3 ms·

Well, my upgrade went fine too. But the amount of auto-removable packages was astounding afterwards. Most of them were libsomething.deb :) Which means that for

by nzmsv 17y ago

Well, my upgrade went fine too. But the amount of auto-removable packages was astounding afterwards. Most of them were libsomething.deb :) Which means that for whatever reason the original libraries (or packages) were no longer good enough. Now, how many dependencies need to be checked (and/or get broken subtly) any time a library is rolled into a new package? What about when a library is re-written? I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason for these changes. But they do make life a pain for us users. And the stuff that keeps breaking/changing is the interfaces and packaging. Which means configs have to be tweaked with every major upgrade. All my recent troubles have been caused by the switch to HAL. First it was X.org (broke my keyboard layout). Now it's Bluetooth. I like the modular design of HAL, but I just can't help but think it's just going to be ripped out and replaced again in a year or two because someone decides they hate XML, or something like that :)

hristov 17y ago
Well, so you are having HAL issues. It is not surprising that switching to HAL may make some devices not work, because HAL takes over all the driving of all devices from Linux, and HAL although a great idea does not seem to be nearly finished. What is bewildering is why you decide to blame Linux for all of that. You decided to use some cutting edge not really finished utility that is not nearly necessary and you have some issues. Linux is not to blame for that, Linux has perfectly good hardware drivers, you do not need to use HAL. I mean you may have a point if MS and/or OSX had something like HAL but to the best of my knowledge they don't. And that's just the nature of Linux -- it gives you freedom. It provides a completely easy and safe route if you choose to take it, but it also allows you to live dangerously, to change everything and to use all kinds of unstable experimental software as part of the OS stack if you choose that. It is your choice and if you choose to live dangerously you should not blame linux but yourself. I have been running linux for about 5 years now. When i furst started I was all gung ho and compiled my own programs dove headlong into obscure config files, etc. I quickly realized that is not for me and now I only install things with the pachage manager and have not touched a config file in two years. And I am completly happy with my computer.

by nzmsv 17y ago

hristov 17y ago

Well, so you are having HAL issues. It is not surprising that switching to HAL may make some devices not work, because HAL takes over all the driving of all devices from Linux, and HAL although a great idea does not seem to be nearly finished. What is bewildering is why you decide to blame Linux for all of that. You decided to use some cutting edge not really finished utility that is not nearly necessary and you have some issues. Linux is not to blame for that, Linux has perfectly good hardware drivers, you do not need to use HAL. I mean you may have a point if MS and/or OSX had something like HAL but to the best of my knowledge they don't. And that's just the nature of Linux -- it gives you freedom. It provides a completely easy and safe route if you choose to take it, but it also allows you to live dangerously, to change everything and to use all kinds of unstable experimental software as part of the OS stack if you choose that. It is your choice and if you choose to live dangerously you should not blame linux but yourself. I have been running linux for about 5 years now. When i furst started I was all gung ho and compiled my own programs dove headlong into obscure config files, etc. I quickly realized that is not for me and now I only install things with the pachage manager and have not touched a config file in two years. And I am completly happy with my computer.