Quick checking online told me I should have been able to get the DWL-650 to work with linux.
Yeah, but I don't consider having to use some other operating system's driver a "working" solution. What I meant to say is that if I were in your situation I would've bought a card with a native driver.
hate to say it, but if I just wanted it to work, I would have put windows on it.
That's exactly what I was driving at. It's good to hear that someone on Slashdot can be honest about the fact that stuff "just works" more often than not on Windows, while the reverse is not really true of Linux. I can understand and respect the "I just want to learn how to do it" angle. I thought for a minute there that you were like most Slashdotters, wasting numerous hours getting something simple to work, just so you could say "I did it without Windows".
A week of hacking around just to get the card to work? This anecdote really drives home the old "Linux is free if your time is worth nothing" saying, doesn't it?
Why didn't you just spend the $40 or so for a card that is absolutely known to work with Linux instead of wasting a number of hours (over the course of a week)?
~$1.6 billion on advertising? On top of $800 million? Christ, it's hard enough to generate $800 million in sales, let alone $2.4 billion. Remember, once the patent runs out (which is not long after the drug is released, since the patent must be applied for the instant the compound is discovered, before the years and years of trials), anyone can develop the drug and undercut the company who created the drug in the first place.
I'll half to look it up.
Yes, please do. Hopefully you didn't find your statistic on some left-wing, "big business is evil" website.
At any rate, you have failed to address the issue of cost. Considering that it WILL cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a drug and, without patents, it is inevitable that there will be numerous companies simply copying your research for next to nothing, how will anyone be motivated to do research in the first place?
Lets assume I spend 100's of millions developing a new car? get it? also, what you say doesn't reflect reality - most big patent money is spent on marketing not R&D.
On average, it now takes $802 million, including the cost of capital, to come up with a new pharmaceutical product.
The study found that the average development time for new medicines is 12 years.
In the 1990s, drug firms spent an average of $121 million out-of-pocket in research prior to clinical trials -- but that figure rises to $336 million when the costs of capital are included. The clinical testing stage consumes $282 million -- or $466 million when capital costs are factored in.
OK, we get it: you don't like patents. But please, don't let your silly ideology blind you to the fact that the original poster was talking about: it costs lots of money to develop new drugs, and without patents to AT LEAST ensure that the developer can recoup his hundreds of millions of dollars, there will be NO incentive to develop new drugs. After all, why should he when someone else can just copy the work of someone who did all the R&D and offer the drug at a low price right away?
In Windows you have the option of stripping down the OS to ridiculous levels as well. Want just a command prompt for your shell? Fine. Want to use an alternative Window manager? OK. Want to choose which startup services are enabled or disabled? No problem. Want to tweak virtual memory and process priority settings? Sure.
So no, you're wrong. In Windows you _have_ a choice as well.
the slammer patch, and XP Service Pack 1. They all left yummy cruncy computer bits lying on my desk! Wheee!!
Not sure about your NT patch, but the XP patch and SP1 I, and many others, have been able to apply without incident. In fact, I'm calling bullshit on these two because if there truly was a problem with these patches it would've been all over Slashdot. Perhaps the problem exists between your keyboard and chair...
That having been said, yes, I believe it's far less likely that a Linux patch would destabilize my system, since a Linux patch ONLY HAS TO PATCH THE PROGRAM IT'S INTENDED FOR, and not worry about whether a haywire process from some other app will make the whole box implode.
Kernel patches? Patching important system daemons that, if rendered unusable would effectively render your entire system unusable? Hello?
Yes! Because I love it when a patch screws up my system and forces a reinstall! Having automatic update/apply turned on lets me blame MS instead of myself for installing their craptacular patches that eat my registry!
Whenever automatic Linux updates are mentioned, they're made out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Automatic Windows updates? Stupid.
It must be because there's no possible way that a Linux patch could render your system unusable, right?
For what it's worth, I've never run into a system-crippling Windows patch. Perhaps you could name the patch (or patches, as you make it appear) that have completely destroyed your system in the past?
I know this is probably coming too late for anyone else skimming the article to see this, but in the event that you're reading this reply, consider this for your own personal edification.
You can't remove the damned applications from Windows. That's the problem.
Actually, you can. It's just a common Slashdot myth that you can't do it. Delete wmplayer.exe and iexplore.exe, and poof, no more WMP or Internet Explorer. All that remains are the cores, used for embedding WMP or IE in other applications that rely on them.
... But PCs and Macs are generally considered the two big consumer computing platforms, and in that regard Apple DOES have a monopoly of their part of the computing world, and is able to force their products on Apple users through THEIR OS monopoly.
Apple is ***GUARANTEED*** to get iTunes installed on all PCs sold with Windows through the distributor(s) they made a deal with. Why is that so hard to understand? It's not ALL PCs shipping with Windows, but if Apple gets iTunes bundled with all or nearly all Chinense PC manufacturers, then for all intents and purposes they are guaranteed to get iTunes bundled with every Chinese PC, no?
Does the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS guarantee that Apple will be able to install iTunes on all PCs sold with Windows?
Not all Windows PCs, but the fact that iTunes is being bundled with the most popular OS allows it to reach a much wider audience (at least in China) than normally possible, correct? I would say in that regard they are leveraging the popularity of Windows to gain a foothold. And either way, they're doing the SAME thing that WMP is doing: by being one of the "default" media players, users are discouraged from seeking out alternatives. Hence, this action will presumably lead to iTunes dominating Chinese online music sales. Again, if this isn't OK for Microsoft to do, why is it OK for Apple?
Now.. when previewing a file I don't get to see solitaire or notepad as it's not actually integrated with the OS.
Notepad.exe is the default viewer for text files, it just not something you see in explorer.
And as far as media previewing goes, KDE and GNOME have similar functionality, for example. I think most users expect a modern OS to do some sort of previewing in the file manager. Microsoft has to have some sort of application for which to do the previewing, don't you think? And while it would be possible to make other media players hook into the previewing API that WMP uses, there's no guarantee, and hence with a "pluggable" previewing architecture there's no guarantee that the user will have a consistent experience with previewing (that is, no guarantee that it will always work). So, Microsoft opted to have their media player bundled to accomplish this task (and furthermore make the core parts uninstallable... makes sense). If you're really so concerned about WMP, you can easily delete the "wrapper" application, and leave just the core behind.
Apple is cutting independant deals with computer manufacturers based on the quality of its product.
Money has nothing to do with it, I'm sure.
So, no, Microsoft is the only company using the leverage provided by the Windows OS monopoly.
How do you figure? Isn't Apple leveraging the enormous popularity of Windows and cheap PC prices (as opposed to Apple hardware prices, which I'm guessing don't fly so well in China) to get iTunes installed on as many Chinese computers as possible?
Again, imagine this situation: Microsoft ships Windows with no WMP, only iTunes. Again, is this wrong? Would you be complaining about this?
Microsoft is forcing computer manufacturers to ship the Windows Media Player whether they want to or not.
And they're forcing them to ship system32.dll whether the manufacturers want to or not. I've got news for you -- the only "absolutely essential" part of any OS is the kernel, the rest is all in-house apps that are effectively being "forced" on whoever is reselling the OS in the name of creating a more useful system.
Oh yeah, striking a deal with manufacturers to bundle your software is exactly the same as leveraging your desktop monopoly to force your other software on users
Apple's effectively got a monopoly on Apple hardware Operating Systems, so wouldn't you say they're basically forcing QuickTime and iTunes (I think that's bundled with OS X... if not, it probably will be soon) on users? Explain why this is OK.
then using a license to prohibit manufacturers from putting any competing products on their machines
Last time I looked at an HP machine there was all sorts of crazy third party software on there, like MusicMatch Jukebox and whatnot.
Tell me, what part of the article says that Apple's license prohibits the manufacturer from putting RealPlayer on there as well?
Has anyone actually tried having Apple bundle RealPlayer with OS X? I have a feeling you'll find out that Apple won't let Real do that...
Since when is it impossible to remove iTunes from either Mac OS X or Windows?
I know Slashdotters guffaw at the mention of WMP and IE being "essential" Windows components, but the reality is that it's true, to an extent. MS built in APIs for doing HTML rendering and Media playback which, surprise, surprise, rely on the IE and WMP cores. Nothing inherently evil in that, after all, if you want to use KDE's HTML rendering APIs you've gotta use code developed for Konqueror to do it (to draw an analogy). Now if you were to completely gut Windows of IE and WMP, the problem is that all applications (MS and 3rd party) relying on those components would break in varying ways. In that regard, those two applications are quite essential to normal Windows operation.
Monopoly on what, exactly? Just the OS itself? I fail to see how that should limit what applications go into the OS. Microsoft is a monopoly, so they shouldn't be allowed to bundle notepad or solitaire, right? See, that doesn't make any sense.
And neither does this situation. What's the difference between Windows + Media Player (what we have now) and Windows + iTunes (which is what this bundle will create)? You're just substituting one media player for another. The net effect is the same: whichever one is bundled with Windows will end up dominating. If Microsoft isn't allowed to use its OS monopoly, then Apple shouldn't either.
Well really, what _is_ the difference? The argument seems to be "well if Microsoft bundles [software], whenever people think of [computing task], they will think [software] is the only way to do it because people are too lazy to download software if it's already bundled." See, for example, IE.
It looks like the same basic thing is happening, but with iTunes instead. To however many millions of Chinese people who buy these computers, iTunes will become synonymous with "buying|playing digital music". And, since the number one online music store software will be pre-installed on their computers, they won't bother seeking alternatives, effectively allowing iTunes to monopolize (if you will) the online music market in China (at least). So... I'm not really sure why all the anti-monopoly folks on Slashdot aren't bitching and complaining about this move. Well, if Slashdot wasn't a highly hypocritical community, that is...
Well, except for the fact that configuring your own Linux router is a pain in the ass if you don't know exactly what you're doing. Plus, it'll probably come out being more expensive than your average consumer router since you have to buy multi port NICs and a wireless card.
Personally, I think the Linksys WRT54G is the best value. It's cheap ($100) and it runs Linux on it AND you can get a shell on the box and install whatever software you want.
The possibility that what you're looking for isn't packaged.
I can release a source tarball for a Win32 app too. Whose fault would this be exactly?
What? I was simply saying that it's stupid to assume that any piece of software you're looking for is packaged using the particular package format your distro uses.
And unless I'm mistaken, in most cases it's the responsibility of someone involved with the distro that does the packaging and includes it with the OS, not the person who originally wrote the software. That software isn't going to get on the APT repository by itself, you know. Someone involved with Debian has to put it there before your magical apt-get will install it.
That you know offhand what the package name is.
As opposed to Windows, where clairivoyance is built into the operating system...
I was saying that if you don't know the package name offhand, you're going to have to go searching for it, much like you would with Windows. This is the counter to fools who respond to everything with "apt-get <obscure package name>! It's so easy!"... you have to know the name of the software first.
Re:Wow. Out of touch..
on
The GNOME Roadmap
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Because hundreds of developers will never agree on the focus of one, focused project.
And yet, somehow it happens in the commercial software world: Windows and OS X, Microsoft Office, etc. Any way you slice it, in the free software world there's thousands of man hours spent doing the same things, over and over again, when that time would be better spent concentrating on making the "superior" piece of software even better.
That'd be pretty awesome. About as awesome as it would be if the entire wold all held hands, hugged, and promised to be nice to each to each other from now on.
Your sarcastic hand waving does nothing to back up your point. It is entirely possible to focus software development efforts into making "the best solution" instead of aimlessly pouring effort into "100 different, equally crappy solutions". You just want to shake your head and pretend like it can't happen, simply because it doesn't happen in the world of Linux and OSS.
No, I have heard of LSB. However, adoption of the standards is what matters, not sitting around talking about it. As it is, Linux is horribly, horribly fragmented due to the hundreds of available distros, only a few of which are compatible with the LSB. I find it very funny that you mention that the major distros are "trying" to adhere to the standards -- should they be able to definitively state that they DO adhere to the standards?
Dude, fragmentation is what happens in healthy, competitive markets.
No, in competitive markets there's different, competing products. The kind of fragmentation Linux has only works against it. How does anyone expect to focus their efforts when everyone's attention is split 1,000 different ways? Why should Linux compete with itself? Duh?
It might be a little inefficient to have competing standards.. but it leads to furthering the pace of development.
A little inefficient? May I nominate you for understatement of the year?
And riddle me this: how can the pace of development be furthered more with hundreds of similar, but different projects instead of one focused project?
And from what I've seen, the REASON that it's where it is today is BECAUSE, not DESPITE, of the fragmentation, and breadth and width of scope that Linux provides.
And just imagine where it would be today if everyone focused on creating one standard piece of software for everything they needed instead of creating 20 or 30 of everything, when 9 times out of 10 it's clear that there is only really one superior piece of software in the whole bunch.
but in today's market, they don't have the power to make demands like MS does.
And I'm sure that's how it was for Microsoft back in the early days. But like Microsoft, if RedHat were able to gain a strong footing in the market, they would be able to leverage their deals, much like how Microsoft has.
I use Debian. All my boxen and all my lusers use Debian. What isn't available for Debian?
Typical childish behavior. "I use Debian, therefore the whole world uses Debian!"
Improbable. When you want to make software available for windoblows, you make an EXE and an MSI and a DLL.
Well no, not really. You can release the software as is (ZIP of the contents), use InstallShield, MSI, etc. Any route you take, when you download the installer, it works.
When you want to make it available for Linux, you make a DEB and maybe an RPB.
Ah, but you're forgetting that there are RPMs for Redhat, SuSE, and Mandrake (and possibly others, I'm not sure), each of which may have issues that prevent the RPM from working across those three distros. Then there's Slackware TGZs, and other obscure package formats I'm sure I haven't even heard of yet. And you still haven't guaranteed that what you've packaged will work on any given Linux system.
Debian's repositories have over 89,000 packages available, including the one you want.
And yet, people make their own repositories, why?
Re:Wow. Out of touch..
on
The GNOME Roadmap
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You conveniently forgot to take into account...
Distributions that don't have apt-get. Or yum. Or emerge. Or the other 23 different, incompatible package managers.
The possibility that what you're looking for isn't packaged.
That you know offhand what the package name is.
The need to point your installer at different repositories if what you're looking for isn't at the default one.
If you don't get all the criteria right, well, it's back to compiling the software, or searching for the package you want (just like with Windows), huh? Personally, I prefer the Windows route.
Slashdot Mirror
Quick checking online told me I should have been able to get the DWL-650 to work with linux.
Yeah, but I don't consider having to use some other operating system's driver a "working" solution. What I meant to say is that if I were in your situation I would've bought a card with a native driver.
hate to say it, but if I just wanted it to work, I would have put windows on it.
That's exactly what I was driving at. It's good to hear that someone on Slashdot can be honest about the fact that stuff "just works" more often than not on Windows, while the reverse is not really true of Linux. I can understand and respect the "I just want to learn how to do it" angle. I thought for a minute there that you were like most Slashdotters, wasting numerous hours getting something simple to work, just so you could say "I did it without Windows".
A week of hacking around just to get the card to work? This anecdote really drives home the old "Linux is free if your time is worth nothing" saying, doesn't it?
Why didn't you just spend the $40 or so for a card that is absolutely known to work with Linux instead of wasting a number of hours (over the course of a week)?
~$1.6 billion on advertising? On top of $800 million? Christ, it's hard enough to generate $800 million in sales, let alone $2.4 billion. Remember, once the patent runs out (which is not long after the drug is released, since the patent must be applied for the instant the compound is discovered, before the years and years of trials), anyone can develop the drug and undercut the company who created the drug in the first place.
I'll half to look it up.
Yes, please do. Hopefully you didn't find your statistic on some left-wing, "big business is evil" website.
At any rate, you have failed to address the issue of cost. Considering that it WILL cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a drug and, without patents, it is inevitable that there will be numerous companies simply copying your research for next to nothing, how will anyone be motivated to do research in the first place?
Lets assume I spend 100's of millions developing a new car? get it? also, what you say doesn't reflect reality - most big patent money is spent on marketing not R&D.
You couldn't be more wrong:
On average, it now takes $802 million, including the cost of capital, to come up with a new pharmaceutical product.
The study found that the average development time for new medicines is 12 years.
In the 1990s, drug firms spent an average of $121 million out-of-pocket in research prior to clinical trials -- but that figure rises to $336 million when the costs of capital are included. The clinical testing stage consumes $282 million -- or $466 million when capital costs are factored in.
OK, we get it: you don't like patents. But please, don't let your silly ideology blind you to the fact that the original poster was talking about: it costs lots of money to develop new drugs, and without patents to AT LEAST ensure that the developer can recoup his hundreds of millions of dollars, there will be NO incentive to develop new drugs. After all, why should he when someone else can just copy the work of someone who did all the R&D and offer the drug at a low price right away?
In Windows you have the option of stripping down the OS to ridiculous levels as well. Want just a command prompt for your shell? Fine. Want to use an alternative Window manager? OK. Want to choose which startup services are enabled or disabled? No problem. Want to tweak virtual memory and process priority settings? Sure.
So no, you're wrong. In Windows you _have_ a choice as well.
the slammer patch, and XP Service Pack 1. They all left yummy cruncy computer bits lying on my desk! Wheee!!
Not sure about your NT patch, but the XP patch and SP1 I, and many others, have been able to apply without incident. In fact, I'm calling bullshit on these two because if there truly was a problem with these patches it would've been all over Slashdot. Perhaps the problem exists between your keyboard and chair...
That having been said, yes, I believe it's far less likely that a Linux patch would destabilize my system, since a Linux patch ONLY HAS TO PATCH THE PROGRAM IT'S INTENDED FOR, and not worry about whether a haywire process from some other app will make the whole box implode.
Kernel patches? Patching important system daemons that, if rendered unusable would effectively render your entire system unusable? Hello?
Yes! Because I love it when a patch screws up my system and forces a reinstall! Having automatic update/apply turned on lets me blame MS instead of myself for installing their craptacular patches that eat my registry!
Whenever automatic Linux updates are mentioned, they're made out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Automatic Windows updates? Stupid.
It must be because there's no possible way that a Linux patch could render your system unusable, right?
For what it's worth, I've never run into a system-crippling Windows patch. Perhaps you could name the patch (or patches, as you make it appear) that have completely destroyed your system in the past?
I know this is probably coming too late for anyone else skimming the article to see this, but in the event that you're reading this reply, consider this for your own personal edification.
You can't remove the damned applications from Windows. That's the problem.
Actually, you can. It's just a common Slashdot myth that you can't do it. Delete wmplayer.exe and iexplore.exe, and poof, no more WMP or Internet Explorer. All that remains are the cores, used for embedding WMP or IE in other applications that rely on them.
... But PCs and Macs are generally considered the two big consumer computing platforms, and in that regard Apple DOES have a monopoly of their part of the computing world, and is able to force their products on Apple users through THEIR OS monopoly.
Apple is ***GUARANTEED*** to get iTunes installed on all PCs sold with Windows through the distributor(s) they made a deal with. Why is that so hard to understand? It's not ALL PCs shipping with Windows, but if Apple gets iTunes bundled with all or nearly all Chinense PC manufacturers, then for all intents and purposes they are guaranteed to get iTunes bundled with every Chinese PC, no?
Does the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS guarantee that Apple will be able to install iTunes on all PCs sold with Windows?
Not all Windows PCs, but the fact that iTunes is being bundled with the most popular OS allows it to reach a much wider audience (at least in China) than normally possible, correct? I would say in that regard they are leveraging the popularity of Windows to gain a foothold. And either way, they're doing the SAME thing that WMP is doing: by being one of the "default" media players, users are discouraged from seeking out alternatives. Hence, this action will presumably lead to iTunes dominating Chinese online music sales. Again, if this isn't OK for Microsoft to do, why is it OK for Apple?
Now.. when previewing a file I don't get to see solitaire or notepad as it's not actually integrated with the OS.
Notepad.exe is the default viewer for text files, it just not something you see in explorer.
And as far as media previewing goes, KDE and GNOME have similar functionality, for example. I think most users expect a modern OS to do some sort of previewing in the file manager. Microsoft has to have some sort of application for which to do the previewing, don't you think? And while it would be possible to make other media players hook into the previewing API that WMP uses, there's no guarantee, and hence with a "pluggable" previewing architecture there's no guarantee that the user will have a consistent experience with previewing (that is, no guarantee that it will always work). So, Microsoft opted to have their media player bundled to accomplish this task (and furthermore make the core parts uninstallable... makes sense). If you're really so concerned about WMP, you can easily delete the "wrapper" application, and leave just the core behind.
Apple is cutting independant deals with computer manufacturers based on the quality of its product.
Money has nothing to do with it, I'm sure.
So, no, Microsoft is the only company using the leverage provided by the Windows OS monopoly.
How do you figure? Isn't Apple leveraging the enormous popularity of Windows and cheap PC prices (as opposed to Apple hardware prices, which I'm guessing don't fly so well in China) to get iTunes installed on as many Chinese computers as possible?
Again, imagine this situation: Microsoft ships Windows with no WMP, only iTunes. Again, is this wrong? Would you be complaining about this?
Microsoft is forcing computer manufacturers to ship the Windows Media Player whether they want to or not.
And they're forcing them to ship system32.dll whether the manufacturers want to or not. I've got news for you -- the only "absolutely essential" part of any OS is the kernel, the rest is all in-house apps that are effectively being "forced" on whoever is reselling the OS in the name of creating a more useful system.
Oh yeah, striking a deal with manufacturers to bundle your software is exactly the same as leveraging your desktop monopoly to force your other software on users
Apple's effectively got a monopoly on Apple hardware Operating Systems, so wouldn't you say they're basically forcing QuickTime and iTunes (I think that's bundled with OS X... if not, it probably will be soon) on users? Explain why this is OK.
then using a license to prohibit manufacturers from putting any competing products on their machines
Last time I looked at an HP machine there was all sorts of crazy third party software on there, like MusicMatch Jukebox and whatnot.
Tell me, what part of the article says that Apple's license prohibits the manufacturer from putting RealPlayer on there as well?
Has anyone actually tried having Apple bundle RealPlayer with OS X? I have a feeling you'll find out that Apple won't let Real do that...
Since when is it impossible to remove iTunes from either Mac OS X or Windows?
I know Slashdotters guffaw at the mention of WMP and IE being "essential" Windows components, but the reality is that it's true, to an extent. MS built in APIs for doing HTML rendering and Media playback which, surprise, surprise, rely on the IE and WMP cores. Nothing inherently evil in that, after all, if you want to use KDE's HTML rendering APIs you've gotta use code developed for Konqueror to do it (to draw an analogy). Now if you were to completely gut Windows of IE and WMP, the problem is that all applications (MS and 3rd party) relying on those components would break in varying ways. In that regard, those two applications are quite essential to normal Windows operation.
Monopoly on what, exactly? Just the OS itself? I fail to see how that should limit what applications go into the OS. Microsoft is a monopoly, so they shouldn't be allowed to bundle notepad or solitaire, right? See, that doesn't make any sense.
And neither does this situation. What's the difference between Windows + Media Player (what we have now) and Windows + iTunes (which is what this bundle will create)? You're just substituting one media player for another. The net effect is the same: whichever one is bundled with Windows will end up dominating. If Microsoft isn't allowed to use its OS monopoly, then Apple shouldn't either.
Well really, what _is_ the difference? The argument seems to be "well if Microsoft bundles [software], whenever people think of [computing task], they will think [software] is the only way to do it because people are too lazy to download software if it's already bundled." See, for example, IE.
It looks like the same basic thing is happening, but with iTunes instead. To however many millions of Chinese people who buy these computers, iTunes will become synonymous with "buying|playing digital music". And, since the number one online music store software will be pre-installed on their computers, they won't bother seeking alternatives, effectively allowing iTunes to monopolize (if you will) the online music market in China (at least). So... I'm not really sure why all the anti-monopoly folks on Slashdot aren't bitching and complaining about this move. Well, if Slashdot wasn't a highly hypocritical community, that is...
Kind of ironic coming from someone who isn't providing any support for what they're saying...
Well, except for the fact that configuring your own Linux router is a pain in the ass if you don't know exactly what you're doing. Plus, it'll probably come out being more expensive than your average consumer router since you have to buy multi port NICs and a wireless card.
Personally, I think the Linksys WRT54G is the best value. It's cheap ($100) and it runs Linux on it AND you can get a shell on the box and install whatever software you want.
The possibility that what you're looking for isn't packaged.
... you have to know the name of the software first.
I can release a source tarball for a Win32 app too. Whose fault would this be exactly?
What? I was simply saying that it's stupid to assume that any piece of software you're looking for is packaged using the particular package format your distro uses.
And unless I'm mistaken, in most cases it's the responsibility of someone involved with the distro that does the packaging and includes it with the OS, not the person who originally wrote the software. That software isn't going to get on the APT repository by itself, you know. Someone involved with Debian has to put it there before your magical apt-get will install it.
That you know offhand what the package name is.
As opposed to Windows, where clairivoyance is built into the operating system...
I was saying that if you don't know the package name offhand, you're going to have to go searching for it, much like you would with Windows. This is the counter to fools who respond to everything with "apt-get <obscure package name>! It's so easy!"
Because hundreds of developers will never agree on the focus of one, focused project.
And yet, somehow it happens in the commercial software world: Windows and OS X, Microsoft Office, etc. Any way you slice it, in the free software world there's thousands of man hours spent doing the same things, over and over again, when that time would be better spent concentrating on making the "superior" piece of software even better.
That'd be pretty awesome. About as awesome as it would be if the entire wold all held hands, hugged, and promised to be nice to each to each other from now on.
Your sarcastic hand waving does nothing to back up your point. It is entirely possible to focus software development efforts into making "the best solution" instead of aimlessly pouring effort into "100 different, equally crappy solutions". You just want to shake your head and pretend like it can't happen, simply because it doesn't happen in the world of Linux and OSS.
No, I have heard of LSB. However, adoption of the standards is what matters, not sitting around talking about it. As it is, Linux is horribly, horribly fragmented due to the hundreds of available distros, only a few of which are compatible with the LSB. I find it very funny that you mention that the major distros are "trying" to adhere to the standards -- should they be able to definitively state that they DO adhere to the standards?
Dude, fragmentation is what happens in healthy, competitive markets.
No, in competitive markets there's different, competing products. The kind of fragmentation Linux has only works against it. How does anyone expect to focus their efforts when everyone's attention is split 1,000 different ways? Why should Linux compete with itself? Duh?
It might be a little inefficient to have competing standards.. but it leads to furthering the pace of development.
A little inefficient? May I nominate you for understatement of the year?
And riddle me this: how can the pace of development be furthered more with hundreds of similar, but different projects instead of one focused project?
And from what I've seen, the REASON that it's where it is today is BECAUSE, not DESPITE, of the fragmentation, and breadth and width of scope that Linux provides.
And just imagine where it would be today if everyone focused on creating one standard piece of software for everything they needed instead of creating 20 or 30 of everything, when 9 times out of 10 it's clear that there is only really one superior piece of software in the whole bunch.
but in today's market, they don't have the power to make demands like MS does.
And I'm sure that's how it was for Microsoft back in the early days. But like Microsoft, if RedHat were able to gain a strong footing in the market, they would be able to leverage their deals, much like how Microsoft has.
I use Debian. All my boxen and all my lusers use Debian. What isn't available for Debian?
Typical childish behavior. "I use Debian, therefore the whole world uses Debian!"
Improbable. When you want to make software available for windoblows, you make an EXE and an MSI and a DLL.
Well no, not really. You can release the software as is (ZIP of the contents), use InstallShield, MSI, etc. Any route you take, when you download the installer, it works.
When you want to make it available for Linux, you make a DEB and maybe an RPB.
Ah, but you're forgetting that there are RPMs for Redhat, SuSE, and Mandrake (and possibly others, I'm not sure), each of which may have issues that prevent the RPM from working across those three distros. Then there's Slackware TGZs, and other obscure package formats I'm sure I haven't even heard of yet. And you still haven't guaranteed that what you've packaged will work on any given Linux system.
Debian's repositories have over 89,000 packages available, including the one you want.
And yet, people make their own repositories, why?
If you don't get all the criteria right, well, it's back to compiling the software, or searching for the package you want (just like with Windows), huh? Personally, I prefer the Windows route.