[Discuss] an "Enterprise" Linux for desktop

[markw at mohawksoft.com]

>> From: markw at mohawksoft.com [mailto:markw at mohawksoft.com]
>>
>> Changing existing paradigms is usually a bad
>> practice unless there is sufficient evidence a new paradigm is better.
>
> The same is true of everything that is being developed by anyone anywhere.
> Even if you invented a car that consumes negative thoughts and emits love
> and happiness as the waste product, or even if you were abolishing
> slavery,
> or promoting voting rights for women or african americans in the U.S. a
> few
> decades ago, people who are entrenched in the existing paradigm will
> oppose
> your invention, and you might end up murdered if it's sufficiently
> important
> or whatever.

Come on, have a productive argument. The only thing missing is a reference
to a mid 20th century authoritarian regime and you'd evoke Godwin's rule.
We are not talking about human rights or womans' suffrage. We are talking
about the mechanics of human interactions with machines.

Think about the QWERTY keyboard. The Dvorák proponents made their case and
lost. QWERTY is no better or worse than Dvorák and thus, the prevailing
paradigm won. Rightly so. That's the competition of ideas.

With user interface, we are not getting a "vote" or a choice. They are
changing it and we have to learn a new one. We are not letting the
competition of ideas win, we are being forced to accept new paradigms by
fiat. IMHO this is not how open source and free software should be
working.


>
> It's impossible to get everyone to agree that any new change is positive.

Provide a choice and see which wins.

> So those decisions are left to the people who have localized control over
> whatever it is.

Where's the competition of ideas?

>
> Sometimes the changes are unpopular (vista).  But they may still be
> justified as a stepping stone to something better (win7 is definitely
> better
> than xp).

Vista is an example of how a Monopoly even has to listen.
>
> As you mentioned, if a feature makes it into a product, was there ever
> justification to put it in?  And if it's later removed, was there
> justification to take it out?  Well sometimes things get into a product
> because it was easy given the architecture, although the architecture may
> later change.  Sometimes it's something some dude cares about who's
> actually
> implementing it.  No, it's not always well thought out, and it doesn't
> always need to be.  In fact, it's necessary that to some extent it cannot
> be
> thoroughly thought out.
>
> Perfection is the enemy of progress.  Plus it's subjective.

I'm all for experimentation, it is, in the end, how we learn. However,
"serious" work creates knowledge. Knowledge lasts and contributes to the
whole. Haphazard work doesn't last and doesn't contribute, its a
distraction.

>
>