Kind request: fix your packages

Mon Oct 6 06:54:12 UTC 2003

On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 23:59, Otto Haliburton wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fedora-devel-list-admin at redhat.com [mailto:fedora-devel-list-
> > admin at redhat.com] On Behalf Of Nils Philippsen
> > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 4:25 PM
> > To: fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> > Subject: RE: Kind request: fix your packages
> > 
> > On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 18:19, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2003-10-04 at 09:11, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear user,
> > > >
> > > > 	As we all know you're dumb and you can not learn to use a package
> > > > manager ever. To ease your pain we've decided not to inflict you the
> > > > so-called "dependency hell" and provide you an autonomous application.
> > > > Just click on its auto-update menu and it will download everything you
> > > > need, we swear it.
> > >
> > > *bzzt*  It has *nothing* to do with users being "dumb."  *nothing*  It
> > 
> > I think Nicolas forgot the irony tags.
> > 
> > > has to do with the fact the user doesn't care, doesn't need to care, and
> > > shouldn't be forced to care.  I don't have a fricken clue how a jet
> > > engine works, don't really care how it works, but that doesn't mean I'm
> > > not allowed to fly on a plane.  Indeed, the usage of an airplane is
> > 
> > To turn around your comparison, the pilot would be the person pushing
> > around the mouse and pushing the keys for you (and everyone would be
> > clapping hands when the document comes out of the printer ;-). Doesn't
> > sound right? I thought so.
> > 
> > > completely independent of knowing how the engine works, including the
> > > pilots.
> > 
> > They too have their specialists ("flight mechanics") for the engines,
> > but at least basic knowledge how they work (e.g. the kernel) and
> > intimate knowledge about flight mechanics (e.g. how the system boots,
> > what package dependencies are and how to deal with them). If you look at
> > small planes, the pilots often are the flight mechanics.
> > 
> > As I see it, the flight mechanics represent developers, the pilot
> > represents an administrator, the passengers represent normal users. At
> > the moment, passengers are restricted to using their seats, watching TV
> > and going to the bathroom during flight -- with much assistance and
> > hand-holding they could possibly emergency-land a machine if the pilots
> > are sick or whatever, but what are the odds that they succeed?
> > 
> > I don't say that I don't wish that users could easily do complicate
> > tasks on a computer, aided by carefully crafted tools (auto-pilot ;-)
> > who take care of the innards they don't want to know about.
> > 
> > > Computers aren't any different.  There is no reason a user should *have*
> > > to understand the inner workings of it.  That doesn't mean they *can't*
> > > know it, only that they don't need to.
> > 
> > A computer is a very complex machine and I don't see that today's tools
> > are intelligent enough to hide all that from the user and still give
> > them all the potential the machines have. I don't see the majority of
> > the people having their private planes/gliders/etc. in the next years
> > either ;-).
> > 
> > Just some thoughts...
> > 
> > Nils
> 
> Nils,
> 	I think you have forgotten what computers are.  Computers are a
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think so, but see below.

> tool.  There are two phases to the tool.  The user phase and the developer
> phase.  The developer phase is the OS and all the things that go with making
> the computer work and do things.  The user is the person that operates the
> tool and perform the task that the developer phase created.  The user
> doesn't have a need to know anything about the developer phase, it's a waste
> of his time and energy.  Once these relationships are understood then I
> think everybody will be happy.  Think of it as a team, part of the team
> keeps the engine running and the other part does the driving.

I think we differ in how we define "driving". I think "driving" includes
running installed programs, running the installer or updater but
anything beyond that is clearly "off-road" for a mere driver. Fiddling
with your engine or tuning the car with stuff from various sources is
not "driving" for me, i.e. it requires knowledge to do properly. The
"monolithic approach" I've seen in this thread (brings all needed stuff
with it, allegedly works always) might work, but then this is basically
like an appliance where the OS is just the kernel or in the (stretched
into oblivion) car analogy: you can keep the engine, but everything else
will be added to the car again. Can you imagine driving a car with more
than one steering wheel? I hate unnecessary redundancy as it often
brings more problems than it solves.

Nils
-- 
     Nils Philippsen    /    Red Hat    /    nphilipp at redhat.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
 safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."     -- B. Franklin, 1759
 PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20031006/34fd83a9/attachment.sig>