[argyllcms] Re: More on instrument access
- From: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:40:47 +0100 (CET)
Le Mar 8 janvier 2008 00:14, Graeme Gill a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Apples to oranges comparison. You're comparing systems where you
>> follow the preferred deployment process with systems where you're
>> intentionally working against it.
>
> Not true. I have been even handed in the comparison -
> Argyll has been packaged for none of these systems,
And that's not fair. You can't compare a no-packaging approach for
systems designed around packaging and systems were packaging is an
afterthought.
>> An app that has followed the proper
>> packaging process does not require users to edit configuration
>> files.
>
> That merely hides the problems, they still have to be
> solved by whoever packages the application or creates
> an installer.
>
>> An editor that is working with distributions does not need to guess
>> the working udev syntax for every distribution out there by itself.
>
> This is one of the issues. I'd like to deploy a single installation
> that works on all Linux distributions. As a non-expert in
> any particular Linux distribution, how do I do that ?
>
> It's basically "cheating" to expect that there will be one
> expert per Linux distribution to package the application,
It's not cheating and that's just a different social organization.
You're still trying to centralize all argyllcms related work when
Linux organization is more distributed.
> since this then requires nearly 10 times the human
> resources as the other platforms.
Untrue. That just means the expertise is distributed among more
organizations instead of one entity with the same number of people
behind a high-$$$ call number.
> I agree that's partially the nature of the beast, but it also reflects
> the priorities and
> organization level of the developers - they don't value application
> vendors so much
> (whether commercial or not), and don't value standardization so much
> either. Often
> it's lacking vital API's, or they are slow to appear (accessing the
> VideoLUTs for each
> screen for instance, being able to disable the screen saver etc.)
That's also completely false. There is a high standardization drive,
but it does not rely on one monopolistic vendor doing all the
decisions but on actors agreeing on common solutions. So software
ecosystems whose ISVs work together are highly standardized, and
software ecosystems like color management where actors wait for
someone else to design the infrastructure get nowhere.
Every time a big non-Linux app is ported there there is a multi-year
painful phase where the ISV has to do all kinds of adjustments to
adapt its app to standards it was not expecting because the
corresponding domain is a huge mess on non-Linux platforms. You've
just been dismissing all kind of conventions because they don't exist
on other systems so you feel you can get by without them. So don't
complain of lack of standardisation. There are standards like on other
systems, the standard map is just different.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Other related posts:
