Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 04:38:27 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
But the hardest part is that these things are application specific and there is no standardization for locations where applications do things. In fact, distributions intentionally move those locations around in their packaging.
<snip>
Yeah, the whole idea seems like what a car company would have to do to come back after selling a model that gets a lot of publicity for crashing and burning. The earlier opinions weren't wrong, after all.
You have the wrong analogy. Linux today is in a state quite similar to the state of the automotive industry before Henry Ford. Every car was unique, parts didn't interchange, roads were a mess, and people as hobbyists/enthusiasts built their oen cars (not from kit parts like most of today's auto enthusiasts) from scratch. Or the days of airplanes prior to World War I. Things did crash and burn, and it was an enthusiast's world.
<snip> I'll have to disagree, Lamar. There *are* large distros: RH & its derivatives, SuSE, and Debian & its derivatives (i.e., Ubuntu), and though there are kit distros (fedora?), they're more like the Big Three automakers of the US, and I can't think of frequent crash&burn reports. Std. hardware, it all just works, usually. Now, there *are* more hardware problems than, say, the imitation o/s out of Redmond, but that's because all versions of *Nix use the hardware far more effectively than that does.
mark