[mythtv-users] Why Free Software has poor usability ?

Raphael rpooser at gmail.com
Sat Aug 9 02:13:08 UTC 2008


Jason Antman wrote:
> It looks like this thread is wrapping up (finally - it got a bit heated
> a few times) but I just wanted to throw one more thing in:
> 
> Raphael wrote:
>>  MS has 
>> intentionally obsoleted it's own older software (as it is still trying 
>> to do with XP), but that certainly doesn't have much bearing on the 
>> question of whether OO is obsolete or not.
>>   
> The question here is how we define the word "obsolete". I lot of vendors
> (especially think of network hardware vendors) try to convince you that
> once a new version is out, the old version is obsolete and needs to be
> replaced. Some less scrupulous vendors do this by having very short
> support lifecycles or, in the case of Microsoft, making fixes to
> previous versions but not backporting new features.
> 
> In the end, "obsolete" should be defined by the the end-user's needs. I
> have a storage server running SuSE 9.3. It hasn't been supported, or had
> fixes released, in probably 3 years. But all the box does is connect to
> 3 backup machines via a dedicated LAN, and provide storage. Novell might
> say that 9.3 was obsolete years ago, but it does everything I need it
> to, and there's no reason for me to change unless my needs change.
> 
> On the same note, my main LAN at home runs on a Bay Networks BayStack
> 450-24T switch. The thing is probably 15 years old. I bought it surplus
> from a large company, who moved to Gig-E (among other newer
> technologies), and considered it obsolete. But all I need is a 10/100
> switch, and it does the job wonderfully (and, at $10, a lot cheaper than
> brand-new consumer-grade hardware).
> 
> Regardless of whether a vendor says a product is obsolete or not (and
> when they do, we must consider their financial motives), as far as I'm
> concerned, nothing is obsolete if it meets the user's requirements and
> expectations.
> 
> -J
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
> http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
> 

In my opinion it's much harder to define the term "obsolete" when it 
comes to software. Or, the actual accepted definition doesn't really 
apply, because the concept of "new and improved" is very subjective.

When it comes to hardware there is an actual definition. You can have 
obsolete hardware meet your needs and go on using it no problem. There's 
nothing wrong with using obsolete hardware if it works for you. Plenty 
of people use 20 year old spectrum analyzers because they can get them 
cheap used, and they think they work much better than the latest 
greatest digital stuff, me included on some counts. But in terms of the 
actual definition, these pieces of hardware are obsolete. They've been 
replaced by newer models which will be supported.
Graphics card used with the purpose of playing games (not for mythtv) is 
another clear cut case where the definition applies.
In these cases obsolete means that the item is no longer up to date, and 
soon will be considered no longer modern, if only for that fact that it 
is now out of production and subsequently is in limited supply. Your 
Baystack switch is obsolete, for instance. So is my Pocket PC from 2001. 
It's practically an antique :).

My previous point was that whether MS considers one interface obsolete 
or not, it doesn't automatically cause OO to become obsolete just 
because it was "copying" the old interface MS no longer cares about. 
None of the definitions above apply to OO, especially the part about 
being out of production.


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list