From the horse's mouth - Linux
This is a discussion on From the horse's mouth - Linux ; On Oct 20, 6:25 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
>
> wrote
> on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:34:57 -0000
> :
>
> > On Oct 17, 1:23 am, Gregory Shearman wrote:
> ...
-
Re: From the horse's mouth
On Oct 20, 6:25 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc
>
> wrote
> on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:34:57 -0000
> <1192916097.481246.64...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.c om>:
>
> > On Oct 17, 1:23 am, Gregory Shearman wrote:
> >> cc wrote:
> >> > On Oct 16, 9:08 am, Gregory Shearman wrote:
> >> >> cc wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> The stuff he was writing about adding non-distro packages was dead wrong.
> >> >> I used Redhat for many years and used to compile programs to /usr/local
> >> >> all the time (used to run postgresql from /usr/local for a while). The
> >> >> only problem you have with installing non-distro stuff is that you have
> >> >> to take responsibility for updates.
>
> >> >> Linux advocacy should never be about convincing people to use it, who
> >> >> simply aren't ready to use it. It's about helping those who have made the
> >> >> plunge and are willing to learn, or ready to pay for the expertise.
>
> >> > It should also be about making Linux as usable and good as possible.
>
> >> Linux is as usable and as good as possible, but that has nothing to do with
> >> advocacy.
>
> > Linux can't be improved? Is it, dare I say, perfect?
>
> Linux should be improved, yes. There are a fair number of
> kernel faults that will probably be exposed during further
> user-side testing (translation: somebody finds a bug).
Improvements don't have to come in the form of bug fixes.
-
Re: From the horse's mouth
On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 23:23 -0400, DFS wrote:
> * Linux is only secure and stable if you keep to a strict diet of official
> packages and updates. Most Linux users don't.
>
Even if you let the packages get out-of-date, Linux is still more stable
and secure than Windows.
> * the net effect [of installing non-official packages] is that things will
> eventually start to break
>
Only if you're careless and ignore warnings from the compiler or package
manager.
> * wanton package installation will clog the smooth running of Linux
>
....as it will with Windows, though Windows users get to see this happen
on a much grander scale.
> * third-party packages are often flawed
>
I've never seen a package so flawed that it cripples a Linux system
entirely. Usually there's an underlying cause that's easy to fix once
you find it.
> * compiling new packages usually breaks the dependency database of the
> package manager
>
Excrement. Was this guy paid by MSFT?
> * a reinstall of Linux will solve most problems (ROFL!... and f-u cola)
>
I'm sure of it...although it's never quite as necessary as with Windows.
> * few Linux users stick with the same distro for long
>
True. Distro vendors regularly one-up competitors by offering their
technology ahead of others. Those who want the latest and greatest
features will switch between several distros over a short period of
time. This could be seen as an advantage, though. Linux vendors are
more competitive where technology is concerned, which results in better
technologies being developed and adopted at a faster rate.
> * all modern computers are blighted by performance and stability issues
> without the occasional purge
>
Yes, *all* modern computers...including Windows machines.
> * most of the time a simple distro upgrade fails to work
>
I haven't heard of this happening since Ubuntu 6.06 was released a
couple years ago.
>
> This guy obviously had a bad case of the honesties - something *very*
> uncommon among Linux users.
>
....or he was taken out of context.
> Author: Graham Morrison, Linux Format magazine, Sep 2007 issue, pg 56
>
>
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
