Missed Opportunity Episode 297

[hellonorman]

In regards to the segment discussing Bryan from the Linux Action Show's linux sucks presentation. I found it unfortunate that Chess would spend so much time making arguments without listening to his points.

[Chess]

Fair enough, although I said I had not seen the presentation and so it seemed to me (perhaps incorrectly) we branched the discussion out to talk about "where Linux is going" in a general sense notwithstanding what Bryan said or didn't say. At least that's what was going through my mind. His presentation was just the catalyst for the larger discussion in other words.

Regardless, I do plan to watch it.

[eddie]

I think Brian at one time admitted to working for M$ either directly or indirectly. Correct me If I am wrong. It saddens me he wants a romper room os like back at M$. Having only one packaging system is anti freedom and anti opensource. Ironically M$ has many packaging systems and yet they survive. Most good software packages make the rounds to the different distros, so having standard packaging is not a big deal for me. Having a complex and powerful os means job opportunity for the people who can handle it. I also do agree with Chess that it should not be a we vs them thing. Linux zealots do not need to be so possesive. I did listen to the presentation and hope Brian finds his Utopia. Maybe he needs to rethink his closed source philosophy. Real computer geeks do not let a little package handling stop them. Tar.gz rules.

[MattKingUSA]

I think Brian at one time admitted to working for M$ either directly or indirectly. Correct me If I am wrong. It saddens me he wants a romper room os like back at M$. Having only one packaging system is anti freedom and anti opensource. Ironically M$ has many packaging systems and yet they survive. Most good software packages make the rounds to the different distros, so having standard packaging is not a big deal for me. Having a complex and powerful os means job opportunity for the people who can handle it. I also do agree with Chess that it should not be a we vs them thing. Linux zealots do not need to be so possesive. I did listen to the presentation and hope Brian finds his Utopia. Maybe he needs to rethink his closed source philosophy. Real computer geeks do not let a little package handling stop them. Tar.gz rules.

Agreed, tar.gz is the best package manager available. Although RPM makes it a lot easier on Mandriva! And urpmi/urpme are wicked cool tools too. But c'mon, tar.gz is clearly the winner. Oh, and .bin files always are wicked easy to install.

[eddie]

Traditionally, I have used Redhat based distros, but now I use mostly debian based distros now. Just a little tongue in cheek..... I sure would hate for someone to tell me which package and cooking utensils I had to use if I wanted to make macaroni and cheese from a box. Actually I like doing it from scratch except for the macaroni. I do not have a macaroni machine. I did just make some tunno alfredo con piselli complete from scratch including the cheese and noodles. (fettucine alfredo with peas but tuna instead of chicken) I can not wait to dig into it. Anyone who can get here in the next few minutes is more than welcome to share. People in the southeast like mustard based (apt-get based) barbeque. I have never had any, but would like to try it. Where I live we have tomato (rpm) based barbeque. We probaby will not change. So if you become a chef (programmer) you will have to be able to do both unless you do not want to venture out in the world. Just the way it is.....

[weex]

I came here to talk about this segment so I'm glad to see it here. Chess asked the big question which was more or less, "Is it the main goal of this community to get as many users as possible and to do anything possible to that end?"

I just wanted to muddy the waters a little bit with the idea that there are so many goals at work that there can never be just one. Ubuntu obviously has that goal and it may entice many projects to have that goal as well but insofar as this is all free software, each project can be forked if another goal is seen as more important by a particular developer or group of developers. There are many more forks ahead than behind us and this diversity is a great thing.

Another aspect of this question is a resistance to change. As we get older, and I'm starting to feel it too, learning new things feels less like play and more like work. So we want to minimize change. But that's a user-centered ideal. What really matters in terms of what exists in free software is what developers want to do. If developers don't mind the change or if developers are mostly young whippersnappers who should get off the rest of our lawns, then we're kind of screwed as users who want things to stay the same.

We all have to "earn our keep" and as we get older in the free software world(i.e. code less) our impact is minimized unless we provide leadership for those in the trenches. Thanks Chess for raising the big questions.