Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Fri 20th Dec 2002 12:41 UTC
"The Open Source community's answer is to ignore Microsoft's incredible technological lead - because it is proprietary and not a standard - and instead focusses on their own cool thing and self-gratifying cool features, because they think they can do better (which is where the ignorance combined with ego comes in)." Join the discussion at Advogato.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
<quote>I used to make a living in writing this "module"s, so..
My point is that without the whole kernel src
and using only kernel headers, it is hard to
do a driver.</quote>
However, most major drivers including all the ones available from vendors come in rpm format so you don't have to have a C compiler or the frickin' source. Pre-compiled kernel mods that install into your /lib/modules and even update your modules.conf for goodness sake.
<quote>What about package with only src code ?</quote>
Like what? I use apt for rpm to get most everything I need in straight up rpm format. Smack that together with synaptic I end not having to compile and at the same time having a gui interface to software installation. The only limitation is the bandwidth and yes it takes a while to download lots of stuff.
Honestly, if it is only available in source code then it seriously beta anyway. Like I have said before, I wish developers would not make their source code available on a website but only by request or some hidden ftp site. Why?
So, trolls would have no source code available to complain about not being able to compile. If the program is in usable shape it is available in rpm format somewhere.
If you want to complain about format and stuff complain that it takes a system with apt on it to negotiate in any way the maze of dependencies. That arguement at least has teeth because the big boys like Redhat do not include the apt solution with the distro.
<quote>What if I choose mwm as my window manager ?
do I get icons/shortcuts with only mouse clicks ?</quote>
It all depends on whether or not the distro maker supports mwm. If I use Litestep on Windows some of the themes do not generate menus without manual intervention since I am in essence not using the Start menu hierachy. If you don't use the windows desktop it is not like you can expect MS to support your dippy *Step theme. Why should Redhat or Mandrake support mwm? If the distro comes with mwm then it should support the behavior, yes. Otherwise, your complaint does not apply.
This is why I like the fact that by default Redhat 8 comes with one gui-desktop installed and that is Gnome. You have to go out and conciously choose to install KDE or anything else. If you expect RH to support blackbox or something else forget it and that is good.
It is the classic two-face arguement. Half the people complain there are no standards and the distros ought to pick a desktop or interface and stick with it.
The other half of the trolls scream and holler that there is no clean support across every single possible dipstick tiny window manager known to man and there should be better inter-operability.