Slashdot Mirror
Too Much Free Software
An anonymous reader writes "The plethora of Free Software applications available today, none working perfectly, is a problem which stands in the way of major adoption of Linux on the desktop. In order to conquer the desktop, we have to stand united. Read the article on Freshmeat."
OSS only ever gets better. It never ever stops.
It'll be catching up sooner or later, probably later.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
none working perfectly
I'd like to see any software, free or otherwise, that does. If software worked perfectly, programmers would be unemployed.
Trolling is a art,
hog wash.
If you want a bunch of people to work on one thing until completion, PAY THEM.
Otherwise you get what you get- a sea of productivity that comes and goes in fits and spurts. you also get a lot of different ideas on how to approach the same problem.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Nothing will work perfectly. Don't expect it to.
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
Like someone said at Digital Illusions: "when 90% of the work is done, 90% remains". Maybe he's not that good at calculus, but he has a point.
It's much more fun to start on a new project, or to add extra features, than to make those existing ones work perfectly.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even if you take into account Hofstadter's Law
"The plethora of Free Software applications available tday, none working perfectly, is a problem..."
What about all the proprietary software that doesn't work perfectly (you know what I'm talking about). It hasn't prevented a certain software company from dominating the desktop market.
sig
In order to conquer the desktop, we have to stop making solidarity speeches and start pushing code.
I really think its great to have a large number of apps to choose from but its true that sometimes an application is worth trying to compile/run. Some apps are great, others are shall we say worthless.
This is one reason I like debian as if you stick to the default packages anything you install you will at least know that the application is stable and featured. If not you can download the unstable which normally has more functionality but, by nature, might be slightly more unstable.
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
I've always called it the 90-10 rule. 90% of the work takes 10% of the time, 10% of the work takes 90% of the time.
Every so often yet another article like this comes along. They all make some wrong fundamental assumptions. Namely (1) All Open Source/Free Software can be lumped together and treated like the output from a traditional company, (2) that no one should develop their own programs for the fun of it even if another already exists and that (3) all such software is governed by some sort of committee (or shoukd be) that decides what should be writtem and who should write it. Face it, it's up to the Linux and *BSD distributions to pick and choose which applications, utilities, GUI's etc. get provided and it's up to the users to pick and choose what they like and what suits them best. This article completely misses the point of freedom, Freedom and the Free Market.
Stick Men
In order to "conquer" the desktop, a concerted effort would be required. The OSS model by design is more collaborative in nature, which goes against the mindset of having the single, dedicated focus of achieving desktop dominance.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Integrated packages are great if they actually work. Linux distributions are integrated packages of software that (generally? :) work. Open Office/Star Office are integrated packages. These are the types of software we need for linux.
I wouldn't mind office at all if my wife didn't lose her powerpoints once a month destroying a days work (dont ask) and the myriad of other annoyances (clippy!!) were gone. Integrated packages are a good thing when done by talented developers with an eye on functionality and not monopoly. :)
Look at the number of disks that most Distros now have, Redhat is up to what 4 CD's?? what the hell, I remember when it all fit on one CD, and if they can get a distro that fits on a floppy then what is the other 2GIG of stuff? With all the crap that a distro installs it's over a GIG of software, and this is just getting close to the Base OS as an End user can with the menu system. Microsoft isn't even this blotted!
.. you are all fighting against eachother... If there was a distro for Linux that was on par with OSX, I would buy it in a heartbeat.. truth is .. most suck ass.
This is the reason for the great success of OSX, great OS, and useful applications, there might be a few that do almost the same thing but you don't have hundreds of crappy little programs that do very specific tasks. The Opensource community should start to get together and build one really fucking amazing interface, that is fluid for everything (seems like all the environments are about 1/2 done as far as look and feel, work great for a few things then look like total shit for everything else). Then work on some really great core apps... that's pretty much what Apple did.. build a great interface, then release some good core apps that everyone wants to use.
OSX is what Linux wants to be when it grows up.. problem is everyone in linux is on a holy crusade and that their distro and packages are the best
I read the troll on Freshmeat last week. It's the usual:
:)
* There's too many choices and ways to get things done.
* OSS software isn't as easy to use as commecial software.
* There's not unified desktop, MS Office Killer (yet) etc but there are a half million text editors...
Open Source's strength comes from diversity, not from untiy. That's why numerous ways to conquer any given task. There's also 25+ years worth of software, much of it still being maintained or can still be run on modern systems. In the commercial, closed source world you'll find:
* A limited set of tools to address a given problem. If they don't work, you have to create from scratch.
* Rapid appearance of new software and equally rapid disappearance.
* Limited migration to new platforms. This stems from closed source software often (NOT ALL THE TIME) being written to proprietary, arbitrary or hardware based libraries. When MS, Intel or whoever change their standards, the software dies. (yes I know good software engineers wouldn't do this, but it happens)
* A wide variety of text editors for your various text editing needs.
$G
-- $G
Cubase/Logic Audio. AutoCAD maybe. I'm sure there are plenty more.
Jon Erikson, IT guru
While I disagree with much of what the article says, dislike its angry tone, and realise it is a troll, it does make a few valid points.
Open-source development relies on people doing what they want to do, and the result sometimes also being useful to others. So you can't force people to develop what you think is best.
However, some thought of how to help the free software community would be nice. A few bugfix patches to a project with a large installed base is going to help many more people than starting yetanother$PROGRAM_TYPE on freshmeat. Probably with much less work too. It may not get you 'fame' on freshmeat, but you're probably doing more good that way.
The everyday average user isn't going to download, compile and install 15 different movie players to try them all out. The average everyday user is going give up, because it's confusing to them, and go back to windows. I think that was the point of this article. If not that's one that should be made. You can sit there and argue all day about how free software works for you, if it doesn't work for the average moron, it's not going to get out of the server market. If the belief is that the average user will eventually wise up, you're only fooling yourself.
The article is a TROLL. And it was completely shredded in teh comments on freshmeat.
For instance: someone pointed out that the author is a gnome contributor. No wonder he wants to do away with Qt. Yes, you read that right: author wants free software developers to abandon Qt. Claims that "Qt still has licensing problems, being non-Free for commercial applications" - the fact is that Qt is licensed under the GPL. So it is perfectly fine for commercial applications. However, if you want to build proprietary application on top of it, you have to pay TrollTech.
My favorite is this:
Sourceforge should start removing projects with less than 1% activity for the last six months
This is just incredibly stupid. It is the perfect way to kill people's enthusiasm for free software. And to show you how little thought the author has put into it: if you remove the bottom 1% (1% == 1 percentile), then the next 1% will become the bottom 1%, which will be removed next and so on.
Go read the comments on freshmeat for more reasons why the article sucks.
...is that someone will follow this advice.
This idiot thinks by abandoning the creativity inherent in decentralized software development, we will magically be able to redirect all resources to a single project.
He obviously has no concept of the reality of software development, and I sincerely hope his ignorance doesn't dissuade someone from following his own ideas.
What we DO need is for the ones that exist to be working properly and have all those useless developers (who are wasting time forking new projects and reinventing the wheel) adding their features to existing projects. It's not about fame and having your name as the author. It's about the world!
Contrary to many users' expectations, for most authors it's not primarily about the world. Free software is about having fun writing what you want to write.
It's kind of gross to come along and find all these end users demanding foo, blah, and blargh.
"We need more integrated software". "Free software authors need to combine GNOME and KDE so that my desktop is nicer". "Blah blah blah me me me". You want that, buy a non-free program. Then you're paying the developers, and can tell them what to do.
Free software is about developers, not users.
May we never see th
I can't help but agree with this a little bit, and I think a lot of it is personality driven.
My take on it is that geeks are too willing to argue over technical differences. In some cases the differences are meaningful, in many cases they're only superficially meaningful and ego prevents pursuit of the greater good (ie, a really good widget) in favor of some fuzzy technological benefit that doesn't really impact the user.
There's also the issue of personality and control. Established projects have leaders (defacto or otherwise) that control what goes into these projects, and some of them are willing to deny good ideas just to keep control of the project.
The personality and control thing also comes into play with people who want to start their own projects. I think a lot of them get started because someone wants to be in that postition -- I admin the sourceforge site, the www.myossproject.com site, the IRC channel, yadda yadda. The project itself is almost secondary to achieving the status symbols of open source development.
Another contributing factor may be that more established projects are complex software development efforts. Good ideas are relatively easy to come up with, but implementing them within the scope of a large project requires mroe experience and skill than a lot of newer developers have, so they do new projects instead.
Diversity is a good, but sometimes I think that too much diversity just weakens what's out there without providing any benefit.
No its about doing what you like.
Programmers that write as a hobby (most FS programmers) should choose/create whatever they like. Don't try to force them unless you will pay them for it!
I used twm for years and only recently moved to ctwm because I like having more then one workspace...
I don't want to use the other window managers because their philosophy doesn't match mine, and it probably never will.
Another program to do almost the same thing isn't bad... just look at the amount of software available for windows, I bet there are 380 text editors for windows to. Just one is the default and most used. But that doesn't mean that the others don't have a right to exist.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
I disagree. We don't go around the internet insisting unused pages disappear. Instead we just insist that those irrelevant features not show up in our search queries -- we use Google.
What sourceforge needs is a better search engine, showing the most relevant results first. Then you'll never get down to the clutter unless you want to.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I don't think that there are too many free software projects out there. Have you ever gone to download.com and just looked around at all of the thousands of Windows applications? Many many of them perform the same function. Some better than others, some are innovative, some are not. That doesn't seem to stop people from downloading and using them.
/opt! :) Not to mention the lack of automated installers for most projects. The installers exist, people just don't use them. I'll admit, some of them are a little lacking (a scriptable installer ala InstallShield could be helpful), but I have plenty of Linux games that use those simple installers, and they work great, despite kernel upgrades and distribution changes.
./configure too much these days. I've always felt that build scripts like ./configure were useful for the developers and hackers, but the general public really shouldn't have to have gcc installed just to install new software.
:)
Quantity isn't the problem. The problem is quality. Well, percieved quality anyways. Unix has a different paradigm when it comes to software installation. That's a fact. There is no 'Program Files' folder that everything is installed to. Of course, there's always
IMHO, people just rely on
It also doesn't help that we still don't have a hard definition of what a useable base installation of Linux entails. Yes, we have LSB, but it really doesn't seem to cover enough ground. They waste a lot of time documenting exported functions, when really they should simply state library versions, and maybe even keep a copy of the appropriate source (even a precompiled copy?) available on their site so there is no question about what version they are referring to.
In addition to fixing the LSB, distros really should start obeying it. It certainly would make things easier for us end users. Is RedHat 9 even LSB compatible at all? I never see anything on their website about it, but I've continually heard from various sources that "the next version is LSB compliant".
I'm sure my remarks have pissed more than a few people off, who will undoubtedly attack my credibility. So for the record, Linux could stay non standardized for all eternity, and I'd still have no problem using it myself. I'm only putting these arguments forth since I feel that they are the real reason that free software isn't as mainstream as we would all like.
Rebuttles and counter arguments are, of course, always welcome.
Cheers!
Exactly! I also think this brings up a major problem with OSS. With commercial software, I am sitting in an office for 9 hours a day, writing software for pay. This means I HAVE to get all the specification requirements complete, have all bugs that the QA guys find fixed, and meet a deadline.
Now, compare that with OSS. I have no constraints, no managing force to keep me on track. I want to do something cool, I want to write a KICK ASS MP3 player. I know that there are thousands out there, but mine is going to be much better. I get the basics finished, it plays mp3s but it's buggy. Guess what... I get bored and move on. Face it fixing bugs is mind numbing. With out a paycheck as incentive to fix them, 99% of the time, you don't. Especially, when your interests have shifted.
It's the mentality of wanting to create something of your own, not fix something of someone elses. The thing that keeps commercial software on track is that paycheck.
----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
(At least that's what I call this.)
:) I can think of several offhand. And let's face it, a lot of people just want to "stick it to Microsoft."
...
The argument that there's "too much choice" (and people make this argument in a lot of domains, not just software) has a certain merit. Choice is difficult; every day we face a series of tradeoffs. In areas with fewer choices, it's sometimes simpler for that reason to actually select one over the others.
However, it seems that this argument also has an underlying assumption that there is a single, common goal which "we" could all achieve if we would only just let emacs and vi have a final, conclusive deathmatch, and if we could make every GUI user draw straws between KDE and GNOME (and WindowMaker and the various *boxes, too, but they'd get fewer straws) so all this unproductive wheel-reinvention strife would go away. If you think there is such a common goal, name it -- I bet good money that counterclaims would pop up to invalidate the claim
The point (in my opinion, and noting that a more important metapoint is that your opinion may be different) is that the best outcome of having a real marketplace of ideas is not the construction of the perfect widget, but rather the constant, distributed reconsideration of what and how to do things. That means churn, and lots of broken eggs.* Maybe in the end you decide you don't even need the widget, because you've found another way to sufficiently increase your happiness by other means that spending your time in widgetland is a bad investment.
If you think there too many choices in the world of software (leaving aside the question of how open the code is for a moment), there are lots of ways to *reduce* your choices without harming anyone else's ability to wade through them. Example one: here are lots of consultants who would love to trade your money, if you have some, for their time and expertise. You can specify what you want the resulting computer setup to do, and your consultant will attempt to create one in a way which a) makes him money yet b) is pleasing enough to you that you recommend him to your friends. Example two: in the free software world specifically, you can download and use any of several (sorry, choice again) of the stripped down distributions designed for efficiency, like Peanut Linux and ignore other things available. If it does *your* job, it does.
Remember, UNIX was (in part) created because Thompson and Ritchie wanted to play a game. So they did it. What if they'd been hampered by a committee with a lot of predetermined goals about "what the world really needs"? Could be that the world would now be perfect thanks to T&R's Famine Reduction Machine, but I think it's more likely that all the cool things their desire to play a game with has led to (including the OS I'm typing from right now) would most likely just not exist.
That said, there are a lot of dead projects on SourceForge which should probably be spidered and marked for death in as non-destructive a way as possible. Like sending out multiple notices to all listed project heads in an attempt to make sure that dead-seeming projects really *are* dead.
timothy
*Eggs are good scrambled, until you create the ommellette which best pleases you, or egg custard, or goldenrod eggs
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
He's right - whenever I search for an OSS solution, I usually find 5-10 half done applications. Seldom do I find finished polished product.
And, on the subject of stability; The OSS crowd has got to get off the soap boax that OSS code is more stable and secure. It is not. Microsoft has billions of dollars in the bank, they can make their product however stable they need to be. The quality of their released products is calculated and managed. The arguments that OSS is 'better' is only hurting the movement. As soon as OSS software starts to infringe on MS becusause of stability, then MS will change their tragets and OSS is back to playing catch up again.
What OSS needs to succeed is complete and functional applications with complete documentation. Perhaps if OSDN would step up and manage the submissions of near identical projects rather than blindly accept all (quanity not quality), OSS could make some headway.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Yeah, really.. And he mentions "no working sound recorder (like the one in Windows 95) shipped as the default by GNOME". Umm, the one included with Windows 95 only records 60 seconds of sound at a time. I wouldn't exactly call that a working sound recorder. And what does shipping things with Gnome have to do with anything?
--Drunk as in Beer
Amen. The story totally ignores the way open source works.
If you want a bunch of people to work on one thing until completion, PAY THEM
Which can be to be on an Open Source project. However, the fact remains -- they need to be paid.
This wave of users coming in, demanding a clone of Windows, not really caring about functionality, choice, the ability to see source, and just saying "I want idiot-proof editor! I want idiot-proof file browser! I want idiot-proof web browser! I want GNOME and KDE combined because they sound the same to me and I don't understand their internal structure! All developers should drop everything else and work on that, because that's what I want! Me me me me me!" piss me off.
Most developers are working on their software because it's *fun* for them to write something the way *they* want to write something and try out their own ideas. Maybe learn something. Fulfilling the needs of a whiny end user who doesn't give a damn about anything but "cheap and Windows clone" is really far down on the list. If you submit some code to a project, you're *much* more likely to be listened to.
I mean, seriously. Open source is about developers. It's generally not about users. And this misunderstanding is producing a lot of discontent. "Why are people writing all these stupid command line programs when I want a GUI program!"
Here's the deal. If you want a feature and no one else is doing it, especially if it's been suggested over and over before already (merge GNOME/KDE, clone InstallShield), you're pretty much responsible for doing it yourself. If you can't write code, sorry. Open source developers are not a bunch of little "code fairies" that grant you your every wish. If you write *some* unrelated code for their project (or for other projects), developers are more likely to listen to requests. If your sole contribution to the OSS world is telling everyone on Slashdot that "Linux rules" or whatever, yes, you may get ignored.
Now, do developers sometimes go out of their way to fulfill random end user requests? Sure, especially if they don't take too much work to implement. It *is* a source of pride to be more popular than commercial alternatives. However, it comes down to the fact that users frequently don't seem to understand that they're going up to talented people who are already volunteering their time and (very skilled labor) for particular goals and then trying to tell them what to do.
As for "it's not about getting your name as the author in the credits", that's also false. Lots of people have had fun analyzing open source, because it's a weird social phenomon and in the news a lot. It's a gift-based culture, where you get fame in exchange for your work (in addition to other things). There's a *reason* volunteer OSS people don't like doing plumbing-type work on code. Recognition in exchange for code *is* important to most OSS developers.
Finally, while coding is important to get respect and influence in the OSS world, it's not the only path. Artists are quite scarce, and folks like the free WorldForge project desperately want you. If you're maintaining the website for a project, that's going to grant you some influence in that project and others. If you do translations, that's good too. Not many people translating to Swahili.
But if you just want to play Icewind Dale and don't want to pay anything for your software...well, the Open Source world probably isn't really a place that's going to be all that pleasant for you. Maybe, maybe one day. But not now. BSD and Linux simply don't fit you very well.
May we never see th
Is that it evolves like a biological system. The best parts get recycled, and the rest gets forgotten. Over time you get incredible products, far better than anything closed source could produce, simply because their software is stagnant. There is no new blood.
It is short-sighted to see the early stages of a developing tech to be imperfect or incomplete. (And yes the stage is still early.) Instead you need to measure it against the fitness of other products on the market (where it measures up well.) or against previous versions (where it measures up well.)
The thing that hurts linux on the desktop is lack of popular acceptance. It's still considered radical among grannys and baby boomers; they're worried that they won't be able to use aol on Linux, and that thus, their digital existence will come to an end. This acceptance will only come with time.
Just my opinion.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Another problem is that major functionality is quite often rewritten from scratch. It's not unusual to see freshmeat announcements like "What's new: completely rewritten". Don't throw away all tested and working code and documentation to start all over again, introducing new bugs which annoy users and waste time.
Boy, if I didn't throw away and re-write stuff, it'd be even buggier and harder to maintain than it is. Sometimes I feel like my most productive programming days are the ones where I delete more lines of code than I write.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
There are some valid points here that should not be lost. Unfortunately they are being overlooked, while people complain about the author and his lack of tact.
:-) but I've been working with software for 20 years and been an SQA Engineer for the last 10. I've seen a lot of useful code go to rot (tho others have seen much, much more)
Controversial statements around here tend to get classified as trolls and flamebait, even when there's a point behind the ill-worded rant.
Key point:
Is there a LOT of overlapping, functionally incomplete and unpolished UNIX software? I would say without a doubt the answer is YES.
Just consider the point and answer this question for yourself, without clouding the issue in emotion or the author's irritating language.
Why do people start new projects, where one existed?
How often do "new" free software projects (legally) "borrow" code and ideas from other projects?
Do people learn MORE doing all the coding themselves, vs. learning to find a niche in an existing project?
Assuming the main argument against consolidation is "fresh ideas" (not to under-represent other concerns or minimize this one..), assuming this, what steps could protect this ideal while at the same time minimizing code waste?
Can this issue be put to rest *without* discouraging new ideas?
People can blame this on GTK vs Qt, but the problem's more widespread than that. You can see this in the "mp3 jukebox" class, as well as "ad blockers", file-sharing clients, etc.
I think part of the problem is ego, and I don't mean that in a BAD way (not entirely). If you disagree with a project design, why offer to rip the guts out and clean the code, all for someone who ultimately gets most credit?
Another problem is immature (or missing) libraries. If someone is writing an ad-blocker, they need to: a) write their own proxy or plug into an existing one, b) create a table of regex's to block, c) create exception tables for allowing images that match the regex, but shouldn't be blocked, d) define a file format for the regex and URLs.
It seems to me that there's an opening for a blocker-library that defines a common format. Then the ad blocker authors can focus on differentation: distributed/collobarative sharing of custom-block lists, user-management, language-of-choice, etc.
Gphoto took this strategy and made a general-purpose library for cameras. It is used bt GTK/GNOME applications, -and- by *text* apps. A pity there are no KDE applications using gphoto. I haven't formed an opinion why this is so because I *don't* want to assume it's due to the "dirty name" (g-something).
Another problem is KDE and GNOME themselves: they both lost focus on the core desktop, and are competing for a wider goal of "the UNIX API" for all desktop applications. It seems there's hope in the form of freedesktop.org defining small improvements in interoperability, but it's maddeningly slow progress. Furthermore, my understanding is these desktop libraries are not well supported for non-GUI applications: if you want to develop a curses-driven GUI for a GNOME or KDE-targeted library, good freakin luck to ya. The functionality doesn't always need to be bound to the widget/GUI stuff but mostly it is.
Lastly, people can learn more by forming their own project and going it alone. That's perfectly valid to practice your coding skills, but there's also benefit in learning teamwork and diplomacy by joining a project (not to imply these are exclusive goals).
(More examples?)
"Back in the day" there were two main Napster clients for GNOME: Gnapster, and Lopster. There doesn't seem to be library (GNOME-specific or not) for general-purpose "nap/opennap" communication. These authors each poured long hours into usability and back-end functionality. The gui's were unique, but the back-end can't differ by very much. It would have improved things if GNOME and KDE shared some neutral libnap library.
Just my thoughts. I'm not a real developer (I script
Tips for interacting with OSS developers:
* If a developer says he doesn't want to implement something, that's it. Arguing is pretty much certain to not convince him that he wants to implement it, and may tick him off towards you. If the developer isn't the maintainer (and hasn't said "my project will *not* contain this feature", just "I'm not going to write this"), you can try suggesting it to another or (far more likely to get code in) write it yourself.
* Be *nice* to developers. They're smart people that are making good stuff that they're letting you use for free. People that jump on a project mailing list and say "Your program sucks because it doesn't do foo and bar and I'm not going to use it because of that...so your only chance to get me to use it is to add these features" *are* going to be ignored. The author is *not* going to help these people. If an author adds a feature you asked for *thank him*, no matter how trivial it is. The work, had you *paid* to have it done, would have cost a bundle, and the thanks is only another few lines of typing. If you've been using a piece of software for years, and email the mailing list or a developer for the first time, start out with a brief thanks for the software, and compliment them on whatever it is that you really like about it. Volunteer OSS developers aren't getting money, so their only pay is appreciation and the enjoyment of coding. The only pay you have influence over is appreciation. Don't stiff them. In the same vein, do not personally attack open source developers -- "You're stupid because you don't support postgres as your back end". If anything, it just discourages them from making more software. Everyone loses in that case.
* If you have a question, first look at the FAQ, search google, and check the docs. Really. Definitely do not get angry if you just get flamed if you ask a FAQ on a mailing list. You may be able to get away with simply going to the vendor if you're paying money. Then some paid schmoe gets stuck on the support line listening to you. Open Source developers are generally interested in coding, not in doing support. Generally, support is not tons of fun. It also helps only a single person, whereas them writing even one line of code can benefit hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people -- generally not an efficient use of valuable developer time. Don't post to -devel mailing lists in the hope of getting developer attention and faster support. That *definitely* will get you ignored.
* Don't use ultimatums. It doesn't help you, and it pisses *everyone* off. With software you're paying for, you are a customer. You have clout. In most cases, a volunteer open source developer doesn't give a damn whether Joe Blow uses his program or not, especially if Joe Blow wants extensive support. Saying "Change this feature or I'll use MySQL instead of Postgres to the Postgres developers is not going to get you anywhere." Actually, ultimatums are a stupid tactic even in conjuction with paid developers -- look at Larry McVoy constantly getting shit on the Linux mailing list. Regardless of whether you like him or not or want BK to be used, the constant threats to stop using his software just piss him off. If you don't want to use some software, don't.
* If you can code at all, sending in a patch will get you lots of goodwill from developers.
* Never send in bug reports that say "foo crashes" or "foo crashes randomly". You'll get ignored. If you get a segfault, hand in a stack trace (run gdb and then type bt). "Foo crashes randomly" isn't going to help a programmer a whit. If he hasn't seen the symptoms, he's going to consider the possibility that you might have bad hardware or a broken setup. If he *has* seen the symptoms, it doesn't add anything new.
* Most mailing lists are English. This can be hard for non-English speakers, since they may not get the nuances, but be polite. If you're asking for something, use common courtesy. Say "please". Don't lots of exclamation points. Don't use all caps. Don't use "HELP ME!!!" as your subject line -- be descriptive. Indians posting to English mailing lists always seem to come off as quite rude to me, though I assume it's simply a lack of experience with English.
May we never see th
This is obviously bogus. Do we have too many scientists, just because most of them never produce a breakthrough on the level of Einstein or Tesla? Of course not. Do we have too many open source applications because they aren't all successful? You can't get all of those open source developers to work on the same software package anyway...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That can't be right. It's like judging programmers on lines of code per month all over again...
Cheers,
Ian
Your bloat is my feature. Integrated software packages have the advantage of offering a broad set of standard functionality for everyone. If I sit down at my co-worker's PC in another department, or send them a file for review, I don't have to be concerned about whether they have, say, the pivot-table module installed in their spreadsheet, I know they do. Everybody does.
Likewise, when the IT department sets up machines with a standard configuration they give everyone the maximum possible functionality. Why do otherwise? In practical terms drive space is cheap, memory is cheap, fast (enough) CPUs are cheap, but time and tech support spent on unique configurations are expensive.
Yes, I suppose it could be made sufficiently fast and painless, with enough work. But I think that effort could be better spent improving functionality and usability of what we've already got.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Total rubbbish!
;) ]... but I would strongly argue that in all cases the diversity and multitude of the free software world is one of it's greatest strengths. Emacs vs. vim vs. etc, gdb vs. ddd vs etc, mencoder vs. transcode vs. etc...
The competition of multiple attempts to approach the same thing is nothing but healthy. Let's not forget the rampent cross-pollination that takes place in the even moderately succesfull software products. I just set up firewire for my new miniDV camcorder the other night, and I couldn't help but notice examples of it everywhere. One utility used a version of quicktime4linux [from heroinewarrior/cinelerra fame]. FFmpeg [and it's libavcodec subsystem], which started out as a streaming server [and still is] has been adopted all over the place in video land. But I still like to use xvid with mencoder, cause it's artifacts are somehow preferable to my own personal psychvisual aesthetics. I don't mean to ramble [very little sleep, what with my new toy last night, and having to get up for work this morning
I find myself wondering if the currently prevalent conformist patriotic meme running about these days has somehow begun to infect people in more bizare respects.
Battle for the desktop? Pshaw. The honest fact is, that linux is -far more- usuable on the desktop to a serious computer user. Has been for a good while. As for the lusers out there who buy $40-$60 ieee1394 cables at best buy, and have learned to pop in a disk and see an installation wizard pop up, so they can dutifully click OK and I ACCEPT a few times... That is the beloved desktop, that we think linux should strive towards?!
There will be some companies, lindows or whomever, who will encapsulate the marvelous sophistication and subtletie of linux, into a comfortable and homogonized straitjacket world of user-friendly bliss. I have no problem with that, indeed, the multifarious oppurtunities of open source encourage all manner of repackaging and redesign. Which is a Good Thing.
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
I view Free Software as being driven by Natural Selection. Lots of startups, lots of failures, and only those projects with genuine leadership, insight, and luck will succeed.
For this reason, most software sucks. Actually, it sucks and blows. Most software (commercial included) is so bad that I am ashamed to use it and, occasionally, ashamed to have played a part in its creation. Okay, point made.
However, I am not suprised at how bad most software is. What would you expect after only fifty years of evolution? Only fifty years of learning and cultural penetration?
The fact that certain big corporations say we can have our cake and eat it all thanks to them has made the public delusional and impatient. Right now, I think the public is in denial about software quality, because it is not yet public knowledge that software is among the most complex things ever devised by mankind.
Do we run to the neighborhood fix-it man and say "build me a fast car in six months...oh, and make it silent and brain-dead intuitive to work with. Oh, yeah, I have only $750 to pay you." Do we ask the same of bridge contractors? How about NASA? Would you ride in a submarine to the bottom of the ocean controlled by software written by you or someone you know? How about using software written by (gasp) Microsoft?
Face it, we're still in the dark ages and in denial about it.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
The purpose of Free Software is not to replace Microsoft Windows. Individuals and companies that are involved in Free Software may have that goal, even me, but not the developers of the niche software he criticizes. There is no point in his telling them not to work on another editor. They want to make editors, not MS Windows killers. They are motivated to do for free what they want to do, not what he wants them to do.
Our diversity is our strength, not our weakness. Free Software's strategic marketing paradigm is a massively parallel drunkard's walk filtered by a Darwinistic process. We make gains because we can bypass the failures of a more narrow strategic marketing directon, which would have us work on only one solution to any problem. The problem with one solution is that marketing has no crystal ball, strategic marketers are no more accurate in general than stock-pickers. Their chosen direction is rarely the best. It's better to let coders control their own multiple directions. One of them will get it right.
He also gets into the dreadfully common error of considering window managers to be GUI desktops.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
"Fulfilling the needs of a whiny end user who doesn't give a damn about anything but "cheap and Windows clone" is really far down on the list. "
The arrogance that permeates this statement is sadly too common in Open Source. How can you despise people and then expect them to buy in to your vision? Unfortunately the impression it leaves is that Open Source is a self-serving ego trip for individuals who really aren't at all interested in the public good.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I've been around linux for a while, but I am barely worthy of the title "script kiddie." I use linux at work for a SMB fileserver and print server, as well as to host some intranet applications. The main problem I have with linux is that too much software is installed with distros.
The real beauty of open source is the competition in addition too the sharing of ideas. There's nothing to stop someone from looking at a project, snipping parts of it for their own use, and releasing a better piece of software in a matter of weeks instead of months. Take a look at ARIA, which noticed that NOLA dev wasn't going anywhere, and now they're fixing bugs and adding features. Perhaps in a few months someone will take ARIA and integrate it into TUTOS. Any way it happens, you can be assured that the best functioning program will be the most popular.
The only problem with this is all the forking has lead to a top-heavy tree. Linux distros come absolutely loaded with software, and most of it goes unused. Sure, you can roll your own, if you're literate enough. I think to get people away from Windows, you have to start looking at why it's successful. It's because a) installing new software is easy, b) there are a lot of fully functional, well supported office/financial applications, c) the user is completely seperated from low-level configuration. Once you can install a linux distro simply by selecting the time, network settings, and username (pretty close in RH8.0), then boot into it with a bare minimum of visible configuration utilities, you will have won the battle. People want to turn on their computer, start and use an application (without reading a fucking manual), and then print, e-mail, or publish their results.
The first victim will be customization, but look at QuickBooks for christ's sake. It's a shit program, but it's popular because it gets the job done.
-Dean
Everything in the above comment is true and correct, yet misses a wider truth of the slashdot mantra. Many times on many threads, I hear it argued that linux is a viable alternative to windows. Threads proclaiming that Linux *should* replace Windows in the world are not uncommon either. It is easy to proclaim a revolution, but it is another thing to take the responsibility to run a civilization. My two cents, -Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Anyone use any?
In My Experience, I've been finding free software alot like commercial software: alot of it is drek, some of it is ok, and a few apps are excellent (Postnuke, for instance, works very well for a web portal), as does MySQL for a database. O and Apache, is it working ok for you too?
The decision to use is about the same, gently pry the slick brochures from the boss's hands, research reviews, comments on industry forums, opinions of friends, colleagues, etc., and if all checks out install and test. Obviously you probably don't want free software where there are few posts/changes/sourceforge updates in the last year, similarly with commercial software, except with most free stuff it's much easier to tell how many developers are currently working on the project.
Since I very rarely have found even very expensive software that had company support worth a dang, I've gotten used to getting support off of web forums and google searchs, so supporting free OSS software is about the same as supporting most commercial software.
One big difference of course is price, but another huge difference is that when there is a problem/missing feature in OSS, I can write it in or have it written in, and/or if it is a big problem in an OSS with a large user base, I have found that it gets fixed very quickly, esp. where the core code programmers are using their own product.
I know that this article has major problems, and my feathers got ruffled when I read "Motif, Tcl/Tk, wxWindows? Die!" Those are all great toolkits (except he meant to say Tk since Tcl is a programming language).
BUT, did no one here actually get the author's point? Seems like everyone just fixated on the details and ignored any possible value in the article. I don't think many people disagreed that there are too many audio interfaces in Linux that are (nearly) equally capable. Research is fun, but should every single Linux *user* need to spend hours trying to figure out why sound works in one program but not in another, and research the complete configuration of and relationships between OSS, aRts, ALSA, etc.? I have things basically working on my computer now, but I still don't completely understand it all.
Maybe the point of the article is that developing an alternative piece of software instead of working with existing code is a matter that should be seriously considered, because the cost of doing this is much larger than one might imagine. To the extent that you are successful, you would be detracting from the existing alternative software.
Probably there are two bad reasons why new projects are started when they should not be. One is that people would rather write code than read it. I guess that's psychological -- when you're writing code you feel like you're making progress, but not when reading code. The other reason is personal glory. "This is MY project!"
So, we need to be sensitive to these bad reasons, and deeply consider if what we want to have is really funudamentally different from any other OS project out there? If the differences can be overlooked or overcome in any way, then it's better to work on an existing project and/or with an existing toolset.
That said, there are also good reasons for starting from scratch, but often an existing project can do that on its own. If a change of paradigm or code structure makes sense, as the project is becoming unwieldy, that can (and does) happen. But this process is motivated by the growth of an existing project, so again even if you have some fundamentally new ideas and really want to write "Ans" by yourself, try working with sendmail first, and maybe your contribution might be the impotice for another healthy re-design.
Well, I believe it is the simple theory that most like working for themselves, rather than working for others. Also, I tend to believe that many who have started a project will want to control the project to the point of being stiffling to those that may want to contribute. And when you are contributing time and energy for free, you surely don't want to have to deal with getting shot down on ideas and implmentations. So I doubt we will see a convergance of efforts on any project. The ones that will succeed are those that are managed by people that have a good understanding of collaborative work ethics, and can manage people and resources effectively. And having contributors that have a common goal in mind.
:
Who is the master of foxhounds, and who says the hunt has begun? -Pink Floyd
The point is not that "Linux needs to conquer windows"
The point is not that "Linux needs to conquer windows"
The point is not that "Linux needs these things to be better"
The point is, quite simple, "Linux needs a double-digit desktop market penetration to survive"
Did everyone miss the line about Microsoft using legal tricks and lobbyists to make Linux illegal/irrelevant?
Linux is a great system. We all enjoy playing with it. However, we also need to web browse, we need to be able to buy things online, we need to be able to communicate. If Microsoft manages to get more and more companies making websites that don't work with Linux, if Microsoft lobbies and succeeds in getting laws passed that require software to have strange, undocumented backdoors, keys or encryption, then Linux is dead. Period. A few odd people may play with it, it will be a good learning tool, but that's it. The massive development that marks big apps will be impossible.
And, the only way to prevent this from happening is to get MORe non-techies using Linux. The magic 10% of desktops. As the article points out, a company can cheerfully deploy a website that 2% of users can't access. Cutting off 10% is a different matter.
Here's just one example. I own an ISP. I have to partner with Qwest. To test a line for DSL qualification, I need to use a Windows machine or use Konquerer with user-agent spoofing, because they have designed their ISP-interface website to specifically reject any non-Microsoft browser. It's not that the website doesn't work - it fools you by saying, this browser is not recommended, lets you try to proceed, and then kicks you out saying your browser is incompatible. Funny thing, you change the user agent string and the same browser that was "incompatible" 30 seconds ago now works fine. We're going to see more and more of this crap.
If we want to be able to continue to use Linux, or any other OS/software that allows us to modify it, we need non-techies on Linux. Period. We need a non-technical base of people who will protest when poorly-written or MS dependant crap kicks out their Mozilla.
Linux needs:
* to drop the elitist "RTFM" attitude.
* Better cut and paste, in ALL GUI's / window managers, whatever
* Better selection of software - we need some kid's software, better written - we need to be able to do TurboTax or something like that. We need - gasp - GREETING CARD software. Sound goofy? Get a suburban housewife hooked on a greeting card package and she'll stick with it for life.
* Better font handling.
* BETTER INSTALLATION ROUTINES. RPM sucks. Period. Either it's fundamentally broken, or 75% of the people using it to package apps aren't using it right - I can't tell. Dependancy hell makes troubleshooting Windows problems look logical. It is WAY to hard to install most Linux programs.
Developers, you can code. I can't. My skills have atrophied, I haven't coded in years. I love you all for the great software you give us. I love that it's free.
But, I would love it more if I could actually USE it. I'd love it if it would actually INSTALL. I would pay a fee for that. Most people would. I'm a technician, and I can't figure out how to get some of this crap to run, short of compiling from source - and if you want non-techies to install it, forget it. Developers, PLEASE, when you think your project that you've slaved over for months is finished, pause. Pause and spend ust one more week, or even one more day, polishing it. I mean...come on, why does the KDE dialer tell me to delete a stinking PID file when it crashes and I reopen it? Why doesn't the KDE KPPP dialer ust say "Your previous dialup connection may have ended improperly. Would you like me to start a new one? (Click ADVANCED for a detailed description of this problem)"? That would be smart. The end user would mindlessly click yes and it would work. The hacker could click on the advanced tab and find out what's going on with the stupid PID fil