Posted Aug 21, 2011, 9:12 AM UTC
This:
The second is the lack of compatibility between the distributions, which greatly increases development time and testing. Before publishing a new version, I had to test the application on all major distributions (Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, OpenSuse, Mandriva, etc ...), in order to ensure that the application compiles on each of these distributions.
Threw me a bit -- I had no idea that developing a GUI app would require the author to test on all of the distros...it always seemed to me that the different distribution maintainers took the source code and built it themselves...sending bugs / bugfixes back to the developer. I can understand that it takes an effort to get any given application to run on different distros but it's a bit surprising that this would all fall back to the developer to maintain.
If it were me, I would focus on one or two distributions and let the others take/leave my app as they wished, but be open to various bugs / suggestions raised by those packaging my app for the other distros.
Does it not work this way? Anyone else have the same experience as Jean-Michel?
If it were me, I would focus on one or two distributions and let the others take/leave my app as they wished, but be open to various bugs / suggestions raised by those packaging my app for the other distros.
That might work if the app is popular and well-known, but suppose it's a new app or something that only benefits a small niche of users. Many distros have fewer package managers than they really need to start with, so they aren't going to be spending time on a package that only benefits a very small portion of the user group.
Personally, if something I program makes it beyond my personal computer, it's because I want other people to benefit from what I have. Abandoning a segment of users just doesn't sit well, even for the perfectly valid reason of not having the time and knowledge to do everything.
I agree with you in theory: the devs and package managers should stay in their own roles and areas of expertise. Other than applications with a significant userbase, though, I think it is an unrealistic expectation.
but suppose it's a new app or something that only benefits a small niche of users [...] they aren't going to be spending time on a package that only benefits a very small portion of the user group.
From my own experience as a distro dev, I can say that it needs to benefit just one user: the dev. If a dev is sufficiently motivated to package it (because it scratches in itch, looks like an interesting package), then he will do so.
Also, if just a few users want that package, and it is easy for the dev to package and maintain (because upstream uses sane programming and packaging practices), then he will likely do so.
But if the programmer does strange things (like using an outlandish build system, or duplicating external libs in the source code), then he makes the work of the packager more difficult, and it is less likely to be picked up by distros.
This is why I support developers releasing statically linked executables. We have plenty of disk space these days and devs should be willing to use it for maximum compatibility and ease of use.
Include all the usual source code for the neckbeards but just give us end users something simple, regardless of whether it includes some random libraries my computer might already have. I just don't care about that.
Shared libraries are about more than just disk space. For one, shared libraries only have to be loaded once across the whole system, no matter how many apps use them. Look at the number of libraries in a given GNOME or KDE app, it's huge. But the cost of all those libraries is amortized over every app that uses them, as there is only ever one copy in memory. If I've got, say, Firefox already running then opening an instance of Gedit will use hardly any memory because most likely all the libraries that Gedit links against are already in memory due to Firefox, and they can just be shared. This does not apply to statically linked binaries -- every library is private to the app and the app will consume significantly more memory as a result.
Another factor is security. If you have a bunch of statically linked binaries and suddenly a serious vulnerability is discovered in a common library, you are basically screwed. With shared libraries there's only one thing to replace, but with statically linked binaries you have to hunt down and replace every single last thing that might have used that library.
That's why he asks that the source is provided for neckbeards.
That's what I do at work for a small number of binaries that need to work across 8 versions of Red Hat, 4 Suse, plus Ubuntu and Debian in various states, and then both x86 and x86_64. It's pain in the rear to get EVERYTHING configured as a static library (and this isn't even gui software - it's for host management), but in the end it is worth the effort because they do work everytime (at least in the 9 years I've been at the helm).
I'm not sure how feasible it is to expect one guy doing this in his spare time for something that compiles against kde, though.
Agreed. I was recently put in charge of building all the "official" binaries for a big software project that's been around since the late 90's in various forms (parts of it open source, other parts closed-source and distributed in binary form only due to the sheer number of different companies/groups that have been involved in it, some of whom didn't want sources released openly but still wanted to contribute tools to the project).
We produce binary packages for Win32, Linux, Solaris/Opensolaris, and Irix (the latter two wherever possible; Irix, for obvious reasons, has been relegated to "legacy" support status and is our lowest priority now for binary builds, though I did make sure the latest release still builds on the things). I plan to add MacOS X to the list of platforms we provide binaries for (we're only not doing that for the current release because building universal binaries (PPC, x86, and x86_64) is a complete and utter pain in the arse :)), too.
In previous releases, the project distributed mostly dynamic builds where possible to reduce package size (and partially because the widely-spread-out team lacked the time/resources to put everything together for static builds), but on this release, only the tools that ship with the SDK binaries themselves are dynamic; the same tools released statically are built statically, and all the other standalones are static too, on all platforms.
I'm with you on this one -- I do not care one bit about the size of the distribution packages, or the ultimate size of the binaries themselves (really, they're still pretty small by today's standards anyway ;)), and shipping static libraries eliminates a whole stack of problems when trying to support as many current (and older) platforms as possible.
I know doing this introduces new potential problems (updates to underlying libraries means a new full release/update of everything, the added bulk still doesn't actually always guarantee functionality), but I think the downsides are outweighed by the upsides on this one.
[deleted]
Build it for Intel only. Snow Leopard was the last version that supported PPC code. If people with old computers complain, build a separate version.
I'm a big fan of the Nix package manager and NixOS distro because I believe it has a very nice solution to this problem (among others). It allows a packager to define exactly the versions (and compilation options) of the libraries and tools which are required to run a particular application without it interfering with anything else on the system. Where multiple applications can use the same dependencies they are shared between them. This avoids the problem of having large statically linked executables which (as other people have already pointed out) is also more difficult to manage to keep up to date.
A developer/packager only needs to pick out one known good set of dependencies and doesn't have to worry about all the variations possible. However, security updates and minor revisions can be applied to the whole system as necessary.
Nix packages can also be installed on any other distro (and also on Os X and Cygwin to some extent) without any interference with the base distro. They can be downloaded and installed with one click from a link on the build farm website. It's a little complicated to explain how it works because it is a very different approach, but it may help to mention that packages are not installed in the standard FHS paths, instead, a few extra paths are added to environment variables such as PATH and symlinks are used to determine which packages from the Nix system are current for a particular user, and also for the environment in which a particular application is run.
Conventional distros rely on users to report and perhaps fix integration problems which means many systems may be broken until a fix is released. It may also be difficult to revert to a working configuration. NixOS allows you to (almost) instantly revert to a previous configuration, you can even select it from the grub menu if for example there is a problem with a new kernel and you cannot boot. This allows you to experiment with unstable development software without the risk of damaging your system.
The approach taken by proprietary OSs is to have a "platform" with a particular base of libraries and tools etc. Linux is often criticized for not taking this approach. The distros with regular official releases try to approximate such a platform but this is a problem because there is so much variety between them. For this reason it is often suggested that we should just all pick one distro and the problem will go away. This is not such a good match for free software development in my opinion because a developer may be interested in using a more recent library which is not available on each distro. To compensate for this multiple libraries are sometimes included but in a way which is difficult to manage.
TL;DR: There is a technical solution to these problems. See http://nixos.org for a working example of one approach.
One problem of having multiple distros is distro-specific bugs. This is/was especially true in case of kde, which most distributions didn't or couldn't take care to package properly. There was a time when most bugs reported by kubuntu users were suspect because it was just as likely to be the result of poor packaging q&a as it was to be a real, valid bug. I don't remember if k9copy had its own bugtracker or used bugs.kde.org, but either way, eventually he'd have had to track down the bug on his own.
Imo, distro users should report their bugs to the distro. Then the distro devs will triage the bug and see if it comes from their handiwork or not. If not, the bug will be passed on to the individual program devs, perhaps with a possible fix.
The problem is when distros go beyond the basics, as seen when Debian actually managed to compromise the security of OpenSSH.
This would have been lovely, but often the Kubuntu packagers would ask users to pass the bug upstream instead of doing it themselves and vice-versa.
It's a *buntu specific problem - Debian devs pass bugs up and down the tree as required, and actually communicate.
I have been on the other end: I was a distro developer. What you say is exactly how it works.
If the application developer writes his software well, using best practices and accepted standards (freedesktop.org, LSB), then he shouldn't need to test on multiple distros. Leave distro-specific packaging and testing up to the distro devs. Just be open to suggestions from packagers.
I've never understood why it wasn't okay to simply say, "I only target X distros."
[deleted]
Thanks I'll check it out.
Not sure I agree with the Windows/Mac approach but I'll watch the video and get back to you.
Check this out... I decided the other day that it had been a while since I played with Debian so I decided to get some Live CDs and see what I had been missing out on.
AMD or Intel? OK, AMD.
32 bit or 64 bit? OK, 64 bit.
From there had choices between the stock Debian, and versions that were optimized for Gnome, KDE, lxde and xfce. Oh, and there's a rescue disc too.
I didn't look at the other archives besides what I wanted to run on my 64 bit AMD setup, but assuming the Intel installations are set up the same way, that's around 20 different OS variations (5 each for 32 bit and 64 bit AMD and Intel) and that's JUST for Debian(!)
So a developer has two options... test their software on a gazillion variations of Linux or be prepared for a lot of angry emails from people who are running an obscure setup and demand to be made happy.
AMD or Intel?
I don't think this choice exits when picking a Debian variant. They are compatible.
were optimized for ...
default to boot into ...
This is important for a LiveCD
So a developer has two options...
Make a clean source package, which will compile everywhere, or ...
Your point is not completely wrong. Bugs can be distribution- or platform-specific, especially in cases where stuff is expected to automagically work with stuff. For a solo developer this can be painful. But don't blame it on Debian. They are doing it right.
AMD or Intel is the first choice when selecting a download directory. I should say too... I'm not trying to BLAME anyone, I'm simply stating a fact... there's a bunch of choices within one distribution, choices which can create problems for a developer. Now you take that and multiply it by the number of distributions...
Well, it's no wonder the guy gave up.
AMD or Intel is the first choice when selecting a download directory.
No, it's not. The choice is between i386 or amd64. In other words, 32 bit or 64 bit. Intel or AMD doesn't enter into it. Both can be used on either, though 32bit CPU's can only run the i386 version.
Admittedly the Debian download pages could be a lot more friendly to inexperienced users, but then again Debian isn't a typical newbie distro.
AMD or Intel is the first choice
No, it's "32-bit PC" vs "64-bit PC" quoting from the main download page: http://www.debian.org/distrib/index.en.html
On the live CD page, "32-bit PC" is called i386, "64-bit PC" is amd64. i386 and amd64 are very common terms in the Linux and, especially, Debian community since they have been used forever.
All common AMD CPUs understand i386 (32-bit) invented by Intel. All modern Intel CPUs understand amd64 invented by AMD (64-bit).
There are actually more (niche) platforms supported by Debian, but they hide them to avoid confusion. There full list is here: http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.2.1/
or be prepared for a lot of angry emails from people who are running an obscure setup and demand to be made happy.
Perhaps this is too naive but my response to the users with pitchforks is for them to add a bug to the defect system, and either a) pitch in to fix the problem or b) STFU and be patient while waiting for the fix.
It's an old saw, but Using GNU/Linux is free as in "freedom" not necessarily free as in "free beer." Work has to go into projects and that does not happen by magic. The idea here is that people contribute when and as they can. Whiny/angry users demanding fixes do so rudely because (I believe) they are basically anonymous. They should, for the same reason, be easy to ignore.
If they don't grok the way GNU/Linux is supposed to work they can always go back to buying proprietary software. Then they'll have a big nasty corporation to bark at rather than someone contributing to the common good.
Also, users should try to avoid going straight to the program devs. They should report to the distro, and the distro devs should send it on to the program devs if it is found to be unrelated to any distro alterations.
Yeah, but they don't. Upstream Devs end up with the users complaining directly.
So a developer has two options... test their software on a gazillion variations of Linux or be prepared for a lot of angry emails from people who are running an obscure setup and demand to be made happy.
you realize that most of that job can be easily automated, right? virtualbox makes a joke of running any distro. it is extra work, yes, but for any project there is infrastructure. buying a 3k dollar dell or 2-4 low-end laptops can make the life of a developer VERY easy.
Debian. I'm just sayin'
AMD or Intel? OK, AMD.
32 bit or 64 bit? OK, 64 bit.
The choice for Live CDs is between 32-bit (i386) or 64-bit (amd64, though arguably this should be called x86_64 but that's a discussion for another day), but the processor manufacturer doesn't matter and in fact isn't a choice on the Live CD download page.
From there had choices between the stock Debian, and versions that were optimized for Gnome, KDE, lxde and xfce. Oh, and there's a rescue disc too.
As far as the Gnome/KDE/LXDE/XFCE/Standard/Rescue, these are not separate variations (and for your argument "rescue" doesn't really enter into things). The only difference between the discs is which desktop environment you get since space is an issue on a Live CD. A default Debian installation from typical install media installs Gnome 2 and you have to select something else after installation.
So a developer has two options... test their software on a gazillion variations of Linux or be prepared for a lot of angry emails from people who are running an obscure setup and demand to be made happy.
It's really not that complicated. It's not like Debian and Fedora distribute fundamentally different versions of glibc or gtk or anything. A small developer should not be targeting all distributions, anyway - just the most popular ones.
Stupid, ancient complaint. No, Gnome, XFCE and KDE won't merge, they have opposed philosophies. It's the same reason the distros don't all just declare Ubuntu the winner. If you want an OS that only offers Hobson's choice, get a Mac.
While it may be an ancient complaint, one does recognize that they could sit down and standardize what they can so that programs will be compatible across DE's.
one does recognize that they could sit down and standardize what they can
New standards aren't defined every month, so it's no wonder there isn't much activity.
from http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/
Standards
freedesktop.org is not a formal standards organization, though some see a need for one that covers some of the areas we are working on. For Linux operating system standards, look at the Linux Standard Base project. The X.Org Foundation and the IETF are other groups that do formal standards. The Free Standards Group is one group that publishes "de jure" standards for free software; freedesktop.org is loosely affiliated with the FSG.
Unlike a standards organization, freedesktop.org is a "collaboration zone" where ideas and code are tossed around, and de facto specifications are encouraged. The primary entry to these discussions is the xdg mailing list.
Also helpful reading with regards to community-wide specs:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/03/12/2329233/The-Full-Story-Behind-the-Canonical-vs-GNOME-Drama
They have done to an extent, they both use the same Desktop folder for example.
Yeah, I do agree in that respect. I am not very familiar with the different DE's, but to the OP, it seems that there are enough differences so that he feels that he has to test on all of them.
Microsoft, Gnome, Apple, and KDE could also sit down and standardize things. They don't, because of opposed philosophies and interests. I've always viewed these entities as being on this same level.
That very well may be the case. I imagine each DE would have its own view on things, and so it would be difficult to compromise.
They could and they've tried, but the problem is actually getting people to follow the standards. See: Gnome with the new Systray FreeDesktop standard, Debian/Ubuntu/derivatives with the Linux Standard Base (neither use the RPM package format).
The problem is that everyone is utterly convinced that they know best and everyone else should do it their way, or that because they're free to do whatever they like they should. Not everybody is prepared to go out of their way to use one of the standards because many people think their way is better, even though this close-minded attitude is harmful to end-users and developers alike. KDE is actually one of the most notable exceptions I've found, and I think Fedora conforms with the LSB as well (feel free to correct me on this one). Unfortunately, for a standard to be effective, everyone or at least almost everyone needs to conform, and at the moment, nobody deems it worthy to do (except, of course, the people that aren't in the position to make such decisions).
It pisses me off because sometimes, you just have to shut your mouth and do something you don't agree with for everyone else's sake. No, you're not the centre of the world, stop acting like it and do something for everyone else for a change.
It's the same reason the distros don't all just declare Ubuntu the winner.
cannot let the Ubuntards win.
I wish people would just stop with this distribution wars nonsense. It is the same damn software underneath, regardless if you're using Ubuntu, Gentoo or Arch. Generally various distributions differ only in three areas:
And that's it. It's the same system, just configured in a different way. So, please just stop with hate as you aren't really making any sense. I can easily morph my Ubuntu into Debian and my Debian into Ubuntu just by reconfiguring them; the more I use Linux the more I notice that distributions are largely irrelevant - they are just one, big wrapping of the whole thing.
While I don't necessarily like the way Ubuntu is configured by default I'm really happy that finally one Linux distribution is actually "winning" - this is the way to go guys. Ubuntu might not be everyone's favorite, but it's the only kid on the block that's actually getting some market penetration, and for that it should get unanimous support of the Linux community. You don't like it? So what? It's only a damn wrapping - the software is still the same underneath; you just need to make a few apt-get calls to reconfigure it how you want.
It is the same damn software underneath
You are absolutely right. I am in agreement. It's Layer 8 I have a problem with.
but it's the only kid on the block that's actually getting some market penetration
I am not trolling in this sentence, seriously, but nobody has been able to explain to me why Linux, and especially Ubuntu, market penetration is a good thing. The other thing people have not explained to me is what is the place of Ubuntu in the market. I mean other than me shaking my head at its users.
nobody has been able to explain to me why Linux, and especially Ubuntu, market penetration is a good thing.
That's easy.
Greater market penetration -> more users -> more companies care about Linux -> more drivers, more software, more commercial support.
Basically, most things people complain about today will get fixed with greater market penetration; that's why we all should be supporting Ubuntu, even if we don't use it ourselves.
The differences are philosophical. For example, Debian and Ubuntu both make a big effort to curate a repository of mutually-working versions of programs, but Debian makes them all align once in a blue moon, while Ubuntu tries to make them align every spring/fall. And Debian's repository is big, Ubuntu's is small and focused. Other distros, like the old Red hat for example, didn't bother with having a large repository, only bothering to curate their bundled installable packages. Still other distros are about compiling the source together on the local machine so everything interoperates and runs as fast as possible. And so forth, It's not what they provide, it's why and how.
Do I have to repeat myself? Again, it's the packaging + default settings. Sometimes they apply a patch or two, but you might as well do that yourself if you really want to.
Still other distros are about compiling the source together on the local machine so everything interoperates and runs as fast as possible.
You mean Gentoo? Been there done that. And you know what? It's mostly a waste of time. The only things that actually warrant this kind of treatment are specifically the CPU intensive/sensitive applications - mplayer, ffmpeg, x264, the kernel; doing this kind of tailoring to the whole system doesn't really speed up anything, unless you're aiming at minimizing disk usage and lower your RAM consumption by a little.
Again, it's the packaging. I might as well recompile half of my system on Ubuntu, and I'll achieve the same effect as on Gentoo.
I've used many distributions, and guess what - I've finally settled on Ubuntu. Not because it's easiest to use - I've switched to it because it's the most popular. It's funny how, regardless of whenever I was using Slackware, Mandriva, Gentoo, Linux from Scratch (yes, I was briefly using that too), Debian or Ubuntu I was using exactly the same system - sure, it started with different defaults, but after an hour of two of customizing I've always arrived at the exactly the same system - the only difference was how I was installing new software.
If you don't feel like customizing and you want to get default that you like - that's fine, but we really ought to "standardize" on one distribution (at least when it comes to desktops) to actually get anywhere as a community.
I don't see how any other Linux distro is so much better. Like it or not, Ubuntu has been a huge player in bringing Linux out of the dungeons and in to mainstream society.
how has it helped Linux? how has that helped mainstream society in educating itself?
PS: Debian is being used in "mainstream" for over ten years now.
If you don't believe me, I'm sorry.
The first is the war between the different desktop environments (kde, gnome, xfce), which benefits no one
Good thing he pointed that on the beginning so I could stop reading more of this bullshit. I've glanced over the rest and there was nothing better later...
Seriously, that war is the best thing in Linux culture. Every environment trying to be better than the another. Every tries to innovate. If I don't like the way one is moving I can switch to another, because most of them are really different now. If that's worse than having one explorer.exe or one finder, then I have no more questions.
And I can always run apps designed for one environment in another, there's nothing stopping me from doing it. Nowadays they even look blended, like Qt apps in Gnome/Xfce (not so good the other way, but it's no impossible either).
Yeah, I thought that was a bit odd too. I have no problem running KDE applications in Gnome. As long as the the right libraries are set as dependencies then it's not a problem.
[deleted]
At least in Linux you have the ability to run the same app in GNOME, KDE, and XFCE with no modification at all. Many distros even come with a Qt/Gtk theme that mimics its rival toolkit.
It's an awful lot better a situation than developing for Windows/Mac using native libraries and toolkits.
Exactly. Plus, when he was talking about porting to the other toolkit, there's really only two: GTK for GNOME, Xfce, and LXDE and Qt for KDE. It's not as bad as he made it out to be. Even if you don't want to port it, users can still use it if libraries are dependencies.
I love the fact that there are multiple desktop environments, but there really are interoperability issues. One that annoys me is a lack of drag-and-drop functionality between apps. Often I have dolphin and devede open and want to drag files across, then realise I can't and have to open Nautilus to do it (luckily I can usually just do "na<up-arrow>" from the dolphin terminal which gives me "nautilus .")
You can drag-drop files between apps if the apps support it. So, here, this would be a devede bug.
You're right, I can drag and drop fine from Dolphin to Nautilus (haven't tried before, I only use DnD in some specific cases). Guess I should see if the bug's filed.
Handbrake anyone?
Handbrake failed to rip many of my DVDs where k9copy worked perfectly... I'm not totally sure why. It's a bummer that k9 is being abandoned.
Did you have libdvdcss correctly configured, and VLC installed?
Yes on libdvdcss, probably not VLC though. Handbrake would spit out errors from libdvdread about being unable to read certain sectors, so yes, it was most likely a decryption problem. I never figured it out, but k9copy "just worked".
handbrake is a dvd ENCODER. it has never been a dvd ripper, and has even removed libdvdcss and only uses it if its been installed on the system or uses vlc if you have it. libdvdcss works fine for standard dvds but it chokes with all of the new dvds that are coming out that have nasty tricks like bad sectors that a dvd player is told to skip or 100000 titles , etc. I use dvdfab on windows to rip VIDEO_TS to my hard drive then encode the dvd from there using hand brake.
Thanks for the good explanation of what's going on. If Handbrake isn't a dvd ripper then there's a problem when everyone recommends it as such, though.
That's strange. Handbrake has never failed me even a single time.
I've def seen handbrake fail to decrypt several recent DVD's. It works a large percentage of the time though.
Huh, could the companies be targeting Handbrake somehow?
Yeah, or mplayer, or ffmpeg, or DVDrip...
Maybe I'm confused, but I could've sworn that handbrake does transcoding only and not ripping.
Yeah, actually, you're right. But nowadays I don't think many will want a 4.5 GB MPEG movie when they can have a ~700MB file with the same quality
I'm not sure if I'm strange, but I definitely wouldn't call 700mb even with MP4 codecs anywhere near 10mbit MPEG2.
[deleted]
Handbrake works on Windows, Mac and Linux.
Confusing it with something else, handbrake is available across a number of platforms.
It looks like this guy is expecting a "cathedral" environment and is unhappy with the "bazaar" environment that is OSS.
pretty much this... it sounds very much like this person wants a different windows environment. i don't want a windows environment at all... personally linux works great for me, but may just not be what this person was after.
What I don't understand: all those people that want a Gnome version of k9copy? Why not just say, "No"?
Have you ever had one of those moments where you see a great piece of software, only to see that it's dependent on KDE and you have GNOME, or GNOME and you have KDE, or either one and you're using something like dwm? It's frustrating.
As a KDE user, I find using Firefox, Pidgin, Gimp or Evolution isn't the testicle-squeezing experience everyone else is trying to convince me it is. The file-picker is a bit different, but that's it, and even then it's not awful enough to convince me that I NEED a Qt port of any of these applications.
The whole non-interoperable-thing is blown massively out of proportion, when it comes to user-facing experience. The issue comes when you're a developer and your system tray icon doesn't work properly in Gnome 3, or the notification doesn't display in a sensible fashion in Ubuntu because you've put a button on it, or you don't know which version of the libraries you should use to make your application work across distributions, or want to use the latest features of a certain library but can't because it won't be another 8 months before all the major distributions ship with that library version.
An end user running the Gimp in KDE, however, won't be pulling their nails out.
You are correct. It's not a pain to do it because of the great package managers Linux has. It only makes your system a bit bloated because you have a part of another DE on your system because it needs the libraries. With how cheap space is nowadays, that shouldn't be a complaint.
Linus has made the argument that the slow, fragmented development process that this guy bemoans is exactly Linux's strength. Obviously this guy doesn't like it, and that's fine. But the strength in this distributed, competitive process is exactly the same strength of free-market economies over centrally controlled ones, or evolved biological organisms over [no comparison here until we develop serious nanotech], or old cities over new subdivisions: The top-down command process assumes that there's one person at the top who's always right, and since that's false, good ideas will be discarded and you'll end up with something that's merely good enough. The slower process with duplicative effort results in everyone's ideas being put out there at the same time for everyone else to evaluate, and the good ones will stick because they actually work in the real world.
Really ? Last time I checked the kernel dev was centralised by one person. In theory you could git pull from someone else. In practice it makes it easier for everyone to get it from Linus.
It's centered around one person, which is good because that helps direct it. At the same time there are thousands of customized versions of Linux. Look at Ubuntu, which has its own customized version of Linux, which is derived from Debian, which has its own customized version of Linux, and so on. Every hardware manufacturer that ships Linux devices has their own Linux repos (Android, Samsung, IBM, Redhat, and on and on and on)
But still branched. He just announces that if they want their code into his tree by a certain date they need to notify him about what he should pull in. Those again have likely pulled from a tree of projects and individuals that develop at various paces.
Writing about it, i am reminded of the NASA control room videos where the manager would call out for go/no go from the various sub-system managers.
It's still decentralised because, while everyone tries to get into the official tree, there are several, "unofficial" Linux kernels too (see: Android, Gentoo kernel variants) that you could choose to contribute to instead.
I didn't get the sense that this guy ever fully committed to what Linux is, he was trying to replace Windows with it. But Linux is not a replacement for anything else, not on the desktop or anywhere. If an application runs on OS #1, run that OS, if on OS #2, run that one. These days, if I really need it, I run it in a VM, saves dual-booting, or rebooting at all.
I thought it odd that he felt responsible for his applications problems on different distributions, but there's little you can do about that beyond establishing communication with the maintainers and not getting stuck in the 'works for me' mindset.
Work environments are a different case, but 99% of my daily computing is on Linux and has been for years.
Personally, I haven't needed to use a Windows box for anything since November of 2001...
I could still talk about many things, including anger and aggression in some users who can not run the software or with whom he routinely plant for reasons I do not understand.
The Linux peanut gallery is pretty aggressive. They complain with such a passionate tenor that you'd forget most Linux projects are community driven efforts. What happened to being polite? What happened to assuming the best of others' comments?
What did you understand from "with whom he routinely plant for reasons I do not understand."? I'm at a loss.
He means it crashes. He's transliterating from french, in which "planter" is used in the context of software to mean something along the lines of "faceplant".
I would translate it with "freeze"
Freeze would be geler, quite literally.
Also "he" means the software (French il means both 'he' and 'it').
[deleted]
I have to agree with him that the DVD is obsolete. I haven't ripped a DVD in years. This is due to the availability of online streaming and the fact that most movies released in the last few years are not worth watching more than once if that.
I have to agree with him that the DVD is obsolete. I haven't ripped a DVD in years. This is due to the availability of online streaming …
Well, assuming that the DRM for your service is supported on Linux, you're then buying into the whole philosophy of "licensing" media, rather than owning the CD or DVD.
When you "buy" a movie from Amazon or song from iTunes you have limited rights to use it, and you have no assurance you'll still have the right to watch that movie or listen to that song (based on this purchase) in 10 years time.
When you buy a CD or a DVD you have some fair use rights (depending on your jurisdiction) to rip your own mp3 or mp4s, but also you retain some value under the Doctrine of First Sale. If you're short of cash you can sell your record collection.
IMO we're sleep-walking into allowing streaming rentals (all you can eat at Netflix) and the purchase of digital downloads to redefine our relationship with publishers.
I have CDs here that I bought now nearly 20 years ago, and which I still listen to occasionally. The music industry would love to charge me again and again for those albums. I have DVDs that are now 10 years old - the publishers would love to tell me that DVDs are dead and I should buy those movies again on blu-ray. Meanwhile I bought a secondhand paperback from Amazon this week for £2 - the book was printed 4 decades ago, and has been through numerous hands since then, and given pleasure to numerous people.
Linux users and Free Software advocates are more likely to recognise this - it's the wider public that are blind to how they're spending their money when they "buy" a song from iTunes. We're the last people that should be giving up media.
IMO we're sleep-walking into allowing streaming rentals
I don't think we're sleep-walking. Most people just want to watch movies whenever they feel like it. They saw movies in the theater and on TV. Then they rented movies. Then they got it from netflix. Now they stream and tivo movies. But they don't want to amass a collection. They really don't care about this issue. They're happy with the progress and availability of media.
The people who want to make a collection, who want to 'own' something in some respect, to have lasting license for the money they've shelled out, fully understand this and are unhappy.
So some folks are happy and some aren't. But nobody's sleepwalking.
Excellent points.
However, I think comparing CDs and DVDs isn't entirely valid. CDs are actually pretty good in terms of quality. Yes, there are those that favor vinyl, but as far as I can tell, it's going to be hard to improve upon CDs.
DVDs on the other hand are somewhat low resolution. The standard DVD picture is stored as a 720×480 image. This is stretched, usually width-wise to a display resolution that varies from DVD to DVD, movie to movie. So, there's lots of room to improve upon the DVD. The current darling, the blu-ray might be closer to what a CD represents in terms of quality. So, the switch from DVD to blu-ray is somewhat justified, especially since the blu-ray is not likely to be improved upon for a long time.
IMO we're sleep-walking into allowing streaming rentals and the purchase of digital downloads to redefine our relationship with publishers.
As you mention, linux/free software users are more likely to see this trap. All the more reason to hope that linux becomes a major OS player in the future...
CDs can be improved on, but it only matters to music that stresses high dynamic range (e.g., jazz and classical). That's why SACD and DVD Audio never caught on beyond lovers of those genres.
24-bit has more dynamic range, of course, by definition. But CD already offers pretty huge dynamic range (basically 96 dB) for delivery of the final product. How quiet is your listening environment and how powerful is your amplifier? 96 dB nearly covers the difference between the level of the quietest practical listening room and the level of hearing damage.
However, I think comparing CDs and DVDs isn't entirely valid. CDs are actually pretty good in terms of quality. Yes, there are those that favor vinyl, but as far as I can tell, it's going to be hard to improve upon CDs.
DVDs on the other hand are somewhat low resolution. The standard DVD picture is stored as a 720×480 image. This is stretched, usually width-wise to a display resolution that varies from DVD to DVD, movie to movie. So, there's lots of room to improve upon the DVD. The current darling, the blu-ray might be closer to what a CD represents in terms of quality. So, the switch from DVD to blu-ray is somewhat justified, especially since the blu-ray is not likely to be improved upon for a long time.
I'd debate that, really.
There has not been the take-up of blu-ray that there was of DVDs - sure, some early-adopters have got excited about the format, but the wider population haven't felt the need to switch format, not the way they did from DVD -> VHS.
DVDs are still plenty watchable. Sure, if you count the number of pixels then blu-rays are "better", but most people don't. The image quality above DVD is unlikely to affect most peoples' enjoyment of the movie.
This is illustrated by the price of movies - now it's settled down so that the blu-ray will only be about 25% or 30% more expensive than the DVD. People are not paying outrageous sums of money for that extra quality, DVDs are still selling. But it's not hard to find the figures showing uptake of the two formats - DVD's curve was much steeper.
If you're streaming or pirating a movie, then you're probably only getting about DVD quality. People are not using those sources any less.
There is a comparison with music sales, because many CDs these are have shitty mastering. I can hear the difference, and even on cheap speakers I can estimate the Replay Gain value of a song or album with some accuracy, just based on how "dull" and lacking the CD sounds.
There are higher quality alternatives to CDs, but SACD didn't take off. That is technically supposedly significantly higher quality, and you can buy downloads of that quality, but practically no-one does. Everyone listens to CDs ripped to MP3s on their iPods, because that's "good enough".
DVDs and CDs make a better comparison than contrast, IMO.
EDIT: and, in fact, this is all besides the point of fair-use and first-sale doctrine rights, which is the aspect of kabloink's comment I was responding to.
I think the reason why the DVD curve was steeper was because it was more affordable. I, for one, think these things should be getting cheaper, not more expensive.
I'd love to see the day when there's a (legal) website that basically sells media by the gigabyte at close to, or just above, the cost of hosting. You choose the technical specs for the encoding you want — resolution, encoding, etc — and you pay according to the size of the download. There was a Russian music website (I think it was mp3.ru) that did this right. A song would cost a couple of cents and you could buy all the songs you wanted and not have to spend a fortune to build a music library. Of course, the website was sued and eventually shut down by riaa-types. :(
Songs should cost a few cents, not a dollar. Movies should cost what songs cost now. Oh well, I can dream.
[deleted]
I have been ripping DVD's for years now but since the advent of HD, and witnessing the glory of 1080p, I am looking to get into ripping Blu Rays instead.
I'm in the same boat.
they have made it essentially impossible for me legally purchase a 1080p DRM free copy of any movie
Pretty much. Gimme a service that'll let me pick tech specs and just buy it at close to hosting rates, and I'll be happy.
Yes, there are those that favor vinyl, but as far as I can tell, it's going to be hard to improve upon CDs.
Vinyl has greater bandwidth, and therefore superior stereo imaging. With vinyl (on good-quality gear, of course) you can actually get your head right inside of the music, and be surrounded by it - but not anywhere near as much with CDs, because their imaging is too low-res. It's like the difference between modern graphics and 8-bit stuff, only the situation is reversed.
Edit: Downvoters are probably unaware that the greater bandwidth of vinyl is a long-established fact. Compare that 2.7MHz bandwidth with the paltry 22KHz bandwidth of CDs... see what I mean? More bandwidth = better imaging, period. Stereo imaging is all about tiny differences in wavefront-arrival timing, _not_ frequency response - so yes; microseconds *do* matter.
Yeah, but you need a $3000.00 turntable, a $300.00 cartridge and DECENT VINYL worth the effort...
MOST people don't have the vinyl to begin with...
Compare that 2.7MHz bandwidth with the paltry 22KHz bandwidth of CDs...
This is a bogus comparison. In order to achieve that 2.7 MHz, the TED video disc (that you linked to) rotates at 1500 rpm. Now, how fast does an LP rotate? Oh yes, 33 1/3 rpm! So this disk is spinning 45 times as fast as an LP.
So let's just look at this 2.7 MHz number again. Since an LP spins slower, we'll need to divide by 45. Now the 2.7 MHz is reduced to 60 kHz. But an LP is stereo, so we need to split that in half. Now it's 30 kHz. The wikipedia article you linked describes the 2.7 MHz as a sampling rate, so we should compare it to the sampling rate of a CD, which is 44.1 kHz.
Now that we've redone your comparison (whatever it is supposed to mean) with proper math, the LP gets 30 kHz and the CD gets 44.1 kHz. If this number matters, you should really avoid LPs because they are worse than CDs in this respect.
And you are probably unaware of the limitations of the human auditory sense?
One nitpick: Nowadays when you "buy" a song from iTunes music store, you actually buy it. i.e. you get an unencrypted, un DRMed aac file that you can play on any device and backup as you see fit. Amazon is the same way.
Your other points are still valid, for example, movies and tv shows from iTunes (and Amazon) are still DRMed.
One nitpick: Nowadays when you "buy" a song from iTunes music store, you actually buy it. i.e. you get an unencrypted, un DRMed aac file that you can play on any device and backup as you see fit. Amazon is the same way.
I'd love some cites on this. Just because you have an unencrypted, DRM-free AAC file, doesn't mean you have an unlimited license. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'd double- and triple-check if it were me.
If you have the original CD in your hand then you have a clear license to listen to the song. If Steve Jobs (or his successor) finds selling music no longer profitable, how to do you prove, when the RIAA come calling, that you bought the song from iTunes?
I didn't say you had an unlimited license. My point is that you have the same abilities to do what you want with your unDRMed AAC that you do when you have the CD. Sure you can do illegal things with it (same as CD), but no one's preventing you from doing legitimate things with it either.
Oh, and as for if Apple bows out of the music business, when the cops come knocking, do you have to prove you bought the CDs in your collection? I'd have to say that the burden of proof lies on the accuser, and metadata in the AAC files go a long way in your favor.
Also, for the citation you wanted to see: in the iTMS Terms of use check out section vi (iTunes Plus Products refer to AAC files sold without DRM)
(vi) iTunes Plus Products do not contain security technology that limits your usage of such products, and Usage Rules (ii) – (v) do not apply to iTunes Plus Products. You may copy, store, and burn iTunes Plus Products as reasonably necessary for personal, noncommercial use.
edit: Also, having the CD in your hand isn't the same as having a clear license to listen to the song. There's lots of things you can do to invalidate your license, that don't destroy the CD. Things like renting the CD, public performance, giving copies away on the internet. For some CDs Sony even went so far as to say if your CD is stolen or you move out of the country your license is void. I don't know if they still do this, but check out the EFF's summary of it
The issue I have is that these benefits aren't necessarily exclusive to DVDs. These benefits could be provided by content publishers via online multimedia files, too, similar to how the online music market looks now, but publishers simply don't want to.
Therefore, I feel like condemning purchasing films online is unfair: we should be condemning the services, that cause the real issue of restricting how you use your films. Film rentals have always been an option in the past, and they're now the only real option for online films, but actual sales should be an option for online interaction too, and when a service arrives that provides films DRM-free with a one-time purchase fee (which I don't doubt it will eventually), many of us will jump all over it like lunatics, willing to pay a little extra for the extra, priceless control we gain over the content.
Just to make a point, your rights have always been limited. This is called copyright. When you "own" a CD/DVD, what you actually own is the physical object, the medium which carries content. However, since you do not own the content, this is a bit like saying you own a car, but you are leasing the engine.
Now we are simply being leased an engine. To be fair, I don't think anything has really changed. The same thing -- copyright -- restricts your freedoms in both cases.
Your point about fair use copies, however, is completely valid.
[deleted]
Not only that but unless you're using anydvd in windows the protection is going to put a stop to your ripping ability. Unless you're ripping movies from 2005 you're mostly screwed.
I rip everything I buy. I only have issues with Disney DVDs. I have yet to experience a problem with anything else.
The third is that all my efforts to switch to Linux have been unsuccessful. Seven years later, I still have a dual boot Windows / Linux, and I am still forced to use Windows applications.
Funny I haven't dual-booted in ages -- I've been 100% Linux (aside from having to Wine certain apps related to things beyond my control -- such as receiving an audiobook as a gift that needed iTunes to download) at home for quite some time -- for years and it would be interesting to know what Windows apps he needs to use.
I do also think that this situation could change, however, and for this reason that I stop everything. I stop to get involved in a fight that is not mine but that of large corporations trying to take advantage of this operating system to reap healthy profits (when they arrive).
This isn't translated very well but reading the original doesn't give much more insight into what the author's trying to say. Apparently Linux is not a true Windows replacement because big companies are trying to exploit Linux for profit ... ???
I guess main point is to say "adieu" rather than to give a detailed, bullet-proof rationale for "why".
What I got from
a fight that is not mine but that of large corporations trying to take advantage of this operating system to reap healthy profits (when they arrive)
was that he decided to wait for Linux companies like Canonical and Red Hat to drive support for the platform.
I dual boot because there are no way I can use linux for audio production. I guess it's something specific like that.
OK, so I hear that, but then a simple google search gives all sorts of resources for audio production:
etc etc.
Now if you're professionally bound to certain software packages, I can certainly relate. I would judge that 85% of my own professional software career so far been about using or creating proprietary software. As I get older and explore the fruits of the free software movement I become more and more disappointed about the non-free-ness of my pro career.
But as a hobbyist or on a personal endeavor level, it seems that there really is a good selection of software out there, and seemingly for every interest under the sun. In differing levels of quality, I understand, granted. But if I were going to record music nowadays I would do my damnedest to use the tools above to get it done.
And there are proud Linuxers/OSSers out there who appear to have done so:
So I guess it's examples like this that continue to compel me to ask the question ...
The answer is that nothing on linux comes even remotely close to working with audio in windows or OSX. It is possible, but it isn't fun and the software can't be compared with the software on windows/OSX. This is true for hobbyists as well as professionals. I'd like it to be different but that isn't the case.
There are enthusiasts out there, and I applaud them and wish them good luck but there is not a good selection of audio software for linux. Sure, you can set up a simple audio recording studio in linux, but that's about it. There is no decent audio editor, no good support for plugins, no high quality plugins, no good sequencer, no good multitrack application and no good support for hardware.
The examples you have exists but they are one in a million(really, one in a million is not far fetched). Anyone working with digital audio would tell you the same thing.
Of course there is no way to prove this for me, the only thing I can say is that I started with linux and music about the same time, late 1990, and I've been dualbooting ever since, just because it isn't possible to use linux for this. I've been in lots of studios, a lot of my friends are into music, both hobbyists and professional and no one would ever consider linux, it wouldn't happen.
for years and it would be interesting to know what Windows apps he needs to use.
Maybe Photoshop and gaming.
I wouldn't say big companies exploit Linux for profit; but there is total ignorance of the desktop environment because it's a difficult market to penetrate and makes little money. That's why Redhat, Oracle, Cisco, and other vendors focus on using Linux for server or appliance offerings. I just see little to no interest in partaking or improving the state of desktop Linux, and I'm sure it's easy to cherry pick one or two vendors that try (Novell), but that doesn't seem to be working.
And Google basically said fuck it, and seem to be the only one trying to develop their own desktop ecosystem which for some reason is incredibly popular.
it would be interesting to know what Windows apps he needs to use.
You put emphasis on the word "need", but I don't think that's the right emphasis: Nobody needs Windows apps. In fact, nobody needs a computer at all. It's just that given certain activities, computers will make your life easier, and given certain activities, Windows app will make your life easier.
Well of course I meant needs in the sense of what the OP requires of an OS in order to do the things OP wants to do on a computer.
But you can also turn that argument around -- nobody needs to go GNU/Linux either. They can do what most people do and pay for/pirate proprietary software to do those things they want to do on a computer. Those who have switched to Linux (or are trying to) are doing so for a particular reason -- and I guess at the bottom of it OP here is saying there are aspects of the Windows world that are more compelling than the desire to use GNU/Linux.
I'm just curious as to what those aspects are...
I'm just curious as to what those aspects are...
I suspected as much, and if you're curious, I can tell you about the Windows apps that I enjoy using. I'm just advising you that by emphasizing "need", you may cause people to misinterpret your question.
In fact, nobody needs a computer at all.
You also don't need your bed. Kind of a moot argument.
I don't understand why you think the "argument" is moot. I guess, to start off with, what exactly is it that you think I'm arguing?
i hopeone takes up maintenance.
that's the essential program i use to cut out crap out of my purchased dvd's. unskippable sections on dvd are the work of the devil.
The work of corporations.
There still is dvd95.
How does this compare to k9copy? I have had very few issues with k9copy, but always on the lookout for better, especially if k9copy is kaput.
It's not kaput, exactly. More like it's reached EOL.
It does and will always work for dvds. It's just that unless some other dev picks it up, in the future, it won't gain blu ray support, for example, or other new features. Also, it's likely that fringe bugs might remain unfixed.
The DVD is obsolete
True.
The first is the war between the different desktop environments (kde, gnome, xfce), which benefits no one and merely slow the penetration of Linux.
He doesn't understand free software. People who work for free get to do whatever they want, and if they want to start their own desktop, they may do so. There's no boss or dictator or classy metrosexual snob who wants you to not watch porn telling them "THIS IS THE WAY TO DO THINGS". This gave rise to several desktop environments, which allows developers to write for whichever they want and users to use whichever they want.
I got hundreds of emails asking me: when will a version for Gnome?
Tell them the current version works fine in GNOME; redirect them to rage comic.
The second is the lack of compatibility between the distributions, which greatly increases development time and testing.
Didn't he find package maintainers for different distros?
The third is that all efforts to switch to Linux have been unsuccessful. Seven years later, I still have a dual boot Windows / Linux, and I am still forced to use Windows applications.
I still dual-boot to some old Windows if I want to play a new, high-budget videogame. For everything else (including indie games) I didn't find any problems switching to GNU/Linux. I'm sorry he couldn't adapt.
I stop to get involved in a fight that is not mine but that of large corporations trying to take advantage of this operating system to reap healthy profits (when they arrive).
Large corporations often lick Steve Jobs' asshole clean. The ones making a profit from Linux tend to be the smarter, smaller companies, and they are reaping the rewards right now. I know mine (my employer) is.
More importantly, this is not about some obnoxious businessmen's profits, for which I couldn't care less. I use GNU/Linux for my own personal benefit: higher quality operating system, better performance, software and support, package management, more customization, freedom, free of charge, and so on.
anger and aggression in some users who can not run the software
Grow up. There are assholes and idiots everywhere. Redirect them to rage comic. Assure them they'll get their money back.
IMO, the whole thing sounds like: Wah wah wah I want to live in the perfect world where every developer agrees, there's only one distro and one desktop and every user is smart, why can't there be a perfect world? Okay, since the world isn't perfect I'm going back to the shittiest operating system because ?.
He doesn't understand free software.
I came to say this but was going to quote this:
I've always managed to find the piece of code that I missed when I was stuck.I also liked the fact that some people spontaneously give me a hand, either to debug the application or for translations.
There is one thing in common between all desktop environments: the shell. Write a command line executable that does exactly what you want and let others write wrappers around it. In the case of k9copy, the author could have written command line and a KDE wrapper that calls the command line. Someone else could then write a Gnome wrapper, and xfce wrapper. Obviously this wouldn't work for every app, but it sounds likes this approach would work well for a DVD ripping utility.
Maybe as a solo developer he was pretty invested (personally) with the actual interface he'd developed so that wasn't an attractive approach to him? Actually I reckon his interface represented a very large part of his development work.
Oh, I agree. You have to start the app that way from the start.
I don't see the point. If the source code is available under an open source license and the community feels the need for it, it will be developed/maintained in the future. Otherwise, maybe it wasn't so important after all :)
It drives me crazy that people dismiss the (very real) dependency many users have on windows with personal anecdotes like "I haven't used windows since 1995!"
The fact of the matter is that there is a mess of incredibly powerful software out for which there are no analogous linux programs. Every user has different needs for their computer. So yes, while I'm sure there are plenty of people who can fulfill their requirements with GNU/linux alone, it is entirely unreasonable to expect everybody to be able to with the current state of the open source community.
EDIT: I defy the downvoters to find me a linux CAD program that comes anywhere near AutoCAD, or an audio program near ProTools (audacity is nice, but nowhere close), or a video editing program as powerful as Premiere (or Final Cut Pro, for a non-windows proprietary example).
I'm tired of old-schoolers looking down on people who utilize other operating systems as well. Who cares? It's ignorant to assert that FLOSS is greater than or equal to anything else on the market.
not downvoting, but brl-cad is a very good cad program in the time that I've used it. I've been able to do most of the things that solidworks does with some other programs to get the fea part done. Granted brl-cad is a completely different world than AutoCAD in that you are more "coding" the structure together as you work with complete solids instead of starting with lines.
I'm still sad that It's not quite as good, but it does get the job done. It would be very nice if there was a program similar to solidworks/AutoCAD for linux though.
In my experience -- maybe more limited than yours -- I've found brl-cad to be okay. I didn't find it to be anywhere near as powerful, but if I battled with it for an extended period of time I could make do without a totally similar functionality to AutoCAD. (Take this with a grain of salt.)
I'm still sad that It's not quite as good, but it does get the job done.
I'm not picking on you specifically, but this is the kind of mindset I have trouble understanding. I feel like there's such a stubborn mindset in our community that leads us to compromise based on pride alone. "You like program X? Well you should use Y instead, because it can do the same thing, only with twice the work."* What's so wrong with using the best tool for a job? Sometimes I feel like we'd rather use a lamp to hammer in a nail instead of going out and buying a hammer.
*Of course this is a generalization. There are many instances in which the FLOSS community has created a product that is far more useful than it's proprietary counterpart.
don't get me wrong, if I had a hammer I would use it. it's just that right now I can't get the $5000 hammer and the lamp works pretty good. I have no problem with people using different software and I honestly didn't really know that there were even alternatives that could hold a candle to the windows programs. When I did some searching into linux support for CAD programs I found that there was a little bit and that it seemed to be growing, but it's taking time. I really do think that in the future there will be support for linux on a larger scale (provided people are still using desktops and not something different by then) as several companies either had it for some of their products or were hinting at getting linux support.
Just to make myself clear I don't really get the people who will only use software that is completely open sourced because they think that it is better than anything else. There are many programs where the proprietary version is much better, I wouldn't even mind if AutoCAD/Solidworks kept their source closed but had support for linux.
One thing that I may stick to is using linux as an operating system. Apple is close to linux as it is still a *nix system, but I can't really take how locked down everything is. There is a line that I draw and apple is pushing it pretty far in my opinion. For people who don't want to worry about messing their system up or possibly breaking it, then apple may be a good option for them, but I just can't take it. Windows seems more kludgey/bloated since using linux that I'm just not a fan of using the os anymore. Linux does have issues especially when it comes to drivers, but I almost see it as a challenge, and the customization is unrivaled to the other os's.
I don't hate on any one system (ok maybe apple a bit, except their hardware) and I think choice is a very good thing. I may still end up getting AutoCAD/Solidworks down the road but I'm not positive.
I agree, and I didn't mean you specifically but rather that one line you brought up. I think I went off on too much of a tangent perhaps. The reason I brought this up was because people were scoffing at this developer's point that he is still dependent on Windows for many things. I was trying to point out that this is a reality for many users.
The problem is that you're still depending on a closed package to get your job done instead of helping the alternative along (by using and providing feedback). If anything ever happens to the commercial package you're in trouble. The best example of this is what happened to the Linux kernel with BitKeeper.
If all you want is free software (as in beer) then whatever, if you want Free software (as in Freedom) then it does matter and as the BitKeeper example shows the effects can be very real. What would have happened if Linus hadn't decided to be lazy and use a commercial tool? Judging by the speed at which Git was developed I'm guessing we'd have had a first class decentralized revision control system a whole lot sooner (or one of the already existing ones, like Monotone that Linus sorta liked would have gotten more attention instead), so in this way commercial packages still get in the way of the progress of the FLOSS ones.
I defy the downvoters to find me a linux ... audio program near ProTools (audacity is nice, but nowhere close)
ProTools is a DAW whereas audacity is a destructive audio editor. They're not really the same kind of thing. Ardour would be a more sensible comparison. I don't know Pro-Tools, but I understand Ardour to be at least in the same ball park. At least it's good enough that Harrison sells a well-reviewed commercial version of it for $219, which is comparable to Pro-Tools' pricing.
this pretty much sums up my sentiment. every industry that uses computers in a professional capacity have applications that have been very carefully tailored for and matured within a professional context, and it can be hard, if not impossible to find a drop in replacement.
an application like photoshop is a little older than the linux kernel (celebrating its 20th) while autocad is a little older than the gnu project (almost 10 years older than linux). each of these projects are far from trivial and have the maturity and long term reliability to be used daily by professionals.
to try and assert that the gnu/linux ecosystem is an entirely reliable replacement for a multiplicity of circumstances is really attempting to push crap up a hill.
you can strive to remove the tether to proprietary software, and in many circumstances you will be quite successful, but this will also come at an expense and you will probably become 'that' girl/guy in your firm/office/hut..
don't get me wrong, it's a worthwhile pursuit and i've been plenty productive since i first booted debian in '96, but oh-boy what crazy work-a-rounds!
Man, what an idiot will bring the isues that k9copy is not gnome application? It still runs fine under gnome right? So what is the point? It probably even looks nicely on modern qt libraries.
Linux is about a choice, also in terms of libraries and architecture of various subsystems, because it isn't really obvious which is the best, and if there really is something like "the best", and even if there is, it not nacassarly is easy to imlement without bugs and with all features, and hving more developers with diverging opinion on single project will only make things worse. Just let them write separate project, and choice the best final one. Simple.
Any way, i assume k9copy is open source, so at least someone will maintain it to make it compilable on future distros and fix some bugs eventually.
So, shut up, as Linux community is not really a guilty here.
The man is right, Linux is free and open but messy.
And the alternatives are proprietary and messy.
From a development point of view they are much less messy, at least in terms of ensuring compatibility.
... I never had to write an application that works for more than one distribution, but I write code that supposed to work on win xp sp0 -> 7 and I wrote code for win 95 and later.
In order to ensure compatibility in windows you have to write ugly mugly fugly code.
[deleted]
At least we can see the mess. Behind the doors of a closed operating system we have no idea what horrific mess could be there.
DLL Hell for Windows has never gone away. Go over your game directories sometime...
So we should all jump ship?
I wouldn't say that. It's not hopeless, but it certainly won't be fixed any time soon. Other people will continue to strive for improvements. But I really can't fault the guy for passing on the baton after 7 years of trying to keep up.
I think we're in the middle of a transition phase. We're moving to a new software stack and some time down the road a new graphics stack. This all comes in a time when consumers are waking up to the fact that computer != Windows.
Only if you want to.