+1 great definition!
Originally Posted by asdx
Should be put in every dictionary on the planet.
Originally Posted by squirrl
I think these events hadn't nothing to do with price of Apple computers or Steam for Linux. Switching between Unix and Linux is easy for everyone who know now something about Unix Teminal, Kernel etc. Apple is the biggest competitor for Linux, because these two operating systems are very similar.
This is a simple example:
"A while ago you tried to get Linux to include something like Apple's Universal Binary in FatELF. Some reacted very negatively to it and it wasn't merged. Has that changed how you approach patches to Linux? Did it effect your recent proposal to Gnome for improved fullscreen support on X?
The thing about FatELF is that I was completely blindsided by the reaction I got to it. It's not a big change in the first place, and didn't disrupt existing systems at all, but added an interesting piece of functionality for almost zero cost. I was well-researched on the topic, built a lot of it upfront, and even had a whole proof-of-concept virtual machine ready to download. I didn't want to look like a n00b when I showed up to make my pitch, because it's the Linux kernel, and this is the Big League.
But man, I encountered some hostility. It was weird, it was like being in junior high school again and getting picked on by the cool kids in the lunch room.
Maybe I'm just sore about it; people can judge for themselves from the mailing list archives.
I have a whole list of things, like FatELF, that I'd like to build someday. Make the Linux system better in various ways. FatELF just seemed like a good place to start. But I walked away from that failure thinking, "why would I want to cooperate with these people?" I considered moving to Mac OS X full time. Eventually I calmed down and adjusted my list to prioritize things that didn't need patches to other projects.
Nobody loses time for it. If they felt they had the need to create something new, then obviously they must have had some important reasons why they did not want to co-operate with the competitors. Because co-operation is easier. But most often the views of different projects do not coincide. In the end the projects get more and more different, allowing for more freedom of choice. And, since it's open-source, both parties are free to look at what the others are doing. With forks it's even better, because the forking side saves even more time, as their foundation is already there, and they can be merged back upstream if needed.
Originally Posted by t.s.
All the different distributions are created either to fulfil some specific objective, or just for fun. In both cases the creators probably do not expect much public interest in their work. They just want to see the results of their work.
So Mr Know-it-alls, have you ever coded for an opensource project? Because if you did, you would know that so called fragmentation isn't a split of programming resources, for the sole reason that developers code for the project they like, and if only one remains, it is not guaranteed that they will work on it. But of course you know better so "fragmentation" is bad etc etc...
I'm sure he means well, and that it's nothing personal against free software- perhaps with the current state of affairs among Linux distributions, though. We shouldn't discount that Miguel laid the groundwork for many past successes that we take for granted. I hope he can find his way with his C# endeavors, and that he will meet our community again when things are a bit different. Linux isn't going away- let's just hope it isn't going rotten, either.
fragmentation would be bad if a lot of work didn't go back upstream, and having a choice wasn't a good thing.
does someone know what that means for Mono? As a cross-platform developer I hope that it doesn't influence Mono.
All hate against Microsoft aside: There is just no good/useable cross-platform language aside from C#/VB.NET.
You got that slow mess that is called Java with a lot of hipster talk about 'beans' and 'factories' but that stuff is just bloated and ugly. Also there is not one good IDE for it (well, to be fair, if you compare any IDE to VisualStudio, they just all hang behind in terms of functionality and how you work with it.)
And that's it.
And please don't come around and blurt 'but there is Vala'. Yes, Vala exists. And it's hard to work with it (nobody knows it, nobody uses it, documentation is wrong or not available and the GTK binding is just...well I had nightmares after I tried to write a small program with it)
Maybe, in a year or more you could use HTML5 for stuff like that but you still need something to bind to a database and I'm also not very fond of all this 'let's move everything into a browser'.
The only other solution would be to do it like Teamviewer does it: Bundle your program with WINE and I think we can all aggree that *that* would be the absolute worst case.
I really didn't liked MONO but Miguel is right. Linux is fragmented, but it's not a bad thing, at least i don't have to use buntu shit.
Fragmentation is FUD for choice
Originally Posted by staalmannen
Fragmentation is FUD from corporations whose marketing departments decide customers are better off with no choice.
In the FOSS world fragmentation is a marginal inconvenience for the opportunity to each one to carry his vision. Then there is natural selection and anyone can see which are the better distros to consider and there are plenty reviews to make up one's mind.
Don Quichotte de Icaza advising people to buy Macs and offering Macs even while he was 'working for Linux'... What a pompous narcissistic nerd.
I switched to Linux back in 2007, I never created a DE and I have almost zero developer skills but since 2008 I have always been advising people to have a Linux partition (and I installed light distros on low spec PCs) and to stay away from the over-priced closed Macs.
Totally agree with this. That's why I welcome Ubuntu's new display manager. More choice = better.
Originally Posted by asdx