Re: [tlug] Kana-Problems

["Niels Kobschaetzki" <n.kobschaetzki@example.com>]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@example.com> wrote:
> Niels Kobschaetzki writes:
>
>   > Well, I can only speak for OS X because that's the system I'm using
>   > mainly for the last years.
>
>  OS X updates from Apple are on basically the same schedule as Debian
>  stable.  OS X 10.x is supported by Apple until 10.x+2 is released.
>  But third party stuff is like 10.x is supported until 10.x+1.1 is
>  released.  If you're doing that kind of thing, hey, yes you can do
>  blind updates.  But you can't do the newest software an hardware.

What do you mean with newest software? I move latest on x.1 to a new
system upgrade because at least in the last years it brought me always
some significant additional utility (and therefore I do not have the
problem with new software).
Can you run the newest version of evolution on FreeBSD 4.x via ports?
What I read 'til now, you can't. And in my experience with
linux-distributions is the same.

>  And that's not what any reasonable Linux dev distro will give you.
>  You can get Debian stable and only do security updates.

Well, you can get an old version of OS X and there will be security
updates as well. But usually you want to upgrade to .x+1 if possible
because of the new utility you get through the new tools available (or
the new APIs which seem to make life far easier for developers and
therefore they usually upgrade to .x+1 as well)

>   > Those never broke anything in my case and when I was an admin in that
>   > area it rarely broker other computers.
>
>  Agreed.  But Fink used to break me all the time, and MacPorts still
>  does.  You're comparing apples to oranges.  Compare MacPorts to your
>  Linux distro.

I don't think that I compare apples and oranges. I compare two
different philosophies in the way a system is updated. MacPorts and
Fink just use the same philosophy as Linux to upgrade a system. And
Mac OS X and Windows use another paradigma which seem to break less
with the disadvantage of being not so free in customizability.
Imagine a distribution which says: Hey we take care of all the stuff
you can't see and we deliver the software you can see in packages. The
problem is: we can only take care of gtk-stuff and you will have to
deal with it because we won't deliver anything you can't see that has
something to do with QT or whatever. Any software you want to install
has to use the dependencies we provide. And when you install a piece
of software you have to take our idea (the package we provide) of what
it should like because we take care that it won't break your system.
I doubt that such a distribution would be successful. Just because ppl
would only see that they can't do what they want with their system and
that's what OSS-OS-users usually want.

I see the advantages of the OSS-OS-way definitely, especially when you
need very good audited code or want to have maximum customizability.

But I see the disadvantages as well. Updates can break my system if
I'm not careful, removing software can be a hazzle [1]() and some
other stuff I do not really care about (like buying a piece of
hardware always needs checking before, for getting something that will
definitely work [2])

Niels

[1] since day 1 when I started using OSS-OSs I never got a hang of
removing a piece of software and all the dependencies. Especially when
I think about stuff like the drivel-example as before. I see now totem
and think: hey I don't need it for anything but my blog-editor depends
on it…??? OSS-developers should minimize the dependencies they need as
far as they can and should never take the "I don't know what exactly I
need and therefore I just take everything that could be useful into my
dependency-list

[2] buying my wlan-card took me several days to get a "put it into the
machine and it works"-card because hardware-distributors do not write
the used chipset on the damn package and don't care really about open
source especially in the desktop-market. I guess that most them still
think "it's a nerd-only market". Which it actually is I think. I never
learned an open source-user to know who isn't a nerd/geek (or however
you want to call them) and installed some distribution by himself
w/out previously knowing a nerd/geek. Luckily ebay-shops found a niche
there (the hardware-market) :)