On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:55:48AM +1100, Rick Welykochy wrote: > john gibbons wrote: > > >I would like to raise the goal post for Linux software interface > >developers from 'intuitional' to 'bloody obvious'. I am getting some > >frustration off my chest after trying to download some Linux software > >for the first time and get it up and running. According to the > >directions it was easy. My question is : for whom? > > Welcome to a world where there is no QA, where there is no standard > installation process and where your very mettle will be tested to the > limit when you install FOSS.
What the *hell* are you talking about? Plenty of F/OSS projects take their
Quality Assurance very seriously, with regression testing, bug tracking,
pre-release testing, and release planning. I think the GNOME project, for
instance, would be very startled to hear that there is not QA in their
development process. As for standard installation process, I can apt-get
install most anything I want, and it'll do the same things every time. I
can't even get MSIs to play that nicely. Mettle testing is in no way
specific to F/OSS -- computers in general are what does it to you.
> p.s. the quality FOSS installation (on Linux, Unix, etc) can vary
> from something sterling like Perl (works seamlessly everytime on every
> platform I've tried) to downright dreadful (not naming names).
So it's no different to the rest of the software world, then?
- Matt
--
"[Perl] combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp: a billion different
sublanguages in one monolithic executable. It combines the power of C with
the readability of PostScript."
-- Jamie Zawinski
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
