Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users • Hacker News Board

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#131

Post by sambeau » Sat, Mar 10, 2012, 2:06 PM UTC

jonhohle wrote: post #69

> Programs exist for their users While this may be inferred from this discussion, this is not what Linus said in this thread. He actually said: > The *only* reason for an OS kernel existing in the > first place is to serve user-space. This is a much narrower definition without the philosophical implications of the title. Sometimes programs don't exist for their users. Take DRM for example - it is explicitly against t…

While I partly agree with with your argument, I disagree with you conclusion.

Linus then goes on to say:

  Even when Linux was young, the whole and
  only point was to make a *usable* system.

Which I think is accurately summed up:

  Linux exists to be used

Which is still suitably philosophical and is easily and acceptably expanded to:

  Programs exist to be used

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#132

Post by dasil003 » Sat, Mar 10, 2012, 3:36 PM UTC

lakamash wrote: post #124

dsr_ wrote: post #10

Leadership: communicate a clear mission and inspire others to want to do it. Linus has it.

...which explains why Linux has taken over the desktop market? Seriously, Linux has had MAJOR advantages, people HATE M$ and the Mac has shown ZERO interest in taking over anything other than the elite market segment. I tried using Linux for a while, and it is a major pain in the ass. I've been using a Mac for everything since 2009, and it is so much easier. I really miss some Windows apps, so I'm going to have to ge…

Your comment is a bizarre and rambling non-sequitur. What on earth gave you the idea that winning the desktop battle is Linus' measure of success or leadership? Why does Apple breaking binary compatibility imply that there is no cost in doing so? How can you say Apple is only targeting elite segments when you look at products like the iPad that are selling in incredible numbers and causing low-end market leaders like HP to drop out of the market?

It seems like you have some bone to pick with Linus, because there isn't any real criticism here. Binary compatibility is a very nice feature for Linux users, you haven't written a word about why that is not so.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#133

Post by aptwebapps » Sat, Mar 10, 2012, 4:03 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #120

aptwebapps wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that is nice. Either one is a vast improvement over old-style list archives.

mbox and your own damned client.

If you happen to already be subscribed to the mailing list in question, sure.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#134

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Mar 10, 2012, 8:19 PM UTC

aptwebapps wrote: post #133

dredmorbius wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mbox and your own damned client.

If you happen to already be subscribed to the mailing list in question, sure.

There are list archives which provide mbox format archives. Mailman for example.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#135

Post by im3w1l » Sun, Mar 11, 2012, 3:46 AM UTC

evanlong wrote: post #107

jff wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we used static compilation for everything, this wouldn't be a problem. Our problem would then be higher memory consumption, but I can fix that for $50--at least until the next Ubuntu release comes out. Speaking of that, I wonder if there's some point at which dynamic libraries don't really help you that much. These days, even shared libraries don't seem to stop a GNOME desktop running a browser from sucking down a…

One advantage to shared libs/dlls is that a security fix will be applied to all applications that depend on that. So if everyone statically links against insecure libA.a then all apps that depend on it need to ship a patch. Where as if libA is shipped as a shared library then one update needs to be applied. That's one advantage but maybe not the best.

What if we could have opportunistic dynamic linking, where an application uses a shared library, if present and compatible, and otherwise uses the bundled? Seems to get the best of both worlds, no?

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#136

Post by rbanffy » Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 3:22 AM UTC

muuh-gnu wrote: post #49

reddit_clone wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>everyone coming from Windows, where you have a reliable, stable base system which doesnt change for a decade Now, you are being plain funny. Haven't you heard of 'DLL Hell' in Windows platform?. You never had 'windows update' break your software for no reason?

I've never had to upgrade Windows (including all installed apps) to be able to install some other random app. On Linux, having to upgrade the distro (including getting a new desktop environment force-installed) to get a new version of any random app is established practice. Example: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3822

Not entirely true. While Microsoft won't upgrade your Windows for free (creating the demand for support for ancient versions of the OS - things that will run on XP) they will make software dependent on service packs and fixes. It's not a new version with new functionality, but it's an upgrade nonetheless.