[NTLUG:Discuss] Startup system types

[Leroy Tennison]

  On 09/11/2010 01:04 PM, Ted Gould wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-09-11 at 09:11 -0500, Wayne Walker wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 09:02:08PM -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 17:21 -0500, Gilbert Morrow wrote:
>>>> People who use Ubuntu must have the iPhone syndrome .  I am a Linux fan but
>>>> not Ubuntu (Microsoft of Linux).
>>> Against my better judgment I'm going to ask: What does "Microsoft of
>>> Linux" even mean?
>> I would assume the analogy is the Microsoft is computing dumbed down and
>> crippled so that _anyone_ can use it _WITHOUT_THINKING_.
>>
>> Some think Ubuntu has the same goal:  _anyone_ can use it _WITHOUT_THINKING_
>>
>> Others think Ubuntu's goal is only: _anyone_ can use it
> Heh, so if it means that it's usable by people who don't want to learn
> Linux and want to do other things with their life -- I guess that's
> really a complement in my book :)
>
> 		--Ted
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Well, as the "Microsoft experience" has already taught us, doing so has 
it's down sides.  It's great to be able to get functionality and not 
have to know how it works - until it breaks...  Then the only people who 
know how to work on it are:

1) The developers

2) Those who have spent too much time being a detective "discerning" how 
it works by error-and-trail since no one bothered to explain anything 
"because you don't have to know how it works".  One of the beauties of 
init scripts is that very little can be hidden.  I'm not saying that all 
init scripts are intuitive but at least you know where to look and have 
a fighting change of figuring it out.

The problem with ease-of-use is that the implementers hide the details 
and don't bother explaining how it works because supposedly they don't 
need to - "the design is bullet-proof and intelligent therefore it won't 
ever break" (I have a bridge for sale...) .  At that point 
troubleshooting becomes more voodoo and black magic then logic.

Sure, this could be avoided if people would simply produce explanations 
of how the stuff works for those who need to know.  Unfortunately they 
don't have the time to do so because it's more important to produce new 
features than do a quality job.  I speak not as an outsider looking on 
and judging others but as one who has been forced to participate in 
these kinds of things far too often.  There are a few major projects 
where I was a significant participant which, if someone came along and 
said "what a piece of !@#$%", I'd reply "You're right, you should have 
seen the constraints under which we had to complete it".