Define fail.

I know a couple of websites that absolutely will not successfully print pages to my printer (the printer locks up with an error code) when I use FireFox.

When I use Chrome, those sites print just fine.

A co-worker of mine who specializes in security issues refuses to use Chrome for anything.

So, one application fails to print but the other fails to revoke certificates as needed.

Yes I know what a window manager is.... by ye average Joe Soap doesn't nor does he care once you have gone to the effort of explaining it to him.

Point of view.

Overall the real argument is how useful is redundancy?

If someone asks a question I assume that this person looks for an answer for oneself, sorry if I was wrong in your case.

Also, I never assume that someone who asks a question here is the average Joe Soap that you seem to despise.

Since the day your users phone you at 7 AM on a Sunday morning to ask you which "Web browser" program they should use.

And thats why FireFox is a universal standard.

What universe?

Having one application (essentially what Salix does) per task is all right, I suppose, if you subscribe to the We Know What's Good for You School -- sort of like education systems that teach one thing one way and that's that: kids, conform or die (all in all another brick in the wall?).

I happen to like simple. I don't like eye candy. I don't like flashing lights and spinning images. I like terminal windows that are black characters on white background. I don't like colors in text editors. I don't like IDEs. I like a plain black screen with almost no icons (well, a few, the stuff I use all the time). I don't like emacs, I do like vi, I don't care for default vim (with all the color stuff) -- yes, I know that vi is symbolically linked to elvis by default and I relink it to /usr/bin/vim and shut off the colors. I like that I can edit text files without having to reach for a damned mouse to do anything.

Using OpenOffice (or LibreOffice) as a text editor is ridiculous. Using a text editor that doubles as a text formatting application is too. Cripes (think trying to do any actual work on MS Windows).

Linux is all about choice. You may choose KDE, I will choose Xfce (until they "develop" the damned thing to be more KDEish). I'm happy with the extremely limited use I have for video and audio and choose MPlayer knowing full well that there are a whole batch of players and editors and mixers and whatnot that I haven't a clue about and just don't want to bother with. That's me, you have multiple choices if audio and video are your thing.

I admire the heck out of the work that AlienBob has done with multilib. I don't play games (other than 4-suite Spider when I'm bored) and I don't care about any 32-bit applications. You may and you have that choice.

The system is a toolkit and you're encouraged to lean what the array of tools do and how to use them; that's the beauty of it. It can be as simple or as complex as your little heart desires. If you happen to like what Salix chooses to provide, well, there you go. And, there you are -- with those choices. You can add additional applications but I'd rather have the full boat available if for some reason or other I need or want to do something a little different -- thus Slackware.

Hope this helps some.

1 members found this post helpful.

Sigh! Sadly you have misunderstood me or I have miscommunicated.


a) I do not despise Joe Average Soaps.... usually they have bigger and badder problems biting them than learning linux. Hence I try to make choices when dealing with them that reduces the amount of learning they have to do.

b) The Joe Average soaps I'm talking about are in meatspace, not on LQ. I assume those folk on LQ are trying to learn and I will attempt to help them as much as the want.

The ones in meatspace often are just trying to get something else done and have no desire to learn, and teaching them often makes them unhappy.

Since you become a good programmer... Surely for sensible hardware, planes commands etc... NEVER for a PROGRAM (I mean the source), that would mean you don't know how to program... (*)

Your proposition could have been valid (but disputable not as an ultimate truth) in the case of this thread which is "Applications proposed to the end user"... Which is not related at all with "software architecture" (computer science)...

Cheers

Garry.

(*) Edit: yes, for me "real programming" implies knowing from assembly development up to C++/Haskell etc, through shell... That means the whole package as a knowledge... NOT web developer or "visual basic", sorry on this but I can't help, for me to call someone a programmer, he must KNOWS how a computer works, from the metal to the user chair... .

"To be or not to be ?"

(Sorry, I'm out... ).

THAT... is the question!

One feature or goal of a distribution could be it's storage size. That is, the author values having the distribution fit on specific media. A distribution with multiple applications per task may not "fit" or require more resources for downloads. Just another reason that a one-application-per-task distribution can have its benefits.

For example, The "complete" Salix Xfce 14.1 fits on one CD (even the DVD version if you have the right CD media and burner. ) Even if the maintainers of Salix may not value it's size, as a user I sure do. Yet, as tronayne pointed out, you can easily add applications to your Salix installation if you want different, or redundant applications.

In the case of Salix and similar distributions, I see them as offering the positive features of both worlds. They've made the application choices for you to get you started and hopefully be productive, yet you can add and delete applications all you want as you grow and experiment as a software user.

I think it's a positive feature to have a complete system at installation, with one application for most of the common tasks, yet being able to add what you want.

A one-application-per-task distribution may not be what I use, but I think the benefits of such a distribution are worth acknowledging. The best part is that I have a CHOICE about what distribution I use. (I even have a choice to select a distribution that doesn't give me a choice of applications. )

I go further: The "one application per task" rationale shows some of the typical failures of the Linux desktop:

1. The OS vendor is providing you with his applications.

It's not only the choices of the OS vendor we are talking about. The OS vendor is actually building and releasing his own applications, with his own patches, sometimes even with his own application names ("IceCat"). This is the reason why Linux installer ISOs are huge. But a desktop OS should provide a stable base platform for third party applications provided by application developers and installed by the admin or end-user. As a result of this Linux distributions have no distinction between OS and user applications and make it hard to install and run third party stuff.

2. It assumes there is actually one application for every task.

But there are still a lot of tasks, for which the Linux desktop has exactly zero applications available. Where you need to improvise with other applications or just have to use an emulator, virtualizer and another OS.

I've built my own Linux based OS with very minimal applications, but with moderate support of libraries and enough required system utilities.

I can see where size matters in media, but it does allow for portability and easier maintenance in distribution method. The more minimal you make the distribution, the more customizable it can become to the end user and system administrator.

In the end, it all boils down the preference.