What is Digg?19 Comments
- Darkhacker, on 08/11/2008, -0/+11I'm a Linux user (though not fanatically loyal) so I may have an implicit bias, but even when I try to look at Linux from a negative angle, your comment still fails on almost every level.
a) This isn't a Linux issue. This is an issue with every OS ever made ever. That "third party" software is called a 'library'. In particular GTK+ is used to create the graphical user interface (GUI) for the application. I honestly don't even know if you could call it third party since *everything* besides a kernel would be "third party." You're argument would be like me saying that Windows isn't ready because it requires a "third party" compiler or a "third party" text editor. If, however, you mean "third party" in the sense of how a distribution packages software, then you're wrong. GTK+ is included with nearly every mainstream distro and the only issue here is the version of it. Firefox 3 works just fine on the latest Ubuntu and Fedora. The issue was about legacy support.
b) Upgrades are good. They fix bugs and add features.
c) It doesn't require recompiling anything unless you're using a distro like Gentoo which compiles everything. All it requires is upgrading the binaries.
d) This is an issue with every OS. Also, I wouldn't call this particular example 'extreme'. I've yet to hear of any issues of the latest GTK+ breaking apps. It's binary compatible and well tested. Hell, Windows has massive breakages whenever they first release a SP and even minor updates occasionally make the news as having broken applications.
Again, I'll admit I have a bias in favor of Linux. But even when I look at it from a negative angle and think of reasons why Linux isn't ready, *this* is most certainly not one of those reasons.
Now that I've corrected your ***** claims, I think I should inform you that you've misinterpreted the article to a grand degree. This isn't a OS issue, it's an application issue. If you are going to blame someone, blame Mozilla for making Firefox dependent on a newer version of GTK+. Don't blame the OS or the libraries because an application developer ***** up. Even though your argument is flawed, it would have actually made more sense if you had said... "I'm no Firefox guru by any means - but it says a lot about a browser if:" - PAStheLoD, on 08/12/2008, -0/+8OH NOES! I've to upgrade my totally rock solid system, installed in 1953, it has only GTK 0.0.0!
Yeah, being an IT guy is hard work. For 2 days every year. - daftman, on 08/12/2008, -0/+6> I'm no Linux guru by any means - but it says a lot about an OS if
I don't think you're any OS guru let alone Linux.
Every OS from Windows to OS X to Linux requires external libraries to run. This saves the developer time from rewrite things from scratch.
For example, most windows games requires third-party libraries call DirectX to run, Adium from Apple requires libpurple to run, etc
This is the BASIC thing that a computer literate person would know irrespective of what platform. You on the other hand are simply clueless but stand-up to bash Linux at any chance you get. - agentlame, on 08/12/2008, -0/+5***** grow up and update your damn distro.
- phjr, on 08/11/2008, -0/+5No such problems here on Gentoo...
- Darkx1337, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4yes
- ssam, on 08/12/2008, -0/+4by dropping out support for old versions of libraries, firefox can be less bloated and faster.
the past few versions most distros have GTK 2.10. ubuntu has had it since 6.10 (anything newer than dapper), fedora since FC6.
even the slow moving redhat enterprise linux will put it in their next updates to RHEL 4 (4.7). - RKDN, on 08/12/2008, -0/+3Firefox is just using the best version of GTK available and if the distro you use can't keep up with the times then you should swap to a distro that can. Or use an older version until it does!
- mmijatov, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2But doesn't this affect only about 12 - 15 people?
- geoken, on 08/12/2008, -2/+3The reason why Win2k works has everything to do with MS's neurotic maintenance of backwards compatibility and nothing (or very little) to do with Mozilla itself.
It's funny, Linux users love to poke fun of MS's bloated code which carries years of backwards compatibility with it, but when a practical advantage of it is shown they blame the app instead of the framework.
You can't have it both ways. - draegloth, on 08/12/2008, -0/+1No, it's hard work every time we have to "interface" with a "customer" who turns out to be an asshat douchebag (marketing person) with no clue how a PC works beyond clicking the big W icon to start word.
- daftman, on 08/13/2008, -0/+1> DirectX is not third party, it's second party to the game companies and first party to the OS company.
Third-party means it's not written by the developer.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_software_ ... - Chaotix, on 08/12/2008, -2/+2Wow my point was missed completely. Moving on...
- draegloth, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1DirectX is not third party, it's second party to the game companies and first party to the OS company.
- Darkx1337, on 08/12/2008, -1/+1digg
- natenovs, on 08/12/2008, -2/+2why? to upgrade 1 app?
- agentlame, on 08/12/2008, -4/+1tldr
- DavidonDigg, on 08/12/2008, -3/+0Firefox
- Chaotix, on 08/11/2008, -15/+5I'm no Linux guru by any means - but it says a lot about an OS if:
a) it required 3rd party software to run an application
b) you need to upgrade that 3rd party software
c) the 3rd party software requires re-compiling a ***** of other things
d) the risk of breaking other apps because of a single software update is this extreme.
This is why I don't use Linux. It's not ready. It's nice, and the idea is there, but just not ready yet.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is