No one said that stuff should change "unexpectedly" (and that's not
what currently happens either).
Actually its the opposite you want to consider the "whole picture"
when doing changes and not think
of independent pieces stuck together. That's why the "lets build some
core platform and put stuff on top
of it" is flawed.
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Honestly, I keep seeing this argument in this thread, but it doesn't square
with reality. The concept of an OS and all of its apps as a monolithic
distribution with a single release schedule is unique to Linux. Every
other major OS (with the exception perhaps of Windows) strictly
differentiates between core OS and apps. Some examples:
FreeBSD - installs a core OS on which ports and packages are installed
into a separate tree. Versions of Ports are allowed to float independent
of the BSD base.
PC-BSD - listing separately because in addition to the separation by
FreeBSD, it introduces self-contained packages that even ship with their
own libraries to keep the core clean
MacOSX - System is kept in a separate tree from apps. Modification of
System Paths is strongly discouraged. Apps are installed in a parallel
tree or as packages similar to PC-BSD.
Solaris - only ships with an extremely minimal system. Virtually all apps
must be install separately.
Windows ships a core OS but allows (at least in the past - can't speak to
8) installed apps and libraries to mix with system libraries. But even
they seem to be moving toward a more sandboxed model.
This is not to say that the Above OSs have it right, but to say a core /
apps separation is fundamentally flawed is incorrect. I would say the
separation allows for more robust upgrades ( user-installed software
doesn't taint the system tree) and more rapid upgrades of apps (a
Libreoffice update should have to wait on the Kernel).
--
Mark Bidewell
http://www.linkedin.com/in/markbidewell