a perfect car analogy for a perfect Jessie is something like this...
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2014, lee wrote:
>> Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:
>> > Except that it the software does depend on the shared library being
>> > installed. Binaries which link against shared libraries must have
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > the shared library present to run. Otherwise they have a linker
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > failure, and never start running in the first place.
I think Lee is sanguine to this point, although his earlier posts
seemed ambiguous.
>> Then the software shouldn't depend on a library it doesn't need.
>
> It needs the code paths of the library in some cases, therefore it links
> with the library, therefore the library must be installed if the binary
> is to run.
Which kind of belabors the point.
>> It's like keeping a trailer connected to your car all the time, with
>> the main fuse of the trailers' circuit removed, just because the
>> electricity could decide to want to try to flow through the outlet at
>> the hitch in case you hit the break pedal.
>
> If we're going to make car analogies, a more apt one is
>
> It's like a car manufacturer making a car which comes with a hitch
> mount even though you don't ever plan on using a trailer
>
> You can build your own car without it, but it's perfectly reasonable for
> the manufacturer to not offer that model without it.
I would not have picked that analogy,
Miles points out why for one style of hitch.
But in-bumper hitches have been indicated as the failure point in a
number of accidents involving trailers. I had a truck built back in
the '70s, with an in-bumper hitch and holes in the bumper to attach
chain hooks. It was a reinforced bumper, theoretically designed to
take the strain. But a police officer advised me not to use the hitch,
and I think my insurance company said they wouldn't insure me when I
was driving with a trailer attached to it. The manual even specified
limits that were ridiculously small -- six-foot overall length,
quarter-ton load or something like that. We would have had to do some
after-market work on the frame, add stronger springs, and change the
bumper, to tow even a small RV or a real utility trailer.
A better analogy would have been designing the chassis with a
reinforced frame and built-in bracketing, so that mounting a real
hitch would not require after-market alterations.
And then things devolve into a morass of interpretations about how you
define the structure, partition it into modules, and so forth. Not to
mention the question of why debian should be only for truck-like
recreational and pseudo-utility vehicles.
And I think this is basically the problem. The people at
opendesktop.org have a vision of Linux that is shared by a lot of
people who are interested in desktop systems, and networks of desktop
systems managed by managers who don't want to use the command line.
That almost works for the Fedora crowd, especially now that most of
those who didn't like it jumped ship. It works for the Mint crowd.
I don't think it works for more than about half the debian crowd.
(I personally would have chosen a metaphor about cars with built-in
entertainment/communication/navigation systems, but that's me. :)
--
Joel Rees
Be careful when you see conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart,
and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy.
Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself.
Reply to: