Slashdot Mirror
Advocates Join to Promote Desktop Linux
phatvibez writes "Cnet is running a story that says 'Several companies have joined to launch a consortium to promote Linux for desktop computers, a significant expansion for an operating system that today fits more comfortably on servers.' This is great news, I hope they actually do something and we see some great stuff come from this!" Another submission on this note: TweetZilla writes "According to ExtremeTech, Suse is taking a play from Xandros. Crossover Office and Plugin are now bundled into Suse's desktop to provide Windows and Office compatibility." Update: 02/04 18:18 GMT by T : Here's a link to the consortium's web site.
I guess the interesting parts is that all distros (Suse, Mandrake, Xandros) are KDE distros. So what is it? Some kind of KDE League revival with some extras (OpenOffice & CrossWeaver)?
Usable Linux desktop imminent!
*shrug* I guess I just don't care anymore. I find my Linux desktop quite usable at this point. Why do we need a "consortium" at this point, when we've got Red Hat to tell us what our desktops should look like?
I know that there are supposed to be some out there, but I haven't found any that really work at this point. Example: The Evolution connector "cheats", it reads and processes OWA pages.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Really, really sad.
I just installed linux (red hat 8.0) for the first time ( yeah, I'm a newbie ), and I was impressed at how easy it was to just jump into. I definitely think linux has made strides in its accessability to the masses.
Brendan
I was kind of surprised to not see Gentoo's name listed there. Especially since Gentoo was designed from the ground up to be a desktop Linux distro (as opposed to server.) Plus I just plain ol' like Gentoo, and get wood whenever I have the opportunity to pimp them. ;)
http://www.desktoplinuxconsortium.com/
Not a whole lot of info posted there yet.
I guess people would do if MS would release the source code. I guess that's the point of this Open Source thingy :)
The article doesn't say so, but the Samba and Ximian teams are involved too.
,
faeryman
Here's something interesting from the article:
" SuSE and Red Hat are aiming Linux for developers and for employees using computers for limited functions, such as entering information onto a back-end system or fielding calls from customers placing orders by phone calls."
Even if an employee's job description shows limited computer use, employees also use computers for Internet browsing on breaks, checking their email, reading company memos in the company's standardized file format (likely Office), stock trading in off-time, pr0n, whatever.
In order to be successful, the group will hopefully make it clear that an OSS desktop can do whatever their MS desktop can do (and more), and cite examples from an overall workday of how something done in Windows is done in Linux.
A good place ot start understanding about design huristics is www.humanfactors.com/home/default.asp
With that said, after coding GUI's in Swing for 4 years (doing other non-code stuff now) focusing on productivity and usability for the end-user, I simply love Mas OSX's Aqua skin and the design of most Apple products. Very usable. A pleasure to look at. And a guide for any GUI developer to learn from. Search Apple's site for a design guide.
so a bunch of linux distros want to promote linux on the desktop. ah, and theres a conference on it.
:)
well then, goodbye windows, thats going to do it...
Uh huh... Me with my write access to Microsoft's internal source repositories.. Why oh why have I been wasting my time with these Unix like OS's? How stupid could I be!
Thank you so much for opening my eyes troll. I'll go get to work on Windows(tm) right away!
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
Free Geek, in Portland, Oregon does provide Linux as a desktop solution to those who are not computer literate.
Free Geek, formed as a response to the growing problem of disposal of obsolete computers, has a program to take discarded computers, fix them up,
load them with Debian Linux with Openoffice, and then give them to those in need.
Parts of the program include mandatory volunteer time for those who wish the free computers. This volunteer time does include taking computers apart, testing the components, assembling the computers, loading them with a Debian image over the network, and then basic Linux training.
Many of the people who partake in the program have never had a computer in their life. Almost all of them are not linux/server/geek literate when they walk in the door. When they walk out, they at least know enough to use the computer for basic desktop functions as word processing, email, and using the web on the Internet.
This can show that at a grass-roots level, promoting Linux at the desktop can work.
Mark
Cleara
...to improve Desktop Linux? The problem is not promotion at this stage. Everything's in perpetual "almost there" stage.
Now mod me a troll because I said something bad about Linux.
And both times I went back to Windows. Windows has software that I want. Windows has my games. Some of you will say that "linux has WineX", which is true. But it wasnt worth the trouble, for me at least. So basically I decided that I had nothing to show for being on Linux, and went back to Windows, because it was easier, and it worked. When linux can run, out of the box, every new title (that the computers specification state it should anyway) without fuss, I might go back. And before you flame me, realize that I probably represent an absurd percentage of the windows crowd, who couldnt care less about their OS, they just want their stuff to run.
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Several companies have joined to launch a consortium to promote Linux for desktop computers...
So how are they joined? How would one describe such a joining? Is there a term for it, perhaps? Since Linux has largely Western European roots, and has taken on somewhat mythic proportions to many of us, and these companies are doing something quite heroic... is there some character in Western European mythology, some hero, perhaps, after which we could name such a grouping, or cluster?
I sure wish I could think of something appropriate...
Ok, so we have a consortium for this now. Great. Whatever. What the community really needs is a large company (IBM, HP, whoever) that will provide commercial desktop support for a desktop version of Linux. Whether that's Suse, Gentoo, or Mandrake, or some other player, doesnt really matter.
What matters is having a financially stable commercial backer who has the resources to support large desktop installations with rapid deployment tools and on-site service workers. Then we will start seeing large corporations who have thousands of desktop PC's migrating to Linux en masse.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
This is all well and good and I'm excited about it, it's a step in the right direction. The only thing that I could add would be to bring in the hardware manufacturers, Hardwares like Digital Camera, Printer, Webcam, etc.
An avarage user would like to have that installation CD comes with the digikam that they just purchased. they are not savy enough to download 20 different tarballs and rpms to get it going.
Most agree that Linux is too technical for average desktop computer users...
bullshit, installation might be, but not use. of course, windows instalation is a PITA. linux wins installation hands down. this is pure FUD. anyone with basic computer skills will have little trouble transitioning. in fact, the less skills, the better, since they will have not have to break lots of bad habits.
for those of us that have been using linux ON THE DESKTOP for a few years now, are happy to see this. this is a huge thing. m$ see's it too. it is now a real possibility.
linux is now a legitimate option
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Before I get into my rant, I would like to explain my credintials. I am a CS major en route to GA tech (currently enrolled at Middle GA College), and I have been running linux for 5 years now. I am proficient with Java, Basic, C++, apache, Tomcat, Adobe Premiere, and general computer maintainance /upgrades. Ok now onto what Linux neds for the Desktop.
More hardware support! I have a Radeon 7500 AIW and gettin VIVO to work was evil and a half. Output to TV was worse, (framebuffer crashes and the like).
Multimedia support, Real One Player, Xine, XMMS, mplayer do alot here, but it could be better. Real One is slow and buggy (but better than nothing and now it has fullscreen support), Xine needs to be more user friendly (to be a desktop candidate) and mplayer needs a good, consistant frontend (at least it is stable and fast as hell though). I had no problem with command line though, and associating files with it in kde was a snap.
Video Editing needs to exist. Cinelerra is ok for now (I never got kino to work), but it is slow, unstable, and lacks many features (like chroma keying for green-screen effects). I did manage to create a video project though to completion on my box, but it was not easy.
What does Linux have that makes it a Windows competitor? One word, KDE. Konq is an awesome web browser and file manager (kills anything the explorer can do) Kicker is way more useful than the XP task bar, and themeing is easy. I would give Bill Gate's left arm for these featurs to be ported to Windows.
Oh yeah, Linux is also way faster than XP ever dreamed of being (gentoo w/ prelinking anyone?).
SecondSun
PS before I get anyone flaming me about GNOME, 5 years ago GNOME was slow and unstable. I went to KDE and have no other experience with GNOME, and I know nothing about GNOME. I am sure by now it is much different than it was back then and that it has many features, but I still use KDE exclusivly.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
It will take the combined efforts of all distro makers to deal with the issues surrounding taking linux from the server to the desktop environments.
Primarily the focus for better compatibility with the windows world through a constantly improving and forward thinking wine layer.
Also, through combined pressure and possibly incentives (read bribes) to the HW manufacturers for linux compatible drivers.
Through better communication and interoperability across the two major desktops.
Finally, the combined efforts of a group of distros can concentrate efforts more wisely in tersm of help given to projects that need progression.
Very good overall.
ACK
For this to really work, they should get some computer manufactors behind it.
If this consortium developes a friendly version of Linux aimed at desktop users and are successful at promoting it, they consumer would still have to install it on their system and in some cases configure hardware and whatnot.
If they were to work with Dell, or HP/Compaq were they would be able to ship "Restore" and "Recover" CD's with the machines, when something goes wrong, the user would simply be able to boot off the CD and restore the computer into the state it was when it was brought home. The operating system would be installed, all the hardware would be configured.
Really... is this a good idea? To make my mom use linux youd have to bloat the heck out of it, add in apps that make no sense in the way they work (outlook, etc..) and have a bunch of pointless fluff. All those things are what make windows horrible for people who have more than a basic knowledge of systems.
We, as knowledgeable computer users, want a more streamlined, less fluffed, more stable working enviroment. We know this, apparently others dont. Why this big push for Linux on desktops for the masses im not sure. It want created for this and making it like this is only going to make it bloated and unstable. Is this what we really want out of Linux? Do we want it filled with fluff and unwieldly apps just so Mom and Pop feel comfortable in it?
Now, I know someone is going to say "But you can install it like this and this and..." well that is true, but if the push is successful and it starts to seriously permiate the desktop market, don't you think that most if not ALL the major *nix distrubuters will start to package it like that?
Assuming anyone wants something to actually HAPPEN, how about a consortium to promote third party developers to port their applications to Linux?
Want a sign that Linux is really moving to the desktop? The sign will be when the major application developers (Quicken, Symantec, etc) care about porting their applications there.
How about this consortium produce a high quality porting kit for Windows applications, with high quality documentation?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The German government is funding the development of such Exchange/Outlook type groupware via the KDE people. You've also got Evolution as an Outlook replacement, and Oracle has a groupware server that Outlook can plug right into, and it has all of Exchange's functionality. Plus, there's the Bynari solution, which also replicates Exchange's functionality.
There are more an more alternatives every day.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Well, this group seeks the standards that would make linux desktops predictable and universal, but I agree with your post and then some.
Even if they succeed, and create the 'one true desktop', it's going to be a dog compared to the latest MacOS and Windows. X is just bloated, inefficient and slow.
We'll probably see linux making some progress in the desktop world, it'll probably find its way into the cubicle labyrinths of big corporations, running the desktop apps that are needed. But it will never rule it.
X11 is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. You might draw some blood, but it's doubtful you'll kill anybody.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
The Desktop Linux Consortium has a website with more details, here. Also, the DLC's full announcement is available here.
Okay Mr Anon, apparently our views on the "computer experience" differ, which as I tried to convey in my post, is understandable. I am not forcing Windows down your throat, nor am I stating that my OS of choice is superior to yours. I am merely stating that for what I do with a computer, Linux quite frankly sucks. Does that mean I think that Linux is useless? Not at all. Just it doesnt do what I need it to do.
By the way, next time you flame, grow some balls and dont post anonymously...
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Most "average users" never install an OS or change any hardware. I would suspect that no more than 5% of the computing public has ever opened a computer's case. People generally use whatever hardware and software were on the machine when purchased.
My wife and daughter (4 yrs old) happily use my Debian box at home for age-appropriate activities. Neither knows anything about Linux administration. Could my wife have installed Debian without me? Not a chance. However, I guarantee she wouldn't have gotten any further with a machine with a blank hard drive and a Windows CD.
That sounds like a good suggestion to me. So far as I can see my Linux Desktop ( KDE ) is very good and easily better than Windows.
However what is a problem is that almost nobody releases any of their products for Linux that they do for Windows and there are some things which aren't available as Open Source which I would like to have.
If there was clear and easy way for these companies to release their apps for Windows & Linux then that would really help Linux take off amongst the general user population.
OK so there is WINE which is very handy indeed but it is not exactly perfect yet, maybe all it would take would be some way of using Wine to help traditional Windows developers port to Linux to make the difference but something along these lines would be good in my opinion.
The distros need to extend themselves to the idiot/grandma/secretary types everywhere. These people may not be looking for files with 'find', but they hold the checkbooks.
When a large company decides on a desktop, we're talking about a huge sweep in user base, everything from the techies that grumble or praise to the pointy-haired boss that is looking for the 'Any' key.
I'm not talking about slick windows to do what easy enough command-line params could do. Desktops need to be turnkey all the time. Even the concept of a WM is going to spin people. I advocate removing most concepts from end-users reaching them. Hence, why Apple wants OS X to be a bit on the "can't get there from here" appearance.
Cookie-cutter, die-cut desktops have a huge market, and the dumber they are, the more easily they're adopted by the masses. WebTV, AOL, MS XP and countless other ideas prove this again and again.
mug
Please, somebody explain my error:
SuSE with Crossover Office: $129
Xandros: $99
Windows XP Home Edition: $99
I forgot... what's the point again? Why can't I install Windows XP and have 100% Windows compatibility, then install Cygwin-KDE for 100% linux compatibility?
I think it's great that Windows apps are running better and better on linux, but they run even better on Windows. I like linux and I like its software, but if you have to pay the same amount either way, I'd hardly call a $99 linux distro a reason to switch to linux.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
I'm not a big fan of it. I don't think it's even close to a desktop replacement OS.
:) But they are hardly a user-friendly desktop distro. They cater unabashedly to the Linux power user.
I like the portage system and the fact that all the apps are compiled optimized for your system. You don't have to worry about dependancies since the scripts take care of it for you.
I don't like the fact that I typed "emerge kde" and 48 hours later , and after seeing numerous "cannot create file due to a permission error" messages fly by, it still hadn't "emerged". Granted it was compiling on an old Celeron-333, but it had 524MB of RAM to do with as it will. That was just for KDE, I had spent 2 days installing and configuing the system just to get fluxbox to come up.
I couldn't even get fluxbox to configure itself for any user other than root, had to go edit all the config files manually and the menu generator didn't work at all.
Compare this to most peoples experiences installing Mandrake, SuSE, and Red Hat (usually about an hour to 2 hours) and I think you can see why Gentoo isn't on the list.
I certainly don't want to run Gentoo down, they're just down I-25 from me.
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
I seriously hope I can word this not to sound "elitist", but IMHO running Windows applications on Linux is not a good thing(tm). As Linux gets more dsesktop orientated, momentum has been building to reduce two "shortcomings" of Linux: 1) Simple application installation (RPMs, apt-get, +++) 2) More applications I personally am amazed how complete the Linux desktop has gotten. So why is there a need to complicate things for the user again? If a user learns the software installation process for his Linux distro, I don't think it would be a good idea to mix windows application installation into this. Get OpenOffice instead of CrossOverOffice, use Gimp, try Kino. There are great Linux applications out there. Windows applications run very well on windows. I do understand the argument of "In order to get Joe to use Linux he will need to be able to run App X". But instead I would like for Joe to wait until Linux app Y is able to do what App X can do on windows. And IMHO we developers should focus on app Y and not trying so hard to get app X to run on Linux. The better and faster we cann achieve this, the more users will be able to accept Linux as a true alternative OS. Cheers, Andre
News flash! Linux distributors promote Linux! Wonders never cease!
Seriously, why is this even newsworthy? This is what I'd expect these companies to do. About the only thing remotely interesting about this story is the shunning of Lindows, which is becoming more and more of a community bastard child by the day. When I read the headline here at first I was expecting to see a consortium led by the likes of IBM and HP - which would be a pretty important news story - but I don't think a bunch of Linux distributors getting together to promote their own wares is much to get all excited about.
We all (should) know that Linux has quite a ways to go as a desktop OS anyway, though most of the work needed is on interface and ease of use issues these days. It's making progress, but it's a bit too soon to really start promoting it as a Windows replacement for average users (despite what a lot of the zealots around here are probably going to say).
I guess the question is: What software do you want to run under Windows that doesn't have a counterpart under Linux?
I too have the "game issue" with Linux, my solution was to dual-boot and buy a Gamecube so I wouldn't have to deal with updating drivers and hardware every six months just to play the latest PC games. I could still play games that wouldn't run under WineX (except for Warcraft II, which REQUIRES Windows 9x...grrrrrrr).
Heck, I've GOT a windows machine that can't run the latest titles worth a damn even though I meet the specifications on the box.
The only apps I really notice missing from the Linux lexicon are the little greeting card/poster/calendar publishing apps like Printmaster and Print Shop that my wife loves to use. Heck, I often boot into Windows to use the Hallmark card creator to make birthday cards and what not. I haven't found a Linux replacement for those yet.
"For a successful technology, honesty must take precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled." -Feynman
http://www.ubergeek.tv/switchlinux/
Wonder what this has to do with the Linux Desktop Summit...
I think this sentence points out something very often overlooked in the Linux vs Windows debate.
Linux doesn't really have a problem in co-existing with Windows. In fact, I am sure that it would be extremely compatible with Windows, if Microsoft would allow it. Microsoft discourages compatibility as a way of maintaining control.
With Linux it seems more like "we know our place, just let us exist and do our thing", but with Microsoft it is "we are the kings, we control everything." There would be no need for Open Office if the connectivity and document formats were open for Word/Excel. You'd have Linux people running MS Office! But no, it is their way, or the highway, so we have chosen the highway.
People complain that OSS is doing nothing innovative and is just copying existing successful projects like Office. Well maybe this time could be better spent by working with Microsoft instead of constantly having to work around them.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Want to know why openoffice is so freaking HUGE AND SLOW? It's because it uses its own toolkit, libs, and tools, instead of building on the standard libs kde and gnome provides.
Ultimatley, i think gnome office and koffice will beat open office into the ground because they are so much faster and lighter, and they are consistent.
Increased co-operation with the kde and gnome teams will help too, because all the tools are OUT THERE, they just need more organisation.
gecko lost out to khtml, and i think the same will happen to openoffice.
Interesting. I started out using Linux on my desktop and used it on ``servers'' later.
CNet is stuck in a rut with that kind of thinking. Client/server is dead guys. Computers are both nowadays (always have been, really) and what's holding you back from understanding that is all the fat-client propaganda that you have to unlearn.
Several Linux vendors band together to make a consortium to make Linux viable on the desktop strikes me as having limited added value. Though it may result in greater standardization, reduced duplication of effort, and improvements in UI, it's still companies that deal exclusively in Linux.
What would impress me, and truthfully, what I think would make a difference, would be for other vendors to join this consortium. Without application, game, and hardware vendors onboard, it is simply trying to sell some "fringe" applications ("fringe" being used for lack of a better word). Without it, it just seems quite incestuous.
I personally beleave that all these companies should put more focas on Embeded Linux Systems then on Linux for the desktop. Although Linux can be just as good if not a lot better then Windows on a desktop. But I beleave the Desktop and Laptop is a dieing indrustry moving towards more smaller embedded devices like PDA etc. Within a decade I predict that the Desktop will be like Mainframes are today. Linux has the ability to spearhead itself to be a integral part of embedded systems and a lot of work has already happened. But the desktop is at its hayday and I hope these companies (some do) have a strong embedded focus as well. I dought Linux on the desktop will ever be really sucessfull more then 25% market share.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
6 years ago Linux was a PITA to install
and get configured.
This year I installed linux on 3 machines
for people who had been ripped off and
couldn't afford the $100 pony up for a legit
copy of M$-crapo.
Gee... they're not overly bright, have used
M$ their whole computer lives and haven't had
a single problem after an hour of instruction.
For the TYPICAL home user (Not power gamers yet)
Linux NOW seems to be robust enough and easy enough
for them to use and understand.
Within 2 years it's going to be a preferred desktop OS.
So who cares what you idiots think atm?
The Goatse Guy was already interviewed and your lame attempt has failed miserably. I repost.
4 20,0 0.html
----------
Wired News 10:00 PM Dec 02, 2002 PT
http://www.wired.com/news/goatse/0,3883,1309,
Goatse 'It' Guy Breaks Silence, Wind
First he turned down Jon Katz. Then he said no to Harry Knowles.
For years, Goatse Man, the mysterious Net celebrity who is featured at a popular website frequently featured on Slashdot, refused all interview requests, including those from the two titans of internet media.
But Goatse Man, whose fame continues to grow even as he eschews the media spotlight, has finally granted his first sitdown with a reporter, albeit from an unlikely publication.
The interview with the New York Times (free reg), the old gray lady of printed media, will be published Friday.
In that article, Goatse Man reveals he was, as many of his "fans" had guessed, under the influence of drugs during the famous set of photographs lifted from Stile, but exactly what he took, editors at the New York Times aren't saying; all is revealed in the interview. The best guess is amyl nitrate, according to online scuttlebutt.
"It sure as hell wasn't aspirin," said Gerald Boyd, the managing editor who conducted the interview.
Goatse Man became an Internet celebrity after being featured in a set of forty ass-stretching pics taken by his wife for USENET. After the pictures debuted in 1998, Goatse Man quickly shot to Net celebrity, largely because the url is passed around to unsuspecting surfers.
Very little is known about Goatse Man, Phil to his friends, except he's married, lives a stable life and has an MCSE; Goatse.cx isn't revealing any details. The New York Times claims the interview is his first.
The interview contains a number of interesting tidbits, including details on how Hollywood came calling as Goatse Man's online celebrity grew.
Besides inquiries from Letterman and Leno, MTV talked about doing a pilot show. The Farrelly brothers, directors of hit comedies There's Something About Mary and Shallow Hal, were thinking of offering him a role, but got cold feet when they found out the pictures weren't photoshopped.
According to Boyd, Phil turned down Letterman and Leno because he's cognizant that his fame relies on an air of mystique. He is different things to different people. Too much exposure would cause his star to quickly fade.
"He's pretty level-headed about all this," said Boyd. "He's very funny and is a good sport about it all."
But, of course, in true Hollywood style, he now has an agent, Boyd added.
Goatse Man is amused that people have t- shirts and coffee mugs decorated with his ass, but avoids Slashdot and Kuro5hin "because he's heard from friends there's some very weird stuff there," Boyd said.
Phil also reveals how the pictures were taken in the first place. He's a friend of Robert Malda, the editor in chief of Slashdot. The pair went to watch some hardcore gay porn being taped one day, and a couple of spots happened to be open. Both he and Malda were photographed but only Goatse Man's wife caught the magic of the moment. Malda's pictures ended up at a small but increasingly popular website called lemonparty.org.
The Goatse interview is being heavily promoted by the New York Times, which has plastered New York City with Goatse posters.
"We've been hyping this pretty big," Boyd said. "There's certainly been some buzz. I'm excited about it. I think people will get a kick out of it."
The paper scored the interview because someone on staff was an old classmate of Phil's. Goatse.cx has cautioned him not to speak to the press, but Goatse Man figured a newspaper that requires free registration would turn off every privacy nut that reloads slashdot every five minutes at their despairing and menial help desk jobs.
"Goatse.cx is not incredibly psyched about the amyl nitrate rumors," Boyd said.
Boyd said Phil is not a resident of San Francisco's Tenderloin district nor would he reveal any more about this rising star except that Goatse Man didn't need any help fitting a fire hydrant inside himself.
The revelation that he wasn't taking amyl nitrate doesn't trouble his straight fans, who simply don't believe him.
"I don't care what they say," said Rev. Samuel, who sells a line of Goatse- themed 'Stretch Different' T- shirts. "Duuude. Look at him. Just look at him. Oh sweet Jesus, my eyes."
Really...do they think that by enlisting the Advocate that more people will switch? What power do gays wield that will help this cause? Designing nice desktop schemes? I think this is a really short-sighted move...more people will be turned off by this and the "cause" will suffer.
Oh, never mind, just read past the headline...
you idiots.
:(
I mean, on a rotating shift you only have to
clean the bathrooms twice a week.
Seeing as I only work 3 days a week I prefer
to clean the bathrooms all 3 days I work.
Why? Because the first day I clean them I have
to spend a half hour in each room cleaning
up all the shit you fucking lazy assed bastards
don't clean up when it's YOUR turn.
The next two days it takes less than 10 minutes
per bathroom to clean.
M$ is for morons. You don't have to tell me you
don't like thinking for yourself. You don't have
to tell me that learning is a chore for you.
You don't have to tell me that you have an IQ of
23 and a half; You just told me that you installed
Linux twice and went back to winblows each time.
And yes... I AM aware that you make up a HUGE percentage of the population. It's disgusting, isn't it?
Oh.. wait... that's right... You don't get it. *sigh*
What a waste of space most folks are.
Well, at least I tried.
Let's put it this way: I installed Windows twice after I thought I'd never want to go back. I went back both times. Back to OS/2 first, then back to Linux.
I started with Windows (like just about everyone here I guess). I wrote my school stuff with Word. I crashed and lost my data in win3.1, Win95 and NT4 like everybody else probably did at least once. I got hacked when I used the internet the first time in Windows 95. I searched for alternatives and found OS/2.
I went back to Win95 (b or c) when it came out because IBM didn't convince me to stay (OS/2 had convinced me, and I used it quite a long time - but IBMs marketing failures didn't). My small private BBS, which I started much later, stayed in OS/2 for about 4 years after that, until I moved and lost my ISDN lines.) I thought the 'new' Windows would be better, more stable, etc yadda yadda. I was disappointed.
I tried NT4. I was disappointed (my software didn't run, and the games we then played didn't either. Like Command&Conquer, which ran FINE under OS/2, even during a 33kbps BBS download).
I got Linux (SuSE 4.something from 1995) for Christmas in 1995 (I probably wouldn't have noticed it otherwise). I was disappointed by the usability (fvwm2) and the GUI but impressed by the number of (free) apps for it, which could do much of what I wanted (Staroffice was available, which covered the majority; and I had a licence for OS/2, which I traded for a Linux license; it wasn't free then). The only thing that I missed was FIDOnet software, and I had a feeling Linux then was suited more to developers and internet geeks, both of which I wasn't really. It wasn't comfortable, but it worked, and never crashed on my even once.
But after half a year my SuSE /usr/local partition was bigger than the rest of the system (because I probably was too stupid for the packaging system) and my system was quite a mess - probably self-induced, I experimented too much. I tried NT4 again - not all apps worked (eg. FIDOnet software was available for 95, but didn't run in NT4, and FEddy was available for Linux then. Don't even start asking about games, of which some even worked in dosEMU under Linux!). That was in 1996 IIRC.
After some months I totally trashed NT with a service pack install which crashed during installation. Then something snapped inside me - I wasn't about to trust my data to Windows again. Ever. I'd rather install something, ANYTHING, else (I wasn't far away from buying a Mac, if they'd been affordable to a student then). I experimented with several Linux distributions during holidays and found that except for Debian, all the 'big' ones were quite similar to SuSE - RPM packaging, no easy updates, etc.
I installed my Debian system during the 1996-7 christmas holidays (took me two days to get a useable system, with 'bo' aka Debian 1.3 IIRC). It took me about two weeks to understand the system and get everything running - I wasn't about to make the same mistake I made with SuSE.
But the reward was there - I haven't reinstalled since. I backup this system regularly. It has moved over two hard disk crashes, about 10 hard disk upgrades, uncountable system upgrades (eg. libc5->6, X11 3.x->4.x, perl 4.x-5.0-5.6-5.8, etc etc) and about a dozen machine upgrades (started with a P60/16MB, I'm now using an Athlon XP 1800+ with 256MB RAM). It doesn't become slower with every new program like Windows. (Windows wasn't really worth backing up because I had to reinstall it every couple months anyway.) When I remove things, they get removed cleanly. It doesn't have conflicts between drivers or software, unless I install experimental stuff.
About 1998 I decided to patch a server together with spare parts: I wanted to resurrect my BBS and an ISDN dialup. I copied my Debian installation to the second harddisk, removed non-server related packages (X11, Staroffice, etc), installed server-related packages, removed my /home from the first machine, mounted /home via NFS from the second, and there we were. In 2001 I got a laptop. Copied my installation over, removed some packages, added APM and ACPI, changed the X11 driver line and resolution, ready.
Well... I've used Windows for quite a long time. I am even now using Windows from time to time. As long as I don't have to maintain it and keep it running and the apps I need, it's fine. But as soon as you start doing serious stuff with it, Windows breaks in my hands. If I use Windows as I use Linux, it crashes, apps don't react, etc and people tell me that's "normal", even with Windows 2000, I'm supposed to be more careful and open less apps at the same time.
I don't accept that. When I work I'm not a "hacker" or "freak", I just like to get my job done (which often enough is creating a presentation with Openoffice or writing technical documentation or developing a website). But if I can't have several text editors, office files, GIMP/Photoshop or Corel Photopaint sessions and file manager windows open without the OS throwing up, I'm not being productive.
So: I went back to Linux. Maybe Windows is easier for the 'casual' user. But please don't suggest sandals to a mountain climber, even if they are more comfortable and look better.
(Oh yes: the OS installs tend to overlap, I had two harddisks and when I changed I installed the 'new' OS on the 'other' harddisk and kept both for a period of time, when possible. So don't nail me about the exact dates, I don't remember some of them either.)
And please don't start the "much more apps available for Windows" discussion: I'ts totally true, if you count a) all the things that Linux can do without extra apps, and b) all the viruses and worms. And anyway, who needs 4711 file managers/ICQ clients/graphics programs/..., it's much more efficient to cooperate and put all the good features into one product, which in free software tends to happen much more often than in the commercial/shareware world.
OK, I'm finished.
Go on. You can flame me now.
Home Page
Linux on the desktop is NOT the issue since Linux is a Kernel not an OS; and certainly it is not a a GUI. The window manager, applications and device detection/drivers are the issues desktop users care about.
Linux is not seen by the end user (at least not many end uses I know do programming that interfaces with the kernel of their OS). They don't give a rats bottom about VM handling techniques, or guaranteed time to handle a device interrupt, or how many fromitz boards are installed in their consoles. What they want is to plug in their USB printer and have it configured automatically. They want their scanner to work simply. They want to email their spreadsheets with a single click or three. And they want that at a reasonable price.
What will get OSS software based systems (Be they Linux, BSD, GNU or any other OSS based system) will be ready availability of application software that will behave like the stuff they use now, and be available on store shelves WITH SUPPORT and complete documentation at a reasonable price (free is good). Most consumers like tangible things. They like a box for their software and they like to have a paper book to look at. It gives them something to hold on to and feel like they've spent money on something.
Developers and distro makers sitting around arguing about how to get a specific kernel adopted in companies is a waste of time. They need to strategise about how to market the rest of the system that end users actually care about, and they have little control over those other projects.
Think about this... if Linus T. had internal access to all of MicroSoft's code, and could re-write, extend and generally replace the WinXP kernel with Linux, would it be a victory? The answer is: No... Everyone is still locked in to MS software applications. The kernel is not the issue.
And if you don't believe it, look at Macintosh. They went from a proprietary kernel to BSD/Mach, the end user doesn't care in the end. They just want Word, Excel, Photoshop, et al to run as expected. During the transition there were some arguments about moving toBSD vs Linux or GNU or Be, but the longer, hotter discussions were always over "When will application ____ be ported?". The ___ was initially Photoshop, then we went down the list to Quark, Freehand, Pagemaker, etc. There were even more topics about how X looked, and how easy it was to work with. In most articles, mention of the kernel was a brief comment like "BSD/Unix based".
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
[http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-desktop/]
...anyone who wants to be!"
"The Debian Desktop subproject is a group of volunteers who want to create the best possible operating system for home and corporate workstation use. Our motto is "Software which Just Works". In short, our goal is to bring Debian, GNU, and Linux to the mainstream world."
"Who's involved in Debian Desktop
Quicken has shown their true colors with
their recent changes; They don't
give a shit about their customers anymore.
Symantec? Fucking useless shit nowdays. I'm tired
of showing up at someone's house and charging them
$120 to fix a fuck up caused by software they actually
shelled out good money for.
Both of them are in M$'s back pocket. They're
Never going to port their apps to Linux until
they wake up and tell M$ to go fuck themselves.
The main problem on GNU/Linux distros is difficulty in app installations. I know Windows isn't the best method and they leave registry crap and all that. But on average, apps are easier to install on Windows.
./configure, make, make install isn't hard. For those that know. Rpms can be easy some times. But there are tons of problems that can occur. I've never used Debian and apt-get so I can't comment on that. Maybe that solves everything. I've only used Redhat and Mandrake (been using Linux dual boot with Windows for 3 years).
/usr/share, /usr/local, etc. With this consortium, (though Redhat seems to be not involved) hopefully the guys can come together and set standards and ease the process.
Sure,
I want to update a windows program, it's usually easy. I want to update KDE, xine or some other software and it usually takes me a lot more work. And please, agree to a place to hold files.
I think the KDE UI is better than XP and the Mac. With so many countries getting involved, hopefully many apps will come. Linux already has most of the stuff home users want (except big games). They just need an easy way to install and update them. That's it.
In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
What planet are you from?
I'd much rather have a small piece of smelly
shit stuck to one small corner of my beutiful
gem than have a small beautiful chip of a gem
pasted onto a giant shit ball.
http://www.xandros.com/
They use email SPAM to attempt to market their program. And they don't return phone calls to attempt to solve the SPAM problem.
The article noted the absence of Lindows, but a more conspicuous absentee from the consortium's list is Red Hat. While Red Hat is an enthusiastic Gnome supporter that employs few (if any) KDE developers, this list is heavy with KDE supporters. Notably, Ark Linux is a project started by Bero, that ex-Red Hatter who quit because he thought Red Hat "crippled" KDE. Am I reading too much into this? Anybody know more?
Lotus notes
oracle collaboration
Bynari InsightServer.
There are others.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
--so, are there any replacements for x11? Serious question. I've only used redhat and mandrake canned installs, and I tried a knoppix run from the CD version, is there anything "better" for linux gui and how would one go about it?
Think about the way linux has grown as a server. From very specialized applications (five years or so ago: "did you hear XX company runs Linux as a print server??? wow!") to more and more general applications.
Right now Linux on the desktop is great for some fairly specialized folks. On one side, if you are an engineer/scientist who has always run a Unix workstation (hey, my "wordprocessor" has always been LaTex edited by Xemacs), then desktop Linux has been great for years. On the other end, if you want a locked-down machine that only browses and checks for e-mail, Linux is currently great.
The trick is to broaden the appeal of desktop Linux out in incremental steps. Get the administrative assistants at the engineering firm running Star Office on Linux and get rid of windows at an otherwise Unix shop. Some departments need only browser, e-mail and an decent Excel clone. Done. Some departments need to set up meetings on a firm-level Exchange server. Not 100% done yet, but already good enough for some and as it gets better a few more will switch.
The point is, think incrementally, think about heterogenous users and don't fall into the all or nothing trap. If Linus had listened to "it isn't ready until it runs on 64 processor machines", he never would have started.
mandatory volunteer time
um. "What colors does the car come in, Mr. Ford? Black? Well in that case I choose black!"
After being impressed with the kde 3.1 released, i decided to see if gnome 2.2 is any good. I haven't tried gnome since 1.4, and that release was better than kde 2.x, but it got left behind with 3.0.
But gnome 2.2, is a JOKE, a half baked mac os clone with a wintel style dumbing down, and the aa is completley fucked up. AA is NOT appropriate for everything, just large and tiny fonts.
Its so screwed, im glad this consortium consists of pro kde organisations.
And if you think prefixing programs with k is stupid, gnome apps are disturbingly named after various pieces of monkey antatomy, thanks to those bozos at ximian.
-1, flamebait, offtopic and troll (fot), but the truth hurts.
ROTFL!!!
1) Apparently his mother is a diseased whore
and you deeply, deeply resent this.
2) You're gay AND homophobic so you treat women
like shit because they aren't men.
3) You use an OS geared toward morons and you still
don't understand it. (A huge amount of Angst here)
4) You have no skills and it's become terminally depressing to you.
5) You have uncontrollable urges to be kissed on
the ass by highly intelligent people that
haven't bathed and you resent the fact that
you can't find any that will even talk to you
for five minutes without getting fed up with
your stupidity and walking away.
6) You've spent thousands of dollars on Operating
systems and software that continually fuck up
and crash losing your worthless data.
Another day, another Winblows troll.
So what else is new? ROTFL
Let's project this post back in time, to maybe 1997.
Why Linux will never be accepted as a server OS:
When it all boils down, this effort seems pretty futile to me. Linux and its siblings are really hobbyist operating systems. They perform hobbyist tasks very well and are good operating systems for people who have the time and desire to face The Learning Curve. Unfortunately, in the corporate setting, the reality is that people want computers that run Windows NT and Oracle. Not Linux and MySQL/Postgres. Furthermore, people want computers that work. Compaq NT boxes work. You take them out of the box, turn them on, enter a few bits of personal information, and for the most part they work. Moreover, they work just like every other Wintel machine on the planet. Linux, despite claims to the contrary, doesn't work this well. There are too many discrepencies between distributions. In the server arena, predictability is more important than powerful features and even cost. Until Linux becomes one standard such that you can sit down at any linux box and admin it exactly as you would your own, it will never have a chance in the server market.
Please provide more balanced coverage of KDE on your site.
If you demand it of SuSE, why don't you practice it here? Maybe enough with the "GNOME is preferred", "GNOME is better"? If GNOME is so good, why doesn't the default work well? If you can say "GNOME is preferred", why shouldn't SuSE say "KDE is preferred"? Fair is fair.
In Red Hat, all KDE wants is to not be *purposely* crippled. A default set-up of KDE in Red Hat would make *everyone* except GNOME lovers happy. A default set-up of GNOME makes GNOME people mad.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Does anyone remember the OSF or COSE or any of their products (Motif, OSF/1, CDE...) with anything but derision? Does anyone remember COSE, which was going to turn back the tide and bring Microsoft to its knees, at all?
Also, that website is a retina-searing chunk of ass. Way to convince me you can design a great desktop.
Posted with Mozilla
gentoo comes with openoffie to provide office compatibility.
xine/mplayer to provide media format compatability.
etc....
Hey look Linux can run office isn't a big selling point, you still have to pay a mint for office, and it's still office.
Hey look Linux can run openoffice and it works fine with office is. oh and here's wine/crosover etc.. so you can run any windows apps you need,
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
If anybody here is on the mailing lists (I simply couldn't keep up anymore!) for rox (http://rox.sourceforge.net/), I believe that project should be a member of this consortium, as they are doing many desktop things right, without all of the bloat that is KDE/Gnome. Get Thomas to join!
I can't comment of Gentoo as the lack of an installer put me off, but there are other source based distros out there. I use lunar on all my machines, both server and desktop. It works just fine as long as you are comfortable with configuring stuff without a GUI.
"Personally I'm tired of living in a world
where 80% of the people I meet have the IQ of
Yogurt."
Have you *seen* Spaceballs? Yogurt is a smart dude. I'm sorry if you can't keep up.
While I appreciate the history of your life, I can't figure out how in the hell you're breaking W2K! What are you doing, exactly that "breaks" W2K? I've been using it for years, and NT 4.0 before that, and I've never even *heard* of the problems that you're talking about, like having to open fewer apps, having to reinstall, Windows slowing down by just installing new things, etc. It sounds like this is completely made up. I kind of doubt that you're the only person on the planet trying to open up multiple apps at the same time with W2K. I mean really, this isn't even believable. You honestly think that out of the millions of people using W2K right this second, that you're the only one who opens up many different apps at once? And you think that all of these people are all sitting around happily with crashing computers when they can go buy RedHat at Best Buy? I definitely smell something, and it ain't roses.
BS, FUD, and more BS. Win95 is not Win98 is not WinNT is not Win2K is not winXP. Redhat Linux and SuSE Linux are a hell of a lot closer then any two MS quasi-OS. Something Funky happens with a Wintel box, that box becomes even more unique. If this unique nature hampers productivity, normaly the admins will not be able to find the problem, so they reformate and reinstall. Wow thats advanced. You, and everyone else, make too much out of what "people" expect and want. This information comes directly from Redmond and their ministry of propaganda. Users are not morons. Most can figure out how to use a new word processor in a couple of days if not hours. The learning curve for learning Gnome or KDE is far less steap then any windows desktop, because they are far more consistant and have fewer bugs. Your comment about predictability realy gave me a laugh. The only thing predictable about a Wintel box is that it will need to be rebooted! Linux based OSs also do not suffer from the aging phenomina that Windows OSs suffer from. On top of all that, with Linux, busnesses do not have to worry about Redmond, deoptimising APIs so that certain target third party software pakages start behaving buggy and inferior to the Redmond or Redmond sponsored equivilent. There are more changes in tose ServicePaks then bug fixes! The last time I installed a Linux OS ( SuSE 7.0, a few years ago), it went smoother then the last time I installed WinNT4.0. If I buy a Linux box from a vendor, what do I do? Open it up, plug it in, turn it on, and answer a few silly questions. So what the fuck are you talking about???
I'm currently dual-booting between WinXP and Slackware on my desktop at home.. My only issue with Linux as a desktop os is the lack of native commercial (game) software out there. Loki games has pushed to get more stuff over to Linux, but.. they went out of business because of the lack of profit from porting these games over. What we need to see is more of a push from the major software developers out there, (Just like ID software who ported the quake series over) so that we can get more of the windows desktop users over.
I've installed RH8 on my mom's computer (she's completely dunce with computers), and the interface has been so easy for her to use that she just kinda picked up everything on her own. (Not only that, but I can support her via ssh'ing into her machine) Is it hard to use? I guess if you're used to other OS's it's a little counter-intuitive, or if you are wanting to get into the advanced (or command line) portion of linux it's a little bit more difficult, but for the most part the robustness of window managers for X has made linux into a pretty good desktop OS for newbies.
As far as issues with support goes.. (on irc..etc..) do research before you ask questions. A lot of people who are spatting out answers to you lose patience when people demand an answer out of them. It's not their job to support you, so show gratitude. Google things up and learn how to search for things on groups.google.com A ton of issues people run into have been answered time and time again on email.
Newho.. that's just my $1.289
Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
Make installing software on linux as easy as Windows and OSX. I want to double click on a package and have it install itself and any dependicies. I want a packaging system that I can use on any linux distro with the same package, and most importantly, that most software releases will use it so I don't have to wait for software X to come out for my distro if the source doesn't compile.
and yes I'm familiar with apt, emerge, and the fact the logistics of what I want are a nightmare.
---While I appreciate the history of your life, I can't figure out how in the hell you're breaking W2K!
I think if we had the source code, we'd figure it out.
---What are you doing, exactly that "breaks" W2K?
Hell if I know, but I have similar problems. I have those problems with new devel drivers AND windows certified drivers. Windows just freezes occaisionally- as in total lockup, nothing moves, works. And I have a nasty login problem. It takes 1-2 minutes for me to get a login screen. And if it goes into screensaver mode, I have to restart. I've also had STOP! screens during install, and other weird places. Simple apps, installed as non-admin has hosed the system.
---I've been using it for years, and NT 4.0 before that, and I've never even *heard* of the problems that you're talking about, like having to open fewer apps, having to reinstall, Windows slowing down by just installing new things, etc.
Are you a casual user?
---It sounds like this is completely made up. I kind of doubt that you're the only person on the planet trying to open up multiple apps at the same time with W2K.
Open too many (or perhaps certain combinations) apps and your stability goes to shit. Crash explorer.exe and it comes back up. Crash it any more, and you might as well reboot. I also end up with hangs on the "Notwork Neighborhood" constantly. And the damn filemanager cant refresh in a timely manner when I put a cd in a drive.
---I mean really, this isn't even believable. You honestly think that out of the millions of people using W2K right this second, that you're the only one who opens up many different apps at once? And you think that all of these people are all sitting around happily with crashing computers when they can go buy RedHat at Best Buy? I definitely smell something, and it ain't roses.
__--YAWN--__
People learn how do deal with crashes because most people dont know any different.
I did download mandrake, but I couldn't get a good, non-corrupt download, it would burn, but there would be no files on the CD. I decided to give up and just went with RH.
Brendan
and don't want Windows, even if it is better.
There is so much more to consider than just the
technical merits of the product.
maybe not for you.
But a lot of other people are fed up with MS
and the way they do business.
And yes , that is a perfectly valid reason to
use Linux.
It's about Linux, now.
The problem is not that there are no replacements for Outlook-type clients -- there are tons of those -- but that there's no replacement for Exchange Server. There are many analagous Linux solutions that may actually be better, but there's still no drop-in, Exchange-compatible replacement. If these companies want to make headway, they ought to forget about these stupid, token "partnerships," and put some developers on a true, Exchange Server replacement.
Installshield works on Windows, Linux, Mac, whatever, because it's written in Java. You can configure it to do whatever you want, including run whatever command or shell script you choose. However, there's no incentive to use it for Linux when rpm or apt work just fine. If you're interested in trying it, there's nothing stopping you except the $999 developer license.
Well, just make sure the hardware is too
old becuase OpenOffice, KDE, and GNOME
have become (or perhaps, always were)
bloated pigs that don't run well at all
on older hardware and even not-so-old
hardware.
I installed Linux 2 times and damn it - kazaa doesn't have any decent software I can pirate.
When linux can run, out of the box, every pirated softwate without fuss, I might go back. And before you flame me, realize that I probably represent an absurd percentage of the windows crowd, who couldnt care less about their OS as long as its free, they just want their stuff from kazaa to run.
Sounds like serious hardware problems along with a poorly configured network. W2K is widely acknowledged as very stable and very fast. And no, I'm not a casual user. I was a developer for several years, and I've had NT 3.51, NT 4.0, and W2K IIS web servers for years. Right now, running on my little P2 750, I have a heavy point of sale app, VNC client, VNC server, several text editors, about 10 web browser windows, Paint Shop Pro, Kazaa Lite, VB 6.0, and various TSR's. That's a typical day. Never a single hiccup. Ever. And that's one of several similar machines. I've *never* seen a complete lockup on W2K box, and if a app crashes, it's the only thing that goes down. Never the machine or explorer.exe (which I've replaced with something more fun on a few other machines).
My W2K randomly locks up all the time. Usually it's just sitting there when explorer.exe crashes and then you are lucky if you can get it to reboot without hitting the switch. I thought the crashes would reduce once I stopped using IE but they haven't. I must say though that mozilla is much more stable then IE.
War is necrophilia.
Shall we leave the obvious methods (SMBdie, exploits, scripts that exploit IE holes, etc) aside. I just used it. Explorer tends to hang (the system, not just the process) when generating thumbnails or when browsing FTP sites. It's worse when in the nethood and some machine reboots or for some reason decides not to answer, or you have a big network - the whole desktop freezes for as long as Explorer needs to search the network. I had most of the Windows systems installed, configured and maintained by friends who knew Windows a HELL of a lot better than me, or "standard installations" done by administrators in the companies I worked with.
Everywhere I had problems, on many systems the same problems. For example in Office 97 occasionally in 2000 I had the problem that when I closed Word or Excel and re-opened (ie. clicked on a xls file) before the process was completely finished, I wasn't able to open Office again AT ALL until I rebooted. In w2k, logging out and in again helped sometimes. Don't ask me what happened, these were standard installations without weird tools or registry hacks, and with a single digit number of installed applications (contrast to the 3-digit number of apps in Linux that I installed and use, plus those part of the system anyway).
You're right, I might not be the "standard user" that Microsoft perhaps expects. Just about the first thing I do when I start working with Windows is install some virtual desktop utiliy to have more screen space. (Before you ask: every time I had a problem I tried without the utility, of course, and the problem remained the same most of the time.) I seldomly use less than three apps at the same time, the "typical" Windows user maybe just uses them consecutively, not simultaneously.
I guess I just have a bad influence on Windows systems. When I went to my parents last Christmas (and this is no joke!) and went into my brother's room to say hello, he was playing some strategy game on his machine. (I think he's using XP) He turned around to meet me and said something like ".. but don't get near my computer, it always crashes when you are nearby, it just doesn't like Linux users". I went like "ha, ha" and turned around (being about 5 meters away from his machine) just to hear a VERY angy "TOLD YOU SO! And I didn't even save my game!" from behind me.
I don't like windows. I admit that freely. But I use it when I have to to get a job done. And I don't break it on purpose when I want a job done. But with me, it breaks nevertheless, even when I'm being taught by Windows users how to 'be careful'. Don't ask me why.
"and I've never even *heard* of the problems that you're talking about, like having to open fewer apps, having to reinstall, Windows slowing down by just installing new things, etc"
You apparently never e.g. compared boot times before and after MS Office installs or IE upgrades, and that's _without_ the additional MS Office panel. MS seems to install loads of DLLs that load at boot-time so that Word & Co. come up quickly when you start the actual application. On one machine I had (in 1997) the difference was about 20 seconds, and the system was noticeably slower after the install, and (because?) less memory was available for apps (other than MS Office).
There's the registry which is kept in memory and which keeps growing unless you manually export and re-import it under DOS. (this keeps getting mentioned in the press) There's all the PC magazines that keep telling us the "top 333 ways to speed up and optimize windows" and "registry clean up utilities" and so on. Even if YOUR system doesn't suffer from these disabilities I don't think these magazines print their registry optimization stuff just for the fun of it.
" It sounds like this is completely made up. I kind of doubt that you're the only person on the planet trying to open up multiple apps at the same time with W2K."
I made none of this up. Come visit me if you want. I live in Hamburg. The most infamous part of Hamburg, in fact - three blocks away from Atta Mohammed's place, or rather where he used to live. :-)
That has nothing to do with my Windows problems though (or with anything else).
"And you think that all of these people are all sitting around happily with crashing computers when they can go buy RedHat at Best Buy?"
Most of the people I know use Windows, and aren't happy with it - but many of the Windows users I know don't even know there are alternatives. I go to a technical university and my estimate is that about a quarter of the students there have used or currently use Linux, which is quite a sizeable percentage. But many of the others think it's NORMAL to have to reinstall every couple months, or if you are extra careful, perhaps once a year. After all, all their friends have the problem, except for the few who use Mac or Linux.
More to the point: Almost nobody uses Windows voluntarily. Most use it because they haven't yet seen (or seriously considered) alternatives. Many use it because they depend on apps that are only available for Windows. Many of those are gamers, which I understand completely. Many use it because they don't get a choice (in companies). But well, at least I know nobody who uses it just because it's Windows. Do you?
During my studies I worked as an adminsitrator in a department. They had a Windows NT machine as a printer server. The machine crashed about 2-3 times a day. Except for a FTP server application, the printer spooler, and some Postscript driver, NO APPLICATIONS were installed on this system. And you weren't able to cancel print jobs, for some reason. I don't know who configured this system but he didn't know what he was doing, for sure. (I'm not necessarily putting the blame on NT. I simply don't know whose fault it was that his machine was down 3 times a day.)
I asked why they continued to use this system. They said because they knew how to reset and re-install it when it broke down completely, which had happened three times in the last year. I asked, and everybody is OK with that? They said, yes, after all Windows is the standard and you have to live with it.
After some quarrels I was allowed to set up a Linux based printer server for testing. We didn't tell the others (just me and the full time admin), just swapped network cables. It worked, never crashed, and ran perfectly. (which was probably just as much because of us as Linux). After some time, we also installed Samba file sharing, Mail server, webmail, moved the department web site from the central uni server to our own, added user accounts, and told the users how to use the new features. Everyone was really happy about the new server. Nobody knew it ran Linux, that was the plan.
After some months the department head came to us and asked if we had reinstalled the server, and told us, see, it IS possible to get Windows running smoothly. We told him it wasn't running Windows any more. He went berserk and asked what the hell we thought we were doing and what are his people gonna do when the machne breaks down, and when you can't stop a print job, etc. We asked him exactly how often had the machine broken down in the last eight months? Zero times? Ah. And how often have you used the new CUPS web interface to control your print jobs, and how often have you had a problem with that? Ah.
I imagine that if we had told people beforehand that we had switched the server to Linux, there would have been many, many more complaints - just for psychology reasons. When people don't expect something unknown or new, they tend to accept changes more easily, I think.
We are now running 4 (out of about 20) workstations under Linux in this department, and an additional server. Those are the (only) 4 workstations that kept running during the mail and worm epidemics that plagued the Windows machines in our network. People were happy that they could check their mail without having to fear every mouse click.
Now this has become much longer as I wanted, but maybe it was worth the effort and you understand a little better now.
-- Jens
Home Page
The desktop is what you make it.
I run an up-to-the minute Gnome with Slackware 8.1, and am very happy with it. Every so often I try out new versions of KDE, and while I realise that the product clearly does NOT suck (I'm not interested in starting a Gnome/KDE flame war here), I always find myself getting irritated by the gaudy icons and the general clutter and cruft.
I take your point about "out of the box", though; Slackware was never intended for that, though it's a very easy platform to customise.
I've had apps get really messed up and crash explorer.exe or the whole system on my computer running XP. I'll agree it's not often, but it has happened.
Centralization breaks the internet.
Well, as we say here in the US, "Your mileage may vary". I don't know what the difference is, but there's definitely a difference. I use Windows because for $200, I get a system that is easy to use and never breaks or needs tweaking of any kind. I don't even remember the last time I did an OS reinstall... I think it was on my father's machine back in the Win 98 days. And I remember my last blue screen lockup was trying to install a HP CD burner with a patched-together driver on NT 4.0 is about 1997(?) and when a hard drive died in about 2000. That was it. So it works for me, and works well. Except when I'm in /. I don't even think about the software running my machines. I'll consider something different if I ever have to change OS's, and nothing better is available. Hopefully, by then, I'll have an IT department and I'll let those guys mess with it.
Good talking to you, and good luck with school!
When you spend $99 on Windows XP, Windows XP is all you get.
Not to mention That XP Home will only network as a very limited peer-to-peer filesharing workgroup, not on a corporate network. And you're legally limited by the license how you're permitted to use it too.
Sorry to be the voice of dissent here, but I'm hoping that I can piss off enough developers that they start to address some of the usability issues currently plaguing Linux' feasibility for the desktop. Sure, the kernel is *beautiful*, but a desktop operating system is a lot more than that.
KDE and Gnome are both the best contenders for the desktops of the masses. Let's forget Fluxbox and other things. People want taskbars and Start buttons.
But they're fat and slow. Application skins and default color schemes look like they were designed by a Run Lola Run fan from East Berlin. Basic features are lacking. Interoperability and standard user interfaces become afterthoughts as developers only write what *they* like, not what Joe Public wants. Unfortunately, ( developer != Joe_Public ) in terms of interoperability and applications.
One developer flamed my website chronicling Linux current unsuitability for the desktop, yelling at me that "vi is the best word processor out there, why would any user want anything else?" I'm a vi user and lover, but it's not suitable for writing a business letter, anymore than using that old 1982 Epson MX-80 dot-matrix printer is suitable for printing resumes.
We have to change the mindset.
I know developers write code in a volunteer effort, and I don't discount that at all. We're probably pretty united on wanting to break the Windows monopoly, and we have to somehow convince developers to focus on that more than "well, who cares if it doesn't have this feature... but hey, it's skinnable!"
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Oh. I use Gentoo too!$%%^!#
What have Taylor series got to do with it? Oh, wait... I bet you meant tailor . ;-P
Furry cows moo and decompress.
That is the first time I heard somebody say that about Windows. (It's just about the first time I heard someone actually paying for his copy of Windows either - most get it with the machine, many just "borrow" a CD).
Both of the "hardcore" convinced Windows users I know (they don't want anything else, have second machines to try out new betas, adore Bill Gates, etc but both have seriously tried out Linux and so I accept their personal opinion) are consistently fiddling with driver problems, Office installations that upgrade half your system without you knowing, registry hacks, and so on. I suppose you are the casual user who uses two or three apps and hasn't really changed, upgraded or re-installed anything in his system, because I couldn't imagine how your Windows installation endured for so long, otherwise.
Even my father, who is a MBA with a laptop running just about nothing except MS Office and some tax savings calculator program (and he knows that he doesn't know anything about computer, so he doesn't fiddle around with it), has had to have his laptop re-installed twice in the last six months, because "suddenly" Windows (XP, btw.) refused to boot. Nobody knows why.
"Good talking to you, and good luck with school! "
I'm not sure I'm familiar with the terms but if "school" in English also includes working on a diploma thesis, thank you very much. :-)
Home Page
If I use Windows as I use Linux, it crashes, apps don't react, etc and people tell me that's "normal", even with Windows 2000, I'm supposed to be more careful and open less apps at the same time.
I''ve been in love with Debian for years as well, but this comment about Windows 2000 is simply far from truth. I use Windows 2000 as my primary desktop OS and I'm constantly running ~15 different interactive applications at the same time. The OS doesnt become less responsive or start crashing. And I'm turly a power user, easily annoyed by slow applications (i.e. most Swing applications). Windows 2000 with all latest service pack and bugfixed drivers is very stable and productive enrivonment. However, dont imagine running it on non-modern hardware (be sure to have 256, or preferably 512 megabytes of memory).
I'm not saying everyone has these problems. Windows NT5 aka 2000 doesn't crash as often as Win98 or NT4 did, which means it's become useable. But when I use it, it misbehaves (not necesarily crashes) often enough for my taste to annoy me enough to have switched.
Home Page