Rev for Linux (was Re: iPadding around?)
bobs at twft.com
Wed Feb 3 11:27:02 CST 2010
I guess the upshot of this whole discussion is that everything is a tradeoff. To gain stability we have to lose some freedom. The most stable government is a dictatorship, where only one man's wishes are done and everyone complies with the standard he issues. But of course, nobody wants that. Excepting the dictator of course. :-)
Same thing with software and operating systems. People have complained against the rigid control Apple maintains on development of their operating systems (Microsoft is no different) and hardware, but the end result is stability and predictability (not perfection I know). So it's all about balance. How much freedom are we willing to give up for stability and predictability in our computing world? The answer is different for every person.
For me, and IT guy, I am willing to give up a LOT of freedom, and restrict the freedom of my users, so that my job does not become orders of magnitude more complex and overwhelming. For the guy whose computer is his own personal digital erector set, he will give up very little freedom.
For me, I am willing to go with the OS that the most developers will tackle, because they know it's not a moving target. I am rewarded with software like Runtime Revolution. But the erector set guy has to face the likelihood that mainstream software is not going to be available for his system. He will have to choose from the offerings of other erector set guys (and very talented and productive ones I admit.)
On Feb 2, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> But please remember that one man's limitations is another man's freedom. For an experienced user like yourself Ubuntu's less frequent updates isn't helpful. But for newbies, updating every day is a hassle. And for developers, less frequent releases means the platform is less of a moving target.
More information about the use-livecode