Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much? (Datamation) [LWN.net]

Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much? (Datamation)

Posted Jun 22, 2009 22:15 UTC (Mon) by kragil (guest, #34373)
In reply to: Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much? (Datamation) by Tara_Li
Parent article: Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much? (Datamation)

First and foremost it should work. Being easy to fix should only be a lower priority objective.
Picking strong standards and reference implementations (a parent distro) will make the likelihood of it working much greater.
Most people are not able to fix stuff.
It has to just work(tm).

(Log in to post comments)

We already have one such system

Posted Jun 23, 2009 0:35 UTC (Tue) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link]

First and foremost it should work. Being easy to fix should only be a lower priority objective.

If I want something which "mostly works" but is unfixable - I can use Windows. I like the fact that Linux is debuggable - if something breaks, I can fix it. Sadly recent trend is to go wrong direction: people are adding more and more "magic" and less and less accountability to the system. It becomes poor, hardly useable (because it breaks more often then Windows as was always the case - but now without debuggability and fixability) sort of the thing I already have.

This is the case where money talk: to make things usable on wide range of systems you need enormous Q&A department and access to lot's of quirky hardware and software. The things Microsoft has and Linux companies don't have because they don't have enough money.

Why Linux companies are trying to play the game they can't win is beyond me... Make the damn thing fixable first, then go for "magic"!

We already have one such system

Posted Jun 23, 2009 12:36 UTC (Tue) by tuna (guest, #44480) [Link]

What is this "magic" you are talking about? I have no idea what you mean.

We already have one such system

Posted Jun 23, 2009 15:52 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

Nothing really to add to this except to say that I couldn't agree more.

Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much? (Datamation)

Posted Jun 23, 2009 7:23 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

I couldn't disagree more.

Software that's unfixable is to be avoided at all costs, even if it seems to work. There are a couple of reasons why:
- if it's unfixable, it's not working in fact. It's secretly eating your personal picture collection, and you will only realize too late.
- it will fail on Thursdays and Saturdays on certain phases of the moon, precisely the day you will need it the most. The only solution will be reinstall.
- it will allow your neighbor's kid to crack into your computer and store in his porno and virus collection.
- it will be full of quirks that will force you to do the strangest things just to get stuff done.

Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much? (Datamation)

Posted Jun 23, 2009 8:00 UTC (Tue) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]

Where do I say it should be unfixable??

I said the priority should be the working part. It should also be fixable (which all FOSS is in the end) but that shouldn't be the priority.

Interesting that people would argue with the statement that "Software should work"

Maybe there are deeper issues at work here...

Does the Linux Desktop Innovate Too Much? (Datamation)

Posted Jun 23, 2009 13:24 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

>Where do I say it should be unfixable??

"Being easy to fix should only be a lower priority objective."

In my experience, "lower priority" means unimportant, and thus probably never addressed. It's a consequence of the limited availability of time and resources.

I was not arguing if software should work. Of course it should, otherwise what's the point of it? But, focusing on making things work at the expense of everything else has its perils. I merely tried to point that out.