On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 09:47, Chris Higgins wrote: > > ... there is a much worse kind of arrogance in software design: the > > arrogant assumption that "my software is so damn cool, people are just > > going to have to warp their brains around it." This kind of chutzpah > > is pretty common in the free software world. Hey, Linux is free! If > > you're not smart enough to decipher it, you don't deserve to be using > > it!" > > One of the biggest problems hitting the Linux world is the failure > of people to understand the different approach taken by Unix systems > to solving problems. > > Mandrake Linux is what I use on my desktop, I put redhat or > debian on servers. I'm considering dropping Mandrake for my > desktop - and let me take a second to explain why. > > Unix style operating systems are based on a very different > OS architecture to Windows style systems. This is seen > clearly in the component model for applications. Loads > of little applications that do a specific job well. > Loads of lightweight processes that can communicate with > each other to deliver an overall solution. > > The 'power' of the Unix approach is that you are not > forced to take any single path to solve your problem, > you choose the path that means most to you - the one > that best fits your needs. > > The Windows approach is clearly different, it says > "there shall be only one way, and you will use it". > > The windows approach makes it easier for beginners > to get a handle on - simply because they have no > choice, and no-one else has any choice in how things > are done.. So beginners and experts alike have to > do things the same way. > > Unix is *different*, that doesn't mean that it must > be harder, but it's strengths are in being different. > > The recent push of Linux to the Desktop taken the > windows approach, and we're trying to build a > huge single monolith of an operating system without > all the flexibility of the back-end.. > > Gnome is a classic example , if you install gnome > then to hell with you if you don't want Nautilus. > Choice is being lost.. > > The arguments about Aurora / OSS / ALSA are the same, > people are trying to restrict choice. > > I can't stand Aurora (personally) but I can quite > happily accept that it is probably useful for some > people out there. > > I fully accept that the 'beginner' install needs to > make most of the choices for the end user, and that > the expert install needs to allow people to > thrash the hell out of their machine - but maybe > it's time for an 'intermediate' install. > > Linux has taken on the world because it offered > choices... Let's not kill Mandrake because we fail > to continue offering choices. > > Just my 0.02 Euro >
Sorry for quoting in full, but couldn't find anywhere to snip. I think you make useful points, but you're sounding the alarm too early. Go through your examples... GNOME, well, the GNOME team have taken a design decision that they consider Nautilus so central to the functioning of their desktop environment that it ought to be there. The line between essential core components and stuff that's optional and can be replaced with something else must be drawn somewhere; GNOME draw it behind Nautilus. Nautilus to GNOME developers isn't exactly a file manager, it's a core component of how GNOME deals with some things (file management, desktop). If you want to use GNOME, you're probably lumbered with installing it. But this doesn't exactly restrict choice; GNOME and KDE are your desktop / WM choices for "large, bells-and-whistles imbued, monolithic desktop environments". Don't like GNOME, because of Nautilus or for whatever other reason? You still have choice. Use KDE, or - which would probably be more suited to your adherence to the small, interchangeable, directed parts philosophy - a smaller WM like Enlightenment, FluxBox or whatever. OSS / Alsa - no. Mandrake provides a full set of *both* ALSA and OSS drivers; everyone has the choice to use either, and I believe someone's working on coding the option to switch into HardDrake. The arguments are merely over which type of driver should be selected by default by DrakX for which type of card. Aurora, well, this is admittedly a limited example of removing choice, but again there's a line to be drawn here. Mandrake *could* include every tool they've ever used for any distro-specific part of using Linux - both versions of rpmdrake, every configuration tool, every bootup idea, etc etc, and end up with a huge, unwieldy, hard to maintain "Mandrake" part of the distribution. This clearly isn't a good solution. So there has to be a line drawn beyond which old stuff is thrown out. You might not agree with where it's being drawn, which is fine, but this is different from your concept of Mandrake abandoning the (good) Linux design philosophy and going to the (bad) Windows one. Very good and interesting post, though. Oh, please fix your reply-to header; it should point at [EMAIL PROTECTED] when posting to this list, I nearly just posted this to you and thus broke the list's flow. (/me suddenly realises he's never checked he follows this rule, and madly hopes that he's practicing what he preaches...) -- adamw
