Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[lucio@proxima.alt.za]

> 
> I can see that - I admit it wasn't clear in the original post.
> 
Right, I had to look for it.  But I make no claim to be unbiased, I've
invested ten years on Plan 9, I'd like them to bear fruit.

> Full-featured is in the eye of the beholder (like most things); as
> I expanded, I meant it as "lots of really useful programs already there
> out of the box."
> 
Yes, I intentionally distorted your statement, because I fear that
Linux will become another religion, Protestantism to Windows' Roman
Catholicism, if you feel like analogies.  And I'm serious here, as
soon as high priests and unproven assumptions take over, anything
seems capable of becoming an issue of faith.

> 
> I should have stated my definition.  I meant "stable" as in "never crashes
> unless the hardware is flakey."  I do see your point using your definition,
> and thus that's one point of the kind I was looking for in favor of *BSD.
> 
Same issue, there are other aspects one needs to consider, actual
resiliance against system failure may be important to some, less so to
others.  I know of organisations where somebody expressly visits the
computer room on weekends to reboot the Windows servers.  I think it's
a joke, they would be highly offended if I pointed that out to them.

> It wasn't meant negatively; it was a statement of fact that, like it
> or not, is a down point for Linux.  It does apply to all non-MS OS's,
> true.
> 
> I live in Israel.  I can't just mosey on down to my local Circuit City
> and pick out hardware that'll work with Linux.  I have a good relationship
> with a wonderful computer store, but they have hardware that they like.
> In the past, I've had monitor/video card/sound card issues, which were usually
> solved by the next linux release.  More recently I had a wireless networking
> card issue, where the box said "Linux" but it was a binary driver that
> would only work for RH 9, not Fedora.  (Solved via linuxant.com, but
> that's another story.)
> 
>From a South African perspective it is not very different.  And
perhaps it helps to look at this in more detail, as here is a very
critical issue.  It seems to me that the measurement is how much it
would cost to produce the missing software as and when the need
arises.  Given the Linux user/developers base, the cost is
considerably lower than for, say, NetBSD, with Plan 9 probably at the
very edge of that world.

It is possible that by making the framework in which device drivers
can be developed a lot simpler, as Plan 9 does, one can reduce the
cost somewhat, but that would still not make up for number of
developers, specially with idle hands.  Then, of course, there is the
pioneering, once Linux has been there, the *BSDs and Plan 9 will
certainly find it easier to follow.  (Hm, this need not apply only to
device drivers)

Of course, a change of culture that encourages hardware developers to
follow standards more closely and document their hardware with the
intent to facilitate driver development would make _all_ the
difference.  But that would require a chnage in the marketplace
vision.  The current interest in Linux may swing it, but it's more
likely to create merely another pole, as your experience illustrates.

> I was asking for me personally, as a committed techy/Unix type. I wasn't
> out to solve the world's problems. :-)
> 
Well, the context was that of the UN's investment in Linux, so you'll
have to forgive us, try to be more specific in future.

> Well said.
> 
Thank you.  It is not often that I feel I can drag my political views
here, they are not always well received and the replies are not often
of the type that encourages further discussion.  But I think that's a
part of the Plan 9 culture that one needs to accept.  It comes with
the territory, as a psychotherapist once suggested about a similar
situation.

++L