Slashdot Mirror
What Linux Must Do To Survive...
mgoodrum writes "Emily Dresner-Thornber has posted an editorial/rant about Linux's viability as an end-user OS over at Netslaves. An interesting mix of criticism and her history as a Linux user." I think she's on the right track, but most of the places she says "Linux" I would substitute "one distribution". GNU/Linux need not be a monolithic entity to be adopted, there just has to be one user-proof distro available.
There are *tons* of word processor programs for Linux, including Word Perfect.
.doc format. None of them can handle this function (I use Staroffice clunkily anyway, but Word does work better). Here's why:
Yes there are. As a journalist, I need to write articles that conform to page limits (400 per page) and submit then is
* StarOffice won't let me do a word count on a selecton
* OpenOffice isn't stable, and didn't do sectional word counts anyway
* Abiword isn't finished
* Applix doesn't even HAVE a word count.
* KWord can't output stably to Office 97
* WordPerfect Office 2000 works great on Windows and is a pleasure to use. However, the WINE absed Linux version is inconsistently unbreably slow in its GUI and crashes rather often. I (meaning Cybersource) purchased a copy and we got burnt because we can't use it - it's that bad. A QT of GTK version would be wonderful and well worth the cash. A WINE version is not, at least at this current stage (perhaps a service pack might change my mind).
Yes, it is easy to mock those views. They are pretty much exatly against that which linux stands for. Choice. However, consider this:
1. Provides one window manager.
I see no reason a standards body can't decide on a standard default for the window manager. We aren't saying don't make the rest available. Just pick one for the default, regardless of distro, aside from specializied distro's that need to be different. Most non-tech users will stick with the default which would provide a commonality accross various people's installs.
2. Provide one shell.
See above answer. Hopefully the user wont' need the shell, but if they do, it can't hurt to have a standard default.
3. Provide a unified Linux "look and feel"
This one really WOULD be nice. Lack of consistancy in user interfaces drives me nuts in linux.
4. Remove options.
Fine. Make two different sets of config screen. Advanced and simple. Make simple the default. Make it so you can change the default to Advanaced if you so chose. There, done. Newbies and non-techies don't have to worry about it, but with a magical check box we can forever unlock the "Advanced" options. That doesn't sound unreasonable.
5. Stability stuffs...
Yeah, duh. Of course we want stability. But, duh, the command line needs to be a last resort if all else fails. Seems like she was stating the obvious there...
Justin Dubs
Bullshit. There is something close to 5,000 drivers that come with a default installation. When I installed Windows 2000 on my main box, absolutely everything was recognized. Correctly. And the sound works. And the printer works. Etc.
I don't know what she's on, but the default Mandrake install, which boots into KDE, looks remarkably similar to other *cough*Windows*cough* GUIs.
Wrong again. You argue that the woman doesn't understand the entire point of "Free Software", then you should you no absolutely nothing about Pay Software. KDE is in no way like Windows. The closest thing it has is the K menu, which is a Start Menu rip off. You can't position things on the K menu by clicking and dragging them like you can in Windows. A majority of the control panels aren't functioning fully yet with most cards (hello Sound) And you have to go to a command prompt to get more critical things done.
Contrast that with Windows, which gets everything right on the first try AND is easier to boot. I tried that bullshit with "teaching kids Unix at an earlier age so they would understand it" for a high school project. You know what? They couldn't understand a damn thing. But when they saw a Mac GUI they understood it immediately.
And I would suggest not calling a female journalist "babe", unless you want a wrath of feminists breathing down your neck.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
It didn't seem to have any new information. We all know that installation needs to be simplified and documentation needs to be improved.
I have a proposal. What if professional writers wrote a few pages of documentation everytime they felt like writing an article that mentions the need for documentation. They are pros, so it should take them no time at all.
I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me.
Apparently not everyone can get their facts straight either. This author is talking about downloading patches via gopher for chrissake. I would say she can't even be a journalist.
It's a useless, cluless rant and nothing more. It does not deserve to be called journalism or even criticism.
War is necrophilia.
Actually, I'd argue that even among the various *NIXes, Linux leaves a bit to be desired. My own experience: About a month ago I needed to set a personal webserver up for a friend. He needed to set up three sites with three domains on the same machine. Since he was short on money, we pieced together a P2-333 server, and I proceeded to load up RedHat for him. Total time to get the OS installed, configured, and talking to the network: 90 minutes. Then he decided that he actually wanted the machine to double as his development environment, so I had to get his sound, printer, and higher video modes working. Time? Another 40 minutes of patching, tweaking, manual file editing, and crawling through man pages. Then I reinstalled and configured Apache to run his sites. Web server and patch installs took another 60 minutes, start to stop. Finally, I installed Forte and his other dev tools on the machine, which required several more patches and manual file edits to get working...adding another 40 minutes of tweaking to the project. Total time? Ignoring the huge amount of time I spent searching for various documentation, it took nearly four hours to get the system running.
Of course, the system bombed the next day when he tried to update Java 1.2 to the 1.3 J2SE, so I got to repeat the whole thing again. And then it bombed again a week later when he tried to shut it down, and the whole damned filesystem corrupted (as far as I'm concerned, ext2 is just plain evil).
So, being a good friend, what did I do next? I grabbed my Solaris 8 Media Pack($70, unlimited license), drove back over to his home, and went to work. Solaris was installed, configured, and fully functional with his hardware and network in less than 30 minutes...and I NEVER ONCE had to edit a g*ddamned configuration file in vi to do it. iPlanet FasTrak Edition was installed and running all three of his sites 20 minutes after that, and his development tools were installed without a hitch or a patch. He figured out CDE in no time and is now happy as a clam.
The problem was not one of familiarity, I regularly use my Mandrake 6 box for development and built my own distro for my DNS server. I've used Linux since 1995 and am just about as familiar with it as one can get. But I'll be one of the fisrt to tell you that Linux has flaws. It's not that Linux isn't easy enough to use, it's that it often seems like some of the developers went out of their way to make it difficult. I like Linux, and I doubt that I'll be repartitioning my Mandrake box anytime soon, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't a serious chiphead. Although we've come a long way, the major distros still need to do some more work on the ease of use issues.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
And another problem I have with this article is the complete lack of logic. For example:
And I'm not even going to get into the rant about how all Linux programmers hate standards. And the "moon language" thing ... yeah ... she should know, sounds like she's living on the moon. She does have some good points but most of it unreasoned rubbish.
EMACS is easily extensible using its very own version of lisp
EMACS lets you work with regexps. Will Word do that?
EMACS is GPL. You dont have to pay anything. It is stable and runs on a 486 with 16 MB of RAM.
Absolutely right.
Perhaps it doesn't fulfill all of Emily's requirements for a desktop OS. It doesn't fulfill mine either (at work at least.) This is due in large part, as we all know, to Microsofts obvious monopoly of the desktop market. They have it sewn up. Period.
So many advocates of Linux (of which I am definitely one) want so badly for Linux to squash the Microsoft monopoly. I used to want this as well. Now, I could care less. I use Linux along with a lot of other people and thank goodness there are so many brilliant people out there developing for it on a daily basis. As long as people continue to use it and people continue to develop for it, Linux will be there.
What is Linux? Why was it created?
Certainly I don't have to educate most of you in regard to questions like these. Maybe just a little reminder however. Linus began working on the Linux kernel as a way to have a UNIX-like OS on his PC (also, of course because he loves to hack and wanted to learn more about OS's/kernels) Windows, quite simply, did not fulfill his needs. UNIX was and is a server OS. It was never really intended for "casual" desktop use by average, everyday users. It was created with multiple threads, multiple users, stability, and power in mind. Not how pretty the GUI looks (although I like a nice one myself) or how "intuitive" the interface is for new users. UNIX was designed around hardcore work. Crunching lots and lots of numbers, over and over without crashing. Many people and companies are trying to "bend" Linux to do a lot of things. From embedded and palmtop devices up to large (very large in some cases) servers and huge clusters. This scalability is fantastic and a nice by-product of incredible forethought that went into the design of Linux. However, it was not initially intended for all of these purposes.
Linux is (and will most certainly continue) making huge inroads into a very tough market. It is marshaling a lot of the efforts and monies of some very big players like IBM and HP (who are putting more emphasis on Linux than their own, already well-established, very dependable server OS's.) It is in a sense unifying the once forked UNIX community. This is the most important part! Microsoft has been trying to break into the very staunch server OS market for some time now, but they just don't have what it takes. This is what scares them the most. This is why we get all of the differing and varied comments out of Redmond. Microsoft doesn't know what to do about Linux. They don't know how to fight it. The FUD that they have used so many times before to destroy other OS's (OS/2) and companies (Netscape) isn't working against Linux.
This is what gives Linux it's strength.
I'm not worried in the least.
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
I too have noticed that attitude. Applixware is a good suite.
What must Linux do to survive? The answer is continue to grow and support more hardware. The problem is not with the average corporate Linux user (and such a thing does exist, as it is used for web servers more commonly than any other OS according to Netcraft's survey a few months back). These users know that you may have to spend money in today's market for quality apps.
Rather the problem is with a small vocal minority who think that on Linux all software must be free (as in beer). The author of this column falls into this trap.
As time goes on, I think that this problem will disappear. With the advent of Ximian GNOME and KDE 2, Linux now has the capability of being everything that Microsoft Windows can be (including such features as COM+, which corresponds to the Bonobo technology in GNOME).
These are exciting times for the Linux community. I personally have sold three Linux servers to various clients and continue to do my best to promote what I feel to be an excellent product where it will function well.
Never underestimate the power of a penguin....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"
Bullshit. There is something close to 5,000 drivers that come with a default installation. When I installed Windows 2000 on my main box, absolutely everything was recognized. Correctly. And the sound works. And the printer works. Etc.
"
I'm suspect about this, the windows installer is not as good as Microsoft says. On my work machine - P3 500, 2x GeForce, 2x19inch monitor, 2xSCSI disks, Zip drive, tape drive, cdrom, floppy, 512MB, 100Mbit network,
win2k installed perfectly [in three hours!], Redhat 7.1beta also installed perfectly but it took about 10 minutes to get the multiple monitors working using a helpful clear HOWTO - however the inital install was 15 minutes over the network rather than CD.
On my home machine it's a different question, Celeron 500, 320Mb ram, TNT2 and ATI Rage 128, Soundblaster Live and Soundblaster 16, 100Mbit network, TV card, cdrom , cdwriter, 2xide hd, floppy, scanner, digital camera - admittedly a non-standard machine, however RedHat 6.2 / 7.0 installs with hardware not working and requires fiddling to make it go. Win 98 does not install, no matter what I do, Win 2k insists on me removing all the hardware and putting it in in order [2nd video card -> 2nd sound card -> cdwriter -> TV card -> USB devices] or it randomly bluescreens and dies - sometimes taking the disk with it. I still have the problem that win2K randomly alters the default soundcard, and, if the machine is hibernated the TV card loses all sound output. Oh, the scanner still doesn't work because the digitally signed driver claims it's a not supported OS. Works under linux though.
All in all, I suspect that for a first time installer it's toss up between why doesn't X work, and, why do I have to remove various bits of hardware and install them in a specific order.
However, if I'm installing someone elses machine - or being telephoned from a long way away to install someone elses machine I prefer them to install linux - remote administration is wonderful.
Maybe this is the tech support business model - people who will pay extra for ease of use get remote admin by the company - it's much better than giving point and click instructions over the phone.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
Ryan T. Sammartino
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Tim
She obviously doesn't get it.
Linux company stock is underwhelming. Yet linux grows.
Robert Young, Redhat CEO, once stated that he was not in the operating system to make more money than Bill Gates. He knows that is absurd.
Robert Young thinks he will win when the market for operating systems is 1% of its current value. Linux is such a good product for free that Microsoft will lose 99% of their corporate value.
And that is what is scaring the crap out of Bill Gates and Jim Allchin. It doesn't matter how well you market, and how well you use your monopoly.
Once people grasp that something free can do the job they need done, commercial sales for that market are next to worthless.
I wouldn't sweat it though - Microsoft, even at 1% of today's value, is still worth an insane amount of money.
For five years, I've read the same articles over and over again. "Linux needs to be simpler to install, and there needs to be more documentation, or it won't survive."
Yet it's still the fastest-growing OS in the world. I don't get it. Have the installs gotten simpler? Well, okay, maybe. Has the documentation gotten better or easier?
Okay, maybe.
But Linux is still going to die! Trust me.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Easy. Nothing.
Hold on, Captain Mods-Me-Down, I have a good point here.
Linux will survive no matter what. First, ask yourself: "What is Linux, anyway?" There are many ways you could answer that, but this time, I'll answer it this way: It's an operating system that's written by a dedicated cadre of highly skilled, super-intelligent, uber-geeks. They create it for themselves, because they need it for themselves.
Now ask yourself: How can you stop them? I don't think you actually can. Outmarket them? They don't care, the kernel-hackers keep on creating. Make strategic alliances, meta-conglomerate mega deals that lock linux out? The kernel-hackers keep on creating, still ceasing to care. In fact, short of taking away their computers, the uberhackers will continue to hack no matter what the rest of the world does.
The funny part is that in spite of their lack of caring about market success, Linux has become a huge market success. Now that I think about it, that might even be the REASON it's become successful. Ironic, isn't it.
In any case, I think that Linux-based companies have to be worried about survival, Linux will survive simply because there is a group of people who will never stop working on it.
WTF is this article? Is Emily writing this in 1994 and posting it now??
:)
:)
Ok, I tried to stick to a reasoned response, here, but she got increasingly weird.
---pb attempts to understand the Journalist---
Almost every time I see a journalist writing about Linux, it's because they think it's too hard to use. That's also because they think it consists entirely of software that would frighten almost any journalist, like Emacs and Vi. Now, to her credit, she also talks about StarOffice, which in my mind is basically a Linux port of Microsoft Office, and certainly enough to frighten any hacker. But her problem is the same.
If she doesn't want her word processor dumping core, then she shouldn't use Word 2000. There are *tons* of word processor programs for Linux, including Word Perfect. It isn't Linux's fault that she can't seem to find them all. For that matter, Windows '98 doesn't come with a decent word processor either.
Speaking of annoyances, it's painfully obvious that she *did* write this in Word, or something from Microsoft-land. That's because when she writes this sentence, "That's" looks like "That?s" on this Solaris box. Microsoft is evil, Emily; don't give in. They will make you look like a fool to your audience.
Many Linux distributions do install rather quickly, and with a simple interface. They do indeed have big buttons that say "Workstation" and "Server", but thank god they have one that says "Custom" as well. And most users shouldn't have to install it anyhow; after all, Windows comes pre-installed, and if Linux distros didn't have to worry about *that* taking up space on the computer, there wouldn't be a problem (Windows doesn't; it just silently overwrites your MBR for you; how nice!).
---pb cracks and starts to want some of her drugs---
Download patches from an obscure server in Madagascar using GOPHER?
The HOW-TO files are written in some strange moon language?
Should my mother attempt to change her shell to CSH when she probably doesn't know how to get to one from the default Desktop environment?
My god, woman; who taught you how to troll?
Ok, EMILY. Listen. Find a copy of COREL's Linux Distro. Or MANDRAKE 7.1. Or REDHAT 7.0. NOT Redhat 3.0.3; not Slackware on disks. Then, get an empty hard-drive just for linux, and push the big red "Workstation" button. Then be amazed, and PLEASE shut the fuck up in the future. Did someone actually *pay* you to write this, because I wouldn't!
Here's some friendly advice. Try sending this same article to a linux newsgroup and see what advice they give you. In fact, please DO THAT FIRST before you even THINK about "publishing" anything else. PLEASE.
Also, yes, Linux has a set of technical standards. It does not dictate GUI policies, though, and that's a good thing. Individual environments like GNOME do, and you can find those, pre-installed, as your desktop, from big mainstream Linux distros like those you claim to have tried. Now please try them.
However out of all this, I think we did find what Linux desperately does need: a JOURNALIST-NEWBIE FAQ. We'll make that a big button on startup, and burn them a special CD. Maybe then they'll click the WORKSTATION button and get the special JOURNALIST packages that magically detects which ONE software program they wanted. Even the standard RedHat GNOME stuff would probably do, and definitely XMMS instead of mpg123 for them.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
" Another thing, and the last thing I'll talk about, is the fact that good human factors design (I'm talking about useability here, not happy dancing stuff, or eye candy) makes applications more useable for all humans, including hard-core coders. It shortens learning curves by allowing us to see and fiddle with just as many features as we want to at any time. We aren't all experts in every area of computing, or at least nobody that I know is, even those people whom I would consider computing gods. A little useability goes a long way there. Don't tell me you don't need that stuff unless you toggle in boot code on the front panel every time you boot!"
You seem to be confusing ease of use with ease of learning. Programmers care about productivity and are willing to put up with steep learning curves. Lusers care nothing about productivity and just want to learn the thing enough to do a couple things.
As an example consider VI or Emacs or ZOPE. All of these products are notoriously hard to learn but once you know them you fly!. You become so productive you feel like superman. Would any serious programmer be using word to write a program? I don't think so.
Sometimes ease of learning and ease of use conflict with other. Productivity often means not using the mouse and memorizing complex keyboard commands. Your average luser would never put up with that.
War is necrophilia.
This is an attitude I see alot. In alot of people. They are in it up to here, and they do not have the time, or do not want to deal with the technical details.
Ultimately, when the BS hits the fan, they do not want to deal with it. As in "y'know, after a while, I get tired of it." I get tired of doing my own car repairs, for example. So I can understand this, but there is a problem with the attitude as well.
If you deal with stuff all of the time, it pays to know how it works on more that a casual bandaid basis.
Looking through the article, I got to say that she has nailed a number of points. For Example:
Stand back away from the myriad of geeky letter slinging and imagine, just for a moment, the secretary at your place of business. She sits at the front desk, and wears a prim, black suit. She wears a mile of makeup. On her monitor are three beanie babies and a cute grouping of Snoopy stickers. She has a picture of her kids next to her keyboard, and a mug with "1 Mom!" on it in bright red. She is sure she knows how to write up memos in Word, how to use the E-Mail client of the month, write up a spreadsheet, and maybe put together a presentation. If her computer crashes, she has to get up and bug you to come fix it, because she is terrified to reboot.
Tell this woman that her desktop is infinitely configurable. Tell her that she just has to edit this one configuration file, and it will look however she wants it to look. Tell her she can even download templates off the web. Look, it's easy! A mere two or three hours and it will look exactly the way you want it to look! Furthermore, you can change it whenever you want!
She'll probably start crying.
This is a truth that many geeks do not want to deal with, because broad acceptance of Linux means dealing with folks just like that. Broad success means dealing with these folks, the folks that get satirized as tech support lusers.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I was agreeing and disagreeing with bits here and there, nodding my head sometimes, shaking it others, but then I felt sick when I read this: "In the eyes of the rogue programmers, the worst thing that could ever happen to Linux is to become gradually corporatized..... The rogue programmers will win, because they are many and vocal."
No, that is NOT while they'll win. They'll win because they're the ones doing the work. The programmers will win, because when they want a feature, they write it. There's a reason rants are a dime a dozen (case in point), but good software is hard to find. It takes work to write good software, but when you're done with it, you have something a lot more valuable than a rant. As the saying goes, if you want something done right, do it yourself.
If Emily Dresner-Thornber is truly passionate about her rant, she'll break out her favorite development environment and start hacking. Maybe she'll start a project on sourceforge. Or maybe she'll find an existing one, and contribute to it, gain the respect of the other people in the project, and push it in the direction she wants it to go.
To get to that point, you have to match *client* expectations. Er, that's Joe Sixpack again. Plug it in, it asks annoying questions once, you're done. Pay more money, answer a few more questions, and you get a spreadsheet.
Linux is not there yet.
I want more, you want more, but most of the world doesn't. They want porn and instant messages and letters to mom.
I agree with dear Emily. Removing options, at least in one distro, will do wonders for client adoption, and that's where you start attacking the cost of an operating system. Young's vision won't work until end users see Linux as a viable option. -j, a rabid FreeBSD user
I forget what 8 was for.
I guess the point I'm really trying to make is, why are we (as a community) trying so hard to compete with Microsoft's Evil Empire? It doesn't really matter if Linux or BSD or Apache or KDE or GNOME becomes mainstream. What is important is that the option is there, and people seem to be flocking towards what is being developed.
Another way of looking at it is this: Free Software does not have to mimic Microsoft and other commercial software in order for it to be worth the effort. As it stands, the Linux desktops that I use are plenty easy enough for average users, and if there's any sort of a demand for it to become easier, some company or group is going to suppy it.
The free software movement isn't about replacing commercial software, it's about providing alternatives. Merely by the organic way that the movement has been growing (more people get involved, more people are contributing, the products are getting better and easier and more refined etc.) An analogy for free software could be the markets: the best projects are going to attract more users, develop reputations and therefore attract more developers.
Trying to use a heavy handed coalition to guide the development of the free software movement won't work, and definetely won't be accepted. The "vi or emacs?" question is quickly being replaced by "gnome or kde?" with a handful of sideline contenders. No consortium could ever successfully select between GNOME and KDE... it sounds like too much like central planning, which is shortsighted and can never keep up with the diversity of an open market.
If GNOME and KDE continue to develop seperately from each other, and both refuse to adopt any sort of consistency between the two (ie. do we need another aRts to be developed for GNOME?) the end result will be that one of the two will join the sidelines, or perhaps the market will produce bindings or wrap arounds to compensate for the inconsistencies.
Where is free software heading? Only time will tell, and the "open ideas market" will be the judge.
But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter of Linux never replaces the Evil Empire. It'd be nice, but the option is already there for people, and the free software alternative keeps getting better everyday. Stuff that doesn't keep up will be left behind naturally, not by some clear decision. Standards will develop de facto from user acceptance.
Finally, it is perhaps exactly the diversity that the author points to as a flaw, that actually gives the free software movement it's vibrancy. It's great because it can meet so many needs, from regular computer users to geeks who post on slashdot.
Jeremy McNaughton
------ Live simply so that others may simply live.
It is a common fallacy for a new user of linux/unix to compare it to some previous OS they used and say "linux needs X, Y, and Z to take over the world / survive"
With the possible result of Linux programs duplicating Windows misfeatures and shortcommings
The thing is, this non-unity is inherent to the design and sould of Linux. Linux can never be user friendly precisely because it is a hacker's machine. Who else but a hacker would be happy that almost all programs are distributed as source so that they can be compiled for any platform that Linux supports?
One of the things that this article touched on but didn't go into detail about is the installation procedure for most software. With Linux, if you're lucky, there's an RPM or a DEB somewhere out there (but those are frequently distribution specific, are usually written by someone other than the author of the software, and are frequently poorly done), but really it's practically impossible to properly maintain a Linux box without gcc or some other compiler. And what about Windows? Simple installer. Sometimes these installers aren't very good - but almost always the software will be installed and will run. With MacOS it's the same thing. There's never a library that you need to get. Even Linux applications that have been ported - jed, for example, has a Windows version. Do you need to install slang on Windows before jed? No, of course not. This is at once Linux's strength and it's fatal flaw.
I absolutely agree that Linux needs standard hardware specs. So far, Linux's general attitude has been "we'll run on anything!". But only sort of. And there's not always full support for a specific piece of hardware. And there are always bugs. I have yet to find an ethernet card whose MacOS drivers had "issues" where it couldn't do certain things, or crashed the machine under certain circumstances. Why? Because Linux is almost like an art form here - it's NEVER done.
So anyway, I absolutely agree with Emily's assessment of Linux. And though I love Linux to death (I'm a computer geek - and computers are my hobby), Linux is the Peter Pan of operating systems. It refuses to grow up - because with a little fairy dust and a happy thought, it can really fly.
I think that right there explains the number one problem with Linux right now. Not only is Linux not user friendly, but the Linux user community is positively hostile towards new users. What keeps Microsoft in power is that they know how to play nice with the computer illiterate. If you can get the computer illiterate on your side, then everyone else can just go fuck themselves.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
However, a few of her points definitely make sense:
- Installation - Damn straight. I need a distro that installs with a few dialog boxes, and doesn't destroy things at whim. Windows 2000 can be vaulted for the latter (it wipes out the MBR) but I find it unacceptable that a distro like Mandrake 7.2 would do the same thing. Asking for all the available installation options, it then proceeded to kill off my MBR, and I couldn't boot to dual-boot to Windows 2000. Not cool.
Linux distro installs should recognize that a vast majority of new users will want to dual-boot. Even experienced ones, like myself, will still dual-boot.
Adopt the already-made standards - I love KDE. I love Konqueror. Imagine my surprise when, filling out a user name and password form, pressing tab to go to the next field, the password field, instead went to the URL location bar, where I started typing my password for all the world to see. Not cool.
And printing: let's get the printing up the first time, every time after install. Don't make me install Ghostscript drivers, and KDE, don't ask me whether I want to use "BSD" mode for printing. I'm using Linux. Don't confuse me.
Finally, let's get some standards down pat that make sense. If I choose to copy in Netscape 4.72, I should be allow to paste it into the KDE text editor. Simple. Brainless. If I click and drag a program from within the K menu, I should be allowed to reposition, like every OS from Windows 98 on. Sound cards: get them to work from the outset.
This is simple stuff, but it's amazing how few linux developers, and distros, even bother with it.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
The thing that I think is a fatal flaw in everyone's arguments about whether Linux will "thrive" (or even "survive") is that they assume two completely false things:
Both are completely false, and this is something we as Linux advocates need to remember. Is Solaris any kind of OS for your Mom? I don't think so. Neither are any of the *BSDs. Does that make either of them failures or likely to die soon? Definitely not. Do you run Windows in the datacenter? Not seriously. But Windows is still a success.
The future is interoperability. You will have PCs, personal workstations, internet appliances, and even set-top boxes that all can run the same basic "productivity" apps (though not necessarily the same binary), and you will be able to transfer a document from one to another transparently (hopefully, the docs will be in XML or SGML). Windows will run on some PCs and internet appliances (and maybe consoles like XBox), BeOS will do settop boxes and internet appliances, *BSDs will do appliances and a few PCs, and Linux will do workstations and PCs (and some appliances). If none have more than 40% market share, I would consider this a rousing success, as no one is powerful enough to dominate and thus hurt the impetus for interoperability.
The message is this: OSes are custom - they all have their niche (though it can be a broad one). In my opinion, trying to make a single OS do everything is a Bad Thing. This is the one thing I see Linux trying to do, and we really need to stop and think if this is appropriate (in my opinion, it isn't). Pick a couple of things to specialize your OS in, and don't try to be a Jack-of-All-Trades (and a master of none).
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Linux doesn't have to please everybody, and nor does the article say this - is says Linux should be friendlier. So does KDE, GNOME, Trolltech, Eazel, theKompany, Ximian, etc.
Many technical users like myself also enjoy ease of use despite the fact they have the knowledge to understand more convoluted ways of doing things. For one, this allows me to install Linux on my computer and allow my girlfriend to use it. It also means my mother can write letters without worrying about her machine stopping working for no reason before she's had a chance to save. Many Linux users like this and want the rest of the world to experience it too.
For technical users, you'll have better documentation, better hardware support, and stronger integratuion with clients (who needs Samba or Appletalk when the clients are Linux too). You'll appreciate client OSs where user s can surf the web, type documents, read their email, view Acrobat files, and zip documents without being able to destroy the underlying OS accidentally.
Linux has a great solid foundation and some really brilliant ideas. I want that foundation to be accessible by other people. And judging by the actions of many others, it seems they too are definitely aiming for the desktop.
None of these authors feel they are owed something. They're contributing. They don't want Linux to be better for their own ghain, but for Linux's sake, as there are many advantages to ubiquity.
In case you haven't worked out, not everyone in the world can write code. In fact, not everyone can be a journalist who writes a neatly summarized rally cry for Linux ease of use and inspires people to help is the act of fixing it. Not everyone can provide clear and concise feedback. Not everyone can manage a company that pays the grocery bills of the programmers either.
You're labelling her as close-minded, and yourself as somehow open-minded, based purely on the fact that you have the technical expertise to effectively use the software. Obviously if you understand something (and have for a long time) it seems simple to you the more you digest it inside your head.
Think back to first year Calculus. Derivatives and integrals didn't make that much sense at first, did they? The more you use it, the more completely you understand it. In fact, after quite some time of repeated exposure to the same ideas, you understand them very well and the seem extraordinarily simple in your head. It becomes hard for you to remember how it felt like to *not* understand those ideas, or how someone else could possibly not understand.
Take yourself out of your shoes for a moment and open your mind to how someone with a completely different background and experience in an area you have particular expertise in might be intimidated by the complexities. Then, when you can do that, reread the article with a pinch of salt.
Knee-jerk flaming of the messenger and total disregard for their opinion are the marks of zealotry, which aren't always perceived as the fruits of a "rational" following. Keep that in mind.
120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
I'm truly glad somebody has taken the time to express these very same sentiments that I have had during the past week as I try to install linux for the first time.
It's about changing screen resolution. Mandrake has a control panel that lets you change every little detail of the window in look n'feel, but the panel has no mention of how to change the screen resolution. (I know about Xconfigurator now, but they were laughing at me in the slashdot irc forum)
It's about clicking a box to turn on the sound without having to install additional software / or visiting the command line as "super user". It's about not having to "compile" applications for your particular distro.
I know that in time I will become proficient at linux, but that's because I have the technical inclination to do so. Forget those people who just want to "get something done" (like my mom).
I agree that linux is terrific for it's endless configurability, but that is it's death knell.
McDonalds is not a success for it's "endless selection," but it's consistency of product. You can go to any McDonalds in the world and get the same exact thing. That is one of the primary driving factors to it's success.
The success of Linux is not due to its configurability and quality of the kernel, but instead a testament to the microsoft hegemony, and that a few people will take _any_ half baked (escuse me, beta) alternative.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"