Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Miguel de Icaza Leaves Linux For Apple OS X

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • arokh: "oh linux is a trainwreck" "oh linux is a piece of shit"


    what the fuck are you doing here then you piece of shit?

    partner up with that dirty mexican whore icaza and go fucking suck off jobs corpse.



    you people disgust me.


    linux is by far the most advanced and adaptable operating system I have used. It pains me to have to use windows just because of the lack of programs in linux

    I am fully aware that if developers bothered optimizing their programs for linux, the same they do for windows, linux would be light years ahead of win.


    The lack of software is the deal breaker and what is keeping linux down you dumb fucks. That and subpar support from vendors like intel etc


    You could have the most amazing desktop environment ever that would suck your dick and pat your back at the same time and it wouldn't mean shit since there's no decent video/sound editing software, image manipulation etc etc etc...

    and I suppose the frantic pace of development that makes linux so good is also a killer when it comes to third party programs.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
      I have done keeping ~ between Fedora and openSUSE and I can say that Fedora->openSUSE and openSUSE->Fedora works just fine, as well as maintaining ~ while going up in versions. Infact either of those -> Slackware works fine too although the transition back isn't so clean as you have to Chown everything when you want to use it with another Distro.
      But of course!
      When transitioning, I also tend to delete irrelevant config I never use.
      For example, I am moving the Xu 12.04 32bit to U 13.04 64bit system, so I keep only mozilla and clawsmail directories, since there is no other config worthy to keep. This is the salesman machine I am talking about and he is extremely happy with upgrade. It takes me 10 minutes and the system pulls down what it should automatically.

      Originally posted by nightmarex View Post
      I agree with most of what you said and I was just going to bash his dependency hell statement earlier. Dependency hell isn't what we have today, yes there are loads of dependencies but same for Windows apps.... now what dependency hell refers to (to those of us who suffered I still have nightmares about it) is wayyy back in the 90's you would want to set up an Apache server or something, so you make the server... well errors spit out depends on yadda yadda, download the tarball for that make and guess what... more dependencies, it took many hours of compiling just to get one God damn thing working it was insane. I remember RPM's being really rare but interesting and I couldn't wait for them to take over the Linux world, no more compiling for hours!!! Well little did I know .deb would take over and I would be back to compiling... not so painful these days I guess.
      Sure, I heard there was dependency resolver problems in the past with RPM, which were fixed. Right now, there is so many package management tools, each having own approach from none to full automatic GUI click-and-forget, that there is a lot to choose from! I mean, if one wants to fully control all dependencies - LFS or Slackware (without any tools), if not - huge pick of riped projects.

      Originally posted by arokh View Post
      It's becoming clear to me I'm discussing with a child. Come back once you've grown up, moved out from your nerdcave and had some real world experience with computers will you?

      The Linux desktop have always been and still is a trainwreck. Even the devs are realizing it and they are either abandoning ship or trying to fix things by creating more fragmentation as usual. Too bad UnitedLinux failed, they were on the right path until SCO went insane.
      Oh duck! The grow-up aka no-life aka your-mom argument! The sign of the 10 year old. Don`t tell me I`ve been arguing with a child! In that case, please excuse me for my excessive wordlist! I am sure you can install VirtualBox in your windows - there is a plenty of instructional videos at youtube, and then please start expirementing with Linux on practice! You will sure learn a lot! If not, please refrain from answering in this thread again, till you do, because no one sure wants to harm you, I will also refrain from answering you, since I have hurt your sensitive soul too much already GL!

      PS. Regarding UnitedLinux, since you mentioned it - it was pure attempt to standartise the userspace, so that proprietary applications can be deployed. That was its single and only goal. UnitedLinux had nothing to do with "unification" or "free software", because they already communicate very well without it.

      Comment


      • Well, this guy has actually done more harm than good to the linux desktop.
        ... glad he is actually gone.

        Comment


        • It's Been Interesting Reading

          The word "fragmentation" shouldn't be used unless you are going to define what fragmentation is. The classic definition for "fragmentation" is that different versions of the system are developed that are binary incompatible on the same type of hardware. According to this definition, Linux is not fragmented at all. Incidentally, package manager incompatibility is not the same thing as binary incompatibility. To take a case in point, you can download the same binary tarball for Firefox from the Mozilla site and run it on whatever distribution you wish as long as all of its dependencies are met (you may have some issues with the location of the Flash plugin or things like that).

          Of course, when Miguel de Icaza uses the word "fragmentation" he is apparently talking about something different, but I can't tell for certain exactly what.

          Incidentally, as I have always heard it, "dependency hell" primarily refers to the phenomenon of two different binary programs requiring different conflicting versions of the same library. In other words, it's pretty much exactly the same thing as "dll hell" in Windows, and methods for dealing with it can even be similar. I have seen both of these types of "library hell" in my time on computers, but not often in either case (both used to be more common than now).

          People seem to imagine, or to want to convince others, that binary program installation is somehow entirely different on Windows or Mac than it is on Linux. In reality they are much, much more similar than they are different.

          For the most part the difference is a difference between the software being open source and freely available, and closed source and paid for. In Linux, binaries for open source programs don't include all the dependencies because they are probably already available or easily installed from the distribution repositories. In Windows, only standard Windows dlls are expected to be in place, and libraries needed by a new closed source binary are included with it, and often installed in its directory to avoid conflicts (dll hell).

          What people don't seem to realize is that this difference has nothing to do with Windows or Linux. If you install a Gtk program in Windows and you don't install Gtk, then you'll find the program doesn't function. The pieces for these open source programs tend not to be spread out too much for Windows because none of them are generally expected to be there already. In Linux, if you install a completely proprietary, closed source program, you will find that it often includes all its own dependencies, just like it would in Windows.

          Also, there is package management. Microsoft thought that package management as found in Linux distributions was such a good idea that they created a package manager for Windows (although it seems quite inferior to the major Linux package managers with all the stuck software and bugs). Before that, all Windows software was installed using installation scripts, like those from Wyse or Installshield. Guess what; installation on Linux can also be done with installation scripts, and a number of proprietary applications use them (including a number of games). The only real difference here is that now, there is just one package manager for Windows (even though it stinks), and a fair amount of installation scripts still, while there are several different package managers for Linux, and installation scripts are not used as often.

          One thing I will say for Windows installation management is that the system does a fairly good job of tracking scripted installations and their uninstallation scipts and making the uninstallation option appear transparently in the same interface as actual MSI packages.

          People who are calling for unification of effort in Linux are apparently out of touch with reality. Open source software was created to allow users and developers (it's freedom for both, by the way, and perhaps particularly the freedom for users to become developers) the freedom to do what they wanted with the software and get what they needed out of it. The current success of Linux is based on this possibility. It would never have gotten anywhere near where it is without it, so it's really rather ridiculous to curse the thing that made Linux possible as what's holding it back. The duplication of effort, the freedom to start yet another text editor project (and believe me, there are a lot of them) is what made Linux possible and successful. You can't have it both ways.

          Apparently, there are those who think that the Windows interface (or at least those prior to 8) and the Mac interface are superior to what's available for Linux. I don't find that to be the case. Of course if I did, then there are still choices in Linux that do a fairly good job mimicking existing Windows or Mac interfaces, so I wouldn't be completely out of luck on Linux. For me, though, the interfaces I do use for Linux are infinitely superior to what's available for Windows (I can't fairly judge Mac, because I haven't really used a Mac since OS 9 or earlier). Part of the reason for this is because the features that I want are available. Part of it is that I can tailor the interface to suit the hardware. I can use Fluxbox or Openbox on old machines and have those machines perform reasonably well. I can put Xfce on newer hardware if I want (and it doesn't have to be all that new). I also have the option of KDE or GNOME if I want it, though I have never found these desktops particularly desirable (though some certainly have). Every attempt I've seen to duplicate the multiple workspace environment I use in Linux for Windows ends up being a pale shadow of the real thing, generally more annoying than helpful.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Detructor View Post
            does someone know what that means for Mono? As a cross-platform developer I hope that it doesn't influence Mono.
            It means this crap will die as it deserves. It's available since years on Linux and what mono fanboys have achieved are only few bloated, buggy and crappy apps. It's just ridiculous.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by stikonas View Post
              The desktop was not fragmented before he himself started the GNOME project as an alternative to KDE...
              luckily. KDE was buggier, more instable and memory leaking all over the place than windows ever was. it took a lot of years till kde become somewhat usable and it is still not in a good shape.

              i remember back on kde 2 and 3 when we called it the windows of the linux world. couldn't work an hour without seeing kde crashing again.


              edit: btw. when was the point in time when one of the biggest strenght of linux started to be called a weakness and got this totally wrong name "fragmentation"? was it at the same time when all people suddently forgot WHAT exactly was and is it what is holding linux back on conquering the masses?... no, it never was and neither is that what some are calling falsely "fragmentation".
              Last edited by a user; 03-06-2013, 05:45 PM.

              Comment


              • As I see, everyone commenting in this thread is (partially) right. All the principles on which Linux and various distros built are good. Freedom and choice is great! Having said that...

                #1 The growing apathy is not due to choices - but bad choices, half-implemented, half-baked.
                #1 The growing apathy is not ue to how everything is put together - but some insane defaults, incoherence integration.

                The situation is improving, but still not there. Please don't mind, I somewhat agree with Icaza on few points. Let's not treat this great effort Linux+GNU+other free byes as a cult, let's have some tool/appliance like approach.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                  It means this crap will die as it deserves. It's available since years on Linux and what mono fanboys have achieved are only few bloated, buggy and crappy apps. It's just ridiculous.
                  Oh, I see and you have so much knowledge because you are a software developer with years of experience? Yeah, didn't thought so, too.

                  And all those proofs you delivered, very nice. Meanwhile I'll start banshee and hear some music which means I literally can't hear you over the sound of how awesome mono is.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
                    Python

                    If you want better performance you can always write a module in with Cython, Boost.Python, etc.

                    Windows programs written in C# almost always rely on WPF / Windows Forms, so it's not really cross platform in the sense that Java is. You can't compile those programs with Mono.
                    WindowsForms was ported to mono so a windowsforms app runs on mono just fine.

                    Yes, python is a nice language but I've yet to find a good IDE for it.

                    Comment


                    • The Linux Desktop fails because there is no profitable service model for non-enterprise users.

                      Selling open-source software by itself is redundant, obviously. Profit can only be made on something that is scarce*. OSS is considered non-scarce. This is another topic for another thread, but it is thought that intellectual property, copyrights, and patents introduce artifical scarcity* by limiting distribution, modification and reproduction (which IMHO is inefficient and detrimental).

                      Red Hat's model thrives because they sell a service that satisfies an almost absolute need that the product naturally incurs on its users, and it incurs this not because Red Hat cripples the product, but because it is the natural consequence of using the product (or you could say the natural consequence of OSS).

                      I'm not familiar with that sector so I can't comment much further. What makes them successful? If Red Hat is preferred over other alternatives, then despite the limitations of OSS, it still has a net advantage over other products/services. What is this advantage? Has Red Hat has found a way to leverage the benefits of FOSS in its favor? I know they protect their clients against patent trolls. Feel free to chime in.

                      *Definitions, from Wiki:
                      Goods (and services) that are scarce are called economic goods (or simply goods if their scarcity is presumed). Other goods are called free goods if they are desired but in such abundance that they are not scarce, such as air and seawater.

                      Physical goods are likely to remain inherently scarce by definition. Also some non-physical goods are likely to remain scarce by design, examples include positional goods such as awards generated by honor systems, fame, and membership of elite social groups. These things are said to derive all or most of their value from their scarcity.
                      Artificial scarcity describes the scarcity of items even though the technology and production capacity exists to create an abundance.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
                        Python

                        If you want better performance you can always write a module in with Cython, Boost.Python, etc.

                        Windows programs written in C# almost always rely on WPF / Windows Forms, so it's not really cross platform in the sense that Java is. You can't compile those programs with Mono.
                        I'm glad you pointed that Python is more portable than C# but Boost.Python!? I mean: C++ is in real life as less portable as C# is, but by default C# offers more portable in the package: it can parse Xml, it can do reflection, web downloading or connect to a database. I mean basically what Python can do out of the box, isn't it so? Also, if you target Mono for Windows, and you make sure that you application really works on it, it will work with minimal changes most of the time to Linux. Pinta codebase shows this.

                        One last inaccuracy: Windows Forms works on Mono fairly well. I mean the basic controls, not the animations that have flickering. So if you make a WinForms app that connects to a database it may work from scratch. There is one application that proves this: http://www.plasticscm.com/

                        At last: Cython is portable that you don't need any platform dependent code? The tutorial asks to you to precompile your code upfront: http://docs.cython.org/src/userguide/tutorial.html The same is about Boost.Python, isn't it so? The Jars and MSIL assemblies don't require this either. If you need though a platform dependent code, for example to pick your lib.so from disk, this can be done by customizing a .xml that is read at runtime. This is done automatically by most libraries, so there is no issue in real life.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tweenk View Post
                          Python

                          If you want better performance you can always write a module in with Cython, Boost.Python, etc.

                          Windows programs written in C# almost always rely on WPF / Windows Forms, so it's not really cross platform in the sense that Java is. You can't compile those programs with Mono.
                          I just feel the need to point out here that saying that people using WPF makes C# not cross platform is like saying most people using C++ always rely upon Win32 so it's not really cross platform... All it means is Miguel and co really need to get their act together and write a mono implementation of WPF and you do have other things to write in including GTK# and Qyoto, as well as the upcoming Xwt and there at least was an implementation of WxWidgets, but just because something that is commonly used isn't cross platform doesn't make the language not cross platform.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Detructor View Post
                            Oh, I see and you have so much knowledge because you are a software developer with years of experience? Yeah, didn't thought so, too.

                            And all those proofs you delivered, very nice. Meanwhile I'll start banshee and hear some music which means I literally can't hear you over the sound of how awesome mono is.
                            Wow. Is banshee still the poster-app for C# in Linux. No wonder this bloated peice-of-shit-system will die... Anyway, everyone nowadays uses either iTunes or Spotify.

                            Comment


                            • Maybe Miguel have never been interested in technology...

                              Maybe he just wants to stay near and support the biggest IT-bully of the year in hope to be able to bullying someone himself.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Detructor View Post
                                Oh, I see and you have so much knowledge because you are a software developer with years of experience? Yeah, didn't thought so, too.

                                And all those proofs you delivered, very nice. Meanwhile I'll start banshee and hear some music which means I literally can't hear you over the sound of how awesome mono is.
                                Oh, and I don't have to be a developer to judge mono crap. It's enough to try mono applications. You hear sound in banshee till it crashes, because it's huge, bloated and unstable mess. The same about other mono shit that's available on Linux. There are dozens of Qt/C++, C, Python applications available on Linux while there are only few mono applications. What's worse, those few applications are utter crap. What proofs do you want to confirm there are just a few mono apps on Linux? Everything's ok with you? You'll also hear sound in any other application, so does it mean everything is awesome? What a dumb. Like I pointed in another thread mono is anti-Linux and it's m$ crap.
                                Last edited by Pawlerson; 03-07-2013, 02:24 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X