Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
Nice troll, but there's a point that can be made out of it:
The fact that these applications originated as proprietary software is
still very recognizable today.
What's recognizable is that they're user-oriented instead of developer
oriented.
They still are very monolithic in nature,
Users like one interface to handle all their needs. Developers | want |
to | connect | orthogonal > tools.
built on their own custom portability and GUI frameworks.
Most users don't use GTK (and where most of these apps are deployed, GTK
would be considered a custom portability framework).
They make heavy use of binary or opaque file formats for storing
settings and other metadata.
Users want to configure using a gui. That means a program reads and
writes the configuration, so a binary format makes sense. Developers
like to vi/emacs the configuration file; most developer-oriented
programs never write their configuration file.
And they generally (ab)use threading,
Users want the program to be responsive. Developers want purity of design.
or
custom plugin, upgrade, and installation systems.
To reach actual users (not developers) you need more than rpm and yum.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
