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
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
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.
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"...
Oh, but that's just a marketing problem. Instead of calling it "Linux/unstable" call it "Linux CE" (Linux Cutting Edge)...you'll see everyone flocking to Linux from there on!
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".
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?
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.
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 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
Wake up to what reality?
Linux works just fine on my desktop, thank you very much, and frankly, that's the only one I care about.
I don't understand why the pro and anti linux on the desktop groups bother flaming each other. They're not going to convince anyone to change their minds. It just wastes time, effort, bandwidth and storage space, and needlessly gets people's backs up. Use what works for you; what do you care what other people use?
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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
"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!
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.
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.
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.
By Gad, sir! You stir the emotions! If only we had some music to play. I don't know if a room full of geeks would stand at the sound of "P-P-P-Pick up a P-P-P-Penguin", but I can't think of anything else appropriate.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
"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
Well, I'm usually not looking for an answer to "why doesn't this work?"...
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"
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.
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"
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.yes I did read your post, it was a rant on how you feel that you are vindicated as a Microsoft FUD spreader.
I have 6 salespeople... the absolute bottom of technical abilities using linux on the desktop. it wasnt difficult for them. it isn't difficult for them.
and in fact they have mentioned lately how it is easier than Windows 2000.
So again, you are mis-informed and are spreading things as truth that are made up facts (lies to the rest of the world outside of microsoft supporters) based on non-evidence and non-testing that are designed to purely mislead people that would mistaken you as a credible source for accurate information.
Again I ask, where is your Journal showing your findings that Linux is too difficult for someone to use on the desktop? I'll gladly share my 5+months of data showing that linux+Gnome is very easy for the non-pc expert (and in many instances for the user that is not as bright as a small salad bar)
If you have no hard facts and data... then to put it bluntly... shut up.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Linux will no longer be able to dual boot with Microsoft's OS.
Keep in mind that most people who can set up a dual-boot environment for Linux and Windows are also quite capable of using the BIOS to do the same exact thing, without the need for making any changes whatsoever to the bootloader. Granted, you would have to use 2 separate hard disks to do it this way (IDE-0, IDE-1, etc.), but you would still be able to use both OS's on the same machine.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
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.
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.
If you try going between Kword and gedit you'll see:
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"
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.
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
Do large corporations really want to use cutting edge technology?
I don't know, can you get me a GeForce 3 for my VAX? Still using it for a lot of services...
--saint
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
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
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.
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
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?
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.
So, and embedded version of Windows XP (combining features of Windows CE, ME, and NT) would be Windows CEMENT?
;)
See, OSS vs non-OSS begins to break down
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
+5 funny?
/. The old "version++" way of labelling new releases just doesn't appeal to the public anymore (if it ever did), let alone "stable/unstable"
Sad thing is, it's probably one of the truest statements you'll ever see on
Throw in two letters after the product name, and people will gain a whole new respect for it. <sigh> I don't make the rules, I merely observe them.
Last post!
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.
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"
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
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.
As I have said before; try installing it on your favorite family member's system when they've been previously running Windows, and you'll end-up being disowned.
You're drunk. Everyone I've installed Linux for has thanked me profusely for giving them a stable system. I'd probably get disowned if I tried to take it away from them at this point.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Care to elaborate, fuck face? To repeat, yet again, I am not anti-newbie, I have converted a lot of people to Linux and I help newbies every day. The original poster was talking shit based entirely on his/her own opinion that newbies are some sort of low-grade morons. I happen to think, from experience, that they aren't.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I'm sorry to burst your super-31337 bubble, but I tend to doubt 80% of the population could install ANY OS. When was the last time you installed a commercial Linux distro? Ever? It's a fuck of a lot easier than Windows, I'll tell you that, not to mention only rebooting once is nice. Get off your high horse. Computers come with Windows installed - Joe User doesn't have to do anything.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
~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"
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.
I can't be arsed to type out the reasons but
Lights are out, nobody home, eh?
LOL.
C//
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.
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