Éric,
Éric Bischoff wrote:
I - "Good" reasons
1) Suitability - Not all the Linux distributions follow the same purposes.
Some are for desktop users, some are for generic servers, some are for
specialized purposes like firewalls, application servers or clustering. Some
try to imitate Windows or Mac OS X, some try to get away from other OSes as
much as they can. A lot of changes are made to give personality to the
distributions.
That does not necessarily mean, that they need to patch or change
anything in the provided products, does it? At least OOo provides
extensive configurability to actually change everything, without needing
to alter a single line of code.
2) Coherence - A Linux distribution is a coherent set of software. Even if
documents like FHS and LSB state a lot of things, like the place where files
should go, there's room for a lot of variations. As long as the various
choices are coherent within the same distribution, that's okay. A lot of
changes here and there attempt to have all software follow common
conventions.
I think you hit the point here, IMHO Linux does not only need to be
coherent inside the distributions, but also _overall_ ...
3) Corrections - A lot of the work is made to fix problems in the packaged
software itself. Why are such changes not done upstream at the initial
software projects? They are done upstream too, but since it's a much slower
process than a quick fix in the distribution, upstream corrections are done
usually much after the distribution is in the retail stores.
This is understood, but is IMHO the wrong approach and really should be
the exception, I think at least we at OOo are very willing to support
the distributions to get their fixes merged in upstream.
II - "Bad" reasons
4) Not invented here - We all think that we have better ideas than our
neighbours, so we want them our way. Distribution makers just follow the same
behaviour because they have an ill ego just like every computer scientist.
Yeah, I know that feeling too ;-), but try to be steady ...
IMHO, "Coherence" and "Suitability" can be addressed independent of
patching / rebuilding / packaging software products.
Non-Coherence over distributions is one of the biggest obstacles ISVs,
and I count OOo or Mozilla as ISVs, face when supporting Linux. LSB is
actively trying to address this, unfortunately with varying success. I
did visit the last DAM (Desktop Architects Meeting) in Mainz (organized
by the OSDL), and we did talk a lot about this, so I am not yet sure,
that we have any real outcomes ... ;-)
In short: I suppose you bring a big problem to distributors by bringing
already packaged software.
I think I disagree again, as you said, distros may just install and
repackage OOo. IMHO, the most prominent reason for repackaging is to
change OOo to be a "bundled" product, while the packages we are
providing are "unbundled". The point being, that there IMHO is _no_ real
or good reason to have products (applications) to be "bundled", except
that this is what distros do.
Again, I am not working for a Linux distribution anymore, so that's mostly a
guess of mine. Perharps someone can tell whether that's correct or not in
his/her case.
Any distros listening?
I will cowardly let the Debian guys answer this ;-).
Yes, Debianists, please comment ...
Yup. In my honest opinion, if you really want to build packages, it should be
done the regular way, on top of a "make install".
That implicits, to be able to work as root on a dedicated machine, while
only wanting to develop OOo ...
if all products / software would
be provided as packages by their developers, there would be far less
incompatibilities between the distributions,
Well, there would be no distributions at all ;-)...
So, you are right, that is what I personally concluded several times,
when thinking about the subject. And yes, I know that this is a
sensitive topic to discuss ...
... and we would have the DLL conflicts nightmare in Linux too (see
"Coherence" paragraph) ;-).
So, we already have that par excellence ... :-(. Exactly this is the
reason, why we (being an ISV) have to bring all this 3rd party stuff by
our own, basically being a kind of a mini distro on Linux.
and one wouldn't need to
wait until a particular distribution would provide the latest package of
a particular product ...
That's the Windows way, not the Linux way.
Two points here,
- being different just to be different (without good technical reasons)
is IMHO stupid,
- this could very well be one of the most prominent reasons for Windows
success in both worlds, the open source world and the commercial world.
And I want Linux to be successful in both (or more) worlds as well.
Thanks for your explanations and comments, I am enjoying the discussions
... :-)
Kay
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
