Printable View
The GPL already is one of the simplest software licenses around (especially compared with most closed source software licenses—obviously licenses like BSD, MIT and WTFPL are even simpler).Quote:
Originally Posted by Detructor
BTW: the only open source (software) license I know that is officially available in multiple languages is the European Union Public Licence (EUPL), which is available in the 22 official languages of the EU.
Why should 90% of Linux devices have to waste a lot of time cutting out bloat because a few percent want it?Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerk2
Of course it does. It pushes your maintenance costs off onto the OS developers, who have to maintain crusty old crap forever.Quote:
Really? I find it quite an asset. Makes development easy.
Which is why Windows is so full of bloat, security holes and bugs. Microsoft even have to support old, undocumented bugs because SuperWizzoWriter 2000 crashes if they fix them.
I think you miss the point.Quote:
Yet we still target Windows. Why? Because we can make money on it. When you look at the time needed to move out application on to linux, test it against all the major distributions, offer long term product support, you often find that its impossible to turn any significant profit.
Most Linux users don't care, and most Linux developers are building custom systems for Linux. We don't need to support crusty old APIs because we don't care that you don't want to invest any time in maintenance work to deal with API changes.
There are only two non-game, non-free applications I run on my Linux box and one of them has a Linux port; I prefer running the Windows version in Wine because I don't trust random software installers with root permission.
BTW, here is mine suggestion, and it has nothing to do with Linux...
Make possible to edit ODF files under Android. There is no such editor now, and those that exist edit docx ...
That's a red hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by plonoma
Drivers for most purposes are part of the internal workings. Most application you run don't attempt to poke hardware directly. (some exception mentioned earlier)
If some subsystem of the kernel changes, it's useful to be able to change how all the other parts including drivers talk to it. If you constrain your driver to a single permanent set of interfaces, you end up needing a new layer that knows how to translate the old calls into the new calls. You've then added a layer of abstraction which doesn't actually make the codebase easier to understand, modify, share, or re-use.
A benefit of a set driver ABI is not a better program as a whole (in fact it makes fixing bugs harder and improvements proceed more slowly.), the benefit is that you don't have to track changes to the code to keep you own little driver module working. A decision was made not to sacrifice code quality primarily for the benefit of those who refused to play nice for whatever reason.
Good programming practices, are in the truest sense are practices which produce good programs. Programs are different and what makes one program good, may make another poor.
biggest problem is Closed Source and microsoft monopoly and here is the prove:
Problem caused by Closed Source in this case because of microsoft monopoly:- Many Linux hardware driver issues.
Problem caused by Closed Source:- Regressions happen far too often in different software stacks.
Problem caused by Closed Source:- Too much bloat.
Problem caused by Closed Source/binary only software: - Linux needs reduced complexity of various distributions and software stacks. (P) "I don't understand why for example archlinux already installs three different ciphering libraries, libssl, libgcrypt and another one I forgot if you don't even install a user interface. Of course they don't exactly do the same, but it should be possible to reduce code which was implemented two times (f.e. the des algorithms) and install only one library..."
Problem caused by Closed Source and microsoft monopoly :- Lack of commercialization and standardization. (P)
Problem caused by Closed Source:- No stable driver APIs between Linux kernel releases. (P)
Problem caused by Closed Source in this case because of microsoft monopoly :- Desktop environment problems. "The desktops suck. kde is an unholy mess that gets in the way. gnome is too watered down. unity is like a fugly version of gnome." (P)
On the future of Graphics Drivers:
http://smspillaz.wordpress.com/2012/...phics-drivers/
Linux is nowhere near a Microkernel, NT quit being one after 3.51, Mac OS X with XNU was never a microkernel to begin with since the MACH version it was based on was never a mk. There really is no such thing as a hybrid kernel, it just marketing speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by scottishduck
I agree with you, except that from a purist point of view NT has NEVER been a microkernel. There are no microkernels under end user operating systems, though that says a lot more about microkernels than about the operating systems that don't use them. It is important to notice that consumers don't really care about that extra bit of stability and security when it takes a few tenths of a second for a button to react to a mouse click.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rallos Zek
Of course compiling every single bit of kernel functionality into a single blob is awful, but all three operating systems have very decent modularisation.
Could you elaborate on that please?Quote:
Originally Posted by movieman
I'm very curious to what you are talking about.
Very interesting!!Quote:
Originally Posted by JanC
Hopefully this will help identifying driver problems and fixing them.
Could be a real boom for Linux driver development!