First of all, I'm not sure if I'm disappointed that no one really
seems to have caught the jokes, or maybe I'm just that big of a
nerd...
FWIW:
Caldera Linux = Distributed by Caldera, which later became SCO.
Caldera ISOs were still available on SCO's ftp servers WELL into their
anti-linux lawsuit spree.
butter zone = quote from the greatest computer movie ever: Hackers ;-)
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 19:15, Scott <scottro@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> It takes more time than Arch. What I like about Arch vs. FedorBu, to
> coin a phrase,
>
> Jeff never worked for them. :) (That's a joke, hopefully, you folks
> reailze I consider him a veritable Unixgod.)
> It is more configurable--fewer dependencies, indicating how many, in
> Fedora and Ubuntu, are unneeded.
I can't claim Fedora. When I left Red Hat we were only up to Red Hat
7.3 (didn't even have RHEL yet, kids). Man that was ages ago now :(
And really, beyond things like *coughGCC2.96cough* the old Red Hat
free distros weren't quite as onerous as the Fedora stuff seems to be
now. But back then, the prime difference was that Red Hat was still
very much community focused while still trying to figure out how to
make money in the Enterprise, where now, they are almost entirely
focused on the Enterprise and use Fedora as their petri dish (and seem
to consider the community in the same manner)...
> Minimalistic install. Fedora offers this, but still ties too many
> things to too many other things.
The one thing I really miss is the mimimal install... it was pretty
cool being able to install Red Hat in under 200MB...
> Less insistance on defaults. In Fedora and Ubuntu, usually, your
> network management tool is going to be GUI by default and starting up
> all cards, whether you want it or not. With Arch, by default, nothing
> starts. You have to enable, not disable.
Sadly, while we can shake our fists and lament the loss of the "good
ol days" while swearing at them darned kids and their newfangled
gooeys, this is where we are headed. The only real reason BSD isn't
here now is because the BSDs are a niche (just like Slackware, Gentoo,
LFS, etc). They have exceedingly small communites, and as a result
are fare more insular. BSD is kinda like the Amish of the *nix world.
They still do things like barn raisings and shun all those fancy
things everyone else uses these days.
Not to say there isn't some benefit there, but by comparison, the
major distros now have very large, global communities and thus as with
any large group, must cater to essentially the lowest common
denominator. Thus the drive to GUIfy everything to meet the
expectations of all the current/former Windows users. We can, of
course, say, "well, we just need to educate them winders people" but
the numbers grow too large to make that a possibility.
Plus you have the added effect of insular distro communities within
the greater Linux community. And that's completely natural too...
it's human nature to group with like people, and the Linux community
is really just a microcosm for humanity in general...
> Excellent documentation. Their wiki is one of the few good Linux docs
> around. Written by users, for users, who get feedback on the forums,
> and pay attention to it.
Won't argue there... Linux documentation is horribly poor, and still
maintains its "written by developers for developers" style, but
compared to what it was 10 years ago, the state of Linux documentation
for new users is almost to the point of picture books as opposed to
lofty tomes... Still a ways to go, but getting there.
> Developers in touch with users. You know how often I send Jeff
> complaints about Ubuntu that are completely ignored? Seriously, the
I never ignore your complaints... in fact, I have a special filter set
up just for you, Scott ;-)
> smaller user base makes the line between developer and user much less,
> so that it's easy to directly communicate with a particular developer.
> More mutual respect between developer and user than there is in Fedora
> and Ubuntu, where they often seem to be enemies.
Agreed, but refer to above regarding niches... Sadly though, the whole
enmity between developer and user is another facet of human nature,
and really still exists no matter where you are... Some communities do
a better job of it than others... Admittedly, I've been distanced from
the Red Hat/Fedora community for some time now, so I don't know what
the state of that really is, but in all my years of Linux experience,
I've never met a more responsive, supportive community than the Ubuntu
one. In fact, it's almost cultish, to a point, and I say that in the
best possible way. I'm amazed at how active the Ubuntu community is,
and to some degree the larger Debian community as well, in supporting
and promoting Ubuntu (did you know that Canonical employs a fair
number of debian maintainers and programmers?)
The problem with the small user base is that you can't grow. That too
has it's advantages and disadvantages... smaller things like the
BSDs and the smaller distros can do a better job of avoiding bloat,
addressing a higher percent of the user's needs/wants and so on... the
downside of that is that smaller things also don't make money, and
Novell, Red Hat and Canonical are businesses, and thus need to address
as many potential customers as possible.
And believe me, having now worked for two of the Big Three, there is
an INCREDIBLE balancing act involved in meeting the needs of paying
customers, selling products and services to new customers and still
maintaining a healthy relationship with their respective communities.
Sometimes we get it right: for all the complaints, 10.04 is regarded
as the best Ubuntu yet, and for all intents and purposes the first
desktop Linux that's really ready for mass consumption. Sometimes we
get it wrong: there WERE complaints and issues, and again, GCC 2.96 is
still my favorite Distro blunder, but only because I lived through
that one and had to fix FSM knows how many broken systems because of
it.
> This is *MY* taste of course. Many people want something they can pop
> in, install, and not have to worry about it. For me, I like the control
> over my system and the ability to leave things out without them breaking
> everything else.
Aye, but we're on the other side of the bell curve now, hence the
lower common denominator. Of the people at our technical level,
anyone who is going to switch to, or at least try Linux already has.
So new users need to be sought out, and those exist in great numbers
in the Windows world. Regardless of what happens to Microsoft (they
aren't going anywhere, by the way, not for a very long time) they HAVE
dictated what a desktop OS will be. Whether they did it in a good way
or not is immaterial. It's done, so now the only real course of
action is to draw those new users in by giving them something that's
as easy to use as what they have already, but far superior so they'll
have a reason to switch.
If I may use a car analogy (and I will, because I LOVE car analogies),
there was a time when the only transmission you could get was a
manual. There's a reason why they are still referred to as a
"standard" transmission. They were the standard. As time marched on
and more and more people took to driving, someone got the bright idea
to create an "automatic" transmission. With this new "thing", they
could market to far more people and say things like "Buy OUR car! You
don't have to mess with pedals and gear levers! It's easier!" and they
came. Now, the focus is starting to swing in the other direction.
People said "We like our automatic transmissions. But those people
with their manual transmissions have more power! More control!" and
someone came up with the idea of the automatic transmission you can
shift like a manual.
The point is, Linux is experiencing the big growth spurt now, and the
people who want to try it don't want to have to drive a manual, they
want to just shift into drive and go, because that's what they've
always known and that's what they expect the experience to be like.
Oh well, I'm done being philosophical for the night. The Glades is
coming on in a few...
Cheers,
Jeff
No comments:
Post a Comment