Slashdot Mirror
Linux Development Call To Arms
Hell O'World writes "This ZDNet Article points to the direction that Linux developers need to follow. Many people think that Linux needs an Office clone to gain acceptance, but the truth is that monolithic software is not the future. To get all of the functionality that anyone could possibly need in one place, the Office paradigm is to have everything there at once, and that takes a huge amount of resources to load, and years to learn. Linux will not gain converts by giving users the same thing, that they will then have to relearn. The power of UNIX is in connecting small, fleet-footed tools. What we need now is to create an environment, where users can easily create customized tools for the way they work, and developers can easily add new functionality."
FOr years and years, MS have been made it up from small reusable components. Need to display a graph in Word? Well, word doesn't have spreadsheet program built in, it embeds an Excel component.
Need a graph, well it embeds MS graph. Need an organisation chart? Well there's a seperate reusable component for that.
A killer word processor would be a good reason to convert. Koffice might be that reason soon too, although I'm not sure if it will be able to stand alone, or if it is integrated with Koffice.
I agree whole heartedly, but that doesn't seem to solve the problem. When people ask me if Linux has a replacement for Office, what do I tell them? Use vi?
I use Star Office, but I can't honestly tell Windows people that soffice will replace their MS-Office suite (because it won't!)
Microsoft killed all other word processor/spreadsheet vendors by having a more integrated package.
What makes anyone think people don't want bundled software?
Plus what he's talking about has already been done. Office is basically a consistently skinned collection of COM controls.
... if the approach was changed from RTFM to a little friendlier attack.
There's alot of stability under Linux, and for that I'm grateful, but when I have 50 collegues and 2 sets of grandparents that I have to keep in contact- it's MS WORD... or Excel... or Power Point.
But maybe a rallying point is all thats needed? I don't know- star Office wasn't too hot... write idea, wrong approach.
I'm gladd the open source guys are starting to think.
Essentially Apple's OpenDoc was the same paradigm. Unfortunately due to business concerns OpenDoc was canned. The tools that were released were VERY useful though. For the short time it was around a was a great way to get work done. With the addition of the power in unix, this paradigm could be very powerful.
Im sure microsoft would love us to stop working on office clones. Linux, coupled with star office, koffice, or whatever, might be the only force capable of dethroning microsoft on the desktop.
It's true our clones will never be as full featured as Word, or as monolithic as office, but that defecit is easy to overcome when you add "FREE" into the mix.
And this little peice is even more BULLSH*T because what the hell does this guy presume? That we are all working to make linux the #1 OS, to make it a Super UNIX? People hack on shit that they want to. Including free word processors and office components. I think it's pretty arrogant to presume you know what's best for people's volunteer time. Keep up the good work office hackers. This kind of shit is pretty worthless.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I still can't understand why all these people try to make Linux like Windows? It seems to me after reading such articles, is that windows is some kind of a standard. Every OS 'should have an xxxx... [...] like microsoft's xxxx...', no it doesnt! The microsoft-like OS is not what we want!
If I read this stuff right, it's saying that Linux is playing catch up to MS and in order to be accepted it needs to excel before MS can catch up. In a lot of ways it already has. If users need something revolutionary as a reason to switch, why have so many dumped Windows for Linux? It's free, it's lightweight, it's stable, it's secure. Want to become a Windows developer? Better make sure your tools are licensed for distribution. Want to be a linux developer? Go ahead, you already have your tools installed and you can do whatever you want with the code you write. The infrastructure is already in place. Linux is superior to to Windows in every angle except the interface. Some will argue that, but IMHO I think the UI needs work before Joe Schmoe starts using it. Joe also needs some apps like Office before he can say with confidence "this will replace Windows". The truth is, Linux is stronger than ever. MS is running scared, so you know it's doing something right!
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
That is a novel idea. The fact about linux/unix the "User" tends to be more knowledge able so he can get around things the "avereage user" might not. The way to Linux more mainstream is for people to start studies on the features the user really need and want. The GUI designs that really work. What is needed input back from users on what works and how things can be improved. We are doing some of these things now. I hope this research continues
Just a few weeks ago I used to think that it was important to figure out how to get Linux to compete with Microsoft, so that Microsoft's dominance might be broken, so that those of us who use Linux wouldn't be stuck with people sending us things in proprietary Microsoft formats, and telling us to boot into Windows to configure this or that piece of hardware. I would have thought that strategic questions of what sort of office aps free software developers were working on was very important.
And they are important. But that's not the primary call to arms any more. The issue is no longer whether Linux can compete with Microsoft. The issue is how long those of us in the USA will still be able to legally use Linux at all. The front has changed. It's not dominance; it's survival.
See the article on slashdot a few days back about the SSSCA. See this week's Linux Weekly News (September 13). There's a law out there about to be proposed which would make it illegal for those of us in the USA to continue to use Linux (at least connected to the internet) or any other free software as we know it.
To heck with the Microsoft monopoloy. It's a terrible thing, but at least we can use Linux now. We have to make sure we don't lose that. This is the call to arms that every Linux, BSD, Perl, Apache, or other free software has to heed. Write your congressmen. Write your senators. Don't sit back and let apathy win the day, as it did three years ago with the DMCA. We have to fight this fight, and we have to fight it now, or soon we won't have the luxury of debating what sort of office software will be best to strategically position Linux.
-Rob
People aren't going to just completely give up their
applications to switch to Linux. For the transition
to be easy, there must be equivalent programs on
the new platform.
Luckily, Linux already has everything that Office
users could want; except for ONE LITTLE FEATURE:
usable import & export filters.
Basically, Apple's idea was to build small software components that could talk to each other and be loaded as necessary to accomplish specific tasks.
It was a great idea, and still is. I think the problem isn't so much the technology implementation as it is getting developers to see the benefits of such an approach.
Yes, developers. If you're running a software company, creating small components allows you less room to innovate on features. This in turn makes it more difficult to market your products.
I know your suggestion was that Linux adopt such a component-based approach for productivity apps, and it wouldn't seem that the limitations of the commercial world would apply. But the dominant paradigm in office computing is still the monolithic app, because that's what commercial developers are providing.
So for now at least, Linux developers will probably have to fight this fight alone. In order to convince users to make the shift away from MS Office, et. al., Linux apps have to offer a solution that's easier to use and faster by a factor of at least two. It's been shown time and time again that in order to overthrow a paradigm, the resulting benefits have to be not just incrementally better, but exponentially better.
Finally, is it even worth the effort? See the October issue of Wired, for an article by former Red Hatter Russ Mitchell, about why going after the desktop is a bad idea.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I'm all for small interconnected applications but You *nix evangels need to check yourselves every now and then...
"The power of UNIX is in connecting small, fleet-footed tools"
What the hell are you talking about? That's no more the "Power of UNIX" than anything else is..
It's just an operating system, get over it.
-JD
an OS where apps can link together (DDE/OLE/COM) and share a common scripting language (VBScript). Do you really think it would be popular? Why hasn't someone else already done it?
As far as those who believe *nix is more stable, have you turned your computers on lately?
Users are dumb and will not create their own tools. Developers are not smart enough to understand that. Linux developers would be smarter to jump ship and develop for Windows or Mac and enjoy the monetary reward for doing so.
/. to stay up for extended lengths of time.
Maybe someone could write a tool that allowed
Living life is the best tribute to these people since our very way of life was attacked.
/. about a city hall in Florida that went to linux and K-Office.
On a more on-topic note, K-Office, the ApplixWare suite, StarOffice all provide an "Office" view of typical business applications. IIRC, there was a story fairly recently on
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
Two things to say about this. First of all, the "unix model" of streams of data is absurd when talking about interactive applications. Do I need to set up a filter to insert a table into my document? Now, I know that that there are those of you who use LaTeX with a stream model to spell-check, etc, but I'm sorry -- you are living a crude, stone-age world. I like having my mispelled words underlined. The green-screen luddites need to get a clue.
Second of all, apparently this guy has no clue how Office works. Office is not a monolithic application. It's a big collection of COM components. That's why you can embed a spreadsheet into Word, or the Equation editor anywhere, or a Visio sheet into Powerpoint.
I'm fundamentally a command-line guy. I use Unix streams all day long, and hardly ever use debuggers. But this is just stupid.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Do you really think that a "call to arms" is the right way to express this in view of current events?
guy who thinks he knows what is best for 'Linux'.
Most 'Linux' developers work in their free time,
and most don't do it for widespread acceptance,
to gain more market share for 'Linux' or even to
increase Redhat's share value. Also when will
they realise 'Linux' is not free software, and
has nothing to do with desktop software.
serial console at the bios level.
No. Not any more than we need to create an environment where users can easily create customized furniture, cars, or whatnot. The mass users you need to attract to make Linux *really* popular want these things built for them and delivered to them--they are not do-it-yourselfers like most of us who read Slashdot are. That is why, despite all their bugs, Microsoft continues to sell.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
.. why Linux needs all those desktop users? They won't develope anything, they just complain about things that aren't as usual. We don't have to fight M$ because we are free and don't depend on money.
If you honestly want to work on getting Linux accepted, Star Office is great. But you have to make Linux itself much much much more user friendly.
Every single peice of functionality has to be quick and easy to use. I can sit down and figure out an NT/2K network, setup accounts for people and machines, build and configure machines, install applications, and manage TCP/IP without a book. I have never had training in that, I just figured it out.
But I am still trying to get a nice stable Linux build that will do what I want it to do.
Linux is better, there is no question about that. Now it needs to be easier.
Yeah, you're right we should sit around in paranoid fear and mourning for weeks just like those sickos would want.
Microsoft's Universal Canvas
MS didn't have the balls to upgrade office with something that was revolutionary instead of evolutionary.
MS comes up with a lot of great ideas, but, as a publicly traded company, doesn't have the nuts to execute on them.
The reason Office became so popular (other than marketing) is that the user only had to install one product to get email, word processing, spreadsheets, and powerpoint. The user doesn't care whether each item is part of a single product or a part of many, they just want a seamless system. So if Linux can get a set of programs that can be bundled and used similar to Office then they'll have a viable product.
Also, why is Office monolithic? When I install it I simply choose to not install powerpoint, access, etc. because I never use them. The key is to educate users to only install what they actually use.
Travis
It is inappropriately worded. Period.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
How about a command line where you can See pipes and redirections visually? Context sensitive pop-up menus off commands to set flags and options.
/usr/include -name "*.h" -exec grep \{\} \; -print'
OK, so it's not totally new. It will borrow from visual programming, but be dynamic and just as quick or quicker to spawn off a gem like
'find
Biggest hurdle: standard meta-data for little utilities that describe both to the automatic system that is the GUICL and to the Human How-To-Run-Me and What-I-Do information.
Possibilities: Java interfaces. ELF sections. Forked files. Bundles.
But, the technical stuff is easy. Figuring out the Right Way is hard. What is the Right Way to present these elements to the user?
Start Running Better Polls
I thought that this was what GNOME and KDE were working towards. I mean they've even been working together to an extent when it comes to certain things, like copy/paste operations.
foxxtrot
-- this
How can you say "Linux will not gain converts by giving users the same thing"? I've been using nothing but linux for five or six years now, any my colleagues ask whether I think they should go linux, I always ask "How important is importing and exporting MS-werd files to you, does it need to be *perfect*?" Most say yes, I suggest they install a linux partition and give it a go.
"...where users can easily create customized tools for the way they work" I've never heard a non-geek ask for such a thing. I'm pretty geeky, and I just want to use an app to get work done...
"The power of UNIX is in connecting small, fleet-footed tools. What we need now is to create an environment, where users can easily create customized tools for the way they work, and developers can easily add new functionality."
Here at MUSC, the IT Lab is trying to do exactly that. We are trying to use the web as a way to string together tools and make it as easy as possible for the user. Check out the toolbox for some of the attempts. We are just a small group and any ideas to better our tools would be great!
Can you see Iron City here?
I don't think the biggest problem linux has is the available software. I don't use linux a lot and surely can't work with it very well, since I have installed Suse only year ago. And installing Star Office was not that hard.
Most users that want to try Linux now already have Windows installed and use it. To switch to Linux they want to install it, and use it right away, since having to sytems is just not convenient to a normal home user. Linux is simply still way to complicated to install and set up for users that don't have *any* experience with it whatsoever. Simple problems (like my on-board soundcard didn't work) come up very fast, and before you can solve them as a linux novice, you need to get used to a completely different system, read pages and pages of manuals and faq's. I often feel slashdot users can't even imagine people simply don't know what this "root" is supposed to be, or haven't worked with a command line for years (if at all). And it's a lot more attractive to stay with a simple, working Windows than to go through the work that's in getting a Linux sytem up that does everything Windows did.
Who asked for a replacement to MS Office? Has the body of office users come out and said "hey, we want something else"? If they have, what have they asked for?
If your answer is that a linux/opensource/whatever solution would be superior simply because it is "free", that's no argument. Linux is only free if your time is worthless.
Maybe developers who want to "dominate" the market should concern themselves with writing software that meets the needs of the majority of users instead of fighting some imaginary war against a product that seems to work for most people (or at least sucks less).
01
second society
Well... This *may* be true of GNU/Linux. To paraphrase the Bard "were it so, 'twas a grievous fault, and grievously hath GNU/Linux answered it."
So PLEASE, STOP using GNU/Linux. Wait until GNU/Hurd comes out! RSN! It will solve problems.
You want a micro-kernel production level OS, you got it.
You want a better GUI, with a built-in Office program that's both monolithic and component-ized? You got it!
You want a girlfriend? Ummm, sure, we can build that in! Version 1.5!
Do you want someone killed? Well, yeah, that's what Free Software is all about! RMS the hit-man, version 2!
Supporting GNU/Linux hurts GNU/Hurd. Supporting any other OS is evil.
GNU/Hurd (in development) forever!
No matter what wizardry i can possibly do, or whatever I could make my mom do during supervising, she will not ever choose Linux. And I can not recommend it to her, either - my honest recommendation Is MS, for the average user.
Linux users and developers usually focus on things nerds can do, not what the average user can do. Before this is corrected, Linux will not make it out of the server closets (where it does a good job though).
Well, anyways, my mother wants to put in a CD, then start the OS that installed itself, and then she wants to surf some portals (sigh) and read her email without having to wonder what the h*ll a partition is on the way. Is that so hard?
And really, this would be possible without me losing the command line capability, right?
Microsoft realized this a few years ago while Linux developers were busy hatching plans to "out-Office" Microsoft. Microsoft realized that with the desktop won, their vulnerability was now the server and distributed processing. Hence .NET, Passport, and Hailstorm were born. By the time the Linux Community realizes Microsoft has ingeniously and inextricably (however sloppily) tied the desktop with their services and authentication servers and protected key access and features with patents, it will be too late. Linux servers will gain and maintain some market share, but most applciations will cater to Windows clients, use the Windows infrastructure and tools, and license IP from Microsoft. Even the Mono project will find out (and soon) that they will need to pay Microsoft for licenses allowing access to critical .NET services and authentication: they'll feel like Neville Chamberlin felt some time after his meeting with Hitler in which he "acheived peace in our time" that is until he heard the first bombs dropping on London. Microsoft may be rapacious, greedy, devious, unethical and immoral, but they are winning nonetheless so far. And the best answer the some of the brightest software minds on the planet can come up with is distributed component applications? You mean like OpenDoc? LOL There is no hope. Sigh.
Linux will not gain converts by giving users the same thing, that they will then have to relearn.
That's true. Users don't need software that is bundled in the sense that Microsoft Office is, where every program interacts "seemlessly" with any other program (especially at the cost of bloat). BUT, being able to install an entire set of tools from a single source is a very attractive feature.
In other words, I don't care if I can imbed Excel Spreadsheets in Word documents, but I would hate to have to search out and separately install each app that I use within Office.
Corel tried it commercially, and it failed.
Say what you want about it, but the WordPerfect office suite for Linux was fairly complete, and a worthy competitor for similar tasks usually accomlished by MS Office.
The future of Linux as a desktop does not rest soley on this "Killer App". The widespread use of Linux as a desktop needs buy-off from management that is not ready for change, some inprovement in UI and in system management for maintainability by low to mid level IT staff, hardware vendors that fully support and endorse Linux desktop machines, IT management willing to make a major, major change, and other software packages that replace already installed propritery software.
Yeah, a good Office clone will help, but the rest isn't quite there yet. I have faith that the day may come, but there is far more to the equation than Office.
I call it the I Just Want to Type a Damn Letter test: can the user turn on the computer for the first time, understand the basics of how to operate in a few minutes, then get to work on things they want to do? If not, we'll meet with resistance at every step.
Soegaard provides some nice ideas on how to structure the back-end, but the front-end needs to Give the People What They Want: an interface to do word processing, another to do email, another for web browsing, and a few others for other less-common tasks. That is what is going to help open source win the battle of the desktop.
Miko O'Sullivan
"I have to pipe the what to where? What's a pipe?"
...
"Yes, I see the thing above the return key..."
...
"Said what?"
...
"Oh, sed. What's that?"
...
"Come on, all I want to do is spellcheck..."
We need a framework for distributed code. There are many systems out there. It would be great if the open source community could get behind one standard. Java does so many things right. We need an open source virtual machine - maybe Parrot will fill this need - plus a distributed object model - like EJBs - with service discovery - like JINI. Components that can move and replicate from VM to VM like a virus. Intelligent Agents. Id love to see more of that stuff.
An open source office suite should be designed like the Linux kernel. I.e., it should have a core set of functionality and then use modules for non-oft-used functionality. If a user desired, they could recompile the office program (aka, suite) and roll in what they need into a custom binary. Roll in what you use all the time, module some others, forget the rest.
Better performance, and less bloat to boot (pardon the pun).
Just my $0.02.
LegalEagle
Okay, who thought of it first?
Of course, it's not open source, but what is GNUStep doing these days?
I am Jack's writable stack pointer.
It seems that now is the time to push this kind of thing, using good software and tools (all Open Source) for everyone. The world is going to need it.
"under free OSen its called CORBA"
OK -- where is CORBA used (directly) for component development?
Instead Free Unixes have developed umpteen replacements for COM -- KDE's got (at least) one. Gnome's got one. Star Office has another. So does Mozilla. I've heard Motif has one too. Anyone else?
Great! 4+ competing specs which means what? Your interoperability is in the toilet. On Windows, I can embed 1-2-3 graphs in Word, or Excel graphs in WordPerfect. On Unix, I get single-vendor lock-in. (This is far worse than having your widgets look differently, BTW.)
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
What he's talking about is COM/DCOP/CORBA/ORBIT, implemented with true modularity.
Integration responds to people's desires to do things in different ways at different times - more integration= more choices for using each component. In theory, integration and modularity are supposed to REDUCE resource use, but they rarely do.
Modularity frequently takes more overhead than embedding a little bit of each module into each app (or provider of functionality) - all that IPC and underused functionality bit. But unless you're looking to break the cycle of constantly greater need for computer power, there's plenty for the OS these days.
I think *nix is on a pretty good path these days. From what I can tell, it's not forging new ground in HCI paradigms, but it's getting better and better and producing preconfigured but still configurable, modular, desktop parts. In modern *nix it's pretty darn easy to remove what you don't want. Ignore Microsoft. Is this really about taking down "Goliath"? Let's work for ourselves, for the OS we individually and collectively want.
Linux needs more GUI innovation. We should not try to be a windows work-alike. That would be a mistake.
:).
.net is going, a VM with a standard for object interfaces plus SOAP calls. I think its where Linux needs to go, too.
I see the basis of change happening in a replacement for X windows. A new graphical layer that makes it easy to create a whole new paradigm of graphical computing. The idea that a screen is equal to a hardwood desktop and applications are pieces of paper that are shuffed around the desktop worked well. Linux can be the foundation for a whole new paradigm. Hopefully something that is always in '3d' mode. Something where visual programming is always part of the UI. UIs have always needed a visual scripting language. I think even 'novices' and 'daily users' will be greatly stimulated and entertained by making small functional changes to their apps as they use them.
At the same time, we need to get behind a distributed object system. You gave some great examples like CORBA and XML RPC. Add to this the 'mobile code' idea. A virtual machine - hopefully Parrot will fill this gap. Then a framework or at least coding standards for distributed objects, like EJB. Then service discovery, like JINI. God, Java does so many things right
I think this is where
I believe a lot of the open source movement's resources are wasted on efforts to duplicate the MS desktop idea. UNIX is IMHO better because it's not based on the same idea. I don't see the point about 'Linux trying to catch up with Windows' while I thought the whole point of what us geeks are doing is about alternatives.
Another thing I've already said a number of times before: You can't expect to be able to harness the power of *nix via a Windowsish interface. Power tools require a power interface. Would you let someone pilot a 757 via a bicycle's interface? Oh, I think someone already did...
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
For novices, Linux is more than sufficient already. There are a number of email clients that work, basic documents are easy in LaTeX, HTML, or plain text, and web surfing is about equally broken on all platforms; I'm not clear that spreadsheets are actually useful to novices. What novices need isn't software with any particular features, but software that is understood by the more experienced people they get help from.
Daily users are similar, but instead need the same software they used the day before. Daily users would use Linux software is that were what they found on their machine and they could figure out how to use it.
What a lot of software could really use is the ability to detect that the user has just done the same thing six times and ask if the user would like to create a macro. Of course, this would depend on a sensible scheme of detecting repeated
actions and a way of not getting in the way of users who actually don't want to do the same thing again.
Let me give you a clue. Joe six-pack, the average customer, does NOT want to create tools. He wants something premade for him that he can sit down with and just use. He wants a nice friendly interface and the common tools in industry standart packages (you can leave out some of the huge bells and whistles, most people never touch 50% of the options word has).
If you want people to think of Linux apps as a viable option, you DON'T make people build their own applictions. It's a powerful things for techno-geeks, but it is not what normal users want to do, and is not the way to compete with MS.
Much of the arguments to date seem to stem from the fact that most users will not be willing to string together the tools into a coherent custom whole. I think this is a non-issue, will users do this? no not at all. But this does leave a gap open for other companies/inidivuals to easily pack of the inidividual peaces and produce custom works based on the client/targets area of need. I can see this being a big seller in certain areas. If nothing else it would make development of large systems much simpler
Just my 2cts
I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
We need some kind of component framework that lets you string together application components like a prettyprint edit box, a HTML save/load system, and other simmilar components so the end user can make their own applications with the features and components that they need when they need them. A spreadsheet is a grid with a math plugin, a bunch of saving/loading features and wrapped in a toolbar. Why not make all of the components for an office suite with an interface so easy any moron can draw/glue one together the same way they make homepages in frontpage.
I envision a construction utility sike glade, only with links dangling off of the various widgets and "code resources", so the user can control some execution flow, group components for later reuse and quickly throw together new ones. These lines would be different colors for different function classes (red for naving/loading, black for execution, white for event triggers, etc.) The hard part is building wrappers for pre-existing widget libraries so they can be integrated into this system.
If you want an office suite to work like any other unix application, with small, versatile components but wish to make it easy to use and understand, integrated closer than Office allows, try it this way.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
was written by morons. That's enough reason to
avoid it as much as one would avoid anthrax.
Anyone suggesting a clone of Microsoft has been
reading too many posts by that uber-cyber-geek-
crackhead named:
JON KATZ!
Thank you and have a marijuana-filled weekend!
I remember the days when Ziff Davis was constantly slamming Linux, publishing stories about how Linux was a toy operating system, and it would never make it in business.
Now they publish an article telling Linux developers what direction they need to be heading? I don't know why we even bother.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
we do not need 1 app that does it all. Staroffice did that and everyone hated it. we need interworking apps, lots of smaller programs that chained together to get the final result... wait Unix is based on that modal, Linux is too, so we should take up doing things the microsoft way? No.. let me re-iterate that.... N O !
yes we need the business apps in a useable fashon, no our wordprocessor doesn't need a visual basic interpeter... how about a plugin to use perl. we need the ability for my spreadsheet to read my GNUcash files (or better yet export from GNUcash to XML, spreadsheet uses XML natively as well as the Wordprocessor, Presentation software, etc....
database connectivity? Use standard SQL database connectivity.
WE have everything in our hands. the hard part has been finished for years. we need people to clean it up, slap a pretty face on it and develop a decent installer. Linux fails miserably not because the software isnt there, it is there. it's because the developers are brain dead when it comes to managing decisions and getting the product installable for the average moron.
Abiword, the best wordprocessor Linux has. hands down.
Installer and problems installing? too many to count.
Installing abiword on Redhat 7.1 requires downloading libs, editing the Xf86config file.. something that no-one other than a guru will do. GNUcash, needs a gob of new libs installed.
both of these apps are the pinnacle apps for linux. and the developers couldn't care less if they were useable/installable because of their desire to use bleeding edge libs. and you know what.... it's not their jobs. that's the job of the project manager. and in both cases, either there is no real project manager, or the project manager has no interest in doing the job.
Linux could take over now. if joe-schmoe could actually install a program package (including loki games) without having the equivilant of a PHD in computer science. (in the eyes of a user that is.)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Stop caring about the office suite, stop care about whatever Microsoft might be doing. Do something on your own, don't expect changes take place quickly. Heck, there is an opportunity here to do what you want, and all people can do is whine in one way or another (much like myself I must admit, even if I am a software engineer during day time).
It is definitly time to design something new, and implement it well. The net also gives a great opportunity for several different people, who would never meet otherwise, to colaborate. Look at KDE (the team, not the code) team and how well they are doing. More of that!
Well, this might be a little bit off topic.
I tend to think that to make people use Linux, an office application is not at the top of the list.
All they need is being able to install any application without the hassle of grabbing gazillion of obscure libraries and rpm's. Not to mention that most will have version number incompatible with the one used by your window manager/web browser/mail client.
They also want to use their usb digital camera without any command line tool.
Once you get that, and you manage to carry out all operations without opening a single shell and logging in as root, think of an office application as a priority.
Sorry, I consider myself as an advanced user, and I tried to use Linux on a daily basis. This is simply too inconvenient. Now I'm back to windows 2000.
came exnihilo, going back there soon
This article also appears on Cnet's news.com. It is followed up there with some scathing but interesting and supporting perspective.
Java is the escape hatch for people looking to get out of Microsoft's pay-for-your-air universe. Write your free and pay software in Java so that it runs on both M$ and Linux. Then the customer doesn't lose anything by leaving M$ behind.
There is no good reason to write GUI-less server side code in anything but Java. The Perl and C++ folks need to look around and see that there is nothing in Perl or C++ comparable to the J2EE framework.
By the time most good software has migrated to Java (look at Netbeans as a starting point), Linux may finally have sorted out its desktop. Having two main desktops -- both of them amateurish and geeky compared to Windows -- is a major embarassment.
But they already do. What do you think MS Office is, one giant .exe? It's a suite of COM modules, chained together to form a coherent system. Whoever said that the chaining needs to be done by the user exclusively? (Ok, so I didn't read the article, maybe it did say that, I don't know.) Just like with Linux, this can be done by distributors.
The problem with MS Office is that while it has a modular architecture, that architecture is not open. You can use the components, but the ways in which the included components interact are not very customizable. You cannot replace builtin functionality, you can only write add-ons (and even that isn't a simple thing given the amount of programming you need).
Only because they have no option of changing anything beyond that. There are some places where you might want to change the way builtin features work, if it were possible. For example, I would like to make Outlook receive emails first, then send outgoing mails, because my provider blocks SMTP (to avoid spam) until I logged in with POP3 once. This is not possible with Outlook.
If the Free Software movement could produce a set of Office components that are built in a way that allows you to create your own office suite (without hacking the source for each modification), but also offers a reasonable default setup, that might be a reason for network administrators to think about Linux on the desktop. Right now it's not a serious option if there are a lot of non-technical users -- yes, there is StarOffice, but why would you want to do more training (for both users and admins), receive more support calls (at the beginning) and reduce compatibility with MS Office files, when what you really get is just the same features?
Uhh, do they? Last time I checked, things like plain text files were not mentioned in any "corporate standard."
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Get-laid-Tex ...hahaha ya poor fsckin' weenie no Lusr wants that crappola. Back in the closet stick yer thumb up yer azzhol & grop the fav electromechanic bloup doll .... poor fsck ---
I think you should tell that to Mozilla developers. Instead of creating fast and stable browser, they want to create everything - mail/news/irc clients included. Why, if there are already so many good applications ?
The simple command line tools that Unix/Linux power users love so much are useful because they can be chained together in mighty pipelines... there would have to be some equally simple, equally ubiquitous way to chain components together for the utility of the command line to reach the GUI world. Various object-embedding systems seem to be the start of this, but I can't visualize a way to extend the full utility of pipes into a GUI environment... is there anything out there simpler and more flexible than OLE/COM/wtf ever they call it these days ?
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Borland announced last month that they are going to bring web services to Linux. They already have a component model that many developers are using "inside" applications. These types of applications sound ideal for Kylix.
What A and B do which prevents a lot of them from leading happy lives on Linux is play games. My roommate's usual MO is to buy a game, install it, bitch about it running too slow, take the advice of some amateur and try to update her video drivers, fuck up her computer beyond belief and then ask me to deal with that goddamn Windows box. If I were billing her for my time, she could have bought a Playstation 2 the first time this happened. Fortunately I finally managed to convince her that I don't do Windows and she mostly leaves me alone now.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Isn't this what Gnorba, Bonobo, and Evolution are for?
Sure you have an interface in terms of your text strings, but that interface is extendable by adding keywords.
As you type in emacs and have it in the right mode, it runs ispell on the previous word everytime you press the space bar.
Emacs is quite different from most software we all know--mostly because it forked independently from the rest of the software world long ago. It has evolved, almost separately, for a long time.
I say we adapt emacs conventions to look for real innovation.
I hope you're not one of those morons that thinks Linus documentation is better. Have a look at msdn.microsoft.com and then at the pitiful Linux documentation. Hahahahahahaha....
I would transcribe some more of my laughter but I think you should get the point...
Sorry. I like the idea of X being replaced. I like the idea of something new, if it works. But some bullshit 3D thing? Ick. Aside from games, 3D does not work on a 2D surface. I've read a lot of papers about "cones of attention" and "referential alerts". 3D will not work for a full UI. (Insert Ludd quote here)
Something where visual programming is always part of the UI. UIs have always needed a visual scripting language. I think even 'novices' and 'daily users' will be greatly stimulated and entertained by making small functional changes to their apps as they use them.
Any language (idiom combination, macro bunch, what have you) that is useful in an office setting basically has to be Turing complete, in most situations (those that aren't include, perhaps, voice mail trees and employee beverage selection routines).
Sorry, but end users, as a rule, will never be able to faultlessly run a TC machine without serious restrictions placed on them. This is why we have the *cough*windows*cough*X interfaces we do.
At the same time, we need to get behind a distributed object system. You gave some great examples like CORBA and XML RPC. Add to this the 'mobile code' idea. A virtual machine - hopefully Parrot will fill this gap. Then a framework or at least coding standards for distributed objects, like EJB. Then service discovery, like JINI. God, Java does so many things right
OK, I know you're a troll now. Parrot. No need to comment on my thoughts on mobile code right now.
-j
I forget what 8 was for.
On the Mac, Apple has Appleworks, which does everything that the average person wants to do on a computer, but is much smaller and faster than Office. It's not a new concept either, as there were "Works" packages on the Apple II, and Microsoft once had a "Works" package. Never forget that "regular" people need to do a common set of things easily. Cryptic command line concepts are worthless when the computer is just another tool to use during a busy day. Art
And the name of it? Emacs/XEmacs.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a mindless Emacs zealot. I happen to think that Vi and Emacs are both (gasp) pretty neat. I was introduced to Emacs a year or so ago, and decided that it would be in my best interests as a hacker to make myself learn it. I'm still in that process, but so far it's paid off tremendously.
The power of Emacs is in the amazing integration of it's various extensions. As an example. Right now, I'm editing a perl script. At the bottom my screen, the "modeline" says this (abbreviated):
XEmacs: PasswdFile.pm 'set_up' S0 (CPerl ARev DCln Avoid Font Fill Abbrev)----L11--C0ll
Let's go through those codes one at a time:
All of these extensions are independant from each other; they can be mixed and matched at will; and many can be used equally well in dozens of other types of files. Yet they all coexist happily in this one buffer, and even help each other. This is the kind of integration of little tools that the modern desktop needs; and so far, no one has attempted it since Emacs. All the many incompatible component technologies are based on the "fear and loathing" model - components are closed little black boxes, with their own little piece of the screen, and a few methods that they grudgingly make available to the outside world. This model, while very clean and attractive to OO programmers such as myself, doesn't lend itself to the kind of friendly, trusting, pervasive integration that Emacs features. Yes, all these extensions daringly allow other pieces of code view and even (gasp) change their "private members". The downside of this? Horrifyingly complex dependencies. The advantage? an amazingly well-integrated piece of software.
Until programmers can figure out how to provide this kind of pervasive integration within a modern GUI environment, the XPCOMs, Bonobos, KParts, etc. of the Linux world will simply remain programmer's tools, rather than timesavers for users. I believe that this article espouses a noble goal, but any hackers trying to implement it should look first to the past. They should remember this proverb, which I just made up:
--
CPAN rules. - Guido van Rossum
All that is in this article and in most comments is just scratching the surface.
We need a new task/object-oriented GUI paradigm. For the average desktop user, the biggest problem is not about customizability, nor is it flexibility. We need something that has everything in place to give a good starting point for every unexperienced user to do what he/she wants without fiddling with files, applications, folders or the like. Customization should be done during the working process.
The notion of files, for example, that reside in a certain folder in a fixed position on disk has its limitations. We should rather have arbitrary groupability of objects, always ordered and grouped appropriately for the task currently at hand.In fact, there is no difference between searching for objects that meet certain criteria and drilling down a tree-like structure like the filesystem to locate an object.
The existence of "applications" is another dead end. An inexperienced user wants to create, edit and deploy documents without first deciding which application to use.
Most modern GUI systems have already gone steps in the right direction, but the nature of proprietary software as it comes today, prevents real progress. As for the "application" example: A software package that has to be sold needs a unique name and a USP, and is somewhat isolated from its environment, mostly for the reason to not expose any internal details of its creation process. Such a thing cannot be integrated into a system to the extent that it appears transparent, as a simple component of the whole environment.
IMHO this is the real potential for innovation that free software has. A commercial software company never can achieve total integration other than in the MS way: Kick competitors out and try to deliver the whole system from ground up, which then, in fact, is integrated, but puts users into the role of drug-addicts and the software vendor being the pusher.
Okay, so the author missed a little bit. But he's opened a clear dialogue and that can't hurt.
5 161286&page=fm1) and Breaking Windows (http://breakingwindows.net) and I think a key lesson from both is the importance of evangelism. Win the developers and you win the battle. Network effect/tipping point is key here and with time and continued effort (and probably a little good luck) Linux will reach the necessary level to be at leas a co-equal desktop platform.
I just read Proudly Serving My Corporate Masters (buy it or read it online at http://books.iuniverse.com/viewbooks.asp?isbn=059
Other posters have questioned if Linux should be (at least in part, or have the capability of being) a Windows clone. I agree with those who say it shouldn't but then again that's the beauty of this open source world cuz those who think otherwise are welcome to go for it.
My thought is that the Office paradigm is 10 years old as a GUI and 20 years old (+-) in the sense of L1-2-3/WordPerfect apps. Haven't we learned enough over these years to devise a better way of helping people get ordinary business tasks done? Should the community invent an improved combustion engine or a practical fuel cell?
Soegaard does point out, more or less, that Office forces users to adapt their work processes to its features/capabilities. Better software would, at a minimum, be adaptable to those processes instead. Mark Hurst's GoodEasy system for the Mac (http://www.winterspeak.com/columns/goodeasy.txt) points to one small step in this direction but I don't feel it goes near far enough.
Brainstorm, people!
When I looked at the size of word.exe, it's
more than 4MB. And I didn't like the fact that each package (Word, Excel,
own spellchecker,
My idea was to come up with a well-define document format, and build a vanilla word processor. This processor will have a plug-in
interface, so other people can just write a plug-in and install as loadable module, on a per-need-basis. E.g., if I need to write a math formula, then only at time, a match formula editor will be loaded. And that module is just a plug-in.
If I need a spreadsheet, the spreadsheet module will be loaded. Same for graphics.
I did this as my term project in CS degree. The project was a big flop, because it was too big a project to do during half a semester (you got to know the project only half way thru the semester), with other term projects coming at the same time. And I was a lousy programmer too, that was in my second year, and only the second year I had access to computers.
Maybe I should make another attempt, now that I'm better equiped.
That's not the point. Office users (corporates/organizations) might be able to save lots of time by hiring programmers to automate repititive operations, but to make this viable it needs to be easy to script things in a modular way - without having to poke around in (often undocumented and seat-of-the-pants) open source code unless absolutely necessary. If you only want to fire 10 CTRL+X events you shouldn't have to hire a PhD candidate to make it happen!
For the rest of us, there are plenty of tools - command line tools like grep, sed, awk, and hundreds of others do just great.
The fileutils etc. are stuck in the 70s. What about operations that are only accessible via GUIs, like much of KDE? GUIs need to be fully programmable, or at least "scriptable". (Defining a "simple" non-Turing-complete scripting language is pretty pointless IMO because you'll always end up needing to make it Turing-complete eventually.)
Female Prison Rape in NY
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Most non-geeks I show KDE to, think it looks much better than Windows. Often they ask "Hey where did you get that awsome theme for Windows?", on the default KDE apperance.
And this little peice is even more BULLSH*T because what the hell does this guy presume? That we are all working to make linux the #1 OS, to make it a Super UNIX? People hack on shit that they want to. Including free word processors and office components. I think it's pretty arrogant to presume you know what's best for people's volunteer time. Keep up the good work office hackers. This kind of shit is pretty worthless.
I recently read a Wired article (dead tree copy) which argued that Linux could never take over the desktop market and we should quit trying. My response looked pretty similar to yours.
Why is it that people are making a concerted effort to look as many gift-horses as they can in the mouth? If I didn't know better, I would point the finger at Microsoft, but I think the truth is simply a reaction to all the hype concerning Linux of late (the guy who wrote the Wired article was a former Red-Hat employee).
The glory of the OSS movement is that so many things can be developed simultaniously. People want a word clone? they can make a word clone. People want something like what this guy is suggesting? They can work on that-- WYSIWIG Emacs anyone? OSS is organic and follows needs, but does not need to manufacture need like the proprietary market.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
My Mac-using boss:
:)
"I saw this KDE thing and it looks just like a Mac. Can we use it on our linux box?"
I obliged him then, but these days we're running OpenBSD GUI-less. I think it's safer to keep X off a server.
Still, I think KDE is still a few steps ahead of GNOME, and headed in a better direction overall. But give me command prompts, pipes, and Scheme hacks any day.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Many people think that Linux needs an Office clone to gain acceptance, but the truth is that monolithic software is not the future.
In principle I agree, but as others have pointed out much of MS software IS small pieces that work together. But more importantly, what we need to provide is an Office app as close to the MS version as possible. If companies can sit somebody proficient with Office down at a Linux machine and have them give the thumbs up, then Linux can really make inroads because of the "free beer" aspect.
Bottom line is the bottom line.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Well, pretty much everything *I* need to use around the office exists in CLI/non-GUI form - I would use these tools extensively if it weren't for those pesky Word docs...
However, my company insists on using an Exchange server. If I could find a CLI Exchange connector and an interface to Pine or exim or similar, it would make my life easier. I may be wrong, but I'm under the impression Evolution is GUI only..
Glenn
Not that this is a big secret - Word Perfect has an office suite ported to linux - sure its not free (as in beer or in speech) but it does offer the same feel that MS office has for some people that cannot live with soffice or koffice.
The number of companies that are just now looking to upgrade from WFW or Netware have a viable option in the BSD's or Linux with some pretty good support. Suse Linux offers a well rounded series of networking package as well as redhat and both are receiving attention from some pretty big corporate names.
I beleive that smaller companies trying to reduce costs could go with a *nix networking scheme with a corel backbone for an application suite and make a good go of it . The import ability of MS documents has always worked well on Corel products - so the interoperability between a linux/corel network and a MS/MS-office network wouln't suffer at all.
Corel office suite includes word perfect, a presentation program, a spreadsheet program and a database program (paradox)
Just something to think about
The tools are here, just pick your prefered interface and make easy builders.
Check out qtbuilder, thats nice.... its a matter of time until we have FREE integratable component based architectures.... i think everybody is working on those lines (phpgroupware/gnome/kde/gnue) all projects are integrating (look at the ogs)....
And its not a linux idea, its the way technology is moving....
Alex
NO SIG
The entire philosophy of MS Office (WYSIWYG) is alien to GNU/Linux. If you CAN see what you will get on paper on the schreen, then the result is unacceptable. For paper is a very different medium.
/thus, replacable/ tools to do the job), and browsed through some other theses. The majority was written in MS Word, some using Star Office, some in plain TeX.
I wrote my thesis using LyX (a great document processor that invokes lots of standard
The quality (reflecting the typographical competence of the software's authors) of the TeX stuff was uncomparably higher than that of the rest, but the MS-processed documents were admittedly better than the Starbage.
I think, Linux gains recognition as a desktop system, when the WYSIWYG paradigm will be appropriately challenged (LyX might be something to consider). Office-like proggies are error-prone, and have already caused irreversible damage to the aesthetics of paper-based documents.
Let's abandon the bandwagon and do something ELEGANT.See www.lyx.org
The problem is not whether Office is a bloated collection of tools, but the whole approach towards documents taken by office suites.
We should look at it from a single document standpoint, rather piecing together a Frankenstein's monster of a document from component parts. for example:
Look at the differences in document handling between Word and Powerpoint - each has different formating abilities and styles, even though both basicly do the same thing - layout text and graphics. Which means turning a Word document into a Powerpoint presentation is a nightmare (not to mention trying to go the other way.) What IO'm saying is we shouldn't even have the words document and presentation as seperate terms in our lexicon. I should be able to define document characteristics and then chose how and when to display them. One file, multiple views, so to speak. Ideally, you could send someone the document and, depending on what they wanted to do, use it as a presentation or document.
That gets rid of all the formating quirks that Office has and provides a consistent set of editing options across the document - whether your creating a srpeadsheet, table, presentation, flow chart or document.
Finally, since the document contains the info needed for displaying it in different manners, you could have portability between diffrent devices - such as a desktop, PDA or phone. Create once, view many (with apologies to Java).
Following MS lead and trying to develop similar products is a long term losing proposition - primarily because of MS overwhelming dominance on the desktop, which makes them the "safe" choice.
The trouble is too many people burn out their clutches trying to do a paradigm shift.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Yes, developers. If you're running a software company, creating small components allows you less room to innovate on features. This in turn makes it more difficult to market your products.
So for now at least, Linux developers will probably have to fight this fight alone. In order to convince users to make the shift away from MS Office, et. al., Linux apps have to offer a solution that's easier to use and faster by a factor of at least two.
When people buy desktop PCs, they don't buy one with all the OS and software they'll want. They pick up the software they need as they need it, and upgrade as neccessary. The same concept would appear to hold true with componants within an app. If an app could download componants as needed, invisibly, and keep tabs on which componants were used how often, each copy of the app would be able to determine what the user used the most, and keep copies of those componants on hand. You'd get an app which would do the job seamlessly, and adapt itself to each user's own requirements. It would officially rule, and there's no reason why componants and groups of componants couldn't be improved and upgraded as they interact with and affect each other, with an invisible upgrade method akin to the way current apps self-upgrade when connected to the 'net. It seems simple enough from the standpoint of an end-user like me, and the total effect from an app like that would be astonishing.
-Elendale
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
I don't even know how the mod system works :(
What about a set of customizable/open/standard file types that can be read and edited by any programs that would like to, via a plug-in (sorry a Mac-user) type thing? Wouldn't that keep Linux (Word97 for Mac* Thinks that Linux is misspelled) users (of which I will soon become) from having either to pick one program or be unsure if anyone in their program will be able to open the flowchart they just created.
*hey! i'm at work!
lo siento muchachos pero no me voy a poner a pelearme con un diccionario para poner mi mensaje. . . :))
Para que nos hacemos??? creo que hay espacio para todos y si bien yo somo muchos de ustedes con seguidores de algun *nix (yo lo soy de FreeBSD) bien es cierto que hay necesidades o situaciones en las que sigue siendo necesario MS y una o dos de sus herramientas.
Yo soy desarrollador de software y no voy a obligar a mis clientes a que instalen linux o lo que sea con tal de quitarles windows asi que tengo que usar windows y herramientas de desarrollo para windows (delphi rules). . . por otro lado esta la gente conocedora y que no teme experimentar, es ahi conde podemos introducir nuestro *nix favorito.
We have stopped using Oracle because of their insistance on writing all their tools in Java. The fact is that they suck - and are poor excuses for interfaces.
Java free here, and intend to stay that way.
You should check out the Berlin project. It is a CORBA-based X replacement designed with an eye for the future.
--
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
For the record, I am a EE, but am very computer savy. I am decent at C/C++, asm, VB, Lisp, and Fortran programming. I have been trying to get my computer to run RedHat 6.2 for months now and with no success. Here is a list of things that bug the hell out of me!
1. Nothing has adequate documentation, and most documentation is geared for an proficient-to-advanced user. Write more! Sorry the How-Tos on Linux.com suck!
2. Even when I follow the instructions to a tee, I still cant get things to work right. Why is this? Am I an idiot? Probably (See rant #3). I cant tell you how many time I have reinstalled the OS to be sure I have a clean install and some packages still wont work!
3. For everyone who advocates Linux why dont even a fraction of you waste some time on newsgroups and help everyone who is having problems. I always send messages to a variety of newsgroups when I run into problems and only 10% of the time do I even get a response.
4. For the cost saving on the OS I have more squandered on books to try to learn the damn OS. At least with Windows things are sort of intuitive and I can usually just screw around and figure things out. With command lines? Please!
5. There simply is not enough cool programs. Where are equivalents like Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator? How about Quicken? These are popular programs. Maybe the average scourceforge junkies cant build programs like these, but why should I go to Linux and endure the pain learning the OS just to use what I already have?
Sorry, it is late and there is my two cents (more like 2 dollars).
While I agree with the thought of not trying to duplicate or compete head to head with MS Office at the moment, I believe the absolute number one priority of Linux should be development of the WINE project. This would have the effect of instantly boosting Linux in the eyes of the general desktop users since suddenly we could instantly use all those MS / compatible programs that we have become so dependant upon (ie: games!) As the Borg say: "Prepare to be assimilated, resistance is futile!"
> What we need now is to create an environment, where users can easily create customized tools for the way they work, and developers can easily add new functionality.
Err... Haven't we had Emacs for a while already?
There is probably a market for a highly customisable herd of office applets, but it would not be a big market. To you and even to some extent to me, the the idea of replacing, for instance, the graphing applet with a better one from a competitor sounds appealing. How many people really like to fiddle with their computers though?
Most users are uncomfortable even installing software on machines for fear of doing it wrong and breaking things. If an office install program that asks them what directory and if they want MS or WordPerfect shortcut keys scares them, what do you think they would make of an install program that offers them a 1000 choices. You also ignore training and interoperability. One of the main reasons for MS Office's complete domination at the moment is that people know if they use it it will be the same at every office, all their staff will have a pirate copy at home and all new hires will already know how to use it. Using anything that is not the market leader gives you problems with all of these things. Using something that is going to behave completely differently and maybe have different capabilities for opening files is going to make it impossible to assume anything. What is needed now is a high quality set of MS Office file format filters for some of the existing office clones, not a new paradigm altogether.
AMEN.
I think the suggestion of building what the customer wants by stringing together a bunch of small utilities is the equivalent of trying to cook a meal from scratch ingredients--way too many people don't have the knowledge or experience to do it.
What something like Office XP does is integrate all the tools you need so it is available easily. Besides, given Microsoft's excellent Usability Lab, the whole program has a consistent interface, which makes learning the program that much easier.
What the fuck. Microsoft builds Office entirely out of COM objects and makes its documents linkable to all of the apps in the suite. THey also let you embed the functional portion of a suite app into a fucking document. They get bashed ad infinitum on slashdot. Now people realize THEY GOT IT FUCKING RIGHT and now need to fucking copy them. Admittedly ZDNet is populated by the low end of the computer using spectrum and caters to its ilk but seeing the discussions here is just ridiculous. Microsoft's whole ActiveX paradigm has been attacked countless times and now people are wishing Linux had the same capabilities. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I guess people who develop open source software aren't the same people using it. Because it seems all the people using it couldn't think their way out of a fucking paper bag.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
"...Linux will not gain converts by giving users the same thing, that they will then have to relearn. The power of UNIX is in connecting small, fleet-footed tools. What we need now is to create an environment, where users can easily create customized tools for the way they work, and developers can easily add new functionality."
This is approximately 100% backwards.
When some drone is already using Windows and it's "good enough" (which is WHY people use it), you need to tell them WHY TO SWITCH. Inertia, my friends, inertia - if people don't have a compelling reason to switch, they'll stick with the BSOD's to avoid an evening of fiddling and installing and configuring, every time. Linux already HAS "small, fleet-footed tools", and "an environment, where users can easily create customized tools for the way they work, and developers can easily add new functionality". Neither is winning Linux many converts, because 95%+ of users will never want to create customized tools or add new functionality!
This is once again an example of how thoroughly wrong we can be when we look at Linux from the techie viewpoint and then try to extend that to non-techies. Non techies DON'T WANT TO MESS WITH IT!! They want the computer to be easy to use and do what they need so they can do their job, which is likely completely unrelated to computers! Telling them they can put together their own toys is not going to work when Microsoft is spending millions to push OfficeXP.
I don't know what the article means by "monolithic" either. As far as I can tell that's a techie curse word that has been so overused it has lost all meaning. What Linux needs are: Number one, more user friendliness and ease of install. Techies need to get off their arrogant high horses and make distros for the lusers, or else GUESS WHAT, they will keep going to MS. Our own self-serving software designs are keeping Linux down. Secondly, we need killer apps. The GIMP is a great example. If it could be made a bit easier to install and a lot easier to use, then it would be a true photoshop killer. After that, we need an office suite or set of programs so business drones can make their presentation slides and timesheets and status reports. If they can't do it in Linux they won't run Linux at all. Thirdly, we need much better hardware support, MS is kicking Linux's ass there. Put these three together (user friendliness, killer apps, hardware support), and you'll have an OS people will actually WANT to switch to. I won't even address networking and marketing issues, which are a whole other ball game...
As for Linux as it currently stands, I've been able to convince a few Windoze users to switch. But every one of them was a techie or wannabe techie, and every one of them switched for fun and to try it out. Not ONE of them seriously believed it would be more useful than Windoze; some of them still don't. That perception has to change before MS's dominance among non-techies ends.
Just my $0.02... If you agree/disagree, reply, don't moderate! =)
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Is it again about vi vs. emacs? Cause it sounds alot like it :)
Leonid Mamtchenkov
You're right in a certain sense: COM (and DCOM) supports objects, no doubt about that. And it supports interfaces, and data hiding and encapsulation.
But it does not support an important feature of object oriented programming (as opposed to object based programming): inheritance. True, you can create a new COM object which uses the same interface as another one and thus offers the same functionality; but you have to code all the functions again for every new object. Granted, often it can be as simple as a forwarding wrapper, but it's a major pain in the ass in a large object hierarchy. Trust me, I've been there.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
Nerds forget how much they know. Home users can barely figure out Windows 98. To think that they're willing to even bother learning how to use fips in order to install Linux (or some other free Unix-like operating system such as FreeBSD) or something or download an ISO image or configure software like ipchains, etc. is completely delusional.
One of the basic ways in which one furthers one's expertise in Linux is to read the documentation that comes with the software. This is contradictory to basic user behavior; they never read the manual unless it's a LAST resort and even then, they're just likely to do just-in-time reading.
The developers should stick to their niche market.
But the US have a strong influence in international organizations, and Hollywood, Microsoft et al. have a lot of money to spend for lobbying everywhere around the world. I hope it doesn't happen, but I wouldn't be surprised to see DMCA-like or even worse laws coming to Europe in the next few years.
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
Those who say that Linux will never catch up don't understand that nobody can predict the future of technology with complete confidence and accuracy. Everyone misses the mark sometime. All empires in history have dwindled eventually.
Linux has a lot of things going for it, and one day it may have an office suite more feature-complete than Word. You never know in the computer industry.
Quote:
"Users know what they want. They know what is missing. Let us include them in the design loop, as we start creating a set of basic interactive tools which change only when an improvement is made--not simply because someone decided to change the interface arbitrarily with a new iteration."
Good idea. But how are you going to get the average user involved in improving the software? Most users just use software and have no awareness of the fact that they too can have a say in improving that software.
I think that all open source projects should have a "feedback" feature built in. The feedback feature should be prominent in the toolbar and should give people a chance to fill in ideas. It should be easy to use and should not be too much of a hassle. Because they won't bother to go to sourceforge or a newsgroup and get lost in a quagmire of discussions.
If such a feature is built in in a standardized manner which is familiar to the users, and that these users get an impression that their comments really do matter, then you can involve them in development.
Yuioup
but the truth is that monolithic software is not the future
Of course you will note that Linux is a monolithic Kernel, and MS uses a microkernel... (Erm.. at least I think so...)
;-)
Enjoy Y2K? Roll-on Year 2037!
And since an interactive digital device:
could encompass a wristwatch, microwave oven, burglar alarm, child's toyPerhaps the bill's proposers should state what they're really trying to stop - namely, copying of copyrighted material.
X defines a widget standard, the X Toolkit Intrinsics. Athena and Motif are both compliant. Qt ignored it, because Troll's goal was to run on windows too. Gtk ignored it for no good reason (at least at the time it was first written - no-one envisioned a gtk/gdk port to non-X platforms).
Type "editres" in a shell window some time - up pops a "resource editor". You can use it to reconfigure, on the fly and at runtime, X applications like Netscape 4.x, Xterm, and others that were written by programmers who knew anything about the X window system.
The only other system that approaches this functionality is Amiga MUI, which approximately nobody still uses.
Seems to me that back in 95 MS suddenly realised that they'd nearly missed the boat with the internet when Netscape had a great product (Netscape 3 - the best and most stable of all browsers) - back then the war was between OLE / 2 and OpenDoc (Apple) - Linux Developers should pick up where Apple ran out of money and deliver an Opendoc-centric approach to document handling and leave the MS approach to the dinasours..... (that was about the same time that the word IT replaced Computing and opened the door to the world of have-a-go-harry MS orientated DIY guys - don't worry, if it crashes, ghost it!)
The ZDnet article writer is sure looking for something like opendoc, whose philosophy would be great for an open source, collaborative development environment. Anyway I wonder why the article focused on building a MS office competitor, the issue is far more general in my opinion.
I'd like to see a set of specialized tools operating on standard data structures that can be controlled and scripted using a graphical desktop shell, providing a pluggable but common look & feel for all tools: this shell would work as an IDE and as a GUI for the user at the same time. For example, if file-related OS functions become tools themselves, there's no need to differentiate between the desktop-file manager and the application environment.
An underlying command line interface would be needed too (being a mac user, i personally hate any CLI, but it's great for control over remote machines, for people with disabilities, or for future developments like voice recognition)
I know that kde, gnome, gnustep, java beans/netbeans and so on are taking steps in similar directions, i hope some of them will borrow from opendoc its orientation towards the end user...
Many people have already mentioned NeXT/Open/GnuStep, and OpenDoc as fine examples of 'the right way' to do things, and Open Source developers are in a unique position that they are not (usually) hamstrung from shareholders demanding profits, marketoids or backwards compatability that tends to stop 'the right way' from being developed elsewhere.
/. a few days ago runs with this idea in a GUI setting.
But one comment struck me, because I have had thoughts on this point for a while:
> There's no GUI equivalent to the command-line pipe/redirect paradigm
To me, this is one of the most elegant things about how Unix works for the user, even if the command line switches make things very cryptic for 'Joe Schmoe'.
The reason it all hangs together it that all the CLI tools use PLAIN TEXT for input and output, and these text streams are not contaminated by error reporting. Plain text is a very simple data format, and therefore the tools are small and simple. The GoodEasy environment detailed on Wired and mentioned on
But the way it does this is to throw away WYSIWYG, on the assumption that 'what you get' only refers to 'when you hit the print button', and in an increasingly paperless world, there's no need for 'rich media'.
But I like rich media, and I bet a lot of you do too. I think HTML email allows for far more expressive messages, and therefore better communication.
So how do we get this 'plug in' idea of tools to work? Well, my thought is a kind of 'live import/export filter'. If you think of possibly the most complex doc type there is, DTP, it has many layers of structure. Chapters, pages, layout boxes, graphics, columns, paragraphs, fonts and formating, right down to the 'plain text'. What if you could 'live export' just the plain text? All a spellchecker needs is plain text, so the spellcheck component would hook into a 'live filter' component, that exposed just the plain text on the spellcheck side, but was exposed to the full DTP dataset on the other. The spellchecker replaces text in what it thinks is just plain text, and the filter passes the changes to the plain text components in the DTP data. Another filter could expose just the layout components of the DTP data to a drawing tool, and so on.
The base document type could change to be a spreadsheet, and a different 'live filter' would again export the plain text components to the very same spellchecker, and so you get code reuse, and consistancy of interface for the user.
Effectively, these filters give our complex rich media formats multiple personalities, they pretend to be a file format that they are not, so that common tools can be used to edit them.
Add this to the component document ideas started with OpenDoc and its 'part handlers', and continuing with Bonobo, and we could have a true 'Unix way' WYSIWYG productivity system.
-- Andy the Webbunny
The attributing the "first" to provide comprehensive wysiwyg tools and such is a historical revision. The author should further research his articles before posting them
you can still find lean window managers for X-Windows THAT ARE ACTIVELY MAINTAINED. I can make mwm or fvwm run like gangbusters on older slow hardware. I can find browsers that don't require kde or gnome that run fast on old hardware.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has no interest on keeping 386's, 486's, or pentiums up and running, or providing a '2001 build of windows 3.1' or providing an ultra-scaled down program shell. Microsoft is driven by the REQUIREMENT to make each new version of their OS/Software require the user to PURCHASE NEW HARDWARE.
let's be honest. Microsoft makes their money not from users going to the store and purchasing software. They make it from bundling with PC manufacturers.
MS Office XP ads on that page
http://203.198.166.220/sidney/ms.png
Don't quote me on this.
Hello ???????
Linux & XWindows are THE KING of enviroments. Enlightenment is light-years ahead of anything MS even has planed long term. All we need to do is get the chance to prove how intuitive, and easy linux is. The only roadblock is that after 6 years most "average" peaple can hardly use windows. There terrified of learning a brand new system. hell they think 95-98 is a change!
It's one thing to make an environment where it's easy to plug in new functionality. It's quite another to write good software *in* those modules. Let us not try to get away from the fact that, at whatever level, you can still write good and bad code.
A great framework (like EJB, for instance) is a wonderful, necessary thing, but you still have to know what you're doing to write well to it.
Doesn't MS own ZDNet? Why would we want to take their advice?!?!?!
But this is not primarily due to capriciousness on the part of the developers (if that was what you were implying), nor is COM a shining example of coherence - there are just too many COM variants (forgive pun): local/remote; VB/C++; dynamic/static; UUIDs/monikers/handles etc. for integration to be simple in many practical cases.
I believe the problem is actually that current distributed object models don't work well because the objects don't distribute. Having objects that stay still, or having to build your own propagation mechanism, or even having to decide upfront with RMI whether an object is pass-by-reference or pass-by-value, is massively awkward and constraining.
The only model that will support lightweight GUI-like models as well as heavyweight transaction-processing style models is one where distribution happens automatically and dynamically. Until such a platform is developed, convergence is just wishful thinking.
(And SOAP is if anything a step backwards in this regard)
But the Windows model is fundamentally bad for novice and expert users alike. If the only way to make Linux go mainstream is to copy Windows, what's the point? The Unix Way may not be one that is inherently appealing to most users, but the Windows Way betrays users by diverting their attention from their real goals and instead occupying their time with irrelevancies.
If you look at the default configuration of Word, for example, about half the visible controls relate to formatting and typesetting. The application is set up to give people who most likely don't understand the first thing about typesetting the ability to make a complete mess out of their document. In other words, it enables users to do what they aren't very good at doing, rather than trying to automate those tasks so that the user can concentrate on what they are good at doing, which is providing content.
The ability to choose unreadable fonts and bad justification may be sexy and appealing to the user, but it typically doesn't mesh well with the reason the user fired up Word in the first place. There should be buttons like "write a letter", "write a report", and "write an academic paper". These should prompt the user to provide the information that they can expertly supply -- the content -- and take care of formatting, page breaks, spell checking, and so forth, automatically. The user shouldn't have to worry about how to format the report, it should be formatted to whatever the organization's standard style for reports is, and it should be done automatically. (Or, for home users, to one of a selection of standard formats developed by people who know a thing or two about document formatting.)
This is technically feasible in Word, but this functionality is hidden and not nearly as convenient to use as the haphazard mess-making capabilities that are emphasized. My experience is that most Word users aren't even aware of the existence of Word's (primitive) style sheet capabililties, much less know how to use them. Fewer still are aware of templates and macros. But everyone knows how to change font sizes and how to create page breaks using a series of hard returns.
This doesn't mean that users shouldn't be allowed more control, but low-level control (e.g. creating the style sheets and macros that are used to format the document) should be kept under the surface, while the less sexy but more useful high-level features should be kept on the surface.
The whole point of using a computer is to have it assist the user by doing things that the user cannot do well or efficiently hiself or herself. Suites like MS Office do at best a mediocre job of this.
There's no such thing as Scotchtoberfest!
I think the problem with Linux is one that hasn't been addressed (though it's been talked about for ages) fully. Usability. I am not a Linux user. I've tried it and I continue to tinker with it, but the simple fact remains that to affectively capture Home Users (and possibly businesses as well) is to make Linux usable for the "average" user (ie. if it's not on the desktop or the "Start" menu they aren't using it). I'm not saying that linux needs drastic changes, but how about a link on the desktop or on the menu? Linux has just about all the applications that a normal user desires, but Linux developers need to make sure that their programs have the same ease of use as win/mac programs. That starts with offering easily accessible links (i don't want to search /usr/bin/blahblahblah for the location of anything. period) and goes to a more important question: Do Linux Programmers want it to be a main stream program? If they do, they'll have to make GUI's and they'll have to work with the stupidest m$ users in the world. Once they can use it people will come, cause it is a cheaper alternative, a stable product, and a nice design. but somewhere along there the function gets lost.
I am new to the Linux world, so maybe this has already been done, or at least discussed.
What if an Office suite, like KOffice, came with just the components that are most used for each application (spell check and formatting in the word processor, but not table generation, for example). Then, if you want to do something, like put in a table, you go to the "Add Components" menu, select the one you want, and then it gets downloaded (or transferred from a local storage device) and installed immediately and automatically. No muss, no fuss.
That way you have only what you need, but can get what you need on demand.
the way osx deals with comonent archtecture is tyo reuse components for features. when somebody writes a spell checker, that same spell checker, or the spell checker of preference, can be called by other programs. why rewrite everything? Open Source can really shine in environements like this.
For example, the spell checker is a component, used by multiple Microsoft products. So is Jet, the little database engine used for most user-stored data. There are various mail components. And, of course, there's Internet Explorer's display engine.
Microsoft exposes the APIs for some, but not all, of these components.
Note that all this middleware is at a completely different layer from GUI management. (After all, there's Office for Mac.)
The UNIX/Linux world has never been able to get its act together on component software. Yes, there's CORBA, but most UNIX systems don't even have a CORBA ORB installed.
Apple was on the right track with OpenDoc, but after Jobs killed that, few developers would touch any Apple successor to it.
If someone asks for Word format, just export to RTF format. Word will load it, and they probably won't even notice the different extension.
GUI apps can be made scriptable.
1. Embed a scripting language in your app. (don't argue. just pick one. various zealots will add binding for the others later.)
2. Create an API so the scripts can manipulate the objects and data in your application.
3. Allow developers and users to use the scripts and API to create a library of dynamically loadable functions/plugins/modules.
The GIMP uses this paradigm successfully.
I bet application embedding would suddenly seem a lot easier if the apps were scriptable.
Yes, but the office apps are lacking. Unless you want to use vi or emacs...
Otherwise you can use your fast WM's and run your apps as X-clients
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP