| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Not saying it's right, but..Not saying it's right, but..Posted Dec 4, 2009 18:26 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Not saying it's right, but.. by alankila Parent article: Callaway: Chromium: Why it isn't in Fedora yet as a proper package
pick your poison
developers have the right to make things hard for the distros, but if they choose to do so they don't have the right to complain that the distros don't include their program and include a competing program instead.
(Log in to post comments)
Not saying it's right, but.. Posted Dec 7, 2009 3:58 UTC (Mon) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
Perhaps we just need different kind of distros.
Not saying it's right, but.. Posted Dec 7, 2009 4:16 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Are you volunteering? Talk is cheap.
Not saying it's right, but.. Posted Dec 7, 2009 14:56 UTC (Mon) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
My trollish response was just expressing a dissatisfication that there does not seem to be such a thing as a stable linux platform. Something that contains pile of software that tries not to change for a few years, and to which you can dump large code blobs like eclipse, or chromium, or whatever, without that distro's contributors going ballistic about how everything is not done according to their guidelines.
In short, I'd like to see a linux like windows: one which is as minimal as possible and where it is an endorsed practice to install 3rd party software, and such installed software exists, will work, and will continue to work for as long as humanly possible. If such a distro does decide to package proprietary software, it acts merely as glue and distributor channel, and doesn't spend years changing/breaking any of it, or removing useful blobs of functionality, or whatever.
Why do I think this way? Because I believe the open source community is not able to write drivers for all the new hardware, is not able to write decoders for all interesting codecs out there, is not able to keep things working even if someone does write such software. Proprietary code tends to bitrot at an alarming rate, and open source code bitrots and gets depreciated as well. I have had to throw out networking cards which no longer have working drivers, no matter they were once driven by open source code. Stability would be great. Rewriting the community to respect proprietary code, and the constraints such code is written in would be even better.
Not saying it's right, but.. Posted Dec 8, 2009 11:55 UTC (Tue) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]
Doesn't the "pick a version of RHEL and stick with it" model basically fit the "Something that contains pile of software that tries not to change for a few years"?
Not saying it's right, but.. Posted Dec 9, 2009 14:32 UTC (Wed) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
True, I suppose. Now if only such a thing also exposed a functional stable driver ABI for things like wlan cards and graphics drivers...
Not saying it's right, but.. Posted Dec 10, 2009 0:44 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
RHEL also has a "stable kernel ABI" essentially because it is the same base kernel with backported patches till the end of the release.
|
|
||||||||||||