My Linux Flame Thread

phrakture · 2004-10-06 16:46:07

in response to Dusty:

LOL!

robot5x · 2004-10-06 16:47:29

This could turn ugly....

sarah31 · 2004-10-06 17:20:56

ah like the developers here like to do? force is what arch is all about.

do it our way or we won't even consider you as a person.

if you would like to know i work with standards everyday. i have along with my supervisor, rewritten our laboratory manuals and our procedures to conform to ISO standards for laboratories. along with having studied and graduated with honours in chemical and bioscience technology, i have a BA with my majors in psychology and anthropology. in anthro and psych i had to perform according to fairly strict standards.

i have looked at the LSB standards and they are not very good. for one they do not alllow for input from more than the big fish in the pond which is just not right. there are no consequences or liabilities for being registered with LSB but not following their standards. even their selection of rpm is poor. because it is the most common packaging format does not mean that it is best format for the standard.

debian's packaging format should be the standard if they feel they really need one. debs can be used throughout debian based distros and are even used in one darwin project (darwin here being the core os of OS X) .

backward compatability .... like i say it is simple any program that wants wide use and the most feedback needs some degree of backward compatability. it may slow development to some degree but only if the developers are inefficient in their programming and time management. in the end users will wait for something if they have to.

consider udev udev will be the new thing but for one thing the documentation on it is atrocious and there are so few documents that explain how a user may have to adapt certain practises they have always done (as i found out mounting discs can be a bitch). not only that but application that i like to use (as well other may like to use) will not play well with udev so i am very happy that the kernel developers at least left the option of backwards compatability within the kernel.

i am glad that they have kept support for i586 in the kernel and elsewhere as well else i would not have a routerbox. at the time i set that box up i had no money to go and buy a router (they were considerably more moeny at that time). i was also able to add that computer as a contributor to my protien crunching "team".

every so often in both lWindows and MacOS they end their backward compatability for certain things but it is well planned and follows a certain logic. they have both been crucified for it even when both explain that it made no sense to keep that compatability when the trend was away from that tecnology. linux people jumped all over this saying look how nice it is that linux supports even my old 486. now you say that such compatability is a liability? get it straight.

Oh wait that is exact what arch is all about though right? i must be off my rocker for wanting to use and older package because it works better. I keep forgetting that the newest packages are bug free and are the way to a new and better utopic world full of magical fairies that automatically drop wads of cash in your pocket so you can buy the newest toys every month. i forgot it is a sin to use my five year old scanner (that is not that different in functionality than the newest models i might add) or to use usb one.

programming language .. though one can use a variety of languages in OS X the "standard" for Apple is Objective C. Along with that there are at least two packaging standards that developers have to follow and it makes a users life infinitely better. drag and drop or double click to start an installer is infinitely easier than dealing with the various gotchas of linux package management.

basically i agree with the first post in this linux could use some organization and logic ... if it wants to continue to appeal to a wide user base of both geek and not geek. but LSB is not the way. nor is this i am right because i have more linux experience and computer programming/technical skill. i like arch i want to use arch but if you had your way i should fuck right off because i am some old fuddy duddy that has no desire to step into the bright new future full of magical fairies.

oh wait you want the status quo of anarchy maqurading as "freedom of choice". pfft whatever.

Dusty · 2004-10-06 18:11:18

Your arguments this time are much more logical than previous opinions... Some are impossible to field, and I have to confess I sometimes get caught up in the sheer joy of disagreeing with you and forget about fact. For example, I agree that LSB is a bad standard and never meant to imply otherwise. I was more interested in questioning your argument for saying so.

sarah31 wrote:

ah like the developers here like to do? force is what arch is all about.
do it our way or we won't even consider you as a person.

I disagree. Its not possible to do absolutely anything you want with Arch, but neither is it possible with anything. else. Arch, I believe, gives the users more freedom, they can install from source or binary. If they choose to use binary distribution, they are encouraged to stick to the Arch standard, which is to keep your system up to date.

along with having studied and graduated with honours in chemical and bioscience technology, i have a BA with my majors in psychology and anthropology.

Impressive credentials, I must admit, and they justify you giving an expert opinion on certain matters.

On the other hand, no credentials can justify an argument/opinion not supported by fact.

i have looked at the LSB standards and they are not very good.

You're absolutely correct, and thank you for supporting your opinion.

debian's packaging format should be the standard if they feel they really need one. debs can be used throughout debian based distros and are even used in one darwin project (darwin here being the core os of OS X) .

Why debian instead of, say, arch packages? because they are more popular at this time?

I haven't done a comparison on package size, but it seems like my Arch system downloads and updates faster than Debian did (not even counting the fact that it took 35 minutes to apt-get update and takes 3.5 minutes to pacman -Syu). This isn't a solid benchmark, just my observations on a single system and dialup account. Arguably, the speed increases may be because of how pacman is implemented vs how apt is implemented, and not on the package format itself.

like i say it is simple any program that wants wide use and the most feedback needs some degree of backward compatability.

I'd say this is all up to contingency theory. It depends on the situation; sometimes it is better to make a program backward compatible, sometimes it is better to throw out a bad design and start from scratch.

linux people jumped all over this saying look how nice it is that linux supports even my old 486. now you say that such compatability is a liability? get it straight.

You're confusing what some linux people say with the idea that all linux people say the same thing.

Just because *I* might say that compatibility isn't always a good thing doesn't mean that 'linux people' say that.

But again, it comes down to 'it depends'. I would argue that any code in the kernel that is supporting obsolete architectures is bloating the kernel... but now we have to define obsolete.

Oh wait that is exact what arch is all about though right? i must be off my rocker for wanting to use and older package because it works better.

Not really. You might be off your rocker for using Arch if you don't want to use bleeding edge software; that's a basic property of Arch (I believe Judd even mentioned it in his mission?). Debian testing might be a better choice if you want a more stable development team.

Or, you might be better off developing a port of Arch (or debian, for that matter) that supports *your* views in what should be installed, instead of Judd's.

programming language .. though one can use a variety of languages in OS X the "standard" for Apple is Objective C.

The "standard" in Linux is GNU C Compiler. I prefer java and python at various times. Don't tell me I have to use C just because it is standard.

drag and drop or double click to start an installer is infinitely easier than dealing with the various gotchas of linux package management.

You're the one that keeps saying we don't need a GUI frontend to pacman! (Well, I back you up on that argument). Which would you really prefer? I can write a drag and drop frontend for pacman, no problem. Only I'm crunched for time... I guess you'd have to make it worth my while.

basically i agree with the first post in this linux could use some organization and logic

Yes.

... if it wants to continue to appeal to a wide user base of both geek and not geek.

'Linux' doesn't want anything. It just exists. A bunch of people try to tell a bunch of other people what 'Linux' wants, but they're just saying what they want.

Personally, I don't care what anybody else uses, as long as Linux satisfies *me* (me me me). To satisfy me, it has to be pretty geeky. If it manages to satisfy the non-geeks to, that's ok, but I don't care. If it doesn't satisfy *me* because its too non-geeky, then I'll have to find something else.

This applies specifically to distros; I don't think its possible to make a distro that will keep me and my Dad happy both (Dad's happy with Arch, but only because I set it up. he can't configure it.) There needs to be two distros or at least two repositories...

i like arch i want to use arch but if you had your way i should fuck right off because i am some old fuddy duddy that has no desire to step into the bright new future full of magical fairies.

I'm not absolutely certain, I'd be wasting a lot less time responding to your posts if you weren't here. :-D

I like Arch too. The difference between you and me is that I like Arch exactly the way it is and I'm happy with the development model. I wouldn't be happy with all the changes you request. Lets say your changes are implemented, one of us still has to leave, right?

I'm not saying you should leave and not me, I'm just saying that one distro can't satisfy the both of us.

Further, you keep crying for the devs to implement this or that (most specifically, the stable repository), but there is no reason the users couldn't organize this amoungst themselves. A repository can be hosted on any server. The devs can't afford the time and resources to do it. You can argue that there should be more devs or they should be more accountable or anything else, but at this point in time, that isn't how the development model works.

oh wait you want the status quo of anarchy maqurading as "freedom of choice". pfft whatever.

pfft whatever is well. At the moment, I'm in full support of anarchy as freedom to do whatever the hell I please even if it means I have to step on other people's rights to do it in. (the feeling is passing, but I'm pissed off at the world and anybody who wants to make me conform to it right now)

Though I would like to keep arguing this topic (its great fun and intellectually stimulating...) I honestly don't have the time to post here again... so if you post again, you win the argument. )

Dusty

phrakture · 2004-10-06 18:42:37

ding! I win

xerxes2 · 2004-10-06 19:01:25

phrakture wrote:

The Linux Universal Packager and Installer (TM)
by phrakture

good idea,
take a look at www.autopackage.org

dp · 2004-10-06 21:58:48

very impressive!

i just want to add some details that should be also considerered:

you speak about anarchy, egoism, force, freedom of choice, organisation, logic, believes and standards

let me add some regions to make our discussion a little bit more complete: chaos, evolution, fractal geometry, self-organisation, creativity, creative commons, selection, free time, hobby, "for the good of the thing", group dynamics and maybe zoology

ok, these are words ... now trying to explain what i mean (especially without speaking with people but writing in a forum) is a little bit more difficult

for a start:

http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/ -> the first 2 videos:
"Creativity builds always on the past"
and
"Mix Tape"
(dialup-users: sorry, it takes hours to download these - but they are worth, if you ask me)

especially the 2nd video represents a lot i try to explain here: the projects people do now (especially in the last 2-3 years) are more "open" than open-source meant e.g. 4-5 years ago: only having a look at the source and being able to know how something is written was a real advantage, but as always, ideas take some time to find their time to develop into the social structures and peoples' minds.

there are now about 320 active distributions for linux and for most of them, there is at least one person who thinks that his/her distro is the best in the world (that's why he/she is working on it). ok, but why there is so big diversity? from biology you can see the analogy with life: its developement works more or less the same as developement of distros of linux: you have the idea: "linux", the parts copied from opensource-projects and new things that developet on the go; and there is then selection, multiplication, division and selection: people come, people go, people carry ideas, people are free, people use and stop using distros - if the whole distro is used by only 2 users, it will probably die because it will be out-of-date soon ... on the other hand, a good idea (e.g. pacman) will bring a distro a lot of new users and you will then generate a new branch in the tree of distros... on this branch, there is another branch splitting that uses the main thing and creates it's own distro upon it: AMLUG --- hope you got the point here (i can also go into details, if someone wants)

ok, the whole thing as described in the last <p> is standard-free (TM) and only because it is standard-free, it works so great (it's like life): there is no standards but better or worse ideas: if you catch a change before the others (journaling file systems), you will have more success than others not using this. as the exchange of ideas (like exchange of DNA under bacteria) is "open" and the niches are to be used in a similar way (e.g. there is a need for a package manager) things will develop similarly and you will then think as a human being: "hey, let's standardize it", but this is WRONG! because if you make a standard, you are going to kill all other ideas and alternative ways of doing things and this way you hinder creativity and developement

this brings us to self-organisation: if there are ceveral ways of doing something and one way is worlds better then the other ones,, then the system will automatically self-organize and selection will make sure, your ONE system will become the only one used by all (like RNA in nature) and any other species not using it will have a disadvantage if not being able to find another niche, where this "standard" is a disadvantage and the alternative is better --- you see: if the system needs standards, they will develop automatically (-> almost everybody will start using only the way you call "standard") ... if you force standardization, it means revolution, anarchy, system-break, stop of developement and break in the creativity-line ... if you let it develop individually, it will become "standard" only if it is really much better than alternatives and it will be worth becoming standard (=> and will be advantage for everybody) ----- this way is NOT applyable if anybody force things, because (that's where charles darwin IS RIGHT) no matter how strong or intelligent something is: the strongest element is the one that is able to change in the right time enough to be supported by the environement (that's why human beings will die out, if the planet changes too much - and we are exactly the cause why it is changing --- but this is another subject)

ok, that was self-organisation ... what about kaos (chaos, xaos, whatever it is called)? in general, there is a statement that i support: if something seems chaotic to you, you do not understand it good enough to see the complex logics behind (where we are comming to fractal geometry and chaos theory). fractals, like evolution in nature like the spread and diversification of distros are in the beginning of understandement "chaos" and if you look closer and compare them to each other, you realize, that things can be explained by theories that already exist (evolution). I don't clame this to be RIGHT but i clame to have had this idea to compare evolution-theory with other developements (now especially linux-distros)

group dynamics, egoism, social structures, hierarchy and other parts that exist in communities are in most cases self-set and have the right to exist to a certain point: the person with the idea for a project is the one who controls the main developement of this idea. he/she is responsible for the direction it develops to, but also he/she is responsible for the failure of the realisation of the idea: it helps a lot if the community and other involved people help, provide infos, provide parts, provide feedback and critics. as long as communication has a productivity factor >0, there is chance that this communitaction helps the project-leader and the project as is. on the other hand, people who are able to help realizing stuff (here: programmers, coders, hackers, coordinators, writers, moderators, ...) are dreaming similar ideas and cooperate because they like the system and the direction it develops. as long as these people are not under-mining the project (by being destructive, too-egoistic and anti-community) they are worth keeping in a project. only egos can develop things, because the mind of an ego is working mainly for the purpose of the ego itself and if the idea of the ego and the community are equal, the community profites extremely from it

this sounds a little bit strange (sorry, my english is not good enough to explain things on that level), but if you know how ants, bees and borg (startrek) are organized, you know what is the extreme of this idea ... and if you feel, you want to read more about it, there is a really good book "Global Brain" by "Howald Bloom" (isbn 9-783421-053046)

the analogy to open source is easily made: the gene is the function or class of code, the application is the species, the distro is also treated as species (more virtual than an app) and the game is called life ;-)

ok, but now you would ask: what the hell is then the people involved, the community and all the real people behind? it's easy: it may be another system than classes and apps, but you can use the same analogy: people are spending time and communities are working for "the good of the thing" (more or less) and as long as this system works, there will be a future in it

i for sure forgot some points, but this is it (more or less) and i hope you understand what i mean

... ohh... yes, one more thing: Zoology: sitting in front of a computer is NOT the function we were optimizied for: stand up, go out and do also something else than only sitting infront of a machine

phrakture · 2004-10-06 22:02:02

holy crap dp.....
that was great!

this thread is great, but I'm not the kind of person to get upset and flustered about this sort of thing.... i find it more intellectually stimulating to discuss questions of ethics.... so go ahead and bring up "right" and "wrong" and we can get going... hehe

Dusty · 2004-10-07 00:04:34

phrakture wrote:

so go ahead and bring up "right" and "wrong" and we can get going... hehe

It is "wrong" to force people to conform to a standard or any one distro or any one thing. It is "right" to suggest that people conform to a standard to make everybody's life simpler.

Dusty

dp · 2004-10-08 00:44:22

Dusty wrote:

It is "wrong" to force people to conform to a standard or any one distro or any one thing. It is "right" to suggest that people conform to a standard to make everybody's life simpler.

very nice summary, thanx for it (it is difficult to explain something with only a few words)

skoal · 2004-10-08 08:09:24

phrakture wrote:

ding! I win

I was doing a search on "ding" in these forums, so I could get the dictionary tool (ding) to speak to me in English, not German. Man, what a hit! Maybe I need to refine my search, but until then, my 3 cents as I watch my monitor smoke from the "heat" in this thread...

IMNSHO, the LSB/FSF partnership isn't really about driving Linux standards. Just take a look at their platinum list. The OS/2 "phoenix" is reborn from it's ashes, and IBM brought along some help. It won't be long now until you see a distribution from those "three", swallowing up RedHat in the process. All other distro's will be scavenging their floors for leftovers, until they starve out altogether.

I welcome our new Linux Distribution Overlords. Standards? Pfft! The Grand "Triumverate" will have theirs, incorporating others as they see fit, at the expense of Open Source contributors as "they" suck their contributions dry. Nice concept actually. It's like having GPL contractors working "pro bono".

I'm glad to see that Richard Stallman and his "kinfolk" finally grew up. It took their "commune" years to finally realize there's "money in them thar hills". The "Triumverate" will make Microsoft buckle at their knees. And, that's good. However, as we "bottom feeders" wrestle over "package standards", the corporation backed LSB/FSF already beat us to it. I love the free market. It's about time it joined hands with the Open Source movement. To what extent it dampens future open source contributions, is yet to be seen.

The 11th round just ended, and IBM just got patched up by their "cut man" Linus. I remember programming on the old "OS/360", the OS battles IBM waged since, long before the concept of a "personal computer". It's the 12th round now, and I see an uppercut in Microsoft's future.

In the meantime, I eagerly await the "Triumverate" distribution. I'll use it for a few years, get frustrated with their "standards" and "compliances", look for the next "Linus", try out his "spawns", and then look for the next conglomerate to compete with the "big 2". It's cyclical. History is quite the "bitch".

dp · 2004-10-08 16:38:25

skoal wrote:

I was doing a search on "ding" in these forums, so I could get the dictionary tool (ding) to speak to me in English, not German.

0) make sure ding is installed (pacman -S ding)
1) run ding
2) go to [Einstellungen]-[Allgemein]
3) on the top you can choose the language of the interface
4) restart ding, if you changed the lang

sarah31 · 2004-10-08 17:59:51

heat. it is just a bunch of kids trying to sound smart by forcing their set of standards upon anyone willing to be bent. they claim to know all the ins and outs of life open source, freedom, and whatever else.

very few of them have actually been "out in the field". they sit in their labs or their homes absorbing someone else's "knowledge: and politics and spinning it to their own desire.

for example dp writes that is the environment that must adapt to support the life and those orgasms it adapts to survive (seems he said this anyway) . that sure is bizarre logic. humans survived because they were able to adapt to their environment and not because of their physical superiority human are one of the least physically capable of surviving the wilds they came from. what has always and will always allow humans to survive until they destroy the planet or themselves is their ability to learn, teach and communicate their knowledge to the next generation.

if youthink back to the savannas of africa a couple of million years a ago a semi erect very small human/apelike creature which has neither good hearing, smell, or mobility (due to its bipedal nature) should never have survived to bring on the later humans. there are no physical qualities that promoted (and still promote) the survival of our species ..... other than our mental capacities. the rest of our body is merely a container and can survive with a majority of it disabled (don't even get me started about how much of a problem it is to survival to nuture the sick instead of "letting nature take its course")

all this crap analogy of open source to evolution ... it is a construct. One that you can easily apply to hundreds of other this you look at in this world. will open source and it insinuated superiority outlast the closed source world. it may, but it is not as simple as it being "free" or "open". there are alot of things that could kill certain closed source projects that have nothing to do with the strength or license of the app. it could have everything to do with just being stupid. like in open source projects stupidity could squash some of the the best and brightest.

dp simplifies the world so much it is far more layered. you have to really know how to interact with a group and on your own in order to survive out here. try going to a job where you work your hardest everyday but know that it is only a matter of time before you are fired. try going to work with people that are truly racist. try going to a job that has a poison environment if you have to ask what that is then you shouldn't be discussing evolution and group dynamics.

i know why arch has failed in many ways to get to a wider "market" .... do you?

btw, i am done with this thread. i know from talking with many people what alot of problem with linux and bsd are. some were even in the very first post. alot are truly "invisible" to many because they cannot separate themselves from their believes/politics and their cyber world.

Dusty · 2004-10-08 18:24:34

sarah31 wrote:

i know why arch has failed in many ways to get to a wider "market" .... do you?

I think its solely because I've made such a huge effort to scare off the people that want to turn it into a different distro.

I know most of the devs disagree with me, but I personally WANT Arch to be totally Dusty-friendly, which means it has to be very geek-friendly, which implies it can't be very user-friendly (in the traditional sense of the word). I WANT Arch to be fast and efficient according to MY standards. Not according to yours, Sarah, or anybody elses, not even Judd's.

I know the majority of the people don't like the same kind of computer system as me. Those people shouldn't be using the same computer system as me. If Arch is going to sacrifice intelligence for a larger "market", I don't want to be a part of it.

Why the hell do people think the success of a distribution is based on how many people use it? Or any open source program, for that matter. I think a distribution is successful if the guy who invented it is happy with it. I think a program is successful if the developers are happy with it. If the developers aren't happy with it, they either fix it, or drop it. No program is going to be satisfactory for all users. Definig success by the number of people that use it is just idiotic.

I have written a few programs that only I use. Does that mean they aren't successful? They do exactly what I want them to do, no more, no less. There's no bloat, no features I don't need. Oh, but they don't have very much market, what a horrible shame.

Dusty

xerxes2 · 2004-10-08 21:20:38

Dusty wrote:

I think a program is successful if the developers are happy with it. If the developers aren't happy with it, they either fix it, or drop it. No program is going to be satisfactory for all users. Definig success by the number of people that use it is just idiotic.

ok, but someone must also write mainstream apps,
it's not so easy for "granny" to write her own mediaplayer,
I think it's time for those companys that are profiting on free software to give something back,
I know they do hire many fulltime hackers but it's not enough,

cactus · 2004-10-08 22:06:07

I think much of this thread comes down to a single issue: Goals.

To sarah it seems, at least upon cursory glance, the goal is to make arch applicable to the largest group of people possible. An effort should be made to reach more people. This is the model of success to sarah. Lots of people using it, and being happy with it (near 90% happiness is likely not a requirement of this model).

To dusty it seems the goal for arch is to be what he would like to use. More of a persuit of dusty's image of a perfect linux distro. Whomever else likes this image, is more than welcome to contribute/be a part of it. If you don't like it, then take no offense, but there are other mental images out there that you are more than welcome to use. This is the model of success to dusty. Fewer people being more happy with it (Near 90% happiness IS likely a requirement with this model).

Which model is more right?
(throwing in that argument of right and wrong here just for you phrakture )
Well, depends on how you categorize success and "right". Since right and wrong are more ethical, lets focus on another ephemeral word. Success.

I think microsoft follows sarah's model. Many consider microsoft a success. I think Apple follows dusty's model a bit more closely. Many consider apple a success.
Both companies serve a need. Both have their failures and triumphs. I see a place for both of them in the world (well, a diminished microsoft at least. I don't think monopolies are productive towards evolution of anything..be it software or people :shock: ).

I personally, prefer the apple model. If I find something that I find as a good "fit", then why would I want it to change to reach more people? I would personally argue that other people should change a bit to more closely fit my model. I like when I find something that I like...<not circular logic>. If I like something 90%, then why would I want my happiness quotient go to 60% so that more people can like it 60%?

There is a point where acceptance of new ideas must be considered. I might like a new thing more than the current thing. Integration of the new thing might not raise my happiness quotient, but it would keep it where it is...it would, however, reduce my happiness towards the product of the past, and other products that do not fit my "mental model".

Likely this is the reason that soft-drink companies make more than one flavor of syrup. While coke might have significant market penetration (lots of people like it--maybe 70% like it), they can achieve more loyal customers with something like sprite (maybe less people like it, but since they sought out it specifically, they might like it 80 or 90%). Both are legitimate.

I think for opensource software to be a success (in both, and many other models), multiple situations exists. There is a need for the catch all (or catch more) distributions (like mandrake, redhat, et. al.), and a need for the more specific distros that serve a higher "like" value for people (like gentoo, arch, et. al.).

I don't see these as contradictory in any way. Actually, I find them highly corroboratory. They both server a need, and both server each other. The higher "like" value can pick and choose from the catch alls of the world, and the catch alls can pick and choose from the high "like" values.

Think of it as a supermarket vs deli argument. Or, a wall mart vs local joe's hardware.

In the above, I assigned an arbitrary element called "like value". This is intended to represent the relative happiness with a product/service/etc. It is arbitrary, but useful to help others understand my point of view/framework.

Sorry for the rambling post...
and sarah, use of deroggatory characterizations of people to add leverage to your argument is a classical example or argumentative arguing, where the goal is to win and not reach understanding or synthesis.

ery few of them have actually been "out in the field". they sit in their labs or their homes absorbing someone else's "knowledge: and politics and spinning it to their own desire.

Terms such as "these kids", "don't know real life", and others, only serve to obscure the topic at hand. I do, not appreciate people using this type of tactic in a reasonable discussion. It is like arguing that the color of the t-shirt of someone you don't know/haven't met, has a bearing on their intelligence. Especially when you don't know people, and don't know their background, or where they sit. What if I am sitting in a park?!??
heh

I hope that nobody feels attacked by my above post in general, I was just expressing my opinions/ideas. Except for sarah. I don't like people using that type of tactic in a discussion. It makes me mad, especially when people are trying to discuss things on a somewhat reasonable level.

dp · 2004-10-08 22:49:35

sarah31 wrote:

heat. it is just a bunch of kids trying to sound smart by forcing their set of standards upon anyone willing to be bent. they claim to know all the ins and outs of life open source, freedom, and whatever else.

... just tried to add some more aspects to the discussion ... i don't claim anything, but an idea and some linking of theories/stuff

sarah31 wrote:

very few of them have actually been "out in the field". they sit in their labs or their homes absorbing someone else's "knowledge: and politics and spinning it to their own desire.

... this is the trouble of our modern, civilized world ... i really like to read about the victorian empire and the projects people did then ... but i think/hope that this enthusiasm for a better world still exist and is possible to catch the wave to be on

sarah31 wrote:

for example dp writes that is the environment that must adapt to support the life and those orgasms it adapts to survive (seems he said this anyway) . that sure is bizarre logic. humans survived because they were able to adapt to their environment and not because of their physical superiority human are one of the least physically capable of surviving the wilds they came from. what has always and will always allow humans to survive until they destroy the planet or themselves is their ability to learn, teach and communicate their knowledge to the next generation.

if i was understood this way, then i'm really sorry for confusion

environement must change? NO! --- the change of environement is a consequence of changes of the things living in it (no matter what a lifeform does, it will change the environement, for a beginning because it will consume energy from it and release products in it)

i never said humans are superior (in any aspect)

change comes from having a good time and then having a change of the factors and the driving force to addapt or die out ... our ancestors did not "survive" but had a nice time for the most of the time ... only short spans of time species really strugle to survive

our ability to give knowledge to the next generations is the special thing that makes our civilisation to what it is, here i absolutely agree with you

sarah31 wrote:

if youthink back to the savannas of africa a couple of million years a ago a semi erect very small human/apelike creature which has neither good hearing, smell, or mobility (due to its bipedal nature) should never have survived to bring on the later humans. there are no physical qualities that promoted (and still promote) the survival of our species ..... other than our mental capacities. the rest of our body is merely a container and can survive with a majority of it disabled (don't even get me started about how much of a problem it is to survival to nuture the sick instead of "letting nature take its course")

here i agree only on the 2nd part: the mental abilities are/were important, but physical qualities are als of big importance: the developement of extremities (arms and legs) that are able to use tools for example plays an important part ... also the ability to climb in trees, the ability of the young to hold on the parent and let the parents their extermities free for climbing and the long childhood are important factors too

body + "soul" (=go and do also some sports, instead of only sitting infront of a machine and training only the mental abilities ... at least the muscles in the neck should be able to hold the head, where the mental abilities are source)

sarah31 wrote:

all this crap analogy of open source to evolution ... it is a construct. One that you can easily apply to hundreds of other this you look at in this world.

yes, it is a construct, but it seems logical to me

sarah31 wrote:

will open source and it insinuated superiority outlast the closed source world. it may, but it is not as simple as it being "free" or "open". there are alot of things that could kill certain closed source projects that have nothing to do with the strength or license of the app. it could have everything to do with just being stupid. like in open source projects stupidity could squash some of the the best and brightest.

well ... i didn't compared closed and open source in detail ... i tried to compare the closed minds from some time ago and the now a little bit more open minds of today

closed source as such also has advantages (global thinking): if you cannot have a look at the souce, you hope that it works, pay money and sue if it does not - you, as end-user do not care what project and what people are involved, but want from your money a product to use

open source changed this in the way, that more people are involved inthe process and people started thinking: this i can make better and they took the chance and did it better (in some cases) ... and as a lot of people had the idea to make it better, the diversity started to grow (if only 2 companies are in direct concurrence, they are trying to make a product that sells better - if 100 people try to make a thing they need, their ideas are not the same but all directed in the direction of a usefull software: you are not going to think: my programm is selling better, but you are thinking: my programm is more usefull and suits me best for my task)

sarah31 wrote:

dp simplifies the world so much it is far more layered.

this is the problem of trying to explain an idea you have in german in english and not being able to tell people directly but having to write in a forum ... you are right ... sorry ... yes, the subject is much more complex, you are absolutely right!

sarah31 wrote:

you have to really know how to interact with a group and on your own in order to survive out here. try going to a job where you work your hardest everyday but know that it is only a matter of time before you are fired. try going to work with people that are truly racist. try going to a job that has a poison environment if you have to ask what that is then you shouldn't be discussing evolution and group dynamics.

you are describing snap-shoots of group dynamics: someone working and being sure he/she gets fired will at least learn a lot from the experience and tell it his/her children ... social structures are not fix but changing

if the mayority of the people in a group is racist, you have to be racist too, or try to convince others to not be it ... group dynamics is not fair, because life is not fair and that's because evolution is not fair

sarah31 wrote:

i know why arch has failed in many ways to get to a wider "market" .... do you?

i know why a whale failed to develop wings and learned to fly ... do you?

if a goal of arch is, to get to a wider "market", i will immediately quit the project and found my own distro ... i would clone arch and make a distro that has everything the same but the goal to reach a wider "market"

i think, the reason, a lot of people use arch is, that the project's target is NOT to reach thousands of new people by force but to exist and develop into a distro that takes the "middle way" (see "Tao" of chinese philosophy)

growth is dangerous: bacteria grow exponentially, reach a critical point, fall into a lag phase and then start producing antibiotics and try to fight for resources

sarah31 wrote:

btw, i am done with this thread. i know from talking with many people what alot of problem with linux and bsd are. some were even in the very first post. alot are truly "invisible" to many because they cannot separate themselves from their believes/politics and their cyber world.

this is an interesting aspect on internet-community dynamics i didn't observed enough deeply for now ... but i will have a look at it

aikidoist72 · 2005-09-07 04:57:22

I stand in the stream, yet the water has already moved on."

Hmmm something to think about :?

With Linux in general there are so many distro's to choose from. I believe cactus's post above said it well. There is no such thing as perfect! Perfection is an ideal to be strived for - a goal if you will. Once you achieve perfection you will always see something that would improve it, enhance it etc. That is the core of growth! People choose a distro based on their highest "satisfaction" factor. Arch is not perfect! Nor is any other distro!

I also believe Linux is very comparable to nature in general. It is made by a wide variety of people all striving for something better. For an individual to want a distro a certain way is comparable to a bonzai tree. Beautiful to see and resembles the nature of a tree in the wild and it appeals mainly to the gardener and like minded. Yet it does not hold the same beauty of a tree that has grown from the natural forces inflicted upon it by living in the wild. I would not like to see a forrest of bonzai trees - would you?

Distro's that develop naturally through the forces of nature (read many loyal users) will be the ones that become a standard in the future.

Linux by its very nature has developed to suit peoples needs. The various package formats that have evolved, will evolve into something better, and maybe a standard will develop but at what cost? If a tree can not support a limb (through drought, winds etc) the limb is lost. Various package formats will be dropped in time because people will not be prepared to continue to support it. Until then - they will remain. Most choices are made because people are forced to decide.

If a package system is developed that in simple steps goes from source code to support all types of arch's and formats, via compilation, then in time it will be adopted. Time is the factor here. Time to think it up. Time to develop it. Time for it to become used, understood, accepted.

Personally I think Arch is right on track!!! KISS

Arch Linux

#26 2004-10-06 16:46:07

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#27 2004-10-06 16:47:29

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#28 2004-10-06 17:20:56

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#29 2004-10-06 18:11:18

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#30 2004-10-06 18:42:37

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#31 2004-10-06 19:01:25

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#32 2004-10-06 21:58:48

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#33 2004-10-06 22:02:02

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#34 2004-10-07 00:04:34

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#35 2004-10-08 00:44:22

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#36 2004-10-08 08:09:24

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#37 2004-10-08 16:38:25

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#38 2004-10-08 17:59:51

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#39 2004-10-08 18:24:34

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#40 2004-10-08 21:20:38

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#41 2004-10-08 22:06:07

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#42 2004-10-08 22:49:35

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

#43 2005-09-07 04:57:22

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

Board footer