On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Rob OpenSuSE <rob.opensuse.linux@googlemail.com> wrote:
What if the experience gained by the release of 11.2 and auto-configuration was used when considering the decision?
That's not how I read it. But that could be the case.
Frankly looking at forums and around, the X11 auto-configuration has been a success, and I would like some money for every time a new openSUSE user had had an issue with graphics, and needed to be told to go to do an init 3 and run sax2!
I never had an issue using SaX2 from the desktop...........Only time I didn't have a working desktop was if I switched the hard drive between 2 laptops and one had a lower resolution display or switched video cards.
Everyone is better placed to say, we don't need sax2 now, whereas if Novell ppl had put sax2 in jeopardy beforehand it would have led to a lot of wasted time, based on (mostly) groundless fears. What I have used today, instead of sax2 isn't perfect, but is near enough to not have worries for future on this.
For those running LCD's then it shouldn't be an issue. I never said losing SaX2 was bad so long as there were alternatives. Not having installed 11.2 on MY systems(just my son's) I don't know. But as a long time user, I did use SaX2 to drop my son's CRt's resolution for him because that was what I'm used to using.....
If the programs important, then with the code, you can pay someone to maintain it even if you lack the skills to work on it yourself. If sax2 or KDE3 development was vital to businesses wouldn't it be possible to fund the work? How many of the vociferous community moaners actually ever compiled KDE3 for themselves even once?
I've compiled everything at one time or another. And that was when compiling took a LONG time due to slow machines. However, your comment on business doesn't work since Linux is only on 1% of the market and a lot of those are probably servers with no X or seldom used X on older systems...... IF I was a programmer, or IF I wasn't poor, I would investigate continuing KDE3. However, that's not an option for me.....
Not having updates, does not mean software stops working the same as the day before, it's moth balling was announced.
That's why some people still use Mac OS 8 or 9. However, with the pace of kernel and open source development, things break much faster. Try installing Firefox 3.5.x on openSUSE 10.0 or S.u.S.E. 8(which came out around the time that XP did IIRC).
Now, one key difference, is with FOSS you can demonstrate noone can shutdown your software. With commercial software, you're relying on say MS not deciding with something like Genuine Advantage to pull the plug on your release, or decide you broke your EULA. Those businesses you convert may have been stiffed by commercial software vendors in the past, exploiting their "sole sourcing" to increase their fees unreasonably.
BUT, it is still a valid concern. How would it look if they switched from Quickbooks, which has a long history and is still actively used, and the replacement went down within a short period of time. They may be willing to switch yet again, but they may also just switch back. Yes, M$ has some crappy policies. However, they are still providing updates for Windows 2000(generally - not always). How many Linux vendors are supporting a 10 year old OS? XP support it through at least 2014. The longest Linux server system is supported for what 5 years?
KDE4 made mistake of not co-existing gracefully with KDE3, so users could try it out, and then go back to KDE3 day to day once the curiousity & craving for novelty was satisfied. I agree the KDE team in openSUSE made a mistake making KDE4 the preferred KDE in 11.1, with KDE3 relegated to "Other". Hopefully this spectacular embaressing experience, teaches other FOSS projects not to repeat over-optimistic promises based on vapour-ware, and to neglect compatability during transition for end-users. Trusting the distro's to do it, doesn't work.!!
KDE4 was just a disaster all the way around. No single group was to blame. While I'm all for starting over if it's needed, they alienated a lot of people for a good while. KDE showed the stability of the Linux desktop. To have such a huge change and then have it unstable didn't help Linux much.
But Sax2 is not a program any sane end-user wants to run regularly, it's a nice configurator for old X11 servers based on a static config file. If the code has been written by GNOME & KDE already, then what's the point in duplicating the effort?
Never argue against that in the instance of SaX2.
Talking about the Windows world, how many are using the same virus scanner, spyware and word processor that they used 8 years ago?
I support some offices that use Word Perfect for DOS under Windows 98. I have another company that uses a DOS program under a NT4/Win98/XP network. Their point is WHY upgrade when it's not going to make things any easier and just cost me money. Granted, these are the exception, but I've been finding more and more that are leaning the same way. If Office 2003 works, why deal with the headache of 2007? M$'s constant changes hurt more than they help but it keeps me in business. Open source is actually harder to support in some ways because of the pace of development.
Asking permission to drop something in advance, is a recipe for time wasting!
Sometimes. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org