Re: [tlug] Kana-Problems

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

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:05:59 +0900
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com> wrote:

> Niels Kobschaetzki writes:
> 
>  > 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).
> 
> Sure, but you're talking about a relatively small code base (the core
> OS) supported by a billion dollar company.
> 
> It is not reasonable to expect upgrades to the entire portfolio of
> open source to go as smoothly as upgrades to a tightly integrated
> proprietary suite of software.

I never talked about the entire portfolio - I talked about the stuff that runs in the background which the user "can't" see.

>  > Can you run the newest version of evolution
> 
> I don't run "no matter how many times they write it, it still doesn't
> run anywhere" software at all. :-)
> 
>  > I don't think that I compare apples and oranges. I compare two
>  > different philosophies in the way a system is updated.
> 
> Exactly!  You asked why you *can* blindly update Mac OS X, but not
> Linux.  The reason is that they are completely different things.  If
> you did blind updates on a Red Hat Enterprise Linux system, I doubt
> they would break very often!  RHEL, Mac OS X, and Windows break less
> often because you don't get new features with those blind updates, you
> only get security and important bug fixes.  If you want new features,
> you'll get your eyes opened by the bill you have to pay first, if
> nothing else.

>From time to time one gets even new features ;)
But well, new features usually cost money

>  > And Mac OS X and Windows use another paradigma which seem to break
>  > less with the disadvantage of being not so free in customizability.
> 
> But that's not true!  As desktop OSes, they are (almost) as
> customizable as Linux, because (most) OSS is ported to them.  There is
> no software, except recent gdb, that I'm used to using on Linux that
> doesn't run on my Mac.  The reason they don't break on upgrade has
> nothing to do with that.  The reason they don't break is that they
> don't give you anything except important, well-tested bug fixes.  You
> don't get new functionality.

All the non-Linux-open source-software I use on my Mac gives me regularly new features w/out breaking the system. But usually that isn't software that can break anything because they run only in userland. 

>  > 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.
> 
> It's called "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" and it's very successful.
> Hell, they even sell it for money.  A lot of money.  Or you can get a
> five-year-old rock-solid OS for free with Debian stable.

How about the consumer-market? I guess enterprises have other requirements than consumers. 
But to be true I haven't seen an Ubuntu yet that broke my system when I updated except you do a distribution-upgrade.
Still I think the best way to go would be for example for FreeBSD a -devel-port for every port and a non-devel-one.

Niels

-- 
Jammern: http://jammern.wordpress.com
Alles Suppe: http://nielsk.soup.io