I like Eric Raymond. As often as people are annoyed about Raymond's opinion and claiming authority on the Hacker culture, he still remains deep at heart a good analysis. I find that when he is honest in truly dissecting an issue he is more rigorous in his logic than a great german philosopher on a bout of depression. This is the quality of projection and reporting you would only get if you had an expert in the industry working for you only for the satisfaction of making your company successful. I'm only through half of the essay but this is what a strategic outlook report should look like if your experts weren't hedging, backtracking, spineless yes men more concerned with covering their ass than telling the whole story. Read the essay.
Seriously we know that while Linux has come a long way there's still a long way to go. Some distro, company, or group is gonna have to take Linux and do what Apple did for bsd, except leave the contributions open. This should be a signal to Desktop oriented projects like Gnome and KDE, the Desktop experience might be a lot better but it's still not as good as buying a Mac and be able to expect everything to just work.
My question is even though Open Source can create massive amounts of ground work, why is it still generally incapable of shipping fully polished products? Take a look at the Mac, they went the extra mile, they took all the innovation of the open source world and did all the work hobbiest don't do. What does open source need to make linux or something else fully polished? What makes open source projects like Firefox beat the curse?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the main problem with Debian releases is that it supports so many platforms? And if that's the case isn't the logical solution simply to release a rock solid distro for the more dominant platforms first and allow the other ports to catch up to current release?
3. Maintain the fork for as long as it takes to get the next release out. It might take a few years, but that might even be an advantage for conservative Debianists who don't want to upgrade every 6 months.
Is that really stable enough for a Debian stable release? The two projects should fulfill different needs. Some linux users don't want a desktop distro which has been tested for a few weeks on the server. Some linux users want rock solid stablity, if not why not just go to fedora? Fedora tries to be everything from server to desktop and does a moderate job of fulfilling both needs. Debian should be concerned with making a rock solid distro.
I assume you don't consider Windows users average users then? The current approach is still much easier than searching the web for the program, downloading it and installing it (only to stare constant shareware nag screens and tolerate limited features).
On the contray I believe windows doesn't do software installation perfectly at all, but at least because so many companies support them people can get their software from a nicely packaged CD with everything they need in it. I think we want computers to be useful, and whether we need to copy windows to do it or think of better ideas of doing it the goal is just to make computing better.
Ubuntu aims to be a premium development platform for Python developers. Python is one of the priorities of Ubuntu, which is one of the reasons why it will be swiping the floor with other distros RSN;-).
I like python a lot, but would a regular desktop user really use all this? Or is it just wasting space? It'd be nice if I can just select up front before installation began what kind of work I want to do with my system with some of them checked by default. Like I'd like to just click "Python development" and have that in my install or "Build essentials" and have that installed, rather than having to apt-get them afterward. What's the point of doing installs if I have to do so much reinstallation afterwards?
I've heard so much about Ubuntu for so long and being a long time Debian user I felt I had to try it. Allow me to be the lone voice of descent here but I really think this has a long way to go from becoming a user oriented desktop. I think what Ubuntu gives you is sane defaults, faster releases, and tested unstable, this is great for a regular Debian user who has to configure Debian to make it more useful for desktop use, but for a regular computer user or even a new computer user I still don't think it's anywhere near ready. Synaptic is still too complex a procedure for average users to install software with, a normal user wants to click "Software to do my taxes" and have it ready, not struggle with package management. The system administrative tools are still so immature I find myself constantly retreating back to hand configuration, if the install made a mistake configuring hotplug and it slows down my boot process there was no way to disable that from my bootprocess graphically. A default install will wipe a user's drive unless they know how to repartitian a drive on their own. Which makes me worried to ever give an inexperienced user a CD.
For experienced users the one thing that really annoyed me was the complete lack of GCC in the default install. They had time to package a windows version of openoffice on the install cd and didn't deem it necessary to have basic development tools. When I boot Knoppix I can compile an entire LFS system while running on the CD alone, I can't do that with a default install of Ubuntu.
Having said all that there are things Ubuntu is doing right. I like the disabling of Root and enabling the user to do more with the desktop. I can't remember how many times I get pissed off by Debian when I can't do something necessary like configuring a printer, or looking up my IP, without become root. I like the small install size, though what is up with all the python tools? I like that they package only the most useful desktop programs in default install thought I wished they'd give you more options to add programs on the default install. And the hardware detection for a Debian distro is one of the things every Debian user pray for.
Get rid of the electoral college, the Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire primaries, and force advertising to be factually correct. Then maybe, just maybe, there'll be a reasonable candidate.
Until they start acting like there's a world where many types of languages and platforms can exist on their own merit, instead of wanting to own everything, then I won't trust them and I'll have to cast a skeptical eye towards anything berthed from Redmond.
Bitching an moaning about a project is not gonna get anyone anywhere except if and when the project crash and burns you get to say "I told you so." The only way to stop Mono is to offer a better alternative. Developers will not decide to go back to inferior tools simply because they're not entirely sure how legal their tools are.
Good idea, lets promote and assist the "industry" in deciding to use this tool by NOT POINTINT OUT there is a better cross-platform tool out there but BY HELPING to legatimize this propietary toolset by allowing Microsoftzilla to say "see its multi-platform too" in their marketing materials.
Fact is there are no better cross-platform tools out there for development, or at least that is the opinion of the users and developers of Mono. People develop and use Mono not because they think to themselve "Hey man, It's Microsoft! They've got to know better," they used it because the same cycle of C/C++ plus a bunch of toolsets are painful to use. Use whatever you want, I like Python myself. What I don't like is this negative FUD campaign against Mono.
All it does is to legitimize microsofts attempt at monoplizing another market with yet another windows-only product exactly similar to an exsisting multi-platform product....it's their modus-operandi.
Right cause if we ignore it, then it will go away. It doesn't matter if the industry decides to use it or not.
Science is never supposed to call a model facts, no matter how much evidence there is, prove is reason for confidence that a model is correct but the book is never closed. As soon as counter evidence or a more accurate theory is found we can't argue the original is fact and there's no need to change. That is a misunderstanding of science.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
yes, thank you. And to follow up, my work on creationism has revealled not only how to prove reproducibly that god created the universe in 7 days, but what brand of underwear he was wearing at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
I like Eric Raymond. As often as people are annoyed about Raymond's opinion and claiming authority on the Hacker culture, he still remains deep at heart a good analysis. I find that when he is honest in truly dissecting an issue he is more rigorous in his logic than a great german philosopher on a bout of depression. This is the quality of projection and reporting you would only get if you had an expert in the industry working for you only for the satisfaction of making your company successful. I'm only through half of the essay but this is what a strategic outlook report should look like if your experts weren't hedging, backtracking, spineless yes men more concerned with covering their ass than telling the whole story. Read the essay.
BSD never seems to get the mainstream headlines like Linux does - anyone know why?
Cuter logo?
Seriously we know that while Linux has come a long way there's still a long way to go. Some distro, company, or group is gonna have to take Linux and do what Apple did for bsd, except leave the contributions open. This should be a signal to Desktop oriented projects like Gnome and KDE, the Desktop experience might be a lot better but it's still not as good as buying a Mac and be able to expect everything to just work.
I'd also love a simple, notepad-like text editor that gave me online spellchecking and word line number. Anything like that out there?
I've recently discovered the spell checking zen that is Gmail. Not only does it work great as an interactive spell checker, you can take it anywhere!
My question is even though Open Source can create massive amounts of ground work, why is it still generally incapable of shipping fully polished products? Take a look at the Mac, they went the extra mile, they took all the innovation of the open source world and did all the work hobbiest don't do. What does open source need to make linux or something else fully polished? What makes open source projects like Firefox beat the curse?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the main problem with Debian releases is that it supports so many platforms? And if that's the case isn't the logical solution simply to release a rock solid distro for the more dominant platforms first and allow the other ports to catch up to current release?
2. Copy all of Hoary to Debian archives.
3. Maintain the fork for as long as it takes to get the next release out. It might take a few years, but that might even be an advantage for conservative Debianists who don't want to upgrade every 6 months.
Is that really stable enough for a Debian stable release? The two projects should fulfill different needs. Some linux users don't want a desktop distro which has been tested for a few weeks on the server. Some linux users want rock solid stablity, if not why not just go to fedora? Fedora tries to be everything from server to desktop and does a moderate job of fulfilling both needs. Debian should be concerned with making a rock solid distro.
I assume you don't consider Windows users average users then? The current approach is still much easier than searching the web for the program, downloading it and installing it (only to stare constant shareware nag screens and tolerate limited features).
;-).
On the contray I believe windows doesn't do software installation perfectly at all, but at least because so many companies support them people can get their software from a nicely packaged CD with everything they need in it. I think we want computers to be useful, and whether we need to copy windows to do it or think of better ideas of doing it the goal is just to make computing better.
Ubuntu aims to be a premium development platform for Python developers. Python is one of the priorities of Ubuntu, which is one of the reasons why it will be swiping the floor with other distros RSN
I like python a lot, but would a regular desktop user really use all this? Or is it just wasting space? It'd be nice if I can just select up front before installation began what kind of work I want to do with my system with some of them checked by default. Like I'd like to just click "Python development" and have that in my install or "Build essentials" and have that installed, rather than having to apt-get them afterward. What's the point of doing installs if I have to do so much reinstallation afterwards?
I've heard so much about Ubuntu for so long and being a long time Debian user I felt I had to try it. Allow me to be the lone voice of descent here but I really think this has a long way to go from becoming a user oriented desktop. I think what Ubuntu gives you is sane defaults, faster releases, and tested unstable, this is great for a regular Debian user who has to configure Debian to make it more useful for desktop use, but for a regular computer user or even a new computer user I still don't think it's anywhere near ready. Synaptic is still too complex a procedure for average users to install software with, a normal user wants to click "Software to do my taxes" and have it ready, not struggle with package management. The system administrative tools are still so immature I find myself constantly retreating back to hand configuration, if the install made a mistake configuring hotplug and it slows down my boot process there was no way to disable that from my bootprocess graphically. A default install will wipe a user's drive unless they know how to repartitian a drive on their own. Which makes me worried to ever give an inexperienced user a CD.
For experienced users the one thing that really annoyed me was the complete lack of GCC in the default install. They had time to package a windows version of openoffice on the install cd and didn't deem it necessary to have basic development tools. When I boot Knoppix I can compile an entire LFS system while running on the CD alone, I can't do that with a default install of Ubuntu.
Having said all that there are things Ubuntu is doing right. I like the disabling of Root and enabling the user to do more with the desktop. I can't remember how many times I get pissed off by Debian when I can't do something necessary like configuring a printer, or looking up my IP, without become root. I like the small install size, though what is up with all the python tools? I like that they package only the most useful desktop programs in default install thought I wished they'd give you more options to add programs on the default install. And the hardware detection for a Debian distro is one of the things every Debian user pray for.
I guess everyone at the office switched my calendars cause I did not know it was April Fools already.
The article and the press release doesn't even mention Kerry. They talk about a Boxer and Clinton bill. Who's editing this shit?
Get rid of the electoral college, the Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire primaries, and force advertising to be factually correct. Then maybe, just maybe, there'll be a reasonable candidate.
Until they start acting like there's a world where many types of languages and platforms can exist on their own merit, instead of wanting to own everything, then I won't trust them and I'll have to cast a skeptical eye towards anything berthed from Redmond.
Bitching an moaning about a project is not gonna get anyone anywhere except if and when the project crash and burns you get to say "I told you so." The only way to stop Mono is to offer a better alternative. Developers will not decide to go back to inferior tools simply because they're not entirely sure how legal their tools are.
When the alternative is "innovate and be copied out of existence" I don't think you have much choice.
Good idea, lets promote and assist the "industry" in deciding to use this tool by NOT POINTINT OUT there is a better cross-platform tool out there but BY HELPING to legatimize this propietary toolset by allowing Microsoftzilla to say "see its multi-platform too" in their marketing materials.
Fact is there are no better cross-platform tools out there for development, or at least that is the opinion of the users and developers of Mono. People develop and use Mono not because they think to themselve "Hey man, It's Microsoft! They've got to know better," they used it because the same cycle of C/C++ plus a bunch of toolsets are painful to use. Use whatever you want, I like Python myself. What I don't like is this negative FUD campaign against Mono.
All it does is to legitimize microsofts attempt at monoplizing another market with yet another windows-only product exactly similar to an exsisting multi-platform product....it's their modus-operandi.
Right cause if we ignore it, then it will go away. It doesn't matter if the industry decides to use it or not.
But it's not Microsoft. It smells more like the rotting of a tired journalist raising controversy to drive readership. How pathetic. *LOOK AT ME!*
Isn't it, Haaarrvard?
Science is never supposed to call a model facts, no matter how much evidence there is, prove is reason for confidence that a model is correct but the book is never closed. As soon as counter evidence or a more accurate theory is found we can't argue the original is fact and there's no need to change. That is a misunderstanding of science.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
yes, thank you. And to follow up, my work on creationism has revealled not only how to prove reproducibly that god created the universe in 7 days, but what brand of underwear he was wearing at the time.
cause we're a nervous, speculative, fickle people.
Bring back BeOS is the way to go man. That platform is deader than dead.
To quote Nelson Muntz from The Simpsons "HA-HA!"
Looks like this will be a good christmas after all.