Re: Debian as a social group and how to develop it better
On Sunday 2002 December 01 17:19, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> [I don't know why do you cross-post --- at least I read nothing about KDE]
I said something about using KDE control center for installation...?
>
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 12:27:40 -0800,
>
> Xavian-Anderson Macpherson <primarycausality@attbi.com> wrote:
> > My question is, why should I want
> > to use Debian, if I am clearly being told by Debian the system is so hard
> > to install.
>
> Because you have to install only once per machine?
That's fine if you can install it. You missed my point. I said new
users..!!! That's kind of like saying you have the best car in the world,
after the new user has to "wire it"!! Granted, it's not as bad as FreeBSD!
But then I also said FreeBSD is easy to install. You just have to go back
and declare paths (with FreeBSD) for alot of your software, hence my comment
about wiring. I mean if we use my car analogy, if you want to make kit cars,
call them kits. I mean hobbyists love kits. And no, linux does not have to
be a kit to allow each user to do exactly what they want to when they want
to.
>
> > The one thing that MUST be agreed to by EVERY
> > distribution of linux, is that ALL package names and locations MUST
> > remain as
> > ORIGINALLY INTENDED by the package maintainers, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
>
> * We have to play the package-naming game if the upstream doesn't know
> about SONAME.
I just tried to find SONAME using man. How can I find out what this is? Will
the LSB eliminate this? What about the new UnitedLinux distribution.
> * If some other distribution uses, say, glibc 2.2 and Debian uses 2.1[1],
> then using the same package name doesn't work.
You are mixing apples and oranges. Why are or would you be using the same
name for packages that do not use the same dependencies. Again you missed my
point. If you are using the packages as they come from the supplier,
everyone would have the same packages with the same dependencies. Here again
is my carkit analogy. If you built the car to use stock parts as supplied by
each part manufacturer, none of this would happen. Alter the car, not the
parts. Most of the trouble with (software) security and updates exist
because everyone has thier own version of the same part. It's kind of like
redesigning the wheel for each company. You can have your own colors,
seatcovers etc. All of the parts that everyone else has in their car should
be the same. Bolts, nuts, wires, wipers, tires, fuses, bulbs etc should
always be the same. I realize that cars are not a perfect analogy, because
they are more individualized (to ego) than computers. But cars all steer in
the same way. The brakes all work the same way. I realize that what I am
about to say will upset alot of people. But I just want you to think what
would happen to the global economy if there were companies that specialized
in single or groups of parts. If there were a group of companies that made
only pistons, others making rods, and others making crankshatfs, etc; each
car manufacturer would only have to assemble those parts they wanted for
their cars. All of the engines could be different, while the parts within
them would be the same! You could have pistons of specific bore mounted on
rods of different length, or they could be matched sets from the parts
manufacturer. But the fact is, they could be interchanged more easily if it
was done from the designers. If car munfacturers used adapters to mount
alternators, starters, fuel and oil pumps, no one would ever have to worry
again about which model of car they had from what year of production. The
first thing that would happen is the reduction in costs across the board.
Maybe even fewer layoffs. Testing would be standardized by each part
manufacturer, who would declare what loads each part could withstand.. Cars
could still have different specifications, just their parts would be similar.
In fact you could have an even greater selection of vehicles, because the
costs would be distributed among more parties. More (smaller and innovative)
companies could produce even more (high quality) cars and parts, because they
would not have to worry about which company would supply or use them. They
coiuld concentrate on innovation rather than compatability. The cost of
maintainence would be sharply reduced, because none of the confusion that
exists now would. Have I said enough??
>
> [1] Yes, it is a history.
Reply to: