Slashdot Mirror
Does Open Source Software Really Work?
reflexreaction writes "This article on NewsFactor does a decent job of covering some of the issues facing Open Source Software (OSS). It points to Linux's growth area, non-mission critical projects in mid-sized companies, and its main weakness, the desktop. It also briefly discusses Linux's potential growth into mission critical applications if scalability issues are addressed. Quick easy read. My favorite quote from the article "Linux on the desktop is toast.""
As usually, the article comes to the conclusion that it's mostly lack of applications that hampers Linux, more than anything else.
"Linux on the desktop is toast."
Takes two to make a desktop work.
I'm running Debian/unstable, blackbox, mozilla, and a few multi-gnome-terminals, oh and emacs21, here, oh and the box is using XFS on LVM just for fun as well.
Do you think the author would know one of these if it bit them on the bum?
People ought to define this idea of "the desktop", because I keep thinking people mean "it's got to be accepted by mass corporations", for no good reason.
If there's one thing I've fought AGAINST it's getting the clueless masses involved in linux in any way; I am so not interested in fielding "mummy, if I click here it segfaults!" on usenet it's incredible.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
The main problem of OSS like linux for companies, I think, is that either it isn't up to date or it's not stable (enough). The latest stable linux release (potato) is really old compared to, say, win XP (i'm not saying this one is stable, but at least a lot of people THINK it is). If you want to make linux make better use of your cutting-edge-of-technology-hardware, you'll have to use the unstable release (or at the very least the testing release). I can imagine a company doesn't like to use software that is labeled 'unstable'.
In the end I think it's a matter of who do you trust more, some people who programmed an OS in their spare time, or Bill Gates. Hard decision when lot's of money relay on that software...
this sig has intentionally been left blank
Live today. Tomorrow will cost a lot more!
"I believe that if you supported the desktop side more and there were more Linux desktop users, you'd sell more servers," he said.
This is exactly how Windows invaded the enterprise: it was easy for businesses to buy into Windows servers simply because they looked & felt just like the desktop OS. Newbie network admins loved Windows over Netware because they could quickly transfer their knowledge into the server room.
Fast forward to today, and Linux is trying to invade from the other side. Suddenly, this guy makes me realize that it's just as if we were trying to get Novell to the desktop - it wouldn't have worked either, even if Novell had a desktop OS.
What's your damage, Heather?
10 years ago, people were reproaching Linux with its lack of drivers and now, some whine about its lack of applications...
:-)
I guess it'll soon be fixed once people express their needs instead of their "états d'âme".
And BTW, the loudest ones are also the ones that are supposed to pay for apps, so, let's give money to Sun or Ximian or whoever develop corporate stuff and we'll soon have more than enough Office Suites, etc.
Of course, the others who actually work with Linux on a daily basis just didn't remark such lacks and, for example, are happy with the light-weight Ted when it comes to view/edit/print RTF
Trolling using another account since 2005.
(Score:-1,Flamebait)
It looks like the article is more of a "i came, I saw, I wrote" stuff than a properly well researched article. The major (only?) things the article keeps pointing out is the "Lack of applications" and "No company pushing it"
... pushing Linux on the desktop," Claybrook said.
Linux for the desktop is another matter. Its wide-scale adoption is still treated with skepticism by experts, who say that for consumer-level users, simply configuring Linux to dial into an ISP (Internet service provider) is a challenge.
What about KDE and GNOME diallers? Both work great.
But what hampers Linux the most, according to analysts, is a lack of applications that can run on the open source operating system.
I think what they mean is a lack of Microsoft Office Compatible applications. However, what about OpenOffice and StarOffice 6 (though there is a very brief mention)
"All the system vendors are pushing Linux on the server side, [but] there's really no large company that is
Looks like Mandrake , RedHat et al. have been forgotten?
US is now divided as the "Red" and "blue" states. Red States = communist countries. Coincidence? I think not
experts, who say that for consumer-level users, simply configuring Linux to dial into an ISP (Internet service provider) is a challenge.
I don't necessarily say that GNU/Linux has a chance on the Desktop, although me and my wive have used it for years and never missed anything (playing takes place on consoles). But this is utter bull. Earth to experts: you should try a recent dist, really
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Why can't folks like you figure it out that not everyone wants to study the internal workings of obscure OS's. That has nothing to do with stupidity. Do you think most people who use windows even know a definition of "Operating System"? No! Because they don't need to and shouldn't have to! The interface is intuitive enough so that people can quickly figure out how to do what they want to do, move on and be productive. Learning thousands of rediculous shell commands with all their options is not intuitive and makes people become distracted from what they want to use their PC's for. Hacking config files, compiling software, unsucessfully hunting for apps with well thought out user interfaces... these are things that drive away linux users. Look at this story! If it were left in a comment on /. it would be modded into oblivion because nobody here can solve these problems, so they ignore them.
Color flashing, thunder crashing, dynamite machines.
Can you say "vindication"?
I'be been saying this here for the last year, and I get modded-down or left in neutral, on top of getting diss'ed by Linux fans.
NOW will the Linux community wake-up to reality, or continue to delude itself that Linux is great for the desktop today?
Linux: Great Taste for Servers, Less Fulfilling on the Desktop.
ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
My estimate is that maybe 0.5% of Internet users are running GNU/Linux on the desktop. That's not a huge percentage, sure, but it works out at something like 2.5 million people - some people like toast!
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
It turns out that CCI, the DTP company, don't want the clients to run on Solaris, but on windows. That sounds fucked up. Why can't they port it to Linux, which is somewhat native for the app? And easier to deal with in a crisis?
I use Linux on my Desktop. Have done since 1996, in fact.
But recently, I've noticed doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers and programmers using Linux on their desktops (I'm in Europe, and therefore there is a chance that the situation in America is different). The "Desktop" is not one market. Linux is already satisfying lots of desktop needs.
It's like AI - every time one of the problems in AI is solved, someone says "that's not AI"...
TOAST?! PATHETIC?! I'm outraged. Well... OK... they have a good point -- actually the point about enterprise management is a good one too, since I'd guess most admins just use scripting to do their management and nobody's ever taken the time to do it in a uniform way. But, yes, open source does work. (It'd better, otherwise I'm out of a job...)
you mean like:
"we can't make a triumphant video until we get eddy van halen, but how can we get eddy van halen unless we have a triumphant video?" - bill and ted (paraphrased)
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Support, this is one line which critics want to rant on and on. Who will provide support, who will take responsibility. But what they conviniently ignore is the all proprietry software like M$ etc state explicitely that they are not responsible. As for mission critical applications, if you can trust M$ you can definately trust Linux. As for the proof you have more worms floating around on the information superhighway than in medical textbooks.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
If your comment starts with "the problem with linux is" then *you're* the problem because Linux doesn't have a problem it is made by geeks for geeks give it or take it but don't put marketing into the equation because it isn't code and linux is code under the GPL so don't give me crap about linux not ready for the desktop because linux doesn't care linus doesn't care no one cares except those who don't understand what that this is all about empowering users to a new paradigm that cannot be put side by side on a scale with proprietary alternative because linux doesn't fit on a scale it is code to be runned for a direct purpose that goes beyond mere comparison with alternatives and microsoft and stuff I just doesn't make sense to force the issue like some people are doing since no one can claim that linux was designed to take over the world initially while it may be on that path currently it remains to be seen whether OSS can compete in an arena controlled my money and dominated by people who have been top company execs for ages so they know their ball game and they know their turf unlike linux which is like the new kind on the block heck linus doesn't even wear a mustache so how in blue hell can anyone claim that you can compare apple and oranges while keeping a straight face and claiming purported weaknesses on the desktop but doing ok in mission critical application were scalability issues need to be addressed so I think that the point is moot and that the article is too quick and too easy to read compared to the stuff I write because when I write it never stops to be interesting especially when I write about linux and issues facing open source software because not everyone knows how to discuss these things without a single period or coma amen.
"People" aren't "stupid" - but not everyone that could benefit from using a personal computer has had the benefit of being intimately familiar with one for years or decades, unlike most geeks. The Macintosh didn't take off in academia because the scientists and professors that took to it were too "stupid" to master the alternatives.
Unnecessary complexity does not appeal to everyone. Most, as is obvious from sales figures, are willing to sacrifice the extremes of utility, security, configurability, etc. in exchange for ease of use. View this as heresy if you like, look down on those "stupid" people all you want, but the fact is - most adults lead complex-enough lives as-is. If I hadn't been hacking UNIX for the past 20 years, there's no way in hell any Linux distro would appeal to me over MacOS or Windows.
People aren't necessarily stupid just because they can't be bothered to learn complex new OS environments for negligible gain (for their purposes, not yours). Most people just want to look at the mummies, and despite the museum curators' infantile protesting to the contrary, not learning to interpret hieroglyphs doesn't make them "stupid".
But nobody ever says that's a problem for using it on servers...
"Linux for the desktop is another matter. Its wide-scale adoption is still treated with skepticism by experts, who say that for consumer-level users, simply configuring Linux to dial into an ISP (Internet service provider) is a challenge. "
Shit..what are they talking about? It's a challenge for almost every consumer level user on Windoze, Mac, or whatever else they might be running. Rather thought that was funny there :)
Have you even taken a look at any of the new linux installs? Mandrake is just as easy as any Windoze install, and Redhat is about the same at this point. Getting some proper info before posting would be a good idea.
Still, a couple of programmers I've spoken to say are actually against Open Source. They argue since they spend hours coding, debugging and maintaining a program, shouldn't they be allowed to make an honest buck in return? I guess that's their decision, and ya just gotta respect it - some want the money, others just want to help create nice software for everyone.
And what if you don't like b33r? What if you're a teetotaler, a recovering alcoholic or a PHP hack? Can I create software that's free as in Coca-cola instead?
Well, DON'T DO THAT!"
You know what my professional opinion is? DON'T USE LINUX! Sheesh, how hard was that to figure out now?
> is still want to be able to instal an os by insterting the cd and clicking a few times.
Me, I wanna click a few times, and then play Pac-Man while the install finishes. When linux can do this...what? Caldera already does? Oh.
Click here if you just like to click on shit.
People are stupid.
It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.
True, these people are also linux developers.
What I find funny is you guys look at people using MSFT by choice as a problem. Aren't OSS/linux cult people by nature pro-freedom-choice. So if a user CHOOSES to use windows isn't that a good thing? I thought the gloves only come off when they have no choice?
Since when was the Linux crowd about a bunch of pathetic sore losers? Maybe if y'all stop pissing and whining you'd get more credible attention instead of throwing fits like 6 yr old girls.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Sayeth a poster:
Do large corporations really want to use cutting edge technology? Large corporations move slowly; we were still using HP-UX 10.20 last year. And desktop computers are bread and butter commodity items. I'm writing this on a Pentium I; of course it has a bottom of the range graphics card and network card. Why would it need anything else? I don't think availability on cutting-edge hardware is important for large corporations.
Ne mæg werig mod wyrde wiðstondan, ne se hreo hyge helpe gefremman.
what's wrong with toast? I have it for breakfast every morning... If the linux desktop is like toast, then a lot of people use it every day... lord knows I do
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
have you also gone back to living in a cave and walking on all fours? wait: there's this new thing they call fire. but didn' life used to be great before we had all this 'wheel' nonsense? what i am trying to say is: why not improve user friendliness? going to all graphical would be so much easier. there is nothing wrong with being able to config everything, but it would also be easy to not having to do that.
Well, since you mentioned big companies and software in the same sentence let's see: Corel .. tried and fail ... The Kompany they are trying to make money but some people is giving them hell about it as alrady has been discussed in /. Loki ... a failure ... Ximian ... I don't know how profitable they are.
I don't know, but if i had a buisiness and i saw these companies failing why would i even want to try and write any software for people that are not used buying software?
People are stupid. It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.
What a truly ignorant point of view. Boo hooo, the public don't understand how to use Linux, that's their fault. No - if Linux wants to successful on the desktop, it needs to satisfy the public's needs. If it's being written by a load of arrogant wankers (which I'm not saying it is) who think the public are 'stupid' for what they want, then it is toast.
On the behalf of the general public, fuck you.
There is one thing I've always wanted to know! What exactly is preventing Linux from becoming an excellent desktop OS? What is the reason why that can not happen? Did anyone say "this is not going to make it" when M$ released Windows 3.1? That exactly is my point - Linux desktop development has not stopped here. Recent versions of KDE and Gnome are a solid proof of that. We should also not forget the Enlightenment project. Greatly improved Enlightenment E17 will be released in near future. I bet some people will not believe their eyes when they get to see it.
There are many many people who prefer a linux desktop to a windows desktop.
If people are afraid to try somthing new, or a proprietry application isnt available doesnt mean its a failing of the free software movement.
Gnome is a beatiful thing.
Something I see a lot of at work:
Some of our larger clients, the ones with hundreds of desktops, who on the surface would benefit most from moving to linux, are hamstrung by the applications they use.
Typically in a larger organisation, the "desktop drone" is running a piece of client software which interfaces with a piece of server software.
Inevitably two things are true...
1. It's windows - client and server.
2. The developer has no interest in porting to linux.
This, in addition to the old "no replacement for exchange server/outlook" chestnut, is the major reason large organisations don't move away from windows.
Drives me nuts.
Prisoner #655321
From the provocative-comments-boosting-pageviews department :)
You know what, Linux is going to win, period, end of story, no further debating, it is not an issue of if, it is an issue of when.
.net initiative and Xbox, etc, it leads me to believe that they have also considered the possibility that over the long haul, they just can't compete.
I've figured this out due to an earlier assumption I made about netscape, I thought, jeez, with the massive installed base that netscape currently enjoys in the www market, IE has no chance, no matter if it's free, especially considering that the early versions of IE, probably up until about 4.x were actually enormously worse than the comparitive time based offerings from Netscape, a lot of people at the time shared my opinion.
But, as we all know, IE won, and is probably about to be overtaken once more by gecko.
The reason IE won isn't bundling into the desktop as so many people like to think, it's because of a few things that it had going in it's favour over netscape and these few things that it had going over netscape, linux currently has going over windows, plus some.
1) Microsoft was giving away their product for free, as much as you like to blather on about TCO and crap like that, it's a simple fact that this matters, I've implemented corporate wide solutions before and seen people blanch at licensing fees for commercial software, especially the exorbitant rates which microsoft charge, and people are looking at ways to cut these costs, Microsoft could afford to give their Browser away for free because they had a whole bunch of other products still making them money and providing them with a nice fulcrum to leverage the www market.
Linux, is basically invincible, you can't kill it, you can't target the company and choke it by removing it's revenue sources, it doesn't matter if it's not a commercial success, there's nothing that you can do that will stop people from making linux a better mousetrap time after time after time, and it does get better, with every iteration, it's amazing just the difference between RH6.2 and RH7.2, what do you think will happen by the time we have RH8.2?
In this respect, Microsoft has no come back, there is nothing that they can do in the long run, short of making linux illegal (touch wood) that will stop it from eventually destroying their monopoly.
Disagree with this single point all you like, but ask yourself how much people would be willing to pay for a car with metallic paint which cost 30,000$ vs a car which they could simply get for free and was just as usable as the original option.
2) Linux, unlike MS IE, is actually coming from a technical position of strength, if you all remember the version of IE that MS first put out, you'll understand where I'm coming from here, IE 1.0 was a joke, it was completely laughable, there was nothing even remotely in it that was percievably a threat to the dominant browser.
In the modern OS market, Linux vs Windows from a purely technical standpoint without the UI issues results in a resounding win to Linux, I will grant that application, driver, and even debatably User Interface is superior under Windows, but if you think that is going to remain the truth forever, I advise you to look back at humble old IE 1.0 vs the current offering from netscape, and Windows XP vs. the latest RedHat distribution, I think you'll find the gap to be quite significantly smaller.
Judging Microsoft's recent business initiatives I am beginning to think that perhaps they're hedging their bets on the windows hegemony with the
Anyway, the article, oh yes, the article.
Bunch of fucking hacks.
;)
Cheers
Genj
Yet another pundit being pundit-like. It's rather clear from the article that the author walked in heavily biased towards Microsoft products and had already come to his conclusions prior to any actual testing. Do these guys get free blow jobs every time they do an MS PR piece?
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
"Linux on the desktop is toast," said Goldman.
"Pathetic," Claybrook noted.
These people, whoever they are, don't know what they are talking about. I think the prediction that Linux is toast on the desktop is so far from the truth. I wish the myth that Linux is for servers and Windows is for desktops would stop. That categorization only looks at a few features of each OS. Sure Windows IIS Web or whatever the hell it's called sucks, and Apache rules. And Windows ease of use on the Desktop for doing stuff like web surfing and general file handling is far better than in Linux (IMHO). But I think that in general you could use either one for server or desktop and do just fine IN GENERAL. It's sort of how you use it, not what you use.
But about Linux's potential for the desktop now...
After switching to Linux as my desktop OS just a few months ago, I've come to realize that Linux can do almost everything. For example, just today someone sent me a link to a 7 MB DivX home video. I was in Linux at the time, I have dual boot with Win98 but I like to stay in Linux. I had installed a DivX program in Windows a while back called The Playa, which comes with the DivX codec. But I wanted to see if Linux could play it. In Mandrake 8.2 I looked on the distro CDs and found "aviplay" which has just added DivX support. I installed it, and it showed the video clip beautifully. This could not be done this easily in Linux before. For example, in Mandrake 8.1 I don't even remember finding anything for DivX on the CDs, unless it was hiding somewhere.
Another example of things that Linux can now do: Ximian Evolution is quite an amazing program. It is a total Outlook clone but still, it exists. And Ximian Connector which allows it to connect to all that Microsoft crap.
OpenOffice and StarOffice are now being included in the Mandrake distro for the first time AFAIK. OpenOffice is almost identical to Word as far as I can tell (they are still missing a few features, but those are of course being worked on as we speak). I just noticed the other day the OpenOffice Writer even has reviewing capability. I also think it is better than Word in many ways. It is far better than WordPerfect, which some people believe it or not, still use. I find that inserting pictures and figures into my text with OpenOffice gives me 10 times fewer headaches than with Word.
The things I still need to run in Windows: Microsoft Money 2002 (GNU Cash has far more potential, it's system of handling catergories and accounts is far superior. I just haven't bothered doing to switchover yet), Mathematica (although I could buy a UNIX version of this), Matlab (don't actually need this anymore because I have GNU Octave for Linux. That's about it. I'm thinking of looking into Wine in the next few months to try and run any of those programs in Linux. Wine development is pretty heavy apparently and it's getting better all the time by the sounds of it.
That's the best part about Linux and open source. Development is so much quicker when it really matters, for things like Mozilla (it has MathML before IE did), KDE (which is just getting better exponentially), and the kernel-type stuff as well, which is always on top of the latest hardware advances (USB was a litte slow to come, but I think it is getting better. Look at ATA133 for example). I think Linux has gone as far in two years as Windows did in 5 years. The best is yet to come. Windows can never win. It is programmed by a bunch of people in Redmond who aren't really in touch with the customers as much as they could be. Linux is programmed by the customers/users themselves. The open source model works, and it is what has made Linux the best server OS and will make it the best desktop OS in the future.
Most linux programmers come from a developer community that up until recently hasn't been tasked with designing user friendly interfaces or has even considered UI design very important. For almost 30 years, the target audience for unix software has been either other unix geeks or servers, and human non-geeks never really figured into the picture. We keep hearing "Linux has already gotten so far on the server, it's only a matter of time till it gets as far on the desktop". It is incredibly naive for the linux development community to think that any of its attitudes, design values, and methodologies are going to carry over from the server to the desktop. Linux got as far as it did on the server because linux programmers were the absolute best kind of people you could ever hope for to do server stuff. Unfortunately, they are the absolute worst kind of people you could ever sent to do desktop stuff.
The reason why MacOS X is currently the most successful unix desktop is that the mac development community has always been very committed to designing usable and consistent interfaces. They don't have 30 years of anti-newbie, RTFM baggage they've got to get rid of, and no one has a problem saying the word "folder" instead of "directory".
To get to the point that the mac community is at, linux developers will have to undergo a radical attitude debugging. The problem the linux development community faces is not a technological problem like the kind they've had in the past, but a people problem. Unfortunately, fixing people problems are a hell of a lot harder than fixing technological ones.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
open source software that is developed within academic institutions and is traded between them
Why to be not...
...open source server software that is developed by server owners and is traded between them? Or...
...open source multimedia software that is developed by multimedia freaks and is traded between them? Or else...
...open source programming software that is developed by independent programmers and is traded between them?
Actually OSS development has many different channels, everyone of these has its own growing line, now OSS rules in servers, Linux is an excellent platform for video editing and it has many of the best programming tools ever.
The OSS basics were always very simple, if you want some of the best coders enhancing the application which you're at work on development, release it as GPL.
Whoever modded this comment by Carp Flounderson "-1" is proving his very point (not that the moderator would notice for it requires a basic amount of intelligence).
Carp, I agree with you. Having to be an expert to use an OS is like being able to only drive a car, if you also know how to fix the alternator yourself. While I love tinkering with Linux and computers, I *hate* tinkering with cars, motorcycles and other things like it! I don't want to. Period. If it doesn't get me from A to B I'll bring it someone who *does* love tinkering with these engines. It is not a matter of effort and not a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of simple preference!
The stringing together of many utilities is partially the strength of Linux/UNIX but at the same time it's weakness. Why setting up sendmail, fetchmail and a mail client (even assuming it works on first try which is unlikely) when all one needed before was Eudora and three lines in EDIT/PREFERENCES? Again, it's a matter of preference, as in "why make it harder than it needs to be?"
Linux is awesome and I support it wholeheartedly. But it still has a long way to go. It will eventually, I am sure.
Well linux seems to be working and so is Mozilla.
Lets try XMMS...well it's playing music so I guess it's working.
Clicked the Gimp icon. Wow! Look at all the colors I can play with.
Well it seems OSS is working just fine. Is this a trick question or something?
>
While some of the Gnome and KDE users may suffer from Windows-envy, most traditional UNIX and Linux users use the UNIX and Linux desktop because they prefer it. We aren't quietly suffering with some inferior system, we are using the desktops we are using because we like them. After all, it's not like we haven't already paid for Windows, usually many times, anyway. The only reason I use non-Linux desktops from time to time is because of a deluge of MS Word and MS PPT junk that ends up in my inbox and can't always be ignored.
On the server side and issues of scalability and support, these folks also just don't get it. Shared memory approaches are inherently and intrinsically non-scalable: adding processors to a shared memory machine has quickly diminishing returns and escalating costs. You need to make that bargain if you buy an old-technology database like Oracle and think of databases in a 1960's big-box sort of way, and vendors will happily sell you the premium hardware to implement such outdated systems, but that doesn't make it reasonable or cost effective. If a vendor mentions "shared memory" and "scalable" in the same breath, hold on to your wallet and run.
Linux is both scalable and robust in the way that matters: you can put together very cheaply hundreds of boxes of commodity hardware. If a few fail and the overall distributed system is designed right, nobody cares. You don't need 24x7 service. You don't even need premium hardware support contracts.
Doubtlessly, Linux is not the right system for large crowds of desktop users, and it's not the right system for large crowds of ex-mainframe and ex-AIX hackers. And, frankly, I hope it will never be.
Why do the same people who understand the difference between vendor and the PC-platform as a whole simple don't get it into their head that a single distribution is not the whole Linux-platform?
Ok, I started off with a blatantly obvious statement that can be said about just about any software. I have yet to find a piece of software that does more than one or two things that doesn't have flaws. (Kudos to those out there who have done it. Too bad I haven't seen it.)
Anyway, I know even from a server position that there are issues with memory management and garbage collection that make Linux unwieldy at times. We use it, but we also know that sometimes we have to reboot systems. Yes! We reboot Linux machines because we haven't coded around the lack of features. We easily have RAM allocated on our machines and then can't release it easily for other applications. Oh well. Rant, rant, rant.
I see the posts about Aqua and how Macs are so great, but I hate that I can't customise Aqua to how I want it. I hate the big bulky bars. Yeah, Apply MAY have been really great, but I think they've lost touch with people now, and are fighting a losing battle of trying to control. Microsoft may be a big bad behemoth that has wielded a lot of power out there, but at least I can customise windows to some degree as I like it.
As far as getting applications onto Linux, it's not that hard. Support the companies that are building good IDEs! Get better and better documentation written. If you wonder why widget X and Y hasn't been built to work with your application, perhaps your documentation isn't so good. I found this with our own developers in that we had lots of docs written by our developers ostensibly for others, but only really targetted towards themselves. No one had any idea beyond a basic presentation as to what our apps did as standard features and how they could be configured.
And for those trolls who love to bash anyone who's not a great tech geek, well, I'm sorry, but someone has to pay the bills. And people who design those pretty boxes and that cool anime and write a lot of great sci-fi books, scripts, and so on, tend to not be the most technically oriented people, and they don't like fighting to get an OS to work for them. If you don't have the user base, you don't get the supporting tools, and without the tools, you can't easily increase the base. The Linux user base has to reach critical mass, and not only in the server area.
OSS works. But bad attitudes and bad practices by the self-appointed mini-evangelists (i.e. trolls) who would rather engage in idealist wars than work together have hurt OSS more than Microsoft or any other corporation. There are very few idiot users. But there sure are a lot of socially inept engineers.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
Linux has some of the best desktops. I use WindowMaker on every machine and I install it as the default on every machine. Even people new to computers settle into it within a few minutes. It is far better than KDE/GNOME/Windows/MacOSX. I've never edited a single WM config file by hand either.
Unfortunately, they are the absolute worst kind of people you could ever sent to do desktop stuff.
What I think you really mean is that they are too interested in porductivity and not enough in interesting little icons. Well, most secretaries are interested in productivity too and they don't give a shit about GUI theories that spout all kind of ways to "interface with the user": they want a clean simple fast method of telling their computer what they want it to do next.
The reason why MacOS X is currently the most successful unix desktop
Is that it's preinstalled on Macs. Reactions to it are mixed at best but, just like Windows, the users are locked in and frankly Apple isn't interested in whether they like it or not. Jobs made it pretty clear that the desktop was changing and the users could like it and ask for more, please Sir.
They don't have 30 years of anti-newbie, RTFM baggage they've got to get rid of, and no one has a problem saying the word "folder" instead of "directory".
There is a lot less anti-newbie feeling than there is a dislike of being told that useful and productive tools that need some time to master are less important than pandering to simpletons that can't handle difficult words like "directory". Explain again why "folder" makes more sense; particularly the bit where I open a folder and find more folders inside. Which metaphor are we using here?
To get to the point that the mac community is at, linux developers will have to undergo a radical attitude debugging.
Assuming they wanted to get to that point, where their market is shrinking and the hardware they use is grossly overpriced for the performance and there hasn't been a new application of any note for a decade.
Unfortunately, fixing people problems are a hell of a lot harder than fixing technological ones.
How true. It is much harder to get people to try thinking instead of just following the latest pronouncements of the Gates and Jobs of this world. Imagine if people using computers felt they had a chance of arranging their desktop to suit themselves instead of some expert with a joke degree in Human-Computer-Interfaces. Or even, Jobs-forbid! an actual choice in which desktop to use! Jesus Christ! The sky is falling, the users have choice; the unified user interface is under attack!
Basically, to hell with you and to hell with people that want their users to be good little sheep. Linux on the desktop does every work related task I've had for four years now ranging from graphics to web design to large document preparation to programming and if you want to pretend it's not happening it's no skin off my nose. I'm not depending on a financially insecure company with a terrble track record for supporting its users when things get tough.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The most pathetic thing in the world is a prisoner what spends their time rationalising about how much better off they are than those poor saps that have to pay for rent and food outside.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This article is so like 1998.
But what hampers Linux the most, according to analysts, is a lack of applications that can run on the open source operating system.
I mean that line alone brought made me blow Dew all over my monitor. Lack of applications? Chuckle. Hehe. Good one.
Has Jill been in a cave for four years?
Sigh.
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
People are stupid. It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.
As it might be true, that's one of the things I love about Linux. Once and for all I can enjoy an OS where the community behind it isn't just a bunch of newbies and generally stupid ppl. When I go to a message board looking for answers, I usually find the answers, not the usual "why doesn't this work?" questions that can be found in "normal" boards for Windows users.
-Rob
In my hospital, different sets of proprietary software are used for path results, patient records, radiology reports, etc.
;)
A unit head had become frustrated that he was paying his registrars to do hours of work collating the data from the various (incompatible) sources before each ward round. (paying doctors to do paperwork is expensive
He reasoned (correctly) that it SHOULD be easy to make a little program to collate the data. But the vendors weren't prepared to talk to one another, or to give advice on how their systems worked. Quotes from the companies to do the work were exorbitant.
If you have the source, little ad-hoc, specific additions are cheap and easy. If you don't, vendors can hold you to ransom and demand as much as they like.
The logic seems clear to me, but there is a lack of (production quality) open-source code for such applications.
Sooner or later, Microsoft will force Linux out of the server room and if Linux hasn't won a leverage on the desktop then it is doomed.
How will that happen? Simple. Microsoft, in Longhorn, has converted to an Object File System supporting an SQL database with both rolled into the kernel. Database security will increase Longhorn's security. Linux will no longer be able to dual boot with Microsoft's OS. It will be Linux or Longhorn on the desktop, not both.
Longhorn will only communicate with servers that use the Object File System. People will convert their servers to Longhorn to get the security.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
If you start with the attitude that it won't work, well it will not work. But if you try, chances are that it would work very well. So why say "Drop all that now, anyway it won't work, so don't lose your time." ?
I agree that Linux on the _mainstream_ desktop is essentially a fruitless effort. The simple fact of the matter, no matter how much we dislike it, is that the man in the street cares little of our woes and intentions of a free (software) world. In this sense, Microsoft has already won.
However, Linux on the desktop is most certainly not dead! There always has, and always will, be those individuals who want more from their computers than the mainstream can give. These are the tinkerers, the hackers, the terminally inquisitive. I am proud to stand as one of them, and will continue to use an operating system which gives me the freedom to do what I want with my computer.
Linux is just fine on the desktop, if you don't want to play current games or read .pdf files or use a browser that works with most web pages or drivers for any obscure hardware that you might obtain or technical support or patches for your applications. Other than that it's great.
Sorry to cut your sentence in half, but this part is the important part.
It works for what you need - that doesn't mean it works for everyone else. I've been wearing size 11 shoes for more than 10 years now, and they work just fine for me , so just shut the fuck up and use the size 11 shoes you're handed.
Heaven forbid that some people actually want the unified interface. Let me give you a few simple reasons why they might want that:
Moving on to another subject, try finding your nose. Place your finger on the tip of your nose. Now - try looking beyond the tip of your nose.
When ever you have trouble with the concept of "other peoples perspective" - repeat what I just learned you.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
An OSS based buisness is like any other business that focuses on services, the fact is that if you don't cover out going expenses with commercial work (note: not code) such as services, documentation and consulting, your code will get stuck and your developers will be on rations.
So I don't see it as any different from any other consulting or services business, I think the problem comes when boxed products are thrown into the mix. But the it's chicken and the egg, covering development costs needs a good turnover, but only if you want it done on a commercial timescale.
I've always wondered if the best bet would be to turn developement over to a educational sector and fund them through commercial business. That way you'd have a ready pool of good recruits and the company could concentrate on selling and promotion of the services provided on the educational establishments development plinth. A lot of government projects work in a similar way - look at SE-Linux.
But I don't see Redhat or any of these companies as different from those selling any other product. You can get the same product elsewhere but Redhat has factors that differentiate them from others, the code is free - but so what, most people aren't bothered about the underlying code, they are more bothered about what it can do for them and what the company that provided it can do for them over the companies competitors. Provided they can out market and provide cost advantages over the competitors Redhat and others should do well.
e4 e5
Doesn't somebody have to ask the question for there to be an answer? I guess you missed that part.
Apple isn't financialy insecure. But anyways...
One of the things you're missing is that just because you use Linux on the desktop, that does not mean its ready for people in general. And the general public are the people who really count, not you. Yes people do like icons, even secretaries. No there's nothing wrong with calling a directory a folder, they mean the same thing.
Its little things like this that consistently go over the head of most OSS developers and users. I mean the guy wasn't even promoting Apple's business or anything he was just complimenting OS X as having the best Unix UI and you couldn't even respond on that point. Its not like you can't install xfree86 on OS X and run it at the same time you run Aqua. I'm doing that now. But that simply allows me to see the contrast between a well thought out GUI (Aqua) from a ease of use standpoint and a piss poor one (xfree86).
People who don't give a crap about the semantics of the word used for folder or directory are not "simpletons". They simply do not share your fascination with computers to the extent of becoming what to them can only be thought of as "a weird anti-social geek". They view computers as tools to accomplish tasks or to obtain entertainment from but not anything more than that. They could be anything from doctors to lawyers to teachers to cops but of course if they don't want to take the time to learn the most trivial of computer trivia they must be idiots. Can you see how silly you sound yet?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
"With respect to enterprise computing, analysts agree that for smaller projects that do not involve mission-critical elements, there is room for open source software, such as Linux."
Excellent, that's probably the reason why we don't see any Linux rendering farms in digital FX companies or Apache on webservers of e-commerce outfits.
Every month or so some creep winds up telling us that opensource or Linux is not ready for whatever. Who cares?
Regarding the lack of applications, only one thing can be said: Do it yourself or help others to do it for you, damn it!
There are opensource developers out there who actually listen to what you have to say. It's not "If you build it, they will come", but rather "If you tell them, they will build it right." Well, depending on how you do it. Most developers of opensource projects where thankful for useful comments and at least tried to implement the feature suggested. How often do you see Microsoft responding to your inquiries? Hell, they don't even give required security patches in a timely manner.
The problem IMHO isn't the acceptance of opensource software, but rather a complete misunderstanding of the opensource processes and the way they can be influenced by anyone with at east half a brain and some decent manners. That's still often enough a problem with managers (I am one myself, and I have seen enough of those already), especially at large corporations: "I WANT X, Y AND Z!!!! AND I WANT IT YESTERDAY!!!" rarely works in opensource. Hmmmm....., it doesn't work anywhere else either, but gets rarely noticed.
I love this quote as well: ""[Linux] just doesn't easily plug into the management framework," Goldman said. "The applications aren't standardized. When that level of standardization occurs in terms of applications and management tools, then I think Linux will get there. "For now, it's great when you want to tinker," he noted.
Yes it is great if you want to tinker, because you can. With most closed source products you have to tinker as well to get it running the way you want, but alas, you can't. Instead you get any number of consultants in who will then tell you, that you have to reengineer your business processes (if you can't pay for the software customization) to fit the software. While this is sometimes a very good approach, this is often enough not the case. With opensource a company, even with a limited budget, can influence the developers of OSS projects and maybe donate hardware, money or whatever else is required. Yes, it might take a little longer and cost is hard to predict, but so it is with business process reengineering.
I feel so sig.
Exactly. The problem is that the unified interface approach is exclusive. You simply can not have both a unified interface and choice so if you are in favor of choice and you getting what you want and me getting what I want then you're in trouble. In this case one has to throw one of the options out; I choose to throw out the restrictive one.
If you want restrictive mass-produced, lowest common denominator interfaces that have the very minor virtue of being consistant in their mistakes then go and use one but fuck you if you're going to try to force me to do likewise.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
What I find funny is you guys look at people using MSFT by choice as a problem. Aren't OSS/linux cult people by nature pro-freedom-choice. So if a user CHOOSES to use windows isn't that a good thing? I thought the gloves only come off when they have no choice?
;-)
I don't know which 'You Guys' you're talking to, but he never said people shouldn't have the right to make a stupid choice, just that they're stupid for making it
Seriously, the good thing is the freedom to make the choice; Just as I think anyone who voted for Bush is even stupider, I would never dream of claiming it's not a good thing they CAN, just that they DID.
-Chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
I used to have a Murphy's Law calendar that said, "If a headline ends in a question mark, the answer is 'No'". It usually seems to work.
/. this morning and what do I see?
So I open up
Can Internet Radio Survive?
and
Does Open Source Software Really Work?
Oh, well. Guess I'll go back to reading Forum 3000... oh wait... damn.
Garg
Garg
Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
Yes, I agree with a few exceptions:
:) Linux is a product of Windows, so as long as M$ tries to force Windows, Linux will be the Newtonian second law's equal but opposing force... bleh.. what a stuipd metaphor.
First of all, netscape pretty much gave up after it started losing to IE. This isn't going to happen with Windows and Linux.
Hence, I would like to add one last (worst of all) scenario in the Linux vs Windows war (yes, there definitely is one despite all the denial): **At the very WORST, M$ is going to make a much much MUCH better Windows.**
And Linux won't die because it thrives on M$ bs. Without M$ there wouldn't be a popular Free Software movement
Cheers!
Well, I'm usually not looking for an answer to "why doesn't this work?"...
"Try putting it on your Mom's/Dad's/Grandma's PC and see how they'll do with it."
.It runs freebsd and uses windowMaker for a gui.I have it set up so that after it boots and she logs in ,(gui login), she is confronted with a series of big shiny buttons. MAil ,WEB .OFF. when she boots the computer goes online automaticaly. WHEN she clicks on the mail button a mail program ,(which I wrote),launches .When she clicks on the web button mozilla launches when she has finished she clicks on the off button and that shuts down the pc .That is all she wants a pc for .If she wants to listen to music or do pretty much anything else she can email me and I will make a new button for her.She finds freebsd set up in this particular way easier to use than windows.She does not need Microsoft office and she is not an avid gamer.This solution I admit is not an ideal solution for every one but bsd's and linux varients are flexible you can configure them for your own particular situation .My point is that There is no law against leaving out options and features which could confuse some one .
My mum has my old pc in her room
_________________________________________________
I think you'll find that it is, but anyway,
And the general public are the people who really count, not you.
Why? This is a fundimental issue. As Linus has said, if it works for him and other people have things that work for them, who cares? Why do you feel Linux is a failure until it has converted the entire world? Why do the general public matter more than the people actually using Linux now? If they're happy and we're happy then what is your problem?
he was just complimenting OS X as having the best Unix UI and you couldn't even respond on that point.
No, he said that it was the most "successful" desktop and I responded to that. Sorry if I didn't respond to things he didn't say.
People who don't give a crap about the semantics of the word used for folder or directory are not "simpletons".
Again, it was the original poster that brought up the issue, not me. The implication he made was that "directory" was a less intuitive word than "folder". I responded by implying that anyone who did actually find the word "directory" confusing was a simpleton; I did not mean that I believe such people exist other than in the poster's head.
they view computers as tools to accomplish tasks or to obtain entertainment from but not anything more than that.
Try reading my post, that was my point.
if they don't want to take the time to learn the most trivial of computer trivia they must be idiots
I think you're still suffering under the delusion that I brought up the whole folder/directory thing aren't you? I specifically stated that people are not interested in these things.
Can you see how silly you sound yet?
Can you see the importance of actually reading things before mouthing off about them yet?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The problem is that the unified interface approach is exclusive.
The problem with choice in interfaces is that consistency goes out the window. Now, I'm not familiar with current Linux UIs, but when I last used a Solaris system, about half the apps used Motif and the others OpenLook. Result: I had a mix of applications with wildly different UIs, each with its own set of conventions, increasing the time I spent finding the functions I needed, rather than being productive.
The current proliferation of UIs will make this even worse, I expect. We'll be back in the bad old days of MS-DOS, when every application had its own UI.
And it's not just the UI that suffers. Simple interapplication interaction like copy and paste was horribly limited.
I can see the utility of making a UI customizable (although that, too, has its drawbacks, e.g. for system administrators and help desk people). But having entirely separate UIs isn't such a good thing IMO.
I can only say that this article quotes myth and ignorance as though they were informed opinions. For example, in the question of support, the "experts" they quoted seemed completely unaware both that you can hire excellent technical support for Linux and that for most closed source you need to ALSO need to buy tech support separately to get real help. The difference is that with open source you have a variety of competitors to choose from for tech support, whereas with closed source you usually only have one shop to purchase from.
Miko O'Sullivan
General purpose computing is a good hobby but I wouldn't work for a company trying to survive on it. General purpose computing is toast for all operating systems. Linux never was going to break into it in the first place.
Hopefully the amount of open source software will reach (has reached?) a stage that a living can be made in configuring it for the user. I think this is closest to happening in custom html form based applications, where a consultant can charge by the hour to deliver an open source based custom solution. It may not be rocket science or a geeky new development, just bread and butter work to pay the bills AND expand the use of open source, the consultant can help open source by fixing/reporting bugs found and open sourcing their minor extensions and configurations.
Be Free: Free Software Tuition
This is the one area that bothers me too. It really hacks me off when I use a GNOME app that doesn't undersand that highlighting=copy and middle button=paste.
But, on the other hand, this shows up the biggest problem with the unified UI: progress dies. The highlight/middle buttion is far better than the menu/keyboard shortcut method used in Gnome and Windows. But UUI fans would not tolerate adding this to an existing system because there would inevitably be a period of half-adoption where some people had it and others did not, leading to brain-haemorrhaging amongst users.
The answer is to produce sensible UI's that work for the task at hand and not to introduce changes on a whim, but don't avoid new things just because you think the users are too stupid to cope.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Of course Open Source on the desktop is Toast. It's delicious and it goes with everything from fun stuff (toast and jam, toast and peanut butter) to more serious stuff with a lot more meat (sandwhiches of all kinds). It's great on it's own, but it's flexible enough to meet many needs.
Any truly good desktop *should* be toast.;-)
It's right in the article:
"There are different reasons why people advocate open source. One reason for enterprise is, 'You have the source code; if it doesn't work, you can fix it.' But the fact is, if I'm an enterprise, I don't want to fix it. I want somebody else to fix it," Goldman said.
That about sums it up. Most corporations are not in the software business; they have IT staff, but not programming and development staff....just guys that maintain and secure the servers and networks. These guys aren't going to desk-check all the code for buffer overflows and the like, they just want to install it, configure it, and apply security patches that the software developers wrote.
This is not an unsolvable problem; hopefully Redhat and other Linux vendors will eventually get the respect / trust that other commercial OS vendors get from the business community.
Here's how it's supposed to work:
- Middle button pastes the currently selected text.
- Ctrl+C, Ctrl-X, Ctrl-V copy, cut and paste with a hidden 'clipboard'.
Early versions of Qt got this wrong, and therefore didn't work well with GNOME. Recent versions of both get it right.They'll take one look at a Slackware install, say "WTF this doesn't have AOL", and go back to sacrificing money to the stone idol of Bill Gates.
That's the classic mistake that many technical people make, that if you don't know about computers, you're stupid.
If you do believe it, I expect that you are expert in the electronics in your TV and DVD player, understand the mechanics of launching a satellite to relay phone calls, the chemistry of an oil refinery that fuels your car, all the routes driven by the postal service to deliver packages to and from your door to anywhere in the world, etc...
Of course not. That's why we have specialists. You happen to be a specialist in computer technology, but you'd starve to death without specialists in field-ploughing to feed you. Remember that.
Let's see the headline quote from IBM is that Linux doesn't scale. 2/3rds of the way into the article there's a general consensus that Linux is a toy for tinkerers and there are no applications and by the end - the whole 'desktop is dead' thing.
Here let me winch my fist up up your ass a little deeper. Twist! How does that feel?
Nobody cares whether YOU use Linux. What matters is whether the rest of the world does, or will ever want to, and the answer to that is no. Linux will not replace Windows until it does everything that Windows does, especially all the features geared towards novice users, and the elitist resistance to "dumbing down" open source software will never allow this to happen. Linux will remain designed by geeks for geeks and therefore incomprehensible to all normal people, and Windows will win by actually taking its target audience into consideration.
See here for more info.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Now, folks may not agree, but this is the way it works. Big corporations are in the business of doing their business, not maintaining an o/s (unless that is their business). Fact is, there's no such thing as "free' in the corp world. Corp wants to pay someone else (under an SLA) to maintain stuff. Where Linux is concerned, they want to (1) buy licenses from a vendor and (2) buy support from a vendor within an SLA. Any other arrangement does not work.
That said, I would love to exploit Linux desktops (and I'm considering that option for about 21,000 OS/2 desktops I have today). Why? Because I think it could be cheaper than going the M$ route - assuming vendor support is there. My biggest risk is the lack of applications (with support) and lack of peripheral vendors (with support). However, the picture is getting clearer and I have hope.
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
Why can't folks like you figure it out that not everyone wants to study the internal workings of obscure OS's.
That's not what I took from that. Although poorly said, what he (I feel) is trying to say is something like:
People are lazy (yes, there's stupid ones too). They don't want to LEARN anything new. They want to be handed something that they know the person sitting next to them knows because when the person is stumped, rather than hit Google, or try to figure it out, they turn to the person next to them.
"Hey Sam, how do I change the background of my main window here?"
"Main Window? You mean the Desktop?"
"I dunno, I guess."
THAT is my point, and I think Teknogeek's as well.
I'm an Admin. I've seen this in action for 7 or 8 years.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Sorry, most of those people out there are not using Windows by choice. They are using it because they have no choice!.
... well, who really gets a choice there? A few technically inept top managers say "Windows" and everyone jumps. I am working on an embedded Linux project and do that work on a Linux Desktop, but I still need a Windows box to do my weekly timesheet, and to deal with various MS Office documents (Star Office 5.2 will not handle some of them). I'd love to ditch the Windows box, but my boss has made it very clear that Linux is only for the specific project, and I must use Windows for everything else, so I do (except maybe a few things I can keep "under the radar" ...).
The consumers walk into a store and every damn computer has Windows on it by His Majesty Bill's Imperial Edict. Only those who are both interested in computers as computers (as opposed to what you can do with them), and who are technically skilled, really have a choice.
And at work
I'm not going to claim that Linux could eradicate Windows from the desktop (I'd love to see it but I'm being realistic), but if people had a real choice I think you would see a lot more people using it.
Teen Angel - a Ghost Story
Who make the wrong equation that People = Persons. People means group of Persons. In large groups, People are stupid on any given subject when compared to a person knowledgable in that subject. No reason to get upset.
Further, Linux doesn't want to be successful on the Desktop, PEOPLE want Linux to be successful on the Desktop. Think carefully about that.
Personally, I couldn't care less whether other Persons use Linux as a Desktop OS; I do use it and I'm happy with that.
Anything is possible given time and money.
No. There is no copying done when selecting. Middle-paste pastes the currently selected text. If you select some text and then unselect it, you can't middle button paste.
QT has got this right since at least version 2.0, the version of Gnome that came with RH7.2 still didn't.
Qt used to be completely broken. Try this:
Now do the same in gedit. Note that it works correctly here.
This has apparently been fixed in newer versions of KDE.
Reading the article, I notice that both of the main "problems" with OSS have nothing to do with the fact that it is open.
They mention the fact that it is hard(er) to configure, and that there are fewer applications available. Well, for those 2 things, the fact that the OS source code is open is not relevant.
Lots of people say that OSS is basically software that you write to scratch an itch. Well, the problem is that most people that know how to code well enough to write an OS don't really need cute configuration dialogs and the latest in hardware dongles. They want a stable system that just works.
So really, there is nothing wrong with OSS, and it can be applied to anything, the OS, apps, games, etc. The fact is that [Linux|BSD|etc] are not really meant to be for the desktop. They are designed to be used in workstations, servers, and things of that nature. It does not really matter if you can see the code or not... we all know MacOSX is based on BSD, so we know it is possible to get a "pretty and easy to use" system on top of our open OS, but most of us just don't really need it.
PS - My desktop machine is running Win2K, and has been up for 6 months now without crashing. But I still prefer BSD for any sort of real, business server task.
If you try going between Kword and gedit you'll see:
Hmm, I guess lemmings must choose when they go over the end of the cliff and therefore they must be happy about it.
It certainly wouldn't be the case that lemmings aren't aware there is a choice to NOT go over the cliff.
Anything is possible given time and money.
If you select some text and then unselect it, you can't middle button paste.
I can. I've never used a Linux machine where this worked as you suggest.
Open KWord
KDE/KOffice are not the same as QT. I don't have KWord installed here.
Doing what you say works as expected ("selection" gets pasted) in Opera which is a QT app and the wrong way in KHexEdit, so it seems as though the KDE people are interfering in the process and getting it wrong, rather than TrollTech. Since I don't use KDE I was not aware that they'd screwed it up.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
don't avoid new things just because you think the users are too stupid to cope.
The highlight/MMB method is convenient, but it is also confusing to have two separate copy/paste mechanisms (MMB and Ctrl-C). On my Solaris box, Ctrl-C would only work in half the applications. OTOH, the MMB method would always work, but it would copy only ASCII, not styled text (or, heaven forbid, images). And each method had its own clipboard.
I don't agree entirely with your "progress dies" comment. Every major release of the Mac OS I've seen (i.e. all of them since 6.0.7) had new additions to the UI. There was real progress there; some inspired by the user community, with Apple sometimes incorporating additions that had been separate programs, while other new additions were from Apple's own UI research.
Now, you're right in that this progress was just a selection from what was possible. But to say that there's no progress at all is going too far.
Are there UI designers and other human factors specialists that contribute to Linux?
I checked this on my machine. I am no expert here, but it seems to work as well. Oh, even my TV-app. I can record too. Oh, and play back DivX movies (and ASF, and all those other crappy M$ proprietory stuff - maybe I shouldn't have said proprietory...) Oh, I can print too and my TeX looks great - nice editor! And I have a file manager. And funky ass games.. I think you people get the point. Check out a distro before you nail it down! Linux Altimately Rules!
These disinformation crusades are meaningless, especially in the open-source world.
What do they think they're hurting by spouting meaningless sound bites? Sure, the MS drones pick up on it, repeat it. "See? Linux is toast, dude."
I am not a veteran Linux user, being just over a year. I have, however, moved most of my organization's mission critical apps to Linux-based servers.
Now we are in the midst of examining desktop solutions for the inevitable change next year. Microsoft is not an option.
I have been using a number of desktop distros, doing both custom and canned installs...I see them getting better and better. The GUIs are evolving, they come with a robust feature/application set, and they work.
Are they perfect? No, of course not. But they are solid. And with the experience with Windows being "crash, reboot, work, crash, reboot, and oh yeah, you do have to pay us for that," screw it, its a no brainer.
I guess I identify more with Linux, FreeBSD, OSS than I ever have, but these articles (stories) mean nothing to me anymore.
What is microsoft going to win? Is there a race? Does Linux exist as a single entity? Are the copious amounts of developers who write and create out of love, and out of a desire to make something better going to just stop because some talking head decides that they feel that Linux isn't scalable (ignoring the fallacy of that for a moment)?
Of course not. So let them play their little games, plant their little stories, and meanwhile keep working on making the best software out there, and make it open.
That is how linux can win. Linux can win by forgetting this competition bullshit, because that's not what its about.
"That's why we have specialists. You happen to be a specialist in computer technology, but you'd starve to death without specialists in field-ploughing to feed you."
/.!
That's the most intelligent thing I've ever read on
Holy s-, it's Jesus!
Apple Sales Training Day
------------------------
Sales Guy: Hi, welcome to Apple, how can I help you?
Mac User: I haven't had a new Mac for a couple of years and I feel the need for a new machine. What's new these days?
Sales Guy: Well, our current crop of Macs have the ultimate MacOS, which has a Unix foundation giving a new meaning to the turn reliable...
Steve Jobs: *smack* NO You IDIOT!! You don't tell them, you show them how bright and shiny it is! Don't give them facts, give them eye candy. Observe!
Steve Jobs: Here, take a gander at this. *displays desktop*
Mac User: Ooooo. Shiny!
Anything is possible given time and money.
Actualy, is all about the OS being pre-installed.
Take a look at this article:
Linux for Mom and Dad
This article "kills" a myth: only geeks can use Linux.
When reality says: only an expert can install and configure Linux or Windows so anyone can use it
This is why Microsoft is so against Linux being pre-loaded on computers, as seen recently.
but all things are not equal. Open source is simply not the same as an ordinarily commericial software product + the source code. It's an entirely different proposition. The level of support of most of these open source companies is, at best, unproven. Now you may counter that the companies have the source code, but that's really not terribly relevant. Having the development company that has responsibility and experience with that product fix that product is not only more cost effective, but is also generally the only feasible way to solve the problem. Solving these kinds of problems in house is just not feasible. You can't afford to keep a bunch of programmers around just to solve those occassional problems with varying pieces of software and even then the programmers would be inefficient because they'd have to scale the learning curve first (this is made harder by the piss poor documentation of most open source software). And if you want to approach some 3rd party, you're going to pay out of the ass and they too are not well configured to do that kind of work.
The company that developed the software and is actively supporting it though is going to already know about the ins and outs of it and will have the necessary skills and procedures in place. They may or may not profit from your support requirements, but that profit is more than made up for by their increased efficiency.
Seeing the various other posts along these lines...
My wife and I have used Linux on the desktop (a laptop at first) at home since 1993! Of coure, before that (and for a while after) we ran SunOS on an old Sun 3/50, which was immensely better, and actually cheaper (from a workstation reseller) than any of the PC's available in 1991. I've used SunOS, NextStep, Solaris, and now Linux (since 1999) on my work desktop since the late 1980's. And it just keeps getting better - the latest upgrade to RedHat 7.2 was the smoothest yet: an 11 minute install, plus about half an hour of futzing with KDE (I'd used Gnome at work before).
Some maybe we're weird - but I've never used Windows as a desktop, and never regretted it.
Energy: time to change the picture.
If I follow the reasoning right, people are trying to insult Microsoft users by claiming that they are too stupid to learn new stuff.
;-) for the humor-impaired?
But by this reasoning, the opposite is obviously true. With Microsoft, every year or two you have to learn a completely new system. The UI changes radically, everything you knew no longer works, and you have to learn all over again where everything is. Most of your old files are no longer accepted, and you have to laboriously convert them to the latest format. All the menus and config windows have changed, so you spend a lot of time exploring until you find where things are on your New! Improved! system.
Microsoft's users seem to approve of this. They keep buying Microsoft systems and upgrading to the latest incompatible releases. They obviously enjoy learning about new computer software and keeping up with the "advances" in commercial computer technology.
Contrast this with the unix environment. 25 years ago, I learned how to use a shell and commands like cat, cc, ls, grep, etc. They all still work. Code that I wrote 20 years ago still compiles with the same cc command, and runs the same way. Quarter-century-old makefiles still work without problems. My shell, perl and tcl scripts from 10 years ago all just keep working. Yes, there are fancy things like KDE and Gnome, but a dummy like me can mostly ignore most of their cruft, fire up a lot of xterms, and not have to learn much at all about a new release.
So obviously it's us unix/linux geeks who are the conservative fuddy-duddies who are too stupid to learn gratuitous new systems. Meanwhile, Microsoft users happily dig in and learn all about every new "advance" from Microsoft, no matter how much time and effort this wastes.
Maybe I should add a
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
... that hasn't changed in 6 years is "Pathetic". I'm sorry, but if you're telling me that the difference in the UI for win95 and winxp (which I currently use) is that fantastic, then let me get you some glasses. No need for a command line? True, but that's only if all your doing is the point-and-click tasks that we all love. Sure I'm a "geek" but I still need a good shell and command line utilities to really get the most out of my computer, and as soon as I have the time to back up this laptop I'm going to the non-pathetic Desktop. grrr
This sub-optimal but working functionality extends to Windows servers. An office full of PCs could have shared print, email and public directories, without the guy setting it up really understanding how it works.
Now, even with the latest distros, I remain to be convinced that this mug-proof system configuration really exists for Linux.
Linux servers tend to be operated by trained/experienced admins, who don't need a good OOBE, as they want to set it up "properly" themselves. So Linux wins in the server world.
"...for consumer-level users, simply configuring Linux to dial into an ISP (Internet service provider) is a challenge."
Every person I know who has bought a Windows PC has to get me to setup their dialup account. Yet we always here about how easy it is for the average Joe and Jane to connect to the Internet with Windows, and how hard it is with Linux. Yet every Windows Joe I know as to pay me bucks to get them connected to the Internet. Go figure.
My wife bought a Dell with Win2000 on it last week, we tried to set it up to dial into our ISP, it will dial in but wont resolve DNS. It doesnt work properly in other words. There are fifty checkboxes, I dont know what they all do. We rang RCN three times, and once we were hung up on, another left to hang on the phone listening to music. We still dont have a functioning internet connection through it.
Compare that to my laptop (thinkpad 600) running Linux. It was configured with kppp to connect to the exact same ISP as a dial up. I entered the phone number and it worked, first time and without hassle.
In my opinion, of those two ,Linux was easier to use and worked the first time. Further, Linux/KDE is more powerful, more reliable, has better applications and is better looking. My laptop (and future laptops) wont ever be going back to Windows.
I noticed also that asacomputers.com sells linux ready laptops at a good price. I am in need of a new laptop, for that reason also, they may get my business. Dell and IBM wont be for the exact same reason.
cam
Anyone whos seen KDE 3.0 can tell you that. Why people seem to want to ignore this, I dont know. GNOME may be toast, but Linux on the Desktop is already here.
Bowie J. Poag
That may be the way it works, in IT.
In engineering, there's more to life than fixes and support. It's about doing things, creating new things, using your tools to get things done. You might have software that you would like to perform some function, but the vendor is under no obligation to provide that function for you. You can apply pressure on the vendor, and if they get enough of the same kind from enough companies, maybe the next release will have it. Or not. But that doesn't help you if you want to get something done before the next release. Having the source code is an invaluable asset for an engineer.
The enemies of Democracy are
I love Debian and all, and will continue to use it as my distro of choice. But seriously, if Debian is the only recent distro you've used, you really shouldn't judge the ease of use of Linux based off that. Believe me. I myself was very skeptical of all these claims of "Linux is so easy to install/configure now!", because as far as I could tell, my newest Debian was -worse- than the one I installed two years ago, in terms of simplicity.
So I bought SuSe 7.2, and installed it. It as, in a word, simple. Configuration was simple. It was all simple.
I suggest you try it out. Or Mandrake, I hear it is even easier. You still might not be convinced that it's simple -enough-, but I guarantee it is much, much better than Debian in this regard.
The enemies of Democracy are
Many open source projects have support structures that have and know the source well and you can pay to apply bug fixes and enhancements.
You can pay lots of money now or you can pay lots of money later. Either through licensing it then forcing the vendor into making changes, or deploying it for free and purchasing changes. There no clear win either way. Sometimes one way works out better, sometimes the other way does.
closed source or open source - it does matter. Patches on open source come from all over (this is not an open source myth, it really does happen IME). Closed sources comes only from the vendor.
Maybe it's because I was in a only a mid sized corp and am now in a small one (I prefer smaller companies. Just a preference), but when you are that small, the vendors don't care about you. The business of business is business, but if you can't get the changes you need for your infrastructure, then you aren't able to run your business in the ways you need to.
I will certainly say that using open source is more of an advantage the smaller you are. You can get changes you need easier, and the amount spent is O(1) so it scales well as you grow. It also has advantages when you are a behemoth, as you can afford large projects to taylor everything just right, and you don't even have to share those changes with competitors (remember, GPL just means you share the source with who you distribute the code to). If a vendor puts in an enhancement for you, it's typically enhancement for everyone, unless its custom work.
Which is really just how open source works.
-no broken link
Explain again why "folder" makes more sense; particularly the bit where I open a folder and find more folders inside. Which metaphor are we using here?
Because humans use folders to store things and directories to find phone numbers...
---
Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.
I'm not even a Mac user and your post offended me.
How do you get off calling Apple an "insecure company" or saying that there "hasn't been a new application of any note for a decade", or even that Mac hardware is "grossly overpriced"? Besides the fact that 2 out of 3 of those comments aren't even applicable to this debate, they don't have anything to back them up.
And to address the comments about applications. What about iTunes and iPhoto, while curiously named, they have been acclaimed to be some of the easiest to use programs for managing music and digitial photos around in the two of the most expanding sectors of digital commerce.
To get back to the point, your comments damning people who want users to be sheep and by association those users has already been addressed. Computers should be easy for non-technophiles. People don't want to know about drivers and interrupts or even document types. They just want to surf the web, print their documents, play their games, and not be bothered with the details. The OS that did this first and best was been Windoze. Now that it has monopoly power, they have been able to bully their competition away and it won't be easy to overtake their position. But if anyone is going to do it is going to be by providing ease of use. Free doesn't mean anything if you can't use it.
I think that the linux desktop manufacturers hit the wrong time frame. Linux was too immature when they were trying to sell linux only desktops and the people who would have bought them could have made their own computer and installed it themselves.
If linux as it is now is going to excel it needs to come preinstalled with all the drivers set up properly so that John Q. Luser can fire it up open Konquerer/Mozilla/Opera and start browsing.
It also needs to see some floor space in CompUSA/Office Max/Circuit City with a price tag that is significantly lower than that of a comprable windows machine so that Ma can go in look at two side by side machines try both of them out, find them to do about the same thing, and decide that $700 is about $200 less than $900.
Anyway just my opinion mod up or down as you please.
As it might be true, that's one of the things I love about Linux. Once and for all I can enjoy an OS where the community behind it isn't just a bunch of newbies and generally stupid ppl. When I go to a message board looking for answers, I usually find the answers, not the usual "why doesn't this work?" questions that can be found in "normal" boards for Windows users
There is another side to this. You do find answers for linux problems, but for things you would not have issues with in windows. Take for instance installing Apache,php,mysql all on the same system. A final step was needed to get the modules compiled correctly, that wasn't explained on any of the web sites (the ones that actually created these programs).
If I was installing IIS,SQL 2000, and ASP, I wouldn't have to search for such a problem, because I don't need to compile, and the majority of answers are on Microsoft's site.
Perhaps, if people would do a little original research, try out some of the new applications out there like Star/OpenOffice, Mozilla, the Gimp and Evolution, then they would realize that, though Linux isn't equivalent to Windows/Office, there are plenty of people out there who can do 99% of the work they are currently using Windows for, without selling their soul to MS.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Your ideas intrigue me. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I think I agree with you - org scale does have an impact. But my fundamental premise that orgs (especially big orgs) just want a 'product' and 'support' - all from a vendor - still holds I think. A widget manufacturer stills want to make widgets - not necessarily maintain technology that is not fundamental to the business (e.g. they care deeply about maintaining their own production scheduling software, they care less deeply about maintaining their own o/s source).
CrazyLegs
"Pork!!" said the Fish, and we all laughed.
My friend with no computer skills could install Red Hat Linux 7.2, and many other distros have similarly easy installation routines. Sure if something breaks, they can't fix it, but they can't on Windows either!
./configure, make, make install process really isn't all that hard for even the most basic users if they feel that they are respected.
Showing someone how to use GnoRPM to install software or go through the
The real problem is that the people you talk about like to think of Linux as some sort of 1337 complicated mess and show off their ski1z, and they make it harder than it has to be. Lets face it-- many people are not stupid-- they are scared of computers, and being told that Linux is hard to use turns them off and keeps them from being able to use the software, because they are scared of it. That is the same attitude that turns people off to BSD and other systems.
Also, Windows is not THAT easy to use or troubleshoot. If you think that it is an ease of use thing, you are mistaken. The real issue is percieved ease of use.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You rule!
I wish more people could see things the way you (and I ) see them. Seriously, it's painfully obvious that linux will replace windows on the desktop. I'd wager that nearly half of current engineering students (of which, I am one) use Linux as their primary OS. Obviously, we will have an influence on the industry when we jump into it. For example, I won't work somewhere where I'm forced to use windows or mac. And others, I'm sure, feel the same.
We dance to all the wrong songs.
--Refused.
because I don't need to compile
Ever heard of RPMs? Besides, the time it took to fix your compile error was probably less than it would have taken for you to go to a store and by all those (and you wouldn't even be able to run PHP scripts, which I assume you wanted to do since you needed php =)
Regardless of whatever anyone is trying to see, the simple fact remains. People who have better things to do than understand UNIX deserve freedom too.
My Mom, who, at retirement age, is beginning a 3rd career as a landscape designer, who takes dance lessons, who got 2 Master's degrees in her forties, who travels regularly to Europe and Latin America, who studies botany, history, and languages. She doesn't want to learn vi to get email, but don't dare say she doesn't want to learn anything. That you think of the computer as the horizon of knowledge is really very, very sad.
And they make a very tasty main course for your Thanksgiving dinner. (Who wants the paw? Timmy, do you want the paw? No mom, I'll take a leg.)
Incidentally, I *do* use Linux as a primary OS. But I'd love to go through your personal consumer habits, and find out how in the toaster, car, breakfast cereal, music, and other aspects of your life you're as much as a "lemming" as the people you seem to be so contemptuous of.
In present time that's probably true. But this is largely habit. In past times, when source was available, it was common to get customizations either in house or via contract. When a company is selling a closed source product, they seem to be quite unwilling to make customizations for one particular customer (reportedly even for very large ones) and you can't ask anyone else to. So you get in the habit of living with what they offer.
This has it's plusses and minuses, but I prefer choice. Even if in current time everything balences out equally, when I project futureward I prefer to have the source available. That way I can't be coerced.
OTOH, I am not and have not been a manager. My manager prefers Windows. He doesn't seem to read MS licenses, or think he need to. (I think he assumes that the courts won't enforce anything too vile.) And he goes to meeting where MS salesmen talk to him, and comes back convinced that he was right. So, in a way, your argument about "how things are" matches my experience with management. I just doesn't cut any ice with me. And it won't. I find MS licensed software to be unuseable, and will refuse to install anything that has a license like what I've seen of the XP license. (But then I can retire whenever I decide to. And I will before agreeing to that license. With an explanation to the company lawyer (which he will probably ignore, sigh!).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
People who have better things to do than understand UNIX deserve freedom too.
Understood. And I even 100% agree, to a point. To use Win*, you still have to have a basic understanding of what you're saving and where you're saving it to. The basics are NO different from Win*, to Linux (in this example). It's just a totally different enviroment (Linux), so people actually have to learn something different and that is the point. People have to learn. Most people don't want to (or have the capacity to).
That's where the whole Linux thing falls apart. If the average (L)user has only been exposed to Win*, then that's all they know, and most likley, will know. If they have ever even heard the word "UNIX", it's associated with "that computer that is only text, right?" kind of thought.
That's the major thing that Linux needs to overcome to "get users". Either start with our children (as I am doing), or take the time to explain to users the benifits of *NIX (and not from a "Fuck Bill Gates" perspective).
I am a Linux user by choice. After years of Commadore, several versions of Mac, OS/2 (PC-DOS, M$'s OS/2, and Warp!), many Win versions, etc., I find Linux (UNIX in general, I suppose) to be the most intuitve enviroment. Throw on top of that GUI's like KDE (w00t!) and Gnome and BlackBox, etc, you find yourself with a reliable, and pretty machine that can run on shit hardware at NO cost. How can one go wrong?
Just take the time to help the n00bs and the rest will fall into place.
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
With Microsoft, every year or two you have to learn a completely new system. The UI changes radically, everything you knew no longer works, and you have to learn all over again where everything is. Most of your old files are no longer accepted, and you have to laboriously convert them to the latest format. All the menus and config windows have changed, so you spend a lot of time exploring until you find where things are on your New! Improved! system.
What really is scary is that you said that as if it was a good thing! Am I just really weird, or why was I able to help someone with a quite advanced system administration problem on a Windows XP computer when the latest Windows version I've used is 2000 and that was a year ago? Let me tell why, nothing changes! It's the same code with a new layout, and all the things have been moved (as you said) just so that it *seems* new. Hey, everything has changed, must be really good, let's buy it and use 10h to learn the new locations of all the old functions.
Most of your old files are no longer accepted, still, the new files which are required for anything to work don't seem to bring anything good with them!?
Contrast this with the unix environment. 25 years ago, I learned how to use a shell and commands like cat, cc, ls, grep, etc. They all still work. Code that I wrote 20 years ago still compiles with the same cc command, and runs the same way.
Yeah! Ain't it great! And still you can use the latest USB devices and play 3D accelerated games using Linux!
I rest my case.
Nope... the biggest obstacle to Linux is people who say: People are stupid. It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.
I think it's worth pointing out that quite an amount of those people (like myself) are quite content as it is and not really anxious for linux even becoming more widely spread.
It's nice to see linux grow, but not at all cost. Personally I think the learning curve is already tolerable, meaning that, those people that are too computer illiterate or not just interested enough are the kind of people who should stick to windoze in the first place.
Personally I agree with several linux developers that I know of, that if things continue the way they do now I might be forced to look at *BSD and/or Gnu HURD just to steer clear from the main stream as it usually brings along more shit than it's worth.
Making everything fool-proof and real-easy-to-learn is far too often done on the cost of reduced expert usability and THAT is something none of the *nix users want.
1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
Should all cars be easy to drive? No F1, no Indi500 or dragsters?
The OS that did this first and best was been Windoze.
Actually the one that did this first and best was the Mac. By a long way on both counts.
Free doesn't mean anything if you can't use it
And having a powerful computer means nothing if you have to fight the GUI to get at the clock cycles.
If linux as it is now is going to excel it needs to come preinstalled...
MS will never allow that.
It also needs to see some floor space in CompUSA/Office Max/Circuit City with a price tag that is significantly lower than that of a comprable windows machine
MS will never allow that.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
My parents (both computer novices) run Linux.
;)
They can print things fine. They have no trouble with printing. There is a nice GUI tool in Red Hat Linux for setting up your printer. I can walk them through it over the phone
How the hell would mom and dad even _use_ the CD-ROM?
That is what automouter is for. Have you ever set it up? It enables the automatic mounting and unmounting of filesystems, like floppy disks or cdroms.
I have recompiled the kernel enough that I consider myself to be really good at it. But how often have I HAD to in order to get a driver to work? Well, maybe if the driver was really new, or the one that came with the distro was really buggy... But those are the exceptions, not the rule.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Well, I own the company so I get to choose! But I'd not turn down a pay-cheque on the basis of having to use the Mac; I wouldn't apply for a job in a Windows shop.
I'm not anti-Mac but I do get tired of this whole anally retentive GUI attitude that the original poster came out with.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
It's akin to you hiring a car mechanic on staff and only telling him to buy parts from Sears. And that all vehicles must use the same viscosity motor oil, and that none of them can have functional cigarette lighters.
And it's fucking annoying. If someone is a specialist, they probably now more than you about what you hired them to do. (Otherwise, you'd be doing it.) Let them do their job. If they say a Linux server will work better, let them us it. If they say open document standards would benefit the company, let them set them up. Etc.
As for Linux on the desktop, it really depends on how much computer experience you have, and, forgive me for saying so, how smart you are. If you've used windows for the last 8 years, and learned it by rote, Linux is a bad idea. If you actually understand Windows and what it's doing, Linux isn't so tricky. If you don't know any OS, Linux is just as easy to learn as Windows, whether you learn it by rote or understanding.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Ah, you mistake my words. Nowhere did I say I personally was excluded from People. :) Again, People refers to a large group of Persons. Persons can be very smart and intelligent, People are stupid.
As far as "Windows works for me", for every 1 person I talk to who has a handle on their Windows workstation and doesn't complain about the "Reinstall every 3 months" or "Reboot daily or twice on Wednesdays" rules of thumb, there are 30 people that do whine and ask "What's Linux?".
My favorite expression is the 90/10 rule, which I define as this:
"On any given subject, 90% of People are Idiots."
That rule certainly applies to me.
Now, on to the point at hand, am I a Windoze Luser when it comes to other consumer products? I would say I'm not. If I have a problem with a given product, I either:
A) Don't buy/use that product. (Cable TV is going on this list)
B) Modify said product to do what I want. (Hmm, these rails don't quite fit my rack setup. Where's my jigsaw?)
C) Put up and shutup. (I guess gas-driven automobiles fall here)
Anything is possible given time and money.
Many - most - people don't want to learn all that much about a computer.
Yup, you read me right, then. "about a computer".
My Mom, who, at retirement age [the rest]...
COOL! Seriously! No flaming. That's some great stuff. But as I said above and you agreed to, that's not what I was saying.
How arrogant.
Nope, not arrogant, just experienced. I do this with my Mom Dad, and sister almost everyday (and also the dolts here at work). If you wanna run a laundry list of credentials (as you did):
Mom: Registerd Labratory Technicititan. Curently providing daycare for my Son.
Dad: Head of R&D that developed the Video Disk at Zenith in the 70's. Worked for Beltone's R&D department. MANY inovations there. From there went to MARS electronics and was a V for a while while still devloping vialbe products at the same time. You use most of the stuff he's helped designed when standing infront of most vending machines that you stick your bills into (there's still a few old models sitting in the basement at home).
Sister: Well, long story. Not much to say.
Me: Network Administrator for 7 or 8 years now. I've had a keyborad under my fingers since my Dad bought the first commadore back in like 81 or 82 (I forget). I know about them thar things that is named compooters. And I also now about the folks that use them (especially since it's my job now, and not just something I did at home). (I'd post a pic of the very first Video Disk ever made that my Dad still has haning on his wall, but I don't seem to have the jpg on this machine to upload, sorry).
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
But the point is that if you want to make your interface easy to use, you shouldn't assume that just because you don't understand why someone would find A easier than B, that they don't or they shouldn't. The primary goal of good UI design is not to convince the user to do things the "right" way, the goal is to build the interface so that what the user does naturally is the right thing.
Ok, if you don't care if the general public uses your software, you can ignore everything I've written. But the original article was about mainstream adoption of Linux, and I think many people in the Linux (and OSS) community want it to be adopted more widely. It's those people I'm addressing. I think you drastically overestimate the number of people who care about rearranging their desktop or who could possibly be bothered with choosing among multiple types of desktop. You make the point before that people want to be productive, and that's exactly right. People do not want to spend time configuring their desktop, they want to get their work done. Personally, I vastly prefer X Windows over the alternatives because I am an expert user and I love having a highly configurable desktop. But for the vast majority of computer users, a much, much more important feature is that a system come with good defaults out of the box, and require no configuration. I think it's great that Linux is working well for you and I have no desire to see you stop using it, or use it differently than you have been. But Linux is not ready (yet) for most people to use it. And if it's ever going to be, its developers need to get away from the attitude "It's good enough for me, it should be good enough for everyone" and look at why other people aren't using it and work on changing to technology to fit the people and their needs.- Khelder
P.S. I really want Linux and OSS to succeed, and I think this is a huge stumbling block in the path of that success. I'd like to discuss this more, so if anybody knows of fora where this is discussed, follow-up to this post and let me know. Thanks.
Well, well. here's a story for you all. My wife and i have only been into P.C's for five years. Windows 95/98 even ME. So? Whats that got to do with anything I hear you say. What this has to do with is this. Both of us have no PC or engineering qualifications we discovered Linux two years ago. I have installed confugured and run Mandrake, Redhat, Debian, SuSE professional, Turbo Linux et al. My wife has also done this without my help, she just read the book. It does what it says! Weve had our PC's dual booted including a laptop and an old model PC. We consider ourselves to be the ordinary public, so whats all this screaming about things being too hard and saying Linux users are arrogant? Linux is fast on its way to being King of operating systems. If your not using Linux or any other open source OS. All I CAN SAY IS YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT! Too hard? Try it, if your stuck with something most Linux users will help you out. |f your interested and new, green as the grass, try mandrakes latest, yes it installs as easy as windows on most systems. Linux is toast. ha ha ha ha, yeah toasting the backside off of Microsoft. MS User friendly ,your joking, watch your back If you just want to use office tools etc, no problem with linux. If the rest of the stuff in linux is too tough, dont go there. As for the command line, whats hard about that? I mean youve got DOS on windows. Oh you didnt know about that one? Oh dear!
Look....................we Linux users are enjoying our system because its wonderful, just remeber that the next time you get the blue screen of death.
Happy computing to you all (All operating systems)
> Making everything fool-proof and real-easy-to-learn is far too often done on the cost of reduced expert usability and THAT is something none of the *nix users want.
Unless a distro takes away command shell access, how can ANY amount of ease-of-use/ease-of-learn work reduce expert usablility - the experts all use shells to do most/all of their work, and the underlying Unix/Linux utilities will still be there.
And I largely feel that a widget manufacturer that thinks of it's IT as an elephant in the corner is giving themselves a disadvantage. Widget manufacturing is more than just making x widgets in y time with z quality. You have to take a holistic approach to your business. IT effects marketing and production. You may not want to think about it, but to compete we have to do things we don't want to do.
A behemoth can lumber along and it's inefficiecies in one area are made up with the efficiencies from scale. It can outlast many little business because large companies just inherently have staying power and most time its (to use an analogy I hate) a marathon and not a sprint. But eventually someone will catch up.
-no broken link
People are lazy (yes, there's stupid ones too). They don't want to LEARN anything new. They want to be handed something that they know the person sitting next to them knows because when the person is stumped, rather than hit Google, or try to figure it out, they turn to the person next to them.
No, his point is that people SHOULD NOT have to LEARN about their OS. That's a waste of time for everybody that's not an admin or a developer. Why should a marketing person have to know what thier "desktop" is called? That's a waste of time for them. That's a waste of time just like it's a waste of time for everybody driving a car to understand how the engine works, what the electrical system schematic is, etc. I get in the car, turn the key, and go. I put gas in it, and that's about it. If something goes wrong, I bring it to a specialist. There's no point in me being a specialist. I have other things to do.
Most people who use computers are not techincal, nor should they be. That's great that YOU want to learn Linux, but most people should NOT be spending time playing with their PC's at work.
Seems a bad idea to name anything Enterprise - after all wasn't that the ship were things were always going wrong & blowing up?
Video Game cheats, hints a
Yeah, you're totally right, I just thought of a cutesy aphorism and I needed to stick somewhere on slashdot. ;)
If you read the post I was replying to you will see it contained an implication that users are confused by the term "directory". I was saying that such people would have to be simpletons; I do not believe that people really are confused by these terms. I was being sarcastic!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
command line in Win2k and WinXP. They have made it so that most of what you can do from the GUI you can do from the CLI. Here is a link about some of the things you can do from the command line. These are just search results so they are not all applicable. Some of what is said are included with Windows while other can be downloaded from MS.
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
The consumers walk into a store and every damn computer has Windows on it by His Majesty Bill's Imperial Edict. Only those who are both interested in computers as computers (as opposed to what you can do with them), and who are technically skilled, really have a choice.
Again, what the heck do you expect? Those are pre-made boxed computers. No shit they come with windows.
Two flaws with your argument
1. You can always install linux overtop later.
2. If you don't want to even buy a comp with windows buy it in parts and it won't!
My computer didn't come with any OS.
Also don't mistake "inept" for don't care. I know the diff between linux and windows. I just don't care. All of my tools work in windows so I just don't care to use linux.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Okay, so by following the same logic, one shouldn't need to learn what that round thing is in the car (the one in front of all the dials and switches) if one would like to drive. So, why do we have mandatory driver's education and licensing?
The fact of the matter is that computers are an integral part of the lifestyle of first-world nations. It is almost impossible to get along in our society without knowing the basics of using a computer, and a little knowledge beyond the basics can be incredibly helpful to an individual, even if they don't work in the computer field. Ignorance of and apathy for the use of computers only results in a severe detriment; resumes are supposed to be supplied by email nowadays, and universities no longer accept handwritten papers, except in some rare circumstances. Accountants, secretaries, and pretty much anybody who isn't a blue-collar worker (and many who are) depend on some type of computer know-how. Technical knowledge is a requirement to live in a Western society, not an option.
With that, I can agree that somebody who refuses to learn even the basics of operating a computer is incredibly lazy.
It doesn't require a godlike knowledge of 'C' to use Linux, or in-depth knowledge of the kernel. It does require critical thinking skills and a grasp of basic logic, which many people seem to lack nowadays. If someone can listen, remember, and understand some pretty simple concepts, they can learn to use a Linux (or Unix) system very effectively; at home, or in the office.
The problem lies in that many people (and most Americans) have the attention span of a kitten spun on crack cocaine, and understand simple logic as well as Ashcroft understands the Bill of Rights.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
There's a good point to be made in here - Linux is the *kernel*, not the entire desktop experience.
To sum up the desktop, you have to start following the various distros, as they're aimed at satisfying different needs and styles. I use Redhat because it's the first name that lept out at me when I went looking for Linux distrobutions. I'm starting to think that Mandrake might suit me better, because Redhat has lots of fiddley technical bits that, while interesting in an acedemic "I can grok that, man" kind of way, I simply don't want to have to fuck them with all that much. I'm led to believe that Mandrake addresses a lot of the configuration options and makes them easier to deal with, so I'll give it a shot. If Lindows gets its act together, I may look at them too.
So the question is really, at least in my case, is Redhat doomed on the desktop where Mandrake is not? It's not a Linux question at all.
The kernel, the real Linux part, doesn't make a lick of difference to me. Why do I care if I'm looking at a FAT32 or an EXT3 partition? Everything's a file - great. Again, I grok it, man. Isn't the job of an operating system simply to make all my peripherals talk to each other in predictable ways?
Just checking. I may be wrong.
GMFTatsujin
Most people who use computers are not techincal, nor should they be. That's great that YOU want to learn Linux, but most people should NOT be spending time playing with their PC's at work.
/. at work", I'll have to remind you that you gotta reboot M$'s OS for almost every damn thing you do... I gotta find some way of killing a few minutes here and there...
You are right. 100% right. "Most" people shouldn't have stupid things packed in their heads so they can actually walk up to a ATM and use it as the service it is rather than stand and wonder what OS it's running (although I've watched a couple older models boot and they were running MS-DOS 5... serioulsy...). I do find it great that I WANT to learn Linux. I find it great that I can use an OS that doesn't tie me into license fees and still be able to everything I need my box to do. Thank you for the support!
most people should NOT be spending time playing with their PC's at work.
playing at work. Hmmm... I filled out my time sheet, fixed my exchange server, fixed Manager's Edge (again, for the hundreth time), and several other things. Where from? THIS Linux box. Yea, I'm playing...
And before you say "you're posting on
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
You are _precisely_ the "people problem" - the "30 years of anti-newbie, RTFM baggage" in the linux community that the original post mentioned. Your post illustrated his point so beautifully that it was almost artistic.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
Then I saw someone spell "decision" with a T.
This reminds me of one episode of Red Dwarf where Kryten reminds Lister that, "only you spell Thursday with an F, sir."
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Even if your preferred support method is a prepaid contract - the availability of open source de-monopolizes the market for providing that support. You're certainly going to get a better deal for your contract when many firms have the ability to bid on it than when just one (the original vendor) does.
Their computer breaks down and they call the IT department. The man on the other end of the phone says: "Now click on program xxx on the desktop..." Basic knowledge. Also, many terms for things are good to know when talking to people. It isn't necessary for someone to actually know *how* the desktop is displayed or how to change it, but they should know how to get there, what it does, and how to use it.
Also, why do I have to spend 1hr. trying to explain how to save a file to a floppy disk to someone? Is this something else that is unnecessary to learn? People need to learn some basic things, no matter what you do. How do you start a car? How do you operate the clutch? All of these questions assume that you know basic terminology for the car. They are all basic concepts, and they all are questions that one must learn the answer to.
-mrbkap
And what will happen when it's time for them to upgrade?
"ummm....what does "nmake" do again??"
"I have to re-build my OS!?!?! Why the hell do I have to do that???"
If your wife had to do it, would she HONESTLY been able to install Linux on her system by her self and get it working as it was when you were finished? Would she have been able to do the same thing with Windows?
I rest my case.
ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
Really cool, i can't even read it in my head without it sounds like beat-poetry.
this is my sig.
I don't understand *how* these posts that are written with a 4th-grade, finger-pointing, "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude are so consistently modded up. Is this really the best way to appeal to the typical slashdot readership?
The worst thing about this *entire* thread is that almost everyone is arguing the *same* points, just with different spins on them. Apparently, the more attitude you throw in with your post, the more popular it'll make you.
Now, call me a fuck face to feel better about yourself and watch the karma roll in.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Thank you for making my point - it's deeply appreciated.
You installed it - she did not. When it comes time to update to the latest kernel, will you be doing it, or she?
If she does, I hope you much luck and patience - because her patience will be blown if she has to do the kernel upgrade.
ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
How about reading the posts, eh?
.01 for effort
We're talking about installation, upgrading, and overall fitness for the average, WalMart-variety PC User.
Nice try - I'll mod you up
ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
The highlight/middle buttion is far better than the menu/keyboard shortcut method used in Gnome and Windows.
First: a Linux user saying that a mouse method is "far better than the menu/keyboard shortcut method"? Better than a keyboard method? Isn't it *nix advocates that love the command line?
Second: Bull-fskin'-shit. Any "shortcut" that forces me to take my hands off the keyboard, *ESPECIALLY* when I'm typing/coding, is not a shortcut. Here's a shortcut:
pressing ctrl-shift-left arrow to highlight previous word. ctrl-c to copy. down arrow, end key to move to end of next line. ctrl-v to paste.
It also helps that this works in *every* Windows application that I use. Anything that uses the standard text edit controls have the exact same command set.
If you really think the mouse is faster, you're fooling yourself. The mouse is still a great navigation tool, but it sucks for doing anything related to text-entry.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
It can always be made easier, OEM Bundling of Linux platform based Desktop machines may be the death knell of windows entirely, when there is a 200$ price difference between two new machines and the technical advantage, as well as the application advantage, is actually on the linux side, that's it for windows OEM. No more cashcow.
Cheers,
Genj
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
Once I was talking with one of my friends and I asked him:
- Why do you use Windows?
- Well, isn't it the best choice? - he replied, so I asked him:
- How many different operating systems have you tried, so you can say which one is the best?
He said:
- None, but everyone I know told me to use Windows.
So I asked:
- How many different operating systems have everyone you know tried, so they can say which one is the best?
After few seconds of silence, he asked me:
- Can you help me installing Linux?
He had no problem with understanding my point because he's a musician composing, playing and listening to technically very difficult music, while most of people listens to pop music, so he knows that whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Some time after that, he convinced his father to try using Linux and Apache on one of his company's servers, then went the MySQL in the place of MS-SQL and even large part of the desktops were switched to diskless X terminals. The choice was obvious because of the lower cost (licenses, maintenance, backups, uptime, hardware requirements, etc.) but he didn't know he had that choice in the first place, no one had ever told him and that was the problem.
The problem is that I don't know many people who've chosen Windows, they usually just wanted a PC. I have yet to see anyone who can't work on my Debian boxes with Window Maker and Mozilla or Galeon. My parents use it and my sister uses it (now she has in her resume that she has experience with GNU/Linux and X11 environments, it looks very impressive to employers).
So that's what I do, I just give them a choice.
And don't tell me that most of people can't install and configure Debian, because most of people can't install and configure Windows either, they bought it preinstalled. We could talk about the choice you fight for, when I can go to a large computer store and buy a preinstalled working Debian box. Until then, please don't tell me about choice.
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
Windowmaker is a window manager. That means that its mission in life is to provide a workspace and to allow the user to move windows around, resize them, place them in different workspaces, etc. Aside from maybe allowing you to launch a few preconfigured applications, that's all it does. It doesn't help you manage your files. It doesn't help you write letters. It doesn't help you associate files and applications, or any of the other standard things that most people associate with a desktop.
If all users did was to do window management tasks, then Windowmaker would be all you'd ever need. Sorry, but that's not all users do. In fact, it's not the main thing users do.
Users run applications. Applications need a user interface. Guess what provides that user interface? Windowmaker? No! Gnome. KDE. Athena. And a bunch of other, more obscure toolkits that few people use anymore (including Motif!).
You can run Windowmaker all you want. It'll make window management tasks fast. But it won't do a whole lot for reducing the significant amount of memory that applications that are built on top of Gnome or KDE will require, because it's the toolkits which eat the space.
Nor will it make the user experience easier, except for perhaps helping users launch applications and move windows around.
To be honest, this business of having the toolkit on the client side is nonsense. It should be built into a separate server (or integrated into the X server as an extension), so that a change in the toolkit will be picked up by everything. It would do for user interfaces what the X server does for drawing graphics: provide a single point of control. The result would be that the user could change his theme and everything would follow suit. No matter what system it was running on at the time.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Yes, that is a shortcut and a very good one. But in situations where there are multiple windows and locations involved it is quite rare to not need cursor manipulation during the paste (unless you're pasting just one thing onto the tail of the last one). The keyboard sucks for cursor manipulation so I find that I'm using the mouse at that point anyway.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Now, call me a fuck face to feel better about yourself and watch the karma roll in.
Well, first you have to make an unreasonable personal accusation with no attempt at an argument, then I can call you whatever you'd prefer.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
At the moment every year is practically make-or-break for the company. I'm not saying that they're not going to make it but I'd be surprised if they did in the event of Jobs having a sever accident of any sort.
Depending on one persion is what I call financially insecure.
Informative enough?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
They pop in their new RH cd and select "upgrade". They don't have to "rebuild" anything.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Did his mom install Windows? Or did the computer just come with it? Why should his mom update to the latest kernel? Why not just pop in the latest FreeBSD CD? If I remember correctly, it has an option to upgrade an existing system as does RedHat.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
One of the things you're missing is that just because you use Linux on the desktop, that does not mean its ready for people in general.
But the frequently mutating Windows desktop is?
And the general public are the people who really count, not you.
When were the general public given much of a choice. Including the ability for individual people to choose from a decent range of options?
Most people IME simply use what is put in front of them, regardless of what it might be.
Computers should be easy for non-technophiles. People don't want to know about drivers and interrupts or even document types. They just want to surf the web, print their documents, play their games, and not be bothered with the details. The OS that did this first and best was been Windoze.
In what universe. Windows does an utterly awful job of being "non techie" when it comes to "drivers, interrupts and document types". If it did a good job it wouldn't allow regular users to even see what they were, let alone alter them.
The best platforms for games are game consoles, standard hardware, no software installation of any kind, with the only user interface the game itself....
Surfing the web requires setting things up to the exact internet connection method used.
Thank you very much.The two replys to my coment were pedantic in the extreme and I was not going to respond to them.
_________________________________________________
"And when someone else breaks onto her system and runs 'Porn', which pops up a series of dirty pictures in XV and then opens a window and request 'talk' with her, she'll have yet another feature of the system she can use."
,ignorant and non specific?Please enlighten me oh security expert as to how ,(and if so why?),you would break in to my mothers machine
First off my mothers machine is behind my openbsd firewall which I administer which keeps my home network as safe AS I NEED IT and secondly on its own I would trust freebsd over windows in terms of security any day.I find your arguments to be both weak
_________________________________________________
I can't be arsed to type out the reasons but
Lights are out, nobody home, eh?
LOL.
C//
I work for a major bank in Canada, and our ATMs run OS/2, the same platform as our branch teller systems.
Yes, pity us...
"So on one hand, honey is an amazingly sophisticated and efficient food source. On the other hand it's bee backwash."
See, this is the kind of misunderstanding I'm referring to.
Windowmaker doesn't provide any framework for running apps. Its only role in running apps is to do the fork/exec when the user selects the application to run from the Windowmaker menu. After that its only interaction with the application is through standard window management functions (moving, resizing, etc.), and even that isn't really "interaction" -- the X server simply notifies the application of its new size when the application is resized, and perhaps of its new location when the application is moved (but I don't recall seeing an X event for that), point being that the application itself doesn't interact with Windowmaker beyond telling Windowmaker what its min/max sizes are, whether it should be minimizable, etc.
KDE provides much more than that. It builds on top of Qt, providing services (such as file management), application interoperability (KParts), etc. The same thing is true of Gnome. Applications are built on top of KDE and Gnome. They are not built on top of Windowmaker.
KDE and Windowmaker are orthogonal. They each solve completely different problems (though KDE does come with a window manager, the window manager isn't all there is of KDE, not by a long shot). In fact, it's entirely possible to build a window manager on top of KDE (with some care, since one needs to avoid recursive dependencies) -- the window manager bundled with KDE is one such example -- but you cannot build KDE on top of a window manager! When you understand just how the architecture of an X desktop works, you'll understand that the notion of building a toolkit on top of a window manager doesn't even make sense. It's a non-sequitur.
Does this make sense? Does it help you to see the difference between Windowmaker and (say) KDE?
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
By framework I mean a means by which the user launches apps, not the technical whats-actually-doing-the-drawing. Windowmaker gives me a place to put icons for the apps I use a lot and a menu for the others, that is the sort of framework I was referring to.
By the way, the apps I can launch from WM are not pre-configured and I can add either to the workspaces or menu at will.
Yes, WindowMaker is a window manager plus a handful of other features. KDE is a whole load of bloat beyond that, I agree. In fact that was my point.
The mistake you are making is that you think I care about the probably myriad extra classes and objects KDE base library makes available on top of the QT ones upon which it is based. I don't. They serve very little purpose as seen by the fact that I can run the few QT applications I have without any problems while KDE is a dependancy nightmare which is a waste of time given that the end result is to ape Windows which I haven't had any use for for 4 years now.
you'll understand that the notion of building a toolkit on top of a window manager doesn't even make sense.
I never said it would.
Does it help you to see the difference between Windowmaker and (say) KDE?
Never had any confusion on the subject.
The bottom line is that users want to use apps and the main thing they're interested in is getting their work done. KDE can perform the first of these tasks insofar as it includes the functions of a window manager, the latter it has failed to do fairly consistantly. KOffice is a joke and most of the working K-apps are little more than shells around pre-existing software that works fine without the overhead of KDE's libraries.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Well, the usefulness of the extras that the KDE classes provide is certainly questionable, so I won't disagree with you about this point (primarily because my knowledge of what the KDE classes provide is very limited).
All I'm saying is that it's rather misleading to say that Windowmaker is a "framework for running applications". That's like saying that the shell is a framework for running applications. Most people regard "application framework" as referring to the underpinnings that make the application itself possible, and that's clearly not the relationship between Windowmaker and applications.
It's much more accurate to say that Windowmaker is an application launcher.
One other thing: Neither Windowmaker nor Qt provide the means for enabling the user to manage his files. That requires a file manager. But a file manager is something that almost every user out there will regard as being part of the desktop environment. Hence, it's also misleading to call Windowmaker a desktop environment.
In any case, my original point is that you can't get away with installing Windowmaker and then say "see, I've solved the desktop bloat problem!" or "I've solved the usability problem!", because neither statement is true.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
and support.
This may be because engineers are more likely to support their own systems and implement their own changes rather than depending on some trained monkey at the deskside level (ie, bottom rung of IT).
But when you run that IT department, and you're responsible for those trained monkeys and their ability to support 21,000 users, you want the 20,950 NON-engineers in the company to be quickly, conveniently, and relatively commonly-known FIXED.
One of the unfortunate benefits of Windows is that if you lose a Windows support tech for whatever reason, you can replace him within the hour if necessary. This is not the case with a purely *nix shop where "Yeah I know unix" can range from "My ISP uses it and I have a shell account, IRC is K00L!!2!" to "Hi, I'm Dennis Ritchie." You want someone in between, someone that can resolve some reasonably basic *nix user problems, but will probably have to pass it to someone senior if it's TOO screwed up.
It's hard to know who those people are, since there are fewer with the skills to begin with and many of those that DO have the skills tend to have an overinflated opinion of their skills because they know how to recompile their linux kernel or edit someone else's shell script.
With a Windows shop, the bar is much lower, the techs are a dime a dozen in any reasonably sized city, and it's trivial to give candidates a 10 question oral quiz to see if they know how to resolve a misconfigured NIC or update video drivers.
I guess I'm babbling. Anyway.
My respone to "Does Open Source SOftware Really Work?"
Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right for EVERYONE.
-l
You make excellent points. The ablity to customize your environment is the reason why I did all my project development on Linux in college.
I guess what I really meant to say is that companies don't want to engineer products, they want vendors to engineer products that solve a particular business problem or enhance a business process. Commercial software companies do this to some extent. Some do it so often that the products have 10 million features, most of which are never or seldom used.
I would like commercial Linux vendors to start thinking about the needs of the business community and then build products and services on top of Linux. These "solutions" would allow commercial software vendors to have a unique offering that businesses would pay a premium for.
The hardest part of executing this strategy is not writing good code, but writing code that is useful to the business community. The reason we have a downturn in IT spending is that the business community (read suits and bean counters) do not percieve there is any added value in purchasing new systems when ones from 3 years ago still do what the business requires.
-ted