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: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.
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.
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
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.
-- "player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
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.
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
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).
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
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?
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 ]
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.;)
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
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.
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
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
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: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.
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: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.
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.
Comment removed
by
account_deleted
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
-- 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.
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.
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.
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: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!
Slashdot Mirror
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!
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
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...
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.
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.
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
No screenshots??!?
;) )
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?
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.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
1. stop basing them on red hat. If red hat is so great, use red hat.
...) 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.
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,
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.
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.
Zero clicks to an install? Hell, Debian does that.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!