| 1 |
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:28:58 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> You're basically arguing that if somebody putting together an OS has a |
| 6 |
> working solution for something, they should spend just as much effort |
| 7 |
> maintaining 3 other solutions for that something ... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
No. I am simply stating that some things do not belong within an OS |
| 11 |
as they are better for individual users to implement. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Is file searching an integral part of an OS? For MS Windows it is. |
| 14 |
Should it be for Linux? I would hope not, but maybe the Freedesktop |
| 15 |
folks would not agree. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
There are many ways to search files, such as regular expressions using |
| 18 |
grep, sed, or perl, or utilizing special software devoted to the purpose. |
| 19 |
Why then would we demand that the OS include functionality for searching |
| 20 |
and indexing? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The same can be said for my other example of color management. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Nothing is preventing you from starting a "Foundation for Redundant |
| 26 |
> Solutions" |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
So, then, an OS which includes integral searching/indexing, CM, image |
| 30 |
viewers, video players, word processors, etc., in spite of already existing |
| 31 |
software devoted to those tasks, is not being redundant? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
My original point may have been misunderstood but I am still aware of a |
| 34 |
great divide between my conceptions and those of others. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
The GNU project and FSF were born in a time when people used computers |
| 37 |
and not vice versa, but that time seems to be fading fast. The motivating |
| 38 |
concept is now "user transparency" where everything just works without |
| 39 |
having to know why or how it works. I used to believe that GNU/Linux |
| 40 |
was immune to these trends but now I have my doubts. |
Archives