[argyllcms] Re: More on instrument access
- From: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:34:52 +0100 (CET)
Le Lun 7 janvier 2008 15:51, Graeme Gill a écrit :
> Leonard Evens wrote:
>
>>>Compared to MSWindows and OS X, Linux is by far the hardest to use
>>>USB instruments with, because of the permission problems.
>
>> But won't most users of those OSs just use the proprietary software
>> provided by the manufacturers of the devices?
>
> Much of the time, yes. But I was comparing the ease of using
> instruments on those other platforms using Argyll, so it's
> an apples to apples comparison.
> Linux is third. You have to edit various configuration files,
Apples to oranges comparison. You're comparing systems where you
follow the preferred deployment process with systems where you're
intentionally working against it. An app that has followed the proper
packaging process does not require users to edit configuration files.
An editor that is working with distributions does not need to guess
the working udev syntax for every distribution out there by itself.
The Huey is a sore point and it was blacklisted on request a few days
once the demand was done using proper channels (no idea for how long
you knew the problem and tried to fix it outside the community
before).
If you want to be fair measure how long it takes for a lambda windows
user to write a .reg or .ini file.
> It's quite easy for me to comprehend why commercial software vendors
> do not like supporting Linux.
When they embark in a "let's replicate the way I work under windows
despite everyone telling me this system conventions are different" yes
it's painful. Linux is a community OS. Working with the community
makes things way easier than under Windows. Ignoring it makes things
way harder. Successful Linux ISVs/IHVs understand this.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Other related posts:
