Slashdot Mirror
Linux Distributions Are Too Big
wish bot sent in a link to a ZD Net story that talks about how Linux distributions are too big. Many valid points... of course IMHO my distribution is exactly the right size, and I apt-get all the bloat if I want it, later.
And I don't really care much about sed, awk, or zsh (great tools, but If I don't use them, why do they have to be installed)
i dont think you could get away without installing sed and awk... you may not use them directly, but i'm sure that the system scripts use them. a simular argument would be: i dont need that engine in my car all i really use is the seat, steering wheel, and the peddles.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
That's already true for the SuSE Linux 7.0 professional distro : There are 6 CD's in the box, but also a DVD which should contain everything on the 6 CD's (I don't have a DVD drive, so I can't tell for sure)
And I like the fact that I have most of the things I want right here on my desk. I don't have to search for it, I don't have to worry about dependancy problems or whatever. Just a small note from a linux newbie.
Nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts an unidentified source. -- Ron Nesen
>This is part of what is keeping Linux from
>reaching the mainstream.
And once again I have to ask: who's wanting Linux to "reach the mainstream"? What kills me is that mainstream media outlets like Ziff-Davis (and, of course, others) have people working for them who will lament about Linux not being user-friendly enough, preach to the developer masses about how poor a choice much of their software is for end users, and what do they do to help? Sorry, Appwatch doesn't count, guys.
If you're so #$@! smart and want a distribution that's perfect, throw some money at the problem.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
The only way you ever know what crap they are putting on there is to click the custom.
actually the only way you ever know what crap they are putting in is to look at and understand the source code. this wont be achieved with a click any time soon. the custom click just gives you a false sense of control.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
Yes, it does come with a web server (IIS), several scripting languages (VBScript, JScript), a text editor (Wordpad), a basic graphics package (Photo editor), and yeah, it comes with Outlook Express. Some of them aren't the best of breed, but they're all free. AND they all easily fit on the install CD.
To reduce bloat, the Linux distros should look at another Open Source success: Perl and the CPAN (Comprehensive Perl Archive Network). With the CPAN module (or ActiveState's PPM - Perl Package Manager), installing a Perl module is a piece of cake. With http://search.cpan.org, finding a module from among the gajillions of Perl modules available is a piece of cake. All the distros would need to do is include sufficient documentation that the average unsophisticated Linux user knows what's out there and how to install the free software that's available.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
Ahh, so you whip out your W2K CD when you want to install the C compiler, right?
This entire article was based on the premise that people need Linux to be "just like Windows". It angers and disappoints me every time I read something like this.
It seems the number one thing that people keep asking for when it comes to a "desktop" operating system is "just like Windows." Oh, sure, I know there are countless arguments, but when you boil through them, sift them down and shake them out it amounts to, "just like windows". Well, I'm sorry to have to restate this often overlooked possibility, but Linux is not Windows.
There is this "outraged" section of the computer community that screams bloody murder about this "upstart" Linux because it breaks all of the old rules. How dare they ship everything in one box! That seems to be what this article is saying. I know, it seems absurd to those of us that have used Linux since the days when you had to search everywhere for even a passing mention of how to use some command, or where to get some application. But there are people out there that just do not understand that Linux is not about giving you a worthless, useless, and basically inexpensive alternative to the "common" desktop environment. There are people that want something as crappily disgusting as what the Corel distrobution was. They want something that installs no usable applications by default (and forces you to go "purchase" all of your applications seperately). They want something that looks, acts and behaves exactly like Windows. It doesn't matter if that means crashing on a regular basis, just as long as they don't have to think too hard to use it.
Linux may never be accepted for what it is. It is an inexpensive, yet fully complete alternative. I buy SuSE Linux distros because I enjoy not having to purchase or download any other software (other than Mozilla nightlies occassionally). It is completely unfathomable to me that there are people screaming for there to be "less" in a distro. It also frightens me. I don't mind the idea of giving a quick install "option" where you can still pick to install the "hard" way and install as much or as little as you want. What scares me is that these people that claim Linux is "too much" may be taken too seriously and the major distros may start removing choices. Corel made that mistake. They didn't appeal to the long-time users because it was too restricting, too confining. They didn't appeal to new users because of the lack of available applications, and the lack of help available (let's face it, you ask a typical Linux geek for help and they expect you to be able to run standard commands. Corel didn't ship with a lot of the standard commands, especially if accepting a "default" install). If all of the other distrobutions begin falling into that "we need to be more like Windows" trap, I believe Linux's time in the sun will quickly fade.
This article makes me think of the people that screamed bloody murder because Linux doesn't have a registry. They don't want an '/etc' directory full of easy to configure text files, they want a one binary file system wide configuration with no possibility of users customizing their own environment. They want a "single" user system. They don't want a root account, they want the 'old' Windows way of doing things.
I pray it doesn't happen. But if it does, I guess I'll just stick with what is present right now. Make the "windows like" distro a choice, not a necessity. It seems this article is crying out for it being the only choice. Are people really so afraid of change that they can't imagine using a system that doesn't dictate their every move? And is it really so hard for them to believe that some people do want to be able to use their system any way they want to?
Freedom of choice is not a bad thing. I hope that someone important understands that.
------------
I am reminded of the scene in the movie Amadeus where a "musical authority" is looking at one of the then-unknown Mozart's compositions. His opinion: "Too many notes." Um, yeah, whatever you say, chief.
I couldn't care less about C. What would I use C for? VB has an incredible IDE, so I install that. But more importantly, why would the average user installing Red Hat ever need the bloat of a C compiler??
Dumb? Check. Stupid? Check. Moronic? Check
It looks like I'm going to have to return the Thesaurus I was going to give you for Christmas.
New! Now available on Slashdot - WinTroll 2000!
But most of the users of Windows have their machine set up and maintained by a sysadmin in their company, therefore the 'it's too hard for users' doesn't wash. Home users are another matter, but it takes time to penetrate that market. Windows 2000 is Linux's competition at the moment and is just as difficult as Mandrake 7.2 because it is just as complex, and I wouldn't recommend either to any member of my family when they have a nice compatible consumer OS. Also to be remembered is that the Linux GUI has only really started to be worked on in the last 2 years, whereas Microsoft have a 15 year head-start. I reckon it will take another 18 months before it's ready for home users, but it's already ready for corporate users who don't have to worry when they have PC problems because that's what tech support are paid for.
here's a handy tip
.oO0Oo.
copy your \win98 directory on to your hard disk
saves you an age
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
its a silly article. the 'average user' doesn't need an html editer or ftp either. but the 'average linux user' might. zdnet hasn't done trade studies, so they don't know what people want or need. and how many average users are going to be doing the ftp install? approximately none. i had some help and installed red hat via ftp in about two hours (install to completely setup). i am not a power user, and the help i had came from somebody with a little bit of linux experience but no expert. it didn't support my soundcard though, which is why i don't use it today (aureal vortex).
i agree though that the best thing about windows is everything works in it (what he calls plug in play, although its not that easy). however this is the thing that lots of linux people are trying to fix, and rightly so. i would assume developers ignore this sort of article, because it really didn't say anything useful.
Why do these lazy people use weird stuff like that 'IMHO' What the hell does that mean? "I mount horney ogres"? "Inside my hairy odorhole?"
Why can't you goons use english?
Debian 2.2 already has this, about 2 dozen "tasks" worth, and they're pretty good for 90% of the users. Other groups have added their own; For example, to install Helix Gnome, I add the Helixcode.com line to my sources.apt and apt-get install task-helix-gnome. I understand that Woody will have a very large number of tasks available at install time.
One of my favorite quotes from the book 'Generation X':
OPTION PARALYSIS: the tendency, when given unlimited options, to choose none.
Giving the users only X (where X is sufficiently small) number of choices would probably open up the field for more users, as there would no longer be the hassle of determining if elm is better than pine or vice versa. And the best part is, later on, you can install your own things after you've got things taken care of. I remember, with scary memories, my last Linux install. I just stared at the huge list of packages available and went 'Huh?' Even several years of using Linux (various distros: slackware, red hat, SUSE, caldera) hasn't gotten me over that initial WTF?
Linux distributions have one basic problem: Too many notes! Until they have less notes, it won't be ready for the mainstream.
(currently testing something about signatures here)
i've never had to recompile anything for my linux partition to work properly.
This is usually the argument that Windows advocates use against Linux...Anyway, they aren't ee (like beer) unless you warez'd you copy of Win2K, and they are far from free (lik in speech). The cost was just rolled in to that CD you bought, you can't get them unless you buy the OS. Another hangup is that you can't get rid of them if, as you say, you find that some aren't the best of the breed.
I have found that the best "Core Distibution' that installs little to no cruft is Debian. I usually install the base system and then use apt-get to grab the extra stuff that I need.
When I install a Debian box, I put the base stuff on (about 15 meg before it's uncompressed) and then I plug into a network (be it an ethernet card or a null modem cable) and apt-get the bits I want from a Debian mirror.
That article confuses things: (1) the emmense library of packages that make up Linux distributions (2) the streamlined selection of stuff you actually install on your server/desktop/laptop/hifi/router.
windows computers don't come with quicken, or the office packages either you know. unless they are oem installed, which could be done easily with linux also.
That's becuase some linux distros not only has to perform well as a desktop OS, but also as a server platform. That will inversely increase the 'bloat.'
I've been trying to install RedHat 7 on an old laptop (dx4-100). Obviously, running X is not something I want to do. Yet to install things, unless I want a severly crippled system, I seem to have to install X and GTK+ because one thing requires another which eventually requires X/GTK+.
What a pain in the ass.
it is all on a CD, what do you mean "too big!" it isn't hurting your HD space (unless you are loopbacking an ISO but hehe)..
Oh wait, I see. You don't know what you want on your Linux system, so you have to install the defaults... Well, unfortunatly Windows comes w/too much worthless shit as well unless you choose a custom install..
So either learn what you want and need or suffer.
Debian 2.2 has 5000 or so. Use my sources.list and you can have over 7000.
Right on. I don't care about bloat (it's just more stuff I don't have to download if I need it), but the installer should have an easy way of profiling the user and installing only what's needed. It could use a flowchart questionaire that asks more and more specific questions to figure out exactly what the user's intentions are in using a computer. If the questionaire branches off properly, it would neither insult or overtax the user's intelligence.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
When I install linux, I like to pick lots of custom packages. When installing redhat 6.0, it worked fine, everything on 1 cd. With 6.2, i had to download docs seperately, since i hadn't download the docs cd. And with 7, i had to run across the office to burn cd 2 because i had picked some kde packages to install. Why must we suffer so?
I am !amused.
Well, I've been using MS OS for all my life (taught myself too! :-P though I was impressed with win2k) but I really want to be a wizard, you know contributing to Open Source and stuff. Which is why I am teaching myself Linux.
.configure and Makefile and stuff, I am lost. I read Install and Readme, but I just can't get it to work. I remember I was trying to install AbiWord and I just couldn't get it to work. That was in Redhat 6. In Redhat 7, I found out that it came with it. I could finely type...
When you are a newbie and really enthusiastic to learn about *nix, having a load of software is good. I use Redhat and I just clicked "everything" when I was installing. In fact, it is _crucial_ that you have everything. I don't _want_ another point & click OS with a paperclip. And I want to learn every which way of doing things. I want to learn to use Lynx just in case.
One of the things that really hinders a newbie (and it still is hindering me...) is installing new software. RPM's are simple, but when it comes in tar with its
And do we really want Linux to be another "windows" and appeal to every average user? Seems to me that only way to do that is to be make Linux as close to Windows as possible. That means it will eventually only be another Windows. I once heard a good analogy about comparing Linux to a Ferrari (Or was is Porche). Ferrari manufacturers don't lower price or make budget lines to appeal to general public. And Linux shouldn't try particularly to appeal to every user out there.
The complaint about Linux from most people regarding 'consumer apps' like Quicken is NOT that they don't come preinstalled but that they're not available at all.
The original poster to this thread was stating that
1. people complain that linux doesn't have consumer apps
2. there are a ton of programs that come with linux
Anyone that complains about #1 is stupid because of #2. I submitted that installing dozens of editors doesn't make up for the fact that many 'consumer apps' just don't exist at all - nothing to do with installed vs. not.
creation science book
When I do a fresh Windows install, i have to go and get WinZip, ACDSee (image viewer), a newer browser, chat programs, messengers, etc. None of which Windows ships with (ex. the browser).
So, are Linux distros big? No, they are robust.
Windows is to Ragu as Linux is to Mama Spagnoni's Meat Sauce.
thelocust[dot]org
Look at two other OS'es: FreeBSD and Windows. They both have a core system and the ability to add other stuff. This is great. I may assume a lot about the system, and it is true, unless the user has molested the system.
Linux is different for the good and the bad. Let us look at RedHat (which I use at happen to kinda like): What is core here? What is part of a canonical RedHat? Well, it depends... There is no such thing called core. How much is well maintained, "port" maintained, and what is just included for the fatness? I don't know!
Many developers ask themselves this question too, esp. the commercial developers, since they must know, what to expect as a bare minimum, and what is needed to be supplied.
I don't know how intelligent the ZDnet writer meant his question, but I know, that I find it difficult to find the fine lines that sepparate the inner packages from the outer ones.
:-) = I am happy
:^) = I am happy with my big nose
C:\> = I am happy with my OS
Well you can do more networking with a linux on a 486 than yuo can with a P3 800 running Win 2k If you can afford the hardware necessary to run Win 2k, then you must be able to afford high speed internet. Install from ftp and choose only the packages you want!
be cool - stay warm
I use Visual Studio everyday. I've used it for several years. I like the Visual Studio IDE. I don't have problems with Visual Studio. I do not like the VB IDE. The VB IDE is a dreadful POS. I don't install Win9x, I'd be a fool to do so.
What's the difference to a today's version of Debian and apt-get?
I've installed Debian 2.2 (potato) on two PCs lateley. One time with selecting some packets with dselect (yuck!) and the other PC with a predefined set of packets, which could be selected during the install process.
No bloat. And all the additional packets get installed via apt-get. Easy to use and fun on a fast connection.
I've read some articles about the strength of *BSD and it's port system. This is not intended to start a flame war or djihad. How close is Debian to BDS comparing apt-get and ports?
"So, Linux vendors, hear this: If you really want to give Windows the boot, your OS has to be slick, quick, and slim. Because, after all, too much is...just too much."
Has it occurred to this guy that you don't have to install every package that comes with your distribution?
You can get a version of Slackware that fits on a Zip disk. Try doing THAT with Windows.
I switch to Linux from OS/2 a couple of years ago, and I can still remember the pain. I see it as coming from two problems. Lack of minimum standards and lack of responsibility.
First: In windows, I can always count on notepad being there. Linux distributions haven't decided on a default text editor, and suggesting that they do is akin to declaring war. The problem comes when you try to read documentation. Five documents will give 5 different ways of doing the same task, with each way requiring a different set of utilities. Example, research the number of ways to implement automount on a linux system.
Second: What's worse, the distributions haven't accepted there roles as mediators and advisors. Someone has to pull all the projects out there together. They can do this by dumping everything onto a CD, or they can carefully pick and choose best-of-breed. Most distibutions I've seen choose to do the former. This is fine if the distributions would mark packages as 'recommended' or install a basic system and then allow user to choose to add more, but the usual method is to dump everything to hard disk and let the user sort it out. Distributions don't even go so far as to rank the packages as useful, necessary, narrow hack, used by three people in the world.
I believe the second problem could mostly be cleared up by the first. An the first problem could be cleared up if the Linux Standards Base would get off their duff and release a real standard, deliminating a minimalist system.
Please, Redhat/Mandrake/Suse/Somebody, release a minimalist system. Just a kernal, windowing system, text editor, and the bare bones that would be needed to make the system run and advertise the hell out of it. There'll be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, and you'll have to go back and refine. But it will be a start. Everyone will have a reference platform that they can build onto. All the distros will install the basic system, and then go through their own fancy additional installation process. But we will have a definition of what Linux is that everyone can grasp.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Why is everyone complaining that the distro's are too big? Didn't anyone ever INSTALL a distro? They let you select what YOU want, unless you just install everything. Someone complained that Redhat's distro is 3 cd's, SO WHAT? You could get by installing only a couple hundred megabytes and still have a quite functional usable operating system, you don't even need to touch the 2nd and 3rd cd! Linux is about customization, and this guy sounds like he wants a run of the mill windows install, minus all the freakin space it takes up. The average user doesn't need a "bevy" of compilers? Uh, developers need compilers there buddy. He also suggest that their should be ONE window manager, GO BACK TO WINDOWS, and tell zdnet to stop shooting flying windows out their ass. Sorry for the rant, just anger's me to see such morons get posted.
Your Momma's so fat she makes emacs look like nano!
You can still, as always, install slackware onto a machine by just downloading the "a" disk sets. A quick scan of the current tree seems to show that this would take up around 50 megs....
Not too shabby... then you can add other disk sets at will. Of course the novice user might not understand how to do this, but it sure breaks a blanket generalization like "linux is too big"
Josh
The problem here is that all distros are combining server and workstation packages onto one CD. This is fine for a user like me that knows what to select. (thank god there are distros like debian and slackware.)
There should be just a limited desktop CD for the average windows monkey without all the packages they don't need. (just your x windows programs, no command line stuff)
Plus there should be very very few choices in the install. I learned that the more you give windows monkeys choices the more they get lost.
john
"If a show of teeth is not enough, bite
uh apt will install off the CD's
you don't need an internet connection at all.
I don't think Linux will be the OS for Average Joe's desktop. Sure Average Joe's small business may run a linux server but his desktop will always have to be something simple. Who knows, maybe one of the distributions will get to this point. That is what Red Hat is shooting for right? "Red Hat: Even a ludite can use our software"
Sorry, haven't had much coffee yet so I'll get to the point. Linux is a "geek" OS, if you don't like to compile kernels, browse packages, etc. you'd probably be happier somewhere else. It's not ready for Average Joe and Mediocre Sally. Eventually their will be a distribution for them but right now it's a "geek" os. This author needs to realize it is what it is and don't complain because it isn't everything to everyone.
Therefore my response is Winows 98 needs to be bigger. I want ftpd, telnetd, compilers, multiple editors etc on the default CD. Then maybe I'd think about running the OS.
Compare that to under 40MB for windows 95
I can't believe you are comparing Linux to bare install of Windows 95. How about comparing a Base Workstation install of Red Hat Linux, which is around 600MB to Windows 2K Professional after you have installed Visual C++ & MSDN docs, Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop, MS Office, Various Drivers and software for your hardware, ICQ, AIM, WinAmp and PGP. Besides costing thousands of dollars, I doubt it is 40 MB, but this is what you would need to install to get the equivilent software.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
I am sure Msoft does not include many apps with W2K..(Even with the $800 "5 client" version.) If all Linux included was notepad, paint, and a few small apps then it would be an easy fit into a 150 megs....With microsoft you have to go back to the store and buy more apps with more money...Or download crappy crippleware.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
A thing that many people (including the author of the article) doesn't get at all is that Linux has a "change rate" that (poetic license ;) beats the shit out of Windoze or MacOS.
;-)
I see many here saying: "use RedHat and not SuSE", "No, debian with apt-get" is better" and so on.
Well, I also could join the game and say that SuSE is better. 7.0 has about 10 pre-made configurations that allow you to choose the main use of your machine, has a graphical X configurator that works very well (SAX or SAX2, are the names), and another ton of nice, fast setup options.
So? Is SuSE better than RedHat, Debian & Co.? I'll say "I don't know": I don't use RedHat or Debian, I didn't see their last versions, and I'm NOT going to say "xxxx sucks get SuSE". What you know well is always better than something you saw for some (limited?) time 2 years ago.
Reality is that, in every distributions, important flaws (including setup ones) get fixed in 6/8 month or less. So, in a year, Windows will have a hard time keeping its "easier to use" tag if M$ doesn't start to run NOW. And my impression is that they are running, but in the wrong direction (see Media Player 7...
Final silly note for the article author: how much time does he usualy spend installing and configuring a "full windows workstation", like one doing the things he lists at the end of the article?
In my own experience, it takes at least twice than a Linux setup, and this is if the wonderful Windows Plug & Play doesn't blow up in your face.
The time spent in installations, updates and reinstalls is a huge hidden cost in Windows. With Linux a company would be able to save much more than the M$ license fees.
Ciao,
Roberto.
AniToolBox! An Open Source animation program!
Well, unfortunatly Windows comes w/too much worthless shit as well unless you choose a custom install
how dare you say that about phone dialer and microsoft netmeeting?
*cough*
--saint----
This still boils down to OEM installation.
Yes, we could probably get a few more users if the install were easier and didn't make them choose stuff. But it's still a hell of a lot harder than just buying a machine with everything on it. All the people that would be helped by eliminating choice would be helped even more if the machine just came installed. They wouldn't have to make any choices at all!
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
The average Linux user is a lot different from the average user. Let's face it -- Linux is for geeks, and most of us like it that way. And geeks need a C compiler.
Despite all the talk of bringing linux to the desktop, if linux becomes easier than windows, as the article suggested it should, most linux users probably won't like it much.
I wonder if you are actually writting this view of yours to the consumer. We all know that Linux is not windows or mac os, but in order to become used amoungst the consumer, it'll have to start acting like one of them, by becoming easier. No consumer would ever go through the steps you did to install that mouse, I didn't have to.
/dev/mouse', what?, no slash-dev!, what? OKay okay, type 'cd /' no, the other slash!"
/etc/X11/XF86Config file is, they just want control panels, and most don't even know where that is! Get out of your geek world with your geek OS. No consumer will want to use it unless it's easy, like windows(excuse the irnony).
...and I'm not sure we should trust this Kyle Sagan either.
Plug In
Turn comp. on
insert CD
Run installer
Reboot
That's a little easier to explain to someone than
"Okay, now 'cd
You keep talking about, "it's easy! edit one line!"
Bullsh*t! No consumer cares where their
You asked that question after spending a full post refuting the ZDNet article's wildly inaccurate assertions. This got your post moderated upward, and now most of the press who's covering Linux is going to see your counter-points.
You still want to ask what the point is?
Anyone who would refer to anything as "that [whatever] thing" isn't on my personal list of people who I need to be worried about. Unfortunately, those are the sort of people, generally, who don't want to think about the computer as more than a household appliance, like their microwave or refrigerator. If they don't know what it's all about (like the people who use Linux expecting it to be just like Windows), it's not right for them. They want to be isolated from anything technical.
If you want everything to be "sanitized for your protection", with barriers to tell you "oh no, you can't go THERE", just suck it up and stick with Windows. When you're ready to learn, and get your hands dirty, Linux and *BSD and OSes like them are ready and waiting.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
2.5 gigs? if you are concerned about size don't install everything.
Debian isn't that complicated, install the base system with no apps, then apt-get install for any additional stuff you want. I find it quite easy
It says nothing except one thing, & It says it over and over and over. "Linux is too much for most people to handle" or "Linux is too bountiful for most computer users" sounds like the same point to me :).
However, its right. Linux IS too much for most computer users. Most computer users are barely adept at using a computer. Sooo the more common OS's *need* to be simple for the simple user.
We know this already.
like most media this article is written by a complainer for complainers. I can imagine the article if the opposite of his complaints were true. "LINUX TOO SIMPLE FOR USERS".
Linux is as small and simple as the user allows it to be. More so now than ever IMHO with the recent Helix-Gnome and Nautilus apps.
The problem isnt with the distrobutions. The problem (if its even a problem) is this; Windows (& MacOS 9-) is as good as the programmers (& Marketting cause they have a little TOO much say in what what sometimes) that made it. *nix is as good as the user. It just so happens that in order to use *nix to its best it *help* to be a programmer, or at least be savvy with scripting.
linux is what the person taking care of it wants it to be.
Nuff' said
Cry Gnap, and unleash the Smurfs of war!
First, it was Linux has no device driver support. Then it was Linux has no applications. Then it was Linux doesn't have any major high-end server applications. Then it was Linux doesn't have a user friendly GUI. Then it was Linux is too hard to install.
Now it seems that Linux is too easy to install, and these guys have to find something else to complain about. So, unlike "the typical desktop OS", the typical Linux distribution comes with basically everything you need to do anything you want to or with your computer. And most distributions' "full install" option installs in under 1GB of space. In an age where PCs ship with a minimum of 10gb of hard disk space, that's hardly an issue. And they don't even force you to install all of those tools that this guy finds so confusing and superfluous. Much like Windows, they give you the choice of two or three standard installs or a custom one where you pick and choose your own packages. Gosh, I never heard anyone complain about how confusing it was to pick and choose between Media Player and Personal Web Server and...
Yes, distribution installers could be made even more braindead-friendly than they are today. But then no doubt these ZDNet people will complain that there aren't enough options.
b) There's no "Mac OS" support, at least not read-write.
Once again, ZDNet shovels the FUD.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I wouldn't know. Now that I've using a logged-on account, and I chose 'Light', I don't see the comment numbers anymore. Sometimes I feel tempted to select "don't display scores", too.
The dweebs around here who rant and rave about getting 'first post' and 'moderation' issues just don't get it.
Hay thar.
Which is probably why MSFT have various versions of Win2K:
Professional
Server
Advanced Server
Data-centre
Why does everyone assume that all Linux users want to see Linux on the desktop in widespread use? I personally don't care either way.
There are people on all sides of this issue. But telling us that we all have to keep reading this article until we agree with it is just as stupid as the people that say, "If you don't like it F*CK OFF!". Neither accomplishes anything, and neither is being constructive.
I don't agree with the article at all. To me, Linux is an alternative to the current "standard" desktop environment. Making it just like Windows is not going to leave me an alternative. It would be like, hmm, let's see, having to choose between George W. "drewl and scribble" Bush and Al "Robot Man" Gore. It's not a choice at all. You can be dumb, or you can be dumb, which do you want to be?
If it does make it onto the desktop? Well, great. But it should do it as an Open system. I don't really get into the politics of Open vs. Free myself. But I don't think we need to change every aspect of Linux for it just to survive (and to some people survival seems to be tied up with 'beat Windows' and I don't see it that way at all). Linux will survive for a long time because there are a lot of people (me included) that are going to use it whether it is considered the "standard" or not. And those people aren't all going to just switch to (or back to) Windows just because someone says, "Linux can't succeed".
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't agree with that article. And the more I read it, the more I disagreed. People have differing needs. People won't all agree. That's just the way it is.
------------
A few window managers for different tastes and skills. I think this is exactly the point of the article. Unless you have time to try out all the different window managers (or whatever), how do you know which one to choose. For the masses, it may be better to have someone make a few intelligent choices up front.
Instead of whining about it, do something, that is the wonder of OpenSource...
... but I'm just a simple IT guy who wouldn't know how to write a line of C/C++ etc to save his life. So instead, I ask others in the 'movement' to help, and get called a 'newbie' or a 'llamer' or a 'whiner' or told to 'fsck off'.
You know, i'd LOVE to help out
I'm PART of the 'movement', but I'm an outcast even within that because I'm not a programmer. Imagine how those OUTSIDE feel. The people we are trying to win over are the ones we are alienating by our own actions and 'snobbyness'.
Our attitude, the proponents for Linux, will have to change before the publics does. Comments like Don't come crying when you can't find "foo". are what make people NOt like us/Linux.
When the people pushing for Linx act like arrogant idiots, no one listens.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
Well!??? inside my hairy hole!??? Well!???
Real journalists always define any acronyms the first time they use them in an article. Oh but we at slashdot have no pretence of being 'journalists'. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean those practices are arbitrary.
Perhaps YOU'RE the one missing something :) Could it be that Linux is simply a Microsoft plot to keep all of the 3l33t people in one place, thus keeping them out of Microsoft's hair?
most of the people this article is referring to will never install an os on their computer. these people get computers with the software preinstalled by the oem. so if the oem employs an someone like the AC from the original post to configure the systems they sell, it can be just as easy as windows for some new person.
i work in a research group, and we only have one windows computer for viewing word documents/printing using the fancy printer functions/etc. the others in our group dont really understand linux. i installed/configured the workstations, and after about 15 minutes they were using it just fine...
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
I'm treading real close to this being a rant about stupid users, maybe I've crossed that line and lost sight of the topic, so now, I regroup.
Getting linux to the desktop is as simple as getting some major(lots of employees) companies to use it. The users, will buy they're next computer to be just like the one at work. ...
"I want a challenge I can do."
Users and people in general make decisions with regards to what they know about and lets them think the least. The overwhelming tone of the article was and I'll paraphrase Lisa Simpson
isnt this one of the things that Microsoft is trying to do with the whole .Net thing... compiling every application on distribution.
its the way things are going. get used to it :)
"Shut up brain or ill stab you with a Q-tip" Homer Simpson
Yeah, there's a good deal of truth in what they're saying. I mean, take win98: it installs to about 200mb, including text editor, wordpad, imaging, gui, connectivity, and generally speaking everything you need to use on a computer without specializing - i.e. if you're graphic designer, you'd add photoshop, if you're a coder, you'd add vc++ or gcc, etc. But generally speaking it's a well rounded package. Now imagine that you're a windows user and your HD is say 2gb with 1 gig taken by random crap.. you pop a debian cd in (the only distribution I know) and 'standard' install is something like 400mb-600mb iirc. Of course feature-for-feature debian beats win98 into a pulp. Vim(or emacs) rock notepad, there's a few free office suits, gimp owns paintbrush, and so on.. They're also generally smaller or about as big as inferior win progs. What baffles me is where space goes - each package seems to be so small but when they add up they take huge amounts of space. Only emacs and X and um kernel and libc are fairly big
- the rest are usually under a meg.. Part of the problem is alot of interdependencies, it may be that we're trading off compactness for speed of development here.. probably a good trade, too. Second, organization is a huge problem. At least, in debian, you're presented with a huge list of possible apps and even though aptitude (which you use after install, to install additional apps) gives you a hierarchial list, it's not hierarchial enough - one branch can have nearly a hundred apps, with no distinction of more essential ones from less so. In other words, this whole mess is optimized for a seasoned user, while it could be optimized for both newbies and seasoned users.. I'm not sure how things are in other distro's but my impression is that install size in them is even bigger. I think I've grown into it but I can sure relate to newbies who feel frightened by this whole thing.. And there's no docs that make it easy! I'd write one but where's the fun in writing docs? Therein lies the problem.. Hey, maybe we
need a nazi distro? The one that cuts out all the nifty extras and leaves a newbie usable system that is tiny and has all the essentials.. might be a good idea. Sorry for ranting off..
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
I didn't say anything about CDs - my point was regarding the size of the 'audience' for the OS, which some AC claimed (admittedly trollishly) that was the reason for Linux' failure. Did you read past the 'Right'?
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
I agree with many of the points of being overwhelmed; when I first started using linux (SuSE 6.2) it wasn't "is there an app to do X" but "how do I find an/the best app to do X." At least the installer gave the user the option of whether to install every program.
With SuSE Linux 6.3 (I think) which I installed later (my first attempt didn't work all that great) I used the new graphical interface they provided for installation. It made the task easier, but at the price of only giving me the option of installing everyting in a basic package (which are as broad as things like "programming", "internet", you get the idea) or not installing the package at all.
Different setup options need to be available for different users. Experts should be allowed full customization, while novices should be able to install recommended selections of applications from each category.
The ultimate plays for Madden 2006
You're exactly right. Here's a crazy idea, let's create a new operating system that is fully customizable by the user, include the source code so they can make fine-tuning modifications as needed, allow for the installation of custom software packages also with source code so the end user can add or delete software pursuant to their needs and allow a simple, graphical interface so a user can install common packages by choice by clicking "Custom" or just a default set of packages by clicking "Automatic."
... or we could just use Linux since it does all of that now anyways.
Sadly, this is where the People Who Know What They Are Doing go wrong.
From the perspective of the Average User, you just spouted off some mumbo-jumbo that will never make any sense. "/etc/Xwhat? Wazzat?"
The Average User, as the article pointed out, does not even understand Windows! This is a nightmare situation! These people open up .txt files in Word, save things wherever the application tells them to, and don't delete the redundant backups of autoexec.bat and config.sys that everything under the sun makes.
Text files scare these people. Even 'resolution' scares these people. If you ever work with Average Users, you tell them, in regards to resolution, that the text becomes smaller but they fit more on the screen. Color depth is a little more concrete, bur don't even get started about 'bits'.
There is a market for 'protecting' software that hides and read-protects all important system files for a reson. Even given the (addmittedly usable) GUI of all Win9x, users will still manage to destroy their system.
And now you ask them to edit text files to change settings. What a brilliant idea! I'm sure their computer experience will increase (and their concurring fear of computers' flexibility decrease) once they have to fire up a bona-fide editor to change settings.
The GUI is there to protect people. People find it complex, we add in a graphical layer to organize all reasonable commands and (most importantly) limit the range of options to possible, if not strictly reasonable, values. All forms of Linux, although I love them and the respect for the user that they come with, simply do not have that kind of protection suitable for the end user.
In short, I agree with the original article - ignoring all other faults, Linux distributions are too complex for the average user. Interfaces are quickly moving the way of a single, gigantic button that says "OK," and Linux represents the opposite end of the spectrum. Not that it is a bad thing.
(On a side note, I suggest everyone read the BOFH archives. Funnyfunnyfunny.)
"Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
The article states that most users are not capable of the installation and configuration of Linux, however this is also true of Windows. Most users buy a computer from a major supplier (Dell, etc.) or the local computer geek. These computers (99.99% anyway) come with a preinstalled, preconfigured Windows "distribution". The average user hasn't got a clue of how to install Windows or configure their ISP connection. The real trick to getting Linux on the desktop is to get the distributors of computer systems to offer machines with Linux installed and configured to the hardware on the machine. A few scripts run on first boot can customize the install and set up the ISP. Choice doesn't matter to these folks as long as they are able to do the same things their friends can do (email, ICQ, games) and don't even know what wordpad or notepad are! After users become more used to their system, then they embrace the concept of choice and seek out more diverse software options....and if they were baptised with Linux, they will come to understand the file structure and even how to run "make install" or unpack an RPM.
If there is a need for an OS reinstall, most users put in a recovery disk and wait until they are told to reboot.....the best place for computer sellers to look for this kind of support in Linux is to read about RedHat's "kickstart" utility...
But to make things user friendly does not necessarily mean to restrict their use. It only means to shape freedom and to put it in the right place. Consider the telephone for example. It provides a simple concept (forget about all the toys built into todays digital networks for the moment) which acts as a framework -- a framework around a quite universal service. Once you have established a phone connection by following the simple procedure of dialling a certain number, you can do with it whatever can be done on a low-bandwith analog channel, be it ordering things, talking to friends, getting online, or phone sex.
So if you sell sort of universal service, like Linux distributors try to, wrap it in a simple conceptual framework. Sell Internet appliances, sell office appliances, sell gaming appliances.
http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
Windows and Linux differ in many things, one of them is this: Windows is shipped with minimal software, so that 3rd parties can move in on that market and make a better program than MS would have time to..while making good cash at it. Linux is generally shipped with every known program possible that has a stable release. You can have 5 FTP clients, 3 browsers, etc, etc. There is no room left for the 3rd parties to make money because of the fact that all the software is free...so the 3rd party software is basically all included. Both have their ups and downs. What I would like to see happen and what I think would help is for Linux not to do what Windows does but cut the early development stuff out and put in the most complete, stable, best programs in the regular distro. Sure some people like the command line and others like the GUIs...that's not a problem. If there are people that want the development or early editions of new software that is coming out then you can create an addon pack or a seperate distro for that itself. Those aren't the limit though, there's plenty of things that you could do.
I've been playing around with both apt-get and the ports system.
The difference (as far as I could tell) is that apt downloads binaries whereas the ports system downloads source and compiles, which is OK when you've got an OK connection, but not when you're on a stinking modem ;) Seeing as how source usually is bigger (at least the size of the tarball).
The benefit of volunteer effort in maintenances is not so much that you get a lot of work done, but that you get a lot of committed work done. Things people do in their own time they do well, they do with pride; it's that which (IMHO) gives Open Source software its quality edge, far more than the peer review effect. If the volunteers all drifted away to another OS project, it's probable that the commercial Linux companies could still continue to develop the OS. But it would be developed by wage-slaves driven by marketing agendas, and pretty soon it would have no quality advantage over Uncle Bill's finest.
Linux is good at what it does because the people who know enough to make it what it is care enough about what it does to make it do what it does. If Windows did what we need, Linux wouldn't exist. If Linux did what the Windows audience needs, we would need something different.
It's silly to think of Linux as competing with Windows. The two operating systems address radically different audiences. This is inevitable and a good thing . Let's not dumb down Linux!
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I've installed linux on a few machines and I was never *forced* to choose, at install time, one thing or another. Many apps have competing implementations installed. If you install Netscape Communicator, you've got an email client. Should you *not* include any other email client?
This guy is complaining that, once you've installed it, you might have to pick an email client from the menu and that would be too confusing. Frankly, I think it would confuse a newbie more if he had to go back to the installer everytime he wanted to try a common alternative.
> So why is it that your microscopic mind came up with the idea that "delete" is the only solution to making things simpler?
To quote from the article: "But big Linux distributions packed with thousands of apps are likely to leave the average desktop user dazed and confused."
I've installed Debian which, I believe, has the most packages. They are not (and can not) all be installed at the same time. Not that Debian is even aimed at the newbie market or that newbies should be thinking of using it, but the author is complaining that a distribution *exists* with thousands of apps.
No matter what great distribution you come up with, he can still claim that Linux is no good on the Desktop because Debian's got too much stuff.
Another problem that I can imagine Linux having on the desktop is that users like the same thing on their desk at home and work. But what if your office chooses Redhat Desktop Distribution and you chose Debian Desktop Distribution for home. You probably aren't (nor should you be) root on your work machine, and since only KDE was installed, you'd better go back and add KDE to your home machine.
And he goes further:
"The way I see it, for Linux to become a viable desktop platform, it needs to slim down and streamline its offerings."
He doesn't say "default options," he says "offerings".
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
VB has a dreadful IDE. I recently tried it out to test some COM components that I had writting in ATL/C++. The damn IDE doesn't prompt to save and it kept crashing. I kept losing my work! An access violation in one of my C++ DLLs crashed out the VB program and the VB IDE. It wasn't too happy with assertions either. The VB environment has to be one of the worst pieces of MSFT software I've seen... there's no excuse either as Visual Studio 6 has been out for quite a while too. The whole VB IDE feels like it has been coded by a small bunch of high school kids doing their first programming project.
Debian 2.2r2 was even better, the default was 120Mb for a functional system. All I needed to add was GCC and I was happy.
The author is not comparing like for like. Mandrake, SuSE and the rest have loads of applications on the CDs because they are free and some users may want them, thankfully they don't all get installed by default.
To make a fair comparison the author should compare Windows ME + Office 2000 + a few games, + a few compilers... Now who is bloatware?
As for the checklist of what "A Linux truly designed for the desktop should include". I think the default Mandrake install fits all of these
--
Steven Murdoch.
Steven Murdoch.
web: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/sjm217/
It ends with a call to "Linux vendors" to make their distributions lightwieght. Under the available evidence, given the lack of lipservice given to existing smaller distributions, and given the fact that Mr Volz clearly believes that it's outrageous that the market for larger distributions is even served, I'd say Klink has hit the nail on the head as far as where Volz is going.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I wonder if you are actually writting this view of yours to the consumer. We all know that Linux is not windows or mac os, but in order to become used amoungst the consumer, it'll have to start acting like one of them, by becoming easier.
/proc kernel parameters, daemon command line switches or to all of them?).
/dev/mouse', what?, no slash-dev!, what? OKay okay, type 'cd /' no, the other slash!"
/dev/input/mouse0 /dev/mouse" because he/she has a Windows mind. You wouldn't have nearly as much trouble if Linux were the first OS that person actually learned to use.
/etc/X11/XF86Config file is, they just want control panels, and most don't even know where that is! Get out of your geek world with your geek OS.
That's precisely where the flaw lies: "acting like one of them" doesn't mean "becoming easier".
The consumer should realise that the UNIX "everything is a file" philosophy must be understood. One can't just push the Windows stupidity onto the user and expect him to adjust everything he knows and understand Linux.
The article's author said "All I want is an OS that is easy to use and works the way I want it to, without my having to go under the hood all the time. The fact that I know how to edit the Windows Registry and the Macintosh extensions manager doesn't mean I like doing it."
This guy doesn't get it either. He's making this analogy between Windows' registry, MacOS' system extensions and "Linux's configuration" (is he referring to configuration files,
No consumer would ever go through the steps you did to install that mouse, I didn't have to.
I did yesterday and what I wrote was not an exaggeration.
That's a little easier to explain to someone than "Okay, now 'cd
It's easier yet dumber, because I put 2 different CD's in and out of my drive 2-3 times each and restarted the computer every time until the mouse worked.
The user wouldn't understand "sln
Bullsh*t! No consumer cares where their
So screw you guys, I'm going home!
I'm willing to give all the help in the world to someone who's interested on how to use his/her head to solve a problem. However, "the consumer" doesn't even want to learn where the control panel is YET wants me to provide FREE software and FREE tech support.
I leave the dumbasses with Microsoft and AOL. They get tons of legitimate money by selling their tech support.
Flavio
I am lazy, like any other person is. I'm not sure what I want, but I do know I want it to work (without a lot of hassle). I used linux for at least half of my "computing" time about a year ago. I even installed a mandrake box that routed a DSL connection to a small office. Linux is the choice for that kind of application.
However, when I use my computer to produce a document (database, word processing, web pages, graphic design) I'll use Windows or a Mac. Why? Because every time I print, the color matches and the text is where it should be. I find that using Linux, while more fun, slows my productivity by at least 50%. Why? The applications are simply sub-par. They work, but barely. If you don't believe me, then show me the nicest GIMP art, compared with work done in PSP or Photoshop. Compare a web page produced in flash or dreamweaver, to one created with jed. I realize the relationship of good users to good end results, but don't you think the better designer would use the better tools? Could it be that they don't use linux because the applications aren't good, rather than the popular notion that they just don't know about linux?
Considering it's written in perl he must've made a conscious decision to add one to an index somewhere to prevent the posts beginning at 0.
Besides - would you say 0th post? Looks dumb.
--
Oh babe, I'm good for nothing - Nothing is good enough for me
You mean there is something else besides vi!?!
vi vs. emacs
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Actually, yes, my little sister WOULD like to install and run Linux on one of her computers. She wants to play with it, but is feeling a little overwhelmed by the process and by the dis-ease of use.
.. probably not. But do I _WANT_ to run Linux, yes. And that should be enough to allow me to.
... it's supported in ANY docs i've read. My monitor is an NEC Multisync, again, supported.
Do you think _I_ really NEED to run linux? does anyone really NEED to run linux? no
My video card is a 4meg S3 Verge
I'm INSULTED that you would suggest I delete the partition and run Windows. What, you think just because I can't get X running I'm not WORTHY of running Linux? What a great proponent for Linux you are.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
The conflict between these two packages sounds like something you'd find in an unstable branch, maybe as one program requires certain gtk libs, and the other requires newer ones. In most cases it's possible to work around that (the ultimate example being that libc5 and glibc2 libraries can exist on the same system with simply apt-getting. Only if you want to develop for both do you need to take the road less travelled), but maybe the person developing the gimp packages (and therefore the one probably on the gtk packages as well), hasn't had the opportunity to work out the fixes yet. In any case, all that would fall into an unstable branch.
By default the /etc/apt/sources.list only has the version that you installed set up for apt-getting eg, you can only get potato updates with a potato install unless you modify sources.list. And that branch will be 'stable', so you'd never see the above problem. Maybe in that version xsane and gimp can live happily together. Now, knowing how much the average user generally chances preferrences from the default, the chances that they will add anything new to sources.list is low, so they will not see that problem. Anyone that does add it probably is in a position that they know how to deal the above apt-get problem.
I really think that the above is a non-problem for considering the ability of average users to use debian. They *aren't* going to be adding packages alot and will probably be happy with what they install initially. If they do start adding packages, it would be expected that by that point they'll have some familiarity with the system to be able to handle the slight problems as the above post suggests.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Part of the problem is the belief that choice is everything. Recently I installed Mandrake 7.2 on my laptop. I literally spent a day removing packages that I did not want. I do not need all of the servers running, if I do, I can install them. I agree with the artical that installing this stuff by default is a security risk. For that matter, I do not need 4 package managers, 5 window managers, a dozen little known programming languages, 15 different editors, etc. How about letting me make a choice, instead of giving me everything by default?
What I have wanted to see for a while is a "Core Linux" distro that would install a minimal system, giving me easy options to make a choice about what to install that will leave me with a basic, functional system. Let me decide what bloat I want to install afterwards, don't fill my drives with stuff I'll never know I installed unless I spend hours digging through the system.
Very frickin simple. Read the frickin description of xsane. At the bottom of the description for xsane (apt-cache show xsane), it says "If you wish to use xsane with the package gimp1.1, you should install the package xsane-gimp1.1." Now, to me, that would imply that you would type apt-get install xsane-gimp1.1. However, you claim that it's only for gimp-1.1.17. Perhaps you're running an old version of Woody, but they don't have gimp 1.1.17. There's only one version of gimp 1.1 available buddy. That's how it works for all the packages. So you're mistaken somewhere. Try again.
You are very much right. If my linux distro had only come with vi..well, I might have turned into a vi user. But, good old Caldera(I've since moved to mandrake, then turbo, back to mandrake(7 this time) and got disgusted...then came the debian install...all hail debian) came with vim, joe, emacs, and Xemacs. I chose emacs/xemacs. Because it is cool. The OS diguised as a text editor. I also became a KDE addict, since it was the only enviroment with Caldera. But Mandrake gave me GNOME. I used it, and decided it was better. Now, I decided to try XFce(Distro people: include it too!). XFce is great, and I find I use it a lot now(with dfm...it's so much faster than GNOME + GMC or KDE + KFM...and XFGnome makes it GNOME compliant and stuff). So, the moral of the story is: just ignore ZDnet. They are the windows people. We should call them on windows...in that huge Mandrake or Caldera install, you get tons of useful stuff...for the same 1.2GB for a default winME install, you get minesweeper, a crappy video editor, and lots of bugs. The linux install you get Emacs, Open office, two kick ass desktop enviroments, a few dozen games, and almost no bugs. For less than windows costs! Besisdes, after installing windows, what do users do? They install programs. I've found that after installing the most common windows programs(windows + office + some other stuff), the install totals over 3GB to make the system usable. Someone explain to me how my Debian(sid) install is a mere 800MB, and still has stuff I'll never, ever use? C'mon zd, realize that linux has more stuff included with it, but you don't have to install it all(and what you do install usually gived you a perfectly usable computer).
-------------
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
no, but I am to lazy to bother spending too much time with immature software such as mandrake. I had it crash on me several times during the various attempts to install the bitch.
Package selection in mandrake is horrible, you either stick with the very crude selection mechanism, choose to let the install intelligently reduce the amount of packages or accept to browse through thousands of poorly documented packages with very cryptic descriptions. Neither is really an option so most users will choose to install everything out of fear of breaking dependencies. I foolishly tried to install 60%. Of course X wouldn't even start and I gave up on mandrake eventually.
Of course there are people who do need isdn apps but that's no reason to include every isdn tool known in a default installation on a computer that doesn't even have the hardware for operating an isdn connection.
So, my point is that most of the packages installed could hardly be described as essential. I just want the stuff needed to run such things as a browser, a texteditor, X, KDE and Gnome apps. I don't need a 100 Mbs of mostly badly desiged themes and other bullshit. I'm sure it can be done efficiently in under 500 megs but I'm not willing to spent much time figuring out what packages to install and what packages to leave behind. The installations are not particularly helpfull and given their immaturity it is usually not a good idea not to use the default settings since most likely your particular choice of settings has not been properly tested.
Jilles
It is a good thing you put those versions in order of price and "power" usage.
As the subject is "bloat", I remember an interesting article, which is written because people are finding the default install of Win2k Professional (the "smallest" in your list) to be too bloated.
Microsoft themselves admit that thier smallest Windows 2000 Consumer distribution is too big.
And lets not forget the ever popular Q247804: How to Remove Linux and Install Windows 2000 or Windows NT on Your Computer !!
While on the subject of comparing the Windows failure to Linux, check out Q260233: Windows 2000 does not support ATA-100 (Mode 5) for IDE hard disks. All ATA-100 IDE hard disks that are used with Windows 2000 default to ATA-66 (Mode 4)
Linux Now Supports Ultra ATA/100 Posted by timothy on Tuesday June 06, @09:23PM
Linux is hard to use, Windoze is hard to use, MacOS is hard to use. The perceptive reader should have seen a pattern by now. Computers are complex machines, and using them productively is not a trivial task, ever. When I was in 7th grade learning to type, nobody told me the typewriter is easy to use. Sure, one can get output by hunting and pecking with one finger, but learning to use the typewriter productively took a lot of hard work. The same is true of driving, making music, writing with a pencil, or anything else that entails non-trivial interaction between a human and a device. Nonetheless, many people sit down in front of a computer - the most complex thing they'll ever work with - and if they can't figure it all out by "hunting and pecking" with the cursor for a few minutes, they become indignant. RTFM, buy a book, hire a brain, and get to work, d*mmit!
Yeah, but...
most distributions do not even care to tell you what are installed. e.g. vi. It gets installed by all distribs. Yet no installer tells me it is installed. Without this knowledge, I'm going to install another editor.
That's where all the bloat comes from.
If I'm told exactly what software are installed by default, are compulsory and stuffs, and what exactly goes in a package, I can choose what to install more precisely - thus preventing bloat.
Also. The way Linux distributions group the apps in their installer does not make much sense. I'd hail the Windows way here - divide the applications into groups and groups of groups. So, e.g. all text editors would go to the same group. All mail clients would go to the same subgroup of "internet apps". All browsers would go to the same group, etc.
AFAIK no distribution so far does this for me. That's why I'm forced to install stuffs that I don't need.
While I agree with you that choice is good, but this choice SHOULD be given WHILE you're installing, NOT AFTER you've installed everything.
the people that wrote those editors were not trying to make up for the lack of 'consumer apps' and the people putting the distros together were most likely not either. i don't think the distributions are really aiming for the windows market yet.
Then, hype it up and sell it as Linux made simple, and get a good staff of support people. I think it would make a great business.
And, as it happens, I think it would be good for Linux too.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
One thing that seems to have been missed is that Linux is based on UNIX, which is a multiuser system. Consequently, one desktop/editor/compiler/etc may not be enough. Granted, this discussion concerns using Linux as a desktop, but I don't think we should critique Unix for being Unix. Makes me wonder how many Linux users are running single-user mode? My guess is: not very many.
I highly agree. This is why I have been looking into using *BSD lately, my hard drive is only so big. I always thought that one reason for using Linux was that it took up less disk space than Windows. Although this it is true that Linux will take up less space for the same functionality as Windows, all the distros pack in way too many programs in the default install. I try selecting only the programs I want but it still seams to take up too much of my disk.
Just to quote the parent here, I don't think that linux is dying. The linux companies which IPO'ed may not be looking so hot, but that's not linux.
Onwards...
The tools provided with each "distro" of NT differentiated the server and workstation versions. Yes, they're the same under the hood, aside from a few registry settings. The author of the article wasn't saying there should be a "consumer" kernel and a "server" kernel. (s)He was saying that the tools installed in addition to the kernel should be more specific to the task at hand.
nope
Yggdrasil ships world's first Linux DVD9-ROM
Begins new era for Linux discs.
San Jose, CA -- September 14, 2000
You forgot EDIT, the best text editor that comes with Windows. Notepad and Wordpad suck when compared to Edit.
Everything in this post is false.
> Proposing outlandish solutions instead of reasonable ones
No, *I'm* not proposing this. The ZDnet article is. Read it. The guy's big problem is that there are so many choices. He didn't pick a newbie distribution, he picked a distribution famed for having lots of applications and said they shouldn't have done that! Who's being outlandish? The bottom line is that the author's solution is to eliminate all the choices.
> It is just one obvious solution that any distribution could choose its own default applications
But that already happens. For the most part, you can usually choose something like "Server" or "Workstation" and a bunch of defaults are selected. Under Debian for example, you are *not* forced to decide whether or not to install every single package. In many cases, multiple things that do the same thing (mail clients, for example) get installed by default. Debian has a ranking system in the mime-package to determine what the defaults are. Having several popular mail clients installed by default is a bonus. You can try a new one without going back to your installer.
I'm *not* saying that there aren't things that can be done to help Linux on the Desktop, I'm just saying that this crap from ZDnet is nonsense. The author noticed that there's a lot of apps under Linux (used to be that there weren't any), and so he came up with this hook that "there's too much!"
And so is his conclusion that there needs to be a Newbie distribution? No, he wants *all* distributions to get rid of all these choices. He wants Debian to forget about the whole Free Software/GNU thing and concentrate exclusively on the Lowest Common Denominator.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Who needs 3 different Napster/AIM/ICQ/IRC clients?
You're right. I just need one. The thing is my one client is probably different than your client.
I never use xterm or rxvt, but I use aterm. Can I please install JUST that?
Go for it. I prefer Eterm, so good thing our distros come with both, eh?
I don't really use python, but Gnome does...
Well, technically, if you are using Gnome, then you are using Python. But whatever.
The bottom line is this, if distributions slimmed down such that each one had it's own preferred app set, then the number of distributions would be enormous.
You'd have a distro with GTK apps, Mutt, and Mozilla, with another KDE, elm, Konq distro, and yet another with TK apps, xterm, pine....
Then we'd all be in here bitching about the hundreds of distros....Personally I prefer to choose the apps at install time, and pick distributions based on other things, like package management tools and release cycles.
Linux distros are too big, and often have stuff they don't need on them. I think *BSD got it right. Make the base installs small, and then have a ports collection which will enable a user to bloat up his system if he or she wishes.
Cheers.
Well which is it??
How can something like a software distribution be too big anyway? (BIG in this case meaning number of apps, not disk space used)
Many of the applications are not installed by default, and if it had fewer apps they'd be complaning that there weren't enough.
So without even meaning to, basically this one article has proclaimed linux to be number one because it has TOO MANY APPLICATIONS!!!!!
Hooray! Linux has finally made it. We have too many applications!
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
Hmm....while I agree with you on some point, I disagree on others. X-windows setup should be easy period. This is my main problem with some (not all) Linux users is that some think everything is easy because it went easy for them. Let me tell you as nice a distro Red Hat is for people who have never had the experience of Linux, it's lauded graphical install doesn't always get things right (I am not talking about 6.1, I am talking 7.0!). Granted, the problem may be in Xfree86 it self since I am using 4.0.1, but, to me, if something isn't stable it should not be included in the base install. Debian does nto do this. Heck if I had a machine I can totally dedicate to Linuc, Debian would be the distro I pick (Woody is too unstable now for me to dedicate a machine to use everyday, but it's getting close!:)) It doesn't bother ME to fix the installers error, but it would bother my Mom, which is why she's still using Windows. The error I am speaking of is that I have yet to see a distro configure my card correctly on Xfree86 4.0.1. I have a Permedia 2v and there's a problem in the server in that it will over drive the monitor (thankfully my monitor has protection from this, but I still don't like it when it does it) and that's when the HW_cursor option is on. You have to force the HW_cursor off in the setup and force the SW_cursor on to fix this. If it hadn't been that I have been using Linux for a while with 3.3.6, I had never would have found the mail list on Xfree86, I'd have gone to Red Hat, and I have never seen anything like this in their Knowledge Base. This is a plus and a minus for Linux. The plus is that I had a problem, and because of mail lists and the internet I was able to find my problem. Score 100 points for Open Source!! The bad part is, is that there is NO documentation of this except in the mail list logs. Some might say well it's on Bugzilla and I say so, it should be listed in the docs on how to set the card up. This is WHY even when someone who is pretty savvy about computers trys Linux, it takes them 6 hours to find the freaking bug that ends up being a easy fix. Telling them to try Red Hat is NOT a solution.
Gorkman
These guys should take a cold shower before writing such stuff. Linux is not Windows. And better not to pretend to be it. Linux is ANOTHER OS. Write it up in your head. But if you want fire let's go...
Occasionally I had to deal recently with one distro by hand... That was necessary for some very fine tuning. So I know what goes on such thing like RedHat or Mandrake. Now tell me if I can find this on Windows:
A few window managers for different tastes and skills.
Several programs that practically cover the whole Internet set of "classical" services. Also with an offer of variants for different tastes and skills.
Several "non-standard" Internet apps.
Several languages for development. It seems that now only BASIC is the big missing player here. Everything else is already there. Together with several development tools.
Several instruments for document processing. Only one thing is still missing. A good, professional Office set. But it seems that soon OpenOffice will fill this hole. Anyway, no talk about "l-i-n-r-f-t-d". StarOffice does its job quite well. After propper install.
Several graphic tools. Here there seems to exist a few clear missing zones, specially on vector graphics and 3D.
At least two DBMS systems go - MySQL and Postgres.
Several mathematical tools. Some quite advanced.
And many more...
And this goes, on Mandrake, in two disks. Bloat? Yes. It is bloat. But not because it goes on two disks but because of the apps classification and organisation. That's the real problem that we face. Till now, the way packets are classified/organised is quite raw. And it is an headache for users to get into that HUGE tree and look for each app they will install. Here we need clearly another approach. Maybe to divide the tree over a few separate trees to allow a better visual approach.
But anyway, the article is wrong from start. To install Mandrake you don't forcefully need the second disk...
And what concerns one smart guy talking about notepads on Windows. I don't want IE. Not it's not that I don't like it. I DON'T need it! On a computer without Internet connections IE is the same as an elephant in my bathtube. And that's the property of Microsoft. Everytime you'll be sure to find tiny notepad and heavyweight IE after every install... And many other things... On Linux I can't get rid only of one single thing: the kernel.
Well it was precisely the package selection that pissed me off. Package descriptions are less than useful, particularly for packages that are less often used. Deciding whether you need it or not becomes very difficult when you are face with such descriptions. Besides mandrake could simply ask whether you have a modem and disable all modem packages. That's the user friendly way of doing things.
My problem with linux distributions (and not only mandrake) is that you don't really have much choice: either manually select packages you don't know (misstakes are usually fatal for succesful completion of the install) or accept the very crude selection mechanism provided to you.
Jilles
While I'm dissing Linux, I might as well point out that it has a LONG way to go before it's ready for the desktop...though that Eazel thing might be interesting...wake me up when it's ready.
I know this looks just like flamebait, so do what you will :)
http://www.blitzbasic.com/
http://www.blitzbasic.com/
Graphics3D 640, 480
"Ha haah, you is dissin' de fellows on me's first post!!!", said the man with a large anus
--
Oh babe, I'm good for nothing - Nothing is good enough for me
I don't believe they are requiring 2.5 GiB. :-)
No one expects you to install _all_ the CDs. You have the coice, that's the difference.
Unix is the choice-OS. Most of the djihad discussions can be answered by the sentence "You have the choice!". Which window manager is the best? Which editor should be installed? Is KDE better than GNOME? How about CDE?
If we're looking at 600Mb or thereabouts, there are places in the world that don't have broadband to be able to download the whole thing. Are there any small, useful distros out there? I'm thinking of something with the size of QNX if possible.
Psychos do not explode when the sunlight hits them, I don't care how fucked up they are.
The answer is simple, and only one step away from what we already have: keep all the packages (because choice is always a Good Thing), but create default installations -- SOHO, internet, grandma, etc. -- which put less software in your box. This way be have the best of both worlds, you have a clean default installation, or you can install everything you want/need.
And remember... less is more! :)
--
This space left intentionally blank.
users will still manage to destroy their system.
Like Windows needs a user to do that - it does just fine at screwing itself up, it doesn't need anyone's help with that... why do you think Windows has to be reinstalled regularly to keep it working?
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Well we can look at all distros now that are aimed for to opposing forces Client and server. For example SuSE has 6cds like mandrake most unexperanced users will do a install and take about a gig or two .. of applications that they don't need as a User same thing with the server end. I am right know experimenting a lot of distros there and as I see it there are the big four: Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, and SuSE.
I can name some fualts and pros for each!
.... [my fav. next to debian]
.. and are not a partial clone to any Red Hat or Debian distro.
.. this is a very good idea and maybe others will take a hint!
Debian: Is a nice devolpment platform and is known to be very stable and complient to most hardware needs.
Red Hat: Nice install has good features that others have add to this fuctionality, for example , mandrake.
Slackware: Is all around nice but is known to be the hardest to set up and more unix like then any other disto
SuSE: Has done a lot as far as a complete archive of applications and the install is nice also they have there own thing like slack
As I see SuSE has done the best with server and clients they have a distro for desktop users and server users now
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish." -Albert Einstein
Red Hat is 2 CD's. And that doesn't even include the docs (on a 3rd CD!). That's massive. Talk about bloat. I just installed W2K Professional, and it easily fit on a single CD, and it's pretty useful straight off the install. What happened to Linux being small and fast?
First it was that linux had no software for it...
Now its, there is too much software. I am sorry but its a CD or 4 use what you want and take out what you don't. Don't use distro's like Caldera that don't give you the selection of packages. Zdnet is just mindlessly complaining at this point.
If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank
I don t think it's Linux bloat at all; it 's just bundling applications. How many people would complain if Windows or MacOS cam bundled with a like number of apps? No the real problem he is addressing - who knows what all these apps do? What all the distros need is a document - HTML, PDF, whatever - that tells the user AT A GLANCE what each and every app does, in a paragraph or two. Then after that the user can check out /usr/doc if she wants.
Oh No - My SuSe 6.4 has 15000 Aps - all
for 29.95 at CompUsa!! No No - too much Bloat!
If I want a word processor, damn it, I'll by it
seperated for $299.00
All I want on my computer is Notpad and Solitaire damn it!
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
The package count is not the measure of a bloated OS. Windows, is not the consumate 'OS' with 'minimal' packages.
Take Windows, or office. Sure, they're one 'package', but think about the options you get when installing them? Let's look at Windows ('cuz it's smaller than Office)....
In the Add/Remove programs for Windows Setup, you have the following 'packages':
Accessability
Accessories
Address Book (why isn't this an accessory?)
Communications
Desktop Themes
Internet Tools
Multilanguage support
Multimedia
Online Servies (also not an accessory, nor an Internet Tool)
System Tools (somehow, this is differnet than acessories)
Web TV for Windows
Now, in each of those, you have the following 'sub packages':
Accessibility - 2
Accessories - 12
Address Book - 0
Communications - 8
Destop Themes - 17
Internet Tools - 5
Multilanguage Support - 5
Multimedia - 9
Online Services - 4
System Tools - 10
Web TV for Windows - 2
Now, in Accessories, there are 3 screen savers
That's a total of 85 packages, just for Windows.
Wanna do Office?
So, what's a packages? In RPM terms, KDE is not a package, it's multiple RPMs. Hell, the Kernel isn't even a package, because it has several RPMs (source, headers, kernel, pcmcia, and etc.)
So, saying that Distro A is 'bloated' because it has more packages that Distro B is just stupid. The best they could complain about is that the package management system has been implemented with packages that are too small or too fragmented.
But, when you start bundling these things into one, you get yourself into the DLL HELL that is Windows.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
OK, in that case I agree with you. Those are smart ideas, and the executable-directory one is easily accomplished by just building it into RPM and/or DEB.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
He didn't forget ssh. Putty is a ssh client for Windows. It's pretty bare bones, but I use it when I'm stuck in Windows.
--Lenny
In my opinion, windows has already won the desktop, and it won't go away for quite some time, at least not until we have a quality RAD environment (kylix?).
Second, windows may be nice and small, fitting on one disk (actually....has anyone here seen win2k advanced server? 4 disks!) but windows doesn't give me compilers, quality web servers, a dozen languages (hey, I have a complete internet development environment in ONE box! Try that, Microsoft!!). It's all about choice, but choice is something the microsoft crowd has forgotten about.
then later, they say that the linux distributions are too big... that tehy come with too much stuff, i.e. applications.
message to ZDNet - make up your mind... does linux have too many applications, or not enough?
this is just childish now... "Hey, there are just too many applications on this distribution... we dont want ALL this... you suck!!! give me less choice!!!"
tagline
... hi bingo
Has anybody experimented with the new Amiga DE using one of the small run-time Linuxes available? I can't see how it would work with something as bulky as Mandrake 7.2
okay, i have a problem with this. people need to know about GNU. people need to care about open source. people need to know about packages, if only to know how their system works.
i really don't seem linux being appropriate for newbies and people who don't care, at least not any time soon. GNU/linux is for people who care about why their software is made, how it works, and what it stands for. i don't see any need to be defensive about that. people who don't care can use MacOS or Windows, and there's nothing wrong with that either.
Don't forget ssh 1 and 2
Am I the only person tired of seeing "Over 500 different software packages included!" on the back of the box for various commercial distributions? The "500 packages" mean very little to most people, as they include Lisp and Scheme compilers, 10 different window managers, bizarre utilities, etc. And 90% of them are severely stale and need to be downloaded as it is.
Why?
Well you need a cheap Internet connection or even better a broadband connection.
I would like to remenber CmdrTaco (and other) that a huge part of the planet have not such things, so do not be so US centrics..
Windows plays just great as long as you're only using Microsoft products.
Huh? Have you ever tried to use more than one MS product at a time? Tried installing Office95/97 after you've uninstalled Office2000? Tried using Office97 & Outlook2000? (We have Office97 Pro, but are using Outlook2000 w/Exchange server.)
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
He is not saying that there is too much choice - he is saying that all of the distros have too much choice. Everyone is free to use what they want, but 8 terminal emulators is too big of a selection for a user that doesnt' understand _one_ of them. Current distros are mashing everything together into a big ball, rather than engineering a coherent operating system.
Dr.Whiz-Bang
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
That is another thing I like about Debian. Although I can understand why a beginner would dislike it.
The packaging is done with a finer granularity. They often choose a minimal number of packages to, say, have a working emacs. Then you can apt-get all the elisp you need to increase its function.
The same with tetex. There are, I think, three packages that are necessary. Then you can add docs, fonts, and postprocessors to make it tetex on 'roids.
But it is really about choice and flexibility - the linux way. And I think this applies especially to Debian. Of course, flexibility also means more knowledge is required to achieve the functionality you desire.
I will be the first to admit that linux is very intimidating to the newbie. However, if you want to talk bloat, Windows won't be any better!
I think the real problem for new linux users is that linux has so many things that can be configured, changed and optomized (isn't that why we love it?). The Linux-Mandrake install does a nice job of walking you through the install, but there are always a few things (like xvidtune) that most newbies won't know about. It's not a bloat issue, it's a knowledge issue!
If you're worried about bloat, go to http://qnx.com/, and download their operating system on a floppy! By the way, you won't be able to configure too much!
The next generation search engine -- TRY IT!
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
--
Ziff Davis is too in love with MS to have any kind of valid opionin about linux. I never go with the default install on ANY os I use.
Are you just to lazy to go through and choose what software you need? That's really the only way you'll ever get a tailored system like you're asking for. Even if a lot of "bloat" is cut out, different people have different needs (or even one person with mutiple machines). There will always be more than just what you need on a given distribution unless you go through the trouble to make your own distro just for yourself. Hell, you half make this argument yourself when you say "What the hell am I going to do with programs for faxing and ISDN?" There are a lot of people who do want those capabilities, so they should be included in a distro.
And though I've never installed Mandrake myself, I'm sure it can be done in less than 2.5 GB!
-
Addlepated - punk & metal
Not the same thing, IMHO. There's no way to design a system that will meet "the average user's" needs in all cases and leave out everything that user doesn't use--because everyone uses different things! There's always the option of a custom preinstalled system, where the user can give the installer an idea of what they want to do and the installer can pick the packages, but otherwise--sorry, folks, you gotta actually look at what you're installing!
But you've hit the nail on the head - Linux users don't want Linux to be a Windows knockoff. If all we wanted was Windows, it'd be a whole lot less effort to just use Windows. Linux users want to be able to control their computer. Windows, on the other hand, tries to shield the user from everything. Nice idea, until something doesn't work like expected, then things start going downhill FAST.
If users want Windows, to paraphrase (badly) Marie Antoinette, "let them use Windows." If they don't want to use their brains, then Linux just is not for them.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I have used Redhat, Slackware, Mandrake, Debian, Suse, Caldera, and others, an not one of them will install "one" terminal application without a vigorous install procedure.
"business users" (which is the market he is refereing to - he said it) do not wnat/need all this crap, even though you do.
Dr.Whiz-Bang
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
Linux is "too big" is it? And what Linux would that be? And compared to what? Is Slackware "too big"? Has RedHat, the thing presumably most ZDNet readers think is Linux, grown larger than one CD lately? [Last time I looked, the other two CDs in the box were bonus bits and source code] The article mentions SUSE and Debian, but correct me if I'm wrong, but SUSE is a distribution that was developed so that users would have everything available in one package. Calling it "too big" is like saying that buildings everywhere are "too tall" because the Empire State Building has "too many" floors.
And Debian? Another distribution aimed at a particular group of users? How much has this guy had to drink?
What exactly is the point of this article? And why is Slashdot taking any notice of it? Is it time we install Censorware on the Slashdot editor's PCs so they can't see certain sites which are havens for third-rate writers who can turn any observation into a complaint?
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
although I still cannot figure out how keep the darned KDE from installing
I can't recall how I worked this out, or indeed even if I've got the facts straight, but here goes anyway, FWIW ...
Using YaST, look in the xwm "Wondow manager and Desktop" packages for something called dyde. It needs KDE. IIRC, if you uninstall dyde you can uninstall KDE. It's confusing 'cos it isn't listed with the other KDE packages and doesn't have a name beginning with K. Hope this helps.
Just make one of those small-form factor CD's with the "workstation" install - the compilers. Give either Gnome or KDE by default (not both), and set up everything on the system in a fairly straightforward way.
To take over the desktop market, you have to give users less choice when installing. They only want choice on the flashy stuff later.
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
And lets not forget text manipulation tools. One of the big reasons people use linux is for the text manipulation tools. If I just wanted the applications listed above, I'd use windows. As I'm sure many other people have pointed out, the unix philosophy calls for many small applications that do one thing only and do it well. For example, take WMP7 for example. How many applications are all rolled into one, huge program here?
- mp3 player (mpg123)
- graphical interface (xmms)
- playlist manager (perl script)
- ripper (cdparanoia)
- encoder (lame)
- id3 tag manager (id3ed)
- streaming audio (?)
- streaming video (?)
- movie player (?)
I'm sure there are others (I haven't used WMP7 that much), but the point is that it's probably at least eight or nine applications rolled into one, big windows program. It's just a difference in structure that's all. Most people who run linux should expect differences from windows.
You can freely export open source strong crypto (which is probably already outside the U.S., so restrictions are pointless), as long as you do it in source form, and send a copy to the spooks.
You could've hired me.
Small installation with the basic Internet apps and so on, and FUCK Open Source, free vs Free, etc...not interested. If I have to compile it, I ain't running it, and I'm FAR from the only one.
http://www.blitzbasic.com/
http://www.blitzbasic.com/
Graphics3D 640, 480
> his overall viewpoint is accurate.
The overall viewpoint of the ZDnet article, from the catchy headline to the final tag, was "Linux offers too much". There was no moderation, no sense of compromise, no notion of different distributions for different purposes.
> This was all that was being stated.
Then why mention Linux-Mandrake, Debian and SuSE?
Linux-Mandrake started off as a "Redhat doesn't have enough" distribution. And he complains that they have too much for a newbie.
Debian was created on the principals of Free Software. And he complains that newbies don't care about GNU.
No where did he make the sane and rational argument that there should be a *different* distribution geered towards newbies. He never even acknowledged that the distributions he was looking at were marketed to specific audiences. His parting shot was directed at all distributions: slim it down.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Along this line, a great idea (which I had even before I saw MS Office 2000) is to:
1. Ask the user what to install, but...
2. By default, opt to install the minimum, but...
3. Still install icons for everything on the CD, and...
4. When you click an icon for a program which isn't installed, a simple installer gets run, which prompts you for the right CD, installs it, then runs the requested program.
5. And to extend the concept, make this work at the command line too (e.g. If you run "cat somefile | grep sometext" and cat and grep aren't installed, you get prompted to insert the right CD, the programs get installed, and the real cat/grep get run with the original parameters).
Life's a lot like money-- you spend it, then it's gone. Spend wisely.
Linux is a Real OS with Real Software necessitating Real Choices by Real Men. Morons need not apply.
This is not to say that I oppose usability imporvements. They are good and needed. I'm an old mac hand--Linux has a long way to go. But dumbing-down distributions is not the way to do it.
If you think he's talking about the literal number of apps, you're wrong.
When they say that Linux lacks apps, it's "types" of apps. I have yet to see a commercially capable version of CAD for linux. Yes, they exist, but not in a form that I'd like to use in the work place. That's what they mean when they say that linux lacks apps.
When they say it's bloated, the point is that there are too many of certain types. How many windows managers come with every distro? Let's see, aside from Gnome and KDE (well, they're interfaces), there's WM, FVWM (3 kinds), ICE, Afterstep, Sawfish, etc. Then there are term programs...another 6 to the heap. Web browsers? A lot there too.
Now i'm no more of an MS fan than you are, but they have one thing going for them. Of every type of software out there, there is only one that they will support for each (excluding drivers, that is a different animal). MS only supports one web browser, one file manager, one word processor, etc. It comes down to a support issue. If Mandrake (my choice) wants to release a CD with extra rpms, so be it. But the base install should be a choice of whether you want a feature or if you don't. Do you want our favorite window manager? If yes, we'll help you if you get stuck. If no, you can install any one off another CD seperately (or downloaded), but you're on your own. That simple.
Face it, not everyone is a geek. If you throw up Gnome and KDE and ask which they want...they won't know what to say. They'll ask "which is better?" What it comes down to is that the better is the one that we'll help you with.
It's time the Linux distro's started deciding which of each type of app is easiest to use, and which they'll support. Everything else becomes 3rd-party, and they won't support it. Less choices for joe-schmo-consumer is less headaches he has to deal with. And it's not likely he'll do that when MS makes it so easy to make no decisions. Remember: We're not all geeks.
The thing I like about Linux is the choice. In this case you have the choice of which distro suites you. You can get a £2 single CD that just has the bare bones or you can (as I do) get the full monty with 6 CDs, DVD and manuals. I know there is a lot on the CDs that I will never need but I like to play. There is also a lot that I want and could never afford if I went the M$ route. How much is firewall and router software for NT/2K? A lot more than the £25 I paid.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
I disagree that mainstrem distros shouldn't have devel tools. Although this is a shame, at least right now, even Joe Sixpack sometimes needs to compile a tarball. So at the least he needs gcc, make, and the various necessary libraries. I don't see this changing too soon, either, because there's no standard binary package format, and even though RPMs and DEBs are commonly available, they aren't always.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
I personally enjoy the fact that I get so many apps with my distro (Mandrake is my favorite). But, aside from the one on his head, the writer of this article does have a point. (For example, I only use 2 or 3 of the 5 X-terminals I have installed, and that's only for a change of scenery, really.) How's this for a solution: As an installation option, have a "basic" choice - one that would install the most mature packages that would do the job in question, without redundancy. Later, if the user decided that another app would fit their particular need, they could install that alongside of (or perhaps in place of - an rpm option, perhaps?) the original. This way, Newbies wouldn't have to try to find their way through +1000 packages either before or after installation. You could have your cake & eat something else if you don't want it later. As for what gets picked as "mature", that should be up to the company that makes the distro. Variance in the included packages already exists anyhow, so it wouldn't really make a big difference on their end, I suspect. (BTW - Too many applications included is a good problem, & one that Windows & Mac users never have to face...)
The reality is that you are getting lots of software at a great price. Even if you pay $80 (Redhat delux) for a distribution, you get server software for ftp, http, telnet, maybe ssh, finger, etc, as well as office tools, like Star Office (okay here is bloat), and you also get multiple window managers.
Now how much would you pay for ALL that and windows NT? hmm lets see NT 4.0 ~$289 full version, you get one window manager, NO server software and NO office app. MS office add atleast another $300, server software could be over $1000. Hmm I know tough choice here.....
I'd prefer a large distro, so I don't have to download a lot. Some of us don't have the bandwidth to waste on downloading..
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
--
This space left intentionally blank.
So now, Linux has a problem because there are just too many applications that run on it (and come with it)? What happened to 'linux has a problem because nothing runs on it'?
In other anti-news, tiny momNpop stores with limited selections in town are thriving as Wal-Mart superstores crumble un-noticed in the distance. It seems that consumers hate having too much to choose from. Everywhere, mega-malls are shutting down and becoming ghost towns. Single screen theaters are spronging up everywhere while tumble weeds blow through the lobby of the cinema 128. Customers pay a premium price for simple, no frills Yugos while Cadilalcs sell for a paltry $1000.
In the U.S., many citizens are calling for an end to the two party system. "There's just too many choices!", said one man. "Why can't we just have one party and a ballot with just a yes box?", said another. Some are going even further. "Deciding to vote or not is just too much! We need a dictator for life like in Cuba", a sentiment supported by many people wearing identical, 'one size fits all' suits as they exited the polls.
I don't mind the distro's containing alot of software... just don't stick it all on my hard drive as part of the default install. It's getting harder and harder to install linux in anything less than 600MB. Compare that to under 40MB for windows 95. Installing all that software during install is not the answer... instead distro's should concentrate on making it easy to install the software after the fact. Also, most people don't need 50 different hex editors (I'm exaggerating)- choose the 1 or 2 best of each kind of software and stick with that. My experience with these huge distro's (shovelware) is that lots of stuff is buggy anyway, they should choose fewer software packages and then make sure they actually work.
Blender And Linux Fan
As much as I hate this, this is infact what it will take. Once people see that Linux and Windows are similar enough they will not care to pay Windows pricing.
Once Linux has infiltrated the desktop market, it can slowly show its strengths over windows and take over the market all together. We must simply break the mold slowly.
AF-Design, web development.
Clearly, reducing the number of packages that come with the distribution would be a stupid way to address this. When I want to install my favourite pager, I don't want to be told that it has "helpfully" been removed in favour of a "standard" one, I want the pager I'm used to.
However, when I first decide I want a pager (or suchlike), I find the choice Debian offers me pretty daunting. Sometimes I just wish Debian could recommend one for me, the same way it recommends exim among the MTAs. Now, Debian offers a priority system, so maybe I should choose the one marked "optional" rather than the ones marked "extra". But while offering a big choice is good, it would also be a good thing to offer a way of *reducing* that choice in favour of judgement calls made by people who know the packages better than me. Hiding packages marked "extra" might be enough.
I also agree with the person who pointed out that the granularity at which Debian packages offer is finer than that at which we want to choose them. In general, I don't care about, say, xserver-common; by itself, it doesn't do anything for me. I'd like Debian to arrange for it to be installed if and only if it is needed by packages I do care about (like task-x-window-system-core) without ever bringing it to my attention.
All of this requires lots of tricky infrastructure. It's not through laziness or stupidity that Debian doesn't already do this; it's because they already have enough problems to solve!
--
Xenu loves you!
Uh, FYI -- latest OpenBSD 2.8 is 2 CDs.
http://www.openbsd.org/items.html#28
Cheers,
G. Sherman
There's absolutely no harm in packaging as much stuff as possible on the CD. You just have to make the installs easier to manage for the newby user.
That goes beyond nice pointy-clicky interfaces. RedHat (as far as I remember) has the choice between Workstation, Server and Custom install. A good first step. But what you really need is a bunch of tasks, not arbitrary classifications that nobody understands, and not a huge list of applications to choose from.
The install should ask you what tasks you need to perform with your computer:
And should should then install a nice set of applications based on those choices. On top of that, maybe a little guided tour/tutorial that explains what the applications are.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
...sorry guys, they are right. What Linux needs, and has needed for some time, is a newbie install that will give simple ways to do simple work. A simple install will yeild a much lower power system, but for someone to use it the way they use windows, tha's all they want.
Here is my example. My sister uses AOHell. She can chat, send e-mail, download little games to her Palm pilot, and play Slingo over the net. She doesn't know what a Kernel is, has never seen a command line, and wouldn't know a penguin to a sparrow, BUT, she can do everything she needs to get by. Give me the ability to convert HER to Linux, and we would win the world. Otherwise, we are just pissing in the wind.
". And the phrase could just as easily be the ethos of Linux distribution vendors. But big Linux distributions packed with thousands of apps are likely to leave the average desktop user dazed and confused."
They don't do it to confuse you they do it so you have a choice about 5-10 of those thousand apps is window managers, I personally like KDE, but I know many people who much prefer GNOME, and I know some that use nextStep/AfterStep, or even wvm/wvm95. Its all a matter of preference.
"Does the average user really need a bunch of terminal apps, several hex editors, a mail and Web server, and a bevy of compilers? Heck, the average developer doesn't even need all that."
Yeah but we would all be mad if they didn't. Maybe not Johnny Q. WindowsUser but all the geeks and nerds would be.
"conservative roster of applications, including an email client; a Web browser; office tools such as a word processor, a spreadsheet, and presentation apps; an image editor; a media player; an HTML editor; Telnet, FTP, and other network utilities."
To make us pay for any other things we may need?, or make us download them, some people don't have cable or a T1 running to their house(but we all should)."Secondly, Linux is too much for most people to handle. For Linux to succeed on the desktop, the people who need to like it don't care about open source or packages or GNU."
Then why do they really want linux?
"The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows." -Aristotle Onassis
xterm
eterm
konsole
aterm
kterm
gnome-terminal
Also, there seem to be ALOT of different versions of solitare, one for every toolkit. If you are installing Gnome or KDE, why would you need a tk one? Only reason I can think of is of the gtk+ one or the qt one sucks! The distros need to decide which terminal they want or which MUA they want or just choose a freakin standard. If I don't like it, I will do one of two things, first, download the one I want and install it, or pick the distro that has the one I want. I have, personally never understood terminal emulators that have pixmapped backgrounds and stuff like that. The pixmap makes things hard to read! :) one thing I do like is transparent terminals. Just change the frame in sawfish or your wm de jour and resize it and fit a couple terms on the desk to do anything you want (I seen a couple screen shots of someone running a script in the window that was checking his e-mail on various servers...much better then the panel or kicker e-mail checkers....). I do like that there are alot of apps on the disk, but lets be honest, how many solitare games do you need? How many versions of minesweeper do you need? One of each is enough for anyone.
Gorkman
Try Peanut. 50 megs ready to go with KDE. Very compact and easy to install. Will even go inside top of a Windoze partition. - Computerareevil "I've always found profanity to be refuge of the inarticulate motherfucker." - Lord Byron as paraphrased by ry4an-slashdot@ry4an.org
sigh...
Macintosh users have no right to gloat either--using the Mac OS isn't much easier than using Windows. The Finder and Chooser may sound intuitive, but just try to find a running Mac application after minimizing it, or choose to eject a CD from the CD-ROM drive by pressing the Eject button (silly me).
First of all, there's no such thing as minimizing an application in Mac OS. You can windowshade individual windows, and you can hide applications. Running apps show up in the Applications menu under Mac OS 7-9, and in the Dock in Mac OS X. Not exactly rocket science.
Second, what Eject button? Only the most recent Macs have a keyboard eject button for the CD. Older models let you simply highlight the disk and select Eject from the Special menu (and no, it no longer leaves the ghosted icon on the desktop, and hasn't for at least two years). Again, not the world's toughest job.
Yes, there are flaws in how Mac OS has become more complicated and less differentiated from its x86-based bastard twin, but ZDNet really ought to investigate these things a little before posting rude and inaccurate comments on them. (Oh, who am I kidding. Ever since Jason O'Grady went to work for the big Z last January his PowerPage site has gone from a once-valuable PowerBook resource to a constantly-broken, never-informative, ad-driven puff piece and is the only Mac site running on Windows. But I digress.)
As for whether Linux is too bloated, I think companies whose operating systems barely fit on a 1.1GB Virtual PC partition with an office suite shouldn't throw stones.
--
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
It makes valid points we already know. Its not written for the linux user . Its a commentary on stuff we already know.
The stuff about the size of distributions is a bunch of pucky too!
SuSE for instance can be small compared to that of WinNT or even other linuxes. If you just select the base installation thats what you'll get.
If you don't like that you installed all 1 million apps for linux then you shouldn't have clicked that option dumbass...
How would you like it the other way? I have to go download everything over my puny ppp connection because it DIDN'T come on the CD.
This article sucks.
Dave
--
This space left intentionally blank.
Don't forget that thanks to the pace of Linux development some of that gigabyte of software is allready out of date by the time you get hold of the distribution anyway!
no sig.
I'm INSULTED that you would suggest I delete the partition and run Windows. What, you think just because I can't get X running I'm not WORTHY of running Linux? What a great proponent for Linux you are.
Actually, [s]he was probably just saying that if you're not happy with Linux, you could probably use an OS that you are happy with, and quit yer bitchin'.
Seriously.
If you've been using Linux for six years, give or take, and are genuinely unhappy with it, don't use it. That's not exactly brain science or rocket surgery, y'know?
Or, you could interpret it as 'if you have unsupported hardware...' (which, BTW, was a distinct possibility since [s]he had no way of knowing what sort of hardware you had) '...probably you should use an OS that supports it'.
As far as the rest of it, [s]he's pretty much right. The average consumer is just about as equally willing to undertake installing any OS. That's a scary concept for most people. There's probably a reason that nearly all PC's are shipped with some sort of OS on them out of the box. And applications, too. The last thing an average consumer wants to do is to install an OS. Hell, the average consumer- in my experience- couldn't identify an OS in a lineup.
No amount of shrinking down the number of available packages will fix that. It's the installers, not the stuff that gets installed.
But, you chose an interpretation which I have a hard time arriving at myself. Quite reactionary.
basically, there are two types of customers for linux, those who want a good server os, and those who want a desktop os. the server os (including ftp, http, ssh, nfs and whatnot) should not grow bigger than 500 megs (in binaries, libraries, other resources and documentation) unless you're doing something wrong. a lot of those servers (like caching proxies) may need more disk space for their purposes, but that's not really part of the distro.
desktop os's on the other hand are another matter. if you've downloaded and installed staroffice, for example, you might note that you'll easily lose 300 megs just for that.
the "bloat" is in my opinion the attempt to
a) serve both types of customers and
b) to put several programs that do essentially the same on one distro.
if you take a look at the lfs-howto, you might see that with it's help you can create a good base system (no servers, no user-apps, but just about anything you need to build your own programs), which does not exceed 250 megs in size. suse, to state one example, requires more than twice that for their basic system, and if you install the development stuff you can easily go beyond the 1gig border. granted, there's a lot of development stuff on that distro.
Let me put this into context for you. Two weeks ago I ordered a "brand new" (reconditioned actually) Thinkpad 760XD from IBM. It came with Win98, and I got hold of another disk (Thinkpads do swappable harddrives) and put Linux on it. A design flaw of Thinkpads is that they cannot boot from CDROMs, but without extra hardware, cannot have both CDROMs and floppies in the same machine at once. So in order to get this to work I had to do the following:
- Downloaded and installed DRDOS 7.
- Downloaded and installed Thinkpad DOS CDROM device driver
- Copied the Slackware 'a' packages from the CDROM to a DOS partition
- Rebooted with Linux
- Installed enough Slackware from hard disk partition
- Rebooted into Linux with CDROM in bay
- Installed rest of Linux
The entire process took, perhaps, 4 hours? Probably less come to think of it. That's installing an OS on a platform that adamantly did not want another OS installed on it. Pretty impressive.What wasn't as impressive was Windows 98. Now, one cool thing about this Thinkpad is that it has video capture. There currently are no Linux drivers, so I'm using the 98 disk for that. I got it to display what was about to be captured on screen, tried single frame captures, and those worked perfectly. I then tried getting it to record a stream of frames, and, oh crap. The machine hung. It hung every time - a power cycle being needed each time to get out of it.
There were no hints on IBM's site about this. Eventually, I discovered that Windows 98's Trident video driver doesn't support the video capture facility but IBM's version does. There was no documentation that explained this other than a brief note with the second of the two driver disks for the video special features.
I probably spent upwards of 6 hours on that alone.
I don't even want to get into the details of installing the oh-so-user-friendly NextStep on my main PC.
No, RedHat wont solve every problem, but neither will any OS or distribution. Now and again you'll come across some hardware/software combination that's seriously screwed up, and if you can you'll replace one or the other to resolve the problem.
As a rule, the XF86Setup program is great. I've used it on two laptops, on my main computer with two different graphics cards, and it's done an excellent job each time.
What doesn't change is that given the limitations of the OS you're running, Linux has far more configurations available to cater for different types of user. If you're a newbie, RedHat will do an excellent job. Europeans faced with obscene phone tariffs can beat the phone companies with SUSE. People who want control over our operating systems, like me, plump for Slackware. Others who want an advanced but easily administered system based around what GNU should be choose Debian. If we follow Volz's advice, we'll throw all those choices out in favour of RedHat alone, just so the poor, poor, man doesn't get confused again and chose the wrong distribution. And we wouldn't want that, for he is the voice of the desktop user, without whose stamp of approval, Linux will never get off the ground ;-)
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Todd Volz, the guy who wrote the zdnet article, must be a real idiot. He talks too much about ease of use. Apparently, he either doesnt know how to code HTML, or he is just a plain idiot. I'm referring to the fact that such an enlightened individual has linked to a zdnet search page instead of nautilus. Dont believe me? Read the article and try to click on the link to nautilus.
The real problem here is that people still have absoloutely no clue what they are doing. They must be used to using windows, because they dont know how to read documentation. I know, they must all be illiterate. Windows users must need those fuzzy little icons because they cant read.
I cant wait until one of these morons tries cleaning excess programs with 'rm'. Has anyone heard of packages? I guess not, because they cant read the man page for dpkg, rpm, or the BSD pkg tools.
The world of personal computers will probably become just like the world of cars. People take their computers in to the shop when something goes wrong. Just imagine...
Mechanic: So what seems to be the problem.
Luser: Well, i just bought it, but its using too much disk space. Can you remove some of these 'programs', or whatever you call them?
So Mr. Mechanic spends about ten minutes freeing up some disk space, smokes a couple of cigarettes, and charges you for three hours of work.
The lesson being taught here, is that if you dont want to rely on someone else, then read some damn man pages. If you want to waste your time and money having someone else fix your machine, then bitch for a better GUI and complain about how 'bloated' your flavor of unix is (because you dont know the means to thin it out). Point and click your way to happiness.
PS. Win2K takes about 850MB for a default install. Think about that, then bitch and moan about how big your unix distro is. Hm... I remember stripping down a bare bones FreeBSD install to about 30MB. And you know how? I can read.
Kan jeg få en pils, vær så snill?
Well, I agree, some problems will come up, but with Linux, except with one group (the kernel developers are the group I speak of Thank God!), the developers (one which I am not yet, but am trying to think of something to do) will stop working on the old stuff once it works once, and when a change is made elsewhere and it breaks the old stuff, the old stuff never gets fixed and just gets a work around. Sounds like some big developer out there that begins with a M right?? :) Case in point, look which 3D cards are supported. 3dfx, GeForce, ATI Rage and with 4.0.2 Radeon and a few others, but what about 3Dlabs (for 3d NOT 2d stuff...2d never has been the problem). All of the sexy stuff gets work, and not enough of the lamo boring stuff. That's not JUST Linux either. Microsoft and Windows Developers are just as guilty. Granted, with Linux, I have been able to get most of my stuff work, but it wasn't easy. If we ever want more exposure, and legitimacy, Linux needs a desktop distro to succeed. Also, for the distro people, PLEASE scale down the amount of apps. Noone needs 4-5 terminal emulation programs in the distro. Now if they want em, they can download em which is fine. If you still see a need to include these, ASK the user in the install which one he wants and have a little info about each if they need more info. That way, the user can kill the distro bloat before it even hits the hard disk.
Gorkman
ooh, good one. now let's get real.
It comes down to this, do we need a choice and a bigger distro of Linux, or do we need simplicity and one of every software instead of dozens?
VI I wouldn't like to be stuck with, Pico works much better for me. But then some can't do without eMacs.
So what should we use on a "Thin" Linux distro? Force everyone to use VI as the editor, GNOME as the GUI, and StarOffice as the office suite?
That's pure tripe. I don't get why so many self-professed know-it-alls get bent out of shape when someone expresses an opinion that differs from their own. The writer is simply discussing how Linux is perceived by users not steeped command-line computing. Maybe you enjoy screwing around with pointless technical nonsense, but I guarantee you, outside your apparent, tiny little ego bubble, there's a big world of people who'd rather be productive than wank over configuration. Why assume so much? back to the pub with you.
Personally I cannot see the author's point. I wiped my 10G drive and installed everything from the Mandrake 7.2 distro (both CD's) and that took up maybe 10% of the entire disk. This leaves me ~9G of space for my own stuff (data, photos, etc).
I wanted to pull pictures off of my digital camera and was doing an 'rpm -ivh gphoto...' and I was told by the package manager that the mdk version was already installed (sans icon tho). I see this as incredibly convenient considering I'm on a 56K dialup and don't want to download large files for packages.
My fiancee (who used to use Windows) is now an avid Linux user. Installation and configuration were no more difficult than installing Windows. I see the article as yet another "moron with a mouthpiece" - (i.e. it LOOKS too complicated and I'm not even going to expend any mental effort whatsoever investigating it).
My $0.02
Not to say there isn't a "custom" install for all of them. I swear.... on redhat, the custom install made me deselect so much. It was a bit overwhelming. especially after i broke a dependency, clicked back and had to start all over again.
And BSD people, BSD/OS and freebsd is guilty. Perhaps not as much as redhat. Bsd/os, to install X requires an extra 300+ megs. FOR WHAT? My X server compiles to only a few megs. crimey. ANd it won't let me do a "custom" install.
The only agreement i have is that yes, unless you read the 3 pages on compiling a kernel, you are lost. But how many times do you do that? Not often. As for device driver installation, modules are and aren't the most intuitive thing. Somteims they work, sometimes they don't. And recompiling them or the kernel instead isn't as simple as the silly, configure file-less clicking of windows. Yeck.
My $0.02 EC
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
that article seemed more like a plug for CorelLinux than anything... Oh Corel does this, and Corel does that.. Well that is the one great thing about Linux. It has tons of distributions to choose from. If you are a complete newbie and you are wanting a hand-holding while you install, there is a distribution for you.. Don't come crying when you can't find "foo".
.02
For those of us that want everyting it is there and ready...
My other personal favorite is when they say "Linux is not ready for the desktop yet because of X." Yeah well no shit. They are working on it. Instead of whining about it, do something, that is the wonder of OpenSource...
Just my worthless
This is my main problem with some (not all) Linux users is that some think everything is easy because it went easy for them.
You've described one problem on Linux you've had with regards to X. I was a happy Windows user until I discovered Linux, and that includes system administration. I've installed Windows on computers which BSOD on the first reboot (the install still hadn't finished) thanks to driver problems - and still regularly need to manage IRQ channels myself since Windows can't seem to figure out how to arrange them so they all work.
It's hard to compare Windows and Linux by looking at individual experiences, as it's generally only the people with bad ones who speak out, and one person's experience is not enough to make a sound decision.
This is WHY even when someone who is pretty savvy about computers trys Linux, it takes them 6 hours to find the freaking bug that ends up being a easy fix.
But what about the other world, for which there is often no feasible means for fixing problems, and people simply learn to work around them?
Hard drive space being really cheap and all it's not that big of a deal if your distro loads some programs that you won't use much. It's comforting to know that they're there if you need them. My suggestion would be to install a distro (e.g. Mandrake) that's designed with the desktop user in mind. This will give you a mix of programs that is most useful to the desktop user.
I'm in no way saying that the other distro's aren't any good, just that they might not be the best choice for the newbie desktop user. If I were installing a web server I'd probably use Slackware or Stormix. If I were wanting a geeky machine to play with I'd try Debian. And If I owned a lot of stock in hard drive companies I'd encourage the use of SuSE.
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
I'm fairly new to the Linux world. My introduction to Linux consisted of a cd full of Caldera goodness. All I had was a 4 gig hard drive. I found that the distro I used was just fine. Filled up my hd much less than windows would and had more options and add ons than I would ever use. What are these people copmplaining about?
'Course the size of the PRICE was what interested me...
As I sat downloading RedHat 6.2 over a T1 line, I was amazed to see that I was getting the documentation in every language imaginable including...no joke...ESPERANTO. After several failed attempts to get this huge package, I gave up and bought a book with a free CD.
"We're tired of all those Microsoft developers shoving their Win-Ho's in our face."
.. a sort of best of breed Linux installation, which occupies less than 1CD, and doesn't fill your hard disk up with five different programs that all do the same thing. The problem is that noone agrees with what is the best application for a given purpose, as the following ongoing wars prove:
a) which browser (NS, IE, Konqueror, Lynx...)
b) which X-Window desktop ( KDE, Gnome, fvwm)....
c) which email handler (sendmail, qmail....)
d) which editor (Vi/Emacs...)
However if someone has the cojones to do what in their opinion amounts to the best set of Linux apps in a simple CD then I think they may be on to a winner.
Apologies if I've missed someones favourite product or war in the lists above.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Like, 1.2G installation of win2K which doesn't contain IRC, firewall tools, gcc, perl, cl, imap server, sql server, (real)dns server, web proxy, c++, Python, tcltk, etc. by default is not considered big.
Todd
Your article has too many words. Couldn't you just sum it up in a few sentences?
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
It doesn't matter how much physical space the CDs take up on your bookshelf. What matters is how much it moves to your hard drive.
There's no reason the distros can't support servers and desktops. But at install time there should be an easy way to select "Desktop - Beginer" and be done with all that other stuff.
Remember, there's nothing stoping users from installing all the bloat they want later. After they've got everything working.
-Andy
Do I moan about having a 10 GB Linux installation? Heck no! Compare it to having a large house. If anything, I brag about the size of my install. I think the people who are determined to squeeze their entire OS into a few megs of space and save the rest of their precious oxidized metal for their own documents are nuts. I'm constantly downloading junk, and my hard drive is shown as being at 48% use. With an enormous OS installation, I still have over 10 GB for stuff.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
I mean, he's even bitching that Mac's are too difficult to use. Seriously, there are some people who just shouldn't use a computer, period, and just like some folks have chaffeurs to drive their limo's, they should have a 'computer operator' on the staff to delegate all that nasty technical obstruction-to-getting-work-done stuff like figuring out how to eject a CD. He wants to show up a 10, dictate a memo to the staff, make a lunch appointment, hit the golf course by 2 and be home before the rush hour to catch up on the latest 'Fortune' mag and call it a day.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Anecdote alert:
.debs (or BSD ports? Does that deal with dependencies on its own without bitching at the user?) could shine. Also, sometimes you have to tweak parts of the .spec file (or the tricks I had to pull with Ghostscript); Joe User wouldn't want to do that. Still, "if you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself":).
I use Balsa. I like Balsa. However, the precompiled packages don't always play nice with my system; something about libmutt being goofy or whatever. Solution: grab a source RPM, rpm --rebuild balsa-1.0.1-1.src.rpm, and kaboom! Ten minutes later, I not only have a working version of Balsa tailored to my system, but a binary package stored on my system in case I need to reinstall that version later for some reason!
Another story:
Ghostscript is a nightmare. Compile it from source? Yeah, right. However, there's a GPL driver for my printer that I prefer to use that has to be compiled in. Solution? Grab a source RPM, do the prep stage, perform some magic, edit the spec file, and kabang; not only will Ghostscript compile and work, but I can produce binary and source packages to distribute so that other people who can benefit from the driver don't have to go through hula hoops themselves!
Well, uhh, I can't distribute the particular packages I have at the moment...err...licensing issues...but I plan to do the same thing with GNU Ghostscript today, so I'll make that available for you HP, Epson and Canon users out there looking for a better ghostscript driver:).
Of course, there are times where one will run into dependency problems, and this is where something like Source
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
I agree. I had a friend who wanted to try Linux. He couldn't decide between SuSE and Corel, so he closed his eyes and picked SuSE.
His complaints with Linux (based solely on SuSE) consisted of:
a) "Which one of these ten text editors do I install?" Ditto for every other category. The enormous selection of packages is a Good Thing(tm). Having to choose amongst them at install time is a Bad Thing(tm).
b) "What do you mean you don't know anything about Yast! I thought you knew Linux!" Okay, the LSB should solve a bit of this, but until then...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
If Linux is to grow stronger and better we must learn to accept criticism.
And how, pray tell does mass bitching about a very poor article affect linux in any way? Are you making the assumption that because we are complaining we are not hacking? I don't want to be the first to break this too you, but the majority of the big names in the FSF movement do not post on slashdot. Linus was interviewed (6months ago?) and said more or less that he'd like to (read slashdot), but his work keeps him too buisy.
Conclusion, bitching is good. Complain all you want it will not slow down the OS machine.
If I tried to install SuSE, I would have to insert CD 2, insert CD 3, ... insert CD 6.
I think you're not understanding the point, SuSE aim is to provide large amounts of data to users w/o fat internet connection. You get a subscription and they send you cd's in the mail. This should be perfect for you and your 28.8.
Keep it Small/Simple Stupid
This is the most anoying phrase in the world and truly doesn't apply here. For as much as it is a paradox, More = Simple in this instance. SusE sends you disks, you install them. You could find them on the web (difficult) or use the CD( Simple), understand now?
"Let me open these blinds so the snipers can see in." - Kevin Giffhorn
I agree with everyone who supports smaller linux distributions. Here are a number of reasons: 1 - 95% of installation effort is choosing packages. While this option is for more advanced users, normally, lower end users who do not waste their time choosing packages will undoubtedly be wasting resources. 2 - Providing extremely large distros takes maintenance effort away from the distro, and additionally can make upgrading to newer packages more painful. 3 - Providing extremely large distros involves bundling out of date software. Not just stable versions, but downright out of date software. 4 - Linux is still considered the "free OS." Multiple install CDs are better suited to Power Pack style sales. Free distro ISOs and such should be one CD max in size. 5 - Many installations come with 20 some odd numbers of mp3 players, mpeg video players, and image viewers. Overall, they can be extremely redundant, and often confusing to the novice. Here's what I say. Focus on providing innovations like Mandrake's use of Aurora, DrakX, etc. This will make linux more viable for the mass audience. Since open source software is by no means difficult to obtain (apt, wget, ftp, etc), focus on providing unique and innovative distros with better installation/uninstallation interfaces and documentation. But hey, what do I know, I have an iMac.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
That is a great idea...wonder why none of the distro companies have figured that one out?
mainly because of the range of appeal a single distribution must consider.
It would become a nightmare if a distribution was split up into mini distributions, based on usage needs. With questions propping up like,
person 1 - "I have a problem with XYZ Linux"
person 2 - "is that Enterprise or desktop distribution?"
Linux has enough distributions as-is, it doesn't need subdistributions furthering the fragmentation.
Seems to me the story was just trying to create controversy, by singleing out Linux. When not encompass the whole spectrum of OS's and their relative bloat? Or would that be considered too much good journalism?
Then there's something to be said for apps tucked away out of sight. I used to love going through DOS (and later on Windows), finding programs they'd left in obscure places, and finding out what they did. After trying out Linux, I found myself doing the same thing. It's just something fun to do, exploring.
Cheers,
leroy.
I have slackware 7 installed on a 486, it is sitting on a 212MB hard drive, and a seperate 40MB hard drive is the swap space. I had no problem sizing it down to fit on my hard drive, with plenty of space to spare. I even have KDE. I don't care what anyone says, if you configure it right, linux is never too big.
Now I also run the only true distribution, running Debian unstable woody right now. It's on a box at home that I really don't care too much about, it's just a play box, so I don't get if the packages are in a broken state for a few days or so. I just watch tv or do something else. Anyway getting X to work with that is a breeze too. When installing the X packages it asks you information about your video card (I selected the medium knowlege one because I'm lazy and didn't feel like looking up the exact specs of my hardware). I told it my stb lightspeed has a TSENG chipset, told it my monitor is capable of 1024x768 in 16 bit color at 75hz, which I knew my hardare was capable of, anwered a few more questions about my setup (what resolutions I want to switch between, color depth, type of mouse, etc) and that was all she wrote. X worked great.
Some things with debian aren't that obvious though, say you just apt-get install the xserver. Ok I type startx and it flicks to X server and dies instantly. This actually happened to a friend of mine. I simple asked, do you have a window manager installed? Nope he said. He apt-get install'ed wmaker and everything was fine.
Anyway, I got bought an NVIDIA GF2 MX card the other day. Is there support for that under X? Probably. Am I gonna put it in that box? Hell no. I'll put that card in my win2k gaming/work box. And put gave my linux box my vooodoo3 hand me down. Now why did I do that you ask? Because I don't know of a single person first hand that has been happy with an NVidia card in X. (I only know one person with one, and he was much happier with his Voodoo3) I'm sure there are plently of people out there with that working, but personally I wasn't convinced.
Anyway, my point is that just because hardware is listed as "Supported" doesn't meat that the drivers are rock solid and work with every single card with that chipset. Keep in mind that a lot of people who program the drivers are people who do it in their spare time. Hey, what do you expect for free?
Another example: I bought a $15 sound card for my linux box, the only free drivers are the ASLA drivers. Only recently have those drivers become solid for my card, like within the last month (mtv works and everything now). Would I buy another one of those sound cards again? Probably now I would, but a month ago I would have just shelled out for an SB Live or something because I know those work, I know people who use em.
Another example: I bought a $15 10/100 nic, in the 2.2.x tree the thing would freeze under heavy load. Now I'm running 2.4.0-testX tree and the thing works great. The card was listed as supported in 2.2.x. (realtek card for those wondering) but if I hadn't found out the drivers were fixed in 2.4.x tree there's no way I would have bought another one of those cards.
Getting supported hardware isn't always the way to go. Getting solid supported hardware proven to work, is the way to go. So the question remains: "How do I find what hardware is proven?" My suggestion is go on irc somewhere, such as irc.debian.org join the channel #debian and simply ask what hardware people recommend. I hang out there sometimes and am happy to answer any questions like that.
---
You say that Linux is bloated. How can you say this in face of the facts. You can fit Linux on a floppy disk if all you want to do is some really basic stuff. If you want more stuff, you can have more stuff, you can. It's not like the distros are requiring you to install every package. You can install what you want and only what you want.
With a Debian FTP install you download only the pacakages that you select to install. Thus, you're only spending bandwidth on stuff that you want.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Almost every windows software installation comes with three choices - minimal, normal, custom - Linux Distros should follow suit, perhaps adding a few more options:
1. Minimal should install the basics: the default text shells, X-windows, Netscape, text editors, the default window manager, no dev tools, no servers, no KDE, no Gnome
2. Normal should add: an office productivity apps, a simple web server (not apache), KDE/Gnome. Basically the same stuff you get in a default windows installation.
3. Developer: adds most common languages and development tools, gcc, jdk, perl, etc... - all the window managers, apache with all the common extensions already added in (PHP, mod_perl,
4. Server: DNS server, apache with PHP et al, sendmail (or variants thereof), samba, dial-in, VPN support, etc...
5. Custom: anything you want.
"I'm willing to give all the help in the world to someone who's interested on how to use his/her head to solve a problem. However, "the consumer" doesn't even want to learn where the control panel is YET wants me to provide FREE software and FREE tech support." Preach it, brother. I work ISP tech support, and your first sentence IS my working philosophy. When I get someone on the phone that says "What's wrong with your service? NO! Don't tell me anything, just fix it!", is when that person gets put on perpetual hold. And, no, it isn't because I'm a bad tech support person or customer service person, it's just that I don't 'need' to enlighten idiots.
Ugggh
is everyone going to have to say the same thing about the too many applications so why are you complaining about lack of applications. The point is that Linux distros will come with multiples of everything. THere are what like 10 text editors?
What needs to be done is have a home user distrobution and a full distrobution. The home use distro will have one one of each basic program. Only one GUI (pick KDE or Gnome and stick with it). And the kicker is that it should NOT have any of the source or docs. Make it so that you can change everything without needing to recomile anything. Now I'm not sure if thats possible but if it isn't then Linux is screwed on the home pc, because Ma is never ever ever going to compile a damn thing.
I think having vi is a part of an unwritten rule/standard. Becaues no matter what type of system it is, you always have access to vi, to me vi is kinda like /etc, it's there, it's always there and it'll be there for as long as there exist systems with the letter U N X in it; either that or BSD =)
one CD will contain distribution for like 6 architectures. Go check it out, I am running 2.8
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
I'm not saying that mainstream distro's shouldn't have the tools. I don't even think that i'm endorsing the idea that there should be more distro's or more versions of the existing distro's. I"m just saying, in that regard, there really should be a "joe desktop" install option, that only installs what's absolutely needed by linux, X, GNOME or KDE, and leaves all of the applications to be installed to the user.
If you're deploying linux in a business environment, the only compiling that should be going on should be by developers and administrators. Not by the desktop users. They'll be running Netscape & Star Office, in all likelyhood...
RPM's and DEB's are genearlly available for a lot of applications. So are tarred binaries, usually... There's nothing wrong with those. Next grip/hope... Linux should adopt some of the features of Apple's filesystem, in that applications should be placed in self contatined directories, and directories themselves should be directly exectuable (maybe that could be done at the shell level or the X server level. Execute directory -- > looks for standardly named binary file inside the directory that takes charge of launching the application. Then there'd be no need for package managment on the application side of things, except for versioning issues....
Most people's grievances on Linux distributions seems to do with convenience, ie "i dont want to change CDs". You lazy bastards. ;)
1) This is a redundant argument, as very soon most Linux packages, Microsoft OSes, etc etc, will be distributed on DVD-ROM. 6G should be enough for a while.
2) Anyone who complains "i dont have the time to download 600 Megs" is a complete blithering idiot. READ THE MANUAL. Download the install disks. Do a remote ftp install. Get only what you want. You can get by on 100M if you need to.
apt-get (or equivalent) the rest.
3) Isn't ZDNet turning into something more akin to an agony aunt column for a bunch of journalists thinking they're techies because they stole a copy of RedHat 6.0 from the office and managed to kill their machine at home with it?
Fross
Linux itself is pritty dinky...
The distros contain not just Linux itself but every application the distro maintainers deem worthy.
The problem is the defaults... This is posably the only area RedHat got right and the only area Slackware got wrong...
RedHat defaults only install a select few software pacages.. (If I rember correctly Netscape is NOT included in the server default...)
Slackware however only has "pick your software" and "install EVERYTHING" no "Default/recomended"...
Byond that.. I think distros have far to little software. 90% of Linux software is free and not everyone using Linux is going to bother to download better software when what is included on the CD works fine.
I think GRUBS and LILO should both be included.. I think some of the updated Mosaics should be included.. I think Modzilla as well as Netscape.. Galion.. etc etc etc...
MORE software not less....
And a CD (or two) with theams...
One annoyence is people do have this habbit of installing Linux and looking on the CD (and no ferther) and not seeing what they want/need.. they assume it dosn't exist..
This isn't so simple to resolve...
It's an assumption.. a WRONG assuption... However if you are going to get Linux accepted by the masses you will have to live with thies tinny mental boofs...
So the answer? Include MORE software....
Just don't include it in the stupid default installs.. Mkay?
I don't actually exist.
First, let me say that I'm so glad somebody else agrees with the fact that Linux distros are getting bloated. However, I've got a few points...
A) This is an example of the "good type of freedom" that multiple distros offers. Each one can tailored to different segments of the market. However, I think the main problem is that there is no "minimalist" distro aside from Stampede. (There's Slack, but they have a more stability rather than performance slant.) And of course, Stampede isn't exactly ready for prime time.
B) Everyone using seriously using Linux has broad-band access. While its fine for some distros to offer huge software bundles, I really think it makes more sense for the distro makers to concentrate on the core system, and leave software collections to $4 cheapbytes CDs. It would also stop the bastardization of software by distro makers. Suse and Mandrake have uglized versions of KDE, and I have not found a way to get rid of the decorations and menus.
C) I'd hesitate over all his statements about "preconfigured." The problem with many distros today isn't that stuff doesn't work "out of box" but that any changes in configuration require the user to go "against the grain" of the preconfigured system, which makes configuration harder. For example, I keep mentioning Mandrake and its inane SysV wrappers. While it may make it easier to work things out of box, it just complicates things when the user needs to do something themselves. Distro makers should not try to fix things with kludges on top (its obscene the number of kludges contained in Linux, particularly in distros like Mandrake, RedHat, and Suse) but reform the core system to make it cleaner and more coherant. Here's where the LSB could really help. If they made a good, clean core organization (without being weighed down by stupid *NIX legacy issues) while Linux is still small enough, and I am certain that distro makers would adopt it.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Nothing in the world like a minimal install of FreeBSD. Nice and slim with only the base essentials. After the install is done I go to the /usr/ports collection and install all the extra software that I need. Its also nice to be able to upgrade the entire core of the OS in one shot with make world etc. Plus with mergemaster merging the config files, its almost impossible to hose up an upgrade.
You also get an OS that performs better and is more stable than linux. Plus once the Mandatory Access Control TrustedBSD patches gets merged into the CURRENT source tree, we'll have quite good security on an OS that is already quite secure.
It's not funny.
I want the people who deliver my news to *think* about what they are reporting, and since reporters are *different*, they will have different opinions. If and when everyone at a news source arrive at the same opinion about a product or service (where the opinion is non-obvious or one of several equally sound opinions), they fail to be an independent and *reliable* news source and I move on.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
At least they're not whining about how Linux "isn't backed by enough applications" anymore... phew!
kugano
Personally, I prefer starting out with a lean system, like a basic Slack or Debian setup. I don't like having to rip out all that we-know-what's-best-for-you stuff in other distros, like Caldera.
Of course, for people with slow modem connections, a 6 CD distribution can be a pretty nice deal.
Guess it just depends where you want to start...
Have you ever taken a look at Vector Linux or Peanut Linux? They take up less than 300megs including swap, and include X with KDE or IceWM, Apache, and loads of other good stuff. Probably would have to add your favorite little known app, but that would be about it. Amazing what a little search will do, though i doubt anyone will actually read this.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
This article's author had to write about something and didn't have a topic. So he decided to comment on Linux distributions and their "flaws".
.deb or .tar.gz).
/dev/mouse symbolic link.
/etc/X11/XF86Config and change ONE LINE, which will be a very intuitive process if you know about that file.
So what exactly does he suggest? That we whip out "Debian Lite" and "RedHat Lite", costing $30 each? NO! The distribution's cost is for the support that comes with it, so the Lite version would cost exactly the same as the full one (not counting Enterprise licenses and the like, of course).
He claims Linux gives the user too many options. In other words, to simplify matters the "perfect" distro would give as many options to the user as MacOS or Windows does.
What these people don't usually get (and I'll be writing it in bold) is that Linux is NOT MacOS or Windows. One shouldn't expect a perfectly smooth transition because one isn't possible!
Is it so hard to understand that a perfect transition from Windows to "something else" can only be achieved if the something else is Windows itself?
The virtues of Linux come from variety and configurability. The user, no matter how much computer illiterate, must learn at least what the basic distributed programs do. The user must take a couple of hours out of his life and press '?' to read a paragraph about each RPM (or
This is only my opinion, of course, but I would personally NOT make a Windows equivalent distro of Linux. Even if I or someone else did, complaints would still exist and it installation wouldn't be that much easier anyway because we're talking about a different OS.
Now take a look at these quotes from the article:
And then there's Linux--chock-full of these kinds of peccadilloes and proud of it.
It seems like he's trying to piss us all off. Linux is designed for power and flexibility. If you can't handle it, either ignore the extra features you don't understand (and Linux will still run fine) or shut up about it.
Add a peripheral (or just sneeze, for that matter) and you'll spend a good chunk of time trying to figure out how to recompile your kernel.
Yeah, right. It takes about 2 minutes to teach someone how to recompile a kernel. It's a matter of "make menuconfig; make dep; make clean; make bzImage; make modules; make modules_install" with slight variations.
Yesterday I installed an USB intellimouse in my box. I didn't have USB support, but it took about 1 minute to choose the USB+HID support in the kernel and about 2 minutes to recompile it (I didn't make clean). After that, I edited XF86Config and changed "ms" for "imps2" and changed the
That stuff isn't intuitive, but it can be taught in a matter of a few minutes and is all over the place in HOWTO files.
And there's also KUDZU, which already setup GPM automatically for me the next time I restarted. On the near future, X will already detect USB mice easily.
Now in Windows I had to reboot, see that message that no mice were detected. Then I:
1. inserted the CD that came with the mouse.
2. inserted the Win98 CD
3. restarted
4. inserted the CD that came with the mouse. some software installed.
5. restarted
6. I saw that the software was installed but the driver wasn't, DESPITE STEP #2!
7. reinstalled the driver that supposedly was in the CD that came with the mouse.
8. restarted
9. that INF file wasn't the USB mouse driver, but didn't call any installation program either. I still haven't figured that out and don't want to.
10. inserted the Win98 CD and installed the REAL, correct driver.
11. restarted. it worked.
SEE? The Win98 setup process takes forever and what's worse: you don't know what goes on.
Even something as simple as changing the desktop resolution in X can be quite a chore, depending on the distribution.
False. The distribution has nothing to do with it. Edit
Let's face it, for all but hackers and pros, Linux is too much of a hassle to be of much use on the desktop.
False. You just didn't have anything to write about and spreaded anti-Linux propaganda.
Linux IS harder than Windows to use, OF COURSE. But you don't have the feeling that you're banging your head against a wall when you're installing drivers for a MOUSE!
Once users realise there's something called a "kernel" that holds drivers and there are "configuration files" which you can change with "text editors", everything's fine.
One just can't expect such a major change to be done without some effort on the user's side.
Flavio
Then I read the rest, and saw you were wrong about other things:
I don't have to - it's all over the web. Photoshop was optimal for working with from-camera media; GIMP is optimal for working with pure-digital media, particularly media that will be delivered via screen, eg, the web. So the GIMP already is a better tool when working on the web; I find Photoshop to be a hinderance in these cases. Ok, the one created in jed actually renders on non-MS browsers. Honestly, what the fuck are you smoking here? HTML-makers have always spat out horrible HTML; browser vendors have had to work around the "versions" of HTML spewing out of your favorite tools. Furthermore, how often are these pages actually finalized? On my planet, as soon as the designers spit out those tarted-up pages, the developers rip them into template chunks; actual, viewed, pages are generated by scripts. And anything that isn't valid HTML will be choked on....First, let's clarify "too big". Of course, most distros are not too big for multiple-CD packaging, but they are too big for most newbies (or not-so-newbies) to understand what they are / should be installing, and they are too big for most folks to download. So...
Why not a "gentle slope" distro that installs the kernel and an introduction app that holds a text-mode conversation with the user about what (s)he wants to do with the box. Based on the conversation, the intro app would build a manifest of what capabilities to install. The intro app would also be able to explain what each capability does (including, of course, those required by the transitive closure of dependencies from the requested capabilities.) It could be run at any time to respond the user's wish to:
Please notice two things:
Think of the kind of conversation that an ubergeek would have if volunteering to set up a box for a totally non-geek friend...
I run into this problem a lot. Desktop users don't need most of the junk that a typical install puts on their system (heck, I don't need most of it, although I often don't get something I need, thus forcing a custom install and having to wade through a huge number of packages that I often don't understand, much less the typical user.) The default install really should be pretty much nothing, as the article suggests, with good, usable menus to install the rest later. Too often I discover that finding the package I want is extremely difficult. Sure, I can get a list of web servers, but most other network applications are in some catchall called net/network or something, and it's really hard to find what I'm looking for. It should be easier to find what you want and install it when you need it, without having to look through a lot of packages you don't.
Seriously, does your grandmother/grandfather really need SMTP/HTTPD/telnetd/ftpd...? Why should they be taking up space on their system, then?
For server users, there should be some semi-custom installs that install based on specific uses. I think debian was moving in this direction last time I checked.
My concern wasn't the fact that I had too much in a distribution, it was that I didn't know what I had or where anything was.
It would be really nice if along with a commercial distribution came a piece of paper which would list standard application categories such a Word Processors/Editors, MultiMedia, Spreadsheets, Online Help, Browsers, Chat Programs, Development, System Administration, etc. Then under each category list each software applications's name and purpose, how to invoke the program, where the documentation quick start is (info/man/howto), and if applicable where to get a printed resource like a book from O'Reilly. It would be important to notate whether the user would have to use X to run the application.
This list ought to come in printed format because new users may not know HTML, won't know how to invoke a browser, may not know how to type a file to the screen, and most certainly won't know how to print the information.
From this standpoint Linux distros do require you to have a base set of knowledge before you can gain more knowledge. I read this article as a cry to lower the barrier of entry for the uninitiated.
Remember, once people get a simple distro installed, it doesn't take long at all before the light comes on and they start craving everything. Perhaps that is how entry to the Linux desktop market should happen.
Clearly, mortal users do tolerate large multi-megabyte applications, however whether obtained separately or not isn't the point.
Help me! Help me! There's just TOO much software out there for Linux! And a large amount of it is included on the CD I just bought/burned, so I don't have to hunt around for hours on the web to find what I need or pay a couple of hundred dollars for each program! Whatever shall I do?
Quite an about-face, isn't it? It seems like just yesterday "they" were complaining that there was no software available for Linux. Now there's two desktop environments, at least one of which is usually included by default, and a load of other software targeted for a wide variety of users. Even the older Red Hat distros (5.1 and 5.2) I used before I switched to Debian had nice HTML indexes with descriptions of the packages included on CD. Debian's in-dselect descriptions were very useful when deciding what to include in my first install of that.
I'll admit the defaults probably need a bit of work. Well-designed defaults should (ideally) install what's generally needed by a user new to Linux. And a good selection program should be available for people customizing their install. But complaining that there's a huge variety of useful software easily available? That's a bit much, don't you think?
-RickHunter
Automatic network/Internet configuration
don't most distros already have that? I think most commercial/newbie friendly distros already are up to bar at this point with Windows. Maybe easier setting up of smb shares would be useful here but maybe that is already done in some distros
Tough, preconfigured security for network/Internet access
Right. But what does that mean exactly? Lot of closed services. If you rstrict to much unexperience users will be frustrated.
A conservative roster of applications, including an email client; a Web browser; office tools such as a word processor, a spreadsheet, and presentation apps; an image editor; a media player; an HTML editor; Telnet, FTP, and other network utilities isn't that what the DE's are trying to do? I mean if I look at either gnome or kde they offer pretty much all those features. Does Windows offer a complete Office suite at no extra cost? No ( I'm not saying those apps shouldn't be included in a distro).
A single window manager that integrates the best of existing desktop environments into a pared-down, easily configurable workspace
New users at first won't care about which WM they are running, at least I didn't care at the beginning.
You install the DE of your choice, WM doesn't matter that much for a new User.
A modicum of accessories such as a calculator and an address book same as two questiosn above
User-friendly network administration tools what?, come on, we are talking about mister J. Random User here, he won't have to administer a network.;-)
The Article has some valid points tho.
"Mommy, mommy! The garbage man is here!" "Well, tell him we don't want any!" -- Groucho Marx
The truth is, if you want to strip out everything from the install you can. A minimal Mandrake install can be done in less than 500Mb. Just don't complain when stuff you want/need isn't installed. From most users' point of view it's better to have everything there in the first place.
And those who wan't a big OK button can have it too - just do a recommended install.
Finally, how many times have I installed Mandrake 7.2? Three. How many times have I reinstalled Windows? Countless. Over time I have spent more time reinstall windows than I have installing Mandrake!
enjoy windows. linux isnt ment for you.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
Execute directory -- > looks for standardly named binary file inside the directory that takes charge of launching the application. Then there'd be no need for package managment on the application side of things, except for versioning issues....
Does this remind anyone else vaguely of a.out?
---
Where can the word be found, where can the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence.
"Where shall the word be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence." -T.S. Eliot
I'm running Debian on my main Linux machine, and have NetBSD installed on another. I like both methods better than the RPM-based systems I've used in the past, with Debian's being my current favorite. I have a couple of points to add to the comparison:
I think they're both good packaging systems, and not different enough to be a reason to switch between Debian and a BSD or vice versa.
What does a server need Internet Explorer for? Or even a GUI?
I saw an ad for a local screwdriver shop that advertised thier "server" as having a 64MB nvidia video card and a SBLive! Platinum?
What the hell, is this what we expect of a server?
Servers need only command line function, wasting resources on a rotating "E" and having more ram on the video card than my mom has in her computer is fucking nuts.
THAT is bloatware, my Linux server doesn't even have a video card, will Windows (any version) even boot up without a video card? Hell Windows bitches when you don't have a frickin mouse plugged in.
You've got to be kidding right? After only 2 days of following slashdot, I realize that the vanilla Slashdot mentality is removed from reality. 90% of computer users don't even know what a kernel or source code is moron.
First he said that he doesn't want to have to make choices on what software installs. He wants all hardware supported without doing any work, real PNP. That and he wants all files to be automagically assoicated with thier applications. I can understand the general point, but in the real world things just are not that easy.
Can someone just give him the world on a plate and see if this appeases him. Where do they find these people????
If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank
Yup; for once ZDNet has it right. Linux distro's are WAY too big. I stopped using Linux in favor of the BSD camp for this exact reason. Though the rampant clueless evangelising of Linux did help that too. Of course unlike most of you Linux cultists I still use Windows too (though my main work is in *nix Windows still kills it for usability and entertainment).
Things like complete documentation, the ports trees and a user base whose knowledge base ratio is much higher than the blind following of the "linux camp" base *BSD a much better choice for users that don't wish to be sheep.
"Survival of the fittest Max, and we've got the fucking gun!" - Pi
I don't think I'm being unreasonable. All I want is an OS that is easy to use and works the way I want it to, without my having to go under the hood all the time. The fact that I know how to edit the Windows Registry and the Macintosh extensions manager doesn't mean I like doing it.
So, Linux vendors, hear this: If you really want to give Windows the boot, your OS has to be slick, quick, and slim. Because, after all, too much is...just too much.
Well, gee. There is an operating system out there that's slick, slim, capable, easy-to-use, easy-to-configure, and "just works" without editing configuration files, if your hardware is supported. Drumroll please.... it's the BeOS!. So why didn't he try BeOS? Perhaps because nobody pays attention to it? Tell ya what. Next time you complain about Linux, try BeOS. It'll make your life easier, and happier.
sure Linux has grown lately... everything has (remember 20mb HD's??) Think about it this way. Microsoft os'es come on only one cd, while Linux distros come on 2 (most at least) this is for a goodreason. Because of the fact that microsoft sells an OPERATING SYSTEM!!! They do NOT sell you everything your workstation needs( so they can make more$$$$)
************** Dan Cunningham
You're right, of course, the majority of the article is just drivel but the bullet points about halfway down make sense in this (linux on desktop) context. He probably should have dropped the text and just submitted the bullets...:) In any event, this isn't news on any day.
You're not the average user, though. You're probably well versed in how to use Linux.
;-)
A newbie to Linux gets swamped with information. Hell, it took me two months of near-constant usage before I was used to Linux, and that was back in the 2.0.32 days
Newbies don't know what "rtfm" is...they are coming from the point-and-click MacOS or Windows world, and they need a transition. KDE and Gnome provide that transition, but even they have a tough time hiding all the complexity that is Linux...
--------------------------
Indeed, that's why MS has Windows Personal coming out (Whistler), which reduces the Win2k footprint even more.
BTW, for ATA/100 support you just install a new driver.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Ahh.. See, here is the problem with the Linux "We must appeal to all" model.
By installing everything one might need at install time, they overburden the user. The user is overwhelmed (ever heard of someone being "whelmed"?) and doesn't know where to begin. However, if the Linux distribution came bare-bones, with everything else just sitting on a CD, the user could install each app individually, and become familiar with the apps as they install them.
Yes, you *CAN* do this with Linux, but you have to know what you're doing to do it. Kind of defeats the purpose.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Hmm.. the example this article used was Mandrake, which is what I last installed, so I guess I can offer a comment.
First of all, yes, it does come with 1000 packages or whatever. That's a lot. Maybe very few users will even use 10% of them. But hey, it fits on the CD! It'd be downright criminal to leave blank space on the disk just because filling it up would be "too much".
But there must be an easier way to present all this stuff. Does it all need to be in your face at install time? My concept is a minimalist installer than presents you with a few simple choices corresponding to what people are _most likely_ to want to do with the machine. e.g. "Gnome or KDE?" "Install gcc? (y/n)" But not too much. Ideally this would leave the user with a fairly concise desktop environment, maybe at the Windows level of applications, a couple of dozen accessories. No servers! No games! No bloat!
Then, anything you wanted from the rest of the packages could be installed after you have a working setup. Thus, it could be presented in a far friendlier fashion than an endless list of packages with one-line descriptions. You could have a helpfile type thing for the user to browse, with a decent page of info about what the hell each package was. Screenshots even! All the packages would be arranged into categories, of course. And a clickable link which would install it (letting you know about dependencies etc. of course). It could even connect to the distributions site and check for a newer version of the package.
This would I think be very comfortable to use for "experienced" users (who are used to finding new software on the net and downloading/installing it), and not too scary for beginners.
So here's your choice. Keep linux on the "bleeding edge" so it remains elite, or make it usable for the masses. Judging from your attitudes, it looks like I'll be using Whistler and other hated Microsoft products for a long time.
Good. You stay in your comfortable little world, and you'll probably never realize what you're missing.
"For example, say that you recently installed RealNetworks RealPlayer to watch some streaming video on the Web, but now it wants to play all of your MP3 files, instead of your favorite player, Winamp. You want to switch it back to the way it was, but you don't want to uninstall RealPlayer or reinstall Winamp. How is it done? Do you know?"
Or you could pay attention while you are installing RealPlayer and only tell it to use ra and ram files, oh yea they don't have WINamp on linux, it's X86Amp and mpg123 is better.
"The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows." -Aristotle Onassis
Cheers. While Linux does have it's advantages and disadvantages, it isn't for everyone. I think that one thing that many people are forgetting is that this article was talking about the AVG. computer user. There is nothing wrong with thinking that Linux is not for everyone.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable. All I want is an OS that is easy to use and works the way I want it to, without my having to go under the hood all the time.
There's so much wrong with this statement I almost don't know where to start. Let's start by saying Yes! You are being unreasonable and now I'll tell you why. All you want is an computer that does what you want it to do, but you have no means or desire to create it for yourself. I am reminded of revolutionaries who just want a society of peace/freedom/equality (take your pick) but have no plan how to get there. If you know the way, we'd all like to see the plan, alright, but until then take what you're given. After all, it's not like you're paying any of our bills.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It's not the size of most Linux distro's these days that bug me, it's the directory structure and over all incompatablity from one linux distro to the next. I wonder when Linux reaches the ability to actually replace Windows on the desktop just how much more messy and bloated it will become.Linux is actually starting to make Windows look good.no wonder I switched to BeOS.
Some morons say that Linux doesn't have any
applications and now we have another moron
who think there are too many.
To show Corel as an example to follow shows
a bigger moron considering the that the
install program is some sort of Trojan Horse.
I buy SuSE because they have a lot of stuff and
have a great distribution.
As for Corel I made the mistake of trying it
and had to restore a trashed 14G hard disk that
had SuSE and OS/2 on it.
He forgot to include the need for time wasting games, like freecell, solitaire and of course Minesweeper! The 3 most played games in the world!
I'm a strong believer that the fostering of procrastination can only lead to more fun.
The surest way to make a monkey of a man is to quote him. --Robert Benchley
- Automatic network/Internet configuration
Don't most distros do this already for network cards? On RH at least, it can't be too hard for a user to run control-panel and set up an internet connection that way, too.
- Tough, preconfigured security for network/Internet access
Okay, good point. Let's stop installing ftpd/httpd/anything-d by default on a 'simple' install, that should mostly fix the problem.
- A conservative roster of applications
So just pick the first (or 'best'?) app of each type and install it. Why should advanced users get less choice over their applications for the benefit of less experienced users?
- Preconfigured Windows/Mac OS file system and network support /etc/fstab, shouldn't it? Other than that, a GUI for samba configuration would be nice, I suppose.
It should be feasible to write a partition scanner that checks to see what partitions you have and automatically add them to
- A single window manager that integrates the best of existing desktop environments blah blah
How about no? Unless somebody feels like 'integrating' KDE and GNOME.. I'm not even going to bother with the 'window manager != desktop environment' bit.
- A modicum of accessories such as a calculator and an address book
Uhh.. (checks GNOME apps menu).. seems to be there already.. same goes for KDE.. Perhaps this guy will be happy with Evolution, what with its resemblance to Outlook.
- User-friendly network administration tools
Most of what the 'average user' would want is already there, but yes, a fancier GUI couldn't hurt.
So what, exactly, does this guy want? A couple of fancy GUIs and a default install option...
It might make sense, then, to have several CDs for several different install types - one CD clearly marked as a 'Standard' install (for the everyday user, everything gets done for them), and a CD set for the 'Advanced' (or should that be 'Advanced Datacenter Pro Super Server Edition 2001'?) for people who don't want the hand-holding.
Personally, though, I think I lost any real appreciation of the article at around the point where he said:
Pretty much everybody here knows you don't need to recompile to install most peripherals, assuming you've got module support enabled, and the sneeze remark was just completely unnecessary.Just my $0.01 (rounded, converted from $AUS.. shocking exchange rate at the moment)
-- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake..
I guess the times are changing. One of the most popular FUD bits against Linux in the past, was "Linux has no applications". It's been a while since I heard that, and now it's "Linux has too many applications"! :)
Well most distros come with several applications of the same type (e.g. several MUAs). And I'm glad it does, I wouldn't want to be stuck with whatever crappy mail client my distro's maker decides I should have. Windows people are so used to having things shoved down their throats that, given some freedom of choice, they run screaming "this is too much". Well it's not!
--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
I'll give a concrete RH7.0 example -- tin and metamail. I tested the 7.0 beta, and noticed that when tin ran into a mime-encoded message, it wouldn't ask if I wanted to run metamail. The problem is that metamail has to be installed at compile-time in order for this to work (or it can be forced with a ./configure flag), and it didn't. Simply rebuilding the RPM on a machine with metamail installed will fix this, and I logged the bug on Red Hat's bugzilla, where it was soon flagged as fixed. The bug was then re-introduced in the final 7.0 release, so clearly this was a bug that they simply lost track of, and this was functionality that was not tested.
Where am I going with all of this? My concern is that there is just too much in the Red Hat distribution for them to test to make sure it works. Perhaps they just don't have a good-enough tracking system or testing system. But the above tin example is one of many little problems which were the fault of the packager, not the application.
If you think your linux distribution is too big don't fucking install everything! Every dist worth its salt gives you several pre-configured installation options you can choose from. If you choose to install everything, that's your problem.
As for his thing about the battle between RealPlayer and Winamp, try doing that in Windows sometimes. Chances are you'll end up not only having to reinstall Winamp and Realplayer, you'll probably have to reinstall the OS after you're done mangling the registry beyond recognition. Windows plays just great as long as you're only using Microsoft products. Go beyond that and you'll quickly find yourself in a configuration nightmare that Linux users gloat that they never have to deal with. Don't talk to me about the ease of use of Windows.
We who made Linux never made it for the end user. While this OS can be easier to use if your desktop users have a good administrator to rely on, if you're someone who doesn't want to know about your computer and you don't have someone who can maintain your system for you, you should steer clear of this OS. You won't get the games you want anytime soon and Windows is acceptable for Web browsing and E-Mail if that's all you're trying to do with your computer. I'm not being elitist here, meerly pragmatic. And most of ZDnet falls into the demographic that should steer clear of this OS. Leave the computing to the computing professionals.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
When will they be happy?
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
I just tried to install RH7 on a 500 MB partition. The standard workstation install failed because of lack of disk space. Tried to removed several packages. Got muddled in missing dependancies then gave up after a few hours. The thing is, I am new to linux and dont know exactly what each package does and what is dependant on it. I know there is some discriptive info for each package, but its not enough. It could be better.
-"The early bird catches the worm, but the late bird sleeps the most"
Everyone is virtually flaming ZDnet for their article. If Linux is to grow stronger and better we must learn to accept criticism. I have been using Linux for 7 years, and believe I am qualified enough to comment on this. I have to agree with ZDnet. Linux is bloated, My last SuSE distribution was 6 CDs. Is this good? Yes and No.
... insert CD 6.
It was good for me, because my connection at home is 28.8. It is bad for me because when I want to install, I have to go through thousands of packages to find out what I want. Linux needs a desktop standard. This means, a core set of applications. You pop in a CD, you click the giant OK button and it is all done. If you then desire, you can use the other CDs to install your favorite app. If I tried to install SuSE, I would have to insert CD 2, insert CD 3,
I gave a friend SuSE, and that turned him off about it, he wouldn't even give it a try. I am sure that if we came up with a desktop standard for linux that it can be done in a very good 300-400meg for very useable system. I am not asking for a core system with no X, no network, etc, etc.
We must remember that bigger is not necessarily better, more is not necessarily better. KISS is good. Keep it Small/Simple Stupid.
I use BSD as well, and this is why I love NetBSD and OpenBSD. They are very small, whenever I install it, I install just the standard (1 CD). If I then use I can install applications via the ports collection. Let's not let our Linux pride blind us. Happy Holidays.
Cheers
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
How can an OS successfully traget both high end servers and desktop class boxes in the same distro? It can't! and because of this Linux is dying.
Right, NT 4 didn't do this. The difference between Workstation and Server is (depending on who you believe) a few registry settings, or the equivalent of a kernel re-compile. They did just fine, and back in 1995/96 it wasn't so much because MS were the huge monopoly - they were competing on Novell's turf.
"don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
I suppose it *is* a nuiscance to have almost all of the software I'll want conveniently located on a CD and pre-compiled + configured for my system. No, wait, that's a *nice* thing.
I could've sworn that the user had a choice of what to install when they set up a machine, unlike windows - where just installing the OS with none of those options is freaking huge.
First of all, you don't have to install it all, it's all about having a choice. OTOH I have to agree partially with the writer: I think that far too much energy and talent is wasted on too many different editors, compilers, desktops, tools etc. I think that sometimes there is *too much* choice, and that makes it harder for the average user to decide (if it doesn't scare them off in the first place).
Wouldn't it be a good idea to chanel all the development energy out there, and focus a bit more on the things Linux is still lacking? I mean, there are still many sorts of applications not available for Linux users, so they still have to resort to Windows.
How to make a sig
without having an idea
I'll make a new Linux Distro and call it SmallNix or something but it will be the kernel on a floppy and then when you need drivers it will go to an ftp site and get them, same if you want any packages. And it will only cost 40$ for a boxed set with a manual.
"The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows." -Aristotle Onassis
but there are alot of linux dists. out there-redhat, debaian, suse etc dont define linux. freedom defines linux. if you dont like where redhat is going there is sure to be an alternative that suits you. go here for a good list:
http://www.linux.org/dist/english.html
is small is what you want try mulinux:
http://mulinux.nevalabs.org/
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
Macromedia: Director 8, Dreamweaver 3, Fireworks 3, Flash 5, Freehand 9, Fontographer 4.
Adobe: Illustrator 9, Photoshop 6, Premiere 5.1, Dimensions 3, Streamline 4.
Miscellaneous: CuteFTP 4, DiscJuggler 3, Swift3D 1.1, WinRAR 2.71, and WinZip 8.
All of these consist of the original installation set, with appropriate serial numbers/cracks. Even more surprising, all of these fit on one CD, only taking up 380 megabytes.
Thousands of dollars of professional development programs fit into 380 megabytes. And each of these programs (except most of those in the misc. category) come on one disk inside a standard-sized box. It's time to stop the bloatware.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
the last time i did a full install onto a fresh drive was with a redhat install floppy and an ftp connection. pick and choose the pieces i want, download and install on the fly, reboot and i'm done.
it's a lot easier considering i have a good fast connection, but i suspect a lot of people would go this way if it worked all the time, which it doesn't. buggering busy servers, corrupted downloads, a flaky cable connection, and documentation that hasn't been properly updated can all ruin my day..
however, i think it's time one of the major distros (redhat, debian, etc) put out a one or two floppy distribution for the "connected install".. tho i suppose you already have such a thing with downloadable install disk images that have 'ftp install' as an option. heck, it's better than getting a whole ISO just to install a few bits and pieces.
- Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
I think the author of the article wants more specialized distro's, more fine tuned to handle a given set of tasks... And none of the "mainstream" distro's have thought about that approach.
:)
/lib/modules/kernel_version, rather than needing to recompile the kernel itself. That'd make adding new hardware a much easier task - plug it in, copy driver to the module directory, and you're off, maybe reboot or issue a command that makes the kernel rescan that directory... and you're off.
:) - let users each have their own completely customizable GNOME menu... So far as i can tell, the only part that each user can customize is the Favorites section. That makes little sense, since there are a bunch of administrative tools installed in a default RH install that non-root users can't launch, yet they're made "available" to them anyhow...
But then, i don't think that linux itself is ready to attack the general market, until some fundamental changes can occur. I might be wrong, because i've only been using it now for a few months, so PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG
But for instance, a simplified distro shouldn't need to have any development tools installed. Nor should it need any dev. libraries installed. The kernel should be more modular, or intellegent about it's modules, so that you can add modules simply by moving them to
Other things (now i'm just trying for free tech support
The prime feature of SUSE is that it comes with every package you might possibly want. That's the market it addresses. Saying "It's too big" is utterly, hopelessly, gloriously stupid. You might just as well argue that Windows NT Server is "has far too many system administration tools" (if you really want OSes compared to OSes - but look up the word "analogy" at some point.)
As for it taking 6 hours to try and get XWindows to work: INSTALL REDHAT DAMN IT. For the newbie who just wants Linux to install, RedHat will do it. It will set the thing up for them, they can choose KDE as their desktop, go through the easy to use XF86Config graphical configuration that RedHat helpfully starts up for them. It's even as standard as Linux distributions will ever be - there's not a commercial package out there available in a Linux version that wont run under RedHat.
The fact that this idiot, and presumably you, failed to choose the distribution aimed at them, clearly labelled as aimed at them, clearly marketed as aimed at them, doesn't make his opinions any more intelligent. It's third rate reporting, winging about being given too many options, winging indeed about being given too many options with each option.
Here's a clue. Get RedHat. Choose the default install if you have enough hard disk space. Choose KDE if you're seriously bothered about spending more than 30 minutes selecting desktop environments. Follow the easy to follow on-screen instructions. And boot into the OS that you wished for. And if you do all that, and complain that it's still too complicated, that it still has "too much", or if you have the gall to, after demanding it require as little help from you as possible, protest that it's bloated and/or inefficient, go grab DRDOS from the www.drdos.com and use that instead. Beware of what you ask for.
But don't go grabbing minority Linux distributions which aren't aimed at you, or Linux distributions that say, clearly on the cover, "more packages than everyone else!" and then winge about the huge number of packages.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
KDE2 allows you to add/remove/edit/move anything on the K menu, regardless of who created it. And the changes only apply to you.
If Microsoft was to include as much stuff with their OS as Linux is includeing ZD would be praiseing it.
Could you imagine MS including Office, Money, AOE, Visual Studio, Visio, Links, Flight Simulator, etc. with their Desktop OS? Shoot, I might just be convinced to shell out $45 US for that.
Steve
Most users are overwhelmed by the choices they are forced to make on setup, and Windows and Linux both install too much stuff for the average user. In most companies end users don't install computers, IT professionals do. Smart IT people use preconfigured setups which limit the choices the end users see, standardizes the look and feel throughout the company, and make system installation and support much simpler.
When building a configuration under Linux I can be VERY specific about what I install and how confusing the desktop is. This means the user sees exactally what I want her to see, nothing more, nothing less. This is very powerful and allows us to set things up so that new (Don't know how to use a mouse) users have the absolute minimum learning curve. With Windows, you are limited to ONE desktop environment, which (IMHO) is more confusing than the custom environment I can create under Linux. Additionally, the amount of configurability under windows is very limited, certain things (My Computer, Network Neighborhood, Command Prompt, Control Panel, etc..) are hard to make go away, and once gone make administrating the box a nightmare.
The point ZDNet missed is that it is possible to make Linux MUCH simpler than Windows ever can be (Think TIVO), the average home user doesn't install their own apps anyways, they buy a computer preconfigured. Computer Makers do it because Windows installation isn't a cake walk either. -- Dennis
"Calling it "too big" is like saying that buildings everywhere are "too tall" because the Empire State Building has "too many" floors."
Talk about third rate writer. You're comparing a building with an operating system. The point of the article is saying this: If you want new users, you have to offer something new. If the slashdot community thinks hassle, complexity, and the joy of spending 6 hours trying to get XWindows to work is attractive, you're missing the main point of the operating system: to run programs that John Doe wants to use, without John Doe reading 30 pages of configuration docs.
Alan Cox said it himself: "We need to take Linux to the level where you can give it to your grandmother, and not expect a phone call back except to say "thanks".
So here's your choice. Keep linux on the "bleeding edge" so it remains elite, or make it usable for the masses. Judging from your attitudes, it looks like I'll be using Whistler and other hated Microsoft products for a long time.
Firstly, I want to address the point a couple of people have made concerning the size of a Linux distro (2-3 CDs in some cases) compared to the size of Windows 2000 (1 CD). The obvious difference is the vast quantity of applications supplied with a Linux distribution. Linux itself is still 'lean and mean', but those many megabytes of software aren't.
There *are* distributions which you can fit onto a single floppy if you want to. Not necessarily that much use, or that common, but they do exist.
The point made by the article is valid to a certain extent IMHO. Although some users *do* want access to everything, and to have the capability to set their Linux system up exactly as they want, others want to be hand-held through the process. It isn't really an issue of how much data is on the CD (or CDs) - it's more a question of why Joe User should have to know whether or not he wants to install perl, and should have it installed by default if he doesn't say no.
Surely this is the whole point of having multiple distributions (Or at least a significant part of it) - some cater for the server, some for the power user, and some for the novice. The problem is that the novice distributions don't step far enough away from the advanced user distributions, making the mistake of still trying to pack too much in, provide too much choice. What's wrong with the idea of having a slimmed down distribution for novice desktop users, with less choice and more ease of use? Standardise on KDE, don't provide server code or obscure development applications, just give simple configuration, a standard set of tools (office suite, solitaire game, etc.) that reminds them of Windows, and a setup that can be used entirely through the UI, without having to touch the command prompt unless you want to. You don't have to use it. I *wouldn't* use it. But it's what some people need, and the elitist attitude that people need to learn to be a Linux hacker in order to use the OS is one of the most damaging aspects of the push to get Linux on the desktop.
In the original article it says:
"Let's face it, for all but hackers and pros, Linux is too much of a hassle to be of much use on the desktop."
And this is still true, despite the steps towards this goal made by some distributions. To get a well-configured Linux distribution up and running, you really need some experience. On the other hand, even a trained monkey can install Win2K - that sort of ease of use is something that would be useful for *some* Linux users.
Here ends today's rant.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Their list is exactly what Linux will need before it is widely adopted by the consumer. I didn't really see space as the issue, but as more of what linux needs in order to streamline into a consumer OS.
...and I'm not sure we should trust this Kyle Sagan either.
Everyone here on slashdot is yelling about how windows has too much sh*t, well of course it does, but that doesn't stop it from being widely used.
Linux does need easy network/internet config tools for the consumers, linux does need preconfigured network file sharing support for other OSes, and a simple host of applications.
It can't be that hard. I spent all weekend trying to get my damn linksys card working, patching kernels, compiling drivers. The consumer shouldn't have to do that.
Linux needs a consumer front, and an interface that is familar. I've watched some of our sales people try to sell someone a linux system, showing them how to use her zip drive, showing her the mount command, unmount and all of that. Just so she could write files to her zip disk. She said, "That's too much work, just get rid of it and go back to windows."
Someone should write some decent apps for consumers that help set up their computer on install. Some nice scripts that automount the CD. Setup Internet access, set up filesharing. Like *gasp* the enemy OSes do.
I tried out mandrake 7.2 just after it was released. It required 2.5 Gb. That's a lot. I'have no idea what they include in their distribution to get to that number but it is almost certain I won't ever use 95 % of it.
:).
:)
The problem is redundancy. For each type of application there are more than one implementation. Take editors for example, the average linux distribution will install at least half a dozen (and probably more) without even asking. Then you usually get both KDE and Gnome, half a dozen xterm apps, a bunch of shells, a bunch of filesystem browsers (all of them crap IMHO), and a zillion other apps. Not to mention apache is installed, an smtp server is launched, you can telnet, ftp and god knows what to your machine while all you wanted is a stupid firewall
I don't want all that, I want a tailored system that only includes what I need, configured in a simple way and preferably not running all sorts of server apps I won't use anyway. In the unlikely case I want to use emacs or vi, I'll install it myself. What the hell am I going to do with programs for faxing and ISDN? I don't have even have a modem! Why waste diskspace on useless apps such as Xroach. It's only a few kilobytes, I know, but all this bloat apparently manages to sum up to about 2.5 gigabytes.
None of the linux distributions I know off meet these requirements and I doubt any distribution will meet them anytime soon. Debian is too complicated, Mandrake is too bloated, Red hat too buggy, Corel is too annoying. It seems that all the parts for making a nice OS are available but nobody has managed to put them together in the right way. Perhaps we do need MS Linux
Jilles
For me Linux distributions are too big in another sense... After struggling days to squeeze SuSE-6.4 to a flash drive I found out that by default at least SuSE forces ridiculous amounts of unneeded stuff to down your throat.
Once I got only base system installed (custom install and remove everything that really isn't needed and hearing yast whining "that and that really need to be installed for a functional system") I moved on and bombed quazillion of irrelevant apps, config files, empty directories and readmes etc. I had stable, working rpm-based system running on a 160MB Flash with enough space for my own apps and logs etc. Another space saver were deleting all drivers that weren't needed and compiling my own streamlined kernel. How 'bout other distributions? Well RedHat couldn't install at all on this small drive thus I selected SuSE. Debian may be easier to fit on small devices but that I haven't tried as on the schedule I were working required to work with something I allready familiar with.
Microsoft? Is that some kind of a toilet paper?
Last time I installed Debian (lastnight in fact), I installed from a half-full cd burned from the downloaded disk image. With Zope, Postgresql, ftp, xwindows, gnome and kde, games, emacs and just about everything else including sendmail and apache, the final size was under 500mb.
Last time I installed Windows98, it was around 500mb, without any servers or much software (notepad, solitaire, minesweeper... that's about it).
Last time I had to reinstall Debian because of an OS problem? Never. Last time I had to reinstall Windows98? About every 90 days.
And the complaints in the article that "Linux is too bountiful for the average user"... What the fuck is that? This, written by a guy who lives in America -- where we order Big Macs, drive Cadilacs, buy in bulk and wipe our asses with double-rolls of double-ply toilet-paper?
The argument that there are "so many packages, tools and choices that it's baffling" is rediculous, too. If you're using RedHat -- just choose the 'Desktop' installation. A relatively reasonable desktop system configuration is selected with that choice that will suit most users. And if you're using Debian, just select 'simple' from the packages menu and choose 'Gnome, XWindows, Newbie Help' and you'll have a an equally useful desktop system.
Installing Debian is faster, easier and more precise than installing Windows, if you ask me. So most of the articles claims fall flat. I'm sorry, but while this article would have been mostly on target three years ago, it is simply untrue today.
Consumers need to wake up and realize that they are never going to have their cake and eat it too. The closest they'll come to user-friendly might be a Mac or Windows box -- but they'll suffer a lot of reliability loss (especially on Windows). They'll suffer some financial expenses every time they want to add a game, word processor, network utility... And if they want a highly reliable, extremely configurable, very affordable system like Linux, they're going to have to sit down and thumb through a manual or read a few introductions to the operating system online. To say that it should be as simple to operate as a toaster is just plain stupid. People will pay $13 for a toaster and read the manual that comes with it, but they won't bother to read the manual that comes with their $2000 computer?
---
seumas.com
What about a standards body that sets out what distributions can be called "standard"? For example, sure, Red Hat provides a server and workstation install. But what does that *mean*? Is it the same as a server or workstation install in SuSE, or Debian? I am not a unix guru by any means, but I have been a user for a while. And as a user, I am totally overwhelmed by a plethora of cryptic applications of whose purpose I have no clue. Just look in /bin, or /usr/bin...can you name and describe every single two and three letter executable in there? When I select a server install, does that mean I want 5 different server implementations for each protocol? If I select workstation does that mean I want every single useless X app ever created to be installed for me?
Until there is some standard users are left to sort through the chaff. In the end you could say that it is the network/server administrator's job to decide what should be installed...but I'm sure administrators don't want to do this job, and perhaps create custom distributions, either. And that still leaves out the person at home whose sick of the cost and problems of Windows, and wants to check out this whole Linux thing.
Choice is not unequivocally good. *Meaningful* choice is.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
OK, let's forget windows vs. linux debates with all the blood and spilled guts. There is ( IMHO ) a more general problem that causes these "It is too difficult to use" monologues. Computers are not end-user friendly. Whatever you do, but end-user doesn't want to know about... hmmm... doesn't want to know period. They want to run programs, but words "executable file" give them shudders. They want to save files, but words "file system" make them hysterical. Somehow, I miss good old DOS times. The ideology ,at the time, was if you want computer at home you will have to learn how to use it. IF you are in corp environment you get your text menu with 3 apps you need to use and no more.
That's what I call user-friendly. Cannot mess up. You either choose word perfect, lotus 123, or Exit to DOS. And you never exit to DOS, cause that's for tech people and yo don't want to understand it. Now , everyone seems to think that he can operate computer without any prior knowledge or anything, while thesame people cannot set time on their VCRs or use their new camera. Back to the main point. Computers are difficult to use. They are complicated. More complicated then most other home appliances. Developers and engineers around theworld strive to make computers easier to use ( wether any particular attempt is succesfull is not the point ). As with most other things of this order of complexity you need AT LEAST to read a manual to use your computer. What is needed to make computers easier is a more abstract interface, i.e less chained to computer realities. Both windows and unix/linux made steps in this direction. For example windows "folders" are pretty good but "C: drive" is bad. Icons are good, but shortcuts are bad. Start menu in all of them is bad. It is not intuitive. Even if it is called start. Desktop menu ( fvwm style ) is more intuitive then start menu.
Everybody Lies. But it doesn't matter since nobody listens.
This has really been a nice day. I've been called a retard, a bigot, crude and obtuse. One really has to like it when the winvocates are unleashed upon oneself. Oh, please, don't hold anything back, let me have it all. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a plug that needs to get pulled.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
--
Steven Murdoch.
Steven Murdoch.
web: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/sjm217/
- Web Browser
- Word Processor/Office Suite
- Email Client
- Games!
- etc, etc
But only one of each! The thing about Mandrake is that it's the Kitchen Sink approach. How the hell is any newbie supposed to figure out the differences between programs if (s)he can't even find the documentation because it's buried under a heaping pile of obscure apps? The other thing that's needed is a sort of pseudo-dselect (for Debian users out there) that will allow you to select a new app (categorized by type) whenever you want one, and will let you either download the app or install from a CD. Easy and not too complex. It's best not to overwhelm a new user, but to give him a leg up in to the world with a few defaults. If he wants to explore, let him, but don't throw it all out there and expect him to wade through it. You'll just bury them."I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Installing Linux and Linux applications is quite a different model indeed than installing Windows and Windows Software. When you get right down to it, the writer of this article has a different point of view than more seasoned Linux users.
He/She is probally used to installing Windows from it's CD. After shuffling in a few driver cd's they have a working windows install and can surf the net with a semi recent version of Internet Explorer. They then insert the Office 2000 media and get a cup of coffee while it installes. Maybe if they've grasped the concept of multitasking they're visiting Windows Update at the same time. After office, there's still Photoshop, HTML editors, Netscape, Mozilla, that neat screensaver program they found on the web, etc, etc, etc. Each with it's own seperate installer on it's own media.
Whith linux, packages are distributed as biniary packages (rpm, deb, etc) are installed in a consistant (if cryptic) method, and can be obtained from the same installation media as your operating system or on large online repositories (freshmeat, rpmfind, debian and red hat ftps...)
The writes obvious problem is that he doesn't know the difference between a Linux kernel, a Linux operating system, and a Linux distribution. For the sake of rebuttal, lets say that the Linux kernel is just that. The kernel. The entire source code is what? 14 mb compressed? Now here's where we get fuzzy. The Linux OS would be the Kernel plus what you need to create and navigate file systems, and install other software. The distribution is the Linux OS bundled with software, software, and more software. A polite message explaining the methodolgy of a distribution might enlighten the author...
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Looks like 4th to me, Einstein.
--
Oh babe, I'm good for nothing - Nothing is good enough for me
You missed the point with Linux. The whole idea behind Linux is choice. Just look at the number of distributions you have out there. If only one editor was installed people would be complaining because there was another one that's better and should have been installed. I let my dstribution install the dozen editors. I play with them until I decide on which one I like best and then I delete the rest. This way I don't get stuck using something that doesn't suit my needs, like notepad.
MS has done the same thing sort of. They used to include only notepad in their OS. Now they include notepad and Wordpad. Why not get rid of notepad? Choices!
Steve
There is a certain lie. Win98 full install takes about 120-150 MB. But it is basically unusable in that state.
Everybody Lies. But it doesn't matter since nobody listens.
I think that the distros are not ...um.. cohesive enough. Let me give you an example. My wife, who is pretty computer literate, installs Mandrake. She goes to get an editor and promptly is greeted with a dozen!! Wonderful that she has all those choices, but sheesh, do we really need a dozen listed? And on top of that, that didn't include a number of smaller ones that I know were installed (such as vi).
Why can't we just have a distribution that has a cohesive and simple feel. Most users don't care that they can use one of a hundred editors, they only care about using one editor. Maybe two on the outside. Look at windows default install...it's pretty bare, but it does have the basics there.
I think something like helix goes a long ways into this area, but it still needs to be worked on. I've been arguing this on our LUG mailing list for a while. Just a single desktop environment is all that is needed. Don't put in a lot of extra stuff. a word processing app, a little editor, a calculator, a mail app, a spreadsheet app, an icq app, etc. Not 8 mail apps, 3 spreadsheets, 6 icqs, 3 aol aim clients, etc.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --