The WindowsWorld experience - explained

There seems to be some misunderstanding about recent comments regarding
an identified "Its getting more like Windows" problem with some Linux
component developments. This needs clearing up before we end up with a
flame war.

Regarding Xorg (for example), I've heard reference to "the old way",
which was a reliable way and one that has been removed from the end
user's box of tools.

The "new way" involves automatic setups that are dumped on shutdown and
reset on boot up. This is all well and fine /if it works/. Sometimes it
doesn't though, and thats where the problems start.

Sure xorgconfig has been replaced by yet another auto that generates the
same problem that it was supposed to fix. IOW, it fails where the old
xorgconfig would have at least provided the old options to manually and
permanently set things to the admin's choices. We don't have that any
more. This is not progress.

Cut to the chase, if the autos don't work, then the admin is now forced
to fall back on manually writing up a functioning xorg.conf from scratch,
or from the faulty output of an auto-process. This is more like the way
Windows works than what we had before, therefore, my /relevant/ comments
about "Windows-World".

This is /not/ intended as some kind of motal insult to developers, who do
sterling work which is recognised and appreciated. This is a comment on
the /end user's experience/, which surely must count for something, even
if it needs translating for those incapable of seeing the wood for the
trees, and those who seem to think they live in ivory towers and
shouldn't be bothered with such trivialities.

Comments, gripes, moans and groans, etc. are all both comments and
invitations for explanations on how to get up to speed with the latest
developments, and /constructive/ input is both welcome and sought.
However, there are some that, for some reason or other, seem to have
chosen to take offense at the concepts used and, having done so, started
behaving as if deliberate insult was intended. This is not the case, as
has been explained several times over already.

To draw a comparison:

Before we had doors, we just had holes in walls. Then somebody invented
the door. It had problems, and they were eventualy sorted out. We ended
up with doors with catches that held them shut, and handles to release
the catches so we could open the doors.

This design remained a standard for some time, as it was the optimum.

Then came automatic doors.

To some these were an improvement, but to others who's automatic doors
didn't work, there was a major problem. Somebody had removed the door
handles, leaving the whole thing SNAFU when it did go wrong. The only
option available was to get out a box of tools and start drilling holes
in the stuck door to fit a makeshift handle. Then, when the door was shut
again, it seems somebody had restructured the new doors to remove the
emergency handle and return things to the default automatics, which then
failed again, meaning the toolbox had to come out yet again...

Sure, it was possible to hack into the automatics and bypass some
circuits to avoid the SNAFU, but thats hardly progress now is it?

Now imagine the predictable discussion between the irked maintenance guy
with his toolbox and the proud designer of these wonderful new doors.

Hope this helps clear up any accidental misunderstandings of what I've
been trying to say here.

*=( http://www.churchofreality.org/