Perens: Unite behind Debian, UserLinux

That would never work... by eurleif · 2003-11-11 03:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

What makes Linux so great is that there are so many distros, and I can choose the one I like. One distro can never compare to hundreds of them.

Re:That would never work... by Dr.+Evil · 2003-11-11 03:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's easier to fork your own custom distro if all the packages out in the wild follow the same standards.
Re:That would never work... by Jimbo99 · 2003-11-11 04:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hundreds of distro's creates fractionalization and marginalization of certain ones. One distro won't help. Multiple distro's seem to create a situation where the user, wanting one good desktop have to pay to try multiples just to see which one is the right one. Linux doesn't need one distro, it needs a single cross-distro installation package for after-OS-install applications (end user software). Linux lives like the guy that constantly tweaks his car but never takes it out of the garage. It is also similar to the guy who thinks the car is all in the engine and nothing else matter. Why build doors on the car when you can get in through the windows, and who cares if the 3 year old daughter doesn't like it that way. A cross-distro installation package for all end-user software that is graphical and can accomplish an install within a few clicks of the mouse is the only thing that will solve the problems linux has. Otherwise Linux will hit its zenith and take a noze-dive.
Re:That would never work... by supabeast! · 2003-11-11 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are so many distros, but most corporate Linux users are running Red Hat, Mandrake, and SuSE. A large number of "hobbyists," ie. the open-source programmers not working for any big company, are using Debian.

The thing is, much of what goes into the four big distros is culled from the little ones-but the little ones often aren't suited for all-around use because they are developed with very certain featuresets in mind.

If I hire you to work on my network, I don't give a shit if you want to use some obscure distro because it's your flavor of the week for a certain application. On my networks, we will be going with one of the big five-actually just Red Hat or Debian, as they are the most popular distros in my region of the world-because there's a big chance that you won't be running the server forever. You might get promoted, get transferred, get fired, quit, etc., but in all likelihood I'll need to hire another sysadmin to manage that box within two years. And I'm NOT going to hire a senior admin who can handle learning some weird distro when I have the option of bringing in a college kid who knows how to keep a big-distro box running on autopilot.

Unite behind Live CD's by corebreech · 2003-11-11 03:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

If they're running Debian, then that's great. But you need to put Linux into the hands of the masses if you want to take over the desktop and the best way to do that is to seed the planet with Linux Live CD's with the same fury that AOL soils the planet with their CD's.

No gcc, no including twelve different versions of AWK; just the kernel, KDE or Gnome (pick just one), OpenOffice, games, and all the rest of the shit that makes everything go.

Right now, when you say "Linux" to a layperson, they don't know what the fuck you're talking about. A Live CD is a painless way for them to find out.

We can rebuild him. We have the technology.

--
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?

Re:Unite behind Live CD's by eurleif · 2003-11-11 03:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

If the masses knew that it was another operating system, most of them would use the CD forn a frisbee. My mother recoils in horror when I suggest she should consider installing Linux.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by another+misanthrope · 2003-11-11 03:21 · Score: 2, Informative

Mepis - Live Debain-based distro which you can also install to your harddrive THROUGH the liveCD version.

Good stuff - I've been running it as my primary distro for months now.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by Gleef · 2003-11-11 03:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

While Bruce Perens seems to be talking more about development, not distribution (you can't really develop assuming Live CD's, or else your stuff might not work well on full systems), your point that Live CD's are incredibly important for evangilism is a good one.

Also, note that the most popular Live CD's either are Knoppix or are based on Knoppix. Knoppix itself is based on Debian, so supporting Debian is supporting Live CDs.

--

----
Open mind, insert foot.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by aliens · 2003-11-11 03:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unfortunately they don't know WTF you're talking about nor do they care.

Honestly why would someone running XP Home/Pro migrate to linux?

There has to be a killer reason to switch, maybe someone hit by one of the worms lately might, but that's still a minority of home users.

--
-- taking over the world, we are.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by KikassAssassin · 2003-11-11 03:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

KDE or Gnome (pick just one)

As a new Linux user myself, I'd suggest KDE over Gnome if you want to draw new people in. Gnome is an excellent interface, but by my experience KDE seems much more familiar to someone who is used to the Windows environment, and overall it has a somewhat more polished feel to it. That familiarity will make your average user who's never used anything but Windows before much more likely to try it out, rather than giving up from the start because everything looks different than what they're used to.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by corebreech · 2003-11-11 03:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Nobody is asking her to install Linux.

Just to run it.

You can boot from a Live CD, play with Linux, then reboot, take the CD out, and resume your regularly scheduled programming under Windows.

This is the beautiful thing about Live CD's. If it's done right, the user is completely insulated from all the usual crap we have to do to make Linux work, and without assuming any risk whatsoever from the experience.

--
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by swillden · 2003-11-11 03:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
Honestly why would someone running XP Home/Pro migrate to linux?
Here are a few reasons that I've seen:
- Because they've had a conscience attack about using pirated software, but don't want to spend the money to buy a legitimate copy.
- Worms/viruses, like you said.
- An interest in trying something new. A lot of people who aren't geeks, per se, still like to fiddle with computers.
- A dislike for Microsoft (usually imparted to them by some nearby geek).
- The idea that maybe they'd like to "work on computers", along with a realization that with the growth of Linux there's a good chance to get in "on the ground floor".
- A desire to have something that "just works" and isn't constantly getting screwed up, or intimidating them with zillions of options they don't understand (this takes a geek to configure a fixed-function Linux install).
- Need for a file server, router, NAT gateway, etc that runs well on their ancient machine ('cause they just bought a new one with XP).
- Simple curiosity, wanting to see what all the fuss is about.
- Because that's what came pre-installed on the cheap machine they just bought, and it seems to work okay for them.
Those are off the top of my head, and from comments from real Windows users who are using/toying with Linux. I'm sure you can think of some more if you work at it. Few of the above reasons are adequate to justify a switch on their own, but several of them taken together often are.
--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by FatherOfONe · 2003-11-11 04:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's funny you mention cost and the "mass users".

If Windows XP was NOT bundled with their computer OR they had to pay extra for it, then I believe that a small portion of the "mass" would switch. The same small "mass" of people who drive an extra 10 miles to Wallmart to save 10 cents on their soft drinks.

I was just having a discussion with a teen age relative of mine who loves Microsoft because one of his relatives works there. He has NO intention of ever using anyting but Microsoft. So I broke it down this way.

He will spend $600 for Office, $100-$300 for Windows XP. So lets go low and say that is $700. I won't go in to continual upgrade cost, but it should be mentioned. So he will spend $700 or more than someone who runs Linux and Open Office. Both would do the job for what he needs. So if he went with Linux he could....
1. Buy a new PS2 and some games AND
2. Buy a better video card AND
3. Buy a better hard drive AND
4. Buy a faster processor AND
5. Buy a new GameBoy with Games.

So I asked him... Wouldn't you like to have all that stuff? I do with the money I saved by not running Microsoft Office and XP at home. (I don't own a gameboy but he got the idea).

Cost does matter with Linux a lot for the masses. There needs to be a distro out there that is free or near free. There is a huge Linux market for the PC users who shop at Wallmart...

--
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by Spoing · 2003-11-11 04:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
1. I find most of my "family" support time is devoted to pops-ups, spam, updating and patching windows, and virus eradication...
I used to do that. Now, if I touch anything on a Windows system outside of work, I make sure that the software isn't a petri dish waiting for a plauge. Firebird has been a welcome replacement for IE, and OpenOffice is also something folks tend to appreciate.
Discussing the problems with HTML email and how spammers abuse it also helps.
When they load on crap spy ware, I tell them not to do it -- remove it *once* -- and then if it happens again tell them to remove it themselves. The only help offered are pointers of where to go and a reminder why they really really don't want to load crap. Less is more for most Windows users.
Along the way, you bet I mention that these problems aren't a problem for me -- ever -- and why they aren't. Facts not propaganda.
1. why the hell would anyone NOT want to give all those things up especially on a box that is most used to surf the net and read emails?
Well, you're not really helping them by fixing these problems so often. They don't see much of a downside if you're thier tech support -- after all, you are the one dealing with it.
I know it's hard not to "help", though you have to ask if you are helping or drug-dealer-like providing a quick "fix" leaving the core problems intact.
Replacing Windows would be ideal, though in the short term get them to use software that isn't motivated by the pushy-salesman's idea of being helpful. Most open source projects are there to be helpful, not to sell you an upgrade and special 'deals' with partners through spam, deception, or simply changing all your default settings.
Remember to tell them you can't keep fixing thier computer if they can't use it properly. If they protest that they are ignorant and you are such a great computer guy -- ignore it and teach them the right way. If they protest the lessons do not cave in, cut them off!
--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by aliens · 2003-11-11 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I totally agree, unfortunately when users buy their Dell's, Gateway's etc, the cost is "invisible"

The best thing to do is exactly what you did, educate people and hope next time they do opt-out of having an OS installed.

Only time will tell.

--
-- taking over the world, we are.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by poot_rootbeer · 2003-11-11 04:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Right now, when you say "Linux" to a layperson, they don't know what the fuck you're talking about. A Live CD is a painless way for them to find out.

I still don't think the average user has any incentive to try Linux out. They don't feel the costs of Windows licensing because it came with their computer. They've been conditioned to expect the occasional email virus or system crash; to them it comes with the territory when using a computer.

Linux needs a killer app for the desktop market. Work-alikes for popular office suites and web browsers are great, but they're never going to spark a revolution.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by Spl0it · 2003-11-11 04:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Knoppix, Live CD, includes a simple, graphical install for the harddrive that can be run from the live cd, very nice. Knoppix is another Debian based distro one can consider. It runs from the live CD, with wicked WICKED auto-hardware detection. You can install to the harddrive by running one command that brings up a nice user-friendly graphical install. Knoppix has blown me away... the thing detected everything I have these stupid USB speakers that sony made, deemed Microsoft USB Speaker system... and it detected that, amazing! Microsoft Windows can't even get the speakers picked out right on the first try!

--

No, this is
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by scalis · 2003-11-11 04:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

I am not sure I agree that just because KDE looks more like MS Windows it means the users will find it easier to work with. Siemens Business Services did a study on this a while back (story was posted on slashdot too) Part of it reads:

"Before settling on Ximian, Siemens evaluated plain vanilla Gnome and KDE as well. Siemens found KDE to be more "Windows-like" than Gnome, but that led to problems when non-technical users expected a more Windows-like experience. Gnome, particularly Ximian's version, was "different enough" to set user expectations that the experience would be less like Windows, which led to fewer adoption problems"

--

True ravers don't need drugs
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by pyros · 2003-11-11 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem with your argument is that when you buy a Windows PC from Dell, HP, IBM, etc, Office doesn't cost $600, and Windows doesn't cost $100-$300. When you ship the volumes that those vendors do, and agree to pay Microsoft a license fee for every machine sold, rather than every machine the products are shipped on, the cost of Office and Windows likely drops below $50 each. When Dell was selling desktops with Red Hat Linux, they chose to use one of the retail editions, and it ended up that the Linux PCs they sold cost more than the Windows PCs they sold. I'll grant that Dell should have chosen the free version of RH, so we could truly see the MS tax. But most consumers don't know that. All they saw was that the Dell machine with Linux cost more than the Dell machine with Windows. Even now, HP is selling the d220 with Mandrake Linux for $84 more than with Windows. They do this because the expensive Linux distros are more user-friendly than the free ones.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by Anime_Fan · 2003-11-11 05:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

As a new Linux user myself, I'd suggest KDE over Gnome if you want to draw new people in.

I'd say no to this suggestion. I used to run a customized version of KDE with the Windows look-and-feel. However, my non-techie room-mate didn't want to use it. For him, it was all rubbish on the screen, bloated and all. Don't get me wrong, KDE can be nice if you customize it as you want it to be.

So, instead of me telling my room-mate that it was what I used and basically forcing him to use it during the time when he hadn't brought his own computer along, I installed Gnome.

I can tell you, Gnome is a lot more like Windows Classic (which is the first thing you change in Windows XP - Luna is horrible). It is a much cleaner design, much more structured.

KDE is more like the new, flashy Luna interface, while Gnome is more like the classic Windows interface that most users are used to.

Because of this, three or more desktops should be shipped with the OS. One being default. Users that do like other desktops should be able to change their preferences as simple as one changes it in Windows XP. Basically, going to a preferences box and choosing desktop. Or doing it like we have always done, selecting a custom session in the login box.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by JudgeFurious · 2003-11-11 05:49 · Score: 2, Funny

I don't. They don't think the computer "runs" Windows, they think the computer IS Windows.

I try not be so damned pessimistic about these kinds of things but I spend all day supporting these monkeys and I've reached the conclusion that there's almost no hope for them.

Some people will pick up on the differences but they're in the vast minority. Still I guess a few is better than none at all.

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's by dipipanone · 2003-11-11 06:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

most users dont like windows. people need to accept that.

If most people didn't like Windows, they wouldn't need to accept it at all, because they'd already know they didn't like it.

The fact that you're arguing that people do need to accept it seems to imply precisely the opposite.

OT: Open Source by Sanity · 2003-11-11 03:14 · Score: 4, Funny

I was quite amused when at a recent conference someone described Open Source as Free Software with a politics-obotomy...

Debian minus freedom by ciaran_o_riordan · 2003-11-11 03:16 · Score: 2, Informative

I think an important Perens quote from the article is:
"UserLinux would only depart from Debian for software that is not open source"

so, UserLinux will be Debian + proprietary software. A dissapointing step back in my opinion.

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!

Re:Debian minus freedom by Nevyn · 2003-11-11 03:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think an important Perens quote from the article is: "UserLinux would only depart from Debian for software that is not open source"
so, UserLinux will be Debian + proprietary software. A dissapointing step back in my opinion.

A step back from what? Right now most US companies running a supported Linux in the enterprise are running Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and it comes with (or with support for) all the products they need, Ie. Java, Oracle, PowerPath, etc. etc. etc.

This is the same "argument" that RMS uses, Ie. It's better to have nothing than something. Life doesn't work like that, people always go for the path of least resistance. Hell even debian wasn't stupid enough to not have "netscape" available when that proprietry and the only real browser. Saying "It's not free" doesn't solve the problem of "I need, now" (and "need" is relative, some people "need" to be able to play proprietry games, etc.).

--
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
Re:Debian minus freedom by ciaran_o_riordan · 2003-11-11 04:06 · Score: 2

Free Software often has support for proprietary systems, GNU Emacs runs on MS-Windows. This is not the issue.

> A step back from what?

We have a complete Free OS and we have tonnes of Free Software. Some people will run proprietary on top of that Free OS. We can accept it but why should we be promoting proprietary software?

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!

Great idea, but... by Dr.+Cam · 2003-11-11 03:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

the community is going to have to put more resources into Debian to keep it up to date. I won't use anything else, but you can't have an enterprise running on a mix of testing and unstable.

That would work... by nurb432 · 2003-11-11 03:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

What makes linux so difficult to adopt in the business world is that there are too many choices and just confuses the market..

For a home user, who cares.. for business its a hindrance..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:That would work... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-11 03:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Horsepucky! "Too many choices" is hardly the problem. The people who could very well migrate to GNU/Linux but don't are hardly intimidated by choices. After all, they have a much larger selection of realistic possible banks to choose from, but this doesn't prevent them from opening checking accounts. They have several options for Wintel vendors, yet they manage to choose one. They could locate just about anywhere, yet they manage to find a place to hang their sign. They could advertise in a million publications, channels, stations, direct mail, etc, but they do figure out how to get the word out. The idea that a businessperson is somehow "confused" by choices is crazy talk.

The real problem is that there are few, if any, companies pitching GNU/Linux in a way that makes it obvious to potential users why they would care. The other problem is that buying bare systems or pre-installed Linux systems is difficult. It takes some work to avoid buying a copy of MS Windows or Apple Mac OS when you buy a piece of small-to-mid-sized hardware. I have *never* seen a GNU/Linux system on display in a store. I have *never* seen a fully assembled system for sale without an operating system (except on web sites devoted to such things). So not only do you have to pitch GNU/Linux, but you have to make it easy to get there from here. No intelligent businessperson is going to spend good money on Windows only to get the system in-house and immediately fdisk it!

All this talk about distros is pure distraction. The only company actually doing something to get Linux out there right now is Lindows. They are putting Linux on hardware and getting it in people's faces. Beyond that most of the Linux marketing I've seen is pure backroom stuff that functions more to reinforce the geek notion that Linux is a great server OS, but does nothing to get the unwashed masses to sit up and take note.

The desktop market is darn near saturated anyway. If someone hasn't bought a home or small business computer yet, the odds seem pretty low that they will. If they already have a computer, odds of buying another one are getting similarly low. And for better or worse, most of the already sold systems are Wintel systems.

Which means that in order to gain share in those markets the value adds are going to have to be significant. One possibility is the "new lease on life" approach (your old hardware starting to seem sluggish? run Linux!)-- but I consider that holding out false hope. Linux is just as demanding as Windows for a lot of stuff, so while it's possible to run FluxBox and mutt, most people aren't going to want to. More likely is the Lindows approach. I mean, how do you beat a $200 brand-new system with decent specs? Problem with that approach is that it's low margin (and therefore somewhat risky).
Re:That would work... by Matrix272 · 2003-11-11 03:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe so, but geeks (me included) will want choice.

I'm a geek, and I really don't care about choice. As far as I'm concerned, there's only a handful of good distros out there, and even then, that's stretching it. I'd consider Red Hat, Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian, and Slackware. Everything else is window dressing for those that want "choice". In fact, now that I think about it, Gentoo, Debian, and Slackware aren't very user friendly, so just lump those in with the other "choices" too.

Start maintaining machines in a setting where you don't want to spend 6 hours a day teaching people how to use a computer, and then talk to me about how many wonderful choices there are in the Linux World.

How will the business people know that UserLinux is the one true distro any more than they know that Debian is the one true distro now?

The business people don't make choices like that. They make the decision that they want a free OS installed on the computers, then hire (or outsource) someone that reads /. to choose the best distro for their operation. And, unfortunately for the proponents of a lot of the distros out there, one of the main features the technical people look for is ease-of-use... and that's the area that Linux fails WAY behind Windows. Security, stability, reliability, etc. is all great, but the ease-of-use and the features are still lacking.

--
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Re:That would work... by PainKilleR-CE · 2003-11-11 03:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe so, but geeks (me included) will want choice.

When it comes down to it, regardless of how many distros there are, whether it's one or one thousand, there's always a choice in the software you run. Beyond that, they're basing their distro on Debian, just adding software that Debian won't include (like closed-source drivers). You could always choose Debian, or another distro, or modify the UserLinux distro for yourself.

How will the business people know that UserLinux is the one true distro any more than they know that Debian is the one true distro now?

How do they know what RedHat or SuSe are? They don't. They rely on people that know what they're doing to make the right decision. That's why US Corporations have been moving to have positions like CTO and CFO alongside the CEO, because they need people with a firm understanding of the technical and financial sides of business. If the CTO doesn't know about UserLinux, or any other distro of Linux, chances are he knows that someone on his staff will be able to give him an informed decision. My favorite part about being a geek is not just the control over my computer, but also being the person people go to when they want to know what they should do to keep up with technology. The best managers know that there are people working for them that know particular portions of their business better than they do, and will go to those people for advice on those portions of the business.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:That would work... by skaya · 2003-11-11 04:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

What makes linux so difficult to adopt in the business world is that there are too many choices and just confuses the market..

Also, a lot of IT managers don't know what Linux can do for them. Some IT manager working in a big TV/movies company was surprised to learn that mplayer was able to read Windows Media 9, Realplayer, quicktime ... He didn't know that there was a single application able to read all those formats, and asked me a lot of questions about Linux and mplayer.

And that's not an isolated case ; a lot of sys admins responsible for office computers don't even know that OpenOffice exists, or they believe that it's broken, or clunky ... We have to show them :-) And Live CDs is a good way to do that. Now, we can build those CDs over any distro out there ... One strength of Linux is also this choice (waiting the time when one distro will fulfill every purpose...)
Re:That would work... by div_2n · 2003-11-11 04:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Maybe so, but geeks (me included) will want choice."

From the story header: "at which Bruce Perens suggested that in order to get Linux to the enterprise desktop"

Thankfully, that excludes geeks like you (and me). Business has absolutely zero to do with such small quibbles on whether or not we geeks have choice and everything to do with what is a good business decision. There are points at which the two intersect but they are not either mutually inclusive or exclusive.

Human tendency especially among the informed/educated is to think to one's condition. "That isn't what I would want/do so it will fail." That line of thinking is usually not conducive to successful businesses.

"How will the business people know that UserLinux is the one true distro any more than they know that Debian is the one true distro now?"

Because if everyone in the Linux community unites behind one version for the defacto business standard, then they will know. Keep choice for those that want it. For those that don't give a flying four-door (insert your favorite four-letter) about whether it uses KDE or Gnome or OOo/Hancom/KOffice or for that matter what the hell it runs. They just want something that works.

In fact, while I am at it, this is what businesses want (I know because I run one):

Web Browser (again, flavor DOES NOT MATTER)
-Related browsing technology (Java, Flash, etc)
-No Pop ups

E-mail
-No Spam
-Easy attachments, etc.
-Free from virus concerns

Office Software
-Maximum compatibility desired (MS Office, Word Perfect, etc.)

Custom/Special Application compatibility
-This is the big showstopper
-Like it or not, there are businesses that will NOT consider Linux because simple apps like ACT 2000 will not work
-Wine/Codeweavers integration is a must

Central Authentication/Access Control
-It may already exist. I honestly don't know.
-Must work as simple or close to Windows Domains
-Must dictate what applications/security/settings are available to users that log in
-Must provide a central point to push new apps/bug fixes
-Should NOT require physical access to a machine EVER except for system problems

Windows Update-like mechanism (See Red Hat Up2Date)
-Again, this should be automatic to the end-user but updates pushed by admins (after proper testing, etc)
-Updates should be pushable by group (so that prioritization is possible)

Integrated Virus protection/Firewalling
-Just because a plethora of Viruses/Worms are not out there now doesn't mean they won't be later
-The Firewall settings should be set upon logging in (see the above)

Hardware Support
-No, we businesses don't care if we have the source for a scanner driver as long as it is free and works
-Again, do not confuse your condition to that of a business. Free first. OSS second.

ISV/Vendor Support
-Widely document the standard system
-Provide migration documents for migrating Windows apps to Linux
-Provide documents to train programmers that are Windows-centric to think on a Linux-level

There you go. My rendition of what it needs. I am sure there is more but those are the things I have encountered in Enterprise computing that without, Linux will NEVER unseat windows in a reasonable amount of time.

Feel free to tear my assertations apart.
Re:That would work... by Bombcar · 2003-11-11 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

your old hardware starting to seem sluggish? run Linux!

Good Idea!

There should be a "simple" Linux that is designed for home users to use to turn an old PC into a fileserver.

I'm thinking something that will install Knoppix style, load a simple config wizard that will setup DHCP, Samba in NT emulation mode, etc. Such a thing is very doable with linux, we should make it one click to setup (Byte me, Amazon!)

Then, in the future, if the user wants to, he can begin fiddling with things directly.

I'm talking put-the-CD-in and then type two or three things, everything else autodetected or defaults.

--
Fellowship 9/11
Re:That would work... by fferreres · 2003-11-11 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Whoah, GREAT insight into the problem. First you drop all properly package managed distros like Gentoo and Debian, and then you bitch about having trouble to maintain the systems or teach things to users.

Mhh, I'd suggest you go in other direction. For example, why not install Debian or Gentoo on a friends computer, and then teach them to use apt-get or emerge. Or maybe, tell him to give you a call if he ever has a new need (game, whatever). Then you can tell him: type "emerge doom3" or "emerge whatever". Of course, you'd leave sshd installed and will cron update on already installed packages.

You don't even need to explain anything to the user. Really. Now if you only had mentioned Slackware or the likes, yes, that one I will only install on some servers and make sure they are lightweight, and vulnerabilities do not pop-up. These babies work GREAT, but must be babysitted (though I've found I really know what's going on and no side effects will be expected).

--
unfinished: (adj.)
Re:That would work... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-11 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

I got on linux and windows at the same time, coming from a mac: imho, windows is NOT easy to use. Control panels scattered around, needless complication in terminology, lack of consistency.
All this, when there aren't other issues with hardware of course. Heck, i got trouble with multisession hybrid cds that work fine with a '97 mac (and linux, of course).

Linux is not easy to use, either, but is getting better way fast. Anybody can boot knoppix and finish a couple pages in openoffice write before win2000 has even finished installing.

People are more familiar with windows. A very different concept.
Re:That would work... by cshark · 2003-11-11 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

My perfectly average eight year old daughter uses Debian , a "non user friendly" distro according to your post with no problem at all. She prefers it to windows xp because "it has better games", "cooler menus", and "no blue screens!"

The system is a vanilla install with some extra game packs, Evolution, Mozilla, and KDE. Nothing fancy.

If my kid can do it with next to no training aside from a basic understanding of how to use a GUI based operating system, I have a hard time believing adults who have been working with computers for several years or more would have trouble with it.

When it comes down to it, people like to complain about change, so they make excuses about why they aren't adopting linux. "But it's harder to use," "It doesn't have enough software," "It doesn't have any GUI tools" are excuses I hear all the time.

If they would simply try a current version of linux, maybe use it for a week or two, they would find that none of these excuses are true of modern linux distributions.

--
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Re:That would work... by pyros · 2003-11-11 06:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, the thing about Debian is it's only user-friendly if your hardware works on it out-of-the box. My laptop has an Intel i830M chipset. If I want 1024x768 resolution with anything over 8 bit color, I must either user another disrtibution or run Debian unstable with experimental packages to get XFree86 4.3. I installed Debian unstable on my 5 year old PC this month and had to get on IRC to get my USB mouse working. Then after installing the 2.4.22 SMP kernel, I had to get back on IRC to get access to my IDE drives! These two should have been automatic years ago. As it sits now I can burn CDs in ATAPI mode, which is dog-freaking slow compared to the SCSI emulation mode, which I can't find any documentation on configuring.
Just to give you a little background, I've been running Linux at home, starting with Slackware, moving to Red Hat, and trying out Debian, for 7 years. I've managed a remote datacenter of 10 Linux boxes with nothing but ssh and the occasional use of a cyclades terminal server for when things get really fubar (like the nfs server got a little hosed and i couldn't log into anything remotley). So I'm no stranger to building my own kernels and configuring hardware by hand, I just find Debian makes it so much harder than it needs to be.
Re:That would work... by dipipanone · 2003-11-11 06:12 · Score: 4, Funny

She prefers it to windows xp because "it has better games"

Better games? Better games?

Go out and buy her some commercial games, you old cheapskate. Expecting a seven year old to be happy with just Solitaire verges on the abusive.
Re:That would work... by Spoing · 2003-11-11 06:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

The business people don't make choices like that. They make the decision that they want a free OS installed on the computers, then hire (or outsource) someone that reads /. to choose the best distro for their operation.
Oh, to live in your world! (No, really, where is this place? Tell me! Please! :( )
I'm constantly told exactly what software to use by managers who like to micromanage. Only seeing a nitch, filling it, and then announcing that the problem/issue is solved do I get to have any choice.
And, unfortunately for the proponents of a lot of the distros out there, one of the main features the technical people look for is ease-of-use... and that's the area that Linux fails WAY behind Windows.
Some distros do make it a bit too difficult, and there are annoying inconsistancies. (Current gripe: file managers in KDE/Gnome can't share, CLI over the network does not match what you see in the GUI, though the *exact* same set of problems exists in Windows.)
I find familiarity and fear are the biggest obsticals. Ease of use, while critical, is way down the list. It doesn't matter how easy something is to use if you never look at it or make it more complex than it is.
To be any good at using Windows or a flavor of Unix you have to put in substantial amounts of work. Everything else is just clicking on a dialog and guessing. In the grand scheme of things, software is really just an arrangement of bits and bytes -- Windows, prop-Unix, or open-Unix -- and one package doesn't really make a difference. Run Windows? Know the registry. Run Unix? Know basic scripting and the file system.
I'm not an admin right now, though the chief admin where I am is starting to get a clue that CLI != evil, and that it has it's place just as GUIs do. I've been carefully working on him for the past 6+ months, and he's reciently warmed to my advice realizing that I'm attempting to help not muck with his network or do an end run around him.

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:That would work... by Random+Walk · 2003-11-11 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

My perfectly average eight year old daughter uses Debian , a "non user friendly" distro according to your post with no problem at all.
Almost any "perfectly average eight year old" child will be able to learn new things at an almost frightening pace. In fact, there is a good chance that it will not even need any manual, howto, or whatever. (Marginally example: my 3 year old son handles the CD player w/o problems. And I did not tell him how it works ...). Children are curious, and curiosity is a major part of that thing called 'intelligence'.
Its the fourty years old grown-ups that are not able to handle Debian. Actually, they can't handle Windows XP either, but at least with WinXP, they think it is their fault ('everybody says it is user-friendly, so it must be me'), while with Debian they will inevitably blame Linux.

I was thinking.,. by hookedup · 2003-11-11 03:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

the same thing the other day in relation to science, where we have 100's of institutions finding cures/treatments for the same thing, each basically reinventing the wheel all over again. Lot's of people united togeather on one project would probably reap more benifits that a bunch of smaller projects reaching for the same goal.

IN OTHER NEWS by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-11 03:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Steve Jobs unexpectly announced today he thinks you should use a Macintosh.

Bill Gates made an interesting proposal that everyone use windows.

Scott McNealy outlined a plan he has in which everyone uses Solaris.

Larry Ellison, in a widely-publicized press conference, stated that everyone should give him money.

More on these sudden and shocking developments as news unfolds.

Odious by Sanity · 2003-11-11 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

He said the companies will also welcome an alternative to Red Hat and other commercial versions of Linux, which come with "odious" terms, limiting the number of seats and requiring expensive service contracts that are voided if users attempt to modify the software.

What is odious about that? How can RedHat be expected to support an operating system when they have no idea what modifications might have been made to it from the their version? The whole point of having a standardized version of the OS is to make support easier. Refusing to support versions of RedHat that have been modified from their default configuration isn't odious, it is a common sense precaution against your support staff wasting vast amounts of time.

With all due respect to Bruce.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · 2003-11-11 03:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

What happens when the corporate backers of UserLinux decide that bills can't be met and they have to concentrate on an enterprise version? Bills don't pay themselves and there are reasons why RedHat isn't doing the consumer version anymore.

In some respects I can see RedHat's position regarding the desktop, because for the majority of desktop users, Windows isn't "broken" and why switch if you don't have to? Servers are cake to argue because Linux IS so superior in many ways and that aspect is very easy to demonstrate.

Probably what it will take to get Linux on more desktops is M$ trying to strongarm organizations and organizations doing exactly what Munich did, switch to Linux and then use WINE.

That's exactly what the CIO of the defense branch I am working for is doing right now. Evaluating WINE because he is just fed up with the tail trying to wag the dog and the bad news for M$ is that the CIO doesn't think they are so unique anymore.

Re:With all due respect to Bruce.... by debrain · 2003-11-11 03:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

What happens when the corporate backers of UserLinux decide that bills can't be met and they have to concentrate on an enterprise version? Bills don't pay themselves and there are reasons why RedHat isn't doing the consumer version anymore.

Debian, as a UserLinux, will survive the corporate onslaught precisely because it is free. Much as the Linux kernel will survive in the absence of corporate backing. That is the power of open source software.

Red Hat isn't doing a consumer version because it cannot afford to, because it must answer to shareholders, because it is commercially driven to profit. Debian suffers none of these drawbacks.

However, if Red Hat Enterprise were based on Debian, Red Hat would have minimal overhead in procuring a similar consumer version, while retaining all the benefits of a consumer presence. There is an enormous amount of work being put into the Debian distribution, and commercial entities that recognize and take advantage of it have the potential for great benefit.
Re:With all due respect to Bruce.... by XNormal · 2003-11-11 03:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

What happens when the corporate backers of UserLinux decide that bills can't be met and they have to concentrate on an enterprise version?

My guess is that the UserLinux corporate backers are large IT *users*, not developers like Red Hat. If that is the case they don't need to make any profit on it - they want to save money by using it themselves.

Get a few big companies with hundreds of thousands of PC seats and each company's share of the investment to develop this kind of desktop distribution starts to look small compared to what they spent just on handling the latest MS virus.

--
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.

Wishful thinking by 3Suns · 2003-11-11 03:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nice idea, and I agree wholeheartedly. Too bad it'll never work. "Everything could be so much better, if only they did things Our Way." That's never been thought of before...

--

-3Suns

~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted

Good thinking. by Diabolical · 2003-11-11 03:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is good thinking. Allthough i have been a long time SuSE user (you can tell by my spelling :-) but with the recent developments i think that the only other viable alternative (sorry Mandrake) for the future will be a single base on which commercial companies can build their own desktop distro. This way all base functionality remains available for everyone.

Nice to see some focus by ajensen · 2003-11-11 03:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

... The strategy isn't to convert the masses all at once, but rather to explain the advantages of Linux over the Windows operating system for certain types of companies running certain types of applications.

This focus on smaller sample groups is nice to see. It is quite obvious that in certain situations, Linux has some major advantages over Windows. In my experience, web applications (Apache+PHP+MySQL) and embedded systems are good examples.

In support of the above quote, I find it highly unlikely that Linux will be able to spur a "mass conversion" -- but that probably wouldn't be the best course of action anyway. I imagine that a better way would be to focus on a relatively small sample group and let the versatility of Linux convince people that it's a good choice. If the product is as good as many think it is, then the conversion of the masses may be inevitable. Time will tell.

It's where I'm off to by mccalli · 2003-11-11 03:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

Following Sun's decision to end of life all the Cobalt boxes, I'm converting my Raq4 over to Debian. The stability combined with security backports appeals to me.

Whilst reading all of the recent dropping of Red Hat Linux and purchasing of SuSE etc. I did wonder if this would lead to a boost for Debian. Take the Fedora project, for example. It seems madness to contribute to this over Debian, since with Fedora you really are just beta testing Red Hat Enterprise edition for them - the whole 'giving back to the community' thing is better handled by Debian since that is not meant for feeding back into commercial distributions.

So yes - I have to agree. Debian would seem to be the way to go following the absorbtion of the big names. Let Red Hat do its own work in getting rpms ready for RHE 16.8 or what have you - concentrate your efforts on improving things for the community at large instead.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Definatly by kayen_telva · 2003-11-11 03:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

do you mean initial installer ?? because Debian has the
best package installer hands down

The Holy Wars Thread by VivianC · 2003-11-11 03:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thanks Bruce. I now open the Linux Holy Wars thread by stating: "I like Mandrake better!" Please feel free to reply and let me know why your personal favorite is better.

Maybe we should keep working on the LSB specs so all the distros can interoperate?

--
Viv

Gmail invites for ip

Re:The Holy Wars Thread by Jagasian · 2003-11-11 03:46 · Score: 2

You missed his point. The point is that you can have 1001 Linux distros, but it would eliminate allot of duplicated effort if they were based on Debian because Debian already has a comprehensive software package repository, a structured filesystem layout, and a demoncratic multi-national internet based community that develops, tests, maintains, supports, and uses Debian.
Re:The Holy Wars Thread by Bakaneko · 2003-11-11 08:17 · Score: 2, Funny

demoncratic

Sigmund Freud loves you, man.

Always respectful, but.... by mao+che+minh · 2003-11-11 03:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

I admire Perens ambition and passion for the open source movement, and always respect his educated opinion, but I am not so sure that I agree here. Working in the enterprise world myself for about 4 years, it has been my experience that management is more willing to use Linux when it is backed by a well-known and "secure" name. Customized jobs cost a lot of money, and most enterprise decision makers are more inclined to lean towards comprehensive distributions and assign the task of making it workable to their already over-tasked IT staff.

I don't think that the community needs to collectively focus their attention on one single distro. I just think that one single distro needs to rise above the rest and earn market acceptance as a solid desktop. The strength of Linux is that I can use a different distro suited to a particular task. If I need a quick solution for IDS, but don't have some powerful hardware, I can quickly setup snort and Acid on a Debain box and get it going. If I need a quick packet filtering firewall with easy to manage tools (for the IT staff here that isn't very Linux knowledgeble) I can setup Redhat 9 in about an hour and a half.

Somewhere in the near future we need a desktop distro that is every bit as good as Windows is when it comes to the desktop. Then I can say "when I need a quick desktop for someone that just needs web access, eDirectory, and Lotus Notes out of the box, I can use insert distro here."

Re:Always respectful, but.... by Skapare · 2003-11-11 03:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem is, when free markets make decisions about what should rise above the rest, that decision usually has nothing to do with what product is actually the best product. Instead, success in the market too often is based on factors such as what product is first to the market, what product has the strongest sales force, what product gets the most press, and what product works with the most other products that have decided to choose just one to be compatible with.

PHBs have started to turn to some form of Linux. As more and more do, do we want to let them make the decisions about which particular form to go with? Or do we want to at least influence, if not outright make that decision? Do we want them using a distribution that locks them into a single vendor, or do we want them using a distribution that can be supplied to them competitively forever? You know they can't make good long term business decisions because of their shortsightedness in areas of technology. They rant and rave about how business concerns need to be addressed, and then they go off and make stupid decisions that end up costing the company more and exposing them to new risks.

In as much as I think Bruce Parens' statement is a bit self-serving, I do think he's right, and that we need to center around not just a free kernel, but a whole free distribution. That's the only way to ensure minimal risks and costs for business use of Linux systems.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

Why does nobody get this? by pubjames · 2003-11-11 03:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm fed up with all this blather about Linux on the desktop. Is it ready yet? What needs to be improved? Why hasn't it happened yet? etc. etc.

There is one thing that is going to get Linux on the desktop, and one thing only. That is that the big PC manufacturers (principally Dell and HP) start to seriously promote and sell desktop PCs with Linux already installed.

If that doesn't happen, then Linux on the desktop will probably never happen to a significant extent.

Re:Why does nobody get this? by spiritraveller · 2003-11-11 05:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Why does everybody ignore Wine? Yes it is still in development, but it is improving at a rapid pace. I am personally running Quicken 2002 Deluxe and Photoshop 7.0 under Wine, and am very happy with the results. It actually seems faster than Windows, and there is no bugginess in the areas that I care about.
Of course, the problem with Wine is usability. It takes a good deal of learning to do it yourself. Linux PC sellers just need to provide a gui-based way to install pre-tested versions of Windows programs (ala Crossover Office). List the program versions that have been tested on the box. For programs that don't yet run under Wine, list superior alternatives that run natively.
I suspect the average person thinks that if they switch to Linux they will have trouble finding software for it. This is only true for a few applications. And that gap can be filled with Wine.

Re:Standards by bfree · 2003-11-11 03:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Because few people want/need to build their own system. Debian has shown an incredible ability to package stable and consistent software which has already become the basis for many different desktop distributions (Corel/Xandros, Lindows, Knoppix). Also Debian supports more architectures than any other Linux Distribution (correct?) and hence all the work done by the various parties would help to ensure that the computer market is held in balance in terms of architectures (i.e. if every Linux distro used Debian as a base, and Linux gained 30% of the desktops, then the ability for "the market" to switch architectures in the event of gross arrogance (i.e. AMD and Intel push through DRM technologies which require annual licensing) would be vastly improved compared to if the Linux distros in use were all derived from RedHat). Of course ideally Gentoo would also collaborate in this enterprise and would become debian derived (i.e. you could do a debian base install and then do "apt-get install gentoo-stageN" to have it use debian as the toolchain to build gentoo, perhaps even building the system out of debian source packages (with gentoo patches)).

--

Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

Debian certified for Oracle, etc., would be great! by aquarian · 2003-11-11 03:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Especially with Redhat's latest retreat into their proprietary turtle shell, I'd love to have Debian certified for apps like Oracle, etc. This issue has also come up recently among OpenACS developers.

Ever Tried Debian? by mbrod · 2003-11-11 03:35 · Score: 4, Informative

I see all these people saying "what is so great about Linux is all these different distro's to try, and Debian is only one".

I don't think you have used Debian. I love Debian because I can put the bare minimum on my machines and then build up from there whether it be Gnome or KDE or a strict web server box with no GUI. To build it up all I have to do is grab the packages I want with apt. I can roll my own distro in a way.

Not to mention Stable, Testing and Unstable are really all different distributions anyway.

Anti-Redhat FUD but still a good point by Jagasian · 2003-11-11 03:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

It seems like there has been allot of anti-Redhat FUD lately. While I have always been a Debian fan, and I agree that every distro maker should base their distro on Debian, all this crap about Redhat leaving a hole in the consumer market because they made Redhat Linux a community project that is still heavily guided and sponsered by Redhat... that just smacks of anti-Redhat FUD.

Truth is that Redhat Linux 10 was released several days ago, and for trademark reasons it is called Fedora Core 1. Anyone who has used Redhat 8.x or Redhat 9.x, will be able to tell that Fedora Core 1 is Redhat 10.

I would love to see one internet based community developed meta-distrution of Linux, with one comprehensive package repository. This would be the Linux standard. Then companies that want to make a newbie-friendly Linux could cherry-pick the best software packages, make custom themes, and tweak everything and also provide support.

In my opinion, the thing that Redhat 8 through Fedora Core 1 do really great is that they cherry-picked a nice set of software packages, made a nice theme for the desktop, and put everything together into one nice coherent package.

Note that the good things that Redhat does with its distro do not conflict with having a Debian-foundation, and the fact that Redhat has decided to fracture the internet community because it refuses to have Fedora Core 1 be a customized Debian is just plain silly!

Other distros have shown the power of using a Debian based core: Knoppix, Libranet, and Lindows, to name 3 distros, all accomplish something slightly different.

1. Knoppix is a live CD based Linux distro with completely automatic hardware detection. Knoppix is a great toy, a great way to advertise Linux, and it makes for an uber rescue disk.

2. Libranet aims at being a general purpose desktop/server distro, and it adds value by greatly simplifying the installation and maintenance of the OS.

3. Lindows is supposed to be a newbie friendly / user-friendly Linux distro that emulates the look-n-feel of Windows. It is aimed at a large target market of casual computer users that want to save a few bucks.

So please tell me why Redhat couldn't use a Debian foundation for Fedora Core? All they had to do was create a small community layered ontop of the Debian community. Their job would be to cherry-pick software packages from the comprehensive apt repository that Debian already has, and integrate it all into one coherent system by tweaking settings and theming applications.

In conclusion, lets drop this Redhat ditched desktop Linux crap, and focus on the fact that Redhat is duplicating effort by not basing their community developed distro on Debian. It is starting to remind me of Christianity with its many demoninations.

Re:Anti-Redhat FUD but still a good point by Haeleth · 2003-11-11 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Er... what?
...lets drop this Redhat ditched desktop Linux crap, and focus on the fact that Redhat is duplicating effort by not basing their community developed distro on Debian.

Red Hat already had a perfectly good base for Fedora - it was called Red Hat Linux. It strikes me that "duplicating effort" would better describe what they'd be doing if they abandoned the software they've spend years developing and tried to rebuild it from scratch using a completely different setup.
Re:Anti-Redhat FUD but still a good point by teg · 2003-11-11 07:35 · Score: 2, Flamebait

Note that the good things that Redhat does with its distro do not conflict with having a Debian-foundation, and the fact that Redhat has decided to fracture the internet community because it refuses to have Fedora Core 1 be a customized Debian is just plain silly!

Why would Red Hat do this? Red Hat already had a great foundation to build on, Red Hat Linux. It's far ahead of Debian in most areas... so regress a couple of years to build on Debian? Why? The opposite would make far more sense.

Re:We're almost there by molarmass192 · 2003-11-11 03:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Curiosity ...

- built-in p2p
+ Why?, use gAIM or Kopete. Are you referring to the MSN nonsense that's forced upon users in XP?

- better CD burning tools
+ with 2.4.21 you can use K3B with ATAPI CD burners which gives you 95% of what you get in Nero

- better attachment handling
+ this is a tricky one, define better. I'm assuming you mean Outlook like attachment handling. I'd want anything like this disabled by default but there's likely to be a point of contention there

I'm not questioning your choice of applications, that's what Linux is about, choice. However, this is also the reason I don't realistically think one distro to rule them all will ever take hold. My felling is that there are simply too many different types of Linux users, each with their own preferences, many of them etched in stone, to try to bring a Microsoft-like "homogeneity" to the Linux world.

--

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato

Re:do i need educating? by jiri+B · 2003-11-11 03:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

one of the number one reasons i don't like debian is that packages in the stable branch are typically full point releases behind!

You can have stable, or you can have bleeding-edge. Debian gives you both options (three, actually).

Perhaps Debian could release more often (and you could volunteer to help with that), but there's a lot of situations where one just needs something stable; and when Debian says "stable", it is. Most people don't want to be upgrading to a new version of their operating system more often than that anyway, and Debian doesn't have the resources to support multiple stable versions.

If you want newer stuff, and are willing to tolerate the odd fault, go with "testing", which generally seems to be a reasonable compromise.

If you want bleeding-edge, use the "unstable" branch - all the new stuff, with all the new bugs.

You might claim that the Debian nomenclature is rather conservative; but that's what you want for serious use.

--
-- Hi! I'm the "Good Times" signature virus. Copy me into your Sig!

Debian as the reference system by Dionysus · 2003-11-11 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

I said it before, and I'll say it again:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=69340& cid=6329 689

One of the main reasons why GNU/Debian is perfect for a reference system, is that stable doesn't change that often.

Debian Woody (3.0) was released July 2002, with an update December 2002. How many version of Mandrake, SuSe, Gentoo or RedHat has come out since then?

If you are a developer, you really don't want a moving target like the other distributions. You really want to have stable target over some period of time.

Note that, even if Debian becomes the reference system, it doesn't mean that RedHat or SuSe, Gentoo can't have never libraries or KDE, or GNOME on their system. It just means that at the very least, they need compatible libraries installed by default.

And no, LSB is not enough. That is just a voluntary paper, and with no reference system, you still would have to test the major distributions to make sure your program is working.

With a working reference system, like Debian, you would only need to test against one distribution.

--
Je ne parle pas francais.

Re:Debian as the reference system by hal200 · 2003-11-11 04:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Amen, Brother! :)

Personally, I run Debian Testing (Sarge) on my desktop, and Debian Stable (Woody) on my firewall. One of the nice things about Stable is that in general, the only updates are security-related. That means you can set apt-get update; apt-get upgrade in a daily cron, and not worry too much about pooching your system. Doing so under the Unstable branch (and to a lesser degree, Testing) would make life...uhm...interesting. ;)

At work, our admin is a big Gentoo devotee. The package system is nice in it's own way. I was fond of the FreeBSD ports system back in the day, but Gentoo's ports seem to have a lot of breakage (broken packages, missing files, bad MD5 sums, etc) compared to the Debian apt sources. I suspect this is mostly due to the monumental volunteer effort into Debian's package maintenance.

On the other hand, I find Gentoo's support for Java packages/tools is significantly better than Debian's...Probably more due to licensing issues than technical, but it would be nice to have a Debian equivalent to "java-config --set-user-vm"

YMMV...

--
I just want to take over the world...Why does that automatically make me EVIL?
Re:Debian as the reference system by iggymanz · 2003-11-11 08:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sure Debian is stable compared to others, but too OLD and STALE.....old gcc, old kernel, old etc.... my partners & I found we couldn't use it in my startup business (using RedHat 8 for now, but trying to figure out what's next). Fedora has the problem of the other extreme, too bleeding edge with unknown stability. So, to find a business-class distro, that has free ISO's available for testing technology of next release, I'm wondering if Mandrake might fit the bill. Anyway, if Debian moved just a little faster, would be a great thing.

Wrong by turgid · 2003-11-11 03:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why should volunteers spend their valuable time making something to give away to corporations?

For this purpose, commercial distributions such as SuSE and RedHat exist.

One size does not fit all.

The market will decide as and when Linux is ready for the corporate desktop, and in what form.

Microsoft is doing a marvellous job already of comitting suicide due to over-pricing its software, shoddy quality and vulnerabilities to malicious code.

Linux has been doing just fine for my personal computing needs since 1996. If corporate America (or anywhere else for that matter) wants to enjoy the privilege of using Linux, it can make like the rest of us and make an effort.

--
Stick Men

my Linux newbie comment by holy_smoke · 2003-11-11 04:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

You also have to make it painless to do things like install/remove software and install/remove drivers.

I have been patiently trying to build up and use my Suse 8.2 system.

My biggest complaints so far?

- I don't want to have to do black magic command line crap to install my NVIDIA drivers
- Although I definitely agree with the root/user separation, its a pain in the a$$ to keep getting assaulted with a root password prompt when I want to change a system setting (flame away)
- many of the programs don't seem polished; that is, they seem to crash at odd times or don't do what they said they would when I hit 'ok'. (??)
- the interface needs to be more polished for the average user who doesn't want to understand the technical aspects of what a link is or what HDA1 is...

I LOVE that Linux exists, and I am growing to love it more....BUT...I am not an "average" user. I am somewhere in the haze between advanced Windows weenie and low level Linux novice.

I don't care how many LiveCDs you ship to my father-in-law or my wife (as examples). If they can't install drivers and programs, configure their systems, and navigate their PCs _easily_ and through the GUI _only_ you won't have an ice-cube's chance in He11 of getting them to use Linux. Oh - and if they can't buy software (games) for it at Best Buy you're screwed too.

Average users want a tool that looks pretty, does neat things, and makes their lives easier/more entertained. They don't give a rat's behind about shell scripts, Xfree, Xserve, CUPS, gcc or whatever. It just confuses them and turns them OFF to the product.

Hope you find these comments contructive - they are not meant to assault.

--
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?

Re:my Linux newbie comment by molarmass192 · 2003-11-11 04:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Dude, not to be a jerk but that's why there are different distros targeted at different segments. You want easy breezy no password point and click? Use Xandros, Lycoris, or Lindows. SuSE is for intermediate to advanced users. You want voodoo black magic? Use Gentoo.

Anyhow, I'll be 100% honest, if they want to use their PC to play games, Linux ain't where they should be. I've said this prolly 80 times before. I play games on my Linux box but I know / understand / accept that the selection is going to be limited.

I use to be all for Linux conquering the OS market but as time went on I came to understand that there's some desktop real estate that Linux shouldn't want to own. That segment is the home user that *thinks* they know what they're doing but really only know just enough to make a mess. I'd be happy to see Linux push MS out of the data center, off corporate desktops, and limit them to the mid range home user segment that's the source of 95% of all support problems.

--

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato

20-30% My ass... by cybrthng · 2003-11-11 04:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Linux won't make ANY inroads in Corporate desktop america until there is an undeniably stable and certified foundation by which to support from.

Corporate america isn't based around the concept of "Free Software" it is based around Revenue Generation, using the right tools to get the job done and providing an IT infrastructure support revenue generation, sales force and back-office.

Linux doesn't have any sales force automation tools. Sure you can install Oracle 11i on Linux, but even then your talking servers. Oracle 11i doesn't even support linux as a workstation.

Until ACT is ported, until the average sales person can do everything he/she needs to do and very easily, linux will make "0" inroads into corporate america.

It is all about supporting your sales force, your R*D departments or whatever your business's revenue generation is from. Linux just doesn't do that right now and surely won't do that within the next 3 years.

RedHat has bailed the desktop market and gone for the workstation, but even then that is a UNIX workstation level NOT an "end user" level. Suse is making inroads, but not enough to do 20-30% market share.

I'll repeat myself again. Corporate America is about supporting your revenue stream. Linux simply can't do that at this point. Tools are built around simplicity, ease of training and what is common knowledge. Your average sales person only uses a PC when needed and does everything with a Cell phone, note pad and over a few beers at the local bar. Linux can't replace this. Especially Debian.

Re:Standards by wytcld · 2003-11-11 04:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Of course ideally Gentoo would also collaborate in this enterprise and would become debian derived

There's a problem with this. Gentoo's advantages are not just that you're running quite-recent versions of everything custom-compiled for your architecture, but that it has a better-standardized arrangement of daemon configuration files and better (although not perfect) handling of init-script dependencies. It's possible to run serious production servers that need recent-version daemons using Gentoo defaults for compile options and with a nicely-rationalized /etc/*/ tree for the configuration options. If you want to accomplish the same with Debian you're going to have to custom-compile your major daemons, and deal with much more of a mish-mash of init and conf stuff.

Mind you, Debian is good if you want a server that's not cutting-edge, that's real stable, and that doesn't do much that's fancy. But Gentoo is less trouble and performs better if you have clients who you've sold on using today's technology, rather than that of several years ago.

Oh, and desktops in particular run much better when the stuff is compiled for your specific hardware, and the feel of responsiveness is a major factor in making power desktop users feel comfortable and happy. People whose work involves seriously drafting documents or analyzing spreadsheets don't want a Cadillac, they want a Porsche. Gentoo is a Porsche, Windows a Cadillac with factory defects, and Debian is a mid-level Ford. Debian-for-the-desktop perhaps for your Aunt Maud who writes the occassional letter or e-mail (and even then, doing a Knoppix install to the hard drive will give her something happier than stock Debian), but Gentoo is what's needed to make the power users who demand the most from desktop machines - and who often have a loud voice in corporate computing policy, since their offices are close to the CEO's - happy.

--
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton

Debian needs to be brought up to date by figa · 2003-11-11 04:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

I recommended Debian for my company's development platform last year, and I'm now wishing I stayed with RedHat. Stable is hopelessly out of date, and the install is too difficult for junior desktop admins (windows admins) and developers to set up without my help (and I'm a developer, not an admin).

I need a stable release that evolves a few times a year, so that I can read reviews and decide when it's time to migrate to keep up to date. Debian only offers the choice between a year-old distribution several major releases out of date that nothing will compile on, and a testing release that moves on a daily basis, often jumping several versions back or eliminating a package entirely.

I also need a GUI installer, so I don't have to hold people's hands through the install. Nobody should ever have to use dselect, unless they're migrating from DOS.

The thing that upsets me the most about Debian is that the stable release is not always stable. The package for Galeon has been broken for a year now. The download manager for the Woody version crashes constantly, though the bug in Galeon was fixed well over a year ago. My choice now is between the unstable stable version and the completely unstable unstable version that stopped working entirely for me around 1.3.9 (yes I filed a Debian bug report). The testing version has since disappeared.

There have been numerous stable Galeon versions since last year on two separate branches, but I don't have an option to roll back to a useful version because stable is hosed and testing is gone. This ultimately caused me to give up on Galeon and just download the Firebird binary and install it by hand. So much for the wonders of apt-get.

Debian needs to either step up its glacial pace or make testing an honest milestone release before Perens starts touting it as an industry standard. I'm thankful there's still competition from organizations that put Linux usability over Open Source ideology.

Re:Debian needs to be brought up to date by LarryRiedel · 2003-11-11 05:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think of Debian as sort of an OEM distribution, like the Linus kernel, which gets various value adds before it is released in, for example, Red Hat. Similar with, eg, OpenOffice.org vs StarOffice.

Products like Lindows, Xandros, Progeny, Knoppix and Libranet are based on Debian, and are clearly trying to enhance "Linux usability" and include more uptodate revisions of packages. Further, Knoppix is a foundation for other products like Morphix.

Larry

Re:Standards by rifter · 2003-11-11 04:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Probably because debian takes the GPL and licensing issues seriously from the start.

Debian also manages package dependancy hell a bit better AFACT.

I recommended debian for a large project for this reason, though I did later curse it soundly for my personal installation.

Maybe when sarge installer is working a bit better I'll try it again.

It does not surprise me that a person who recommends dogfood to his customer without trying it first is wrong on this point. All the source based distributions maintain their freeness as much as if not moreso than debian. After all, you are downloading and compiling from source for most packages; if you can't do that you know there is something wrong. Much like debian, free and non-free are kept seperate and there is a lot of discussion of purging nonfree altogether. Non-free software really sticks out in a source-based distro.

Package management and dependencies are a breeze on the source-based distributions. I just cast or emerge the package I want, and all the dependencies come down automagically. What could be simpler?

Why Debian exactly? by Jahf · 2003-11-11 04:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

The article only says that Bruce is calling for it to be Debian because he helped design it. That's not enough support for the argument to spit at.

Debian may be superior in some respects, but it doesn't change the fact that businesses are already getting used to RPM based distros like Red Hat, SuSE and Mandrake.

If he wants a sea change in the business view of Debian, there has to be better support for it than that.

I agree with the idea of having a core distribution with variations for specific tasks. I think alot of other people do to based on the mild success of the LSB and the -ideas- behind things like United Linux.

I think Red Hat leaving their free distro market to the Fedora project will either give support to Fedora becoming that core distro -or- will give up any chance Red Hat has of being such a core distro (or both depending on whether you view Fedora to Red Hat as the same relationship as Mozilla was to Netscape -or- as being completely 3rd party and a cold shoulder to the idea of free distros as some do).

Either way, it's going to take a lot for a business to even consider a Debian distro. Educational books, live cd's, RPM compatibility, LSB compliance and lots and lots of gruntwork.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.

Debian is losing developers, this isn't the answer by iamnotayam · 2003-11-11 04:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Debian is losing developers because they are a rigid and well-defined organization.. one of their biggest strengths and their biggest weakness. People who volunteer their time don't like to be confined in little boxes. In addition, Debian just isn't cool, sexy, exciting, hip.. etc. it's your dad's linux.. who wants to work on that? Gentoo, Fedora, etc. are moving forward, taking risks and *successfully* meeting their challenges.

Circling the wagons around Debian is not the answer, fixing Debian so it has clear goals, integrates new technology better, and has less overhead is the answer..

*Disclaimer* I run Debian, Gentoo, and RH9 on my boxes.. trying Fedora later this week. I think Fedora is officially a Good Thing(TM).

Re:do i need educating? by jiri+B · 2003-11-11 04:38 · Score: 2, Informative

That's not true. If you have a server OS, then you can use "stable" and it is likely to be what you want (assumnig you don't need a feature from this millenium). As far as "unstable" and "testing" go ... neither provide security errata. and are thus useless for normal people. Unstable can be ok for the very experienced Linux user who is watching bugtraq.

Well... isn't that pretty close to what I said?

Where it seems obvious to me that I might want MozillaFirebird (comming soon in 2006 to a debian stable near you), but not want to move from apache httpd-1.3.x ...

You can mix'n'match the various branches... sometimes you pull in lots of new stuff, though (like a new libc6 - that's always worrying, but usually works just fine).

And there are always security updates to stable; usually it's just the security fixes back-ported, to minimize changes - because having the security updates break stuff is very very bad. Just look at Microsoft's Windows Update.

--
-- Hi! I'm the "Good Times" signature virus. Copy me into your Sig!

What Bruce fails by micaiah · 2003-11-11 04:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

to realize is that in order for Debian to be taken seriously is that it needs to be upgraded to the level of commercial Linux distros. Its installer (I know everyone complains about) needs to be easy by default. The focus on stability while admirable IMHO is taken to the extreme where it almost appears that the distro is obsolescent when compared with the likes of Suse and Red Hat. Debian all in all still looks like a hacker OS. Show Debian and Suse from install to implementation and see which one a business type will choose. Companies are not going to choose Debian simply on ideological reasons. On a positive note Apt rocks, but now there is Apt for rpm.

What is an OS by nuggz · 2003-11-11 05:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

I like debian because in stable they don't take risks.
My OS isn't a toy to play with, it is just something that lets me run my applications.

I had the same debian/stable box for about 4 years, it died. Put the drive in a new machine, rebuild the kernel and I'll probaly run the same install for another 4 years.
That's a good thing.

Re:I want to try Debian but... by kcurrie · 2003-11-11 05:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Forget about installing stable/unstable, instead download Knoppix which is a complete Debian distro on a bootable CD. You boot the CD, which then autodetects all your hardware, then you run the knx-installer script to install the whole thing on your harddisk. You don't have a choice in what packages to get, but after installation you can easily remove (and add) others.

--
-- I speak only for myself.

I call bullshit by autopr0n · 2003-11-11 06:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

She prefers it to windows xp because "it has better games", "cooler menus", and "no blue screens!"

Windows XP blue screens? What are you trying to run it on, a p200? I think I've seen my win2k install blue screen like 2 or 3 times in as many years. I've also never seen (or heard people complaining about) XP blue screening.

Oh, but maybe it's all those memories of windows 95/NT from when she was what, 4?

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:Use KDE for Userlinux please. by spitzak · 2003-11-11 06:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Both Gnome and KDE use freetype/Xft to render fonts, so there is no difference between them there.

Gnome's biggest problem is that the goofballs who are writing it just can't stand to see 1000 bytes of replicated code. As soon as a function is used by more than one program (even if one of them is in developement and won't be available for years) they go "oh no we need a shared library!". They do this before they even debug the function, so instead you have a whole string of shared library versions and you always need the correct one. This mentality is why Gnome consists of literally hundreds of shared libraries and that you always have to download every single one of them with any program. Wake up guys: cut and paste the code and static link, it is not an affront to the programming Gods, it is a sensible and practical way to develop usable software! And practically speaking, the overhead of shared libraries way outweighs any plausable savings by sharing some functions. If they are really in such a panic over this, it would be better to have Linux hash-code read-only pages and share identical ones, so when you static-link a library into several programs, Linux may notice the matching pages and save your precious 10 or 20 K.

One more by B1ackDragon · 2003-11-11 06:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

The biggest interest I've seen in linux has been in response to someone seeing me run something on linux that they can't get on Windows. Be it Evolution, the gimp, Xaos, a game, or an Xscreensaver, there are some cool apps for linux that are only for linux.

"Hey, where can I get that?" "Linux only, sorry." "Huh. Maybe I'll have to check that out sometime."

At this point a knoppix cd comes in handy.

--
The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings

Re:Hmmmm ? Debian only ? by MrPink2U · 2003-11-11 07:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

The number of us non-debian users is far greater than the number of debian users

Replace the words "debian users" with any distribution you like. Since there are so many distros, this statement will always be true. This is nothing more than meaningless chatter...

ex. The number of us non-redhat users is far greater than the number of redhat users

Why aren't we speaking up about all of debian's flaws ?

I don't know, why aren't you? General statements are as useless. Please provide some details next time so we can actually analyze your arguments. Maybe you have some good points, but nobody will ever know because you didn't state them.

If all you wanted to do is insult debian (and its users) why didn't you just say "Debian Sucks!"?

Re:Bah. by letxa2000 · 2003-11-11 07:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

But did you ever run Linux on your desktop? For 99% of the people to "go back" they have to use Linux on the desktop first.

I switched to RedHat Linux back in March--a few months after buying a brand new laptop that had hardware specs that would have made it 3 times faster than my previous laptop but it actually ran the same apps SLOW (i.e., I had Office 2000 on my old laptop and installed Office 2000 on my new laptop and it was slower). Yes, the old laptop ran Win98 and the new one ran XP.

I had been running a Linux desktop on my home office server and used it as my file/print server and my stereo system. I'd thought about trying to installing it on my laptop but was sure it would fail miserably. Finally, after months of frustration of my new laptop running slower than my old laptop I ordered a brand new hard drive for my laptop. I yanked the pre-installed XP hard drive, installed the new hard drive and installed RedHat on it. Worked perfectly. It was no harder to install than Win98 (can't speak to WinXP, I've never installed that). Detected everything fine including my USB keyboard and mouse and inserted LinkSys 802.11b PCMCIA card. For my legacy Windows apps I bought Win4Lin so I can run Windows under Linux. The few Windows apps that I actually still use actually run faster under Win4Lin under Linux than they did under WinXP! And I still ahve the original XP hard drive in case anything ever goes wrong with the laptop hardware--I'll just stick the XP HD back in before I take it in for warranty work so they don't freak out.

Now, about 8 months later, I'm still on Linux on my desktop. Yes, I do miss being able to go to BestBuy and buy any old piece of hardware without checking first to make sure it's supported by Linux.

Sometimes I even think, "What the heck... I'll just go back to Windows." Then I think about the speed hit I'll take. I think about the crashing problems (I had more crashes under XP in the 3 months I had XP on my new machine than in the 2 years I had 98 on my previous laptop). I think about having to worry again about Microsoft's latest DRM plan and whether they'll let me continue to use my computer in the way I want [I used the DVD player on my laptop twice under XP, one with a region 4 DVD and once with a region 1 DVD. Windows told me I could only "switch" regions 4 more times and that was it. No such problem under Linux]. I think about the viruses that used to be a threat and all the security problems of last summer that I totally was able to ignore. I think about the fact that I'm 100% legit on my licenses and can safely tell the BSA or anyone else to take a leap. I think about the fact that my Linux install came with OpenOffice that does MORE than MS Office [at least more useful. I'm sure MS Office has some features I don't use or care about, but OpenOffice came with a PDF converter built in... no need to buy a PDF converter or Destiller... and every Word document I've opened has only required minor pagination adjustments and has saved to a file that is 10% as large as the original Word document].

Windows is a drug. It's easy to be tempted to use it. But I'm on Linux and am not going back to Windows. At some point I'll need a new laptop (I have an HP laptop so, of course, it's not eternal)--but I'll be installing Linux on that too. Or maybe go to a Mac... But Windows? Nah, I've had enough.

Re:do i need educating? by Gleef · 2003-11-11 07:43 · Score: 3, Informative

golgotha007 asks:

on production servers, security is a high priority while new features can take a back seat. if a new hole or exploit is found in some service, will the 'STABLE' package be upgraded for protection?

Yes, in fact security updates are where 99% of the updates come from in Debian-Stable. Here's how it generally works (slightly oversimplified):

Someone finds a security hole in program foo version 1.3, it gets announced to all and sundry
The developer of foo fixes the security hole, and releases version 1.3.1, and announces that 1.3.1 is fixed and everyone should upgrade to it.
The Debian maintainer of the foo package, which is at version 1.2.4 in Stable, verifies that the Debian version also has the security hole, backports the patch to 1.2.4, verifies that the hole is fixed, and uploads the new foo-1.2.4-2 package to the security server.
The Debian-Stable release manager makes sure that the update is legit, and that nothing stupid happened (eg. the PPC port broke), and then releases the updated package to the security apt-source.
Any users of Debian-Stable can read the security report, run "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade", and get all the security holes fixed, without having to worry about the fact that version 1.3 of foo changes the data file format, the API and configuration file.

All this happens in a time comparible to (or often faster than) the security updates from the big commercial distros.

This is how Debian-Stable maintains security and stability. For more info, check out the Debian Policy Manual. A strict and careful policy is how Debian makes sure that things just work, and makes the distro a joy to administer in an enterprise setting.

--

----
Open mind, insert foot.

Good post by xant · 2003-11-11 08:42 · Score: 2, Informative

I wouldn't tear apart a single one of your line items. I'm someone migrating our small office to a Linux backend and, in the future, a Linux desktop as well. Our customer-facing services are being rewritten in Python to run on Linux as well.

Your list is not only accurate but pretty complete. With these things, almost any workplace can use Linux.

Here's the thing: All of those capabilities exist in the Linux world, but they are not all integrated seamlessly into any single system. They can be, of course, and such is the power of Linux, but doing so basically means rolling your own distro. Rolling your own distro is labor, and labor costs money, and there goes your free.

I honestly think Debian has the best chance of integrating all these features before any other distro, because Debian is focused on integrating packages with each other. "Integrating" in Debian just means creating a .deb for each of those bullets. Most already exist in Debian testing/unstable or the 3rd-party archives: openoffice.org, kernel drivers for some very odd hardware configurations, Mozilla Firebird and Thunderbird and their respective plugins, and Wine. The only thing there that can't be handled by a well-crafted deb is ISV support; that will always have to be purchased, but I assure you it is possible to pay money for this service.

Once the debs exist, the Debian-based system becomes bulletproof and idiotproof. Then you discover that your maintenance costs on the whole installation go to practically zero.

--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.

Not Debian by DeVilla · 2003-11-11 15:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I like Bruce (or at least his public persona) and I know that he has a great fondness for Debian. I can't agree that Debian would be the right choice for this. Debian was once my favorite distro. They had (and probably still have) the best packaging system. They were all about putting together an excellent system with ton of useful packages and they had a strong focus, it seemed, on technical details. They have a clear and atractive statement of how they would server the users. (Something that I hear is finally going to be ammended to better reflect reality.)

In the time I used them though, the focus seemed to move more and more toward petty politics inside their organization. It got the the point that they were patting themselves on the back for creating Virtual RMS (a package to nag you if you were running non-free software) and bickering over the types of election rules to use since one type would guarantee the the non-free packages would be left unchanged while an other rules might get the non-free package moved to a different server or discarded altogether. This was at a time when a number of the packages in question (the ones I used at least) did not have reasonable free replacements. They appeared to become less concerned with technical merit and general usability and fell into a long running debate about how much they ought to appease RMS. All the while, you could count on Debian to be no less than a year behind all of the other distro's stable releases on software versions. Debian has been, and I believe still is the victim of Free Software Fundamentalism. (Not a term I coined, but one I agree with completely. I'm not certain the person I heard it from would like to be credited.)

Also, Debian seems to be, shall we say slow at adding usability features for end users. Again, I am speaking from the time I used them, and they might have changed, but it would have had to be dramatic. Back when the other distros were picking up the various desktop environments and had them in their stable releases, I was having to go to some third party site that tried to maintain compatible packages for Debian's stable an unstable releases because debian was still being rather indecisive about how or if they wanted to include the packages.

I've often heard this type behavior being justified with explanations that Debian is a distribution for the very people who make it, and that is great. That is one example of why Free Software is good. They have the talent and the freedom to use it. But given the focus of those people, given their disposition toward political deadlock and given the near hostility that many of them have toward non-free software (a stance not shared by the enterprise users yet) I cannot believe that Debian would be the right organization for this. I can understand putting it in the hands of a third party, non-profit and having a base distro to work from, but Debian is not it. Perhaps a clean fork from Debian could provide a good foundation, but if the target audience is the enterprise, then the baggage of the Debian organization must be left behind.

Edd

Points by Tellalian · 2003-11-11 18:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Linux on the desktop will never be truly successful until it atleast has a file system that makes sense as well as a simple and reliable method for software installation. And of course the former greatly helps the later. Naturally, there are the other points such as game and application support, but these will come when the basics become standard and Linux becomes more accepted. Personally, I believe everything Linux, as a whole, needs to succede already exists but is not yet embodied in a single distro. I find it ironic that no one's fully taken advantage of the freedom of information that open source entails and encorporated the best ideas into a "super-distro".

Slashdot Mirror

Perens: Unite behind Debian, UserLinux

93 of 745 comments (clear)