You make the U.N. sound almost as bad as the UnitedLinux people. Wait a minute. U.N. could stand for UnitedLinux. I smell a conspiracy!
Re:software developers v users - the battle contin
on
United Linux is Here
·
· Score: 1
'[aside: Debian is one of the most popular distros --- does that mean that Debian is the de facto standard?]'
If most distributions do things a certain way then it becomes the standard way, whether Red Hat (or Debian) likes it or not. That's what de facto means. If Debian becomes significant enough, other distributions will have to drop gawk from the default install and feature a Reagan-era OS installer.
'You were saying that Debian was non-standard --- I don't think that what a particular version of a particular other distribution is doing counts as standard'
Put them all together, draw a circle around the common elements, and you have a de facto standard. I agree: I don't think what a particular version of a particular other distribution is doing counts as standard. That's why I (like most people) wrote my software with a goal of making it work on the majority of distributions, which should include Debian but didn't for some time because Debian differed from SuSE, Red Hat, Caldera, Turbolinux and Slackware in a great enough number of ways for it to be a major pain in the ass. To make my software Debian-friendly required more effort than making it run on all the other distros put together. That was a direct result of the little eccentricities which masqueraded as innovations in Debian.
'If you're so excited about this de facto standard of yours, what do you think of using file system labels in fstab, instead of devices?'
At least they were adding functionality. Taking away gawk from a GNU/Linux distribution is just silly. What does the G of gawk stand for?
'The majority of Red Hat systems that are running don't use that scheme, so are RedHat breaking the standard by introducing change, or are all historical RedHat installs now non-standard? How about Grub vs. Lilo? Do you want me to go on?'
Hey, this is Slashdot. Why not.:-) Seriously, though, you're right about the LABEL= thing. I don't like it at all. It was a major pain to code for and allow for. So was GRUB. However, Red Hat are large enough to influence or even determine the de facto standard on their own. If the Debian team want to innovate, they could try doing it in ways which don't break code which runs just fine on the other major distributions.
Group-think is not a good way to gain mainstream acceptance. Debian can secede from the Union for all I care, just so long as they understand that they are feeding their pride at the expense of cross-compatibility.
Re:software developers v users - the battle contin
on
United Linux is Here
·
· Score: 1
"So you're saying that Debian doesn't follow "standards" (presumably meaning "whatever RedHat decided to do this week"), and that you don't like moving targets?"
That's what 'de facto' means, or didn't you get the memo?;-) De facto standards come from the most popular Linux distributions.
"If you want to measure consitency of behaviour over time, I think you'll find that Debian would win hands down."
Consistently difficult to install. Consistently Balkanized. Great. No wonder Debian is so popular. It is the Archie Bunker of Linux distributions: you can always rely on it to behave predictably.
"As for the awk link, mawk has been providing such a link since Mar 1997, and gawk since before Dec 1995, so I don't know when you last looked, but perhaps you should look again."
Perhaps you should see the dozens of e-mails I received from Debian users reporting the "'which gawk' returned an error" message from my software. Perhaps you should tell those users that gawk was indeed there when each one specifically told me it wasn't. It wasn't there when I installed Debian in late 2001.
I notice you didn't bother tackling me on cramfs.
software developers v users - the battle continues
on
United Linux is Here
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If Linux standardizes, it will be easier for software developers like me to do their jobs. That means the software for Linux will be more plentiful and of better quality, which in turn will enhance the reputation of Linux in the outside world.
The trouble with de facto standards is that no-one can be held accountable for not adhering to them. Debian uses a non-standard cramfs initial ramdisk by default, it doesn't include a gawk-awk softlink (or didn't, the last time I checked), yet Debian is one of the top three Linux distributions. I would never rate it that highly but I'm only a software developer. The users are the ones who decide which distribution wins and which one loses, and thus which de facto standards should stay and which should go.
The fact is, software developers can code to anyset of standards, so long as it sits still long enough. Moving targets are very hard to hit. If the distros sit still, the software devlopers will have an easier time but the act of sitting still might cost the distributions some users.
If the distributions would get together and write an API to let software developers figure out more easily where everything is, rather than expect the developers to customize their apps every time to make allowances for all those eccentricities, it would be enough, IMO. If Debian, Red Hat and SuSE would sit down at a table and hammer out the format of/etc/my-b0rken-distro.conf, I would have far less trouble on my hands on a daily basis.
The trouble is, most users are not computer-literate enough to make a useful contribution, unless the software generates its own bug reports which make then be e-mailed to the author.
I get 15-20 e-mails a day related to my project but they're mostly half-assed bug reports, or just, "Mondo doesn't work. I be using Linux 7.1; please help!! Thank you!!! I wait you respond.." etc. I only get one patch per month or so.
I don't object to that: I knew the job was thankless when I took it. My point is, I have always encouraged users to participate but most of them don't. I suspect this is the case with most Open Source software projects, whether the authors call users to participate or not.
When I wrote my 2nd-year College paper on gun control, I was roasted for concluding that banning guns would only save 10-15 lives a year. I was nearly failed for it and the senior Law professor didn't speak to me for about a year. This all happened around the time of the Dunblane incident, when 17-18 children were killed by a man who never should have had a gun licence in the first place (what a shocker).
The Government banned handguns. Between 10 and 15 deaths a year were traced to legally owned handguns, prior to the ban. Chalk one up for the good guys? I don't think so.
If Members of Parliament are being conned by Brass Eye, may God have mercy on the future of democracy in Britain.
I have been in America for two years so I have missed most of this fuss over paedophilia in Britain. It seems to be a re-run of the gun control problem: the new Labour Government is determined to do whatever the people want, no matter how ridiculous it is.
I don't know what you Brits have done with my country while I've been away, but while I was there, Paedophilia was actually less of a problem than it is in here in America. Maybe Americans are a bit less - oh, how shall I put this - INSANE than the British are at the moment. I love my country but right now I'm not very proud of my countrymen.
Slashdot Mirror
...the Benton Fraser Paradox, or the Canadian tendency to pronounce 'about' as 'a boot'.
You make the U.N. sound almost as bad as the UnitedLinux people. Wait a minute. U.N. could stand for UnitedLinux. I smell a conspiracy!
If most distributions do things a certain way then it becomes the standard way, whether Red Hat (or Debian) likes it or not. That's what de facto means. If Debian becomes significant enough, other distributions will have to drop gawk from the default install and feature a Reagan-era OS installer.
'You were saying that Debian was non-standard --- I don't think that what a particular version of a particular other distribution is doing counts as standard'
Put them all together, draw a circle around the common elements, and you have a de facto standard. I agree: I don't think what a particular version of a particular other distribution is doing counts as standard. That's why I (like most people) wrote my software with a goal of making it work on the majority of distributions, which should include Debian but didn't for some time because Debian differed from SuSE, Red Hat, Caldera, Turbolinux and Slackware in a great enough number of ways for it to be a major pain in the ass. To make my software Debian-friendly required more effort than making it run on all the other distros put together. That was a direct result of the little eccentricities which masqueraded as innovations in Debian.
'If you're so excited about this de facto standard of yours, what do you think of using file system labels in fstab, instead of devices?'
At least they were adding functionality. Taking away gawk from a GNU/Linux distribution is just silly. What does the G of gawk stand for?
'The majority of Red Hat systems that are running don't use that scheme, so are RedHat breaking the standard by introducing change, or are all historical RedHat installs now non-standard? How about Grub vs. Lilo? Do you want me to go on?'
Hey, this is Slashdot. Why not. :-) Seriously, though, you're right about the LABEL= thing. I don't like it at all. It was a major pain to code for and allow for. So was GRUB. However, Red Hat are large enough to influence or even determine the de facto standard on their own. If the Debian team want to innovate, they could try doing it in ways which don't break code which runs just fine on the other major distributions.
Group-think is not a good way to gain mainstream acceptance. Debian can secede from the Union for all I care, just so long as they understand that they are feeding their pride at the expense of cross-compatibility.
That's what 'de facto' means, or didn't you get the memo? ;-) De facto standards come from the most popular Linux distributions.
"If you want to measure consitency of behaviour over time, I think you'll find that Debian would win hands down."
Consistently difficult to install. Consistently Balkanized. Great. No wonder Debian is so popular. It is the Archie Bunker of Linux distributions: you can always rely on it to behave predictably.
"As for the awk link, mawk has been providing such a link since Mar 1997, and gawk since before Dec 1995, so I don't know when you last looked, but perhaps you should look again."
Perhaps you should see the dozens of e-mails I received from Debian users reporting the "'which gawk' returned an error" message from my software. Perhaps you should tell those users that gawk was indeed there when each one specifically told me it wasn't. It wasn't there when I installed Debian in late 2001.
I notice you didn't bother tackling me on cramfs.
The trouble with de facto standards is that no-one can be held accountable for not adhering to them. Debian uses a non-standard cramfs initial ramdisk by default, it doesn't include a gawk-awk softlink (or didn't, the last time I checked), yet Debian is one of the top three Linux distributions. I would never rate it that highly but I'm only a software developer. The users are the ones who decide which distribution wins and which one loses, and thus which de facto standards should stay and which should go.
The fact is, software developers can code to anyset of standards, so long as it sits still long enough. Moving targets are very hard to hit. If the distros sit still, the software devlopers will have an easier time but the act of sitting still might cost the distributions some users.
If the distributions would get together and write an API to let software developers figure out more easily where everything is, rather than expect the developers to customize their apps every time to make allowances for all those eccentricities, it would be enough, IMO. If Debian, Red Hat and SuSE would sit down at a table and hammer out the format of /etc/my-b0rken-distro.conf, I would have far less trouble on my hands on a daily basis.
I get 15-20 e-mails a day related to my project but they're mostly half-assed bug reports, or just, "Mondo doesn't work. I be using Linux 7.1; please help!! Thank you!!! I wait you respond.." etc. I only get one patch per month or so.
I don't object to that: I knew the job was thankless when I took it. My point is, I have always encouraged users to participate but most of them don't. I suspect this is the case with most Open Source software projects, whether the authors call users to participate or not.
http://www.microwerks.net/~hugo/
When I wrote my 2nd-year College paper on gun control, I was roasted for concluding that banning guns would only save 10-15 lives a year. I was nearly failed for it and the senior Law professor didn't speak to me for about a year. This all happened around the time of the Dunblane incident, when 17-18 children were killed by a man who never should have had a gun licence in the first place (what a shocker). The Government banned handguns. Between 10 and 15 deaths a year were traced to legally owned handguns, prior to the ban. Chalk one up for the good guys? I don't think so. If Members of Parliament are being conned by Brass Eye, may God have mercy on the future of democracy in Britain. I have been in America for two years so I have missed most of this fuss over paedophilia in Britain. It seems to be a re-run of the gun control problem: the new Labour Government is determined to do whatever the people want, no matter how ridiculous it is. I don't know what you Brits have done with my country while I've been away, but while I was there, Paedophilia was actually less of a problem than it is in here in America. Maybe Americans are a bit less - oh, how shall I put this - INSANE than the British are at the moment. I love my country but right now I'm not very proud of my countrymen.