On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
> > I do know that trying to work with two different distros at the same time
> > is enlightening. Linux needs some standardization badly.
>
> No, *you* need some standardization badly. If you want Linux to be the same
> on all your computers, then you should install the same distro of Linux on all
> your computers. :-)
Wow, I can't remember being called on the carpet better then this. (BTW: What
the hell does "called on the carpet" mean ?)
I agree with everything Mr. Scott says below. Every word. Yet I stand by what
I said. If you use foobar.d in /usr/bin/foorbar.d with a configuration in
/etc/foobar.conf then I don't want to to have to find foobar.config in
/usr.local. I totally agree that a distro can use foobaz in
/usr/local/foobaz and have it read its configuration from /etc/foobaz.conf but
please don't use foobaz and then put the configuration in /usr/local/fooconf.
Different is fine when the difference is meaningful. Deviation from a standard
is not different, its broken. I don't expect nuts of a certain thread pitch to
mate with bolts of a different thread pitch. I just want to be able to go to
the hardware store and find bolts and nuts that match.
If a given distro uses Aipinfo then Aipinfo.conf should be in the same place
for every distro. If you you use Bipinfo, then the same rules apply, for
Bipinfo, Aipinfo be damned. But if Redhat Aipinfo reads
/etc/usr/local/Aipinfo.conf and Debian read /usr/rc.d/Apinfo.config then we
have a problem.
And, that is currently the case. It's not as bad as I make it sound, but its
bad enough that I spend time looking for problems caused by this that turn out
to be something else.
I use Linux because it gives me choices, and in spite of the fact that one of
those choices is that there are things I cannot do. But the price of choices
does not have to be inconvenience. There is no good reason for "Unix standard"
stuff to be other than "Unix standard". How long would you put up with a
distribution that did your dishes, washed your car and had
/var/local/security/passwd ?
>
> <SOAPBOX>
>
> Linux is about freedom and choice. That includes the freedom to do things
> differently. One of the things that makes Open Source/Free(dom) Software work
> is that such software accepts the fact that one size does not fit all, and
> that different people want to do things different ways.
>
> People have to realize that Linux is not traditional commercial software.
> That means that, among other things, you can do things however the heck you
> want. You have the choice of using a uniform distribution, but you also have
> the choice of doing something else.
>
> I hear people complain that the commercial world needs standardization. Well,
> that is fine by me -- but it is the commercial world that needs that
> standardization, and not Linux.
>
> This is why I do not get upset when I see some commercial vendor saying they
> support "Red Hat Linux" or "SuSE Linux" or whatever. A commercial vendor,
> especially a closed-source vendor, cannot reasonably be expected to support
> just "Linux". That isn't the world they live in. They need to develop, test,
> compile, document, and train in a standard environment. Companies like Red
> Hat, SuSE, Caldera, et. al., give them that environment. The commercial world
> can work out a solution for which distro(s) do(es) that best. If Red Hat ends
> up being the de facto commercial Linux, then that is fine by me -- I don't use
> Linux for the commercial software. I happen to use Red Hat at home because I
> like it, but the instant they start screwing me around, you can bet I'll drop
> Red Hat like a hot potato (indeed, I could drop them *for* a potato -- a
> Debian potato! ;).
>
> If you do not like the thought of being tied to a specific distribution by
> your commercial vendor, then don't use the commercial software! The lock-in
> is not by the distro vendor, but by your commercial software vendor. You made
> your bed, now sleep in it.
>
> Now, I am not against projects like the Linux Standards Base. I think they
> are a good thing. Standards are a good thing. However, the LSB is just a
> document, not a distribution. The LSB will never be complete enough to
> specify every part of a distribution (if it did go that far, then it would
> simply become a distribution you have to assemble yourself). There will
> always be differences between distributions, and between releases of those
> distributions.
>
> The end result is that commercial software companies and the like will
> partner with commercial Linux support companies (like Red Hat), and sooner or
> later some sort of agreement will be reached as to who makes what decisions in
> that world. Independent organizations and people who desire a standard will
> choose what works for them. People who do not care will continue to not care,
> and happily recompile from source.
>
> The only standard Linux must follow is freedom.
>
> </SOAPBOX>
>
> --
> Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this message are strictly those of |
> | the author, and do not necessarily represent the views or policy of any |
> | other person, entity or organization. |
>
>
> **********************************************************
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
> *body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
> unsubscribe gnhlug
> **********************************************************
--
---
Tom Rauschenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All your base are belong to us
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
