Wine/Cedega and fedora 3

[Sean Middleditch]

On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 12:08 -0500, Sean wrote:
> On Wed, December 8, 2004 10:44 am, Sean Middleditch said:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Sean,
> 
> You seem to want the entire Linux world to Just Get Along[tm] and have
> everyone play by the same rules so that proprietary app vendors lives
> would
> be a little easier.   But there is no way to impose such a solution across
> the entire spectrum.

Stop there.  You seem hung up on the proprietary app stuff.  I think
I've made it as clear as I can that *Open Source* apps are hurt too.  In
fact, I haven't had any problems installing proprietary apps here at
work.  It's the third party open source apps that are a pain.

> 
> The truth is, the Linux development model is messy with diverse groups of
> developers in a wild web of cooperation and competition.  This model is
> incredibly powerful and has created the huge success that we have today.
> The fact that there are some interoperability issues is hardly surprising,
> but their resolution is usually not really that difficult.

Right.  That's my whole point.  Resolution is not really that difficult.
So why are you arguing against the simple resolution?

> 
> Nobody is _ever_ going to get all the people involved in Linux to agree to
> anything.   The beauty of open source is, you don't have to get people to
> agree, you have the power to do what you want.

> 
> Perhaps you'll have some luck convincing RedHat to include every library
> ever developed for ever.   But i'm not sure the demand for it is as great
> as you think.  Nor would it help on other distributions that refuse to
> implement that plan.

That is *not* what I've asked for.  I've made it rather clear that I
think that Red Hat even *trying* to provide tons of software is goofy.
Centralization, as I've said, is *NOT* the answer and never will be.

> 
> Sticking with a long lived distribution really does minimize the problems
> for users.  As for proprietary application vendors, the burden imposed by
> the Linux landscape really isn't insurmountable.   They have a number of
> options on how to provide their products.

It's not the vendors I'm worried about.  It's the users.  Or even the
Open Source developers.  Every hour that I spend dealing with some
stupid breakage is an hour that I *could* have spent writing code.  Or,
heck, out with friends or family or whatever.  Maybe that list of "cool
projects I want to do but haven't yet" would be a bit smaller if it
didn't take hours to get a simple actively maintained open source app
installed because it's dependencies conflict left and right due to poor
packaging and/or poor library interface management.

This argument is getting close to going in circles.  Do you have any
actual arguments against anything I've proposed or asked for?  I haven't
actually seen one yet...
-- 
Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.