On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:33:41 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> A Better File System for Linux?

I thought the Reiser file system was killer!!
The fickle Linux community sure dropped that one like a hot potato.

Just what Linux needs, another file system.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:33:41 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> A Better File System for Linux?
>
> I thought the Reiser file system was killer!!
> The fickle Linux community sure dropped that one like a hot potato.
>
> Just what Linux needs, another file system.
>
it's all about choice. It's something you'll never, ever understand.



--

************************************************** ***************************

From the desk of:
Jerome D. McBride

20:17:27 up 5 days, 7:51, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00

************************************************** ***************************

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:56:32 -0400
"Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:

> Just what Linux needs, another file system.

That's the wonderful thing about systems that provide choice to you:
you can choose whether you care about the choices or not. ;-)

Certain filesystems are very good for certain types of workload. There
is not, nor will there really ever be, a one-size-fits-all filesystem.
ext3 is great for a lot of situations, and is a reasonable default
filesystem for most users, particularly desktops and workstations that
do not need to access tens or hundreds of thousands of tiny little
files per minute. Reiser4 is the winner hands-down on performance in
that type of a situation because it handles tiny files wonderfully
efficiently, but I am under the impression that it's no longer really
actively maintained, being that the guy that its named after is no
longer able to do anything with it and the programmers from the company
behind the ReiserFS family don't have the highest of motivations to
work on the filesystem currently.

"Butterfs" is looking like it is going to be the type of filesystem
that will be suitable for information systems that have a great need to
scale, and is probably not the type of filesystem that you're going to
use on an everyday basis in the home---though, it sounds like it may be
a default someday in a simplified configuration, if ext4 is indeed the
last in the line of the ext filesystems as can be speculated by
Theodore Tso's email to the LKML earlier this month.[1] I'd have no
objection to this, personally. I think that all operating systems
should at least support the freedom of choice for their users, anyway,
because no two individuals are alike and everyone has a preference for
something. Even if the preference is "just give me the default."

--- Mike

[1] http://is.gd/5oyb

--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/

"Michael B. Trausch" stated in post
20081031225131.4c481327@zest on 10/31/08 7:51 PM:

> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:56:32 -0400
> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
>
>> Just what Linux needs, another file system.
>
> That's the wonderful thing about systems that provide choice to you:
> you can choose whether you care about the choices or not. ;-)

But with so many choices, what choices do developers develop for? It is a
problem with Linux - as seen by the UI inconsistencies.

> Certain filesystems are very good for certain types of workload. There
> is not, nor will there really ever be, a one-size-fits-all filesystem.
> ext3 is great for a lot of situations, and is a reasonable default
> filesystem for most users, particularly desktops and workstations that
> do not need to access tens or hundreds of thousands of tiny little
> files per minute. Reiser4 is the winner hands-down on performance in
> that type of a situation because it handles tiny files wonderfully
> efficiently, but I am under the impression that it's no longer really
> actively maintained, being that the guy that its named after is no
> longer able to do anything with it and the programmers from the company
> behind the ReiserFS family don't have the highest of motivations to
> work on the filesystem currently.
>
> "Butterfs" is looking like it is going to be the type of filesystem
> that will be suitable for information systems that have a great need to
> scale, and is probably not the type of filesystem that you're going to
> use on an everyday basis in the home---though, it sounds like it may be
> a default someday in a simplified configuration, if ext4 is indeed the
> last in the line of the ext filesystems as can be speculated by
> Theodore Tso's email to the LKML earlier this month.[1] I'd have no
> objection to this, personally. I think that all operating systems
> should at least support the freedom of choice for their users, anyway,
> because no two individuals are alike and everyone has a preference for
> something. Even if the preference is "just give me the default."
>
> --- Mike
>
> [1] http://is.gd/5oyb



--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21217782777472

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:43:01 -0700
Snit wrote:

> "Michael B. Trausch" stated in post
> 20081031225131.4c481327@zest on 10/31/08 7:51 PM:
>
> >
> > That's the wonderful thing about systems that provide choice to you:
> > you can choose whether you care about the choices or not. ;-)
>
> But with so many choices, what choices do developers develop for? It
> is a problem with Linux - as seen by the UI inconsistencies.

Trimming is good, ya know?

If you like a consistent interface, use GTK/GNOME software with GNOME,
Qt/KDE software with KDE, and Win32/Win32-targeted software with
Windows. The software I use is pretty consistent from application to
application, but then again, I don't mix-and-match software from
different toolkits together. I think it's æsthetically displeasing,
for starters. Lack of consistency between them is going to be natural,
for no other reason than if they were all cloning each other, it'd be a
bunch of redundant work.

This is why Microsoft, Apple, and the GNOME developers have HIG
documents that state the rules for interfaces for those systems. Maybe
one day there will be a universal HIG standard of some sort, if anyone
cares enough to create such a thing.

--- Mike

--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/

"Michael B. Trausch" stated in post
20081101051325.628553d5@zest on 11/1/08 2:13 AM:

> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:43:01 -0700
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Michael B. Trausch" stated in post
>> 20081031225131.4c481327@zest on 10/31/08 7:51 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> That's the wonderful thing about systems that provide choice to you:
>>> you can choose whether you care about the choices or not. ;-)
>>
>> But with so many choices, what choices do developers develop for? It
>> is a problem with Linux - as seen by the UI inconsistencies.
>
> Trimming is good, ya know?
>
> If you like a consistent interface, use GTK/GNOME software with GNOME,
> Qt/KDE software with KDE, and Win32/Win32-targeted software with
> Windows. The software I use is pretty consistent from application to
> application, but then again, I don't mix-and-match software from
> different toolkits together. I think it's æsthetically displeasing,
> for starters. Lack of consistency between them is going to be natural,
> for no other reason than if they were all cloning each other, it'd be a
> bunch of redundant work.
>
> This is why Microsoft, Apple, and the GNOME developers have HIG
> documents that state the rules for interfaces for those systems. Maybe
> one day there will be a universal HIG standard of some sort, if anyone
> cares enough to create such a thing.

The error in your claim is that you are assuming that the user should be
responsible for making a unified experience... even though *no* distro has
been able to do so nor has *anyone* in COLA been able to create a list of
apps that would offer this *choice*... a choice that would be unambiguously
better for most users (if not all).



--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:43:01 -0700, Snit wrote:

> "Michael B. Trausch" stated in post
> 20081031225131.4c481327@zest on 10/31/08 7:51 PM:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:56:32 -0400
>> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
>>
>>> Just what Linux needs, another file system.
>>
>> That's the wonderful thing about systems that provide choice to you:
>> you can choose whether you care about the choices or not. ;-)
>
> But with so many choices, what choices do developers develop for? It is a
> problem with Linux - as seen by the UI inconsistencies.

Too much choice creates confusion.
Marketing 101.

Hey even the Chinese agree and so do the Linux audio developers.

If you want Linux to taken on and challenge Microsoft and Apple, you need
to pool your resources.
There is no other way.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

"Moshe Goldfarb." stated in post
17vsq2xatpjyj$.1hiobawoq1zn7.dlg@40tude.net on 11/1/08 7:27 AM:

> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:43:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Michael B. Trausch" stated in post
>> 20081031225131.4c481327@zest on 10/31/08 7:51 PM:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:56:32 -0400
>>> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just what Linux needs, another file system.
>>>
>>> That's the wonderful thing about systems that provide choice to you:
>>> you can choose whether you care about the choices or not. ;-)
>>
>> But with so many choices, what choices do developers develop for? It is a
>> problem with Linux - as seen by the UI inconsistencies.
>
> Too much choice creates confusion.
> Marketing 101.

And easily defended with research, such as the research showing that when
people are offered six choices of jams compared to 20, with six: they like
the jams more and they purchase more. Even later they show greater
satisfaction with the jams.

This is *not* to say I want any controlling group to prevent people from
making as many distros as they wish... have a ditro of the month club for
all I care. But do not pretend there are not down sides to this.

> Hey even the Chinese agree and so do the Linux audio developers.

And many, many others in the OSS community have talked about the downsides
of lots and lots of options and a lack of consistency.

> If you want Linux to taken on and challenge Microsoft and Apple, you need
> to pool your resources.
> There is no other way.



--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21217782777472

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:18:19 -0700
Snit wrote:

> The error in your claim is that you are assuming that the user should
> be responsible for making a unified experience... even though *no*
> distro has been able to do so nor has *anyone* in COLA been able to
> create a list of apps that would offer this *choice*... a choice that
> would be unambiguously better for most users (if not all).

If there is a flaw in my claim, point it out. Everyone has the freedom
of choice.

If you can't read the package description in Synaptic, that's really
not my problem; the system is certainly designed for the literate to
use. If you choose not to take the time to read the package description
in Synaptic, that is also not my problem, they are provided so that
you can make that choice---why would someone here duplicate that work,
hrm? If you're going to install software, all you have to do is know
how to point, click, and read. If you need to ask a question about
what you're reading, then do so. If you use Ubuntu, you can use
Launchpad Answers, or a relevant support newsgroup or mailing list.

--- Mike

--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/

"Michael B. Trausch" stated in post
20081101105128.46ff7bda@zest on 11/1/08 7:51 AM:

> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:18:19 -0700
> Snit wrote:
>
>> The error in your claim is that you are assuming that the user should
>> be responsible for making a unified experience... even though *no*
>> distro has been able to do so nor has *anyone* in COLA been able to
>> create a list of apps that would offer this *choice*... a choice that
>> would be unambiguously better for most users (if not all).
>
> If there is a flaw in my claim, point it out.

See above.

> Everyone has the freedom
> of choice.

Judging choices by *quantity*, as you are doing, is - in my view - less
valuable than judging choices by *quality*, as I am doing (though I
discussed only one quality... clearly there are more things that are needed
for quality!)

> If you can't read the package description in Synaptic, that's really
> not my problem

Straw man. Noted.

> ; the system is certainly designed for the literate to use. If you choose not
> to take the time to read the package description in Synaptic, that is also not
> my problem, they are provided so that you can make that choice---why would
> someone here duplicate that work, hrm? If you're going to install software,
> all you have to do is know how to point, click, and read. If you need to ask
> a question about what you're reading, then do so. If you use Ubuntu, you can
> use Launchpad Answers, or a relevant support newsgroup or mailing list.

Irrelevant to my point. Do you even understand what you are arguing
against?

--
The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of
limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and
great nations. - David Friedman

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:03:16 -0700
Snit wrote:

> "Michael B. Trausch" stated in post
> 20081101105128.46ff7bda@zest on 11/1/08 7:51 AM:
>
> > On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:18:19 -0700
> > Snit wrote:
> >
> >> The error in your claim is that you are assuming that the user
> >> should be responsible for making a unified experience... even
> >> though *no* distro has been able to do so nor has *anyone* in COLA
> >> been able to create a list of apps that would offer this
> >> *choice*... a choice that would be unambiguously better for most
> >> users (if not all).
> >
> > If there is a flaw in my claim, point it out.
>
> See above.
>

You did not point out a flaw in my claim, you pointed out a flaw in
your character and exposed your apathy. Failure to recognize this
denotes your inability to hold a logical argument. Software---not just
in the GNU/Linux world, but also in the Windows world---uses natural
language to communicate with users. This means they are expected to
*read* what is on the screen.

> > Everyone has the freedom
> > of choice.
>
> Judging choices by *quantity*, as you are doing, is - in my view -
> less valuable than judging choices by *quality*, as I am doing
> (though I discussed only one quality... clearly there are more things
> that are needed for quality!)
>

I am not judging choices at all. I only stated that everyone has the
freedom of choice. I didn't not say anything about quality or
quantity. Read the words that are present, and read them carefully
before you bother to open the floodgates and start composing a reply.
To do anything less ensures you'll earn your way into my killfile.

> > If you can't read the package description in Synaptic, that's really
> > not my problem
>
> Straw man. Noted.
>

You claim a logical fallacy, yet the statement I made went directly to
the point that what you claimed wasn't done already _is_ done. Package
descriptions are there for a reason. They tell you what the software
is, what the software does, and generally what environment the software
is for.

To break it down into little chunks for you, my statement above that
"everyone has the freedom of choice" depends upon the person sitting at
the keyboard being competent enough to be literate, to spend the few
seconds to read, and to be smart enough to ask for help when (s)he
needs it. Many computer users posses none of these qualities, which is
unfortunate; but these computer users are honestly none of my concern.

To draw an analogy, it would be like someone buying a complex power
tool and assuming that they can derive knowledge of how to use it
simply by looking at it, without any familiarity of the class of power
tool, then claiming that it was defective when they cut, maim, or
mutilate themselves with it when a simple read of the instruction
manual would have prevented such a scenario to begin with. The
situation is analogous in that the person in the hypothetical scenario
depicted here exhibits the same qualities as a person who expects to
not be able to read information about what they're doing on the
computer and yet somehow expecting it to magically do what they meant.

> > ; the system is certainly designed for the literate to use. If you
> > choose not to take the time to read the package description in
> > Synaptic, that is also not my problem, they are provided so that
> > you can make that choice---why would someone here duplicate that
> > work, hrm? If you're going to install software, all you have to do
> > is know how to point, click, and read. If you need to ask a
> > question about what you're reading, then do so. If you use Ubuntu,
> > you can use Launchpad Answers, or a relevant support newsgroup or
> > mailing list.
>
> Irrelevant to my point. Do you even understand what you are arguing
> against?
>

Do explain how it is irrelevant to your point. Nobody is going to hand
you food in the manner which a baby bird receives it, if that is what
you are expecting. The information you argue is unavailable is easily
obtainable directly from your computer. If you use a sane package
management system, it doesn't even require a network round-trip to get
that information out of it.

The premise of my argument is that the user is absolutely,
without question, responsible for what software they install (note
that I do mean to make the implication that users are responsible for
malware and computer viruses on platforms that support such things). The
premise of your argument is that "the user [shouldn't] be responsible
for making a unified experience", in response to my argument that mixing
and matching software which uses various toolkits is not a pleasant
experience. The only sane and reasonable answer to this is that if the
user is too apathetic or stupid to make desirable choices, they
shouldn't be there in the first place.

Another analogy: Assuming a heterosexual person who is active in
practicing said heterosexuality, copulation feels good, but it doesn't
take 13 offspring to figure out that the consequences of the action
might be undesirable. If you're doing something and having undesirable
consequences, then either you are doing it wrong, or you are expecting
the impossible---take your pick. In this case, you're just being too
lazy to do it right, assuming that your argument is, in fact, using
yourself as the center of the argument. In the words of Rita Mae
Brown, "Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but
expecting different results."

--- Mike

--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:27:19 -0400
"Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
>
> Too much choice creates confusion.
> Marketing 101.
>

I suppose this is the reason that the default Vista control panel is a
usability nightmare? *Way* too much abstraction behind too few
buttons, making you _search_.

No, give me the choices, please. I don't stop looking after the third
item.

--- Mike

--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/

"Michael B. Trausch" stated in post
20081101114339.09fd00b0@zest on 11/1/08 8:43 AM:

> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:03:16 -0700
> Snit wrote:
>
>> "Michael B. Trausch" stated in post
>> 20081101105128.46ff7bda@zest on 11/1/08 7:51 AM:
>>
>>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:18:19 -0700
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> The error in your claim is that you are assuming that the user
>>>> should be responsible for making a unified experience... even
>>>> though *no* distro has been able to do so nor has *anyone* in COLA
>>>> been able to create a list of apps that would offer this
>>>> *choice*... a choice that would be unambiguously better for most
>>>> users (if not all).
>>>
>>> If there is a flaw in my claim, point it out.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>
> You did not point out a flaw in my claim, you pointed out a flaw in
> your character and exposed your apathy. Failure to recognize this
> denotes your inability to hold a logical argument. Software---not just
> in the GNU/Linux world, but also in the Windows world---uses natural
> language to communicate with users. This means they are expected to
> *read* what is on the screen.

Straw man. Nobody said a thing about reading or not reading anything on the
screen.

>>> Everyone has the freedom
>>> of choice.
>>
>> Judging choices by *quantity*, as you are doing, is - in my view -
>> less valuable than judging choices by *quality*, as I am doing
>> (though I discussed only one quality... clearly there are more things
>> that are needed for quality!)
>
> I am not judging choices at all. I only stated that everyone has the
> freedom of choice. I didn't not say anything about quality or
> quantity. Read the words that are present, and read them carefully
> before you bother to open the floodgates and start composing a reply.
> To do anything less ensures you'll earn your way into my killfile.

You are either purposely missing the point or you are not able to understand
the point. Either way, frankly, I do not care.

In the end the fact stays the same: *no* distro has been able to produce a
consistent user experience... and *nobody* in COLA has been able to produce
a list of apps they would include in a distro that would present such an
experience. The choice does not exist in the OSS world. The closest there
is, as far as I know, is Ubuntu, and Mark Shuttleworth is very clear as to
how it (and Linux) should grow:

Shuttleworth:
Rather than saying: "GNOME wins, KDE looses" I'd like us to
say: "How can we get this communities to sit down and talk to
each other"? ... I'm very interested in finding out, how to
get those two communities working closer together, how to get
more collaboration, more sharing. Both at the level of
technology but also at the level of best practices /
processes.
...
I'd like to see both desktops focusing on a common
infrastructure. And we've already seen that, a lot of the
Freedesktop initiatives have been embraced by both projects -
HAL, d-bus for instance.

This also applies to other software projects, if you name
your project g-something or k-something your are articulating
a very specific user experience. Projects should really look
to the whole Linux desktop and see how they can appeal to
both sides.
...
The fact that OS X is growing, tells us that Windows is
weakening. The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't,
tells you that OS X is offering things that Linux is not.
One of those is the pace of change, the level of innovation.
You really have to give credit to Apple for driving
innovation.
...
And at the moment we [the free software folks] don't offer
a particular easy place to go and express your technology.

Question:
What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
success of the Linux desktop?

Shuttleworth:
I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I
think we deliver a user experience for people that have a
reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of
price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason,
Linux is the right answer.

But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price,
who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can
say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And
that's something we have to change, that's something I'm
committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually
move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.

Shuttleworth:
Second thing is, we just can't do this only on GNOME or just
on KDE, we need to figure out on how to move the whole Linux
desktop platform forward. I suspect if we hire a bunch of
upstream developers they will be across both GNOME and KDE.

I think the Apple guys have a very good point when they say
we should let designers lead the definition of the user
experience.

You can join the others in COLA who disagree with this - after all, there is
nothing wrong with disagreement. But unless you can actually *show* where
it is incorrect do not expect to convince me. Remember, I was the one say
very much the same things well before Shuttleworth had that interview. I,
clearly, understand things well.

>>> If you can't read the package description in Synaptic, that's really
>>> not my problem
>>
>> Straw man. Noted.
>
> You claim a logical fallacy, yet the statement I made went directly to
> the point that what you claimed wasn't done already _is_ done. Package
> descriptions are there for a reason. They tell you what the software
> is, what the software does, and generally what environment the software
> is for.

Again you are dodging the point. Why? Nobody has said that one cannot do
what Ubuntu does - strive to have all programs work with one environment (in
the case of Ubuntu, it is Gnome). You keep saying that one can do this when
*nobody* is denying it.

This is dishonest of you.. or a sign you do not understand what you are
reading. Either way, frankly, it does not matter to me.

> To break it down into little chunks for you, my statement above that
> "everyone has the freedom of choice" depends upon the person sitting at
> the keyboard being competent enough to be literate, to spend the few
> seconds to read, and to be smart enough to ask for help when (s)he
> needs it. Many computer users posses none of these qualities, which is
> unfortunate; but these computer users are honestly none of my concern.

See how you not only show no sign of understanding you have become
condescending and pretend that someone has said something about people not
reading screens and other BS. You are demonstrating weak debating skills...
and maybe weak comprehension skills.

> To draw an analogy, it would be like someone buying a complex power
> tool and assuming that they can derive knowledge of how to use it
> simply by looking at it, without any familiarity of the class of power
> tool, then claiming that it was defective when they cut, maim, or
> mutilate themselves with it when a simple read of the instruction
> manual would have prevented such a scenario to begin with. The
> situation is analogous in that the person in the hypothetical scenario
> depicted here exhibits the same qualities as a person who expects to
> not be able to read information about what they're doing on the
> computer and yet somehow expecting it to magically do what they meant.

Your analogy assumes that the tool comes in working order... but *no*
desktop Linux distro does, not when the context of "working order" is a
consistent UI (even mostly - nobody is demanding some unobtainable
perfection!)

>>> ; the system is certainly designed for the literate to use. If you
>>> choose not to take the time to read the package description in
>>> Synaptic, that is also not my problem, they are provided so that
>>> you can make that choice---why would someone here duplicate that
>>> work, hrm? If you're going to install software, all you have to do
>>> is know how to point, click, and read. If you need to ask a
>>> question about what you're reading, then do so. If you use Ubuntu,
>>> you can use Launchpad Answers, or a relevant support newsgroup or
>>> mailing list.
>>
>> Irrelevant to my point. Do you even understand what you are arguing
>> against?
>
> Do explain how it is irrelevant to your point.

It is not relevant. No explanation needed. If you want to show relevancy
that is your task.

> Nobody is going to hand you food in the manner which a baby bird receives it,
> if that is what you are expecting. The information you argue is unavailable
> is easily obtainable directly from your computer. If you use a sane package
> management system, it doesn't even require a network round-trip to get that
> information out of it.

What I am asking for is *not* available. When you deny that you are showing
ignorance or dishonest. If you disagree then *show* the set of apps you
would use and what distro. Keep in mind above you talk about a tool coming
in "working order."

> The premise of my argument is that the user is absolutely, without question,
> responsible for what software they install

Irrelevant.

> (note that I do mean to make the implication that users are responsible for
> malware and computer viruses on platforms that support such things). The
> premise of your argument is that "the user [shouldn't] be responsible for
> making a unified experience", in response to my argument that mixing and
> matching software which uses various toolkits is not a pleasant experience.

My argument is not just that a user should not have to do what no distro has
been able to provide (nor anyone in COLA been able to define) but that a
user cannot do so. But, sure, at least some distros should come in "working
order" (keeping in mind the context of "working order").

> The only sane and reasonable answer to this is that if the user is too
> apathetic or stupid to make desirable choices, they shouldn't be there in the
> first place.

Ah, a user should do what Mark Shuttleworth cannot. A user should do what
*you* cannot. A user should do what *no* distro manager has been able to
do.

I am all for personal responsibility, but defending the state of Linux by
saying that a user should, essentially, re-write the UI of the programs they
use is, well, absurd. Cool that they can... absurd that, to get a product
in "working order". they have to.

> Another analogy: Assuming a heterosexual person who is active in practicing
> said heterosexuality, copulation feels good, but it doesn't take 13 offspring
> to figure out that the consequences of the action might be undesirable. If
> you're doing something and having undesirable consequences, then either you
> are doing it wrong, or you are expecting the impossible---take your pick. In
> this case, you're just being too lazy to do it right, assuming that your
> argument is, in fact, using yourself as the center of the argument. In the
> words of Rita Mae Brown, "Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over
> again, but expecting different results."

Too lazy to do what *nobody* on the planet, as far as you or I know, has
been able to do.

The argument is beyond absurd.

For the record: Shuttleworth has said he thinks he can do it in *two years*.
With his resources. And I suspect he is being overly optimistic.

Absurd to expect Joe User to do this. Really.


--
I can't say we will succeed at this, but we will make a significant attempt
to elevate the Linux desktop to the point where it is as good or better than
Apple.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:53:53 -0700
Snit wrote:

> In the end the fact stays the same: *no* distro has been able to
> produce a consistent user experience... and *nobody* in COLA has been
> able to produce a list of apps they would include in a distro that
> would present such an experience.

There is a world of proof to the contrary. First off, Ubuntu does
this, out-of-the-box. Secondly, the list you clearly wish dearly for
already exists in the package manager. You call this information
anything you want---it doesn't matter what you _call_ it. Presenting
is *not* a strawman. Out of my reader you go, troll (or maybe merely
incompetent, the difference between the two in this context really is
rather not the point).

--- Mike

--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/

"Michael B. Trausch" stated in post
20081101171941.661f266b@zest on 11/1/08 2:19 PM:

> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:53:53 -0700
> Snit wrote:
>
>> In the end the fact stays the same: *no* distro has been able to
>> produce a consistent user experience... and *nobody* in COLA has been
>> able to produce a list of apps they would include in a distro that
>> would present such an experience.
>
> There is a world of proof to the contrary.

Another round of "Name that Distro!"

Oh how I love this game! The problem is nobody can find this mythological
distro that provides the user with a consistent UI. And if you could, of
course, a lot of the "standard" Linux software would break that consistency.
That is *not* a good user experience.

I realize it... as does Mark Shuttleworth. Unlike me, of course, he is in a
position to do a heck of a lot about it.

But let us even ignore, for now, the clearly problem with adding software...
even with what *comes* with the distros there simply is no such distro.

> First off, Ubuntu does this, out-of-the-box.

A new version just came out - so, since Mark Shuttleworth clearly gets the
same points I do, maybe it does. The past version did not. I will play
with it. I bet you are wrong.

> Secondly, the list you clearly wish dearly for already exists in the package
> manager.

Nope, at least not in any distro I know. Heck, even Ubuntu has KDE software
in its repository. Then again, it pretty much *has* to... or not be as
fully featured.

> You call this information anything you want---it doesn't matter what
> you _call_ it. Presenting is *not* a strawman. Out of my reader you go,
> troll (or maybe merely incompetent, the difference between the two in this
> context really is rather not the point).

I think the best way for you to stop being silly is for you to KF me... you
clearly are not able to offer a reasoned comment on the topic. You just
keep repeating the same things which *clearly* are inaccurate or even
dishonest.



--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:59:50 -0400, Michael B. Trausch wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:27:19 -0400
> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
>>
>> Too much choice creates confusion.
>> Marketing 101.
>>
>
> I suppose this is the reason that the default Vista control panel is a
> usability nightmare? *Way* too much abstraction behind too few
> buttons, making you _search_.
>
> No, give me the choices, please. I don't stop looking after the third
> item.
>
> --- Mike

Always bringing Microsoft into the discussion.....
Fine, if you want to choose from a dozen different file systems, so be it
however this is NOT a good marketing model at all and maybe, just maybe, it
has something to do with Linux's total and complete fragmentation.

Here is what the Linux audio developers have to say about too many Linux
sound systems:

http://lwn.net/Articles/299093/

"Lennart Poettering, a lead developer of PulseAudio and Red Hat employee,
moderated the miniconference and started with a summary of the state of
Linux audio: "it's a mess." The audio miniconference came up with two steps
toward cleaning up the mess, though. First, come up with a coherent story
for application developers on what sound API to use, and how. Second, clean
up the often-confusing array of user-visible audio level controls."

""If someone comes and says, 'I want to write an audio application. Which
API should I use?' I don't have a good answer," Lennart said"

Here is what the Chinese Govt has to say:

"Hu Ke, an analyst from CCID Consulting, said China's Linux industry has
problems in products, users, communities, and market channels. Hu said that
there are too many incompatible Linux editions in the industry, which
hampers their promotion."


So you see, choice is NOT always a good thing.

While your argument looks great on paper, in practice it is hindering Linux
and in a very big way.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 21:27:58 -0400
"Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:

> Here is what the Linux audio developers have to say about too many
> Linux sound systems:

What, pray tell, do multiple file systems all adhering to the same API
have _anything_ to do with the multiple sound systems all with their
own APIs? Being able to use multiple filesystems is a transparent
process under Linux. Plug in a FAT16 formatted device, it works. Plug
in a FAT32 formatted device, it work. Plug in an NTFS formatted
device, it works. Plug in an HFS or HFS+ formatted device, it works.
ISO9660, UDF, ext{2,3,4}, Minix, and ReiserFS 3, too. It's transparent
to the user when you plug these things in. Comparison to Windows?
Plug in FATxx or NTFS, it works. Anything else? It tells you that the
media needs to be formatted for use. _That_ is what happens when you
don't provide support for multiple filesystems. VFS (Linux) and IFS
(Windows) exist for a reason, but Microsoft mostly is wasting space
with their IFS, because it doesn't do much in the way of using
installable filesystems.

As far as sound goes... I agree that sound is a bit of a mess at the
moment. PulseAudio is the most promising, at least for all the talk of
what it is supposed to be able to do. But I find it to be rather
lackluster at the moment, being somewhat unreliable and not very
efficient with my system resources, either. It is still under very
heavy, very active development. Personally, I feel that _nobody_ should
be shipping it. However, that's just my own personal opinion.

Right now, you have ALSA and PulseAudio that are the main contenders.
There are still some applications holding fast to the OSS API. Eh.
The idea of something like Pulse, that sits on top of the lower-level
sound APIs is _great_ in theory. It's even "acceptable" on my machine,
at this point in time, so long as it improves very quickly---I like
PA's ability to mix arbitrary applications together (which ALSA can do,
but doesn't do very well) and permit you to do things like control each
individual application's volume, transform the sound (such as
upconverting it before sending it to the 5.1 sound card) and more.
ALSA doesn't quite make me feel warm and fuzzy that way.

But, as I said, it _is_ a mess. That mess needs to go away, and it
needs to go away _soon_. If I had a small uniprocessor system, I'd
rather live without sound than use Pulse. I hope to see in the near
future:

* PA working right and not using lots of processor time for simple
streams.
* PA become stable and supported as _the_ API to use for audio on
Linux, UNIX-like, and UNIX systems.
* Everyone else stop using platform-specific low-level APIs like
Win32, ALSA, and OSS for application sound. (Win32 will probably
never happen, though, Windows developers seem to like to keep
their software single-platform, even though these days supporting
multiple platforms is not anywhere _near_ as much work as it used
to be).

--- Mike

--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 02:19:01 -0500, Michael B. Trausch wrote:

> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 21:27:58 -0400
> "Moshe Goldfarb." wrote:
>
>> Here is what the Linux audio developers have to say about too many
>> Linux sound systems:
>
> What, pray tell, do multiple file systems all adhering to the same API
> have _anything_ to do with the multiple sound systems all with their
> own APIs? Being able to use multiple filesystems is a transparent
> process under Linux. Plug in a FAT16 formatted device, it works. Plug

It's about too much choice not always being a good thing.
I notice you snipped the part about the Chinese wishing that the many Linux
distributions could at least be compatible with each other.

Face it, you can slice and dice and dissect down to the minutia any part of
this choice topic all you wish but the facts are on the table.
Linux is doing horrible as a desktop system, and too much choice is a
major part of that.

Pool your resources, stop the distribution of the hour, focus on a single
desktop that actually works (unlike the hodgepodge of kde and gnome each
trying to out do the other), stop the internal bickering and focus on
beating Microsoft at their own game.

That is the only way Linux will top Microsoft.

If you guys want all this choice, something will suffer.
I would 17+ years of Linux failing to make a dent on the desktop is pretty
good evidence that your choice method isn't working.



--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Michael B. Trausch wrote:

>mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> If you guys want all this choice, something will suffer.
>> I would 17+ years of Linux failing to make a dent on the desktop is
>> pretty good evidence that your choice method isn't working.
>
>Hrm, the first production version of Linux was released in early 1994.
>It's late 2008. That would seem to amount to about 14½ years.
>
>And Linux is, and has been, a _huge_ success in every way measurable,
>particularly since popularity really isn't the goal. The goal is to
>have a great system in place for people that want to use that system.
>Don't like the ones that are available? You have the freedom to build
>your own! It's not a black box.

More of the mentally-ill troll's "logic".

"Linux has choice and Linux has small market share. Therefore, Linux
would be better-off with less choice."

Sheesh. I sure am glad I'm not that fsckwitted...