On 8/29/06, Tito Mari Francis Escaño <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/29/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Check that: when you update, you (re)compile. If you're updating a > considerably large library (libstdc++, libc) or application (gcc) then > that takes time. Compilation requires a lot of resources (memory, > processor, disk) which could better be used to serve the actual > solution's purpose than "upgrading a library". Whatever happened to the old Linux mantra if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it?
This is not a Linux mantra -- it's an engineering mantra. The reason you're going to want to upgrade/update is because it *is* broken.
> Whatever happened to "install base system, install required packages, > harden, then deploy" in half a day or even less? Ease of use is relative
I didn't say anything about ease of use. You are mis-construing the above statement to imply that I am talking about ease of use -- while I am talking about fast turnaround times. Think about it this way: instead of getting the ingredients and making yourself a cake, you instead order one and it gets delivered to you with icing and even your candles. That has nothing to do with ease of use.
> Not everyone is a Linux guru/expert nor is everyone willing to bear > the fact that you need to recompile everything because something > changed. It would be a pointless debate whether you really need to upgrade/rebuild the whole lot just because your officemate is on a new purportedly-better version of the same file/package you use
It's not about your officemate having a newer version (or your neighbor, or your aunt, or your kids): it's about the fact that the package you're using was broken and had to be fixed (usually security issues, and performance enhancements, deprecation, etc.) and that you had to do something about it. And mind you, this is not a debate -- it's a free-flow exchange of ideas and insights (some of which have been derived from experience).
> But do you really need a formula 1 race car when what you need is to > be sure that your car won't conk out on you in various road and > weather conditions? Given your nuclear reactor computer analogy, formula 1 race car IS needed :)
No: in the nuclear reactor analogy, you don't need a formula 1 car solution, you need a tank solution which can withstand the varying weather conditions, varying inputs/conditions, and can withstand considerable pounding. The last thing you want is for your formula 1 car to take a pit stop when the reactor is over-heating -- in which case I'd choose a slow, not so flexible, but robust and stable solution (and runs on diesel). -- Dean Michael C. Berris C/C++ Software Architect Orange and Bronze Software Labs http://3w-agility.blogspot.com/ http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/ Mobile: +639287291459 Email: dean [at] orangeandbronze [dot] com _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
