Posted by
michael
on from the includes-two-of-every-application dept.
An anonymous reader notes that OFB has a short blurb about a new Linux distribution, Ark Linux, based on Red Hat and chasing the ever-elusive goal of being "easy to use for the masses".
heh good luck. once it's as easy as windows it's going to crash like windows too.
Re:good luck
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Not really. The only reason why certain versions of windows crash so much is that MS took a massive amount of kludge consisting of bad, unchecked buggy code and stapled a pretty interface on it to make it look nice. Underneath the hood, Windows is a mess.
I'm not saying Linux is any better.. just pointing out the fact that ease of use does not imply instability. Linux obviously has similar shortcomings to that of Windows, but this can be avoided if they work from the ground up and organize things better.
On a side note: Linux's directory structure seems to be quite sprawling (/lib,/usr/lib,/var/lib... etc). Is there a good reason for this, or is it simply done that way for the sake of tradition?
Re:good luck
by
DarthWiggle
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That's just not true. You're confusing the paradigm with the method of implementing it. What's so wrong with having a coherent system of sharing system resources such as a clipboard, fonts, UI widgets, etc? Nothing. A computer should be easy to use. That may, of course, include "easy to customize."
The fact that Microsoft has been alternately lazy and incoherent in implementing its model of "ease of use" shouldn't sway other developers from trying to accomplish the same goal in a more effective manner.
Hell, I've installed a number of Linux distributions. I've tweaked them. I've fiddled with them. But not one has even approached the ease with whick I can accomplish tasks using Win2k. Perhaps on a technical level, Linux is more stable, more customizable, and more secure than Windows, and certainly the open-source ideal is admirable, but when you consider task-based computing where the main focus is on getting work done (which is all that matters to most end users), the mishmash of current Linux builds is just a pain.
I am NOT trashing Linux. It's an amazing accomplishment, and the improvements in UI and functionality (both at the command line and in the UI) over the last few years are encouraging. But there's work to be done.
Re:good luck
by
kevin+lyda
·
· Score: 3, Informative
my rule of thumb about linux/unix dirs./lib - libs for binaries for single user mode (ones in/bin)./usr/lib - libs for binaries for multi-user mode (ones in/usr/bin)./var/lib - data files for various applications.
once it's as easy as windows it's going to crash like windows too.
No, because we're trying not to repeat the design flaws of Windows.
Some of the things that make Windows unstable, and what we're doing:
In Windows 95, 98 and ME (the most unstable ones of the bunch), every user can overwrite/delete system files. Installing application X overwrites the DLL application Y installed, causing application Y to be unstable. soname versioning is a vital part of all Unix-like OSes, and we're definitely keeping that, avoiding the windows DLL mess. As for overwriting/deleting system files, it's a security vs. usability tradeoff, and I think we've found a good compromise: The system runs as a normal non-root user with special privileges (via pam) to run package installation tools and some system config tools as root without being prompted for a password.
All drivers etc. run in kernel space, frequently causing a badly written driver to crash the entire system. Ark Linux uses the same drivers as any other Linux out there - so we won't lose the stability. The biggest part of the graphics drivers etc. is in userland, so it can't crash the OS
Windows is not open source, therefore its code does not get any peer review. Ark Linux is, and will always be, Free Software. In fact, it's a not-for-profit community project.
Re:good luck
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmm. Does this always apply, or is it one of those unenforced rules that doesn't get followed too much (or maybe it does! I don't know:)?
Perhaps on a technical level, Linux is more stable, more customizable, and more secure than Windows, and certainly the open-source ideal is admirable, but when you consider task-based computing where the main focus is on getting work done (which is all that matters to most end users), the mishmash of current Linux builds is just a pain.
I agree with you here. Technically, Linux has owned Windows for years but we're only now beginning to make inroads that target end-users.
the mishmash of current Linux builds is just a pain.
This is the point I want to discuss. While today, the different distros are probably confusing to and alienating potential end-users (due to their task-based nature), tomorrow those "confusing distros" could become "viable inter-operating alternatives". That means competition and competition means jobs because multiple companies are able to capture niches of the market. I like Red Hat 8.0 for its easy install and slick GUI. I like SuSe for its easy install and snappier GUI. I like Debian for its packages and I like FreeBSD for its security. See, each one of these distros fills a niche. They scratch an itch for each individual customer.
What we have to work hardest on is overcoming the real barrier-to-entry: mindshare. Microsoft has ruled the roost for so long now that most people don't even know they have options and the non-geek people that have heard of Linux think it's a "hacker's" OS.
You're right. We've still got a lot of work to do, but it's not just writing code...it's changing minds. And you don't have to be a code-hacker to educate people about their options.
--K.
-- Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
I'm not a code-hacker any more. I'm a law student. (Don't run away, I'm on your side.) People look at my laptop and see OpenOffice and ask what it is. "It's a free office suite that does everything MS Office does." They drool. The only reason I'm not running Linux on that laptop is that my wireless NIC doesn't play nice with 128-bit WEP.
My point, though, is that I make a point to flaunt the fact that I can do everything that my friends are doing using tools that are freely available. They're spending 150 bucks for an Office upgrade; I download mine for free (when it comes out... what's up with OpenOffice???). They look at their steadily-decreasing student loan balances, and suddenly the free alternatives look mighty nice. Even for a bunch of Luddite lawyers.
The niggling problems start to occur mainly when some little tiny thing doesn't work the way they're used to. And then they wail about how "it's just sooo different!" and run back to the security of Windows.
You're absolutely right. This is a battle of security blankets. People need to see that there is a whole world out there that may not be exactly the same, but is just as comfortable. Kind of like leaving Atlanta to visit Rio.:) Or something.
I'm not a code-hacker any more. I'm a law student. (Don't run away, I'm on your side.) People look at my laptop and see OpenOffice and ask what it is. "It's a free office suite that does everything MS Office does." They drool.
I don't know whether it's lawyers, or whether it's just the stage linux has finally reached but a funny thing happened last week.
My wife is a divorce lawyer and a technophobe. She uses a computer, but she loathes them and can never figure anything out.
In the past, if I had my dual-boot Win2k box running in Linux when she needed to do some work, she'd come in whining. "Dipipanone", she'd moan, "what's all that nasty crap on the screen. Make Windows come back, I need to use Word."
So, I wander into my office one evening last week, and there she is, working away.
"This is nice, isn't it?", she says, completely unprompted. "I really like this Word Processor. It's clear, straightforward, easy to use and fast."
Had I tried to evangelize with her, she'd have never listened because she *knew* that Linux sucked. She carried on working in Open Office and it looks like she actually prefers it to Office 2000.
10 years ago, people were comparing System V, HP Unix, BSD, Solaris, OS2, etc.
Here I am reading the same thing about Linux as if the "distro" variation problems were new. They aren't, so I would guess M$ has little to worry about, given that they prevailed over vastly superior OSes many years ago. If Linux is going to be a serious desktop contender, there can be only one distro that is broadly supported. Whether that will ever happen, I don't know, tech-politics being what they are.
-- Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
That means competition and competition means jobs because multiple companies are able to capture niches of the market. I like Red Hat 8.0 for its easy install and slick GUI. I like SuSe for its easy install and snappier GUI. I like Debian for its packages and I like FreeBSD for its security. See, each one of these distros fills a niche. They scratch an itch for each individual customer.
What we have to work hardest on is overcoming the real barrier-to-entry: mindshare
"Mindshare" is not the issue. People want easy installation, slick gui, easy upgrades, and security all in one OS. "Security" and "snappy gui" aren't niches to be filled as if a user should choose between them. They're requirements.
MS gets a bad rap but I've used it for years (desktop and server) and haven't had any problems, security or otherwise (never even had a virus). Just keep things up to date and operate smartly. I think as more non-technical people use Linux the severity of problems will rise as there will be that many more people not patching holes. And as the number of users rise so will the attractiveness of Linux as a hacker target. Open source is a double edged sword here...sure, more people look at the code (in theory) so problems will be spotted earlier (in theory), but now the code is exposed for the bad guys to see too.
10 years ago, people were comparing System V, HP Unix, BSD, Solaris, OS2, etc.
That's a mighty big lump of apples and oranges you're carrying.
Here I am reading the same thing about Linux as if the "distro" variation problems were new.
Two things:
You say "distro" variation problems I say distro variation options.
You say M$ has little to worry about, given that they prevailed over vastly superior OSes many years ago I say refer to that apples and oranges clump you're carrying. And, based on recent articles I've read, I believe that Microsoft is pretty worried about the threat of free and/or open-source software.
If Linux is going to be a serious desktop contender, there can be only one distro that is broadly supported. Whether that will ever happen, I don't know, tech-politics being what they are.
Perhaps your belief that there "can be only one" is rooted in the quasi-reality of today. Or maybe you've just watched The Highlander too many times.:) Just as you go to a store and find the pair of jeans that not only fit you but that are comfortable...the same concept can apply to the operating system on your computer. That's why Levis come in so many flavors: 501, 505, etc.
I don't know if there will ever be "one distro to rule them all" but I for one certainly hope not. That philosophy (combined with closed-source and utter greed) is what created the monolith of mindshare that is Microsoft today.
Here at/. I read a lot of debate between KDE users and GNOME users. Rather than pit the two against each other, I tend to view them as choices. (And that's only GUI-related; MAC OS X and *BSD are also great choices.)
--K.
-- Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
Actually I think we are saying the same thing, but we are reaching different conclusions. I still think I'm comparing Apple(s) to apples (pun intended!)
I say distro variation options. -Same thing was said by advocates of the *nix's back then.
And, based on recent articles I've read, I believe that Microsoft is pretty worried about the threat of free and/or open-source software They are, which will inspire them to make better products, which is exactly how they prevailed over much better OSs years ago.
In fact, in 1994 I was telling people M$ would get sued for anti-trust in "about 5 years" simply because their product mix would blow the competition out of the water. I also added that I didn't think they would deserve it, but it would happen because of their eventual market predominance. Sho nuff...
Perhaps your belief that there "can be only one" is rooted in the quasi-reality of today. Or maybe you've just watched The Highlander too many times.:) Just as you go to a store and find the pair of jeans that not only fit you but that are comfortable...the same concept can apply to the operating system on your computer. That's why Levis come in so many flavors: 501, 505, etc.
Highlander? Nah, did listen to Steve Jobs though. Remember when he mandated that all apps for the Mac would would have the "File / Edit / View..." structure? I thought it was dumb at the time to limit choice, but he recognized the immense consumer appeal of UI consistency. So, while as technologists we may not like this, it's the kind of restriction that made the Mac and (horror) AOL so popular. BTW, last I looked, 50x jeans major feature difference is button or zip. There are some cosmetic differences, but functionally they are identical, and all are made from the same cotton substrate. (Hey, this is a site for nerds!)
I don't know if there will ever be "one distro to rule them all" but I for one certainly hope not. That philosophy (combined with closed-source and utter greed) is what created the monolith of mindshare that is Microsoft today.
Nah, the utility of COM, VB, and cheap OS & SDK prices made M$ what it is today. Later on they did play some questionable games with OEM licensing, but if they had been thinking they would have resolved this w/o getting dragged into anti-trust action. But, as I have already stated, I figured it was inevitable that they would be hit with anti-trust. If anything, the greed and closed mindset of Sun, IBM, AT&T and the other *nix vendors guaranteed the success of M$.
I agree with you about the value of choice of distro-from a technical perspective. It's just that I have seen that the broader market does not really want it so far.
Here at/. I read a lot of debate between KDE users and GNOME users. Rather than pit the two against each other, I tend to view them as choices. (And that's only GUI-related; MAC OS X and *BSD are also great choices.)
I agree, but the broad market does not. Non-technical users probably look at these arguments the same we look at the clothes at fashion shows: "Interesting, but who would ever wear that?!?" So, while Vuitton, Fendi, Armani, Givenchy and the rest argue over "who is best", the mass market cruises the Gap and buys jeans...
-- Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
I think your comparison of fashion shows is one of the best linux analogies I have heard. You many not know, but designers rarely try to sell the clothes they display at fashion shows. Those are just to get their name out, possibly get a photo in a mag to remind people they exist, convince the fashonistas to wear their brands, and show how creative they are. However, when the designers sell clothing they tone it down a bit, and sell something similar to what we have bought for the past 50 yearsbut retaining some flair to show it is the designer's work. There are minor changes from year to year, mostly to keep Gucci boutiques from offering the same clothes as the Gap, or heaven forbid K-Mart, but really they don't get that wild in their design of the clothes they are selling. This is less true of women's clothing, but quite true about men's. I don't thing a chainmail mesh suit would sell very well, outside of an SCA convention or something. I think the lesson that developers can learn is that while Linux can still have the fashion shows, but really needs to make a toned down offering that is similar, but certainly can retain flair and differences, to the operating systems that everyone has been using for the past decade, if they want to really take some share from Windows.
-- Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Thank you for a very enjoyable, insightful reply. And I do agree with you (and nelson below) that today's PC user probably doesn't want much choice. I had an easier time convincing my grandmother (who had never touched a computer for the most part) to try Linux than my own father who probably knows as much or more about UNIX than I do. So I concede the point that Linux distros are analogous to fashion shows...today.
I'm thinking about the future though. We're raising much more technically sophisticated generations these days. My first contact with a computer was an old Corona portable (looking back, that draws a chuckle)...circa 1982. I was 8 years old. Today, my niece is 3 years old and she already has her own computer! It took me years to become technically savvy enough to look for an alternative to Windows...and I'm a geek. I believe that future generations will grow up as geeks whether they're interested in computers or not. I could be wrong, but that's my theory. The only obstacles to that future that I perceive are the battles we're fighting today: DRM, infinite copyright, software patents and obtuse litigation.
Your points are valid and well-made and I do think that we agree on the value of choice. I guess the future will decide whether I'm an idealistic visionary or a blind fool.
--K.
-- Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
MS gets a bad rap but I've used it for years (desktop and server) and haven't had any problems, security or otherwise (never even had a virus).
True, MS does get a bad rap. Is it not possible that they have earned that reputation? And yes, the kernel in Win2000/XP is much more stable than any previous versions, but should I consider stability a justification for "product activation"? We've been through this whole software-DRM thing before back in the 80's and early 90's. It doesn't work, and no matter how stable, secure, and easy-to-use a software product is...I (and everyone I've talked to) doesn't want it if we have to "activate" it.
"Mindshare" is not the issue. People want easy installation, slick gui, easy upgrades, and security all in one OS. "Security" and "snappy gui" aren't niches to be filled as if a user should choose between them. They're requirements.
I disagree. Easy installation, slick gui, easy upgrades (and I'm guessing that you also mean updates), and security are all requirements to gain mindshare, and every distro can improve in each of these areas. But when you elevate the field to a level where Linux is as ubiquitous as Windows when it comes to operating systems, there are niches. Last time I checked, Microsoft offered different products for niche markets: Exchange, IIS, XP Home, XP Pro...etc.).
I think as more non-technical people use Linux the severity of problems will rise as there will be that many more people not patching holes. And as the number of users rise so will the attractiveness of Linux as a hacker target.
I think you're right. What remains to be seen is how many holes have already been spotted by the hackers that are working on GNU/Linux.
Open source is a double edged sword here...sure, more people look at the code (in theory) so problems will be spotted earlier (in theory), but now the code is exposed for the bad guys to see too.
That's a valid point and I believe that only time will tell what the best philosophy is. Read BugTraq and draw your own conclusions.
--K.
-- Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
Four years and half too late.
by
joestar
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
Junta
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Wow, 'our moderator' singular, fixed position. My how the times change.
-- XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
wideBlueSkies
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
And yet they don't have a screenshot after all this time.
From the web page: TODO: Insert Ark Linux screenshot here
Click on the 'Why Linux?' link, and look at the end of the third paragraph.
-- Huh?
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
Bero
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Ark Linux did not exist four and a half years ago. In fact, we didn't want to go public yet - we don't like preannouncing vaporware (though the current alpha version is actually usable, if you can overlook the rough edges) -- so there wasn't much need to update the website etc. until someone decided to notify the media of our existance.
The 4 1/2 years reference from the original poster refers to the creation of the Mandrake distribution, which started with similar goals, but developed into a different direction.
Mandrake is a good distribution, and suitable for desktop use if you know what you're doing a bit - but Mandrake is an all-purpose operating system, and therefore too complicated for many newbies (this may be hard for us geeks to understand, but people do get confused at the notion of 50 editors, 4 desktop environments and 20 MP3 players).
Ark Linux will focus on being a home user OS, and just that. IMO, if you want to please too many totally different needs at the same time (and "server", "techie workstation" and "newbie home user" are 3 _very_ different needs), you have to make too many tradeoffs.
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yeah, it was easier back then when there were all of zero comments.:)
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not to mention their 'Why Linux' has a big ass lie in it.
"NO VIRUSES Linux is not prone to viruses. Because of the data protection functionality in Linux, a virus can not overwrite system files or append itself to applications unless you are working as the "root" user (which you shouldn't do in the first place)."
I don't even want to start a rant on that little blurb.
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
WolfgangFlur
·
· Score: 1
right right, because *ix os's never have any problems, all the code is perfect, and there are never any bugs or faults. Only Windows software ever fails, and only Windows machines lock up. Right. blah, blah, blah. How about putting more efort into making what we already have better. I think KDE is great, and could be a wonderful desktop with just some minor tweaks here and there depending on what environment you use it in. Some creative new shell additions and a better installer is where we should start. I will never understand why eveyone needs to create a new distro at the drop of a (red)hat.
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
moosesocks
·
· Score: 2
Knowing slashdot, chances are it's just a typographical error.
-- --
If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hail the once and future king!
-- QuimTroll
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
boots@work
·
· Score: 2
What Linux needs is more announcements of distributions "focussed on ease of use for desktop users." There's no need to actually ship anything -- just making announcements seems to be sufficient to get a Slashdot story. And you can spend hours posting here, rather than staring blankly at ark.c in Pico!
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
dolson
·
· Score: 1
I believe that Ark Linux has it's place amongst the distros, and if you do it right, it will be easily better than Lycoris and Lindows.
I am still using Mandrake, and I hope that they don't decide to change directions like Red Hat did. I may have to look at using Debian. In fact, I'm gonna try Woody (I hated Potato) soon enough.
I prefer to have the 50 editors, 4 DEs, 20 WMs, and 30 MP3 players. I just don't have to install the ones that I don't want to. Mandrake is, thus far, the perfect distro for me. Ark Linux would be a step backwards for me, but that doesn't mean that it can't be good too.
I'll test the distro after you release a non-alpha/beta 1.0 release, and decide if I should recommend others to use it or not. I wish you luck.
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
goom
·
· Score: 1
The average user will only see a list of 50 editors, and not know which one is good or not, which one will fill his needs or not, etc. The average user will not have and/or be unwilling to devote the time to find the editor or two that is best for him.
In my opinion, a truly effective Linux desktop OS will focus on best of breed examples in each software category, insisting on standards for online help and documentation and focusing a little towards consistency of interfaces (although doing so to the extent that MS has is probably not necessary).
This, combined with a nice GUI and efforts to ensure consistent performance across a wide variety of hardware of all included software (something that MS has actually done quite well), should get a distrib candidate well on its way.
The Linux world really does need a de facto standard or two for a truly user-friendly distribution, with support thrown behind that standard by open source developers.
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
IamTheRealMike
·
· Score: 2
Judging by the number of comments, that must have been one hell of a Qt flamewar:)
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
Bero
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And that's exactly what we're trying to do. We've tried to put in only the best of its kind for everything (where best is, of course, subjective - you may or may not agree with our choices), occasionally opting for 2 if there's really a need (e.g. OpenOffice is probably the best office suite overall, especially since people will need to open M$ files sent by colleagues -- but it's totally unusable on a slow machine, where KOffice runs circles around it).
As for performance, we're trying to give it - e.g. we've patched glibc to use a much faster malloc (we didn't really like the --enable-fast-malloc option in KDE - why give a fast malloc only to the UI and leave the rest of the system slow? That needed fixing...), and we're using prelinking from the start.
Re:Four years and half too late.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why bother showing a screenshot? The site is so ugly that makes you think about what they would have done to the interface to make it "easy".
This is how Mandrake started.
by
FelixCat
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It's a pretty interesting environment which allows new companies (distributions) to get an instant running start by basing a new distribution on someone elses. It reminds me of the whole "on the shoulders of giants" saying.
Re:This is how Mandrake started.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Except that he already worked at redhat.
and if you still want to put it in the context of Bero's progress was built on the work of those who came before.
then i'd have to say - "isn't that true for everyone?" - are work, knowledge and wisdom is build on top of prior experience.
so what does this all mean? it means the famous quote is MORE SPECIFIC.
and you failed to use it in a context that fits.
Used to produce BeroLinux
by
wolruf
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The best way to make linux "easy to use for the masses" is NOT going to be by adding yet another distribution of it. Personally it would help if all the "desktop linux" companies pooled their resources and made one, standard linux desktop running on one, standard gui interface. Adding another linux distro just makes things more confusing for the masses.
More choice isn't always good. I would rather see ONE good desktop linux package than ten substandard ones.
--
Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!
Re:counterproductive
by
svvampy
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This is not an interesting comment, it is woefully repeated trite. This sort of comment is dredged up any time there is any thread about Linux and the Desktop.
Why don't we just get all of the soft-drink manufacturers to get together to make ONE good drink to rule them all. While we're at it when are the clothing companies going to get together and mass market grey jump suits so we can really move into the twenty-first century?
Re:counterproductive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
well if it gets brought up every time, there has to be osme truth in it. Linux is too wide and all over to be mainstream.
That would be counter to the aims of the companies though, especially if they have stock holders... if they were to cooperate, then they'd be opening themselves up to a suit by their stock-holders for not acting in their best interests.
Further, one company would be easier for (MSFT|SUN|APPLE|$Proprietary_Software_Production_C o_Bent_On_World_Domination) to smite (TM).
Basically if you want a unified easy to use distribution, you're better off making your own (non-commercial distribution), and hoping the commercial distributions standardize off you.
who says that the way with stockholders is the best way too?
since they run on that a company's only social obligation is to deliver profit to the stockholder, then that's not good for the consumer either;P
--
---- "I believe in karma. That means I can do bad things to people and assume they deserve it" - Dogbert
Re:counterproductive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
ZZZzzzzzzzz. A different install routine will 'confuse the masses'? That's the only difference between Ark and Redhat noted on the website. How on earth do these masses manage to leap left/shoe and right/shoe hurdle every day?
Re:counterproductive
by
sean23007
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You would rather see one good linux package than ten substandard ones. Well, first of all, they can't all be substandard. Whatever is their quality is the de facto standard. But I digress. What I am trying to say here is that it would not be in the interest of the Linux community to combine all of the distributions into one "good" one. Each distribution has its own advantages and disadvantages, many of which are mutually exclusive. Combining Debian, Slackware, Red Hat, Mandrake, etc would not yield one system with the advantages of all and disadvantages of none. It simply wouldn't work.
One of the biggest draws of Linux and the Open Source movement in general is that there is so much choice. Not only the freedom to choose a specific distribution, but to create a new one if you feel there is an unfilled niche. Combining distros cannot work, so these people felt that they could fill a niche by creating their own distribution.
--
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:counterproductive
by
Raiford
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Here's the deal. RedHat Linux isn't anymore difficult to install than WinXP (or really any other previous) incarnation of Windows. There really isn't a MS Windows installation for the masses if you really get down to it. If you want the masses to use Linux then you will have to have more computer manufacturers that will bundle Linux already on the machine.
The installer is an important change, but not the biggest one - if you want to see for yourself, download the current alpha version and check it out.
Since we didn't intend to go public yet (see my other posts), we haven't put much time into generating/updating the website - instead, we're improving the code.
We're still borrowing a lot of the core OS (such as the gcc packaging) from Red Hat, but everything on top of that is totally different.
Re:counterproductive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I use windowmaker. If I get stuck with anything that remotely looks like a complete "desktop environment," I swear, I will rip the spinal cord off your back.
The best way to make linux "easy to use for the masses" is NOT going to be by adding yet another distribution of it. Personally it would help if all the "desktop linux" companies pooled their resources and made one, standard linux desktop running on one, standard gui interface. Adding another linux distro just makes things more confusing for the masses.
Interesting point, but not necessarily a valid one. First of all, Ark Linux is not a company, it's a Free Software project.
Second, yes, in a perfect world, we'd have one standard Linux that does everything right -- but we don't live in a perfect world.
In a non-perfect world, competition is a good thing - but I agree that a relatively small number of distributions would be preferrable over several millions (and we haven't reached the 1000 mark yet, I think) [not counting special purpose distributions of course].
Linux on the desktop is still fairly new (not counting techie desktops, of course - they need a totally different setup anyway), so it's quite likely that the best approach is to try different approaches to figure out which works best.
As for extending an existing distribution to implement our ideas, that's a hard task. We believe that a new user will be greatly confused by 500 editors, 50 MP3 players, and 4 different desktop environments - so for a newbie distribution, we pick the right/easiest tools for the job (disclaimer: "right" is a subjective term, and nobody can claim he knows all the software on the net. No offense meant to applications we left out) -- which is something a traditional distribution wouldn't do, because many experienced users would revolt if their beloved tools were gone in, say, Debian 4.0 or Red Hat 9.
More choice isn't always good. I would rather see ONE good desktop linux package than ten substandard ones.
We've taken a look at a huge number of distributions out there, and none matched what we think is the right thing for newbies - so if we aren't mistaken, maybe Ark Linux is that one good desktop linux?
And since it's all Free Software, anyone else may build on it. If some other distribution agrees with our approach to something and reuses our code, we've helped making that one good Linux -- even if it turns out not to be our own.
I am so tired of hearing this and so tired of this comment being moderated up as interesting. It is not interesting, it is not informative, it is not insightful. There is no reason to mod up this tired old argument anymore ok people.
many experienced users would revolt if their beloved tools were gone in, say, Debian 4.0 or Red Hat 9.
Yes and those "experienced users" are what is holding linux back. Most distributions for linux seem to only care about keeping the oldskool geeks happy, and ignore the rest of the world. This is a fundemental problem in linux. If people only care about keeping 1% of the population happy, they lose out on the other 99% who aren't unix hackers and need tools to actually get work done and not for the sake of having tools. For instance, I would use linux if it have me the desktop publishing tools I need to get my work done, and not 10 text editors that cannot do 1/4 of what I need.
I think apple really got it right though with OS X: an easy to use standard unix desktop system.
--
Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!
You can't do the things newbies need if you keep developing an existing distribution, because the experienced people would hate it -- therefore we concluded that we need a different approach to appeal to newbies.
Yes, apple did get it mostly right with OS X - but they didn't get the license right - hence the need for another one to get it right.;)
Re:counterproductive
by
nathanh
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Soft drinks (including juices) are available in tetra packs, glass bottles, plastic bottles, squeeze bottles, cans with ring pulls, cans with button tabs,... etc.
Customers have no trouble learning a new interface. They do it all the time.
If it isn't the technology that kills us, it's the ideology.
Competition is great, but, at what cost? I understand the need for a home based product, but, I still believe that the tools are already there with the distros we have. A "home" edition of RH or Mandrake is a better solution, in my book. One code tree, shared common libs, one distro, one installer. This sounds much easier to me, both to maintain and write for.
Ehh, what do I know?;)
Let me know when setting up a stable, usable* Linux box is as easy as pulling the tab off a can of soda, or twisting off the lid, or squeezing the bottle, etc.
Thanks.
* by usable, I mean doing 90% of the things I can do on a Windows box, and as easy as a Windows box.
Re:counterproductive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What the devil? Do you think we're hacking these things for your ( or anyone elses ) benefit?
I develop desktop software, and if you want to come and play with it, that's great. But It's not like I have some kind of obligation to capture that other 99%. Nuh-uh!
"One installer" is potentially a wrong approach. Consider the different needs: An experienced server admin trying to set up a fallover cluster for his website needs an installer that lets him configure everything, and ideally even install custom packages during system installation. A home user who hasn't seen Linux before and doesn't know much about computers needs all decisions made for him, with as little customization as possible. I dare to claim it's impossible to write an installer that's perfect for both. Having 2 different installers that use common code, sure.
You're forgetting the corporate interest behind some distributions. Someone from the outside (and not even from the inside, for that matter - it's not that I haven't tried), can't just go to Red Hat and say "Hi, I'm going to build your home user edition, please give me access to your build system so we can share everything!". That's why Ark Linux tries to remain compatible, but has to do a lot of things on its own.
We invite all other distributions to cooperate with us, and we'll cooperate with them.
Re:counterproductive
by
Cid+Highwind
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Let me know when setting up a stable, usable* Linux box is as easy as pulling the tab off a can of soda, or twisting off the lid, or squeezing the bottle, etc.
Will do! Now, let me know when you find a can/bottle that can play counter-Strike, fetch my email, format papers for printing, browse slashdot, etc.
-- 0 1 - just my two bits
Re:counterproductive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
why does it matter what YOU are capable of...
the masses are INCAPABLE of setting up a "stable & usable" WINDOWS box...OR linux box.
so why are you so special?
you are a minority....someone who can "setup a stable, usable" windows box.
the rest of the world has windows PRELOADED...then after about 3 months, the rest of the world has fourty plus icons in the system tray, multiple versions of spyware, 2 or 3 trojans, total at frustration because they just bought something at bestbuy but now it's not working.
you see, the degree of difficulty in getting a USABLE computer is not as far apart as you might think.
you have probably been using windows for YEARS....yet how quickly you dismiss your 48months of experience.
i personally have setup linux systems for the totally clueless....i put their icons on the desktop (the same way i do for windows users), show them a little bit about the file system (i.e. how folders are found/navigated...and how files are saved, opened, placed)
so that leaves the SETUP factor.
i've got news for you....the SETUP factor is progressing at an exponential rate...i.e. it's becoming so easy that a stick could run it.
but you go ahead and believe what you want.
p.s. my name is janie porsch, i'm an mcse, rhct, ccna...and i saved christmas YOU FUCKING IGNORANT TWIT
" It's too bad nobody listens, then maybe linux would actually start getting some marketshare."
The linux market share grows every day. What the hell are you talking about.
--
War is necrophilia.
Re:counterproductive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I appreciate your point, but do you seriously think there isn't a computer configuration out there somewhere that XP won't install on, either?
Re:counterproductive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It sures as hack easier then some of those screwed-on juice plastic bottle covers that need pliers to pull off.
Re:counterproductive
by
IamTheRealMike
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Customers have no trouble learning a new interface. They do it all the time.
Amen to that brother. That statement reminds me of a "debate" (actually more of an argument) I had with my best mate a few years ago, a die hard Mac head. We were discussing interface consitancy, with Paul attempting to show that Linux would never go anywhere because it had 2 major widget toolkits that had different themes, no universal HIG etc. He ended up trying to prove that people couldn't use other peoples mobile phones.
The hilarity that ensued kept us amused for a looong time. The sight of him walking around the 6th form centre with his phone asking people to open up the address book on it, then looking dismayed when after studying it a moment they did it as fast as he would have done, was excellent. The "what are you smoking, man" looks he got were even better.
People are smart, people are adaptable. Yes, a completely consistant UI is good for user efficiency which is why people are trying hard with unified themes and user interface guidelines etc, but at the end of the day with a few notable exceptions (software installation/resolution switching) it's been possible to figure how to work Linux for a long time now and anyway no other OS has a completely consistant GUI, least of all Windows (not even the mac).
Re:counterproductive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
error: failed dependencies:
kdelibs3-devel = 3.0.4-5 is needed by kdelibs3-devel-3.0.5-0
Do i need to say more ?
Re:counterproductive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Many customers never see the Windows setup as they use OEM recovery CDs...
Then again, at work we get plently of people who phone up to go though booting from a floppy, pressing "o" on the keyboard to confirm you want to do the process, pressing "1" on the keyboard to go for the menu choice of "Standard System Restore" and then "o" again to confirm that yes you really want to, oh, and leaving the computer to set it self back up...
But one of the things that puts newbies off is the choice of distros. Experienced users can cope with multiple distros and multiple interfaces, and are sufficiently informed to choose between them, but newbies can't.
> Why don't we just get all of the soft-drink > manufacturers to get together to make ONE good > drink to rule them all.
One of the reasons that we don't want drinks manufacturers to unite like this is because this consortium would abuse its monopoly position. I don't think that an organisation that produces products whose appeal come from following standards and are free software, could become monopolists like Microsoft are.
I think that we have less to fear on the monopoly front from a non-profit organisation like that behind Ark Linux.
"Here's the deal. RedHat Linux isn't anymore difficult to install than WinXP"
Windows is a right bitch to install. Problem is, most windows users have never installed windows.
"Can't use linux, it's hard to install" people say (it's not) -- have any of them used a copy of windows that the shop didn't install and setup for them?
With XP, there's so much license-signing and registration to do after it's been preinstalled by the shop, that most people will see these configuration screens and assume that it is an installation, and that they managed to install windows by themselves. So then, the actual linux installation gets compared to that. Luckily, a Mandrake installation is as easy as a WinXP configuration, so no problem there, but it's a different perception of things.
Experienced users can cope with multiple distros and multiple interfaces, and are sufficiently informed to choose between them, but newbies can't.
It really doesn't matter if newbies can't install or use the distro in the first place. We'll quickly move toward one distro as soon as one distro comes out which is usable for the masses.
Re:counterproductive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's your troll-detection skills which are truly substandard. HAND.
That's the point I was trying to make, that the great-grandparent's "analgoy" of a computer interface to opening a soft drink was wrong, because computers are alot more complex then a soft drink.
Re:counterproductive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> error: failed dependencies:
kdelibs3-devel = 3.0.4-5 is needed by > kdelibs3-devel-3.0.5-0 > Do i need to say more ?
Windows (even as old as Windows 95) will install on basically any PC hardware and will at least boot up into a usable state. You'll at least get a clear picture on your monitor, and your CD-ROM and mouse and keyboard will at least work.
The same cannot be said for any Linux distribution I've ever tried. Every Linux distribution is limited by the fact that it uses the Linux kernal and the X-Windows graphical server. The Linux kernal simply doesn't autodetect or work with a vast array of hardware devices, and X-Windows is notoriously difficult for an average person to configure. Most distro installers take a really piss-poor stab at getting monitor refresh rates right for X, but if it doesn't work out on the first try on your video card and monitor, then tough luck--you're left with a freshly installed system that just puts up a rolling flickering picture every time it boots X.
To fix it, you have to be enough of a guru to know that there is such a thing as an XF86Config file, and you have to know where in this huge arcane directory hierarchy it is located, and you have to know how to use a text editor and how to invoke it (pico? vi? yeah, those are intuitive names), and then you have to study a four-part course in mathematics and CRT engineering to figure out how to write modelines for your video system that MIGHT work.
Then, you have to recompile your kernal several times to finally get the alpha-quality drivers for your hardware compiled in so that you can actually use your stuff. But of course, along the way, you discover that it won't compile without dumping a few errors because you don't have the latest libBLAH package or the latest autoconf or whatever, so you have to go download and compile all of those... but in the process of doing that, you discover that they won't compile either because of something ELSE that you need.
Strangely, I don't consider something "user friendly" when it says "installation successful" and yet half my hardware doesn't work and my picture rolls and flickers. I don't consider an OS installer complete if I have to recompile the world just to make something work that ought to work right from the start. There's far more to usability than just desktop environments or GUI-based installers. You've got to get the fundamental things right first.
-- Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
You can't....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A lot of people have tried to make linux "easy". I don't think you can make linux easy. It's like trying to make an oscilloscope easy to use; you just can't do it.
Re:You can't....
by
Jason1729
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is true; an easy to use desktop is like a scope with the volts per division and timebase fixed so people don't have to worry about learning what they are.
The funny part is that if you want to make Linux easy to use, creating yet another distribution is not the right way to go. This has been attempted a lot of times, and it usually just makes it harder to do anything except a few basic things the distro creators want you to do
Seems like a nice idea to me:
Take the good base of RedHat and replace their castrated Desktop with a working one. Since Bero is responsible for this it might even turn out pretty good...
Why would you consider Redhat's desktop castrated?
-- It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:Non castrated RedHat...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"castrated desktop" ??
The GNOME desktop in RH8 rules, considering it's based on GNOME2.0.
Unless you're talking about that Krap Desktop Environment - it's castrated no matter what distribution you run it on, save the ones that massively modify it to do something useful enough to make up for the slow speed and instability (i.e., Xandros).
And yes, this'll be modded down, but see if I care.:P
Re:Non castrated RedHat...
by
Nailer
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I can't believe peopel are still spinnign this shite. Care to provide some supporting arguments, or at least refute those in my sig?
Re:Non castrated RedHat...
by
gmhowell
·
· Score: 1
Let me add a further thumbs up. I recently dl'ed and installed RH 8.0 just to see what the fuss was about. After installing a plugin for XMMS, I must say I was quite impressed. Everything actually worked!
I'll probably snag a copy of ark linux just to see how that's working out. But for general desktop use, beating RH 8.0 is gonna be tough.
-- Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Thanks!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm glad someone's claiming that stupid joke. You're a real sweetheart.
Yes, the announcements on slashdot, osnews, ofb.biz and pclinuxonline came as a total surprise to us.
We aren't 100% ready for the user base we're trying to address yet (there are a couple of installer bugs left, and we're lacking a good internet access config tool -- that's why it's called an alpha), so we tried to remain low profile [and didn't put much effort into the website] -- but now that we've been taken to the public, there's not much of a point in continuing along those lines.
There's also not much of a point in putting up screenshots if you know the look will change before you intend to tell the public.
Who knows, maybe we'll find some new contributors (maybe even for website design and graphics?;) )
Re:What?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
From the website: "The Ark Linux distribution is based primarily upon a Red Hat Linux 7.3 / 8.0 foundation. On top of this, we have added a new easy-to-use installer (an Ark Linux installation is only four mouse clicks away!) and extensively tailored the software applications and utilities included - all in an effort to ensure that Ark Linux provides superior ease-of-use and the features and functionality end users have told us they want."
Personally, I think the website you have right now is much nicer than the one most distros have...
-- Luke-Jr
Re:What?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
KDE-using loser!
I mean, your "distro" is such a freaking derivative of RedHat that you may as well just release a couple RPMs of KDE for each RedHat version and be done with it.
Oh wait! You're in the sulking stage now, having gotten past denial, right?
No kidding. Wasn't an easy to use desktop Mandrake's Raison d'etre? I'm confused... There are easy to use distros already in existance, let's focus on making them even easier to use, not making another distro. Fragmentation is killing linux.
I know I probably shouldn't be replying to trolls, but this is too tempting:
It is obvious that you haven't had a look at Ark Linux. Except for the filesystem layout (which is mandated by the FHS/LSB anyway), the toolchain (gcc, binutils) and the package manager (rpm), Ark Linux has little in common with Red Hat Linux anymore.
It's not just the matter of adding some more packages, it's also a matter of designing an easier to use installer, removing some complexity, and creating a good (for newbies) default config.
And in case you're wondering, no, I don't hold a grudge against Red Hat, I think their distribution has its uses and a pretty good core system, but I also think it could be better - therefore the need for a new distribution. Red Hat and anyone else is invited to work with us on making Linux better suited for the desktop - they're free to copy what they like about Ark Linux, and we'll copy what we like from them.
Re:What?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Damnit, why can't you be Mosfet and therefore way more fun? =)
My limited experience with Linux brought me to this conclusion, I got it installed successfully, but it was a huge pain to read about the 15 text editors that were bundled with the software, and 6 window managers, and everything else that came with it. What I would have apreciated more was a classification system that expalained that all 15 programs were text editors, or window managers, and I would need one, and could check out the others later if I so desired. (realise that I use text editors to leave myself electronic notes, office suites are my main working tool, and I have checked out most of the competition there, for both windows and Linux). I will definitly be checking out your distribution, I'd love somthing with a little more freedom than a Lindows or Lycoris, but a few less choices than a Mandrake or something else. Good show.
-- Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
More fragmentation
by
I+Am+The+Owl
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Is another "easy to use" Linux distro what we really need? I think the last thing I want to do is be able to take a program off of my Mandrake box, take it over to my Ark box and not be able to run it because they are two different distros.
And also, who has not seen this "make linux easier for the desktop" thing before? There are about a million and one distros who purport to do this. Why does everyone feel the need to reinvent the wheel?
--
--sdem
Re:More fragmentation
by
goom
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Perhaps because none of the previous wheels have actually been *round* yet.
Open source doesn't necessary have to be "hard for JoeSixpack to use" by definition, but so far it has been.
Re:More fragmentation
by
Speare
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
There are about a million and one distros who purport to do this. Why does everyone feel the need to reinvent the wheel?
Though I can't speak for the producers of ArkLinux, I will speak as someone who has been involved with them early on.
I think one of the prime motivations is to act as a 'concept' vehicle to offer innovations to the larger distributions. In Detroit, it's often difficult to get the Big Three automakers to really cut new ground and try something risky. However, they love to put a bunch of wacky ideas into concept cars, and then slowly evolve their best ideas into real products for the street.
The well-known distros like Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake and Debian are analagous to the Big Three automakers in the Linux distribution space. However, they're not in a high-markup tangible goods market like Chevrolet, GM and Ford. Thus, they can't afford to make their own 'concept' tools and services to help their own evolution.
I see all of the smaller distros as helping the evolution by giving each great idea (and tons of mediocre and bad ideas) a public forum in which they can prove themselves, and be cherry-picked by the powerhouses of Linux adoption: the Big Distros.
And frankly, Detroit isn't being robbed of available talent whenever some kid puts together a supercharged Dodge Charger with neon all over it. Likewise, Red Hat doesn't sweat it if some afficianados take a different path and try a few new things.
-- [.sig file not found ]
Re:More fragmentation
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because we are using a square wheel. Even Mandrake is *A LOT* more difficult to use than windows. But things are getting better: Mandrake is already much more easy to install than Windows (at least for supported-out-of-the-box hardware).
I wouldn't put Debian in that list. That would be analogous to having one of the Big Three car manufacturers a) refusing to release a new car until it was proved that a new car was necessary and b) refusing to release that new car until every single nut, bolt, and chip in that new car had been stress-tested for years.
Edison's Approach
by
Flamesplash
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If you try enough "different" things you'll eventually come upon one that works, or you'll die.:p
99% perspiration, 1% inspiration.
Are there 99 not-for-the-masses widely distro'd linux's yet?
-- "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Re:Edison's Approach
by
tijnbraun
·
· Score: 3, Funny
There is a user running around here which has a sig which goes kinda like this: Tesla: Had Edison thought out his work and spent more time in preparation, he would not sweat so much.
You better hurry and volunteer to help with Ark Linux. There's only two positions available. There's a catch, however. You must have experience in python, awk, squeak, moo, bark, and oink.;)
Just so this doesn't mislead anybody... The above post was intended to be a joke, because of the name 'Ark Linux' (All the animalstwo-by-two, etc). It backfired, because somebody modded it 'informative'. =)
Yes, you'd better hurry and volunteer - the more contributors we get, the faster we can release.;)
But there's an infinite amount of positions available, and you don't need any special knowledge - you don't need to be a programmer to help with beta testing, documentation, website design, graphics,...
The whole thing with *NIX that makes it great is that it will never be easy for the masses.
Bill Gates sold his soul by creating easy to use software that reins the user in.
The *NIX people forfeited popularity by building an OS that is intrinsically elitist, in an honest way, like a pro sports league in that the common man can never be good enough to make the team.
The masses MUST stick with Windows. Only the few can play in the Super Bowl.
Linux distributions is more akin to "infighting". 100 different versions of the same thing, each with their own problems and issues.
That's the problem with open software, everyone wants to do things their own way. Companies like Apple and Microsoft encourage teamwork to make one seamless product.
--
Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!
Re:Yeah, sure.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
That's the problem with open software, everyone wants to do things their own way. Companies like Apple and Microsoft encourage teamwork...
BWAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahaha haahaha hehehe heh heh he
Thank you, that little comedic gem just made my whole day. Microsoft! Teamwork! hehehehehhe I almost wet myself, it's so funny!
how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
elliotj
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It seems to me that this debate will rage on and on about which desktop is the best etc etc. I don't know much about this ark linux offering but I do like the idea of someone else taking a crack at it. its a worthy goal to reach for.
it seems to me that the only way this will be achieved is by a distro making some very draconian decisions about what to include. I for one would be delighted to see a very lightweight distro that did just a few things very well.
what I mean is if there was a distro that included a web browser, mail client, open office, mp3 player & a terminal program, and they all looked good and were consistent in look, feel and function, then this would be a major step forward. you dont need to include much more than that to have a successful easy to use distro. no point in including tons of compilers and dev tools if you want to make something easy for non-techies to use.
hopefully this is a goal that will be reached someday. it is so possible to do that I'm really surprised to see so many failed attempts. All I'm suggesting is a lightweight distro with a select few apps that are heavily polished and work well. If you did that you could gain a following and maybe get enough credibility and respect that other app developers would code to your human interface guidelines.
just a thought.
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
skington
·
· Score: 1
With the exception of Open Office, you've just described Mac OS X.
(I know, I know.)
Which makes it even more interesting to speculate on what Apple's next software announcement is going to be. Notice how AppleWorks hasn't been upgraded for ages?
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I am promoting my own, but please come have a look at ROX OS project. We are very radical as to the point of being somewhat incompatible with Linux;)
L.
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Now do you/we want to make a 'clone' of windows. I mean what OTHER programs come with a CD of windows. Till XP windows was pretty well crippled; in order to watch movies you had to find a media-player,want to do something more fancy than type a pretty text file then you must purchase another program. I won't even go into the programming aspect of it as it stinks. Visual Studio at MSRP $2500, Borland C++/Delphi about $150-200
It's like you go to Walmart,buy a screwdriver and think you now have all the tools needed to fix your plumbing.
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
fdisk3hs
·
· Score: 1
GNU/Linux is free software, and these developers can do whatever they want. However... MS has the desktop market tied in knots. How are secretaries and professionals going to convert to Linux? There is no Linux version of Word or Excel. Yeah, I use Abiword and Gnumeric instead, but my boss would never consider it. And then there are my vendors that only sell their pay-for-print queing software for Windows. And our library automation software vendor that only sells a Win32 client. We've almost converted the entire back-end to Linux, and the big Sun boxes will probably be running Linux in the next two years. But I don't think Linux will make it to the desktop in the next decade, and neither does Gartner. The community should stick with the strength of GNU/Linux and take over the low- to mid-range server space and leave the inept end-user to the evil market forces:)
Enjoy,
Linc
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
Bero
·
· Score: 1
Thanks - you've just described what we're trying to do with Ark Linux.;)
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
droleary
·
· Score: 2
With the exception of Open Office, you've just described Mac OS X.
And if only these open source developers would stop with the "distribution of the week" approach and direct their efforts towards something like a simple GNUstep install, they'd actually have a shot of getting some OS X software brought over to Linux and FreeBSD.
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
Bero
·
· Score: 1
With the exception of Open Office, you've just described Mac OS X.
Mac OS X is indeed a pretty nice OS, if you don't care about licensing. Ark Linux is, in parts, inspired by it -- but it's 100% Free Software (and being a community project, that's not going to change).
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
darthpenguin
·
· Score: 1
MS has the desktop market tied in knots. How are secretaries and professionals going to convert to Linux? There is no Linux version of Word or Excel. Yeah, I use Abiword and Gnumeric instead, but my boss would never consider it.
What about Crossover Office? It seems to run ms-word and excel, the two most popular apps in the office suite, almost perfectly. Other components such as Powerpoint also work fine. There are some rough edges, but crashes occur very rarely for me, and when they do, they do so consistently, so I'm sure most bugs will be easy to squash for the Codeweavers team.
But then, there is the awful licensing issue to deal with...
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
1u3hr
·
· Score: 2
Which makes it even more interesting to speculate on what Apple's next software announcement is going to be.
They just released a new browser for Jaguar, Safari, based on Konqueror.
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
Bero
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Ark Linux will not be a Windows clone, though we don't hesitate to clone parts of the Windows UI where it makes sense.
"Microsoft does XXX" is neither "XXX is good" nor "XXX is bad".
Ark Linux aims at providing everything the average home user needs - the desktop, office suite, media player, net access tools, a couple of games, etc.
For developers, there's the Ark Development Suite, a collection of development tools and programming languages (about 200 MB) - comparable to Visual Studio (with obvious differences - e.g. we support additional languages like Python, Objective-C, Perl,..., but don't support C# (yet - Mono isn't ready for prime time)).
Of course, Ark Development Suite is 100% free too - the only reason it isn't included in the base OS is that 95% of the targeted users won't need it.
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
Chordonblue
·
· Score: 1
In this economy, OpenOffice.org and StarOffice shouldn't be ignored. The OpenOffice project has provided a great way for us to provide free software to our students/staff, while giving us reasonable compatibility with MS Office.
Remember, MS Office 11 will be switching file formats again making things as incompatible as that disasterous MS Office 95. This is part of the lever I've been using with both schools and businesses here.
-- "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
sean23007
·
· Score: 2
Umm, he said next software announcement. That was the last one. The interesting thing will be to see if they release an entire office suite to compete head on with MS Office. Safari and Keynote were the next software announcement until they were announced, at which point they made people anxious for the possibility of a new AppleWorks.
--
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:how to make linux desktop good for masses
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
it seems to me that the only way this will be achieved is by a distro making some very draconian decisions about what to include. I for one would be delighted to see a very lightweight distro that did just a few things very well.
Minimizing bloat is important--even today machines are being shipped with less than 256Kb RAM, and you'll want more than that to comfortably run a Linux desktop with all the apps you mentioned, although not all customers realize this--so to that end the optimal solution is go with a full desktop environment like KDE or GNOME that shares libraries, and not mix and match trying to pick the best of breed. IMO KDE has only recently become a contender. (I know that for a long time it has been the choice of a lot of distros from Caldera to Lycoris and everything in between, but the gtk apps ruled for a couple of years and that fact alone goes a long ways to explaining the dominance of Red Hat.)
Another thing to bear in mind is that while too much choice can be bewildering and pointless, some choices are worth leaving in the hands of users. For instance, some people may want a lightweight email client, while others want features like addressbooks, calendaring, weather info, newsfeeds, etc. It makes sense for the distros to leave those kind of choices up to the users because otherwise they'd have to expend resources helping users (or explaining why they can't help) install needed software.
In sum there's no simple way to choose which packages to exclude from a distro. And when you consider the dynamics of the development processes and the fact that you expect your user base to evolve with your distro, you can feel quite a bit of sympathy for the predicament the distros are in.
My 2
Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
bahwi
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Linux, BSD, and everythign else need one thing, just one thing that embedded systems like Zaurus and others do successfully to make it easy for the masses. Remove everything technical. All the drivers should be an LKM, there should be something like a "Control Panel" to choose which ones load on boot-up. Users should be allowed to pick and choose their WM, but it should be easy. Gnome Control Panel did this I think. There should be _no mention_ of the term: 'recompile the kernel'. There should be binary packages available so people can download, right click, and select "Install..." to install a program. It should boot-up graphically into X-Windows and should only have one xterm-like replacement(or even xterm itself) hidden, deep in the menus.
Does this take out everything we love? Yes. I'll gladly stick to FreeBSD with my rxvt's and my gettys, my kernel compilation and my make worlds, thank you very much. The beauty of Windows is that it takes all of the fun out. But what we consider fun others consider a PITA.
If a distribution did this, took everything out, made it all LKM's, and took all the technicalities out, then we would have a system for everyday users. They don't want the command line. Come on, some of these people can only do 5 wpm! When starting up your web browser because you don't know about tab-completion and you can't type takes 15 seconds before the program is even executed, you have a major problem there. It should be click(or, optionally, click-click) and it should run.
This needs a team of dedicated people to run a free system like this, but more likely, a team of employees from a company will do this(and many are trying to) and to maintain binary packages, an easy system to install/update/delete packages. That's what we need.
What is wrong with Red Hat and Mandrake and the others? Simple. Whenever they do something to make everything more simplistic, the community(read: many of us slashdotters) makes a backlash saying the system lacks this or that functionality because they did this or that. I say let them. We always have Debian, Slackware, and other distributions. Let a few of these become end-user-never-going-to-type-in-a-command-in-their -lifetime-bought-the-damn-thing-at-wal-mart-for-ch rist-sakes distributions and leave it at that. Applaud them for taking out even the ability to re-compile the kernel. Applaud them for it.
Yes, many of these companies are doing idiotic things, but we're part of the community and they look to us for guidance. Let's tell them, not yell at them, to take apache out of the main distribution and for god sakes disable it for regular desktop users.
Desktops should be so easy an 8 year old should be able to set up. Servers should be difficult to set up.
Sorry, I had to rant. and yes, I know it's the same rant everyone else on slashdot says, but this time I get to say it.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
haggar
·
· Score: 2
I never tried it so I don't know for sure, but isn't Lindows trying to be exactly what you're describing? I mean, maybe not every little detail (or maybe even every little detail, as I said, I don't know for sure), but certainly the spirit, no?
Well, to tell you the truth, I am a Slackware user because I gave up on the distros that PRETEND to be user friendly, so why not just go for the real thing and get my hands dirty, but at least I know what the hell is going on. And I have yet to see a distro that is so user-friendly both in the interface as in configuration and application installation as BeOS -still- is.
-- Sigged!
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
bahwi
·
· Score: 2
I haven't tried it either. I'm glad you see my point though. I think there should be different distros. Some for the more experienced user(Slackware, Debian, Etc) and some for the fresh-from-the-womb (Redhat, Lindows, Mandrake, Ark, Etc..). Choices are a good thing sometimes. Fragmentation is a good thing sometimes. If everyone pooled all their resources imagine how pissed the 'linux-must-stay-pure' people will be when the 'linux-for-the-masses' practically disable getty and remove every terminal(xterm,rxvt,eterm) etc.
Configuration is a big baddie because you only have to do it once. And the more experienced users are ok with a more difficult install.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
sean23007
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I agree with you in principle, but why must such a division be made in Linux? The divide you are trying to create between the user-distro and the hacker-distro is gaping. Couldn't it be possible to make it easy for the new user but leave in real functionality in case they want to learn? After all, if you can only convince someone to move to Linux because everything difficult has been removed, then they won't want to move to real Linux where the useful things are still there. If it becomes prevalent, there would be a massive base of binary-only systems that can't even compile programs that they download. If something like this is implemented and takes off to the extent that would be considered a success, there would be the same amount of division and condescension between old Linux and new Linux as there is now between current Linux and current Windows.
That would not be beneficial to anyone but the Windows-haters. Linux-lovers should not jump at something like this.
--
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
cpeterso
·
· Score: 2
Desktops should be so easy an 8 year old should be able to set up.
This is why I think that some Debian projects like Debian Jr. ("Debian for children from 1 to 99") are particularly interesting. I don't care about kids programs, but I think they will face some UI design issues that will help make Debian easier for all (non-guru) users.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
bahwi
·
· Score: 2
Well, my idea, which I didn't state well enough, was to have binary pre-compiled packages easy enough. I want the gap, I want a end-user linux. But I want them to be able to go to the web site, download eterm, right click, hit install, and run eterm. That act alone would open a new world to the user. And same with gcc. There is no way it should be necessary on a desktop. But it definately should be there to download and install, with the punch of a button. Then users could go from there. (Mind you, the gcc package should be called 'develoeprs' or somethings and come with everything for configure, etc..)
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
bahwi
·
· Score: 3, Redundant
I missed some points in my last message. Sorry.
The entire idea of linux for the masses is linux for everyone. The only way to do this is to take out the difficultires of it. I think if a linux box has a web browser, a media player, a GUI, an e-mail client, and some games, it's reached the usefulness of most people. Not the die-hard gamers, not by a long shot, but by many people. What we consider useful is something that is considered pointless by many. That is why I think it should be so easy to install and use that people who want terminals won't mess with it. It should hide everything about it that is linux, and just be a functional, enjoyable, stable, useful computer. With all the free software we have available, with binary packages that are easy to install, if the OS was easy to install and get up and running, I think it could be a contender for world domination. Damned if I wouldn't be handing out the CDs at the mall, or leaving some for grabs at the local coffee shop.
But the gap is what I want. We may call ourselves 'users' but most of us and what we do are development. For those who aren't, many do not need the command line at all. Windows was doing a good thing hiding it, the problem is they wanted to eliminate it when some of us needed it. It should be a download and a few mouse clicks away to install rxvt, but it doesn't need to be base install for those who don't need it.
And you are right. Although I wouldn't say "Windows-Haters." We want the Windows-Lovers and the Windows-Neutral people also. Linux Lovers probably shouldn't use it, but support would be good if they got Linux running on more and more machines. Especially if it means games would come out for the Linux platform. Lord knows I'd be happy with a Linux Morrowind. =)
The whole idea of choices leave linux-lovers choosing debian, or brewing their own, but this would make Linux more mainstream and on the desktop, but the way free software works assures us that it would not be the only choice. So linux lovers should support it, they can always have what they want. But most people just want a web-browser with flash, an e-mail client, a word processor, and solitaire. Not something that takes a book to install, several hours to configure, and a day or two to go to cnn.com from trying to understand everything. It would take many of us less than an hour to get to that point, but someone who thinks a computer should just handle most of that stuff itself(which, look all around us, it _should_), will get upset and switch.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
Bero
·
· Score: 1
That's pretty much what we're trying to do with Ark Linux - we're even going a step further and, in the default setup, removing the login process (you can still opt for a multiuser system if you want it).
By default, everything runs as the user "arklinux" - a normal user with special rights to launch some stuff (package installation etc.) as root without having to bother about passwords.
Yes, some people will hate this idea -- but Joe Newbie needs it.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
sean23007
·
· Score: 2
I fear that the only way to make something that easy to download and install (binary-only) is to make sure that the system for it does not change very much. Also, it would be necessary to ensure that the creators of the projects would make a pre-compiled binary for that system so that it could be used. The user-Linux would have to be unchangeably standardized and impossibly popular from the very start. What I mean is that in order for such a thing to gain users, it would need developer support, and in order to get developer support it would need a large userbase. Typical spiral. On the other hand, a system that compiles all of its software needs only the code (not specific developer support). Some possible workarounds for these issues is a binary archive at the distribution's website that takes projects from across the web and compiles them so that they can be downloaded and used on the new system, or a installation system that does not use a binary, but rather compiles and installs the software with one click. I know I would look forward to that kind of functionality. If everything could be specifically compiled just by right-clicking and selecting "Install," it would remain invisible to the user and it wouldn't be necessary to distribute everything as platform specific binaries.
--
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
bahwi
·
· Score: 2
If I'm not mistaken the GPL allows binary distributions, as long as it is made clear the source code is available upon request. That would be easy to do.
Unfortunately, having it compile when you right click and select install would be very visible to the user. Several minutes visible, and many people would get tired of waiting. Just imagine OpenOffice compiling on the system, while you wait, after downloading that ungodly large file already.
I don't see a problem with platform specific binaries. But yes, you need someone on the backend to compile those and make them available, that is why I suggested a team of dedicated people or a team of employees to handle that.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I would agree, but one needs to be very careful in doing so. You must make it super easy for the end user to point and click only, but the underlying structure needs to be easy as well.
I helped a friend install redhat 8 on his machine, and it got to the point where we were restarting after we had made changes because that was easier than trying to figure out how to make whatever settings be reloaded.
It was something very simple, the network settings. But it wasn't a script that was executed that held the settings, it was an un-commented file with a few directives and values. There was no mention of what other directives existed or anything. It was a PITA and it reminded me of working on a windows machine (ick)
Make it easy for point and click AND the command line
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
sean23007
·
· Score: 2
You would need not only a dedicated team, but a dedicated supercomputer to compile enough software such that everything is available. A lot of Windows programs take several minutes to install, so as long as there is something that takes up a lot of the screen and has pretty colors on it, people will understand that it is doing something important (installing). They wouldn't have to be informed that it is compiling, because they probably wouldn't know what that means, just that it is installing. Everybody knows what that means.
OpenOffice doesn't really take that long to download with a broadband connection, and I wouldn't recommend downloading anything larger than a few megs with a dialup connection. Just have your friend with cable burn you a CD-RW with what you want downloaded. It takes less time than downloading it at 2-5KB/s, and it's an excuse to get away from the computer and hang out with your friends for a while. And that is what a lot of people that this is aimed at would be interested in, much moreso than many geeks.
--
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
shaitand
·
· Score: 2
The biggest problem with lindows is that they want you to pay for the most basic apps. Half the reason for switching to linux (especially for a home user) is that all your basic essentials are free. Nobody expects you to have to pay a basic program everyone needs on a day to day basis. Commercial apps take care of commercial problems.
I don't know about you, but I feel lindows has strayed far from the community and only attempts to provide a semblence of support for it. Right down to providing source code they've fought what community is about tooth and nail. The CEO isn't interested in the community, he's intrested in exploiting it.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
haggar
·
· Score: 1
I don't know about you, but I feel lindows has strayed far from the community and only attempts to provide a semblence of support for it. Right down to providing source code they've fought what community is about tooth and nail. The CEO isn't interested in the community, he's intrested in exploiting it.
At great peril to my karma, I will go on a limb and say: so fucking what? The whole idea is that such things are possible and legal. They are not stealing anything from anyone as far as I know. And since they aren't working in child porn, drugs, racketeering, or any environment-polluting business (not more than any other software company anyway), I see their business as perfectly legit.
-- Sigged!
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
malthusan
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If I may chime in with a newb's POV. Last night I nuked my WinXP drive (after backing everything up, of course, for migration) and installed RedHat 8.0. I quit Windows cold turkey -- and I'm having some serious withdrawals, which I'll get to in a moment -- and committed myself to using Linux at home on my desktop, laptop, and eventually going to Mom's and switching her over as well. My reasons are many and varied and, for the most part, unimportant for the purposes of this discussion. I should say, though, that this is my 5th attempt to make the switch to linux. I think I might just succeed this time.
I'm not a complete newb to computers -- managing tech support for an ISP cures that fairly quickly -- but Windows spoiled me. It was easy, reliable (talking XP here -- it worked well for me, and i'm not going to argue the point), and every piece of hardware I installed worked, most apps -- if they were from a reputable source -- worked, games worked. WinAmp worked. When everything works, there's no reason to learn anything new. So one reason I wanted to switch was the challenge of learning a new OS.
But Goddamn!! My previous efforts to switch to Linux ended in a return to XP because I couldn't get the fucking cd-rom to work, or my sound card was lurking in the shadows of my case, adamantly refusing to introduce itself to anything in the OS which might make it do something besides crackle on startup and go silent, or, in the case of my laptop, I couldn't get the power management functions to work and I feared getting a message stating my processor had decided to imitate the sun, a message I ultimately couldn't read because I could never get decent anti-aliasing for fonts to work and everything was freakin' illegible.
I know, I know...there are solutions to all those problems, and with enough reading, research, tinkering, and sacrifices to the gods of IRQ conflict resolution, I even got some of them taken care of. RedHat 8 got almost everything right, and the things that don't work will work soon enough, once I've done the footwork to make it so.
I'm interested in doing this footwork, in learning how to fix the shite that doesn't work in the hopes that I'll understand it all just a little better. But I have my limits, and my level of frustration increases in proportion to the number of times I have to recompile the kernel to get the freakin' sound card to work until, at last, in bitter ignominy, I give up, fdisk the fucker and put windows back on.
It sounds like Ark Linux is aiming their distro squarely between my eyes. Several posters have mentioned the improvements made to recent distros re: installation and usability for novice users, and I would most certainly agree. But a distro aimed at the complete newb -- the person who has no interest whatsoever in *how* the shite works, only that it does, indeed, work -- would be a good step in bringing those folks, like me, who would like an alternative to MS but don't want to become sysadmins just to upgrade a mail program, into the linux fold. If "Linux on the desktop" is to become a reality, then Joe Sixpack, the ubiquitous Wal-Mart shopping, PBR drinkin', wife-beatin', cousin'-fuckin' redneck/.'ers despise so much, has to be able to use it on his computer. And perhaps, since someone is finally taking the time to develop a distro for the "masses", perhaps they understand that Joe Sixpack, for all his faults, is not such a bad guy after all. Maybe he doesn't beat his wife or fuck his cousin, and maybe he wants the OS without the ideology served on the side with a glass of contempt. Maybe he's, you know, human. Or something. So I say good luck to Ark Linux and I look forward to giving your distro a try. Best wishes to you!
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Thank you. While I am prone to desiring a single distribution with all the "best" qualities, the reality is that there is never a one-size-fits-all solution to everything. I'm glad at least someone can appreciate the beauty of diversity, the value of freedom, and the work these guys do.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
Foehg
·
· Score: 1
This will undoubtedly arrive too late to be modded in either direction, but I just had to say it. Let me know if you ever see it, let me know what you think. Anyway: I beg to differ. Last time I fixed something on my parents' computer (isn't the Holy Grail of Linux on the desktop "accessible for older people?") they had several impressions. The first was that they were blinded by the speed of my clicking. I laugh at this, and maybe you do too, but my Grandmother told me the same thing when I was working on her computer. The second thing my parents wistfully observed was that they had been entirely lost ever since this newfangled Windows-thing came along. They (I say they-- each of them did it on separate occasions) said "I was pretty good at this stuff back when it was all DOS; but this Windows came along and I've never been the same since. My mom took computer classes in college and learned all about punch cards; my dad was copy-conning batch files before I knew what a C: prompt was. Lady and Gentlemen, I submit for your consideration that the rant everyone gives is flat-out wrong. Joe Sixpack and your grandmother can learn the command line and like it. Graphical so-called ease-of-use is not all it's cracked up to be.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
Cro+Magnon
·
· Score: 2
How does this compare/contrast with Lindows much-maligned default of root? Also, will Ark be flexible enough that its userbase can learn real Linux on it? Not all newbies want to remain newbies!
-- Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
Bero
·
· Score: 1
I agree that it's a bad idea to run everything as root - that's why Ark Linux doesn't do that. Still, newbies don't understand and usually don't want to enter root passwords etc. just to install a new application, so it needs to be addressed.
I don't see much of a problem with the approach of allowing a user to run specific, known good, tools as root - it gets rid of most of the problems of running everything as root.
So let's see what the problems with running everything as root are, and if they still apply with our solution:
A broken application can crash the whole system by writing to/dev/mem or the likes, because it isn't run as root -- doesn't apply, because we only run known good applications that need root privileges as root.
Trojans -- Doesn't apply. A cracker will may convince a user to launch a "dangerous" (read: root) tool - but since all the "this is run as root" tools are GUI admin tools, the user will have to click something to do dangerous stuff. And if someone is _really_ stupid enough to click "delete" after a cracker's script invoked kpackage, I guess he deserves it.
It's easy to mess up, e.g. by typing "rm -rf/" without understanding what it does, or by just typing "rm *" with the intent to delete files without an extension (DOS users would expect this...) -- applies to a certain extent, but not to a dangerous one - you must do _really_ stupid things to mess up your system badly with kpackage, kuser and the likes.
Buffer overruns in user applications - if there's a buffer overrun in e.g. an IRC client, a malicious user gets root -- doesn't apply, because IRC clients etc. don't run as root
If you leave and forget to lock the screen, other people can edit your users and do other evil stuff -- applies, but (1) isn't relevant for a home user system and (2) if you need security, you shouldn't run in single user mode anyway
As for whether we're flexible enough to learn "real" Linux, I think so. Terminal emulators etc. aren't on the panel, but they're there and they're in the menus. We even include vi (though mostly for ourselves;) ) for people who want to learn things the *nix way.
And, of course, all the ease of use things (like pam modules for launching some apps as root) can be turned off.
I've been running Linux for roughly 10 years now, and I'm satisfied with using Ark Linux for myself (though I did turn off some of the newbie friendly stuff like CD autorun), so I guess it's ok for people who grow out of being a newbie.
If you don't like it, let us know what we need to improve. (Of course, we're free to ignore your suggestion if we don't agree.)
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
shaitand
·
· Score: 2
The fighting over providing source code I'm talking about is the source for their modifications to gpl code they've modified. Things that are entirely their own they can do what they want with.
Re:Linux, BSD, and everything need one thing....
by
haggar
·
· Score: 1
OK, good. But if that's the case, why doesn't someone enforce the GPL upon them? Why doesn't anyone sue them? Or even send some lawyer-letter? I am sure Bruce Perens would be involved in the issue somehow, and would have already informed Slashdot on the proceedings.
Instead, we have nisba, zippo, nada. I think that's strange.
-- Sigged!
same bero from RH?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Is it the same bero that used to do KDE stuff at redhat?.. Didn't he leave RH because of the mistreatment of KDE within RH?
Re:same bero from RH?
by
Bero
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yes.
I originally started working on Ark Linux as a proposal for a Red Hat home user edition - but obviously they didn't care.
Mac OS X, Unix for the masses for 3+ years already
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Gime me some actual reason why this is better than red hat, mandrake, suse, conectiva or the red-hat flavour of the week.
ok phew, thanx for reminding me that this isnt about linux....i got confused. if you are tired of 'cookie cutter distros', then use slack. if you ahve used the above distros, slack will seriously blow you away by how much faster and more stable it is.
I used slack for a while. Too many broken packages. Im runnign debian now.
-- In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
Re:Another one?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you want non-cookie-cutter-ishness and speed, what about Gentoo or Sourcemage or Lunar?
Re:Another one?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How true. I was using RH 6.2 on my old 486, then I upgraded to Slack 8.1. I believe Slack runs a lot faster than RH. I liked it so much I installed Slack on my (previously) RH7.3 machine, which is a 1.2Ghz machine so there isn't too much of a speed difference. Really, Slack is pretty easy to install after you get the partitions figured out. I just used the partitions from RedHat, Slack accepted them no questions asked. It detected my Windows (ugh) partition and set up the dual-boot. I would say it was easier to install than RH7.3
1. stop basing them on red hat. If red hat is so great, use red hat.
Red Hat has a great base system, but is not the best distribution over all. Red Hat Linux is, in my opinion, a lot like a rusty old car with a great engine (think glibc, gcc,...) in it. So what would you do in that situation? Right, you'd salvage the engine and put it into a better car. That's what we're doing.
2. Gime me some actual reason why this is better than red hat, mandrake, suse, conectiva or the red-hat flavour of the week.
It's not better, it's for a different type of users. If you intend to set up a server, don't use Ark Linux.
Ark Linux is an operating system for home users - something the distributions you've listed have failed to achieve (it's VERY hard, if not impossible, to write an OS that's a good server, a good home OS, and a good corporate workstation - there are totally different needs for those 3 areas. Our philosophy is to pick one, and do that one well, instead of doing all 3, and doing them just ok.
They still fuck w/ accounts, though
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
With all these easy to use Linux versions around, a problem arises.
Basically, Linux isn't THAT hard to use for real Newbies (people with very little Windows experience, but aren't afraid to learn), but it is hard to use for many because it is *unfamiliar.* Having many different easy-to-use versions may be a problem in exacerbating that problem. Lets face it, Windows is easy to use mostly because since Microsoft has a monopoly, it is what most people are familiar with.
The Easiest to Use Linux Distros...
by
ndogg
·
· Score: 2
...are the ones that have a stated purpose, and dedicate its entire user interface towards that one purpose, for example ClarkConnect is used by many of my non-Linux/Unix using friends, and the only questions they have are always in regards to using it in a manner it was never meant to be used.
there's nothing inherent about ease-of-use that makes in unstable.
Re:counterproductive ah what is LSB?
by
linuxislandsucks
·
· Score: 1
ah gee what is LSB?
Look it up before you answer..
The process you describe has already been in process for about 2 yearws and has made some progress..
-- Don't Tread on OpenSource
Aw, darn, a few months too late.
by
Mitchell+Mebane
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Someone else has already tried this, folks. And done a great job so far. It's called Yoper.
--
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Re:Aw, darn, a few months too late.
by
invisibastard
·
· Score: 1
You might want to check out what the commies (not debian) have put out. Alt Linux's new beta named Master 2.2 beats the hell out of RedHat's Pheobe. It has apt-get (I know, I know... gentoo, blah, emerge, blah...)and their Sisyphus repositories have most of the newer packages available. It comes Xft enabled, so the fonts look good. I am so stupid, I thought this was about Alt. Yoper does look good, too.
Re:Aw, darn, a few months too late.
by
abischof
·
· Score: 2
From your post, AltLinux was looking quite intriguing. However, I became concerned when I read that "All mailing lists are in Russian":-/. Considering that, do you have trouble getting support, or even learning about new releases?
Re:Aw, darn, a few months too late.
by
invisibastard
·
· Score: 1
I really like AltLinux. I haven't needed support beyond what my books have, but I suppose there must be some way to translate the mailing lists. I hope as it gets bigger there will be stuff available in english. Learning about new releases is no big deal, since they have an english website. I use apt-get with the Sisyphus repositories to keep up with all the latest things.
I highly recommend it. I have run SuSE 8.0, RedHat 8.0/8.1b, Knoppix with hard drive install, and Yoper rc3. This is my favorite distro so far. KDE 3.1 is setup nicely.
Thanks.
What about OrangeHat?
by
infonography
·
· Score: 1
Here is what I am logging into these days;
Last login: Sat Jan 11 14:14:27 2003 from adsl-67-112-xxx
OrangeHat Linux Inc. 3.8 Sun5U Generic November 2004
Cabbages, Knickers, It's not got a beak.
Send gripes to alex@yarblocko.com
-- Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
geez.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
jeebus, if you want linux, use slack. if you base something on redhat, then its not linux, its redhat
go away
My pet prject
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you feel that Linux needs a major redesign to be really easy to use, please cosider joining the ROX OS project. We have not released any code yet and don't intend to for some time yet because we think that actually designing first and implementing later would be a good idea;)
So far our ideas have been:
* Drop the thousand of different WM-s, etc and focus on making one standard system
* Use Mac OS X/LinuxSTEP like FS
* Use metadata/extended attributes for relevant information
* Use AppDir format for all apllications = single click installl
* Have a solid base system that stays API compatible for a little more than a day;)
Please feel free to drop by,
L.
Article in case of slashdotting
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
An anonymous reader notes that OFB has a short blurb about a new Linux distribution, Ark Linux, based on Red Hat and chasing the ever-elusive goal of being "easy to use for the masses".
what's so hard about it?
by
violently_ill
·
· Score: 1
why is it so damn hard for them to make a easy to use version of linux? the problem of ease-of-use has been solved since the invention of the wizard. you take complex tasks and break them down into steps so simple a child could perform them. why don't they just wizard the hell out of everything? but don't wizards sacrifice functionality and penalize power users, you ask. not if they're implemented correctly they don't. you want to make the task power-user friendly, just insert a step at the beginning that asks the user about his/her skill level (like "advanced mode" or "custom"). problem solved.
the real problem is that linux programmers are too technically skilled for their own good. they've lost the ability to relate to joe computer user. kudos to ark for trying to break the mold.
Re:what's so hard about it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It is impossible to make something very flexible, extensible and powerful yet make it easy to use.
Linux's strength is that it can be made to do very powerful, complicated things. It is certainly -much- easier for the average geek to do this with Linux than with Windows. The curse that comes with this blessing is that you have to 'get dirty'.
I -hate- wizards. They work fine as long as you want to do what is expected and as long as you do simple things. You have to accept all the defaults. I have been -very- frustrated with Wizards when I need to do something even slightly different.
Re:what's so hard about it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Do you actually use Linux, or are you just pretending?
cat/home/john/food >/dev/troll
Re:what's so hard about it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That only works if the wizards are simple and easy to use, which most are not. The ideal is to move towards a system like Apple with minimum configuration. I tried using a wizard on an old win98 box to set up a new ISP a few weeks ago. Guess what, it did not work, one step involved calling Microsquish and asking for a list of what ISP's were giving them kickbacks, err, were recommended and the number at MS no longer functioned. The wizard could not skip that step and continue. Oops. I much prefer my OSX box, plug in a new printer and not only does it show up as an option when I want to print, but if I have printer sharing turned on, it shows up on all the the other OSX boxes, instantly, no config, no reboots.
It was still as stable as Linux, but it was like running last month's version of Debian/Unstable. The packages where cutting edge (unstable), but still old.
What makes Debian so great (inspite of it being a bitch to configure) is the packaging system. I can always get a package and my server (Debian/Stable) has never had a single package conflict.
If all rpm-based distros would band togethor to share packages and package servers they might be able to shake a stick at Debian. If they can pull it off.
-- You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Re:Mandrake to Debian
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How exactly was Mandrake using cutting edge, but old packages? Are you talking about them using experimental and rarely updated packages? That appears to suggest they are relying on poorly-supported packages simply to check a box for a feature.
Pfft... Drake owns Debian in MANY ways.
I run Linux Debian and I love it, I liked drake better but I can't run mandrake. The Distro is WAY too big for my Pentium 166MMX. Debian is smaller and faster then Mandrake... but harder to use. In mandrake I could setup my services like nothing... click some next's and im done. Debian is a little harder but once you get it going it's worth it.
Why should they band together for a packaging system? Texstar already has synaptic and apt-get implemented and downloadable in rpm format.
If things keep going like this, Debian people will have nothing to hold up as being 'unique' or 'superior'. All they'll have left is apparent 'leetness from installing such a difficult distro.
Texstar already has synaptic and apt-get implemented and downloadable in rpm format.
You're right, they do, but the number of packages that it offers on the default server (rpmfind.net I believe) is not stunning. On your standard deb server, I have been able to find far more obscure packages than on the rpm apt-get implementation. I really like Red Hat, but I'm thinking of returning to Debian just to get everything i need in apt.
Enough, that is, of distributions that are "for the masses". It should be clear to everyone by now that this phrase is utterly meaningless, since it encompasses a huge number of possible approaches to the problem of making lusers happy with Unix. I propose that this phrase and all similarly generic phrases be officially declared Fucking Useless, and anyone who uses them be savagely beaten until they come up with a particular differentiating feature for their distribution.
So what is special about the distro of the week? Hardware autodetection? Careful customization of packages to provide a uniform and sensible default UI? Good paper documentation?
Oh, Jesus, if I just stop there, someone will moderate this up. Do you people realize how pathetic you are, that you're reading this? Writing it was bad enough (shame, shame, shame!), but reading it... can't get read again. Come on, eat me! Burn, karma, burn! SLASHDTO DEITORS SUX0000RZ1!!1! Bibbity bibbity bibbity!
What a lazy mind I must have. It misread the title of this story as Ask Linux. I assumed it meant to say something like "Ask Slashdot: Easiest Way to Get Started With Linux?", only the editors were feeling equally lazy that day.
Re:Oh, ARK Linux...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you really dislike linux so much why dont you host your site on win$lot NT then
linux is easy to use. there are a number of distros one can choose to. one misconception of appreaciating the value of software is to focus entirely on "how easy" it is. the worst, many associated easiness to M$. Easyness sounds like laziness. Easy come, easy go!
easy to learn != easy to use
by
Virtex
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you understand Linux well enough, it *is* easy to use. I find it very easy to use, even when doing something unusual that hasn't been designed ahead of time for me. I think the goal of theses "easy to use" Linux distros is really to be "easy to learn". And in this world, "easy to learn" means creating an interface similar to what people already know to shorten the learning curve.
Intuitiveness == Familiarity
Just my 2 cents.
-- For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
Re:easy to learn != easy to use
by
b17bmbr
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
most people say they "know PC's" of course meaning windoze. however, most of them have neither a) installed windows nor b) know but a few apps and don't know how to do the most basic things.
ask 100 windows users how to
change network settings
see what programs are running, and system resources used
add/remove programs at start up
99 of them will give you blank stares and tell you they have no idea. the problem is not that windows is "easy" because it isn't. it is what people know, and there's a HUGE difference.
linux doesn't need to be easier, because it is more than enough. no, i'm not talking about installation. we just need to get the camel's nose under the tent. most people who are familiar with computers and are not scared of them will be able to pick up quickly how to do things in linux.
C:\My Documents =/home/user
other than that, mozilla, OO, etc., the apps are more than sufficient.
-- My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Re:easy to learn != easy to use
by
mccalli
·
· Score: 2
C:\My Documents =/home/user
Ah yes, but what's C:\Program Files?
More rationalisation about where things get installed would be useful, I feel.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:easy to learn != easy to use
by
b17bmbr
·
· Score: 2
/usr/bin:/usr/local
how many people pry in there anyways. apps install themselves there. oh yeah, no registry!!
-- My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Re:easy to learn != easy to use
by
mccalli
·
· Score: 2
Or is it/opt? Or/usr? And where are the config files, all in/etc as they should be? Named by package...?
I'd love what you said to be true, and I personally agree with/usr/local being the most logical place. But unfortunately it's not as neat as that right now.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Mac OS X, Unix for the masses for 3+ years alre
by
Znonymous+Coward
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
--
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Comment removed
by
account_deleted
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Comment removed based on user account deletion
what specifically makes it different?
by
axxackall
·
· Score: 2
The web site claims that There are already plenty of good Linux distributions for servers and for advanaced users out there - but so far, nobody has tried making an easy to use version of Linux for the masses, even though the KDE user interface makes Linux very easy to use. It is not our intent to take users away from other Linux distributions. It is our goal to provide a good desktop operating system.
But neither the article or the original project site do not disclose by which means the new distro will make Linux easy to use comparing to other linux distros.
Is it just new set of very well debugged installation programs very well integrated with GUI based wizards? If so, what's the difference with Mandrake, Lindows, SCO and Redhat?
Or it integrates some new end-user applications (like ximian evolution)?
Especially I wonder, what is done or is going to be done to improve the user experience from usability prospective? For example, what specifically is done to explain the user what makes this distro so easy to use?
--
Less is more !
Re:counterproductive ah what is LSB?
by
phatvibez
·
· Score: 1
Yes, it's a start be not nearly enough...
There is still too much of a difference between distributions.
besides he said "...pooled their resources and made one, standard linux desktop running on one, standard gui interface."
This is what UnitedLinux is trying to do...create a standard base to build upon, which is a brilliant idea.
The LSB has nothing to do with pooling the resources of different companies for a common good...It just *tries* to set some standards on how a Linux system should be set up.
The sad part about it is that if Linux itself were one company, one *primary* interface, one packaging system, etc...it would have a much better chance of beating microsoft.
Instead we have to rely on uncomplete standards that nobody *really* follows anyway.
I again would like to state that the concept of UnitedLinux is brilliant, think how awesome it would be if ALL linux companies/distributions pooled their resources together for reserach and development, creating a STANDARD base to build on, and certifying software and hardware to work with it!...Vendors wouldn't have to decide what distro to package for, all RPMS (or whatever standard package was used) would be "foobar.UL.rpm" and it would work on ALL distributions without change. You wouldn't have to worry about creating a package for every-god-damn-distro-on-earth...or making sure your hardware works with every one of them...it would just work.
No. Ark Linux is a Free Software project, not a company.
The fact that we're selling CDs is because we want to give people with bad connectivity (Europe is full of people with pay-per-minute dialup connectivity) a chance to try Ark Linux.
Uhm, no distros are "linux"
by
Lethyos
·
· Score: 2
Debian is Debian, RedHat is RedHat, Slackware is Slackware, 5 is 5...
However, Debian is NOT Linux, RedHat is NOT Linux, Slackware is NOT Linux, 5 is NOT Linux...
There is not a single distro out there that is Linux. There are however, many *nix distributinos that use the Linux kernel. But they are not by definition Linux, but rather distributions of Linux. Linux is a kernel. Distributions are packaged chunks of software that form a complete operating system including a kernel and tools to make the system useful.
-- Why bother.
Re:Uhm, no distros are "linux"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yoper is linux since it is Linux From Scratch based! and it is GNU......
Re:Uhm, no distros are "linux"
by
Webmonger
·
· Score: 2
Linux isn't an OS. That's the point. If you say Yoper is just Linux, then it's way too incomplete to be used, because Linux is just a kernel. Everything else in a Linux distribution is a separate piece, even the libc libraries.
Mac OS X is not unix on the desktop.
by
Ilan+Volow
·
· Score: 2
To have a successful Unix OS for the masses, you need a developer community that places serious value on providing the end-user with a quality user experience.
Mac OSX has succeeded where linux has failed because it really has an entirely different developer culture than linux (or really, most of the unix developer community, for that matter).
Linux has an uphill battle because for so long its developer community has called end users stupid and has refused to believe that its interfaces have serious usability problems.
The point of my subject is that the mac developer community is really so radically different from the traditionalist unix developers in their belief system that you can't call Mac OSX a unix desktop; it's really "a desktop that just happens to use unix". Which is a good thing.
-- Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Re:Mac OS X is not unix on the desktop.
by
shaitand
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's also a bad thing, as soon as even one of those user oriented developers determines that an advanced option isn't worth the confusion to the user or for some very wrong reason decides that user friendliness in some way is equal or even more important than functionality it becomes a bad thing.
Remember unix based systems are more stable, secure, and powerful precisely because the developers do not take this view. I don't mind clicking an advanced button on the interface, or switch to advanced mode. But in windows and even worse macOS (worse because there generally is no advanced button) the advanced button hides basic settings that you should not be using the program if you do not understand rather than advanced options. The advanced options are simply not provided except in extremely expensive "professional" packages and often not even then.
They're all pretty easy..
by
ElGuapoGolf
·
· Score: 1
Ya know, I'm amazed that Linux still has this "hard to use" stigma attached to it.
I don't know what everyone else uses, but I use Suse. For the longest time I stuck with 7.0, just upgraded, rebuilt, etc. I recently upgraded to 8.1 (installed it on some servers at work, and figured it was time to upgrade at home).
It's amazing how far it's come. I can plug in a USB drive, and have the icon show up on the desktop. Just like a mac. NO fooling with drivers, no rebooting. Very unlike windows. Change some hardware? Suse catches that on boot and prompts you to configure it. Very unlike windows.
And we won't even talk about how easy Linux is to install compared to windows.
This "hard to use" stigma seems to be stuck in the mind of tech reporters, who tend to hover a year or two behind the current reality.
Re:They're all pretty easy..
by
TeraCo
·
· Score: 1
Change some hardware? Suse catches that on boot and prompts you to configure it. Very unlike windows.
You mean like the plug and play thing they've had since Windows 95? The one that's actually worked really well since Windows 2000? The one that not only detects hardware but configures it AUTOMATICALLY without you having to do a thing?
Yeah, very unlike windows.
Sifn't suse 0wned by pnp.
-- Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Re:They're all pretty easy..
by
xamel
·
· Score: 0
Thats not the problem w/ Linux ease-of-use. Most of the common distro's (SuSE, Mandrake, Redhat, etc) all have GUI's, and are click-click. And all the initial installing = super easy.
The problem comes AFTER installation. Have you ever tried to get a complete computer n00b to install programs? I mean, sometimes its hard enough to get.rpm's to install through the GUI (i use the CLI , at least then it tells me whats wrong). Now, try to explain to somebody how to use a.tar.gz file (never mind that barely ANY gui's work right extracting those.) ... k, we've lost 60% of your computer users, at least. Now factor in that most good linux come in 60 different formats, + source code (don't even think you're going to get someone to learn to use source code, its not happening)
Do you see the problem? These people have trouble using windows! We DESPERATLY need to streamline program installation in linux...and i'm gonna stop ranting now...k...
-- GOD DAMNIT , MODERATE ME!
Re:They're all pretty easy..
by
Fizzol
·
· Score: 1
>It's amazing how far it's come. I can plug in a USB drive, and have the icon show up on the desktop. Just like a mac. NO fooling with drivers, no rebooting. Very unlike windows.
Both Windows and Red hat 7.3 work just fine with my CD-Rom drive and wireless mouse. SuSE wouldn't work with either one. So yeah, it's very unlike Windows.
Re:They're all pretty easy..
by
ElGuapoGolf
·
· Score: 1
Well...
I know with windows to change a video card I have to jump thru about 800 hoops.. Okay, not 800, but more than I do with suse.
Plug and play on Windows has alwasy been plug and pray.
Re:They're all pretty easy..
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Turn off PC, replace video card, turn on PC, load Windows, install driver.
Take off the tinfoil and a quick read of the site..
- 4 clicks to install = good - giving simplification a shot = good - developed own installer (i guess) = good
- no info about what to do with an iso = bad - explained in terms of red hat = bad - unanswered questions on page = bad - needs:
screenshots
info on hardware requirements
info on supported locales (or is it just English)
info for developers on "why develop for distro x"
needs a "why use our distro" page for users
- might be interesting if you could do work just by popping CD in (without partitioning or doing a big install).. or is that what it does? dunno.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. it's the only thing that ever has.
That's some seriously awsome support.
by
redhairedneo
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'm already installing, just look at that support
Seriously though, don't click the link, it's goatse.
What the hell is with that??
Re:That's some seriously awsome support.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I saw this as well. WTF, were they hacked or is this distro a joke?
Re:That's some seriously awsome support.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Errr I was going to post that as well. The goatse link tells me two things: They were hacked, or the guys there made a poor choice for a link placeholder. Either way, I'm not impressed.
Re:That's some seriously awsome support.
by
PD
·
· Score: 1
Obviously that's a joke. They're linking to Microsoft support there.
Re:That's some seriously awsome support.
by
Bero
·
· Score: 1
Well, our support system was designed to be open and trust based - you register, and you can ask and answer questions.
We've intentionally avoided adding any censorship - but it looks like some people are simply too immature to deal with an uncensored system. Some idiot added an html tag redirecting people to that crap site.
I've removed this, and I'm also extending the support system to not support html tags - it's a pity some people are obviously too immature to deal with freedom.
Oh, and yes, dear "asdf", you can be proud. You have just cracked a system that didn't have any protection in the first place. You're a really really truly l33t h4x0r! Nobody managed to do that before! I'll be nominating you for the Nobel price in cracking.
Re:That's some seriously awsome support.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hi welcome to teh internet.
Nice idea, but...
by
Drasil
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I wish these guys the best of luck, anything that brings Linux to more people is a good thing, but...
IMHO all attempts to make computers 'easy to use' 'for the masses' have failed. Just ask any joe public who wants to actually use their computer, rather than spend endless hours tinkering with it or being plauged by niggling bugs. Computers are extremely complex things, and the critical mass of knowledge required to make them run smootly makes it impractical for every user to become a system administrator.
I think what's needed is a shift in perception and the model we use to sell hardware and software. Rather than just selling boxes (containing PCBs or CDROMs), computers should be rented. This would mitigate the endless upgrade cycle and (with the internet) allow trained professionals to administer customers' boxes, all included in the price. Linux is an ideal OS for such a distribution method.
Do I think this will happen? Not yet. For this model to be economically viable it would require specialist tools that would let admins look after huge amounts of boxes. A major shift in public perception would be required, especially after all the 'so easy to use even your granny can do it' ads. Finally, I think that it would take a lot for users to hand over the control of thier computer to anyone.
So your solution to make computers more convenient for people is..if I just read that ridiculous suggestion correctly..rent the computers to people, then somehow find the money to hire on a million more dedicated technical support people per company? And you think Linux is -ideal- for it? Who exactly is this easier for? The person having to pay $200 a month for their computer, their user-unfriendly operating system, and their 24/7 tech support guy that they have to wait an hour on hold for? Or would it be easier for the company that actually goaded idiots into accepting such a moronic idea?
"...allow trained professionals to administer customers' boxes, all included in the price."
I have an idea. How about we give the root access rights and private keys to Microsoft Update, and then the trustworthy people at microsoft trustworthy computing can keep our computers secure.
And yes, I know that "trusted" by definition means a system with the ability to cheat on you.
LOL, I know it sounds a little M$ish, but I really see no other way unless a major breakthrough is made in OS design.
I have a set-top box for cable TV. I can browse a limited web, play games and send and recieve email with it. I don't loose sleep at night because it's administered over the network. Another example: people are fine with handing their car keys over when their car needs a service.
I see your point though, and when I say that it will take a lot for people to trust others to remotley admin their system I mean it
"Another example: people are fine with handing their car keys over when their car needs a service."
Our car (Citroen Xantia) you can allocate a temorary immobiliser-code to the mechanic who repairs your car, then revoke it afterwards: your normal code remains valid throughout.
Well..
as already pointed out by bero, we are still in a developement stage, and that's why we didn't any public announcement so far.
Our highest focus atm is the codebase, the distro itself.
That's why the website is still a bit "poor".
I hope we will be able to work on it soon... just remember that Ark Linux is an "open" project, therefore everybody is free to contribute anything.
I really hope to get more people involved as time goes on.
Let's see
Wate of time
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Until Linux runs the programs that people want to run, all the usability in the world won't help. MS will continue to own the mainstream desktop until an average user can migrate an entire Windows system to Linux, including all his/her apps and configuration settings, without being an expert.
Yeah....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm sure newbie users will be turned on by this distro. Especially by the guy with the exposed rectum on support page. Can't really take any distro seriously that links to goatse.cx
They (Ark Linux) didn't put it up there, did they? Are they hacked? Gee, I hope so. At first I thought that Ark Linux is yet another porn link. Can anyone at Ark Linux distro tell us what's going on there?
Hacked on the first day.:( The fickle fingers of fate have destined Ark Linux to the land of goatse. I doubt anyone's going to be jumping on that boat.:) Too bad.
Re:ARK Linux hacked?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
# nmap -O www.arklinux.org
Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
Interesting ports on (62.39.112.246):
(The 1576 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
Port State Service
21/tcp open ftp
22/tcp open ssh
25/tcp open smtp
80/tcp open http
137/tcp filtered netbios-ns
138/tcp filtered netbios-dgm
139/tcp filtered netbios-ssn
161/tcp filtered snmp
443/tcp open https
873/tcp open rsync
2049/tcp filtered nfs
2401/tcp open cvspserver
3306/tcp filtered mysql
6000/tcp filtered X11
6001/tcp filtered X11:1
6002/tcp filtered X11:2
6003/tcp filtered X11:3
6004/tcp filtered X11:4
6005/tcp filtered X11:5
6006/tcp filtered X11:6
6007/tcp filtered X11:7
6008/tcp filtered X11:8
6009/tcp filtered X11:9
7100/tcp filtered font-service
10000/tcp filtered snet-sensor-mgmt
Remote operating system guess: Linux Kernel 2.4.0 - 2.5.20
Uptime 66.694 days (since Thu Nov 7 04:38:53 2002)
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 40 seconds
Re:ARK Linux hacked?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oops...
# nmap -O www.arklinux.org
Starting nmap V. 3.00 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) Interesting ports on (62.39.112.246): (The 1576 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed) Port State Service 21/tcp open ftp 22/tcp open ssh 25/tcp open smtp 80/tcp open http 137/tcp filtered netbios-ns 138/tcp filtered netbios-dgm 139/tcp filtered netbios-ssn 161/tcp filtered snmp 443/tcp open https 873/tcp open rsync 2049/tcp filtered nfs 2401/tcp open cvspserver 3306/tcp filtered mysql 6000/tcp filtered X11 6001/tcp filtered X11:1 6002/tcp filtered X11:2 6003/tcp filtered X11:3 6004/tcp filtered X11:4 6005/tcp filtered X11:5 6006/tcp filtered X11:6 6007/tcp filtered X11:7 6008/tcp filtered X11:8 6009/tcp filtered X11:9 7100/tcp filtered font-service 10000/tcp filtered snet-sensor-mgmt Remote operating system guess: Linux Kernel 2.4.0 - 2.5.20 Uptime 66.694 days (since Thu Nov 7 04:38:53 2002)
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 40 seconds
I don't think it's a hack. It looks like their support page allows people to post questions, and it does not strip HTML tags, so some people are posting questions with tags like the following meta tags that include redirects to obscene sites.
If you find any genuine security problems in Ark Linux or our web site, please let us know - the one causing the bad links was not a real security problem, it was shameless people exploiting the fact that we didn't do censorship on the support forum.
Anyway, you're officially granted permission to run port scans etc. as long as it's not for the purpose of damaging our system.
Goat Sex Warning!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
One of the site's links re-directed me to "that pliant fellow" most of us have seen before.
Easy to use
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Since when is windows easy to use?
think about it, why do you get called to make a "simple" change or fix for your friends and family. because its not easy for them.
Watch a person on windows work some time. watch as they do things in odd methods to avoid crashing a system. or can never find that option
face it, windows is not simple and easy for the masses either. they just adapted to the idiosincracies(sp?) of it
Easy to use gentoo or Freebsd??
by
Billly+Gates
·
· Score: 2
Redhat based distro's are old and everywhere. Why not base a new distro on something sexy like Gentoo or Freebsd.
I love the gentoo package managment. It is better then pure sex and yes even apt-get.
I found the distro too bleeding edge in some area's *cough devfs * cough and it takes a whole weekend to finally configure everything. The latest version was so buggy that I could not get my/boot to mount properly and my Microsoft USB keyboard would actually freeze the system so bad during reboot that I had to unplug my system just to have my keyboard respond. Weird. All the newer distro do this and I think its a kernel bug.
But its lightning fast and more bsd like in which all the actual config files go in/etc and not just symlinks that point to god knows where *cough redhat *cough which make it difficult to learn and administer.
Freebsd rocks too in which sysinstall configures things pretty good but it takes alot of tweaking to get the following Xfree86 to work with my geforce4, the beta nvidia drivers, java, and sound support with my soundblaster live.
I wonder if FreeBSD has support for kernel modules so a recompile isn't necessary just to use sound. If not then an easy to use FreeBSD distro would be hard to make.
Re:Easy to use gentoo or Freebsd??
by
Junta
·
· Score: 2
Strange, I have had a great deal of unhindered success with Gentoo. Strange I say about devfs, that has been flawless. Devfs is a damned good and correct idea, only see entries for which there is usable hardware, and don't waste inodes on dev entries. Very cool.
Now/boot, if you will look, by default of noauto in the fstab options. For most efficient use of space,/boot is ext2 (at least for me), and/boot needs to be mounted only at kernel changes, so it makes sense. Sorry if I insult your intelligence, but that is the unique thing about typical/boot in Gentoo.
-- XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Easy to use gentoo or Freebsd??
by
Billly+Gates
·
· Score: 2
I did the correct procedure with fstab and turning the noauto off. Gentoo 1.2 was fine doing this. The new 1.3 and 1.4rc has problems. There was an error message but I do not recall what it said.
The most annoying of all is the strange USB keyboard problem. I find it bizaare that the bios can not find it when I restart unless I physically unplug my computer and plug it back in. FreeBSD and Windows does not exhibit this problem. I believe the keyboard itself is jaming whenever Linux sends it the off signal when I shutdown or restart.
Acording to OFB, the Ark page says "... so far, nobody has tried making an easy to use version of Linux for the masses..." Where did they get their information?
I'm a season computer geek, but all of my experience has been with Windows, right back to Windows 1.0 days. Recently I decided to switch my network server from Windows 2000 to Redhat Linux. I chose redhat because it's the most popular distribution and, I supposed, would therefore have the best user community support.
My machine is a dual processor (P3 1Ghz) box and it has two 40GB drives connected to a highpoint raid controller built into the bios. I mirror the disks using this controller under Windows.
Most things went smoothly with the install. I was somewhat defeated by the implementation of RAID in Linux though. As much as the pro-linux crowd seem to rave about how good the software raid in linux is (and I'm sure it *is* good), it was a darn sight easier to configure in Windows. The SMP worked out of the box though and RH picked up all my hardware, I was impressed. Configuring my firewall was a pain, until I found the firestarter utility - I strongly recommend it if you're planning to use iptables.
But the point of this is my woes with printers. OMG. It took me three hours, several downloads, a couple of builds, many visits to groups.google.com && linuxprinting.org, much howto- reading and config file modifying just to get my new HP 5550 installed and (semi) working. And this was with a printer that is actually supported under Linux by the manufacturer !!
Hell's teeth, I don't care what the desktop looks like; it's a new operating system and I'll just learn whatever it comes with. Until things like installing a printer becomes as easy as insert-disk-and-go (like Windows), it'll be an uphill job to convert the masses.
Re:New Linux User
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well then, start ramming messages down the hardware vendors' throats telling them to get up off their lazy, good-for-nothing asses and provide some decent drivers for their products under Linux so we don't have to hack together half-assed crap for them.
My modem performs like warmed-over shit under Linux... not because Linux is no good at connecting to the Internet, but because those worthless halfwits over at Creative can't be bothered to provide Linux drivers for it. Instead, I have some hacked-together beta drivers that hang up the modem every now and then.
You want an easy to use Linux? Get the worthless hardware vendors to start supporting their products for it (though, to be fair, some do already - nVidia drivers for my vid card work VERY well in Linux). You want the vendors to start supporting their products in Linux? Get them to believe they'll lose significant money if they don't. You want them to lose money so they listen to you? Get more people to start using Linux. You want more people to start using Linux? Make it easy enough for Joe Sixpack with a tech IQ of -6 (can't figure out why the unplugged toaster doesn't work), can search the net for pr0n while using it.
Oh wait.... now I'm beginning to see the problem...
While I have never done some things advanced as you have done, (I have never set up raid partitions, for example), I have done much more than what the average user would do using Mandrake.
I'm not suggesting you use it (I'm not sure it has as much support for what you need), but it is enough for the average user, and it configured my printer automagically. Didn't even need me to insert a disk. Just went into the control panel, it auto detected it, and everything was over within 30 seconds, works fine.
Red Hat might not be as easy in some things, but that's not it's primary goal. I think all distros whose primary goal is "ease of use" should have printing under control by now, but they may lack some more powerful, harder to use features. But I think most users would be fine with something like Mandrake once they are educated...
Pretty shoddy... I clicked on the "support" link on the website and had a disgusting surprise (goatse style). Right now the site redirects to www.linuxsucks.com, with lots of popups.
It turns out its only some people abusing the support forum, witch is obviously crappy.
But still be careful, or youll end up seeing unwanted stretching, if you know what I mean.
Morons like that "cracker" make the DMCA necessary
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Thanks for clearing this up so quickly, Bero.
Got to add that people who read slashdot usually hate the DMCA -- and yet there we are, seeing slashdot readers damage an open system of a free software project.
People like that make weird laws that disallow content modification, like the DMCA, necessary!
-- You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Unix for the masses - Available here today
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
OS X
How hard is Anaconda to use?
by
The+Analog+Kid
·
· Score: 1
Really how hard is Anaconda, its very user friendly compared to other installers like YaST(sorry the average user does not prefer a weblike installer even its creator said its geared twoard more advanced users) Mandrakes Installer is little more difficult to use depending on who you talk to, I don't think it is but it just me.
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards
by
Ilan+Volow
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
for they are subtle and easily screwed up.
Just because you break something down into stages doesn't mean that any of those stages won't have serious usability design flaws.
For example, the Red Hat installer has a wizard, but they still do this confusing, ambiguous, and non-standard hierarchical radio button thingy in one section. Mandrake installer has a wizard, but they still denote progress through the wizard by whether a button that denotes each stage is green or red (which kind of sucks for people with red/green color blindness).
I'm not saying wizards, when properly implemented, are a bad idea, but they are by no means a panacea for the stuff that really confuses end users. While many linux distros now have graphical stuff, the graphical stuff is still designed by programmers without any design sense at all. And this is really why so many people still find linux so hard to use.
--redhat 7.1 had a good gnomerpm that all you needed was a right click to install an app. It was great, worked well, now it takes three different screens and a lot of clicking to do the same thing. So at one time it existed.
Coming from a mostly never ever touched a cli since the 80's on dos which I detested as just stoopid, I found (still find on 7.2) redhat to be quite easy to use as long as I stick to redhat brand rpms and not generic rpms, that one threw me for a loop "why" that was when the "non standard" rpm happened to me. Seems as a bit of courtesy that whomever took the label "rpm" and made an app that was labeled that would have followed the originator's standard in what file went where. If they didn't like iot they should have called it something else. To me that's like buying a non oem aftermarket alternator that is labeled "belchfire" but it won't bolt onto a belchfire. Sorta kinda dumb and rude there.
Free as in speech and in beer doesn't necessarily make the speech outstanding oratory or the brew outstanding beverage. So I agree, quality, consistency, ease of use. A few dozen apps that work well, not a few hundred that are so-so and require weeks of code wrangling. The main bitching I see here is "oh no, can't lose our elite tweaking ability". Who says you have to? Duh, any distro can add in the dang shell and console, but not being absolutely required to use it makes it or breaks it on "the masses" useability scale.
Another really off the wall side issue. Apps included in an officially released boxed set distro, and what you pay for the distro, there should be micropayments to the app maker guys to go with it, if they are releasing as begware. that will make what's included or not be a lot easier to sort out. If the apps aren't begware, and they are toting 100% of the note and don't care, swell, their bandwith and coding time. I don't mind begware and would like to support them (the apps I use and find useful obviously), but sending one dollar via online payment schedule to a zillion app orgs is just silly. And I think the clone copiers and resellers should send a buck per cd to the distros they are cloning. And here's another kicker sure to be controversial. the gpl says it has to be "free", swell, the information is free, the bandwith isn't. People should help pay the bandwith and associated costs for downloading ISO's. That bandwith is not the "source code" that is free, you still get the data, but those servers take wires and electricity and buildings, which costs money. It's just as much a real expense as it is to make cd copies and ship them, albeit less money, it adds up. Call it a "shipping and handling" charge for the "free" stuff you are receiving.
It's not only a useless phrase, it's actually actively harmful. It leads people to believe that it's a possible or desirable thing.
This guy said it best:
The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use a given
tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for computing than
it is for other tools (e.g. automobiles, airplanes, guns, power saws).
- Doug Gwyn
-- You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
While true, I don't think that applies here. A computer is not a tool we use directly, but rather a tool that we build layers of tools on top of. Building a layer of limited, easily-comprehended functionality for lusers on top of the same basic tool that has the powerful, complex functionality i need does not harm me. (It has consequences that irritate me, because the lusers think they're using a tool remotely comparable to what I use and yammer ceaselessly at me, but it doesn't harm me directly.)
Re:Morons like that "cracker" make the DMCA necess
by
piffio
·
· Score: 1
It's really sad to see the biggest OSS community populated by childish people. Not everybody for sure, probably just a little minority.
It's really sad to see people putting real effort in doing either:
- ranting
- abusing free space to tell their friends "dude, look! I'm a hacker"
I read about people thinking that "Yet Another Distro" is counterproductive, a waste of resource.
Well... I see a lot of people here being really good at wasting time and resource... it's really sad once you realize that you are takling about the community you should be glad to be part of.
I really love people criticizing in a constructive way, and even more if they want to contribute anything.
But that's not the case atm, sorry
I don't know if they are running their own software ot not, netcraft says it is running RedHat but it could be them since it is based on RH. Thing of it is, someone who works with them has either gone nuts, or they have been hacked already, take look at their support page. Apparently someone doesn't like him. I hear so many things about Linux on the desktop, but there isn't really a big united project like MacOS X, everyone seems to not like somthing about a project, so they go and do their own, they all seem to look/act the same, the only way todo this right is to put some big money into that for motivation, but open source doesn't do a good job at that. Hmm, mods wont like that.. Linux RoX0rZ f0rEvEr - Give Karma!
Re:I don't know about this.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Basically, Linux isn't THAT hard to use for real Newbies (people with very little Windows experience, but aren't afraid to learn), but it is hard to use for many because it is *unfamiliar.*
There are some reasons that Linux is hard to use that have nothing to do with being different than Windows.
For one thing, Linux lacks a consistent definition of how a GUI should work, so you don't get the kind of consistency you get with, e.g., MacOS. For instance, some of my apps use the middle-mouse-button method for copying to the clipboard, while some use the Win/Mac method. Some try to implement both, and fail. Inconsistency is probably unavoidable considering the open-source development model.
Another problem is shared libraries. Shared libraries have some real advantages, but they create lots of problems with installing software. How are you going to explain to a naive user that they can't run a certain app because it requires libfoo 2.0, and they have libfoo 3.0 installed?
When will developers finally realize sharing libraries is really retarded? EVERYTHING should be self standing. Yea, maybe 10 years ago conserving disk space mattered, but c'mon. Now, drives are $1 a gig and doubling like mad. Quit it with the shared DLL's and shared libraries, and shared anything. Fuck installers too. Just put it on a CD like this
/OpenOffice (executable) /data/-everything it needs-
Then there's no making sure someone has the right version of anything installed.
Don't give me some excuse. Most Mac software I've seen is like this. If there's some technical reason you can't do that, FIX IT. This is OpenSource right? You have no-one to blame but yourself, just fix it so you can just put the app in a folder on any machine no matter what.
--
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
Re:Linux IS hard to use.
by
bcrowell
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I agree with your sentiment, but:
Yea, maybe 10 years ago conserving disk space mattered...
Besides size, the other advantage of shared libraries is that if there's a bug in the library, you fix it, and the fix automatically propagates throughout all your apps.
Rather than asking developers of end-user apps to stop using shared libraries, I think it might be more on target to ask developers of libraries to stop changing their APIs. If they never change the APIs, then they never have to break binary compatibility.
The problem is that this is fairly easy to do with C, but requires a heck of a lot of discipline with C++. In C++, almost any change you make to a class that's exposed in your API will break binary compatibility.
I suspect that a lot of application developers could easily build monolithically linked binaries, but they don't because they know it would increase the load on their servers by an order of magnitude, which would cost them money.
It's also worth noting that this whole thing is basically only a problem with C. In Perl, there is really no such problem, because you don't get an incompatibility as a side-effect of changing a class.
Re:Linux IS hard to use.
by
Cid+Highwind
·
· Score: 1
When will developers finally realize sharing libraries is really retarded? EVERYTHING should be self standing.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooo!!!!! Lots of linux apps were stand-alone, before gtk and qt became popular. Back then, you might have a black-and-white file manager that looked like part of Mac System 6 and required double-clicking to activate an icon, a text editor with lavender italic text on dark grey 3D GUI elements and icons that respond to single clicks, an image viewer where every control is a hideous shade of blue with bold text, and a web browser that looked like a cross between OpenStep and Windows 3.1 apps. None of them would let you drag and drop icons, or let you paste anything more than a simple text string. This is where the "Linux sucks on the desktop" meme came from. It really did, then. It was anarchy, there was no consistency between apps. There was no way to cut and paste, beyond the X11 selection buffer, and even that didn't work with a lot of apps. Shared GUI libraries make it possible to have a singe point of configuration for look and feel, instead of hundreds of.rc files (with different syntax for every app).
As for Mac software, it all uses a common part of the system (called quartz, I think) for all the GUI functions, so it does use shared libraries, they are just considered part of the OS on a Mac.
-- 0 1 - just my two bits
Re:Linux IS hard to use.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> It's also worth noting that this whole thing is basically only a problem with C. In Perl, there is really no such problem, because you don't get an incompatibility as a side-effect of changing a class.
Same with other OO languages that don't need to expose the internals of a class to the compiler/interpreter in order to use its public interface. Unless one always uses "cheshire cat" style classes in C++, the problem of "change the internals, recompile the world" will always be there.
Ark Linux web site is a farce with pr0n on it
by
isdnip
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I'm surprised fewer Slashdotters even looked at Ark Linux' web site before engaging in the usual jabber about easy-to-use Linux distros. The site itself has no info about the distro. But if you go to the FAQ, lo and behold you get a bunch of references to "goatsex", an ASCII art dirty picture, a few hundred lines repeating the word "faggot", and a dirty story. Not much about Linux though.
I suspect the whole thing is a put-on by somebody with a serious lack of taste. Certainly if it were a real distro, and this stuff were hacked onto the site, then its server security wouldn't be adequate.
Re:Ark Linux web site is a farce with pr0n on it
by
Fizzol
·
· Score: 1
?!
Sure you're looking at the right site? I don't see a FAQ anywhere or any thing like what you're describing. Maybe they got hacked. All seems to be well now.
Re:Ark Linux web site is a farce with pr0n on it
by
Bero
·
· Score: 5, Informative
What you've seen is the result of someone from the IP 68.13.232.26 (ip-68-13-232-26.ok.ok.cox.net), located in Atlanta, using Phoneix 0.5 on Windows 2000, abusing the fact that we've tried using an open support system.
The idea behind the system was simple - anyone can ask questions, and anyone can reply. Pretty much like a Wiki. So in a way, we got hacked - but since there was no protection for this area of the website, I wouldn't call it a security problem in the distribution. And we learned from it - the support system is now censoring bad posts. I find it sad that these things are necessary, when ideologically, we'd much rather fight censorship.
We made one mistake - namely that we trusted people wouldn't abuse it. This guy used malicious HTML tags to redirect the support system to his crap site.
Dear "hacker", you can be proud - you just circumvented nonexistant security blocks! I'll vote for you at the l33t h4x0r of the month contest.
Re:Ark Linux web site is a farce with pr0n on it
by
gmhowell
·
· Score: 1
Just wanted to congratulate you folks on putting together a website that wasn't slashdotted within ten seconds of being announced on the front page.
-- Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Mac OS X, Unix for the mac for 3+ years
by
The+Phantom+Buffalo
·
· Score: 0
No, I haven't, I keep hearing it won't work on my PC. The masses use PCs, so, it isn't really for the masses.
Windows Domains...
by
Chordonblue
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Agreed, and I'll add one more thing. The first distro that adds Windows Domain support - COMPLETE support will be the one I implement here.
My users get mapped drives and shares when they login to the domain. I need my users to have centralized information stored on a Windows-based server. The software we use have few analogs in the open source world, so our backend is likely to remain the same for the forseeable future.
All of this needs to be seamless, and it needs to happen reliably. I haven't seen that yet. The pieces parts are there, certainly, but no one has gotten it right yet.
My guess is, this is EXEACTLY what Red Hat is planning to do with their next Workstation version.
-- "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Re:Mac OS X, Unix for the mac for 3+ years
by
WolfgangFlur
·
· Score: 1
right, nevermind proprietary OS's, apple has proprietary chips, etc...not exactly "for the masses"
I've found Lycoris to be the absolute easiest Linux distro to use. Not only does it have a huge user support base, but even support for those of us wanting to try it and learn it before switching over from Windows, using VMWare.
While the installation is about as simple as it gets, the low click install is lost as Lycoris fires up a game of Solitaire for you play while waiting for it to complete.
-- Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right.
Shoes for industry!
Not really (Re:ARK Linux hacked?)
by
Bero
·
· Score: 1
We placed too much trust in people interested in Linux being mature - therefore we decided to go with an open support system - everyone can ask and answer questions, and we don't censor posts.
Unfortunately we placed too much trust in people - this guy (originating from 68.13.232.26, located in Atlanta) abused the no-censoring policy to insert HTML redirects.
We've learned from it, about 15 minutes after we found out about the incident, we started stripping HTML tags and banning this guy's IP block.
I can understand it's fun to deface a website that boasts about its security - but defacing a publically editable website is pathetic. I thought our community was more mature than that.
Oh well, it's never too late to learn.
Re:Thanks, Ninnle!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Then there's Ninnle Linux...a serious operating system, no joke!
What do you want? Screenshots of the desktop? Haven't seen KDE before?
I get tired of seeing screenshots for all the distros as they largely end up being the same thing, KDE or Gnome with some apps open. Big deal.
-- Meh.
Not really... (Re:ARK Linux hacked?)
by
Bero
·
· Score: 1
Sorry for the redundant post, but since it's a redundant thread and needs clearing up...
Our server was not cracked.
We placed too much trust in people interested in Linux being mature - therefore we decided to go with an open support system - everyone can ask and answer questions, and we don't censor posts.
Unfortunately we placed too much trust in people - this guy (originating from 68.13.232.26, located in Atlanta) abused the no-censoring policy to insert HTML redirects.
We've learned from it, about 15 minutes after we found out about the incident, we started stripping HTML tags and banning this guy's IP block.
I can understand it's fun to deface a website that boasts about its security - but defacing a publically editable website is pathetic. I thought our community was more mature than that.
As it turns out I use OS X as my primary desktop OS. I love it.
GNUstep does not get enough cred. If you had a distro running GNUstep w/ a few polished apps you'd open yourself up to developers releasing apps for both your distro and OS X at the same time. On top of that you'd have a Linux desktop capable of running any other Linux app.
Oh wait, I just described OS X again.
It's NOT disk space, it's memory footprint, silly!
by
PaulBu
·
· Score: 2
You compile all apps -static and you get 50 copies of malloc() in your memory (RAM+swap, but eventually you would want them to be in RAM) simultaneously! (actually, ps -ax|wc showed my that I have 89 processes running now, and I suppose most of them would use malloc(), right?)
Next, factor in cache trashing -- that shared malloc() code could've occupied couple lines in a corner of your instruction cache, now you need to flush/reload them every time application context is switched.
...its called Windows XP, or at least what your suggesting would be something close to it. Or, there's always the LSB.
Part of what makes Linux (and open source in general) is the variety of distributions of the same thing that exist (or could be made). While I agree that the major desktop-user centered distributions should standardize, I don't think the companies ever would or should pool resources like that. If they did, they'd basically be forming the Linux equivalent of MS.
If you wany a "standard" Linux GUI, then get the guys over at KDE and GNOME to talk.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that RedHat has already tried to smoothline KDE and GNOME in 8.0 with BlueCurve. I haven't finished dling it on my modem yet, so I haven't tried it out personally yet.
What I'd like to see instead is more work in automatic detection and configuration of hardware. Joe User doesn't undestand how to recompile his kernel to add his radio card, or for frame buffer support to use the two monitors that comes with his new Geforce4. There are several CD-ROM based distros, see Knoppix, that do well on whatever system they are thrown on, but Linux still isn't to the plug and play level that Windows is at I'm sorry to say. It just shouldn't take hours to get an Audigy to work.
After that, I'd like to see greater compatability between KDE and GNOME. Each Desktop Enviornment has its pros and cons, and appeals to a seperate crowd of users. But, and I say this not knowing enough about the underlying nature of themes, how hard would it be to make a converter or standardize elements at least?
I'd also like the see NTFS support get a little father ahead of where it is now. Most XP users are going to be on NTFS, and if you want to get people to switch, you need to make it easy to get files over the OS line. For that matter, a XP to Linux migration tool would be nice to see developed. Copy your shortcuts from Windows's IE to Linux's Mozilla. From Outlook Express / Outlook into Ximian or Mozilla. Etc. Etc.
And as much as I hate to say it, make integrate Wine. Make it so that Joe User can click on his old apps and they still work. From a purist perspective, I'd like to say that Linux shoudl stand on its own. By all rights, there really SHOULDN'T be a need for Wine. But, Joe User likes his old apps, and it will make it easier to transition for him if he gets to keep them. Eventually, he'll hopefully be enticed by the latest version of the Linux eqiuvalent and be intregued at the low (free) upgrade cost.
-- CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
Re:We Already Have That...
by
Afrosheen
·
· Score: 2
You should try Mandrake 9. The hardware support is there, recompiling the kernel is pointless since nearly all of the options for the kernel are modules and are already built for you. Modprobe whatever, and it's there.
Talk to Microsoft about the moving target that is NTFS. I think last time I checked there were 4 or more iterations out there. It's hard to pin down reliable NTFS write support because of this. FAT32 is FAT32 but NTFS can be any of a number of things.
Joe User will only benefit when he learns about the good alternatives to his old favorites. KDE has done alot to supply this (excellent email and browser) and other apps fill the gap. Wine is only necessary for a small subset of apps for which there is no analog in linux, like DirectX games and other stuff.
Re:Non castrated RedHat...KDE sings "My Way..."
by
JudgeFurious
·
· Score: 1
And the simple fact that it matters (not having the KDE groups, or anyone elses "seal of approval") is why the words desktop, linux, newbie, and success will never be mentioned in the same sentence outside of the geek community.
The core people who make linux great are the single largest obstruction to making it work for mom. A castrated Red Hat is what mom needs. A castrated "anything" linux is what mom needs. What she doesn't need is KDE AND Gnome AND some other fucked up GUI because some geeks in Australia or Lithuania decided that the other two were too big or two small or too whatever. One thing, one look, one style, one OS. That's what they want to see and it's all they understand.
When it's all said and done she'll go buy a Compaq at Best Buy that's running Windows XP cause the Mac costs too much and she uses Windows at work so she doesn't have to learn anything new. Path of least resistance is always going to win this race.
-- Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Re:They're all pretty easy..Not perfect.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
" You mean like the plug and play thing they've had since Windows 95? The one that's actually worked really well since Windows 2000? The one that not only detects hardware but configures it AUTOMATICALLY without you having to do a thing?"
You mean you no longer have to put the manufacturers driver disk in? Cool! Did they fix the occasional "forget that there's already a driver" issue? Or the "moving your hardware around could mean reinstalling driver" issue?
MOD PARENT UP, informative
by
TheRIAAMustDie
·
· Score: 1
MOD PARENT UP
--
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. it's the only thing that ever has.
There's already a flavor of *nix ready...
by
PowerBooker
·
· Score: 1
for the masses.
It's called Mac OS X.
Red Hat 8.0 *IS* ``easy for the masses''
by
Dr.+Zowie
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I don't know why the hell I'm even typing this -- it's doomed to get buried in the avalanche of other posts and never get seen...
I have installed and am using Red Hat 8.0. It was
very easy to install, and is very easy to use. It was more than four mouse clicks, but their installer is really smooth. If you just want a quick, easy install you click one of four or five radio buttons for the type of machine you want (server, workstation, etc.); but you can also switch all the packages independently.
The OS seems to come pretty well secured by default; and of course there are the requisite "control panel" windows (which actually work!) and OpenOffice links. The terminal is buried waaaay down in the menu structure -- a bit disconcerting at first. But most of the little apps that we all know and love are available in the pull-up red hat menu already.
They've eliminated the notion of window manager from the basic graphic OS install -- there's no reference to it at all. You can switch window managers, but you have to know unix to do it. That, IMHO, is a Good decision.
It seems to me that Ark Linux is a tempest in a teapot -- Red Hat already did all the work; these guys can't possibly be doing much more than smoothing over the install and putting a different theme on the desktop.
Re:Red Hat 8.0 *IS* ``easy for the masses''
by
Bero
·
· Score: 3, Informative
No...
Show it to any newbie, and you'll see.
What the **** is a partition?
Why do I need 50 editors? Is that emacs thing good? Should I use vi?
User administration? What the ****? This is _my_ computer, I don't want a *****ing login! I don't need that in Windows, therefore it's easier to use!
Why can't I edit the menus?
And that's just 4 of the comments you _will_ get.
Also, if you look at the technology behind it, you'll notice it's suboptimal.
Red Hat 8 is an interesting idea, but I think they got it pretty wrong, and made the OS worse by stripping it of some of the best tools and leaving in vastly inferior ones.
User interface wise, Ark Linux does a lot more than putting another theme on top of Red Hat 8 - we've replaced all their UI stuff.
Try it out for yourself and you'll see the difference.
Re:Non castrated RedHat...KDE sings "My Way..."
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
so you say.
Comments from a Linux newbie.
by
CronoCloud
·
· Score: 1
A newbie on/. The horror. The horror. I have an interest in computers but more as I bystander I guess. I've never actually even owned what most folks would consider a "real" computer. (other than an old Commodore 128)
I'm a former WebTV user. (OH ok I still have it asa a backup.) I can imagine the groans. While still on it I somehow managed to hear about some "free" operating system called Linux. It sounded interesting so I began reading about it a bit. In 2001 I bought a Playstation 2 and not long after I bought it Sony announce the Japan version of their Linux kit. Eventually they announced it for the US and other territories too. (after the petition) So I thought that this might be an interesting way to learn more about Linux and computing. I also thought that it might make a better web access device than a WebTV.
So I logged on the Linuk kit's website and began reading and posting a few questions. After getting some answers I decided to go ahead and pre-order the kit AND buy some Linux books. The books were interesting reading even if I didn't understand some of it. (Still don't) But I figured I could muddle my way through it well enough.
The kit arrived in late May of 2002. Since I was without a compatible monitor, I installed blind. (But it turns out that there's a little trick you can do so you don't have to do that.) I typed setcrtmode -ntsc to get the console to display on my TV and then edited a couple of files in vi so that it would boot up in NTSC mode and so that X would display in NTSC Anyways it was working and after a phone call to my ISP I could use lynx. Then I began exploring X, I tried various window managers and eventually settled on KDE. That's KDE 1 mind you. Had e-mail set up within 15 minutes of starting kmail. Discovered that kmail checked mail every minute and that made it lock up every once in a while so I turned interval mail checkin off. I began looking around for things to download of the PS2 Linux site. I was going to try to find an IRC client but I decided to search to see if there was one already installed. There was, x-chat 1.3.7, ircll too. I decided to try a few source compiles that folks said would work. Abiword was my first and my./configure --build=mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu, make and make install worked withoug a hitch. I decided to try a finding an IM client. I chose Gaim, since it would let me keep in touch with my old WebTV friends on their MSN Messenger. I read their documentation and thought "CVS, what's that. Oh they've got instructions? Cool." Compiled without a hitch, version.58 I believe.
I wanted to be able to print with my kit so I thought I'd have to recompile my kernel to add USB printer support, so using a book as a guide, I did that. Of course, I really didn't need to do that because I already had the printer module compiled, I just hadn't seen it. Someone told me where to put the insmod to make it so the module loads on boot. I knew about Red Hat printtool so I used that to set it up and it worked.
Over time I've dcwnloaded a few things, some have worked some haven't. Relatively recently I mentioned wanting to try to hook up a digital camera to the kit and a person recommended downloading a new kernel available on the site. I read around the forums and found a few posts with short guides to installing it, so with those guides and my books I did it. I kept the old kernel around just in case.
So when I got my digital camera, I had read that that the current stable GIMP would compile so I compiled that, did a modprobe usb-storage, did a mkdir/mnt/camera followed by a mount/dev/sda1/mnt/camera and there were my test pics. I had that digital camera working less than 5 hours after purchasing, most of that time spent waiting for GIMP to compile.
So what do I think after all this. Linux has been both easier and more challenging than I thought it would be. some things I thought would be difficult were easy. Some things I thought would be easy were hard. It would probably be easier if I had an x86 Linux box as there would be more rpms I could use, but I like my little black box of wonder. It does practically everything I would want it to do. It may not be fast, it may not be pretty, but it does it adequately for my purposes.
There are things I would like to see that would help out newbies:
Better written documentation and websites. Somethings are sometimes a bit too vague.
Better designed UI' for apps.
More apps for "newbie users", say a Print shop clone. (That might be a way to get newbies more involved in the Linux community, designing borders, clip art, what have you for such an application.)
Less condescenscion from the Linux cognoscenti. Less RTFM, because much of the Linux documentation sucks from the newbie user's experience. I understand the importance of "sweat equity" to some of the hardcore but that sort of thing is NOT going to attract newcomers.
A little less fragmentation, I think it's time to choose the winners and losers among the various apps and utilities. Programmer man/hour resources in the open source community are large but finite. Every man hour spent on some obscure app that no one uses is a man hour not spent honing the "premiere" apps that could use more polish. of course, I may be naive on that point.
So there you have it, one newbies opinions. Tear em apart.:-)
They have a nice website.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's a great example for learning about XML and HTML, and no-frills high signal-to-noise accessible elegant quick-to-market dynamic easily graphically and functionally enhancible web page design.
Re:Non castrated RedHat...KDE sings "My Way..."
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey don't knock Aussie geeks! I like my GUI to be KDE like I'm sure many Aussie geeks do.
Thank you for replying! I actually read the site and posted before seeing your post about not being ready yet. Sorry.
That said, I think it might be a really good idea to split the site into two parts, one for home users (Mom) and one for techies. Mom also likes good graphics but I don't think that is going to be the most important thing, the main thing is that people will trust that the product is easy to use if the site is easy to use. A clear and unjumbled presentation, with maybe a screenshot of the installer (I think lindows.com does something there) would be great. Sorry I don't have time to help out but good luck!
P.S. I was serious when I mentioned that if you could do without making linux partitions (one or two distros do this) and even run off the CD you are a mile ahead.
How about this? Give people the option of just popping the CD into a computer wherever they are and have it discover network settings and pull their personal files down over ftp (if they have a private ftp folder somewhere). Neat and not too hard maybe. Luck!
BeroLinux
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I reckon they should call it BeroLinux. OK I'm just being silly:D
If you don't know who Bero is then you must be new to Slashdot. He was the defacto Redhat frontman on Slashdot who gave post after inciteful post in response to Redhat stories here at/.
When Redhat changed (or 'crippled' depending on your take) KDE for RH8.0 it compromised his principles so he left. I guess this is what he has been doing in the meantime.
I have full support of this project. When I first saw the news item I was so flat - "f'n great - yet another 'based on Redhat' clone, yawn". Once I saw Bero's involvent it really sparked my interest.
Re:BeroLinux
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I must totally agree on that one, i was managed to download the distro, and installed it on a machine here. It works flawlessly and is indeed very fast.
Its disappointing to hear all the moaning from people, i think people have really a wrong perception of a "easy to use" linux, most major so called "easy to use" distros today are not so friendly towards a user who lacks computer experience, they get stuck sooner or later.
It's good that someone is trying to create a turningpoint and actually put some effort to it.
Ark Linux is the best FREE, altenative ive tried to this date.
Thank you.
Your comment could look a bit "overloaded" atm... too early to say that. Anyway I'm really happy to hear that we are going in the right direction (well.. this will never be everybody's opinion, as for every new idea/project).
We have still a lot of work to do, and I really hope to get interested people involved in the developement process at any level... I really want to thank everybody who is already testing Ark Linux and sending us useful bug reports.
Re:Non castrated RedHat...KDE sings "My Way..."
by
JudgeFurious
·
· Score: 1
So I do.
Engage Yule Brynner voice: "So let it be written, so let it be done."
Simple fact man.
-- Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
the distribution debate is so 2002
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
With gentoo, you can build what ever kind of environment you want. It installs only a clean kernel and simple utilities, you tell it what apps you want and it downloads the sources you want off the net and it compiles, installs them for you along with all dependencies(try that with rpm). If you want a web server, emerge apache, it's that's easy. Want a desktop environment? emerge kde or emerge gnome or what ever you want. Gentoo is also compiled for specific architectures and I have noticed a 20-30 % performance increase in gentoo over redhat 8. I think their model is the way of the future, and only lacks a couple features to be able to support 90% of Linux needs. Stuff needed.
1. A gui for emerge so that newbies can easily pick the software they want plus detailed descriptions of what each package does. You can already view the package descriptions, but they're geared more towards geeks and don't have a newbie translation.
2. Ability to download binaries over the net optionally or source. You can force it to us binaries off a live cd, but I haven't seen an option to download pre compiled binaries specific to my CPUs architecture if wanted. Not everyone will wait 24 hours for KDE to compile on there system and so should have the binaries available to increase the time to deploy.
3. Pre built binary distributions targeted at home users without high-speed internet connections. A lot of people still use modems and don't have the bandwidth to download gentoo
Re:Knoppix is the easiest to use.
by
An+Onerous+Coward
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Zero clicks to an install? Hell, Debian does that.
--
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Re:Non castrated RedHat...KDE sings "My Way..."
by
nelsonal
·
· Score: 1
Any one have a wav file of that, I would love that to be my double click sound.
-- Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:Knoppix is the easiest to use.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Knoppix is based on Debian.
Xfree86 is a weeeeeak link....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Gee, so it will be unlike Redhat or Mandrake, and the latest version will boot using my standard Dell E770 monitor without 10 hours of research to discover why it fails to load any version of XFree?
Anyone Willing to Invest?
by
evilviper
·
· Score: 2
With the help of about a half-dozen programmers, and enough capital to get it on store shelves, I could design and make a distro based on a free OS, that would be INCREDRBLY easy to use.
Hell, you stick it in the CDROM, and it installs itself in moments without asking a single question. It will need something like Kudzu, but a hell of a lot smater, and better able to handle idiots who do the wrong things. Then, you will need a complete desktop system, which I would use XFce with some modifications to add descriptive text everywhere.
The, the current package managers need to be improved, so that, for free, users can just visit the offical webpage, and click on the latest version of a package to install it and all dependencies automatically.
It's basically just that Unix systems need better defaults, and smater scripts so the users don't have to be. It needs to tell the users exactly what to do everywhere they need to do anything, and be very tolerant to incorrect input.
It's easy to do, it just seems that everyone has been going in the wrong direction, and giving users every feature under the sun and forcing them to make the decisions. Instead, they should be narowing down everything, and essentially telling them what to do.
# NO VIRUSES Linux is not prone to viruses. Because of the data protection functionality in Linux, a virus can not overwrite system files or append itself to applications unless you are working as the "root" user (which you shouldn't do in the first place).
I'll bite. There are Linux viruses (etap and slapper spring to mind), and the author of that seems to be missing a fairly major point.
I can rebuild a Linux server in half an hour or so, if system files get corrupted. The difficulty is retrieving data that's been trashed.
For more about weenies who think Linux is virus free:
Customers have no trouble learning a new interface. They do it all the time.
Depends on the customer, depends on the application. 100 years ago, every car manufacturer put the sticks and pedals in a different place. Now they are standard worldwide. Do you think that a car with the brake to the right of the accelerator would sell well in 2003? Even if it was faster? How many accidents would it cause? Ever tried driving a righthand-drive car in heavy traffic after an overnight flight (or lhd if you normally drive rhd)?
Interface changes are no big deal for early adopters (like a lot of people on this site, I suspect). They are a big issue for occasional computer users, the elderly and a lot of other people who need to start using Linux if it is to compete on MS's own turf.
The biggest problems occur when a certain action causes one effect on the system you know and a completely different effect on the one you don't. In the case of switching from rhd to lhd cars, this meant I spent a week trying to use the window winder as the stick shift. In the case of one of our Windows customers, I eventually tracked his repeated X-session crashes to the fact he kept doing ctrl-alt-backspace to close windows in Mozilla, which apparently works just fine in IE...
So you are saying Linux can't make it on the desktop until the interface is exactly like Windows? I.e., keystroke sequences and chording work the same in Windows as in Linux - even if the Linux way is 'better' (quoted, as I have no standard to compare against - 'better than what and for whom?')which is essentially an opensource version of Windows - not Linux.
Not a troll, I am interested in what you are saying, and I think you may be onto something, but I don't like where it takes me logically.
-- Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
I wouldn't put it quite that way, but I think users are a lot less ready to change interfaces than your average programmer realises.
Of course the car analogy cuts both ways. There is no standard for where the lights and windscreen wipers go, for example, and people seem to survive.
One enormous difference between the USA and most of Europe in cars has been the dominance of the automatic gearbox in the former and the dominance of the stick shift in the latter (last time I looked, less than 1% of European cars were automatic). But it looks to me like this may be about to change with the arrival of the sequential gearbox that has an automatic mode, which European manufacturers are starting to install in relatively cheap cars. In other words, the 'standard' might not be all Windows or all Linux, and 'progress' might mean that it isn't the worst of both worlds either.
What seems quite clear to me is that Linux is not going to worry MS in the desktop market as long as there are umpteen different Linux interfaces. (99% of users don't care about anything below the interface, which is why MS could effectively introduce a brand new operating system with the NT-XP product line without most people noticing.)
In this respect, I think Redhat 8's move to a unified interface makes sense. It would make more sense if other distos faolowed suit, but, for now, distros seem to want to distinguish themselves by having a unique interface. And, personally, I think there is too much gnome and not enough kde in their unified solution. Which, of course, is the problem with compromises...
The bottom line is that what seasoned Linux users want is probably not what Joe mouse user wants. Not quite sure what the route from here to there is though, as alienating all the existing users of your distro in the hope of picking up a load of new ones who have never heard of you doesn't sound like a great business plan either!
-- Virtually serving coffee
Re:It's NOT disk space, it's memory footprint, sil
by
p944
·
· Score: 1
Surely this can be fixed by 1. including copies of all the shared libs that you need in the installation 2. the OS merging binary identical libs when loading them into memory - thus, shared libs without memory wastage and never another complaint about cant find lib X.
A smalltalk guy I know *loved* the fact that when you compiled a program it included everything in there so you never had a library conflict (if this is wrong, it's cos I've never actually used smalltalk).
Screenshots
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually I downloaded two different iso images and burned the CDs but was not able to complete the install. A known bug is that the installer fails with the i810 chipset. Bero hoped the dockyard iso would work. He has limited hardware -- so if someone has the i810 board and wants to help code a fix -- then I'm sure he is willing to talk to you.
Once I'm able to get the distro installed then I'll gladly post screenshots.
LPH http://www.tuxreports.com Where Penguins Fly
BTW: We discussed this distro a few days ago on PCLinuxOnline and Tux Reports. Sorry you guys missed out:-)
Re:Linux IS hard to use...except Ninnle!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Ninnle Linux...
The stability of Debian...
The easy install of RedHat...
The desktop friendliness and flexibility of Mandrake...
The familiarity of Windoze...
HOW COULD YOU GO WRONG?
Install Ninnle today!
Re:Knoppix is the easiest to use.
by
bruthasj
·
· Score: 2
> Zero clicks to an install? Hell, Debian does that.
This isn't fragmentation
by
FooBarWidget
·
· Score: 2
"I think the last thing I want to do is be able to take a program off of my Mandrake box, take it over to my Ark box and not be able to run it because they are two different distros."
Why do you even want that? Mandrake works fine, stick with it. Ignore ArkLinux, it doesn't exists. There is only one Linux: Mandrake. There, problem solved. This whole "fragmentation" thing is just in your head.
"Why does everyone feel the need to reinvent the wheel?"
Because everybody is reinventing a different kind of wheels and see which one works best in which situations?
Re:Mac OS X, Unix for the masses for 3+ years alre
by
TerryAtWork
·
· Score: 2
That just makes my point, doesn't it?
All Mac OS's are like training wheels you can never remove.
"You would do well not to imagine profundity," he said. "Anything that seems of momentous occasion should be dwelt upon as though it were of slight note. Conversely, trivialities must be attended to with the greatest of care. Because death is momentous, give it no thought; because victory is important, give it no thought; because the method of achievement and discovery is less momentous than the effect, dwell always upon the method. You will strengthen yourself in this way."
-- Jessica Salmonson, "The Swordswoman"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...
Slashdot Mirror
heh good luck. once it's as easy as windows it's going to crash like windows too.
http://slashdot.org/articles/980725/117228.shtml
It's a pretty interesting environment which allows new companies (distributions) to get an instant running start by basing a new distribution on someone elses. It reminds me of the whole "on the shoulders of giants" saying.
See BeroLinux on SF which was then integrated to Linux Mandrake PR
wolruf@gmail.com
The best way to make linux "easy to use for the masses" is NOT going to be by adding yet another distribution of it. Personally it would help if all the "desktop linux" companies pooled their resources and made one, standard linux desktop running on one, standard gui interface. Adding another linux distro just makes things more confusing for the masses.
More choice isn't always good. I would rather see ONE good desktop linux package than ten substandard ones.
Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!
A lot of people have tried to make linux "easy". I don't think you can make linux easy. It's like trying to make an oscilloscope easy to use; you just can't do it.
Seems like a nice idea to me:
Take the good base of RedHat and replace their castrated Desktop with a working one. Since Bero is responsible for this it might even turn out pretty good...
dev0
I'm glad someone's claiming that stupid joke. You're a real sweetheart.
No screenshots??!?
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
And also, who has not seen this "make linux easier for the desktop" thing before? There are about a million and one distros who purport to do this. Why does everyone feel the need to reinvent the wheel?
--sdem
If you try enough "different" things you'll eventually come upon one that works, or you'll die. :p
99% perspiration, 1% inspiration.
Are there 99 not-for-the-masses widely distro'd linux's yet?
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
You better hurry and volunteer to help with Ark Linux. There's only two positions available. There's a catch, however. You must have experience in python, awk, squeak, moo, bark, and oink. ;)
...oOOo..'(_)'..oOOo...
The whole thing with *NIX that makes it great is that it will never be easy for the masses.
Bill Gates sold his soul by creating easy to use software that reins the user in.
The *NIX people forfeited popularity by building an OS that is intrinsically elitist, in an honest way, like a pro sports league in that the common man can never be good enough to make the team.
The masses MUST stick with Windows. Only the few can play in the Super Bowl.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Competition is bad for consumers.
It seems to me that this debate will rage on and on about which desktop is the best etc etc. I don't know much about this ark linux offering but I do like the idea of someone else taking a crack at it. its a worthy goal to reach for.
it seems to me that the only way this will be achieved is by a distro making some very draconian decisions about what to include. I for one would be delighted to see a very lightweight distro that did just a few things very well.
what I mean is if there was a distro that included a web browser, mail client, open office, mp3 player & a terminal program, and they all looked good and were consistent in look, feel and function, then this would be a major step forward. you dont need to include much more than that to have a successful easy to use distro. no point in including tons of compilers and dev tools if you want to make something easy for non-techies to use.
hopefully this is a goal that will be reached someday. it is so possible to do that I'm really surprised to see so many failed attempts. All I'm suggesting is a lightweight distro with a select few apps that are heavily polished and work well. If you did that you could gain a following and maybe get enough credibility and respect that other app developers would code to your human interface guidelines.
just a thought.
Linux, BSD, and everythign else need one thing, just one thing that embedded systems like Zaurus and others do successfully to make it easy for the masses. Remove everything technical. All the drivers should be an LKM, there should be something like a "Control Panel" to choose which ones load on boot-up. Users should be allowed to pick and choose their WM, but it should be easy. Gnome Control Panel did this I think. There should be _no mention_ of the term: 'recompile the kernel'. There should be binary packages available so people can download, right click, and select "Install..." to install a program. It should boot-up graphically into X-Windows and should only have one xterm-like replacement(or even xterm itself) hidden, deep in the menus.
r -lifetime-bought-the-damn-thing-at-wal-mart-for-ch rist-sakes
Does this take out everything we love? Yes. I'll gladly stick to FreeBSD with my rxvt's and my gettys, my kernel compilation and my make worlds, thank you very much. The beauty of Windows is that it takes all of the fun out. But what we consider fun others consider a PITA.
If a distribution did this, took everything out, made it all LKM's, and took all the technicalities out, then we would have a system for everyday users. They don't want the command line. Come on, some of these people can only do 5 wpm! When starting up your web browser because you don't know about tab-completion and you can't type takes 15 seconds before the program is even executed, you have a major problem there. It should be click(or, optionally, click-click) and it should run.
This needs a team of dedicated people to run a free system like this, but more likely, a team of employees from a company will do this(and many are trying to) and to maintain binary packages, an easy system to install/update/delete packages. That's what we need.
What is wrong with Red Hat and Mandrake and the others? Simple. Whenever they do something to make everything more simplistic, the community(read: many of us slashdotters) makes a backlash saying the system lacks this or that functionality because they did this or that. I say let them. We always have Debian, Slackware, and other distributions. Let a few of these become end-user-never-going-to-type-in-a-command-in-thei
distributions and leave it at that. Applaud them for taking out even the ability to re-compile the kernel. Applaud them for it.
Yes, many of these companies are doing idiotic things, but we're part of the community and they look to us for guidance. Let's tell them, not yell at them, to take apache out of the main distribution and for god sakes disable it for regular desktop users.
Desktops should be so easy an 8 year old should be able to set up. Servers should be difficult to set up.
Sorry, I had to rant. and yes, I know it's the same rant everyone else on slashdot says, but this time I get to say it.
Is it the same bero that used to do KDE stuff at redhat? .. Didn't he leave RH because of the mistreatment of KDE within RH?
Never seen Mac OS X in action, have you?
1. stop basing them on red hat. If red hat is so great, use red hat.
2. Gime me some actual reason why this is better than red hat, mandrake, suse, conectiva or the red-hat flavour of the week.
3.ark? what the hell? you can have the packages installed two by two?
4. some other witty comment.
5. sheesh. I'm tired of cookie-cutter distros.
In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
Remember this guy?
1) Criticize a paying Slashdot advertiser's product
2) ?
3) Get your account disabled by the Slash secret police
No screenshots? This story isn't slashdot worthy if there are no screenshots!
and Mad Dog asked for Unix dsitrubitons two by tow to be loaded into the Ark before the next major Windows DDOS Floods..
:)
hey I could not resist.. I doubt if Mad Dog reads this
Don't Tread on OpenSource
With all these easy to use Linux versions around, a problem arises.
Basically, Linux isn't THAT hard to use for real Newbies (people with very little Windows experience, but aren't afraid to learn), but it is hard to use for many because it is *unfamiliar.* Having many different easy-to-use versions may be a problem in exacerbating that problem. Lets face it, Windows is easy to use mostly because since Microsoft has a monopoly, it is what most people are familiar with.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
...are the ones that have a stated purpose, and dedicate its entire user interface towards that one purpose, for example ClarkConnect is used by many of my non-Linux/Unix using friends, and the only questions they have are always in regards to using it in a manner it was never meant to be used.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
More info here at PCLINUXONLINE.COM with questions and comments from the developer (nickname in the posts is bero)
there's nothing inherent about ease-of-use that makes in unstable.
ah gee what is LSB?
Look it up before you answer..
The process you describe has already been in process for about 2 yearws and has made some progress..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Someone else has already tried this, folks. And done a great job so far. It's called Yoper.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Last login: Sat Jan 11 14:14:27 2003 from adsl-67-112-xxx
OrangeHat Linux Inc. 3.8 Sun5U Generic November 2004
Cabbages, Knickers, It's not got a beak.
Send gripes to alex@yarblocko.com
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
jeebus, if you want linux, use slack. if you base something on redhat, then its not linux, its redhat
go away
If you feel that Linux needs a major redesign to be really easy to use, please cosider joining the ROX OS project. We have not released any code yet and don't intend to for some time yet because we think that actually designing first and implementing later would be a good idea ;)
So far our ideas have been: ;)
* Drop the thousand of different WM-s, etc and focus on making one standard system * Use Mac OS X/LinuxSTEP like FS
* Use metadata/extended attributes for relevant information
* Use AppDir format for all apllications = single click installl
* Have a solid base system that stays API compatible for a little more than a day
Please feel free to drop by,
L.
An anonymous reader notes that OFB has a short blurb about a new Linux distribution, Ark Linux, based on Red Hat and chasing the ever-elusive goal of being "easy to use for the masses".
why is it so damn hard for them to make a easy to use version of linux? the problem of ease-of-use has been solved since the invention of the wizard. you take complex tasks and break them down into steps so simple a child could perform them. why don't they just wizard the hell out of everything? but don't wizards sacrifice functionality and penalize power users, you ask. not if they're implemented correctly they don't. you want to make the task power-user friendly, just insert a step at the beginning that asks the user about his/her skill level (like "advanced mode" or "custom"). problem solved. the real problem is that linux programmers are too technically skilled for their own good. they've lost the ability to relate to joe computer user. kudos to ark for trying to break the mold.
Technically the *only* thing that can be referred to as 'Linux' is the kernel that Linus releases.
**everything** else is just based on it.. So slackware is no more, or less, 'Linux' then redhat, or caldera or any other of the bazillion distros..
( well not BSD, VsTA, etc.. but lets stay serious here )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Why would you consider Redhat's desktop castrated? "
Because it doesn't have the KDE group's seal of approval.
This is why I left Mandrake Linux for Debian.
It was still as stable as Linux, but it was like running last month's version of Debian/Unstable. The packages where cutting edge (unstable), but still old.
What makes Debian so great (inspite of it being a bitch to configure) is the packaging system. I can always get a package and my server (Debian/Stable) has never had a single package conflict.
If all rpm-based distros would band togethor to share packages and package servers they might be able to shake a stick at Debian. If they can pull it off.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Enough, that is, of distributions that are "for the masses". It should be clear to everyone by now that this phrase is utterly meaningless, since it encompasses a huge number of possible approaches to the problem of making lusers happy with Unix. I propose that this phrase and all similarly generic phrases be officially declared Fucking Useless, and anyone who uses them be savagely beaten until they come up with a particular differentiating feature for their distribution.
So what is special about the distro of the week? Hardware autodetection? Careful customization of packages to provide a uniform and sensible default UI? Good paper documentation?
Oh, Jesus, if I just stop there, someone will moderate this up. Do you people realize how pathetic you are, that you're reading this? Writing it was bad enough (shame, shame, shame!), but reading it... can't get read again. Come on, eat me! Burn, karma, burn! SLASHDTO DEITORS SUX0000RZ1!!1! Bibbity bibbity bibbity!
What a lazy mind I must have. It misread the title of this story as Ask Linux. I assumed it meant to say something like "Ask Slashdot: Easiest Way to Get Started With Linux?", only the editors were feeling equally lazy that day.
linux is easy to use. there are a number of distros one can choose to. one misconception of appreaciating the value of software is to focus entirely on "how easy" it is. the worst, many associated easiness to M$. Easyness sounds like laziness. Easy come, easy go!
Read it.
If you understand Linux well enough, it *is* easy to use. I find it very easy to use, even when doing something unusual that hasn't been designed ahead of time for me. I think the goal of theses "easy to use" Linux distros is really to be "easy to learn". And in this world, "easy to learn" means creating an interface similar to what people already know to shorten the learning curve.
Intuitiveness == Familiarity
Just my 2 cents.
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But neither the article or the original project site do not disclose by which means the new distro will make Linux easy to use comparing to other linux distros.
Is it just new set of very well debugged installation programs very well integrated with GUI based wizards? If so, what's the difference with Mandrake, Lindows, SCO and Redhat?
Or it integrates some new end-user applications (like ximian evolution)?
Especially I wonder, what is done or is going to be done to improve the user experience from usability prospective? For example, what specifically is done to explain the user what makes this distro so easy to use?
Less is more !
Yes, it's a start be not nearly enough...
There is still too much of a difference between distributions.
besides he said "...pooled their resources and made one, standard linux desktop running on one, standard gui interface."
This is what UnitedLinux is trying to do...create a standard base to build upon, which is a brilliant idea.
The LSB has nothing to do with pooling the resources of different companies for a common good...It just *tries* to set some standards on how a Linux system should be set up.
The sad part about it is that if Linux itself were one company, one *primary* interface, one packaging system, etc...it would have a much better chance of beating microsoft.
Instead we have to rely on uncomplete standards that nobody *really* follows anyway.
I again would like to state that the concept of UnitedLinux is brilliant, think how awesome it would be if ALL linux companies/distributions pooled their resources together for reserach and development, creating a STANDARD base to build on, and certifying software and hardware to work with it!...Vendors wouldn't have to decide what distro to package for, all RPMS (or whatever standard package was used) would be "foobar.UL.rpm" and it would work on ALL distributions without change. You wouldn't have to worry about creating a package for every-god-damn-distro-on-earth...or making sure your hardware works with every one of them...it would just work.
Cooperation and standardization is your friend!
--- Brad (http://www.LinuxReview.net)
Do they expect to make money on this new distribution. If yes, how?
Debian is Debian, ...
...
RedHat is RedHat,
Slackware is Slackware,
5 is 5
However,
Debian is NOT Linux,
RedHat is NOT Linux,
Slackware is NOT Linux,
5 is NOT Linux
There is not a single distro out there that is Linux. There are however, many *nix distributinos that use the Linux kernel. But they are not by definition Linux, but rather distributions of Linux. Linux is a kernel. Distributions are packaged chunks of software that form a complete operating system including a kernel and tools to make the system useful.
Why bother.
To have a successful Unix OS for the masses, you need a developer community that places serious value on providing the end-user with a quality user experience.
Mac OSX has succeeded where linux has failed because it really has an entirely different developer culture than linux (or really, most of the unix developer community, for that matter).
Linux has an uphill battle because for so long its developer community has called end users stupid and has refused to believe that its interfaces have serious usability problems.
The point of my subject is that the mac developer community is really so radically different from the traditionalist unix developers in their belief system that you can't call Mac OSX a unix desktop; it's really "a desktop that just happens to use unix". Which is a good thing.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
Ya know, I'm amazed that Linux still has this "hard to use" stigma attached to it.
I don't know what everyone else uses, but I use Suse. For the longest time I stuck with 7.0, just upgraded, rebuilt, etc. I recently upgraded to 8.1 (installed it on some servers at work, and figured it was time to upgrade at home).
It's amazing how far it's come. I can plug in a USB drive, and have the icon show up on the desktop. Just like a mac. NO fooling with drivers, no rebooting. Very unlike windows. Change some hardware? Suse catches that on boot and prompts you to configure it. Very unlike windows.
And we won't even talk about how easy Linux is to install compared to windows.
This "hard to use" stigma seems to be stuck in the mind of tech reporters, who tend to hover a year or two behind the current reality.
Take off the tinfoil and a quick read of the site..
- 4 clicks to install = good
- giving simplification a shot = good
- developed own installer (i guess) = good
- no info about what to do with an iso = bad
- explained in terms of red hat = bad
- unanswered questions on page = bad
- needs:
screenshots
info on hardware requirements
info on supported locales (or is it just English)
info for developers on "why develop for distro x"
needs a "why use our distro" page for users
- might be interesting if you could do work just by popping CD in (without partitioning or doing a big install).. or is that what it does? dunno.
Will there be two of every kind? ;)
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. it's the only thing that ever has.
I'm already installing, just look at that support Seriously though, don't click the link, it's goatse. What the hell is with that??
I wish these guys the best of luck, anything that brings Linux to more people is a good thing, but...
IMHO all attempts to make computers 'easy to use' 'for the masses' have failed. Just ask any joe public who wants to actually use their computer, rather than spend endless hours tinkering with it or being plauged by niggling bugs. Computers are extremely complex things, and the critical mass of knowledge required to make them run smootly makes it impractical for every user to become a system administrator.
I think what's needed is a shift in perception and the model we use to sell hardware and software. Rather than just selling boxes (containing PCBs or CDROMs), computers should be rented. This would mitigate the endless upgrade cycle and (with the internet) allow trained professionals to administer customers' boxes, all included in the price. Linux is an ideal OS for such a distribution method.
Do I think this will happen? Not yet. For this model to be economically viable it would require specialist tools that would let admins look after huge amounts of boxes. A major shift in public perception would be required, especially after all the 'so easy to use even your granny can do it' ads. Finally, I think that it would take a lot for users to hand over the control of thier computer to anyone.
Well.. as already pointed out by bero, we are still in a developement stage, and that's why we didn't any public announcement so far.
Our highest focus atm is the codebase, the distro itself. That's why the website is still a bit "poor".
I hope we will be able to work on it soon... just remember that Ark Linux is an "open" project, therefore everybody is free to contribute anything.
I really hope to get more people involved as time goes on. Let's see
Until Linux runs the programs that people want to run, all the usability in the world won't help. MS will continue to own the mainstream desktop until an average user can migrate an entire Windows system to Linux, including all his/her apps and configuration settings, without being an expert.
I'm sure newbie users will be turned on by this distro. Especially by the guy with the exposed rectum on support page. Can't really take any distro seriously that links to goatse.cx
Go to the support page: http://www.arklinux.org/support.php Warning though, it takes you to a quite offensive picture!
One of the site's links re-directed me to "that pliant fellow" most of us have seen before.
Since when is windows easy to use?
think about it, why do you get called to make a "simple" change or fix for your friends and family. because its not easy for them.
Watch a person on windows work some time. watch as they do things in odd methods to avoid crashing a system. or can never find that option
face it, windows is not simple and easy for the masses either. they just adapted to the idiosincracies(sp?) of it
I love the gentoo package managment. It is better then pure sex and yes even apt-get.
I found the distro too bleeding edge in some area's *cough devfs * cough and it takes a whole weekend to finally configure everything. The latest version was so buggy that I could not get my
But its lightning fast and more bsd like in which all the actual config files go in
Freebsd rocks too in which sysinstall configures things pretty good but it takes alot of tweaking to get the following Xfree86 to work with my geforce4, the beta nvidia drivers, java, and sound support with my soundblaster live.
I wonder if FreeBSD has support for kernel modules so a recompile isn't necessary just to use sound. If not then an easy to use FreeBSD distro would be hard to make.
http://saveie6.com/
Acording to OFB, the Ark page says "... so far, nobody has tried making an easy to use version of Linux for the masses..." Where did they get their information?
I'm a season computer geek, but all of my experience has been with Windows, right back to Windows 1.0 days. Recently I decided to switch my network server from Windows 2000 to Redhat Linux. I chose redhat because it's the most popular distribution and, I supposed, would therefore have the best user community support.
My machine is a dual processor (P3 1Ghz) box and it has two 40GB drives connected to a highpoint raid controller built into the bios. I mirror the disks using this controller under Windows.
Most things went smoothly with the install. I was somewhat defeated by the implementation of RAID in Linux though. As much as the pro-linux crowd seem to rave about how good the software raid in linux is (and I'm sure it *is* good), it was a darn sight easier to configure in Windows. The SMP worked out of the box though and RH picked up all my hardware, I was impressed. Configuring my firewall was a pain, until I found the firestarter utility - I strongly recommend it if you're planning to use iptables.
But the point of this is my woes with printers. OMG. It took me three hours, several downloads, a couple of builds, many visits to groups.google.com && linuxprinting.org, much howto- reading and config file modifying just to get my new HP 5550 installed and (semi) working. And this was with a printer that is actually supported under Linux by the manufacturer !!
Hell's teeth, I don't care what the desktop looks like; it's a new operating system and I'll just learn whatever it comes with. Until things like installing a printer becomes as easy as insert-disk-and-go (like Windows), it'll be an uphill job to convert the masses.
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
Pretty shoddy... I clicked on the "support" link on the website and had a disgusting surprise (goatse style). Right now the site redirects to www.linuxsucks.com, with lots of popups.
Beware.
Thanks for clearing this up so quickly, Bero.
Got to add that people who read slashdot usually hate the DMCA -- and yet there we are, seeing slashdot readers damage an open system of a free software project.
People like that make weird laws that disallow content modification, like the DMCA, necessary!
thanks for restating the obvious
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
OS X
Really how hard is Anaconda, its very user friendly compared to other installers like YaST(sorry the average user does not prefer a weblike installer even its creator said its geared twoard more advanced users) Mandrakes Installer is little more difficult to use depending on who you talk to, I don't think it is but it just me.
for they are subtle and easily screwed up.
Just because you break something down into stages doesn't mean that any of those stages won't have serious usability design flaws.
For example, the Red Hat installer has a wizard, but they still do this confusing, ambiguous, and non-standard hierarchical radio button thingy in one section. Mandrake installer has a wizard, but they still denote progress through the wizard by whether a button that denotes each stage is green or red (which kind of sucks for people with red/green color blindness).
I'm not saying wizards, when properly implemented, are a bad idea, but they are by no means a panacea for the stuff that really confuses end users. While many linux distros now have graphical stuff, the graphical stuff is still designed by programmers without any design sense at all. And this is really why so many people still find linux so hard to use.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
--redhat 7.1 had a good gnomerpm that all you needed was a right click to install an app. It was great, worked well, now it takes three different screens and a lot of clicking to do the same thing. So at one time it existed.
Coming from a mostly never ever touched a cli since the 80's on dos which I detested as just stoopid, I found (still find on 7.2) redhat to be quite easy to use as long as I stick to redhat brand rpms and not generic rpms, that one threw me for a loop "why" that was when the "non standard" rpm happened to me. Seems as a bit of courtesy that whomever took the label "rpm" and made an app that was labeled that would have followed the originator's standard in what file went where. If they didn't like iot they should have called it something else. To me that's like buying a non oem aftermarket alternator that is labeled "belchfire" but it won't bolt onto a belchfire. Sorta kinda dumb and rude there.
Free as in speech and in beer doesn't necessarily make the speech outstanding oratory or the brew outstanding beverage. So I agree, quality, consistency, ease of use. A few dozen apps that work well, not a few hundred that are so-so and require weeks of code wrangling. The main bitching I see here is "oh no, can't lose our elite tweaking ability". Who says you have to? Duh, any distro can add in the dang shell and console, but not being absolutely required to use it makes it or breaks it on "the masses" useability scale.
Another really off the wall side issue. Apps included in an officially released boxed set distro, and what you pay for the distro, there should be micropayments to the app maker guys to go with it, if they are releasing as begware. that will make what's included or not be a lot easier to sort out. If the apps aren't begware, and they are toting 100% of the note and don't care, swell, their bandwith and coding time. I don't mind begware and would like to support them (the apps I use and find useful obviously), but sending one dollar via online payment schedule to a zillion app orgs is just silly. And I think the clone copiers and resellers should send a buck per cd to the distros they are cloning. And here's another kicker sure to be controversial. the gpl says it has to be "free", swell, the information is free, the bandwith isn't. People should help pay the bandwith and associated costs for downloading ISO's. That bandwith is not the "source code" that is free, you still get the data, but those servers take wires and electricity and buildings, which costs money. It's just as much a real expense as it is to make cd copies and ship them, albeit less money, it adds up. Call it a "shipping and handling" charge for the "free" stuff you are receiving.
It's not only a useless phrase, it's actually actively harmful. It leads people to believe that it's a possible or desirable thing.
This guy said it best:
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
It's really sad to see the biggest OSS community populated by childish people. Not everybody for sure, probably just a little minority.
It's really sad to see people putting real effort in doing either:
- ranting
- abusing free space to tell their friends "dude, look! I'm a hacker"
I read about people thinking that "Yet Another Distro" is counterproductive, a waste of resource.
Well... I see a lot of people here being really good at wasting time and resource... it's really sad once you realize that you are takling about the community you should be glad to be part of.
I really love people criticizing in a constructive way, and even more if they want to contribute anything.
But that's not the case atm, sorry
I don't know if they are running their own software ot not, netcraft says it is running RedHat but it could be them since it is based on RH. Thing of it is, someone who works with them has either gone nuts, or they have been hacked already, take look at their support page. Apparently someone doesn't like him. I hear so many things about Linux on the desktop, but there isn't really a big united project like MacOS X, everyone seems to not like somthing about a project, so they go and do their own, they all seem to look/act the same, the only way todo this right is to put some big money into that for motivation, but open source doesn't do a good job at that. Hmm, mods wont like that.. Linux RoX0rZ f0rEvEr - Give Karma!
There are some reasons that Linux is hard to use that have nothing to do with being different than Windows.
For one thing, Linux lacks a consistent definition of how a GUI should work, so you don't get the kind of consistency you get with, e.g., MacOS. For instance, some of my apps use the middle-mouse-button method for copying to the clipboard, while some use the Win/Mac method. Some try to implement both, and fail. Inconsistency is probably unavoidable considering the open-source development model.
Another problem is shared libraries. Shared libraries have some real advantages, but they create lots of problems with installing software. How are you going to explain to a naive user that they can't run a certain app because it requires libfoo 2.0, and they have libfoo 3.0 installed?
Find free books.
I'm surprised fewer Slashdotters even looked at Ark Linux' web site before engaging in the usual jabber about easy-to-use Linux distros. The site itself has no info about the distro. But if you go to the FAQ, lo and behold you get a bunch of references to "goatsex", an ASCII art dirty picture, a few hundred lines repeating the word "faggot", and a dirty story. Not much about Linux though.
I suspect the whole thing is a put-on by somebody with a serious lack of taste. Certainly if it were a real distro, and this stuff were hacked onto the site, then its server security wouldn't be adequate.
No, I haven't, I keep hearing it won't work on my PC. The masses use PCs, so, it isn't really for the masses.
Agreed, and I'll add one more thing. The first distro that adds Windows Domain support - COMPLETE support will be the one I implement here.
My users get mapped drives and shares when they login to the domain. I need my users to have centralized information stored on a Windows-based server. The software we use have few analogs in the open source world, so our backend is likely to remain the same for the forseeable future.
All of this needs to be seamless, and it needs to happen reliably. I haven't seen that yet. The pieces parts are there, certainly, but no one has gotten it right yet.
My guess is, this is EXEACTLY what Red Hat is planning to do with their next Workstation version.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
right, nevermind proprietary OS's, apple has proprietary chips, etc...not exactly "for the masses"
I've found Lycoris to be the absolute easiest Linux distro to use. Not only does it have a huge user support base, but even support for those of us wanting to try it and learn it before switching over from Windows, using VMWare.
While the installation is about as simple as it gets, the low click install is lost as Lycoris fires up a game of Solitaire for you play while waiting for it to complete.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
We placed too much trust in people interested in Linux being mature - therefore we decided to go with an open support system - everyone can ask and answer questions, and we don't censor posts.
Unfortunately we placed too much trust in people - this guy (originating from 68.13.232.26, located in Atlanta) abused the no-censoring policy to insert HTML redirects.
We've learned from it, about 15 minutes after we found out about the incident, we started stripping HTML tags and banning this guy's IP block.
I can understand it's fun to deface a website that boasts about its security - but defacing a publically editable website is pathetic. I thought our community was more mature than that.
Oh well, it's never too late to learn.
Then there's Ninnle Linux...a serious operating system, no joke!
I get tired of seeing screenshots for all the distros as they largely end up being the same thing, KDE or Gnome with some apps open. Big deal.
Meh.
Sorry for the redundant post, but since it's a redundant thread and needs clearing up...
Our server was not cracked.
We placed too much trust in people interested in Linux being mature - therefore we decided to go with an open support system - everyone can ask and answer questions, and we don't censor posts.
Unfortunately we placed too much trust in people - this guy (originating from 68.13.232.26, located in Atlanta) abused the no-censoring policy to insert HTML redirects.
We've learned from it, about 15 minutes after we found out about the incident, we started stripping HTML tags and banning this guy's IP block.
I can understand it's fun to deface a website that boasts about its security - but defacing a publically editable website is pathetic. I thought our community was more mature than that.
Oh well, it's never too late to learn.
As it turns out I use OS X as my primary desktop OS. I love it.
GNUstep does not get enough cred. If you had a distro running GNUstep w/ a few polished apps you'd open yourself up to developers releasing apps for both your distro and OS X at the same time. On top of that you'd have a Linux desktop capable of running any other Linux app.
Oh wait, I just described OS X again.
You compile all apps -static and you get 50 copies of malloc() in your memory (RAM+swap, but eventually you would want them to be in RAM) simultaneously! (actually, ps -ax|wc showed my that I have 89 processes running now, and I suppose most of them would use malloc(), right?)
Next, factor in cache trashing -- that shared malloc() code could've occupied couple lines in a corner of your instruction cache, now you need to flush/reload them every time application context is switched.
Paul B.
...its called Windows XP, or at least what your suggesting would be something close to it. Or, there's always the LSB.
Part of what makes Linux (and open source in general) is the variety of distributions of the same thing that exist (or could be made). While I agree that the major desktop-user centered distributions should standardize, I don't think the companies ever would or should pool resources like that. If they did, they'd basically be forming the Linux equivalent of MS.
If you wany a "standard" Linux GUI, then get the guys over at KDE and GNOME to talk.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that RedHat has already tried to smoothline KDE and GNOME in 8.0 with BlueCurve. I haven't finished dling it on my modem yet, so I haven't tried it out personally yet.
What I'd like to see instead is more work in automatic detection and configuration of hardware. Joe User doesn't undestand how to recompile his kernel to add his radio card, or for frame buffer support to use the two monitors that comes with his new Geforce4. There are several CD-ROM based distros, see Knoppix, that do well on whatever system they are thrown on, but Linux still isn't to the plug and play level that Windows is at I'm sorry to say. It just shouldn't take hours to get an Audigy to work.
After that, I'd like to see greater compatability between KDE and GNOME. Each Desktop Enviornment has its pros and cons, and appeals to a seperate crowd of users. But, and I say this not knowing enough about the underlying nature of themes, how hard would it be to make a converter or standardize elements at least?
I'd also like the see NTFS support get a little father ahead of where it is now. Most XP users are going to be on NTFS, and if you want to get people to switch, you need to make it easy to get files over the OS line. For that matter, a XP to Linux migration tool would be nice to see developed. Copy your shortcuts from Windows's IE to Linux's Mozilla. From Outlook Express / Outlook into Ximian or Mozilla. Etc. Etc.
And as much as I hate to say it, make integrate Wine. Make it so that Joe User can click on his old apps and they still work. From a purist perspective, I'd like to say that Linux shoudl stand on its own. By all rights, there really SHOULDN'T be a need for Wine. But, Joe User likes his old apps, and it will make it easier to transition for him if he gets to keep them. Eventually, he'll hopefully be enticed by the latest version of the Linux eqiuvalent and be intregued at the low (free) upgrade cost.
CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
And the simple fact that it matters (not having the KDE groups, or anyone elses "seal of approval") is why the words desktop, linux, newbie, and success will never be mentioned in the same sentence outside of the geek community.
The core people who make linux great are the single largest obstruction to making it work for mom. A castrated Red Hat is what mom needs. A castrated "anything" linux is what mom needs. What she doesn't need is KDE AND Gnome AND some other fucked up GUI because some geeks in Australia or Lithuania decided that the other two were too big or two small or too whatever. One thing, one look, one style, one OS. That's what they want to see and it's all they understand.
When it's all said and done she'll go buy a Compaq at Best Buy that's running Windows XP cause the Mac costs too much and she uses Windows at work so she doesn't have to learn anything new. Path of least resistance is always going to win this race.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
" You mean like the plug and play thing they've had since Windows 95? The one that's actually worked really well since Windows 2000? The one that not only detects hardware but configures it AUTOMATICALLY without you having to do a thing?"
You mean you no longer have to put the manufacturers driver disk in? Cool! Did they fix the occasional "forget that there's already a driver" issue? Or the "moving your hardware around could mean reinstalling driver" issue?
MOD PARENT UP
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. it's the only thing that ever has.
It's called Mac OS X.
I have installed and am using Red Hat 8.0. It was very easy to install, and is very easy to use. It was more than four mouse clicks, but their installer is really smooth. If you just want a quick, easy install you click one of four or five radio buttons for the type of machine you want (server, workstation, etc.); but you can also switch all the packages independently.
The OS seems to come pretty well secured by default; and of course there are the requisite "control panel" windows (which actually work!) and OpenOffice links. The terminal is buried waaaay down in the menu structure -- a bit disconcerting at first. But most of the little apps that we all know and love are available in the pull-up red hat menu already.
They've eliminated the notion of window manager from the basic graphic OS install -- there's no reference to it at all. You can switch window managers, but you have to know unix to do it. That, IMHO, is a Good decision.
It seems to me that Ark Linux is a tempest in a teapot -- Red Hat already did all the work; these guys can't possibly be doing much more than smoothing over the install and putting a different theme on the desktop.
so you say.
A newbie on /. The horror. The horror. I have an interest in computers but more as I bystander I guess. I've never actually even owned what most folks would consider a "real" computer. (other than an old Commodore 128)
./configure --build=mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu, make and make install worked withoug a hitch. I decided to try a finding an IM client. I chose Gaim, since it would let me keep in touch with my old WebTV friends on their MSN Messenger. I read their documentation and thought "CVS, what's that. Oh they've got instructions? Cool." Compiled without a hitch, version .58 I believe.
/mnt/camera followed by a mount /dev/sda1 /mnt/camera and there were my test pics. I had that digital camera working less than 5 hours after purchasing, most of that time spent waiting for GIMP to compile.
:-)
I'm a former WebTV user. (OH ok I still have it asa a backup.) I can imagine the groans. While still on it I somehow managed to hear about some "free" operating system called Linux. It sounded interesting so I began reading about it a bit. In 2001 I bought a Playstation 2 and not long after I bought it Sony announce the Japan version of their Linux kit. Eventually they announced it for the US and other territories too. (after the petition) So I thought that this might be an interesting way to learn more about Linux and computing. I also thought that it might make a better web access device than a WebTV.
So I logged on the Linuk kit's website and began reading and posting a few questions. After getting some answers I decided to go ahead and pre-order the kit AND buy some Linux books. The books were interesting reading even if I didn't understand some of it. (Still don't) But I figured I could muddle my way through it well enough.
The kit arrived in late May of 2002. Since I was without a compatible monitor, I installed blind. (But it turns out that there's a little trick you can do so you don't have to do that.) I typed setcrtmode -ntsc to get the console to display on my TV and then edited a couple of files in vi so that it would boot up in NTSC mode and so that X would display in NTSC Anyways it was working and after a phone call to my ISP I could use lynx. Then I began exploring X, I tried various window managers and eventually settled on KDE. That's KDE 1 mind you. Had e-mail set up within 15 minutes of starting kmail. Discovered that kmail checked mail every minute and that made it lock up every once in a while so I turned interval mail checkin off. I began looking around for things to download of the PS2 Linux site. I was going to try to find an IRC client but I decided to search to see if there was one already installed. There was, x-chat 1.3.7, ircll too. I decided to try a few source compiles that folks said would work. Abiword was my first and my
I wanted to be able to print with my kit so I thought I'd have to recompile my kernel to add USB printer support, so using a book as a guide, I did that. Of course, I really didn't need to do that because I already had the printer module compiled, I just hadn't seen it. Someone told me where to put the insmod to make it so the module loads on boot. I knew about Red Hat printtool so I used that to set it up and it worked.
Over time I've dcwnloaded a few things, some have worked some haven't. Relatively recently I mentioned wanting to try to hook up a digital camera to the kit and a person recommended downloading a new kernel available on the site. I read around the forums and found a few posts with short guides to installing it, so with those guides and my books I did it. I kept the old kernel around just in case.
So when I got my digital camera, I had read that that the current stable GIMP would compile so I compiled that, did a modprobe usb-storage, did a mkdir
So what do I think after all this. Linux has been both easier and more challenging than I thought it would be. some things I thought would be difficult were easy. Some things I thought would be easy were hard. It would probably be easier if I had an x86 Linux box as there would be more rpms I could use, but I like my little black box of wonder. It does practically everything I would want it to do. It may not be fast, it may not be pretty, but it does it adequately for my purposes.
There are things I would like to see that would help out newbies:
Better written documentation and websites. Somethings are sometimes a bit too vague.
Better designed UI' for apps.
More apps for "newbie users", say a Print shop clone. (That might be a way to get newbies more involved in the Linux community, designing borders, clip art, what have you for such an application.)
Less condescenscion from the Linux cognoscenti. Less RTFM, because much of the Linux documentation sucks from the newbie user's experience. I understand the importance of "sweat equity" to some of the hardcore but that sort of thing is NOT going to attract newcomers.
A little less fragmentation, I think it's time to choose the winners and losers among the various apps and utilities. Programmer man/hour resources in the open source community are large but finite. Every man hour spent on some obscure app that no one uses is a man hour not spent honing the "premiere" apps that could use more polish. of course, I may be naive on that point.
So there you have it, one newbies opinions. Tear em apart.
That's a great example for learning about XML and HTML, and no-frills high signal-to-noise accessible elegant quick-to-market dynamic easily graphically and functionally enhancible web page design.
Hey don't knock Aussie geeks! I like my GUI to be KDE like I'm sure many Aussie geeks do.
Thank you for replying! I actually read the site and posted before seeing your post about not being ready yet. Sorry.
That said, I think it might be a really good idea to split the site into two parts, one for home users (Mom) and one for techies. Mom also likes good graphics but I don't think that is going to be the most important thing, the main thing is that people will trust that the product is easy to use if the site is easy to use. A clear and unjumbled presentation, with maybe a screenshot of the installer (I think lindows.com does something there) would be great. Sorry I don't have time to help out but good luck!
P.S. I was serious when I mentioned that if you could do without making linux partitions (one or two distros do this) and even run off the CD you are a mile ahead.
How about this? Give people the option of just popping the CD into a computer wherever they are and have it discover network settings and pull their personal files down over ftp (if they have a private ftp folder somewhere). Neat and not too hard maybe. Luck!
I reckon they should call it BeroLinux. OK I'm just being silly :D
/.
If you don't know who Bero is then you must be new to Slashdot. He was the defacto Redhat frontman on Slashdot who gave post after inciteful post in response to Redhat stories here at
When Redhat changed (or 'crippled' depending on your take) KDE for RH8.0 it compromised his principles so he left. I guess this is what he has been doing in the meantime.
I have full support of this project. When I first saw the news item I was so flat - "f'n great - yet another 'based on Redhat' clone, yawn". Once I saw Bero's involvent it really sparked my interest.
So I do.
Engage Yule Brynner voice: "So let it be written, so let it be done."
Simple fact man.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
With gentoo, you can build what ever kind of environment you want. It installs only a clean kernel and simple utilities, you tell it what apps you want and it downloads the sources you want off the net and it compiles, installs them for you along with all dependencies(try that with rpm). If you want a web server, emerge apache, it's that's easy. Want a desktop environment? emerge kde or emerge gnome or what ever you want. Gentoo is also compiled for specific architectures and I have noticed a 20-30 % performance increase in gentoo over redhat 8. I think their model is the way of the future, and only lacks a couple features to be able to support 90% of Linux needs.
Stuff needed.
1. A gui for emerge so that newbies can easily pick the software they want plus detailed descriptions of what each package does. You can already view the package descriptions, but they're geared more towards geeks and don't have a newbie translation.
2. Ability to download binaries over the net optionally or source. You can force it to us binaries off a live cd, but I haven't seen an option to download pre compiled binaries specific to my CPUs architecture if wanted. Not everyone will wait 24 hours for KDE to compile on there system and so should have the binaries available to increase the time to deploy.
3. Pre built binary distributions targeted at home users without high-speed internet connections. A lot of people still use modems and don't have the bandwidth to download gentoo
Zero clicks to an install? Hell, Debian does that.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Any one have a wav file of that, I would love that to be my double click sound.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Knoppix is based on Debian.
Gee, so it will be unlike Redhat or Mandrake, and the latest version will boot using my standard Dell E770 monitor without 10 hours of research to discover why it fails to load any version of XFree?
With the help of about a half-dozen programmers, and enough capital to get it on store shelves, I could design and make a distro based on a free OS, that would be INCREDRBLY easy to use.
Hell, you stick it in the CDROM, and it installs itself in moments without asking a single question. It will need something like Kudzu, but a hell of a lot smater, and better able to handle idiots who do the wrong things. Then, you will need a complete desktop system, which I would use XFce with some modifications to add descriptive text everywhere.
The, the current package managers need to be improved, so that, for free, users can just visit the offical webpage, and click on the latest version of a package to install it and all dependencies automatically.
It's basically just that Unix systems need better defaults, and smater scripts so the users don't have to be. It needs to tell the users exactly what to do everywhere they need to do anything, and be very tolerant to incorrect input.
It's easy to do, it just seems that everyone has been going in the wrong direction, and giving users every feature under the sun and forcing them to make the decisions. Instead, they should be narowing down everything, and essentially telling them what to do.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
> Zero clicks to an install? Hell, Debian does that.
:-)
Yeah, a mouse-enabled dselect would kill the mouse after the first 5^10 packages...
Nevermind
# NO VIRUSES
l inux_malware.xml
Linux is not prone to viruses. Because of the data protection functionality in Linux, a virus can not overwrite system files or append itself to applications unless you are working as the "root" user (which you shouldn't do in the first place).
I'll bite. There are Linux viruses (etap and slapper spring to mind), and the author of that seems to be missing a fairly major point.
I can rebuild a Linux server in half an hour or so, if system files get corrupted. The difficulty is retrieving data that's been trashed.
For more about weenies who think Linux is virus free:
http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/archives/200209/
Score:-1, Funny
Customers have no trouble learning a new interface. They do it all the time.
Depends on the customer, depends on the application. 100 years ago, every car manufacturer put the sticks and pedals in a different place. Now they are standard worldwide. Do you think that a car with the brake to the right of the accelerator would sell well in 2003? Even if it was faster? How many accidents would it cause? Ever tried driving a righthand-drive car in heavy traffic after an overnight flight (or lhd if you normally drive rhd)?
Interface changes are no big deal for early adopters (like a lot of people on this site, I suspect). They are a big issue for occasional computer users, the elderly and a lot of other people who need to start using Linux if it is to compete on MS's own turf.
The biggest problems occur when a certain action causes one effect on the system you know and a completely different effect on the one you don't. In the case of switching from rhd to lhd cars, this meant I spent a week trying to use the window winder as the stick shift. In the case of one of our Windows customers, I eventually tracked his repeated X-session crashes to the fact he kept doing ctrl-alt-backspace to close windows in Mozilla, which apparently works just fine in IE...
Virtually serving coffee
Surely this can be fixed by
1. including copies of all the shared libs that you need in the installation
2. the OS merging binary identical libs when loading them into memory
- thus, shared libs without memory wastage and never another complaint about cant find lib X.
A smalltalk guy I know *loved* the fact that when you compiled a program it included everything in there so you never had a library conflict (if this is wrong, it's cos I've never actually used smalltalk).
Actually I downloaded two different iso images and burned the CDs but was not able to complete the install. A known bug is that the installer fails with the i810 chipset. Bero hoped the dockyard iso would work. He has limited hardware -- so if someone has the i810 board and wants to help code a fix -- then I'm sure he is willing to talk to you.
:-)
Once I'm able to get the distro installed then I'll gladly post screenshots.
LPH
http://www.tuxreports.com
Where Penguins Fly
BTW: We discussed this distro a few days ago on PCLinuxOnline and Tux Reports. Sorry you guys missed out
Ninnle Linux...
The stability of Debian...
The easy install of RedHat...
The desktop friendliness and flexibility of Mandrake...
The familiarity of Windoze...
HOW COULD YOU GO WRONG?
Install Ninnle today!
> Zero clicks to an install? Hell, Debian does that.
The phrase "Clicks" includes all peripherals.
You're the 1,000,000th Linux distro!
*throws confetti*
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
To get on one of the lists, send a mail to listname-request@arklinux.org, and put subscribe in the subject.
(e.g. to get on arklinux-bugs-list, write to arklinux-bugs-list-request).
good point. What happened to corel linux?
"I think the last thing I want to do is be able to take a program off of my Mandrake box, take it over to my Ark box and not be able to run it because they are two different distros."
Why do you even want that? Mandrake works fine, stick with it. Ignore ArkLinux, it doesn't exists. There is only one Linux: Mandrake. There, problem solved.
This whole "fragmentation" thing is just in your head.
"Why does everyone feel the need to reinvent the wheel?"
Because everybody is reinventing a different kind of wheels and see which one works best in which situations?
That just makes my point, doesn't it?
All Mac OS's are like training wheels you can never remove.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
"You would do well not to imagine profundity," he said. "Anything that seems
of momentous occasion should be dwelt upon as though it were of slight note.
Conversely, trivialities must be attended to with the greatest of care.
Because death is momentous, give it no thought; because victory is important,
give it no thought; because the method of achievement and discovery is less
momentous than the effect, dwell always upon the method. You will strengthen
yourself in this way."
-- Jessica Salmonson, "The Swordswoman"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...