limited in terms of configurability.
Anyway, I was right on the edge of abandoning GNOME forever, but I gave it that one last attempt and now I wouldn't use anything else for a Linux desktop.
But they really do have to get their act together wrt bundling it in a saner installation package/script, that's for sure!!
If the GPL is not defended in the face of a clear violation of its terms, it will be deemed worthless by those willing to violate it, and everything that's been built up on the 'strength' of the GPL (ie. its legal deterrence against theft of code) will come tumbling down like a house of cards. I'm sure Microsof~1 is watching this closely...
Yes, yes. That argument is all well and good and would better apply if I were actually proposing that we encourage _penguins_ to sprout opposable thumbs. By advocating that we encourage _Linux_ to grow opposable thumbs I was merely being allegorical. Given your reservations re: the ongoing theory of evolution, perhaps I should have given a nod to the concept of punctuated equilibrium.
Anyway, the base concept of the goodness of fragmentation for Linux development is valid and has been verified by the very nature of how Linux has already "evolved" to its present state. "Locking in" and discouraging diversity at this time would cause much more harm than fragmentation. But this is obvious, isn't it?
To get back to the original thread, I massively respect Ritchie, but I think that his correlation (and it has been made by others in the past) vis a vis the fragmentation of commercial unices relating to the present state of Linux development is unfounded. We must dance to the rhythm of the schisms...;)
As a postscript, when I refer to 'Linux' here, I am of course referring to the whole ball of wax: GNU/LINUX plus whatever talismans (KDE, GNOME, NetHack, XBill) you care to add to the gumbo...
Hmm..fragmentation outside the commercial realm can be a Good Thing.
Example: look at your hand..see that opposable thumb? (You do have one, don't you?) That's there because of a fragmentation in your (Great)^10 Grandaddy's genome that occurred a few hundred thousand years ago.
Linux needs *more* fragmentation so that it can grow its equivalent of opposable thumbs...
Slashdot Mirror
Granted it took me three attempts (1st doing the bulk 'rpm -Uvh' (which I had to modify by throwing in --force and --nodeps...ack) suggested on the GNOME website..nothing but coredumps and grief, 2nd trying to compile the whole damn thing from tarballs...too many compilation errors that I couldn't bother to chase down, and 3rd going back to the rpms and installing them in a logical order and respecting dependencies and installing E0.15.2...success!), but I must say that GNOME IS WORTH THE TROUBLE TO INSTALL.
I really like the fact that it and Enlightenment are *highly* configurable; this allows me to create an environment that's highly tuned to my preferences. In comparison, I always found KDE to be a bit rigid and limited in terms of configurability.
Anyway, I was right on the edge of abandoning GNOME forever, but I gave it that one last attempt and now I wouldn't use anything else for a Linux desktop.
But they really do have to get their act together wrt bundling it in a saner installation package/script, that's for sure!!
If the GPL is not defended in the face of a clear violation of its terms, it will be deemed worthless by those willing to violate it, and everything that's been built up on the 'strength' of the GPL (ie. its legal deterrence against theft of code) will come tumbling down like a house of cards. I'm sure Microsof~1 is watching this closely...
Yes, yes. That argument is all well and good and would better apply if I were actually proposing that we encourage _penguins_ to sprout opposable thumbs. By advocating that we encourage _Linux_ to grow opposable thumbs I was merely being allegorical. Given your reservations re: the ongoing theory of evolution, perhaps I should have given a nod to the concept of punctuated equilibrium.
;)
Anyway, the base concept of the goodness of fragmentation for Linux development is valid and has been verified by the very nature of how Linux has already "evolved" to its present state. "Locking in" and discouraging diversity at this time would cause much more harm than fragmentation. But this is obvious, isn't it?
To get back to the original thread, I massively respect Ritchie, but I think that his correlation (and it has been made by others in the past) vis a vis the fragmentation of commercial unices relating to the present state of Linux development is unfounded. We must dance to the rhythm of the schisms...
As a postscript, when I refer to 'Linux' here, I am of course referring to the whole ball of wax: GNU/LINUX plus whatever talismans (KDE, GNOME, NetHack, XBill) you care to add to the gumbo...
Hmm..fragmentation outside the commercial realm can be a Good Thing.
Example: look at your hand..see that opposable thumb? (You do have one, don't you?) That's there because of a fragmentation in your (Great)^10 Grandaddy's genome that occurred a few hundred thousand years ago.
Linux needs *more* fragmentation so that it can grow its equivalent of opposable thumbs...