First of all, I would like to apologize to everyone out there who is subscribed to this list. I have tried to stay out of this conversation for as long as I could, but this guy has tried my patience. He is an idiot and should be ignored henceforth. (BTW, this is the one and only reply that I shall post to this list in this thread.)
I hope to attend to most of his statements, one by one. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Wolf) wrote: > Sorry, but I've misstated. I'm not speaking about the size of the > compiled code. I mean the code itself, and not the space it takes up > on the drive. ... I'm talking about the 100 highly detailed and often > undocumented config questions you have to answer to compile a kernel. I never realized that it was so complicated. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of the options available when compiling a kernel are fairly well documented, except for very new or experimental features. (At least a paragraph or two per option is available during the process as help text, which is certainly more useful than the information provided in the majority of books available today for software). At any rate, almost all come with a recommendation, i.e., "If unsure, say Yes" or "If unsure, say No". > ... I'm talking about the 5 year old code in there to still support > that old [piece of hardware]. Oh my!! Backwards compatibility is a such crime! It is wrong that Linux can be run on an old 486! Apparently, it never crossed your mind that someone might want to run Linux on an obsolete piece of hardware to save a few bucks. > That's the kind of bloat I meant. :) My goodness! This is a most psychopathic thread. At one point, you are complaining that Linux does not support the latest, most obscure piece of hardware out there (I'm referring to your statements on 19 Feb.), and the next, you are complaining that supporting 5 year old hardware is "bloat". For crying out loud! Make up your mind! We'll take you much more seriously if you argue ONE side of the issue. Or perhaps you mean that Linux should support ONLY the latest hardware that has been released in the last year or two. If that is the case, then I apologize. Your statements are not psychopathic, but they do not make much sense, nevertheless. > If we really want Linux to become an option for many users or an > alternate to Windows or a "serious force", something desperately needs > to be done about it's user friendliness and installation. Of course, > it's pretty obvious this is just my opinion. I pose a question for you (a pretty obvious one, IMHO): when was the last time YOU actually installed Windows? When was the last time you tried installing Windows on a 486? I can tell you from personal experience that it is not a pleasant task. Yet, I can install Linux on a 486 without much difficulty. The truth is that ALMOST ALL users of Windows (at least, the users to whom you are referring) get it PREINSTALLED on their computer. Yet, for some curious reason, the option of purchasing a system that has been preinstalled with Linux has been side-stepped by you and others on this thread. Why is that? > Here's a serious question or three: > How long has MS Windows been around, and how many people have worked > on it? Well, I remember seeing MS Windows back in mid-1989 (a good two years before Linux was a student's pet project). When was it actually worth a damn? About 1995, of course. But by then, I was already using Linux and was very happy with it. > How long has Linux been around, and how many people have worked on it? > ... how many person-hours have been spent on each? This is a vague question. Do you mean the Linux kernel itself? Or do you include all of the various pieces of software which have come to be associated with the "Linux OS environment"? If you mean the kernel itself, then the answer is that far fewer man-hours have been spent on the Linux kernel than has been spent on Windows (whichever version you prefer to mention). And if you want to mention PAID man-hours ... we'll not go there. > From the thousands of people that I keep being told are working on > Linux, why haven't we solved not only the stability issues but also > the user interface, installation and other issues? Instead of asking this, try asking the following: how much money have YOU personally spent on Linux? How much money has gone to the programmers whom you now condemn? Who are you to be questioning us, a volunteer organization with members that receive no other benefit than reaping the rewards of our collective effort? Until you have provided something positive to us or our endeavor, why should we listen or care about you? > With PCs as cheap or cheaper than SUNs, Linux could be used as an > alternative to a SUN solution. But try to get management to agree to > pay extra (VARs) for the free solution they've been hearing about when > they can just buy another license for an already working product. Well, as someone who works for a potential rival company, I would hope that your management would be so short sighted. I would love to see your management make such a decision and waste your resources that way. Some of us realize that there is much out there to be taken advantage of if one is willing to pursue it. Of course, as with most of life, it is not entirely free. Some things require additional work, which I am not afraid to provide. It is comforting, however, to know that others will benefit from my work, and in return, I shall benefit from theirs. This is the soul of free software. Anyhow, you have distracted me enough. I have much work to do, and there are several PCMCIA issues which need my attention. Hopefully (keep your fingers crossed out there), I'll be able to get some of this work finished soon. Good day, - Brian
