whew, read some of the bugs linked.
hey, and it even gets better:
and... once they burry ulrich they will put on his gravestone:
"Do not reopen."
Is this going to create a fragmentation problem?
well... I guess at least a bit.
as software developed on debian probably doesn't have to circumvent libc bugs ulrich refuses to fix...
and most probably redhat is not going to do the same, since they own cygnus and thus pay him...
fancy, next fork these days:
like hobbit first extended bb4, and then forket away, nagios is now forking.
Great. I can see it now. Software built on Debian (and Ubuntu) will need to be tested and re-tweaked on Red Hat (CentOS, Fedora) and vice versa because of tiny differences in behavior that will develop between glibc and eglibc.
This will give the smug and self-righteous Linux bashers something to gloat about for years.
Reading the dapper thing (I never heard of him before) I was thinking that he happens to be a public figure, but certainly this must happen in other circles becuase people are universally suck.
And it does. There was a comment on that page about how a MS kernel designer refused to support NUMA. So in companies you just don't hear about it in public whereas the open source stuff it's all public posturing.
And in this case, then open source model is worse.
Anybody can come along and branch/fork anything. True, if it sucks, it will get nowhere, but if it has a following because of some large reason (like dapper is a dick) then you will have his followers and his haters and like you say, everything will have to be tested twice.
In a business, one developer complains to the boss that so and so is being a dick and is breaking the libraries, and the boss fires him. Problem solved.
That just can't happen in opensource land.
Hopefuly the same fate will befall glibc.
Excellent install. Virtually no thinking.
Amazing how much is fit onto a CD-ROM still.
I HATE the Ubuntu default color scheme. HATE IT.
I HATE the toolbar being at the top of the screen. Why do this? So it's not too Windows like?
So, I get the wireless key on the machine, open up a browser, and hit Drudge Report. It politely tells me I'm missing a flash player, and I have one of three to choose from. Adobe's and two different open source players.
I choose Adobe's, which cheerfully downloads, and then says it can't install because of a package dependency, glibc3. While it seemed doubtful, I follow along to see what would happen.... So, another helpful screen comes up, trying to download glibc3...... And what happens?
It says it's already installed.
So, I try the open source players, neither of which can be found, even though it gave me the option to download them........
So, just a few minutes of running, and I'm already at a spot where the average user would be pulling the hair out!
This is just shitty package management. Perhaps your machine is too old or something.
Flash player went in without any glibc dependency issues for me, but my machine was an upgrade so it might be different.
What I'm annoyed about is that stuff like Flash used to just get downloaded with one click, maybe there was a message or something but originally Ubuntu didn't have any problems drawing from non-free software sources when necessary.
Then when Ubuntu got popular all the Stallmanites started whining about the sanctity of free software and that Ubuntu was evil for even thinking about mixing free and non-free software. So they ended up adding all these extra steps to keep the freetards from forking it and blowing the whole Ubuntu dream.
It worked, but we're stuck with these annoyances now.
I hate that....
I *just* installed Ubuntu workstation (the latest) on a vm, and am currently dipping in it.
The flash player went in without a hitch for me, but then, I chose the GNOME one (I figured I'd push the envelope a bit).
freetards from forking it and blowing the whole Ubuntu dream. It
worked, but we're stuck with these annoyances now.
Maybe they should have let them fork and see who wins. I'm guessing the people who enjoy the less annoying experience would win.
I was under the impression that the Gnome project was started due to a perceived licensing issue with the heavy use of Qt in KDE. Gnome wanted something not encumbered with a commercial license at all.
The Qt folks adjusted their license to make it more attractive to the community, but the inertia of both efforts continue.
exact. licensing KDE under the GPL wasn't legal with the original QT license. So distributing KDE could have led to legal issues. It didn't happen, but it could have as we all know meanwhile it does happen.
Meanwhile QT was dual licensed by trolltec under the GPL.
There however is another major difference between GNOME and KDE:
KDE is C++, while gnome is done in C.
If you buy the KDE stuff for your application, you've got a verry close lock-in which isn't as tight in GNOME.