Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Jan 2012 22:55 UTC
Google "The fragmentation of Android is very real and very problematic for end users, developers, mobile operators, device manufacturers, and Google. However fragmentation does not mean Android is going to 'die' or 'fail' as some seem to think. On the contrary I think we can count on Android playing a significant role in our world for a long, long time. I also am confident that Google has already lost control of Android and has zero chance of regaining control. This post explains why I'm so confident about this."
Thread beginning with comment 503709
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Divided We Fall
by sbergman27 on Tue 17th Jan 2012 05:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Divided We Fall"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Distrowatch is a geek site and is not indicative of general Linux usage.

True, but irrelevant to the current context.

There are only four basic distros (Debian, Red Hat, Slackware and Gentoo).

The real problem, as I described, is not so much the incompatibilities between contemporary versions of distros in any 6 month period. (Although that is still a very significant problem.) But the ongoing, pointless, reckless incompatibilities between Distro X Ver. A and Distro X Ver A+1. Every project involved thinks they are allotted a major incompatibility.

Linux is still a developers playground. Unsafe for the average desktop user. With a dedicated and savvy sysadmin, who's given a sufficient supply of anti-ulcer pills, it's great.

To the non-technical end user the Linux experience on any mainstream distro is virtually identical. KDE and Gnome offer a user experience similar to any other modern desktop OS.


Until they try to upgrade by themselves. Remember, they've gotten and applied a lot of advice about getting their systems to work right with the software they want. (Often not considered, or even ethically approved of by their distro's devs.) Pointing to various repositories, installing various codecs, and making various tweeks to work around problems.

And then... when they go to upgrade... boom!

If I organize a help desk for non-technical end users having these "virtually identical experiences" would you be willing to man the phones for free?

Thought not.

Edited 2012-01-17 05:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Divided We Fall
by unclefester on Tue 17th Jan 2012 06:49 in reply to "RE[5]: Divided We Fall"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13


Linux is still a developers playground. Unsafe for the average desktop user. With a dedicated and savvy sysadmin, who's given a sufficient supply of anti-ulcer pills, it's great.


You obviously have no real experience of Linux to make such absurd claims.

The average user can use any mainstream Linux distro without the slightest problem.


Until they try to upgrade by themselves. Remember, they've gotten and applied a lot of advice about getting their systems to work right with the software they want. (Often not considered, or even ethically approved of by their distro's devs.) Pointing to various repositories, installing various codecs, and making various tweeks to work around problems.

And then... when they go to upgrade... boom!


You are either a bullshit artist or a total moron. If a newbie sticks to Mint, Ubuntu or Mandriva their life is drama free. No sane person recommends Slackware, Suse or Fedora to a novice (however they are extremely easy to use once configured).

Ubuntu has a software store that is effortless to use. Alternatively you only need to tick Ubuntu Restricted Extras and all codecs, flash, MS fonts etc are automatically installed and configured.

Mint comes fully configured out of the box.

In comparison a clean Windows doesn't do anything useful unless you have no ambitions beyond using Notepad and Internet Explorer

Upgrades of any mainstream Linux distro go without a hitch. If you have a separate user partition you can even easily switch between distros and still retain all your personal files and settings.

The average user has no real need to ever upgrade their distro. If it ain't broke don't fix it. A Linux distro is perfectly usable long after the support period ends.

If they use Debian they can upgrade their system via rolling releases for as long as their hard drive works.

Most Windows users never upgrade their OS. Most of them wouldn't be able to do so anyway. I have met many long time Windows users who have absolutely no idea how to perform the most basic tasks such as a defrag or instal a programme.

If I organize a help desk for non-technical end users having these "virtually identical experiences" would you be willing to man the phones for free?

Thought not.


I would much rather support a variety of Linux distros than a a bunch of average windows users. For start I wouldn't be dealing with all the crapware found on the most Windows machines.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Divided We Fall
by sbergman27 on Tue 17th Jan 2012 07:11 in reply to "RE[6]: Divided We Fall"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

You obviously have no real experience of Linux to make such absurd claims.

Well, let's see. I've been a Unix admin since 1988. A Linux admin since ~1996. And currently admin ~100 desktop Linux users. Linux is the only OS I've used on my own desktop since 1997, aside from the occasional jaunt with Open Solaris or some *BSD variant.

Aside from your grandmother's and uncle's computers, what Linux desktops do you administer?

I have a wealth of experience which I'd love to share with you. The situations I deal with would likely crush your spirit. But I persevere, and have succeeded, on the balance, with Linux desktops, despite its intrinsic problems. And despite having been spat upon, regularly, by two bit Linux pollyannas who don't think I'm pure enough.

Go ahead. Give me your stats.

Edited 2012-01-17 07:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Divided We Fall
by frderi on Tue 17th Jan 2012 10:05 in reply to "RE[5]: Divided We Fall"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

The real problem, as I described, is not so much the incompatibilities between contemporary versions of distros in any 6 month period. (Although that is still a very significant problem.) But the ongoing, pointless, reckless incompatibilities between Distro X Ver. A and Distro X Ver A+1. Every project involved thinks they are allotted a major incompatibility.


I've noticed this as well. 10 years ago, in most cases, we used to be able to just pick a distro of choice and install third party applications without too many issues. These days you need to do your homework and match the distro and version to where the application has been developed and tested on or you're certain to bump into library incompatibities which make you end up wasting a lot of time trying to fix. SDK stability seems to be something completely alien to the Linux developer crowd.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Divided We Fall
by r_a_trip on Tue 17th Jan 2012 10:46 in reply to "RE[5]: Divided We Fall"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

But the ongoing, pointless, reckless incompatibilities between Distro X Ver. A and Distro X Ver A+1.

Until they try to upgrade by themselves. Remember, they've gotten and applied a lot of advice about getting their systems to work right with the software they want. (Often not considered, or even ethically approved of by their distro's devs.) Pointing to various repositories, installing various codecs, and making various tweeks to work around problems.

And then... when they go to upgrade... boom!


Why should a Linux distro do any better with version A to A+1 than, for example, a heavily augmented (read third party applications and tools) Windows XP to Windows Vista? Dist-upgrade is replacing an entire OS, not just a "simple" update of the existing one. Which non-tech oriented end user is able to replace any OS? For these circumsances, LTS versions were invented. 3 years of stability and no dist-upgrade head aches. This only poses a problem when someone has updateritis. (For non-Debian/Ubuntu/Mint/etc. distros, replace the terminology with the appropriate equivalent.)

I have three desktop users to keep happy and dist-upgrade is expressly forbidden. I handle the OS replacements, they can do the update manager within the same version. I'm guessing this scenario is the same for every non-techie, for most available OSes. They can click on the in-version update icon, but replacing the OS is simply out of their league.

Reply Parent Score: 5