Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Apr 1996 20:40:24 +0200 (MET DST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Nape Pipes Feedback (going off topic) |
| |
[OFF TOPIC warning, skip it if no time]
On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> You are looking at this from the perspective of a software hacker > trying to maintain the purity of the system. An end-user doesn't care why > the package they just bought for too much money won't work at the same time > as the other package they just bought for even more money. They'll just give > up on Linux and go to some other OS which is willing to 'bloat up' in order > to please them. There are those who will say this is a 'good thing'. There > are others who might say it will be the death of Linux. I don't know. But > we should at least be aware of what we are doing. This is why if we make it > configurable we need to make it on a per-process basis. Otherwise, we make > the problem worse then it is now.
this looks like the beginning of a huge flamewar :) but lets flame away:
Linux got famous partly because of it's purity. So if it goes down for the same reason (which i doubt) ... no problem for me. Personally i'm making such "lets bloat this big bad thing because our costumer wants it" type of systems, and every other day i take a refreshing look at the newest patches, which try to do the Right Thing again and again ... kudos to Linus and all the others.
> As for no one sending 'put it back now' mails, this is as bogus as > polling the board of directors for Microsoft Inc. to determine the best > operating system in the world. The Linux kernel mailing list doesn't reach > all developers of Unix applications. At a minimum, if anyone is out there > with a program to encourage Unix developers to port their applications to > Linux, they should make a note of this difference. Despite Sun's work to > kill it, SunOS is still one of the most popular flavors of Unix in the world > and we should be trying to encourage developers for that system to port to > Linux. Not setting up hidden traps for the unwary...
i agree, this is a minor issue. But try asking the linux community to "change ext2fs to 8+3 naming conventions, it's a well accepted industry standard in a mainstream OS" ... :))
-- mingo
| |