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".
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: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?
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
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: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: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: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
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!
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: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.
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.
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
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: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.
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.
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?
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, 'our moderator' singular, fixed position. My how the times change.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
/usr/lib, /var/lib ... etc). Is there a good reason for this, or is it simply done that way for the sake of tradition?
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,
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
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?
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.
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
Jason
ProfQuotes
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?
No screenshots? This story isn't slashdot worthy if there are no screenshots!
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 ----
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Find free books.
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!