[NCLUG] Fedora 6 and the RaLink rt2500 wireless card

[Chad Perrin]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 11:32:15AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> > This discussion got old about the second time I was prompted with
> > questions.  I just agreed with someone else, in terms of my personal
> > preferences, and this has turned into an interrogation by people who
> > seem to be feeling very defensive about their choices in Linux
> > distribution.  I'm getting sick of this crap.
> 
> Personally what I was responding to was the apparent assertion that a
> certain set of distros contained and/or forced the use of "distribution
> specific" GUIs, which:

In that case, you were responding to something that didn't happen.


> 
> a) Isn't true, it seems that there are always text files that are easily
> editable.

They are more difficult to discover and, sometimes, more difficult to
edit.  This contributes to the *encouragement* to use distro-specific
tools, which is *not* the same as *forcing* anything.  Please read what
I actually say, and respond to that, rather than responding to what you
think would be easier to dispute if I *had* said it.


> 
> b) Isn't unique to the distros that were mentioned in your allegation -
> every single distro has its own distro-specific GUI and distro-specific
> file format and distro-specific file location.

Uh . . . really?  If so, *it's really well hidden* in some
distributions, because to varying degrees (in increasing order) such
tools are difficult to avoid in Fedora, Mandrake, and SuSE, while I have
yet to run across a distro-specific network configuration tool in Debian
(for example).  Ever.  Not even once.


> 
> It seems that what you're really complaining that:
> 
> a) You don't like Fedora's file format, or at least prefer Debian's.

Incorrect.  I haven't commented on the file's internal syntax (what I
think you mean by format) at all.


> 
> b) You don't like Fedora's file location, because it's nested deep(er)
> in the filesystem.

. . . and more difficult to identify.  These two things put together add
up to relatively bad discoverability, and greater annoyance factor in
trying to remember it the first few times one uses it.  In fact, even
after getting used to the file locations, I found it easier to use the
curses-based configuration script than to edit the files by hand,
despite the fact that it was easier to edit the interfaces file in
Debian by hand than to use Fedora's script.


> 
> c) You don't like Fedora's documentation location, because, whilst the
> location is standard, it's not obvious how to find it if you don't know
> the standard.

I don't like the piss-poor discoverability of that documentation, and
the fact that there's not a standard interface to it the way there is
for manpages, coupled with the fact that the documentation in question
is absolutely critical (barring getting help from other real live people
or Google) to figuring out how to accomplish simple, common tasks.  It's
not just some vague purely relativist aesthetic difference of opinion.


> 
> Those points are all fine - I just don't like anti-distro/OS/HW FUD. Say
> what you mean!

It's not anti-distro FUD, but considering your track record for
responding to what I've actually said rather than taking a reactionary
approach, assuming I'm saying Fedora sucks, thus far in this discussion,
I'm not terribly surprised that's your impression.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.