On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:23:35 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom
<ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>After takin' a swig o' grog, John B slocomb belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Which is what makes me wonder about people that appear to be arguing
>> that Linus created an entirely new and original system. He didn't and
>> certainly he never claimed that he did.
>>
>> In fact that Linux was built on the foundation of a previous
>> successful system is simply "good engineering". Nobody that is
>> competent sets out to design anything without researching the
>> literature to see what has been built before and what problems were
>> encounter. Only after you know what has gone before can you really
>> build something "better".
>
>As I understand it, though, Linus has learned an awful lot along the way
>about the "right" way to do things, from people who know other UNIXen,
>and he's had his share of "beat-downs" (e.g. the Mindcraft benchmarks,
>which ultimately spurred the kernel developers on to serious improvements.
There is no argument that Linux has progressed from its original form
which doesn't make it any less a child of Unix. As you say below,
"Clarity of thought".
>
>> Rather then be so defensive about Linux I would have thought people
>> would be bragging about this system, created by an unknown
>> under-graduate, in an unknown school, that has become an
>> internationally recognized and accepted system, even making inroads,
>> in some instances, into what was in the past the sole domain of the
>> largest software company in the world.
>
>Who's defensive? Clarity is merely sought
\
Perhaps "paranoid" is the correct description. Simply re-read the
various posts to this small section of Usenet. Even the use of a
"Windows" program is questioned.
Obviously many posters are unfamiliar with Wine and the various
virtual systems that can run windows programs on Linux as they dance
about and shout "Win-droid" when ever they see a Windows program in
the message header.
Along this vein I suggest that Linux's major weak point is the poor
quality of many of the applications that are available. Excepting Open
Office, Gimp and some of the text formatting applications I find that
most of the apps available are less then satisfactory. Pan and Claws
particularly come to mind. On a rock stock Intel machine running a
current version of Linux they both malfunction frequently. On the
other hand, Firefox and Thunderbird, both developed for the mass
market, i.e., Windows, both are, in my own experience, bullet proof.
I'm sure that the majority of responses to my comments will involve
the word "Win-droid" but that really isn't even logical. I use Linux
because it is a better system and fits my requirements better then
Windows or the Apple system but never mind the heavy hitters in the
application field, why can't I even find a dictionary or thesaurus
that is at least slightly usable?
"Oh!" I hear you say, "both a dictionary and a thesaurus are included
with most versions of Linux". True, but the dictionary, while barely
usable, apparently has a Web based database as it accesses the
Internet each time a definition is requested. No Internet, no
dictionary. The thesaurus though is a real joke! I just looked for a
synonym for "Help" and the first three suggestions were "antipast",
"dessert" and "plate".
This is not professionalism.
Cheers,
John B.
(jbslocombatgmaildotcom)
|
|
