[CentOS] Thanks, good bye, and an observation from a newbie. (beaten like a dead horse)

[Bryan J. Smith]

Lamar Owen wrote:  
> No, Linux isn't for newbies, and ninety percent of the
> time it's not the distribution's fault.

Nor is Windows for that matter.

I've known people who have only used MacOS pull their hair
out when they first used Windows.  And more recently, I have
_also_ seen people who have only run Linux pull their hair
out when they've first used Windows.

The daughter of a friend in our LUG had only used Linux and
went off to college and her first experiences with Windows,
it's very to hear what is not "intuitive" on the "other flip
of the coin."

CASE-IN-POINT:  UNIX does not work like Windows, never will

Furthermore, one of these days people will recognize that an
Enteprise Linux distribution is a trailing edge,
stablity-focused, ISV certifying solution.

Much like trying to run Windows NT 4.0 or 2000 Server for any
Windows XP multimedia titles as a non-privileged user (let
alone on XP itself).  And for those of us around NT in the
early-to-mid '90s, _any_ Windows 95 application on Windows NT
3.51 or 4.0 (let alone most didn't even work when you were
logged in as "administrator").

I've also just learned to ignore the Fedora Core and/v. Red
Hat Enterprise Linux comments, as well as the retro-actively
rewritten history of how "wonderful" and "supported" Red Hat
Linux was prior (especially when peopel forget all the
complaints about GLibC 2.0 in RHL5.0, GCC 2.96 in RHL7, the
"Blue Curve" theme, etc..., etc..., etc...).

And let's remember to make things about "choice of
technologies," not "marketing" choice.  If I want "marketing"
choice, I'll run commercial software based on better
marketing.  I don't like seeing it in the Linux world,
because it drops into the "you must be stupid if you don't
like brand X, it does this better" attitudes let alone the
"brand Y doesn't do A" even when it's the same, damn thing,
right down to the version and project.

Let people be with what works for them.  But at the same
time, don't try to assert what something doesn't do.  That's
a major part of the problem.


Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have to understand anything about a package manager,
> then it isn't doing it's job - unless you mean building the
> packages.

Dependency checking, by its very nature, is "bothersome." 
And packages that rely on each other are also "bothersome."

If we want to solve these issues, we need to:  
- Package everything as executables
- Package everything required in those executables
- Not allow more than 1 version to co-exist

This is Windows.  And if you load all of Microsoft's products
that are equivalent to what comes in a 4GiB Linux distro, it
weighs well over 40+GiB, with dozens of redundant copies of
libraries and other issues -- let alone multiple versions
won't work.

And some of Microsoft's own products won't even work if
loaded on the same server -- let alone once you start talking
ISV products in addition.  Talking about inter-product
issues, these are things that make me "happy to be bothered"
by package management.  ;->


Craig White wrote:
> I don't think we need to endless wring our hands on this
> subject.

Mega-dittos there.



-- 
Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)