ISO support - where is it?

[WWDERW]

is to provide an alternative that is easy and pleasant to use while looking good.

I agree, unfortunately, I think there is quite a vocal userbase that equates "easy" with "dumbed down". It is all apart of UX and there is a population that would gladly switch OSs (as long as their software needs are met) if they could just get in and get work done with minimal hacking on the OS. I personally don't mind a little bit of hacking on the OS as I do enjoy a little bit of that, but once it starts to affecting workflow and my getting work done, that's when it becomes a problem. Have to consider not everyone wants to do that either.

While Windows has it's issues, I never once had to deal with spending a few hrs trying to come up with 3 lines of code to fix an issue that wasn't even an issue on Windows to begin with. I still stuck with it, because I was highly motivated to stick with it. Those seeking an alternative aren't always as highly motivated (not that they are lazy or dumb, but they just want to get in and get work done and that's it, to be a viable alternative that has to be a major part of their UX with Linux) and Windows will still be a major player, because they have done that incredibly well with UX for the majority of the users. Everyone knows what to expect and how to use it and for the vast majority of the computer using population, it does indeed work. There may be other issues going on that makes us keep on with Linux, but most don't care about that especially if things affect efficiency a great deal. They may just chalk it up to a "necessary evil" and go on with their lives.

Right or wrong, that's up for another philosophical debate, but that's just the way that it is.

[shag00]

I think there is quite a vocal userbase that equates "easy" with "dumbed down".

That's an interesting take on this issue, I have often wondered what the driver was, I thought it was driven by some form of purism or elitist mentality.

[WWDERW]

That's an interesting take on this issue, I have often wondered what the driver was, I thought it was driven by some form of purism or elitist mentality.

I think that goes hand in hand with the easy = dumbed down mentality as well.

I always thought it was a "cut off your nose to spite your face" scenario. If one believes easy = dumbed down, but yet wants adoption of open source technologies, it kinda is at odds. In my mind, it's kinda mutually exclusive, depending on how hard line one's stance is. But that is just my take on it.

[jglen490]

Whatever the "driver" - intentional or not - the fact is, as pointed out above

... There can be relationship among components which may require software that can read/execute the files and be able to traverse those relationships into other files that must read/execute the other file also. ...

If the relationship is easily traversed by closed source software, and there is no incentive for open source to reverse-engineer those processes - then it won't happen. The solution may, sometime, take a different approach, but so far probably not ...

Incentive ...

[shag00]

Whatever the "driver" - intentional or not - the fact is, as pointed out above
If the relationship is easily traversed by closed source software, and there is no incentive for open source to reverse-engineer those processes - then it won't happen. The solution may, sometime, take a different approach, but so far probably not ...

Incentive ...

I am not sure I understand this. A driver for someone's motivation to do something is invariably not intentional per se. No one ever says/thinks, I decide to be hungry so I can eat. The driver to eat, feeling hungry, is entirely not intentioned, it's beginning is also not done consciously. Notwithstanding this, what you are saying is not analogous with the central issue here of mounting ISOs with a UDF filesystem. UDF is an agreed standard just like iso 9660, to make, or more correctly include, this standard in your ISO mounting software does not require reverse engineering.

I think it goes without saying that these people who write this software have some incentive. This begs the question of, why does your incentive not stretch to match what is normally available in the market, that being software that mounts both iso 9660 and iso 13346 (UDF) which is in fact a newer standard. All you need to do that is a copy of the standard in one hand and knowledge of how to code in the other, just as for iso 9660. Another harsher view might be to ask, why are you only motivated to produce a half baked product.

This is why it is a management issue in Cononical. It is quite clear that the ability to read a UDF iso is required by many people (based on my own investigation on why my iso could not be read and the fact people are still publishing iso's in that format) and yet linux still does not have a program that will do that, 25 years after the standard was released. Canonical need to set a policy where half baked products do not settle as the default, as in this case Furius or Acetoneiso have. Canonical has options, either assist these developers in some way to make these products at least as capable as what is available to mainstream Windows users, take the project in-house or if all that does not work, exclude them from the Ubuntu repositories. I am sure these measures will have some effect on developer's incentive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Disk_Format

[WWDERW]

This is why it is a management issue in Cononical. It is quite clear that the ability to read a UDF iso is required by many people (based on my own investigation on why my iso could not be read and the fact people are still publishing iso's in that format) and yet linux still does not have a program that will do that, 25 years after the standard was released. Canonical need to set a policy where half baked products do not settle as the default, as in this case Furius or Acetoneiso have. Canonical has options, either assist these developers in some way to make these products at least as capable as what is available to mainstream Windows users, take the project in-house or if all that does not work, exclude them from the Ubuntu repositories. I am sure these measures will have some effect on developer's incentive.

I think the problem lays here is the entrenched belief that this falls under devs have a right to follow whatever path they want to follow. To a point, I believe that is true. Depending on what program one is developing, certain features are expected by users to be there. At the point in time that a product is being developed, if there are competing products that have shared features across the board that are apart of the vast majority of the user base's workflow, it would be best to have those features as well.

The software in question could be better in every other way, but it's lacking in features that are considered standard from the user base, and since it lacks those, users go elsewhere. They are left with a "bad taste in their mouth".

If the ultimate goal is to increase user base of *buntu (or any open source project/OS), then I truly believe that thought process needs to deviate a little bit. Or at least be more open to that when it does happen. The majority of the computing population out there is more about getting work done and not "hacking" on their software to get it up to par with other programs. Even if the closed source program doesn't allow for the user to do much with modifying the program, if it is otherwise feature complete for the majority of them to get work done, that's going to trump the philosophical debate over which is better open or closed source. To them, what gets work done more efficiently is going to be better. I'm not suggesting a direct feature to feature translation, especially if the feature doesn't have merit to be included, but there are certain features that are integral to even the most basic workflow that should be included.

Now, if they are devs working on their own in house project or just someone that happens to post something on github, that's a different thing in my mind.

[shag00]

OK, finally submitted a bug. Would be nice if you could all go here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...o/+bug/1860887
and click on:
This bug affects you