Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page
| |||||||||||||
Distribution quotes of the week
If Ubuntu wants to hit the mass market, it needs to find ways to be better, not
ways to be the same, but cheaper. Personally, while I know that application
developers get grumpy about it, I think that the stable model with periodic
upgrades if desired is something most users would like better than what they
experience with other O/S's. It's still good to find ways to make the flow of
fixing actual bugs work better, but I don't think there's a huge market for
getting every single application update and working through new sets of
issues.
-- Scott Kitterman
So yeah, I do acknowledge that both modes of working make sense, I just
believe the default approach should be one where focus is on stabilizing
things, not on developing new stuff all the time.
-- Lennart Poettering (Thanks to Matthew Miller)(Log in to post comments)
Distribution quotes of the week Posted Sep 13, 2012 11:28 UTC (Thu) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link]
/me bites his tongue ;-)
Distribution quotes of the week Posted Sep 13, 2012 21:27 UTC (Thu) by maney (subscriber, #12630) [Link] Yeah, Corbet usually has a better ear for things than that - how could he have passed over Kitterman's best sound bite⸮The term DLL hell was invented for Windows. I don't think it's at all obvious that replicating the existing systems is a path to success.
Distribution quotes of the week Posted Sep 13, 2012 22:29 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I think he was responding to the LP quote.
It caused me to burst out laughing at the office.
Distribution quotes of the week Posted Sep 16, 2012 15:58 UTC (Sun) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
/me adds sarcasm mark to .XCompose. I should make a patch to get it into the default compose table…
Distribution quotes of the week Posted Sep 14, 2012 0:23 UTC (Fri) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] To be clear, I don't mean anything bad in pointing this out. I just want everyone to remember it. :)
Since one of those quotes is mine ... Posted Sep 14, 2012 3:34 UTC (Fri) by kitterma (subscriber, #4448) [Link]
I think this is an important question.
Is the problem that we aren't doing the current distribution model well enough or that the basic model is wrong and we need a different one where the space between upstream application releases and when they appear on a user's desktop is substantially shorter.
There are people that seem to be assuming that latter is true, but it's exactly that, an assumption and we should build on unique positive differentiators in Linux distributions rather than throw the model away in order to be more like our competition.
"developing new stuff all the time" is better for getting cool jobs Posted Sep 14, 2012 15:19 UTC (Fri) by walex (subscriber, #69836) [Link] As to stabilizing stuff, that goes against the grain, at commercial sw companies but also especially for free sw projects. The problem is that potential employers are especially impressed by the heroes who founded and started a project, not by the lowly drones who make it work and fix the bugs and write the docs and package it. Therefore there is a strong incentive to reinvent whatever can be reinvented, to start a project that bears your name, without contributing tedious legwork to stabilize other projects, something that does not impress employers (even if 90% of their employees are into maintenance). As a majestic example GKH and udev, where he managed to reinvent devfs only by creating something way more complicated and fragile, and by attacking devfs. But he succeeded, got to own an important project, and this launched him into a splendid career. Starting and owning a major project results often enough in a cool job at RedHat, Google, IBM, etc., (90%+ of Linux kernel commits are by people employed by major vendors who want to drive the action according to their agenda) so there is a really strong incentive against stability.
"developing new stuff all the time" is better for getting cool jobs Posted Sep 21, 2012 16:22 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
How exactly is udev more "fragile" than devfs? This seems to be yet another poor trolling attempt. Udev works fine and has been for years.
|
|||||||||||||