Page 173 of 197 « First 163171172 173 174175183 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools
wmarone is offline wmarone
2011-03-09 , 21:47
Posts: 1,746 | Thanked: 2,100 times | Joined on Sep 2009
#1721
Originally Posted by zimon View Post
Distributions, like Debian and Ubuntu don't take it serious enough.
Fragmentation is only a problem in the binary, closed source world. Diverging source trees only result in more work for the one maintaining the divergent tree.

But the consequences can be catastrophic like that Nokia couldn't get Meego ready because its Meego people postponed develop rpm-support to UX and to Ovi and now even N950 won't be allowed to use word "Meego" because it is not Meego-compliant.
More like, Nokia decided to move on with Maemo 6 instead of migrating over the MeeGo, which they thought wouldn't be complete at the time. Silly, and poorly timed, but they were already in a bad spot and then Elop came along.

Eventually if Nokia goes to bankrupt, Linux fragmentation (and Debian) are one of the reasons.
No. This is complete and utter nonsense of the purest form.

Debian's stubbornness not to switch to LSB-standard rpm-package management, which is technically better (transactions) and practically more secure (embedded GPG), is embarrassing.
No, they've got their own way of doing things and it's not shown itself to be lacking. You may disagree, but then it comes down to you saying "they're doing it bad and wrong because I don't like it" and your technical arguments have to deal with Debian's success regardless of whatever flaws there may be in the packaging system, all of which could be fixed.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wmarone For This Useful Post:
Crashdamage is offline Crashdamage
2011-03-09 , 21:49
Posts: 670 | Thanked: 747 times | Joined on Aug 2009 @ Kansas City, Missouri, USA
#1722
Originally Posted by zimon View Post
Eventually if Nokia goes to bankrupt, Linux fragmentation (and Debian) are one of the reasons.

Debian's stubbornness not to switch to LSB-standard rpm-package management, which is technically better (transactions) and practically more secure (embedded GPG), is embarrassing.
Well, I've never been a Debian guy, but saying if Nokia goes bankrupt it's even partially Debian's fault is a real stretch.
__________________
Registered Linux user #266531.
 
zimon is offline zimon
2011-03-09 , 21:55
Posts: 1,341 | Thanked: 708 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#1723
Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
No, they've got their own way of doing things and it's not shown itself to be lacking. You may disagree, but then it comes down to you saying "they're doing it bad and wrong because I don't like it" and your technical arguments have to deal with Debian's success regardless of whatever flaws there may be in the packaging system, all of which could be fixed.
No. There is LSB-standard about packet management and undeniably having transaction support there is a benefit and practically is more secure having GPG signatures embedded and not detached; so Debian's legacy reasons are just irrational and childish.

It doesn't much matter to end user, so I just cannot get it why Debian won't follow the standard which would be better than its own.
 
wmarone is offline wmarone
2011-03-09 , 22:06
Posts: 1,746 | Thanked: 2,100 times | Joined on Sep 2009
#1724
Originally Posted by zimon View Post
No. There is LSB-standard about packet management and undeniably having transaction support there is a benefit and practically is more secure having GPG signatures embedded and not detached; so Debian's legacy reasons are just irrational and childish.
Really? Do you have examples of their irrational and childish reasons?

It doesn't much matter to end user, so I just cannot get it why Debian won't follow the standard which would be better than its own.
So you don't actually have any "reasons," just your personal perspective on what's better?
 
zimon is offline zimon
2011-03-09 , 22:12
Posts: 1,341 | Thanked: 708 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#1725
Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
Really? Do you have examples of their irrational and childish reasons?
So you don't actually have any "reasons," just your personal perspective on what's better?
I have had these conversations for about 10 years already on different forums, and I haven't heard any rational reason lately. In the old days sure, rpm had dependency problems when people were installing rpm packages cross the realeases and there wasn't rpmfusion, but those problems are long gone.

There is the standard. Not using the standard is causing problems, like with Nokia now. Technically and practically the standard is better. So, no, they should get to work and change it already. Of course it won't be easy, but staying out of standard is bad for everyone and for the whole Linux "ecosystem" (sorry vi_ :-)
 
wmarone is offline wmarone
2011-03-09 , 22:18
Posts: 1,746 | Thanked: 2,100 times | Joined on Sep 2009
#1726
Originally Posted by zimon View Post
Not using the standard is causing problems, like with Nokia now.
Perhaps I am simply confused, but Nokia's problem goes much deeper than the lack of a compatible packaging system. Packages built for openSuSE aren't guaranteed to work on Fedora or Mandriva.

Technically and practically the standard is better. So, no, they should get to work and change it already. Of course it won't be easy, but staying out of standard is bad for everyone and for the whole Linux "ecosystem" (sorry vi_ :-)
Then why are you picking a bone with Debian and the far more numerous other distributions that don't use RPM or DEB?

Remember, the LSB is not a hard standard in the Linux world. And Debian not using it (or even switching to it) would solve no extra problems in the grand scheme of things, as packaging is hardly a problem in the Linux world.
 
zimon is offline zimon
2011-03-09 , 22:28
Posts: 1,341 | Thanked: 708 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#1727
Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
Remember, the LSB is not a hard standard in the Linux world. And Debian not using it (or even switching to it) would solve no extra problems in the grand scheme of things, as packaging is hardly a problem in the Linux world.
The (deb-) change should start from the Debian or from Ubuntu. They should see the importance. And yes, it is a problem. All software could have *.spec file written for it already by the developer and use cryptographic safe packages from the start when they are just distributing test packages for their alpha-testers. It would be safer and chances to get Trojan horse to Linux ecosystem would be smaller. It would solve some of the problems and would be the good start to get more non-fragmented ecosystem for commercial companies making software for Linux.

Linux Foundation is right not to give permission to use "Meego"-name for N950 unless it uses rpm-package system. We do not want nor need more fragmentation in Linux ecosystem than there already is.
Last edited by zimon; 2011-03-09 at 22:30.
 
wmarone is offline wmarone
2011-03-09 , 22:39
Posts: 1,746 | Thanked: 2,100 times | Joined on Sep 2009
#1728
Originally Posted by zimon View Post
The (deb-) change should start from the Debian or from Ubuntu. They should see the importance. And yes, it is a problem.
But what about all those other horrible non-RPM distributions? What should they do?

It would solve some of the problems and would be the good start to get more non-fragmented ecosystem for commercial companies making software for Linux.
The "ecosystem" isn't fragmented as it is, unless you're talking about a lazy proprietary developer (the ones that whine loudest about the kernel's dynamic nature, for instance) that insists on everyone conforming to their desires.

About the only way to eliminate this "fragmentation" of which you speak (you may be confusing it for diversity) would be to forcibly shut down every distro outside the one you prefer, since even openSuSE and Fedora differ in ways such that packages don't migrate cleanly.

Yet despite Linux's dynamic nature, some companies, like Xilinx, still deliver their most powerful software in a manner that works on more Linux systems than just RHEL or SuSE Enterprise.

I suppose you are suggesting that this would allow developers to generate their own packages. There's nothing stopping them now, and they'd still have to generate multiple RPM packages, one for each distro in question.

Linux Foundation is right not to give permission to use "Meego"-name for N950 unless it doesn't use rpm-package system. We do not want or need more fragmentation in Linux ecosystem than there already is.
Yes, because the MeeGo standard explicitly states compliance to the LSB and the LSB specifies using RPM. That, however, is only a tiny issue with respect to why Maemo 6 does not qualify for the MeeGo name.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to wmarone For This Useful Post:
zimon is offline zimon
2011-03-09 , 22:53
Posts: 1,341 | Thanked: 708 times | Joined on Feb 2010
#1729
Originally Posted by wmarone View Post
Yes, because the MeeGo standard explicitly states compliance to the LSB and the LSB specifies using RPM. That, however, is only a tiny issue with respect to why Maemo 6 does not qualify for the MeeGo name.
I believe it is the biggest reason, from what I've read in meego.org
Do you have some other information?
Having rpm-support, N950 would be easily upgraded to newer version Meego-components and Meego-applications could be installed by an end user easily. Now practically as it seems to come with Maemo6, users should do a community based switch to real Meego in some point and it will cause problems and confusion.
 
pataphysician is offline pataphysician
2011-03-09 , 22:53
Posts: 142 | Thanked: 106 times | Joined on Jun 2008
#1730
Originally Posted by ndi View Post
http://netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9

A seer you ain't. Let's all hop to Linux, because - oh, wait, it's less relevant each month. In fact, save for iOS and a few unnamed stragglers, they all lost a few pounds, just a few, to let the iOS in.
Netmarketshare "statistics" are utterly useless, unless you want to count the percentage of OS used by idiot douchebags, which I guess alot of marketers would be fine with, as they are easier marks

Netmarketshare gives their clients a javascript and tracking cookie combination tracker, so their clients can track users across any netmarketshare using websites. Their data comes from these website clients, which means that a high percentage of the sites are probably crappy douchebags, who have no qualms about such things. Netmarketshare then has lots of marketing data to sell to other idiots.

Linux users are more likely than any other OS user to run Noscript, have javascript turned off in general, not allow non whitelisted cookies, use a hosts file to block useless bandwidth wasters like netmarketshare (their web analytic url hitslink.com is in my hosts file) or use privoxy. This means they won't show up in netmarketshare's "analysis". To add to that, are the larger number of linux user who change their useragent string, than other OS users.
Last edited by pataphysician; 2011-03-09 at 22:56.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pataphysician For This Useful Post:
Reply
Page 173 of 197 « First 163171172 173 174175183 Last »

Tags
bye-nokia, i don't even, just shoot him, just shoot me, let's elope, lockdown, meego?fail, negatron dan, nokia defiled, nokia suicide, sell tulips, step 8 out of 5, the-end?, www.elop.org

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:48.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top