On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 13:41 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > On 9/12/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Arthur Pemberton wrote: > > > On 9/11/07, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> So you don't think there will ever be a Linux distribution that is > > >> usable and reliable as a desktop without having to customize and re-test > > >> everything before letting anyone use it? > > > > > > > > > One would hope that every sysadmin test at least re-rests every > > > software solution to be deployed, regardless of OS - and if that > > > solution is modular, remove portions necessary to their situation. > > > > That's a rather sad commentary on the state of the distributions and the > > lack of any framework for sharing QA and configuration work, don't you > > think, when every entity that would like to use it needs to have people > > on staff with more expertise than the packagers that build it? > > Testing doesn't require more expertise than the packagers. Nor is the > expertise of a package such a high level of attainment. > > > That > > seems equivalent to me to saying that before you use an automobile you > > should have an employee take it apart and perhaps replace a few > > components to make it suitable for its intended use. > > So you're saying that big companies that rely heavily on their own > fleet of vehicles use stock vehicles without vetting them and putting > them on the road? I worked at Schlumberger, and they bought fleet vehicles, ditto for Fairchild and Teradyne. They are all pretty big companies, I think (Schlumberger was the worlds largest conglomerate I think.) Regards, Les H
