Slashdot Mirror
A Glimpse at the Linux Desktop of the Future
hisham writes "Every now and then we see articles pointing out "what's wrong with Linux on the desktop." This one gives a nice overview not only of the problems we all know, but also where to look for solutions (app dirs, smarter filesystems) and what's out there (projects trying to change the face of Linux, like Klik, Zero Install and GoboLinux). Still, it usually boils down to things that Mac OS X already has or that are/were touted for inclusion on MS Longhorn. Fortunately, the major desktops stopped playing catch and are focusing on forward-looking Linux projects, like KDE Plasma and Gnome Beagle. Interesting times ahead."
Dear Linux,
At first, I really admired your lofty goals and pure-hearted ambitions. You spoke of freedom. You spoke of choice. You spoke of a world without limits.
But over the years, you have stagnated. Sure, you make a robust server and I'll always have a place in my heart (and my production racks) for you. But you have failed to thrive on my desktop.
Why, just last year, I tried to get you to work with my 23" Apple Cinedisplay. I was ready to return to you full-time after a long desktop-linux hiatus, if only you could have displayed properly on that Cinedisplay without screwing up the resolution. I didn't want to run you in 1024x768 on a 1920x1600 screen. Nor did I want to run 1920x1600 worth of desktop in a 1024x768 resolution where I'd have to roll the mouse all over the place to screen-off to the rest of the desktop.
And should I even mention the fiascos with various sound cards that you just didn't want to play nicely with? Or of the hardware that you were supposed to be "known-good" on that you chose not to work with at the most inopportune moments?
After seven years of courting, you still didn't achieve desktop prominence in my life. In fact, the only switch you encouraged me to make was away from you and toward a platform that "just works".
See, I've recently decided to shove you off the desk and turn you into a fileserver for my massive collection of porn, MP3s and ripped movies. Apple has found a way to give me a beautiful, slick, useful, enjoyable interface that makes everything you offer look like a rejected Fisher-Price prototype. And it slaps this onto a powerful BSD core. It's the best of both worlds. More, when I plug something into it - be it an iPod, 23" or 30" cinedisplay or anything else, it just works. I don't have to spend five days playing with LineModes in x86free.conf or massaging device drivers. I don't have to spend more time configuring and installing things than I do using them anymore.
As I said, you'll always have a place in my production racks. There, we'll always be friends. But when it comes to my desk... I think we should really stop seeing each other. In fact, I already have. I've moved on. And my new desktop is more than you could ever hope to be. Maybe someday you'll grow up and realize that "free as in freedom" and "screw the corporates" rhetoric, nice as it is, doesn't justify sub-par computing.
Maybe we can try again some day. For now, I need my space.
I'm a gnome you insensitive clod!
Is this the minidistro of OrcLinux? Does it turn your desktop green?
the pun is mightier than the sword
The biggest stumbling block to Linux on the desktop is that it is not pre-loaded by computer manufacturers such as Dell.
The average user would do just as well with Linux pre-loaded as they do with Windows pre-loaded. Add to that the lack of viruses and spyware and any productivity lost due to being in unfamiliar territory would possibly be more than made up for by the less-attacked environment.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Now how about fixing the things that I and others see as the real PITA of linux. Lack of standardization adoption for filesystem layout, software installation and configuration?
Dont believe me those problems exist? go ahead and enable MDKKDM to allow remote X terminal logins. It's massively different from XDM, GDM and KDM on it's own, oh and where the hell are the config files? certianly not where most other X configs reside (the fault there started with KDM's decision to create a new standar for themselves.)
to hell with pretty, clickey, easier to use interface. Fix the problems we have that cause even seasoned vetrans to pull their hair out.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Linux needs to get its act together
/tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"
So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.
Those people who do not understand GNU stow are cursed to reinvent it. Possibly even more poorly (though that would take some doing).
Am I missing something? How can it be forward looking when its already integrated into Mac OS X (Spotlight) and an add on for Windows (Google Desktop search)?
A /. troll writing a stupid article about what linux needs to do to succeed on the desktop. Just what we've been waiting for.
And you don't even have to read far to know that it's not worth reading the whole thing
"Installing Applications is complicated"
No, it isn't. It's different than what people are accustomed to, but it sure isn't complicated.
"Directory structures can be confusing to navigate"
Yes, Joe User and my mom don't use linux because of its confusing directory structure. Please...
And don't tell me the directory structure of other systems make more sense, it doesn't.
"Interface is confusing and inconsistent"
While I agree that it is far from perfect it sure isn't more confusing or inconsistent than the alternatives.
"Steep learning curve required to understand system functions"
As is the case with any OS out there.
Seriously, linux has to compete against a system that has an installbase of more than 90% on PCs world wide, against a system that comes preinstalled with about every new PC, a system that most people associate with computers.
Did it ever occur to people like batsy that being a hughe success on the desktop in this kind of cirumstances might take some time, no matter what the directory structure of Linux might be?
Unbuntu:
For some reason IPV4 was non-existant on all 4 Ethernet cards, but ipv6 worked. Tried everything, eventually enlisted the help of 2 friends for a total reinstall. But I had no precious data to backup. Ugh.
Linux...the CHOICE of a GNU generation!
I can see some of the points here. However, for most applications, I do not go about the ./configure, make, make install routine. I simply load my app manager (YaST), choose the app I want and it is installed.
I think the KDE and Gnome desktops are very usable with a few minor tweaks. As I often mention, my 60+ year old mother uses KDE just fine. And, hey, she's not gotten any viruses or adware.
Now, I realize that the *nix desktops are not perfect and there are some serious hardware issues, due to manufacturers bending over for big Bill, but these things are slowly changing.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Honey, did it ever occur to you that it could have been me who made the comment on osnews?
There is research going on in Europe in the area of next-generation PIM and collaboration. One project is the networked social semantic desktop, there's a workshop about the topic in November 2005: http://www.semanticdesktop.org/
In the bit on desktops he writes:
But everybody I know likes to clutter their desktops with icons. My wife does it in Gnome. My workmates to it in windows and KDE. Everybody does it.
Yes it may look ugly and cluttered but so is the physical desk I work on. That's life. Shouldn't we stop telling users how to organise their data?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Sadly, you and I are probably going to get nailed with "flamebait" or "troll", but you are essentially correct. If we were still in the day of DOS where we have to fight with IRQs and DMAs, what you mention would probably be more tolerated by new users. When I taught Solaris, I found that the people who adjusted to it the easiest were (no surprise here) mainframe users! I even taught one lady who was in her 70s how to use Solaris, and she did better than most of the rest of the class!
As would be expected, the Windows generation had the most difficulty converting. Thanks to Windows' dumbing down of the interface, people have come to expect the simplicity of throwing in a disc, letting it install, reboot if necessary, and the app is there. Issues like permissions, libraries, kernels, and so forth are going to be completely foreign concepts to the last majority of computer users that are out there.
And can you imagine what most people will think when you tell them that Linux runs X? "You mean, Linux is pornographic?!!" (That's called humor. I know that that's a foreign concept to many Slashdot mods.)
Obviously, education is the key, but that also assumes that the user is willing to learn. Not all of them are, and that's fine. Let them eat Windows. But until Linux does dumb itself down for those who fear the command line, people will look at it, them look at Windows, and switch back to Windows because of the sake of simplicity.
Alternately, I wish that more companies would offer PCs with Linux preinstalled right there in the store with a Linux desktop right there. Let the people see what Linux can do; let them get a feel for it in the store. Maybe they wouldn't feel so afraid of it. The Linux desktop is very nice as of late. MEPIS Linux v3.3.1 has one of the best desktops I've seen when it comes to user friendliness. I've actually been able to convert a few people to give Linux a try because of it. (Not many, mind you, but it's better than none.)
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
... the man apparently also known as "I'm Batman!" doesn't know what he is talking about.
I don't think you need to look at such revolutionary changes as the author suggests to produce a great Linux desktop. The three areas we need to look at first, in order of importance, are:
1) Bugs
2) Usability
3) Performance
GNOME, for example, seems to be shifting its focus from 'revolution' to these points. The frameworks of several great desktop environments are there, they just need to be finished off,
My plan9 desktop, (at 50% zoom) the open window is a vnc to my X desktop with 9wm running.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
is that they do not want something that is like windows, they just want windows. I've seen people that prefer to do very complicated things on windows rather than running a couple of unix commands. Most people do not "choose" to use linux, they just learn one way to do thing, and this will be "the way" to do things. They are more sure to use windows than you will ever be to use linux, as a superior entity (the computer seller) imposed it to them. Instead you choosed to use linux, you know that there are many OSes, so you'll never be 100% sure that linux is the right choice over all other OSes. How strange is world we are living...
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
one click app installs exist on linux from places like Linspire, so it's possible that other distros could do it as well. And a front end like synaptic makes it pretty darn easy, and is more advanced than what redmond offers.
Linux is ready for the desktop,*especially* for grandma, it just needs to be preinstalled and sold like that in the big retail shops. And frankly, with hard drive sizes like there are now, getting a computer with dozens/hundreds of apps preinstalled and available in the GUI menu tree would tend to negate any reason for grandma to even go looking for more apps. And people who actually have a need for more exotic apps usually have the wherewithal to go find them and install them, on any platform.
If you want the user to be able to determine what Taskbar/Dock type thing they want, you might want to check out DragThing as a third option, which lacks the visual style of the Dock but works a whole heck of a lot better.
I'm not a big fan of highly customizable interfaces, but man I wish I could just turn the Dock off once and for all.
"Why can't everyone just be straight with me?"
"Because we live in a bendy world, dear."
I know they are various issues for linux on the Desktop, hardware beeing the most proeminent. I remember the first time I tried to install linux... The installation program asked me: "Do you want me to set the symbolic link ?" ( ln -s /usr/linux-blahblah /usr/linux I guess )
Well, install has gone a good way since. The real problem is not here, the real problem is people.
Yep.
Most people don't understand crap using a computer... They use learned sequences of actions to use their apps but have absolutely no clue of why they are doing so. Most people WILL get very confused if you switch their windows taskbar from botton to top. Try that, really.
They don't know how to orientate in the city, they just know that to go to work they should take right right left left right straight ahead for 100 meters, left left and right. Should they take a wrong turn they will be completly lost.
Most people have a hard time with mac or with windows... geez, most people have a hard time with a microwave !
You can't be ahead in technology and easy to use for everyone. It's like asking a quantum physic book to provide new theoretical breakthroughs and then complaining that your grandmother can't understand it.
\u262D = \u5350
I'm not normally a rabid Gnu-phile, but I do agree that there should be a distiction between discussing the OS's that are based on the Linux kernel and the kernel itself. Context isn't always enough, and while Linus is a super code monkey, he did not create an OS, just a kernel. (Well, not these OS's, anyway).
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
One seldom commented disadvantage of tightly integrated desktops like Gnome/KDE is their lack of extensibility. Yes, you read that right:) As a 10+ year Linux user, the biggest advantage I've felt of using Linux is its extensibility in the 'UNIX way' - using pipes, scripts and files. The more you change these interfaces into object-oriented/middleware derived ones, the more difficult and annoying it becomes for UNIX hackers to script them - which destroys one of the main purposes of being on UNIX.
With the evolving desktop, people stop writing general purpose tools that abstract data and functionalities as simple files and scripts, and instead write their stuff for specific desktops. One good example is synce - a program to sync WinCe devices with Linux, which integrates well into Evolution, but has no 'dangling interface' where you can just snoop in, get your data and do what you want with it. File-oriented interfaces were a given with most Linux apps till very recently. And as their number/dominance diminish, I wonder if Linux hackers will slowly switch to other UNIXes just because they'd be more UNIX-like.
I was willing to put the Gnome/KDE dispute aside. But if they start spelling Click with a 'K', I will not forgive.
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
two days ago, i'd like to know what do you think about.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
First of all, why is it the "Linux Desktop". There's Gnome and KDE, which are Unix desktops, but nothing about Linux.
Anyway, I used to care about the "linux desktop" about 5 years ago. But in my opinion, KDE choosing Qt as its toolkit basically ruined any chances of a dominant desktop that could be a standard. Because of that, Gnome was started and now you've got a fractured unix desktop.
As soon as OSX on intel comes out, I'll be using that and triple-booting into windows and something like GoboLinux and E17.
I just have no interest in standard Linux desktops when there is no standard Linux desktop
My biggest complaint isn't with the distributors, but with the software developers: they still hae this 1990's mindset that it's perfectly acceptable to ask the user to compile their package (and about a million obscure dependencies you've never heard of) in order to get their software to work.
If you want to target your software to the desktop (and I mean the windows audience), then give me a goddamn binary and let me use the damn software now, not three hours from now.
FYI, this article has already been ripped to shreds in the comments at Linux Today:
here
- Kevin B. McCarty
The crazy thing is that that actually was a huge win for Linux! Dealing with USB devices didn't used to be nearly that easy! But it still is a long way from being usable for any normal person.
2) My Linux Waterloo, though, is updates. I have two Linux systems: a TiBook with Yellow Dog, that has an irretrievably corupted RPM database, and a Gentoo whitebox that I can't push through to Xorg and 2.6. (The latter was switched to Gentoo after Mandrake package management imploded.)
It's been a fun ride, but I've spent enough time on treating my computer as a hobby. OS X has pretty much taken over for all my actual computer use outside of work.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
That's a hell of a presumption to suggest that a system that gives even a total newbie access to the majority of free and open Debian packages is redundant.
Oh yeah, that's already available on OSX and Longhorn except for the tiny detail that it's not FREE!
It's the same thing, except for the thousands of dollars that a person would have to spend. That's just a trivial detail though, eh?
What the fuck king of moronic oversight is that?
I recently installed Fedora Core 4 at home to run a local DNS server, DynDNS daemon, MythTV and a few other things. I'm pretty savvy with Linux and sysadmin for a living (as well as programming) so you could say I have an affinity for problem-solving.
.NET Framework, and I haven't got it installed. At no time have I ever downloaded something and it started telling me that various specific versions compiled against specific architectures are missing, and I cannot continue.
That said, I have struggled in recent days getting everything I've wanted to install working correctly. Largely this has been due to GCC4.0 incompatibilities (many apps just don't compile at all from source without patches), but also because lots of exotic RPMs (Myth being a prime example) have not yet been built for FC4.
A lot of things I have had to compile manually from sources when I had originally set out to use yum to manage everything (I've recently been converted to the ease-of-use and practicalities of RHEL and Redhat Network).
Another poster commented that Linux is perfectly capable as a desktop OS - until you need to install an application, play a game or upgrade their hardware. Joking aside, this statement is 100% accurate.
In my endeavours trying to install all of my "exotic" applications like a movie player (xine), NZB downloader (klibido) I have either run into problems where the currently available RPMs are buggy, or the sources just don't compile out of the box. How can any non-technical person be expected to deal with this?
If you contrast this with Windows, I think the only time I have had a failed installation with a piece of software I have downloaded has been when it has required
Linux will need to standardise itself a lot more if it is going to be a force on the desktop. RPM/yum/apt-get and so on is a step in the right direction, but its still voodoo for most people. Unfortunately I beleive this standardisation is in stark contrast with what most techies (myself included in some way) believe the strength of Linux to be - i.e. diversity and the "joy" of compiling things manually.
If I need a new version of a driver, I need to be able to grab it as I can on Windows without recompilation. That's unacceptable. The NDIS wrapper implementation is a good example: it works and mostly well, but to get support you have to mess with the command line and text files or even scarier stuff. What you should do is be told to insert the CD that came with the device and have linux do it for you.
The office apps are already on linux; it's already fast; much of the UI and desktop is already user friendly. Installs have issues, yes, but they're down the line and mostly hidden from the user. The user is neatly kept in their home directory. Hard disk management is complex, but not much more so than Windows and partitioning is nicely automated in most installs.
I like linux a lot and use it regularly. I don't actually believe, though, that it can currently compete against commercial OSs without a massive change to some of the attitudes about what's acceptable, and a resulting change to the way Linux works. Hardware is the area where those attitudes seem to be totally exposed to the end-user.
Knoppix is a linux distroy anyone can use, the automated hardware detection etc is supurb. The DVD 4.0 version does demonstrate a lot of the incompatability issues he's talking about though. because knoppix has ~6 gigs of applications (they're compressed on the DVD image) many of the applications are broken.
Debian is the distro Knoppix is based of of, so it has really good hardware detection, but the 'stable' version is using the 'older' proven stable detection routines. That means it doesn't configure everything perfectly, for instance I had to enable DMA on my dvd-rom, and I had to use k3b to 'configure the system' for cd/dvd burning*.
I also have the advantage of having prior experience, So I know how to install flash support for my secondary browser, and how to configure java, which isn't included in debian because it's not FOSS. Plus I knew that the FOSS drivers suck compared to the proprietary ones, so I knew where to find them, and I knew what settings to set in the 'install' script for them, because I've been messing around with X11 config files for years now...
So basically, initial set up is probably beyond most users, but the same is true of windows. Most windows users can't even install applications by themselves, and when they try to the end up with a million spyware programs.
Debian is 'ready' for the desktop. The installer is painless for geeks, and simple enough for rice boys. A few noobs might even get lucky with it. The stable version while old, has a very simple gui based app finder that anyone who can use download.com can learn how to use.
*= Because i'm lazy. I wasn't going to muck about trying to figure anything out.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The most interesting "future linux" distro I've seen so far is 'Foresight Linux' - www.foresightlinux.com
./ more often, particularly given the nature of the posters here.
It has a changeset based source or binary (you choose!) package management system that offers features more powerful than the efforts of either apt, or portage, designed by the original authors of RPM.
It has Beagle, all the freedesktop integration stuff, some wicked new kernel patches and a boot up time of under 20 seconds! The splash screen is also a thing of beauty, rivalling anything you see on a Mac.
I really can't believe that this hasn't been mentioned on
Any USB stick will be automounted with any modern linux distribution. If it isn't automounted on your gentoo box, you simply didn't configure gentoo to do it. (Yes,you have to configure gentoo yourself, which makes it pretty irrelevenat for this discussion, but still a fun distro to use)
- Gentoo's portage
- Knoppix's auto hardware detection and configuration
- Slackware's BSD-style rc.scripts
- Mandrake's installer and partitioning tool
There's a lot of stuff in the Linux world that could tackle the most common Linux concerns, but no one has tried combining them. Why not? Linux will not advance on the desktop without some realization that no distro is perfect, but by taking from multiple distros one can get pretty close.I was going to attack your reasoning on your other points, but figured others would do that (and quite possibly better) but this struck me as interesting:
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
(I'm assuming you meant <1%)
Since surveys are starting to put linux at over 3% of desktops (and in any case, comparable numbers, or even more than Macs, which few people would not call "user friendly") it must, therefore, be "user friendly"?
I would submit that at the least that 3% has been convinced it is...
Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny
PS. have a look at http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp, http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/35688.html
I am a little bit surprised by this comment. A friend sent me here if I want news about what's happening in the Linux world. Boy am I exicted by this Beagle software. I work in a Library and boy would that be useful!
"Those who continue to use it in the face of so many problems and frustrations do so out of stubborn rebelion. Nothing wrong with that, but face it - when you are running Linux on your desktop, it's more of a statement than an experience."
Now I really don't know about that. I am a 42 year-old mother of two and just started to use Mepis after an IMacintosh my brother gave to me became too slow to use. We bought a Compaq and away we go. It's a great machine and I really don't think installing software is very hard. I just click on KPackage, search for what I want and there it is.. Then I click Install. Something that annoyed me alot about Microsoft Windows XP and OS Ten was having to look for software to install on the internet.
When you have two younguns, the last think you want is them looking at the screen sometimes let me tell you... Linux also came with great tools for making webpages so I've learnt alot and getting on with the family site.
Better still, I installed Linux on my own, it took only 35 minutes and was alot easier than trying to reinstall the Macintosh machine which had alot of special key combinations we didn't know about and thee language was technical. Linux came on a computer magazine my brother had. Now he's even thinking about switching from his old Machintosh. Here's one for you guys: Does Linux run on the Macintosh?
A.M
You know, I have often been bothered by things getting strewen about a file system. I remembered that /opt was where an entire app could install all of its stuff for its version... ... but then you'd have to have your LD_LIBRARY_PATH and PATH defined correctly to get at things... or have smart launchers that would set those things for each invocation.
:)
Overall, I'll give them a B+ for having the right idea.
What the...Tux is a furry?
(thunderous accord)
LINUX IS DOOOMED!!!
(evil laughs)
There is no way Linux can defeat me in the desktop, NEVER! Linux doesn't exist, it doesn't exist on desktop, it will never...wait a minute...
(off stage)
You say they have lot of migrations happening? Novell? Trolltech? emmm... OpenOffice.org?
Ok, I just don't have time to finish it. All I wanted to say that I am just tired of these stories and pretictions. I use Linux EVERY day and I know lot of people who does it too - for profesional, entertaiment means. And I DON'T care about world domination or whatever. If it will happen, good. If it won't - so, who cares. It is life.
Please start do something useful, and please stop these useless desktop war discussions.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
People keep on comparing linux desktop with Windows and OSX in this thread. Well, a few things you are missing:
- both of those OSs have single desktop environments (IMHO, both unusable compared to X desktops). Linux provides at least three different desktop environments (Gnome, KDE and XFCE) and a plethora of window managers. It is only natural that there are problems in keeping the desktop unified, however this is becoming much better with the adoption of freedesktop standards. And finally, try one of those single-DE distributions, such as Ubuntu. They do a good job of keeping everything nice and unified.
- OSX and Windows are primarily aimed at the desktop market. Heck, OSX even works only on proprietary hardware. The point is: desktop Linux has never been the focus of Linux developers (at large) as Linux has always been superior primarely in the server market. I still can't see the argument behind entrusting your server to a non-modular, secret/proprietary architecture.
- Finally, Linux is Free. There is no money from Microsoft and Apple to finance developers making pretty GUIs. However, you are welcome to come and help if you do not like the present status of desktop Linux.
Mac OS X just didn't work this morning. One of my colleague tried for the first time in her life to burn a CD. She just dragged icons on the CD-R icon on the desktop and everything went smoothly. She then asked somebody to try this CD on a PC with Windows XP: didn't work. She gave me the CD: didn't work. So I asked her to show me what she did and later understood that the CD had a HFS+ format. She of course knows nothing about that but it was obvious for her that she wanted to use the CD everywhere, not just on Macs. So, it just didn't work. (FWIW, she lost another empty CD-R trying to use an application named toast with the same result. Now, I've shown here what to do for her next try.)
Conclusions?
1/ Mac OS X is not all that great
2/ Computers are supposed to be able to do very complicated stuff. All the people claiming that you can build an easy to use interface to do all these complicated stuff are liers. You can make simple interfaces to do a set of limited pre-defined tasks. That's not how I use computers. Even basic users have a lot to gain if they have the time and willingness to learn a bit. And in the end, they ALWAYS need to learn something because the file and folders/directories concepts are not obvious for example.
>> "Installing Applications is complicated"
/Applications. NOT /usr/bin, in one massive folder along with libraries and god knows what else. And furthermore, if for some reason they stick their program in ~/Documents instead, the program will still work just fine, and the computer will still find it if it needs it to open some document. If I want to uninstall an app, I drag it to the Trash: Done.
> No, it isn't. It's different than what people are accustomed to, but it sure isn't complicated.
Compared to OS X, it is. Most OS X installs consist of one step: "Drag to the Applications folder". And even if you don't do that, it usually works anyway; Just download and run. In my 15 years as a Mac user, I've not once had a problem with an install. The same cannot be said for my experiences as a Linux user.
>> "Directory structures can be confusing to navigate"
> Yes, Joe User and my mom don't use linux because of its confusing directory structure. Please...
> And don't tell me the directory structure of other systems make more sense, it doesn't.
OS X's structure makes much more sense. Applications are in
>> "Interface is confusing and inconsistent"
> While I agree that it is far from perfect it sure isn't more confusing or inconsistent than the alternatives.
I'm sorry, but when it comes to consistency, Linux is a complete abomination compared to OS X. Cross-application consistency has always been a strong point of the Mac, and continues to be until this day. Every text field in every program works the same way, sources the same dictionary, remembers the same settings, etc. Apps use the same key commands. Hell, I can drag an image out of Safari onto Photoshop in the Dock, and it opens up fine. I can add a menu shortcut to every single Cocoa application at once. Don't like that all programs have Minimize as command-M? Change it. Don't like that there's no key command for Customize Toolbar...? Add one. People don't even *think* about doing stuff like this in any other system. All programs respond to Applescript, all programs have the same look, etc etc.
>> "Steep learning curve required to understand system functions"
> As is the case with any OS out there.
But again, OS X does the best job. Want to run an FTP server? Open up the Sharing system preference, select FTP, and click "Start". Yes, it is that easy -- And if you didn't know what to click, just type in "FTP" in the search field, or even "host files" or whatever, and System Preferences will highlight the correct preference pane for you to click. Unbelievably simple and elegant.
Want to add a new account? Click "Accounts", and click Add. Want to change the Startup Disk? Click "Startup Disk". Etc etc. I still have no idea how to change startup disks on a Linux machine.
Anyone who says Linux is as good as anything else out there hasn't used OS X. Don't get me wrong; Linux is great. I run a dual-boot Debian/OS X system. However, as a desktop machine, Linux isn't even close to the Mac.
1)software installs are non-standard and messy
-th fix? AppDir or similar, this would be a very good way to solv the issues.
2)hardware config. sure linux CAN support a great variety of hardware, but actually getting it set up and working is another story.
3)software config. more and better software config guis are need across the board. how about a better xorg.cfg editor? have one the has EVERY option available but scans the hardware,driver,or know list of compatible options and only displays those options. also it should tell you how to improve performance of the x server when it detects an option that is not enabled!
Must learn to preview.
Beagle requires Mono therefore it will not be installed on any machines by me or by the companies that I do contract work for. If you're going to use Mono you're simply cutting your userbase down by a tremendous amount. Most people I know avoid Mono like the plague.
The developers (generally) are not the zealots... they prefer to get work done instead of arguing about which is better. ;)
It's much better to think of the fanbois as Linux's PR department. Sure, they don't have the level of experience of Microsoft, but in true open-source style, they are slowly improving with time :-p
Conclusions?
1/ Mac OS X is not all that great
Way to go for the 'ole "Proof by Small Example" there.
Last Saturday I installed Linux for the first time. I'd been using Widnows for years and used Unix in University. I installed Ubuntu because I had the disc and I'd read good things about it's usability.
The install went fine and there were no issues on first boot. Synaptic informed me there were updates to download so I did that. Pretty slick, I'm thinking. I plugged in my USB external, NTFS formatted hard drive with my music collection and the OS immediately picked up on it. Excellent, I'm thinking.
Now, to play some music. What's that, no decoder available to play mp3s? Try new music program no luck. Alright, open Synaptic look for codecs. Found XMMS. Installed XMMS. Click on mp3. Great, it's playing, but why can't I hear anything? Check volumes, all good. Well I know I have two sound cards (one on MB and one PCI). Look for tool to tell OS what sound card to output to. Find nothing. Google it. Turns out having two sound cards is considered a not-nicely-supported situation. WTF? Next I go through a whole pile of crap with command line, ADSA(?), ESD, configuration files, blah, blah. I manage to get sound working, but it turns out my SB Live! Platinum does not seem to have Linux drivers for the breakout box. Bummer!
OK, now that I got tunes going it's time to fix the monitor resolution. Found configuration tool. The hell you say I can't adjust my res above 1024x768@60! Start screwing around with command line, conf files, etc. Issue unresolved.
Last thing I did was setup a screen saver. Hmm random screen saver. Cool. Let's Test that. Various screen savers go by. Then it stops. Hmmm, OS not responsive. No can move mouse cursor. No response from keyboard. No idea what the equivalent to Windows CTRL-SHIFT-ESC is. Reset button it is! Boot back to Windows.
I do want to boot up Ubuntu again and try to get things working but I'm less excited about the project than when I started. *crosses fingers*
Ah, a mac fan. :-D
/usr/bin
"Compared to OS X, it is. Most OS X installs consist of one step: "Drag to the Applications folder". And even if you don't do that, it usually works anyway; Just download and run. In my 15 years as a Mac user, I've not once had a problem with an install. The same cannot be said for my experiences as a Linux user."
Ehm no, that's not true.
1. Having to open the finder, navigate to applications and then drop the app there isn't very intutive. (Try to teach it to someone who doesn't know very much about computers and you'll see what I mean)
2. While the majority off the apps can be installed as described in point one, there are still a lot of apps, that need an installer. Now that alone does of course create inconsistency but to make it even worse, there are different kinds of installers.
3. Convenience and security:
Having a cental package manager makes it possible to install all your software through one interface and one interface alone, which is much more consistence than what you find on a Mac.
It also makes it possible to keep your updated in a way that is far superior to the mac. If I update my linux install everything, every single app is getting security and bug fixes if needed, try that with a mac.
Finding the applications you want is also easier as there is one single program with one single interface that lets you search for the application you want. Compare that with hunting for OSX or Windows software on the net.
"OS X's structure makes much more sense."
No, it doesn't. As it hides the real structure it's a lot more annoying to actually work with the filesystem on a deeper level. Further, I still think that "normal" end users should not and are not interacting with the filesystem, so the point is pretty moot. Oh, and there are no libs in
"I'm sorry, but when it comes to consistency, Linux is a complete abomination compared to OS X.Cross-application consistency has always been a strong point of the Mac, and continues to be until this day."
This is one thing that always keeps amazing me.
First off, both big desktop environments in Linux are very consistent in themselves. Your system might become incosistent if you wildly mix kde and gnome apps, which sure is an area which could and should be improved.
But let's look at OSX for a second. How is having two different default styles, namely brushed metal and aqua consistent?
Did you ever take a look at carbon and cocoa apps? They look and the behave different.
"But again, OS X does the best job. Want to run an FTP server? Open up the Sharing system preference, select FTP, and click "Start"."
Well I doubt that having an ftp server running with one click is really a good idea. That said, you can share folders on linux just as easily.
Same holds true for adding a user, btw.
I'm sorry to say, but I can't find much of an rebuttal in your answer. I can really appreciate you liking OSX, after all it is a fine system, but you seem utterly uninformed about the current state of desktop linux and your love for OSX makes you totaly blind for all of OSX' weaknesses.
I just read a few variations on a common theme: who cares if Linux isn't wide spread on the desktop?
Kind of reminds me of mac users defiantly saying the same.
You're right not to care though (even more so than us mac users, depending on one vendor and it's charismatic CEO), if it's good for you, then go for it, and otoh everyone enthousiastic about computers can be forgiven to want their OS/hardware to have more, more, more market share, however strange that seems if you're not actually in the business.
Cheers.
This message is totally fact-free!
I think, therefore I am...I think.
No offense, but the problem you just suggested seems like one of those "whooptie do" problems.
Mac OS X is designed like any other platform to be a lock in platform, that is, it uses the same file format everywhere. Even iPods are formatted HFS+. This doesn't mean that it's impossible to burn a disk or reformat an iPod, it just means that you *NEED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PLATFORM TO USE IT*.
Just because the way you use computers isn't the same as the way Mac users use their computers, doesn't mean your opinion is magically better than theirs. It means you are looking for something else. If you like compatibility, stay on Windows. Everything in the world runs Windows. If you like to tinker, use Linux. If you just want to use your damned computer, use Mac OS X. It's that simple.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Tath's exactly what I was thinking when I read TFA.
OTOH, as an Example, Gentoo is a very good distribution. The only user-unfriendly thing is the long installation process. Maybe - as a suggestion - there should be a sort of Live-CD, which, when installed, has everything installed the average user needs, portage ready to go. "Choice" - Gentoos Credo - is very very good, but for Joe User there should be an alternative like "Install, work a while and if you whish, make choices afterwards".
Such a thing preinstalled with a simple GUI for the portage tools would be a really serious concern for that other OS-Manufacturer!
IceRa
Sig? Where I go, I don't need
I want my Linux desktop to get away from the focus on "applications". I want to deal with my data, not the tools I use to deal with the data. I want to open "documents", or pages, or multimedia collections of data. I don't want to have to remember which applications I use to edit or view them. I don't want to have to pick one tool, and exclude the rest. If I need to edit the text of a page, retouch the images, then upload it to my server, then serve it, I don't wnat to have to open the page in a series of different, mutually exclusive contexts. I want to open the page, and have combined menu items (or other GUIs) for all the operations from which I'll select to work on that collection of data. Or add new data. I'm really tired of feeling like I'm the janitor for a bunch of applications, finding/opening them in the right sequence, having to choose which app I'm working in, with its shortcut keys, default window positions, and exclusions of operations I'll have to do "later", when I open the other app to do those other operations. Then return to this app when I need to do these kinds of operations again. I can't even keep a single document open in multiple apps, alternately using them on the single doc, because each doc has a single datatype that's tied to a single app (or a few), and each open doc has its own saved instance - which doesn't refresh the open instances in the other apps.
Linux uses apps which mostly have three tiers: storage, engine and UI. They've got lots of IPC, mostly standardized. The desktops have more IPC options, too. I want a desktop which lets me find multimedia documents by bookmark, metadata searching, or virtual hierarchical views of my storage. When I open a doc, it can include live data, including data updated in realtime from distributed storage (or generation, like web services or streams). I want to work from menus (or other GUIs) that contain all the valid operations for all the valid datatypes in the doc. When I want to add new datatypes, I want to add from GUIs integrated with the doc scope in which I'm working. When I want to store my doc somewhere on the network, either as a resource, or a person, I want to merely send it to that object name, with its default transport (SMB, NFS, email, WebDAV, FTP, HTTP-PUT, SMS/Content-Disposition, whatever) automatic, unless I select another. I want to subscribe to versions of multimedia docs across the network. And I want to diagram how data flows through my document components into each other, including filters and logic, with dataflow/workflow templates that are just other docs that people with whom I work send around.
No more "apps". The Mac paradigm that Jobs swiped from Xerox PARC was supposed to be "doc centric". Apple and IBM started a grand partnership, Taligent, to put "OpenDoc" on every desktop, but they gave up when HTML and the Web supposedly offered a simpler, more popular way to do it. But it's 2005, and I'm more expert in operating a stable of complicated apps, each its own little world (with rickety bridges to some, but not all, other worlds), than I am in my own data. Let's slice up the apps into their features, each with their GUIs hanging out, then rebundle them into a desktop "meta-app". Which is the sole context, representing many different nonmodal contexts, in which I have to work on all my data.
--
make install -not war
Who the hell modded this up? My mac reason FAT32 just fine. It is the fault of Windows for not bothering to support HFS+. As for toast, your coworker is a dolt. There is an option right on the screen that says "Burn for Mac", "Burn for PC", or "Burn for Mac and PC". It's very prominently displayed, and in fact, you can't even turn it off.
What are the odds that the system was trying to preserve metadata attached to the files that only HFS+ would be able to store?
If by "surveys" you mean the browser stats at a single site (where Opera users outnumber AOL'ers) and press releases from a couple of Linux vendors -- yeah, sure thing, Mr. TheSnake.
The fact that the package manager *has to* be more advanced than what comes with Windows is the issue. Apt-get is much more advanced than what OS X has by default (although Darwinports and Fink do just as well for those that want them). The thing is though, in OS X, you don't NEED a package manager. Drag and drop to install. Drag to the trash to uninstall. Easy. Synaptic shouldn't even exist in an ideal world (I realize it has to for now). Besides, do you expect my mom to know to go to "Synaptic" when she wants to install a program?
Commercially distributed software is typicallly great on both platforms. Everything's on the CD & there is typically there & it is a 1-click install to use things.
Grandma's not going to be able to upgrade her own hardware regardless of the platform. This is what all you Lemmings and Cheerleaders are forgetting about. The pain threshold for these novices you try to champion is very low. Anything much more than a playstation is going to be a problem.
Grandma's not going to even be aware of Quicken.
Linux will run it if you've really got the hots for it.
Your description of debian bears no resemblance to reality.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
... or a compatible license. QT4 is 1420 to 2630 euros per developer.
That's why QT can't be a defacto-standard. Companies who make and sell software the old fashioned way, are more likely to choose GTK+, which has comparable performance for no money.
Of course, a lot of people in the community may dislike closed source software, but that doesn't change the fact that they play a part.
As a Mac user I'm wondering do these things work well? I've never used these things yet but i think the app directories are a great invention (drag icon around to install, drop in garbage can to uninstall). I'd love to see some linux based system that has a really polished graphical interface. I'm convinced that it can be done without sacrificing too much convenience for power users. I don't need a Mac clone (I have the real thing), but I do genuinely believe that some parts of Mac OS X should serve as an inspiration to open source desktops.
Any linux users care to comment? (PS this is not intended as a flame bait!)
Tell me that a week after the Mac-on-Linux folks get their hands on a prerelease. If it's not made to work with Mac OS X for Intel fairly rapidly, I may die of shock. My bet is on support WELL before the first official Intel-based macs hit the shelves.
I don't expect to be able to run Mac OS X natively on non-Apple hardware. I don't think I'd want to, given the likely driver quality etc. However, running it under MoL sounds *very* attractive, and a Xen port I would positively kill for.
Note that my perspective is mostly that of a developer. More than anything, I just want to be able to conveniently test on Mac OS X. It is *such* a pain ssh-ing into the slow eMac at work and using VNC to test things - especially since the braindead thing only WOLs from sleep, not poweroff. Being able to use my nice fast Athlon for test builds and actually test each configure.in.in change on Mac OS X before checking it in would be bliss.
Sadly, I doubt Apple will ever do anything as useful as release a Mac OS X developer edition that runs on Xen, so I'll most likely be stuck with MoL (hopefully).
You are saying this is NOT The Year Of Linux On The Fcking Desktop?!?
Nuffsaid
________
Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
Most apps that need an installer do use the Apple installer. You're right about a single command to update everything, although if this fails in Debian, I'm fucked and have to track down the problem. I find all non-commercial software at macupdate.com. Very nice. You can unhide usr and all the hidden directories if you want to. For the average user, there is no reason to see them. Ever. Consistancy in Gnome or KDE is not up to par with OS X. I've used Ubuntu, and it isn't close. Yes, metal and aqua apps LOOK different, but the behaviour is 100% identical. As for Carbon/Cocoa, they behave almost identically. What's so different? Bringing up an FTP server in one click is useful for times I need to transfer files to another person over the internet. Why do you think that is a "good idea"? Adding users is easy in Gnome, yes (I don't use KDE). It still isn't as obvious as it is in OS X though. I could just type in "user" in the search field, and it would highlight the correct thing for me. I'm hardly "utterly uninformed" about the current state of desktop Linux. I use it every day.
developers want technologies who is well
written and supported for years to come.
take a look at bonobo which began an unsupported software in just 3 years....
As great as it would be if we could wave a magic wand and turn all n00bs to smart users, that just isn't going to happen. You may as well try to talk about crime, or AIDS, or any other societal problem and say "people are dumb" without providing a solution to get out of those problems.
However, having skimmed the link, it doesn't offer an easy implementation. I would like to offer one: take a standardized, well-known directory, such as /usr/local. When a new user is created, also create /usr/local/george. User george has 777; everyone else has read and execute only. George can than install whatever he wants there, and everyone can use it.
/usr/local/bin/, and the only thing in there are links to executables. This, also, is read and execute.
Add a directory
Advantages:
- root can check to see what's been installed on a by-user basis, and if only one user uses some of this, if they leave, their stuff can be wiped.
- quotas
- no major new paths
- many programs already offer a choice of where to install. It would be trivial to modify the others, and good practice, as well.
Comments? Is this an RFC-to-be?
mark
I'm a bit new to this, I posted this in another place but I think it didn't go through - I'll try and do a better job of explaining myself a second time. Anyway, as I said, a friend sent me here if I want news about what's happening in the Linux world. Boy am I exicted by this Beagle software. I work in a Library and boy would that be useful!
Anyway, this comment here, has me a bit stumped.
"Those who continue to use it in the face of so many problems and frustrations do so out of stubborn rebelion. Nothing wrong with that, but face it - when you are running Linux on your desktop, it's more of a statement than an experience."
Now I really don't know about that. I am a 42 year-old mother of two and just started to use Mepis after an IMacintosh my brother gave to me became too slow to use. We bought a Compaq and away we go. It's a great machine and I really don't think installing software is very hard. I just click on KPackage, search for what I want and there it is.. Then I click Install. Something that annoyed me alot about Microsoft Windows XP and OS Ten was having to look for software to install on the internet. When you have two younguns, the last think you want is them looking at the screen sometimes let me tell you...
Linux also came with great tools for making webpages so I've learnt alot and getting on with the family site. Anyway, for us here in the Mathews household it's actually alot easier than the other two computers we've had. I don't know about installing hardware, but that's something I'd never think of doing anyway!
Better still, I installed Linux on my own! That was fun. It took only 35 minutes and was alot easier than trying to reinstall the Macintosh machine which had alot of special key combinations we didn't know about and the language in the book was technical. Linux came on a computer magazine my brother had. Now he's even thinking about switching from his old Machintosh. Here's one for you guys: Does Linux run on the Macintosh?
In the main article written by Akaimbatman he talks about the task bar. I have that in Mepis Linux. By the way I find the Linux desktop very bright and cheery and lightening fast. For us here it's the perfect place between OS Ten and Windows systems: OS Ten was a bit too cool and slow - and you can't change the damn colors! Windows XP does too many strange unexplainable things and has alot of popups.
A.M
Doesn't anyone read Wired? Linux already lost the desktop war!
Great, another "It's all different and confusing! Learning new things is hard! Why can't it be just like Windows?!" article. How exciting.
I wonder how many of the people who constantly whine about dependencies and packaging systems are people who have completely missed the point and have been trying to install software on Linux the "Windows way". The way in which they briefly and dismissively mention centralised package installers, almost as an afterthought, is what gives me this sneaking suspicion.
The "Windows way" is to hunt around on the internet for the program you want, download it and run the installer. Now, if you find a random RPM on the web and try to install it, yes indeed, chances are that it will complain that is missing libraries. If you painstakingly locate those libraries on the web and try to install them, they will possibly complain about the absence of further libraries, and so forth. Clearly, this is an unpleasant and difficult way to install anything. It is also a retarded way to try to install anything on just about any modern distro. I understand that it may be a method which a prior user of Windows would instinctively try to use, because of his or her Windows experience, but the failure of this method is not a failure of packaging systems in general. If you read any how-to introducing new users to a distro like Fedora, you will certainly find a section describing how to upgrade and install software using the distro's package installer.
There is nothing inherently wrong with packaging software with external dependencies, and recursively installing dependencies as needed. I think that it is considerably better than statically including everything an application needs in one huge, bloated installer. Dependencies only cause difficulties if a user has to resolve them manually, and the user of a modern package-based Linux system does not have to resolve dependencies manually. How can anyone seriously claim that typing "yum install foo" (or clicking on "foo" in a GUI, if one is CLI-phobic) is more difficult and confusing than looking for foo's special, unique and enormous installer on the web (or running it from a CD)?
In the several years that I have used Fedora, I have had a dependency problem once while running yum. This dependency problem arose because a piece of software was incorrectly packaged and did not link to one of its dependencies. After pasting the error message I was getting into Google, I rapidly found the name of the missing package and installed it. No problem.
Did I have to set up extra repositories to get everything I wanted? Yes. Was it a terrible, unreasonable ordeal? No. It involves copying and pasting some stuff into a text file. There are dozens of sites which describe the process in painstaking, elaborate detail. I am confident that my mom could follow those instructions.
Mind you, further up the page someone claims that if you have to Google for help when trying to do something with your computer, then your operating system's interface has failed you. Are you serious? Do you seriously expect to be able to operate a complex system with which you are unfamiliar without ever having to read any instructions? Do you think that cars have an unacceptably awful user interface because people have to take driving lessons in order to be able to use them?
Credit, where credit is due: Go here if you want to gripe about resolution issues.
And should I even mention the fiascos with various sound cards that you just didn't want to play nicely with?
Go here for support with your sound card.
Or of the hardware that you were supposed to be "known-good" on that you chose not to work with at the most inopportune moments?
Don't buy cheap hardware or anything newer than a year old. If you want bleeding-edge new stuff, stick with Windows or Mac OS.
Most of your gripes should actually be directed at the specific Linux *distribution* that you chose to use. The distribution choice is a whole religion unto itself. ;P Of course, I choose Fedora because it "just works" for me. My definition of "just works" = take the base distro and install it minimally. Hand compile everything I need. Tweak the system for what I need. Turn it into any of the following:
:)
1. GNOME Terminal Server
2. Thin client (using cheap wireless laptop)
3. PVR/Entertainment system
4. GASP!!! A desktop computer!!
Sorry, but it "just works" for me.
Here is what I've found in my own informal comparison back in 1998:
-Setting up a Windows 98 box to do everything I need: six hours and about $3000 worth of extra software. (I'm not a pirate, so I buy everything I need) Considering how a lot of the functionality included with Windows XP is low grade compared to full commercial products (ripping CDs, editing images and video, etc...) and the fact that software costs even more now, I'd have to spend at least $3000 extra to do the things I want.
-Setting up RedHat 7.0 to do everything I need: six days and $0 worth of extra software because RedHat 7.0 came with everything I needed at the time. Considering that Fedora Core 3 has moved lightyears beyond RH 7.0 it's only that much easier now. So the same setup might take me three days now and probably a lot less since my knowledge has improved since 1998.
That's the key to using any Linux distro. You have to dedicate the time to learning it. Keeping in mind that the trade-off is that you wind up spending very little to no money on software. I'd say that's a significant feature that Windows can't compete with. Mac OS is in a flux right new due to the IBM to Intel CPU switch. I wouldn't touch a Mac with a ten foot pole for the next two to five years. Granted Mac OS is beautiful and can host a lot of the apps I use in Linux now, it's not worth buying a box that's only going to last a few years. Currently my Linux based GNOME terminal server is a dual P II 233 with 768 Megs of RAM from 1998 and it runs just as well as a P4 running Windows XP Pro. It can do everything that a Windows XP box can and more. So, it does "just work".
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Every OS Sucks
By 3 Dead Trolls In A Baggie
I come from a time in the nineteen hundred and seventies when computers where used for two things. To either go to the moon, or play pong. And nothing in between, you see, and you didn't need a fancy operating system to play pong and the men who went to the moon, god bless them, did it with no mouse and a plain text only black and white screen and thiry-two kilobytes of ram.
But then round about the late seventies home computers started to do a little bit more than play pong. Very little more. Why, computers started to play games and balance check books. Why, you could play Zaxxon on your apple II or write a book. All with a computer that had thirty-two kilobytes of ram.
It was enough to go to the moon, it was enough for you
It was a golden time, a time before Windows, a time before mouses, a time before the Internet and bloatware and a time before every OS sucked
Well way back in the olden times my computer worked for me
I'd laugh and play all night and day on Zork One, Two and Three
The Amiga, VIC 20 and Sinclair too, the TRS 80 and the Apple II
They did what they where supposed to do
It wasn't much but it was enough
But then Xerox made a prototype
Steve Jobs came on the scene
Read of mice and menus, windows, icons, trash, and a bitmapped screen
Oh, Stevie said to xerox "Boys, turn your heads and cough"
And when no one was looking he ripped their interfaces off
Stole every feature that he had seen
Put it in a cute box with a tiny little screen
MacOS1 ran that machine, only cost 5000 bucks
But it was slow, it was buggy, so they wrote it again
And now they're up to OS10
They'll charge you for the beta, then charge you again
But the MacOS still sucks
Every OS wastes your time, from the desktop to the lap
Every thing since Apple DOS, just a bunch of crap
From Microsoft to Macintosh to Lin-line-lin-line-nucs
Every computer crashes 'cause every OS sucks
Well then Microsoft jumped in the game
Copied Apple's interface with an OS named
Windows 3.1, it was twice as lame
But the stock price rose and rose
Then Windows 95, then 98
Man, Solitare never ran so great
And every single version came out late
But I guess thats the way it goes
But that bloatware will crash and delete your work
And dme man none of them work
Bill Gates may be richer than Captain Kirk
But the Windows OS blows. And sucks. At the same time
I'd trade it in. Yeah, right. For what?
It's top of the line from the Compuhut
The fridge, stove and toaster never crash on me
I should be able to get online without a Phd
My phone doesn't take a week to boot it
My TV doesn't crash when I mute it
I miss ascii text in my floppy drive
I wish VIC 20 was still alive
It ain't the hardware man
It's just that every OS sucks.. and blows
Now theres lin-ux or line-ux. I don't know how you say it
Or how you install it or use it or play it
Or where you download it or what programs run
But lin-ux or line-ux don't look like much fun
However you say it, it's getting great press
Though how it survives is anyones guess
If you ask me it's a great big mess
For elitist nerdy schmucks
"It's free" they say, if you can get it to run
"he geeks say "Hey, thats half the fun"
Yeah, but I've got a girlfriend and things to get done
The Linux OS sucks. I'm sorry to say it, but it does
Every OS wastes your time from the desktop to the lap
Everything since the Abacus, just a bunch of crap
From Microsoft to Macintosh to Lin-line-lin-line-nucs
Every computer crashes cause evey os sucks
Every computer crashes cause evey os sucks
Technoli
Matlab is a big, big deal on the engineering campus -- can't seem to get engineering students to use anything else, even those engineering students who are comfortable using other things than Windows (mainly Solaris on SUNs). Our engineers learn Java in their intro programming course and learn Matlab in their numerical methods course -- C++ seems to be vanishing from the CS courses. The students have little use for Java but just love Matlab.
Matlab is also something I never particularly liked -- it is grossly proprietary, expensive, interpreted and slow, hacked together with the "feature of the month/next version release." It is notably deficient in such things as a good object model, structs, a good namespace model, or any of a number of things expected of a language to write large, reliable software systems. It is the Visual Basic of the engineering world.
Then there is Python, the up and coming New Thing. Python is also interpreted -- slow, yes, but not different than Matlab on that score, but like Matlab very flexible in having an eval loop and good runtime error messages. But unlike Matlab, Python is as FOSS as it gets and also appears to be based on some rational language concepts that makes it scalable to more than toy programs.
OK, so I am looking very seriously into Python. Given my background a prejudices, I have done little work in Matlab, so I am learning Matlab and Python (and wxPython for the GUI) about at the same time. Given my interests, I am using Matlab to develop an ActiveX GUI app and haven't ever used Matlab for anything numerical -- most of the Matlab users are using it for numerical apps with maybe a simple Figure Window plot without knowing how to get started on a GUI.
For all of its user-friendly nature, Matlab is far from perfect and I have done my share of "beating my head against the wall" trying to get certain features to work. But for all of its more Computer Science-approved language features, Python presents a much more sticky learning curve -- I seriously question if it is ready for prime time of substituting for Matlab among the engineering students.
Examples? wxPython is supposed to have really good ActiveX support right now, but it runtime errored on me when I tried to pass an IDispatch reference to one ActiveX object as an argument to a function call to another ActiveX object. This works in Matlab. Passing an IUnknown reference in Matlab does not work, but they are up front about it and tell you it doesn't.
This also used to work in wxPython using an earlier library for ActiveX support. So I download the wxPython sources and chase down some function names from the runtime error message, and I see that the conversion routines from ActiveX variants to Python objects only works for strings, floats, and ints and everything else is a comment with a "to do" list. Great.
This is just one example -- I have a list of several. Python and Matlab are both academically-oriented coming out of the academic environment and with strong packages for numerical computing. Python went the FOSS road while Matlab turned proprietary and commercial.
What must be different is that I believe that MathWorks must have some "adults" supervising the "geeks" so as to shape and mold the Matlab experience and preserve user friendliness. The Python community is "geeks run wild" or "geeks breaking features from earlier versions and fixing them when they get around to it." Same must hold true for Linux vs OS X and other comparisons.
But I don't think necessarily grafting OSX onto linux is the right solution. .rpm, .tar.gz) /usr/lib, and force everything to be under a directory for every app installed. And really, Windows package don't put dlls in %windir%\system[32]? I call that bull. Windows package installers are no more consistent than Linux packages, and I *rarely* have to install a package using an installer from the developer. Debian may require you to use the contrib repository, but you could install realplayer, acroread, and other non-OSS package in the repository in many distro that I've used over the years. /home/user (I wouldn't want that to happen because my home directory is a mess), and the resulting Desktop folder is inside one of those hidden (.something) directories. This can be solved if KDE and GNOME would agree to use the same desktop under /home/user/Desktop. Besides, I thought the article is about the end user, so why would they look for their own documents outside the GUI environment anyways? It isn't like they want to edit their word documents by hand using Vim on commandline.
Granted that I'm command line oriented, I install my programs through the command line (apt-get install pkg | emerge -a pkg | pkg_add -r pkg). But given that there are one liners, how hard is it to make a GUI to go along with installing. The point is to make application installs as easy as possible. OSX went with making the app folder look like a file, and have the user to drag it somewhere, and we can just have a package manager that the user can find the program and click to install. I don't see how the latter is that much harder than the former. Also I thought modifying the LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment variable can cause many problems, often security related (ie. a misconfigured installer may break things, a rogue installer could make it run a trojaned library). And how exactly did he solved the application problem by turning apps into documents while existing packaging managers already group all the files in one file format (.deb,
I couldn't get my head wrap around his ideas for the core library. It seems that he wants the distros to have all the library (and he's probably talking QT or GTK here) installed. The point of Linux is flexibility, and if you don't use the bloody library, don't install the bloody library. For example, I've hated the QT interface from a long time ago, and even now I don't really use any programs that uses QT, so I don't have the bloody QT library installed. App developers makes a certain library a requirement, and the package management maintainers sets up the dependency in the package such that the package system would get the library when needed. It isn't like a linux package management systems cannot remove all the files associated with a package already, so what's the worry with the libraries in
Documents - the only valid gripe that I saw is that when not in a GUI, files on the desktop seems to disappear. That's because the desktop isn't linked to
Desktop Environment - is it just me, or does his mockup looks awfully like GNOME 2.8 or whichever that Debian stable/Gentoo/FreeBSD 5.3 had installed? The only changes are a) the application icon is a menu, and b) the search dock applet is not configured to appear? It would be trivial for a distro to configure the search dock to be enabled.
Application update could be accomplished with the distro putting a line in cron for updating itself every day at midnight or something.
It seems that either his point of this article is to change Linux into Mac OSX, or his solutions are written back in the days of Gnome 1 or KDE 2... Ubuntu, and among may other desktop distro already has this level of ease of use, so how is his solution going to help with the remaining problems? Application installation and removal isn't hard, and usually very easy with desktop distros that provide a GUI package mgmt programs; users shouldn't mess with system directory, because they're already provided
Shown her what to do? It was apparent within the main window of the Roxio Toast application. If you use Toast there is are radio buttons giving options: for Mac, for Mac/PC, iso9660.
I'll grant no one knows what iso9660 is if they haven't ever needed to, but this is not in any way an inchoate problem with OS X. By the way, it did "just work this morning", the PCs didn't read the disk because of the way she made the disk.
I really don't want to sound holier than thou. I'm an average computer user who has made mistakes in the past and only want to prevent others from the same thing.
For future reference, if she is putting files onto a CD, use a Data CD in Toast and make it iso9660. If she is burning an .iso file, use the Disk Utility in "Applications -> Utilities" and open the .iso file with that. If the .iso if properly made Disk Utility will burn it correctly - this includes bootable CDs for the x86 platform as I use my Mac (and its larger hard drive) for downloading Linux distros that I install on x86.
Conclusions:
1. You just don't think Mac OS X is all that great, which is fine, but not universal truth because it's your belief.
2. You can help some of the people some of the time, but I agree, there is no way for a developer or designer to come up with one all-inclusive idiot proof graphical system for every user regardless of experience. I'll admit to being an Apple fanboi/apologist - it's not the same, but some of the difference is that they strive to make the environment consistent. This presents itself in the one button mouse (as one example). Hey presto, programmers and designers have to put all the options in the menu bar (iTunes has a notable glitch - you could only reset play counts by [ctrl-click]ing a track). Furthermore, the menu bar is always (with some exceptions, Valknut, OpenOffice, some others) at the top of the screen, the reason? You just have to shove the mouse. So long as it goes up, you reach the menu bar - meaning that there is 178 degrees of direction you can push in for an infinite distance, but you are going to hit the big welcoming target. These and other little consistencies are only there to make things easier for users to make the transition both to Mac as a daily use platform, and to make the transition from one Mac application or suite to another application or suite on the same computer.
As to the installing apps, MacOS is better there. /usr/bin. Apps are actually folders filled with all kinds of junk. Basically, OSX is UNIX with a prettier GUI then Linux.
Directory Structure:
Under the hood, the directory structure is complex. Aqua and the Terminal are like running two different operating systems, because neither will run programs for the other. OSX does have a
The same ol' arguments from windows users. You know what? I've seen people who were clueless about computers, being more perceptive to linux than windows users. Windows users react, because it's different, and they usually refuse to read even a single paragraph of a help file, because that's how they're used to from windows.
/bin for binaries /sbin for system binaries. whats so confusing about it?
Oh, I see it now, C:\Program Files for binaries and C:\Windows\System32 for system binaries is better, yes? /boot is confusing? maybe it's better to have them scattered all over the place like in C:\boot.ini and in C:\Windows\System32 as well as in the registry?
From TFA:
Installing Applications is complicated
I hear this argument all the time and it really is starting to annoy me. It's just different from windows, that'a all.
A typical windows installation:
You first need to download the installer application or insert the cd where the app resides.
A window pops up welcoming you to the installation, you click next.
Then the program's license pops up which you need to click accept and click next.
Then you need to choose whether you want another installation target folder, other than the default C:\Program Files\ and click next.
Then you choose the name of the start menu group and click next.
Then if the program installs any DLLs which are outdated you'll be asked whether you want to keep or overwrite the some2423_app.DLL or not and click next.
If all goes ok, you'll click next for a few more times before finishing the installation by...clicking Finish
A typical linux installation:
Depending on your distribution you type:
apt-get install thisapp
or you might have to type yum install thisapp
or emerge thisapp.
In all cases, the app will be downloaded and installed for you. That's it.
Directory structures can be confusing to navigate
No they're not. It's just different from windows, that'a all.
Or maybe the fact that you have your kernel and boot loader in one place under
Or maybe the slash(/) is confusing? Although you use slash for URLs and pretty much anything, why not use the backslash for browsing directories like in windows, eh? Better, yes?
I'd say that *nix directory structure is the standard and anything else that uses backslashes and obscure directory structures is plain wrong and confusing.
Interface is confusing and inconsistent.
No it's not. You're coming from windows, that's all. Infact I can find hundrends of inconsistencies with the windows interface. Like for example to shut down your pc you need to click Start. Huh?
And if you're talking about how desktop enviroments are different, like Gnome and KDE, well, they're meant to be different! Use the one you like. There is no reason why everything should look the same. You want simplicity and ease of use? Go with Gnome. You want eye candy and many options to tweak? Go with KDE. You want fast response times(if you're on old hardware)? Go with Fluxbox or IceWM. You want super duper eye candy and fancy effects while you don't care so much on stability? Go with Enlightment.
There's something for everyone, and I think this is alot better than trying to fit all sizes in one shoe.
Steep learning curve required to understand system functions.
Oh, common! How much easier can system functions get? Is it easier on windows? If so, why? Maybe because you've spent so many years learning how to use every system function? Do the same on linux (RTFM/learn) and then come back and tell me if it was at all difficult. You see, it's different but it's not difficult. Don't expect to know-it-all on your 1st day. And don't expect to "just figure it out" without even reading a single sentence of a help file.
When you started driving, did you just took the car into town, expecting to just figure out things without trying to learn? Didn't think so. But you w
VStrider.
I'd hardly call HFS+ "lock in"... if you or your OS vendor wants to write code or drivers to support HFS+, all they have to do is look at the unencumbered documentation available here. You may not be able to do this personally, but your OS vendor certainly can.
If you want to do the same with NTFS or Microsoft's SMB... well, get ready for a lot of reverse engineering and compatibility bugs, and be prepared for the idea it may never work at all. That's a little closer to what I'd call "lock in".
I'm also just a little bit confused as to exactly what the person from the grandparent post's anecdote did to get OS X burning CDs as HFS+. It sure does seem that the CDs I've burned on my mac in the past have come out ISO 9600. Perhaps I've been doing something strange without realizing it?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I run Windows due to some hardware issues, and I feel like I have put in enough effort trying to make stuff work.
However there is no ting which annoys the hell out of me in Windows than the pressumed useful and slightly forced data-organization.
Why on earth would I put my music in a folder called "My music" in a hidden folder called "My Documents" when I obviously want it in a common, shared folder? Not to mention I keep my system and data on clearly seperated partitions, and Windows insists on putting everything on the system-partition.
Add to this that a lot of applications now have started applying this idea and you get "My downloaded files", "My shared files". Even "My Virtual Machines"! You would think that if you did virtual machines, you had enough clue and brains to organize your files.
Here's hoping (not believing) that the removal of "My" in Longhorn may put an end to this madness.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
> you *NEED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PLATFORM TO USE IT*. 100% agreed. However, that person has been using Macs for the last 10 years and never touch a PC. She certainly doesn't claim to be a power user, but it still doesn't make her "familiar with the platform". She knows LaTeX, she does some FORTRAN programming and has used computers since 20 years ago, maybe more. The world is full of people not "familiar with the platform". Not me. Probably not you. But so many others. This person just wanted to use her damned computer. Telling her to use Mac OS X did not solve her problem, sorry. Linux and Windows would maybe have been worst in this case. That's all.
There never will and never should be a "linux desktop". Linux is a kernel, and last time I checked, kernels don't have desktops, unless it's Windows, and the desktop is active desktop, a feature of IE, embedded in the kernel itself. What we will probably see in the future, however, is a distro-independent package manager based on autopackage instead of .deb or .rpm. At this point, that's probably the most praticle thing to focus on. It'd also be cool if said package manager could set up some sort of /Applications symlink folder.
That's the pragmatic approach. A kickass 3rd-party package manager. It's a bit too late and probably unneccessary (not to mention futile) to tell every OS developer and distro where they *must* put everything.
Joe User should care less about filesystem hierarchies anyway. Just give him a nice frontend to resolve all this chaos down below.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is pretty strange. I haven't had any problems trying to mount CD's I've burned in OS X on PCs. In fact, the Finder (in 10.3, at least) explicitly states that the CD will work in any PC or Mac.
Just burned a CDRW on my Mac. Mounted just fine on my XP PC. Maybe there's something wrong with your colleague's Mac?
Stick someone whom has never used a computer before and tell them they need to use Internet Explorer to find a Windows program and Synaptic to find a linux program. I'm willing to bet Synaptic will come out first.
That's the thing that sickens me the most about every Mac user I know who isn't me - they all seem to keep their entire goddamned filesystem on the desktop. Stick something in its Proper Place in the filesystem and they can't find it!
/Users/$username/Documents. I keep ALL of my FCP and DVDSP data on a dedicated hard drive, so the fact that these apps routinely default to where they want me to save things is really annoying.
/Volumes/$drive at /Users/$username/Documents and be done with it.
As hair pulling as this is, applications that tell me where I can put my data piss me off even more. You can't load Office, Final Cut Pro or DVD Studio Pro without the app creating an $app_name Documents folder in
Wouldn't be as much of a pain in the ass if Apple would do for the fstab what they've done with iTunes. Mount
These discussions happen every so often. They're a bit tiring.
People forget that GNU/Linux is, at heart, anarchic and informal. It is not a "product". The ideals and goals of (I assume) a great many GNU/Linux developers don't easily translate into the ideals and goals of those in the corporate sphere (namely: profits). Sure, some make money, but for many, it doesn't seem to be "the point". While more users would be nice and would help accelerate development (maybe), GNU/Linux doesn't need "market share" any more than it needs cobranding, synergy, or celebrity endorsements.
I think Slashdotters, being generally more technically-minded than the average bear, like to think that increasing the number of "coverts" is solely a matter of engineering. Many forget that money buys influence. As corporations, Microsoft and Apple (though to a seemingly lesser extent) put business before technology. And for good reason: money buys drivers, usability research, and preinstalls. Microsoft and Apple can afford to spend millions on television/print/web ad campaigns. Microsoft can afford to twist the arms of government for favorable legislation. When public school funding runs dry, Microsoft can swoop with lucrative deals that strengthen its hold on its users. GNU/Linux can't do these things.
In the end, the solutions to the issues described in the article will be engineered in one way or another over the course of time. And that's fine. Lively debate over what works for now and what needs to be changed is needed and encouraged. But for these technical fixes to translate into a significant bump in usership, more fundamental societal issues, regarding the role of the corporation and the individual in society (i.e. the big picture), will have to be openly questioned, discussed, and understood. GNU/Linux is as much political as it is technical.
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
Were never going to get the promised holy grail Linux desktop in the future if we can't build an acceptable desktop of the now.
If Linux was so much better then there would be tones of switchers, just look at how well firefox has done.
The Linux desktop needs:
Applications that run on the desktop.
Some kind of standards for UI's
Some kind of standards for command line (help is? help -help --help -h -? ahhhh)
Gnome and KDE actually working together for a change.
Someone who's prepared to polish up OSS by removing the 'this works on a Wednesday but it's so cool I had to keep it' features, and generally tidying up the rest.
etc....
Hopefully the work I'm doing will help in some way to making the Linux desktop more of a reality than a pipe dream.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Computers come with anti-virus suites and Windows
Yes, they do come with Windows, but not with anti-virus suites. Sure, you get a "free" 30 day trial but that is often it. I find it distrubing when many users don't bother to buy the subscription, thinking they are protected by just having the software.
But here I go on when we are talking about Linux' shortcomings...
Get your Unix fortune now!
Slackware's BSD-style rc.scripts
I hate the BSD-style rc.scripts. The SysV style makes it much easier to find things IMHO. Also what's wrong with Apt-get or SuSE's YAST. Both very good tools.
The Anti-Blog
I was surprised by how terrible the Windows driver support was and is. I hadn't run it in about 5 years, but was setting up a secondary WoW computer, and knew it didn't have the juice to play it under Cedega.
.inf and other driver bits. Another way that probably would've worked would've been to install an SB card that wasn't there. Either way, you do have to fuck around to get their drivers, because the company itself is stupid.
:)
The trick I used was just running the installer, and then alt-tabing to where it extracted the files, and copying out the
However, one nice thing I've noticed is that Linux has better audio support (thanks to Alsa) than anything over the past few years, and onboard audio chipsets are no-longer geiger counters that detect mouse movements
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
It is bringing ease of use and intelligence to the system. The whole goal should be as invisible as possible. If we are not making things more simple with all this CPU power then what is the point of that power?
Computers are a tool, as such they should be as simple and safe to use as possible. If Linux developers want to take down the Windows dominance then Linux will need to be easier to use by the average person than Windows.
That means to install a new piece of software all you need to do is put it in the drive or find it on a website. Then the OS takes it from there. Antivirus and such would be assumed as well.
Windows gets it mostly right, it is easy to use. The problem is that it is not always safe to use. Linux should strive to be both. Look to Apple for an example, not everything has to be supported. It makes programming the OS a lot easier if you don't try to take into account every single little video card, sound card, and etc into consideration. Sure some of the geeks will be annoyed because their favorite pez-style barcode reader isn't supported but they are not the ones who will make the system popular.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
But anyway, I'm not going to go into it all right now, I just want to mention some problems I've had with windows recently, on my laptop.
I have an HP ZD7000. It's a pretty decent piece of hardware, if you don't mind the size and weight. It's actually not too heavy considering the size and quality of the display and the hardware inside the thing. It's a beast. 3.2 P4 w/hyperthreading, GeForce FX Go 5700 128M, 17" widescreen display, 1680x1040 native resolution.
Getting this thing in proper order for gaming was not easy. The only "signed" video drivers available are somewhat old(so no HL2 or Doom3 perf. improvements), and don't support a large number of resolutions! As far as I could tell, there's no way to tell windows that there's other resolutions that should be supported, so it is necessary to "hack" the .inf file(s) for the video driver. Long story short, I used the latest NVIDIA drivers(which DO NO support Go chipsets, as laptop vendors are _supposed_ to customize the drivers for their specific power / resolutions / etc.) with a hacked up .inf file, which I had to add my own resolutions to, had to instruct windows to ignore the lack of proper signage, and manually clean out the previous driver files prior so that it didn't use the wrong files. Very, very shitty process.
Linux is just as bad, of course. To get everything working on Linux, you have to download the NVIDIA drivers, install them and get them working(tls / no-tls, wtf?), and add several resolutions by hand to get them working. I have no idea how to come up with the timing BS on my own... I've done it before, but that was 5+ years ago, so... Without google, there's no way I would have been able to get all the resolutions I wanted working.
I don't know how many hours I spent f*cking with windows so I could play HL2 in all(ok, most) of its glory, but I don't want to go through it again.
Who's fault is it? NVIDIA's, HP's, Microsoft's? Maybe a little of all of them, perhaps mostly HP for not having updated drivers(and not even including all the supported resolutions OF THEIR OWN HARDWARE!), but is it too much to ask that they update their "customized" driver every time NVIDIA releases a new driver? And why doesn't it Just Work? Shouldn't it somehow know all the resolutions it supports on its own? Why the #$@% do I have to manually clean out driver files to prevent Windows from screwing up?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
As a RISC OS user I really love the idea of App dirs. OTOH they don't solve every single problem, for example RISC OS had (and probably still has) its own version of DLL hell. Some applications required more recent modules (kind of DLL) and often this meant that !System (the App dir for Operating System related stuff) had to me updated. There was even a !SysMerg program to assist in this. Yet there was (badly written I hear you say) software that relied on a specific version of a Module.
Perl Programmer for hire
This guy has pretty much just covered Amiga WorkBench, probably one of the most friendly and logical desktops ever. It used an "AppFolder" concept way back in 1985. Even whole diskettes could be appfolders, so when you put a disk in a huge fat icon appeared for the game/program that you could just double click to run (or right click to open/browse/whatever). This is so much nicer than Windows autorun. Essentially it was a slightly nicer MacOS, from my point of view anyway.
Workbench was ahead of its time, and it's "gadgets, tools, drawers, projects" paradigm makes a lot more sense today than "widgets, applications, folders, documents". For instance, my video editing program and IDE both save projects, not documents, and I use tools to perform tasks, not "applications", which makes no grammatical sense.
The fellow who wrote this has never kissed a girl before.
The author seems heavily steeped in MSWindows jargon, to the extent that he perpetuates the silly use of the word 'folder' when he means 'directory'.
The metaphor of putting one "folder" inside another "folder" on top of "wallpaper" on a "desktop" is just silly.
Using words with weaker physical resonance like "directory", "subdirectory", "screen background" and "workspace" would inspire a bit more confidence in what purports to be an attempt at an objective analysis.
Hey, I used their Norton Desktop 'way back on Windows 95. They're bringing it back? :)
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
Unfortunately, if you do not use KDE, then you are horribly uninformed... You rule out part of the system before even seeing it. (I do the same thing--refuse to use Gnome ;)
As for Carbon/Cocoa, they behave almost identically (emphasis added)
"Almost" doesn't cut it for consistency. I reccomend you try KDE sometime... it remains internally consistent the entire time. (Because it can be configured willy-nilly, it can be different between systems, but any app in KDE has controls that function identically to all others. When a control gets special treatment in 1 app, it is either A: experimental, or B: transferred to the rest of KDE before release). I'd say the same for gnome, but I don't really know.
(I do agree with the GP, though. KDE <-> Gnome cooperation could use some work. ;)
And, of couse, I am not saying that KDE is perfect. However, your knowledge of it seems to be rather lacking.
Hi
I use Novell Linux at work and Ubuntu at home and yes they both work quite similarly the way you suggest. One is rpm and one is deb but they both have very similar point and click installers.
However they are both amazingly far apart in terms of versions of quite basic stuff.
Both are Gnome yet one is 2.6 and one is 2.10 - one has beagle, one doesn't. And each respository has different collections of stuff, again at different version points.
So, yes it works, but without the sense of a) choice (you take what your distro has) and b) standard versions on all your PCs.
You can't just go to the author's website and click to install his latest version. You have to wait until someone who knows how to do it puts that version into the repository. Can take a while for some stuff.
Computers... suck.
People... suck.
Work... sucks.
Working with people on computers? Triple Suckage.
Working with computers for people? Triple Suckage.
Making a computer help people work? You guessed it.
All computers suck for usability because it's not clear what we want to use them for, because we're people, and people suck. Moreover, a lot of things we say we want to use them for are some sort of work, which sucks.
I find that life sucks less when ample time is reserved for getting away from computers, people, and work.
And yes, I do use all three platforms concurrently (Rick Wakeman, eat your heart out!), and have used all three as a primary desktop at one point or another. OS X sucks just as much as Windows or Linux.
"Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
Yeah, right, and an instant +5.
The day's not over yet.
Unfortunately, Linux's success doesn't depend upon market share among grandmothers, but has rather more to do with mindshare among developers [insert picture of big ape screaming: developers! developers! developers!]. For some reason, these people have very different needs, and some of the different OSes cater to these different needs.
Sorry, but I have to disagree very strongly. It will require the average Joe User and his grandmother to get Linux to the desktop in tangible amounts to make it a viable, desktop-for-the-home operating system. Not catering to these people will keep Linux in the niche category, even more so than Apple, and I see no reason why Linux should not expand as much as possible. Being a developer is one thing, but what good is being a developer if there is not a lot of demand for what you're developing? Sure, there will always be those who do it for the love of doing it; but restricting Linux to developers is incredibly short-sighted.
Linux is extrememly flexible. With the number of Linux applications that are coming out not to mention WINE and other tools for those who must use the occasional Windows app, there is absolutely no reason why it should not be set up to increase its market share among grandmothers, developers, and everyone in between.
For some reason, these people have very different needs, and some of the different OSes cater to these different needs.
I see no reason why Linux can't cater to just about everyone. It's got the power; it's got the developers; it's got the increasing number of apps and utilities; it's got the easy-to-use desktops; and so forth. If Windows can be accepted as the de facto operating system for the home user, why are you so quick to dismiss Linux as a viable competitor?
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
hardware support aside because it is a thorny issue, even though everything I have bought has worked (excluding my soundcard, but only because it's supported in a really new version of alsa-drivers. it will soon enough be supported by default in all the distros tho).
The only problem I have had is with webcams and games. ubuntu using synaptic is pretty damn good! you have to know what you're looking for, but that's the same as windows. making it easier to find what you need would make it surpass windows.
as for beating windows & linux, it has room for improvement, but then so do they. consider, in fairness, that linux only has 3% marketshare. If it was at 7%-10% or higher attitudes would change, with regards hardware & application support.
You must have missed that part. Not to mention, the original post was using the word "Linux" as if it is one individual entity and then proceeded to attack X.org and ALSA or Open Sound System. If they are going to be correct about their gripes, they should aim at the correct targets. Unless he's a Bush supporter who thinks that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. In that case, there is no hope for him.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
or mac, and yet you still have no problem talking out of your arse about them?
ppc linux is not quite as mature as x86 linux, true, but that is simply because it has less users testing and less developers working on it. current issues are binary-only software, hardware support and packaging.
endian issues are not a problem nowadays. you are a fucktard. if you have no experience of something, if you dont know what youre talking about, you should just shut the fuck up.
Except the developer has to compile a 'goddamn binary' for every major Linux distro, along with writing packaging scripts for 3 different package management systems, at least. You're kidding yourself if you think every freeware/shareware author cares about Linux so much that they'd go through all that. As someone who regularly makes packages for Windows and Mac OS X, I can say that Linux packaging is a hair-pulling experience that is annoying enough that I don't even bother.
Welcome to the downside of choice - it costs the software developer exponentially more time to create packages to try to accomodate all the possible choices his/her potential Linux users could make. (Including setting up several Linux boxen to package and test on, learning scripting languages, and packaging formats.) Or, s/he could say 'screw it' and just deliver a tarball, and be done with it. Linux user typically aren't into paying for software anyways, so while they may complain, they probably won't put their money where their mouths are, AND, if they like the software, they'll probably do whatever they have to to use it. So what's the incentive for software developers to make you happy?
TFA gets it in that Linux system design makes a lot of things harder than they have to be, and that it drives BOTH users and developers away from the platform. People can scream that the problem is the users or the developers all they want, but it's not going to get any more users, or any more packages created. The reality is that the easier a system is to use, the more people who will adopt it. If you don't like the problems Linux has, well, help get them fixed so that more users/developers will use Linux. If you don't like hearing that answer, then fork over a few bucks for a different platform where the OS developers take care of the problem for you.
Why?
... my distribution has those libraries, and I just need to install them, right? After installing a series of library packages using the built-in package manager the make file should work regardless, right?
.tgz files would do it (/usr/lib versus /usr/local/lib, /usr/include versus /usr/local/include). This breaks the makefile that comes with the package, which couldn't find the libs and the includes although they were on the system.
.tgz source file for every library, and then edit the makefile of the application.
... the makefile. What a piece of *&(&(( . If you edit it without paying attention to the difference between tabs and spaces ... your makefile is ruined, and the error messages don't give you a clue about what happened. Everyone who tried that once either learned or quit ... but it's still in use. And then the gloriously obscure syntax linking targets to source.
... the package installed without further errors, and things worked ... up to a point. It's functional, but it still misses out on a graphics library.
Because I find it a pain! I'm thoroughly computer literate, I can program in about 5 computer languages (scientific work / console applications only; don't ask me about GUI's) , but I'm new to Unix/Linux, and I'm certainly not an admin. And I definetely shouldn't have to be to install an application. If it takes me 2 days to learn about and fix, how will a real end-user fare?
Example: I recently had to spend 2 days installing JGR (a Java Gui for the statistical package 'R') by hunting down and fixing all library dependencies. Now admittedly, the maintainers of JGR haven't gotten round to providing an installer for Linux yet. However
No such luck! The Linux distro I use (SuSE 9.3) installs the packages in a slightly different place from where the
This forced me to learn about the workings of Linux / Unix, hunt down, download, and install a
Ahh
After installing every library from source
The same package installed under Microsoft Windows in about 5 seconds and then worked just fine. Go figure.
Linux ready for end-users? Only if they stay with the packages that come with their distro.
Alright, guys, look, OSX wasn't even mentioned in the story. It's about the Linux desktop. Sure, many of the points the author raises are already addressed by OSX. OSX is better! Got that? It is! But that doesn't help me. OSX is also proprietary and non-free, and while that might not matter to you, it matters to me. It's also in the hands of a notoriously flaky company with a notoriously flaky CEO. That is one basket into which I will not put my eggs. So, I would like to work on my own desktop, my free Linux desktop. This story has some interesting suggestions, some of which I agree with, and some of which I don't--and I would like to hear what other people think. I just don't see how some dude's story about how sound card troubles in Linux forced him to switch to OSX which by the way has a great UI has anything to do with this story--it's just noise. OSX has a headstart, but Linux will, I believe, catch up. It caught up with various Unices in the server room; it has, IMHO, surpassed Windows on the desktop; it's on mobile phones and cutting-edge research hardware. It can handle the desktop. Oh, and hardware...once Linux is big enough that hardware manufacturers have to support it, well, it'll have support. If you don't believe it, just keep using OSX. Why are you all here, reading about suggestions for improving the Linux desktop, anyway? You've seen the future, right? You're using it! So quit wasting your time, and do something constructive! So, anyway, please shut the hell up. We backwards Linux users would like to have a decent conversation here.
Real life experiences in Suse 9.2/KDE, wich is in the 1st grade of user friendly ranks:
.prc and likes". Executive summary: It's useless.
. automont: works great for CDs, Konq magically recognizes the stuff. Unfortunately, once it is accessed in Konq, wont umount unless I close the window. Goggle says: "oh, thats easy, all you need to do is to *REMOVE THE LIBFAM RPM WHILE KEEPING THE LIB IN PLACE*"! Worked like a charm, except for the "little" inconvenience of having to manually resolve dependencies every time I install anything that needs it.
. USB drives: automount works ok, but NO UMOUNT MENU IN KONQ!!!!!!!!! I have to su root and umount manually.
. Generic: where are the umount options in Konq for anything other than CDs???
. Context-insensitive menus in Konq: what's the point of including "open in KSCD" in a regular directory right-clock???? And that's just one example.
. Printing: CUPS is the default, that's OK. Needed a printer for an emergency, and all I had was a Lexmark Z23 (USB) so I tried. USB plugged, printer admin interface loaded... Printer correctly detected! Great! Next step: choose your printer from the list. Funny, I thought it was already recognized. Nevermind. Lexmark is in the list, chack, Z23 also in the list, check, click "next"... "YOUR PRINTER IS NOT SUPPORTED"!! WTF!!! Whats the point in putting the user through the whole process just to dismiss it in the end??
. Palm: Got some PDFs to read while commuting. Tried to load them in my Tungsten E. Kpilot says: "hey dude, sorry, but I only let you sync
That's my point. Details, details, details. Usability is not just a lot of nice features piled together. In the long run, little annoyances like those are the real factors wich matters. And why these little details keep happening on and on? Because they are the real PITA and are the last 10% wich drains 70% of the time. Until they are addressed, forget grandma's desktop.
I can't believe no one has mentioned Symphony and it's eadically different interface. SymphonyOS
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
I'm not unfamiliar with the Mac way of doing things, I come from a mac classic background, not windows or unix. I *detest* the CLI. I never liked DOS and way back then never even saw anything unixy so never learned it, probably wouldn't have liked it. Yes, I liked the ability to just stick an app anyplace. This is possible in linux, you just need all the dependencies to be included with the app, and not use any shared libraries, etc Most distros/managers don't do it that way,but you *could* do it if you wanted to.
I switched to linux when steve jobs priced me out of the mac market,after being a mac guy since the late 80's, (I still have my 512k and my LC for example) and no I don't want a teeny mac mini. Linux works plenty good enough and the hardware is just tremendously cheaper now. When I can get a brand new Mac running their latest OS for 200-300$ let me know, because I can get a decent system now for that and run Linux on it. Not the top of the line, but plenty good enough for my purposes. I lack for nothing when it comes to apps, and I do everything from the GUI. It "just works" now. I don't need to spend a grand or more just to do simple computing, and then shell out an extra 100 clams a year for a few apps and an OS. Plus, and it's a BIG plus, I fully embrace the GPL now and I think it's the best idea for the long term. And Apple has already made thousands off of me, time to move on, I am just not going to keep dropping that sort of cash any longer on computing gear, there is no need from my POV. I was an early adopter, but I have also noticed it's the 21st century and stuff is cheap now. and really, the time spent installing apps is so freekingly neglibile as to be near non existant. how many people just sit around installing and uninstalling and moving apps around on their drive? when i go to install now (if it's not already included with the OS install", it really is as simple as selecting what i want, mash "apply", then it goes and does it. I can do it (I am a neo geezer sort of grandpa age dood), so most generic grandmas could do it too, it just really isn't that hard now. I can't see spending an extra 100 bucks every year and having to pop for twice as expensive hardware just to save (literally) a few mouse clicks, that's just silly. When it was between insane buggy dos/windows and mac,, and the hardware no matter what you got was over one thousand dollars, ya, I could see the savings and lack of headaches and security features,and I *did* put my money where my heart was and bought macs (always though the GUI was the best), but now, nope, linux is plenty good enough and just orders of magnitudes cheaper in the gestalt. And I don't do "video games", never got the addiction, so could care less about that aspect of computing. I shoot real guns whenever I feel like it, and I operate real heavy equipment with lots of pedals and levers that does a lot of nifty cool stuff, etc. Killing cartoon aliens has never been any "must have" for me so I don't need windows or mac for that either. For instance I put some of my money into a small solar PV system. Quite literally it's about the same as a decent gaming rig now for a very basic entry level solar system of a couple of panels and some batts and a charger/controller. It's lowend but there ya go, I just have different priorities that go along with both my geeky bent of wanting gadgets and the power to run them and also being a long time conservationist for near 5 decades now. My dad was a big iron guy since ww2 and they existed so I grew up around chunks of hardware kicking around the house and all sorts of TVs and radios, etc, and kept the bug. It's fun, but I'm not going to pay the big bucks any longer for stuff that is ridiculously cheap to manufacture. Already done did that! HAHAHAHA! So Apple is going to have to get real on that end from my POV. It's very close to being the same hardware now and soon it will be *all* the same hardware except for a DRM chip on the mobo, so paying double is not going to be an option, I just ain't that sill
Many downloadable apps require you to also download some long list of DLLs with the correct version.
Bullshit.
OS X is much more than a pretty linux. In your same post you also say that OS X is better at letting people easily install apps than Linux is. Doesn't that right there invalidate your claim?
OS X is UNIX with a pretty GUI and a lot more.
Who does a windows or mac person call now? How expensive is it? I know my local whitebox shops make a killing on windows crapware, I mean a killing,it's probably their primary income source, so I don't know why those folks with "busted computers" just don't "call" microsoft instead if that was an easy option. Macs, no idea, can you call apple for free and get help whenever you want to? I know when I used to run mac classic I never needed to, so I honestly don't know. And is it free, or what?
Linux is a participatory process, not an operating system. Actually, it is just a kernel, which is fairly useless without other applications. You don't "use" it, you participate. You are part of a process, not a user of a finished product. If a monitor doesn't work, submit a bug report and help a developer. Linux is free, and therefore has no requirement to care for people who take, but do not give.
If your time is so valuable, why are you wasting it here? ;)
I would like to say that I read and googled and was told by a friend that I "...could not learn Linux w/o someone teching me" before I tried to run Linux.
What made me take the plunge? Well I had a iMac to learn to run Linux (versus my main machine, a 1999 G4) and I was doing o.k.. I did alright till I tried to connect online, the modem was dead. So I backed up my main machine and reinstalled MacOS on a new partition.
After a install of YellowDog Linux ver.3 I spent two or three days discovering scsi under Linux and getting my firewire CDRWs to work. I spent two weeks getting my usb flash drive to work. It doesn't seem very different to me manually mounting various removable media.
I now know enough to look for devices that I know are Linux compatible and to know that if it is a basic sort of device (router) I can just buy one and it will work.
As a Mac user I wasn't the type who could make Illustrator and Photoshop dance but I could fix the corrupted systems of my Mac friends who could make them dance. In short I was more tech savvy.
What do I like about Linux? That when I do finally get something setup under Linux it STAYS setup. Like the old MacOS without all the crashing.
Now when I install a new distro it's a matter of taking about thirty minutes to setup anything the installer didn't.
Did I mention that it STAYS setup?
I recompile my kernels, download almost only source files and boot in runtime 3. I have seen a few comments on the internet reporting that a Mac users are too graphically oriented to use the command line. Much as I like pretty pictures the CL is faster to mount, install and copy stuff.
When I roommated with a friend We shared a internet connection and computer room. I always chuckled when he couldn't do something in Windows and it took me:
a. one try
b. thirty seconds.
Myself and other people cannot read the CDs he burns and in fact he has yet to figure how to burn a ISO to disk.
My friend has become somewhat interested in Linux but realizes it is not for him. He has seen what I go through to get stuff working/apps installed. If I could virtually guarantee his games would run under Linux I could switch him over with no problem.
I know no programming languages (well maybe some Basic) and have little interst in doing so. I have paid for a few distro CDs (got to support the distro I run, like PBS) and I have paid for sw that runs under Linux. I also pay for my beer.
Just my two cents, thanks for listening.
I've used KDE -- I had to run off a Kubuntu CD for a week after my hard disk died so I could get some work done. I just do not know it well enough to remember how to change that specific option. And almost does cut it. The differences between Carbon and Cocoa apps are only noticable if you know where to look. By almost I mean 99.9%. A carbon app may not have the prototypical Cocoa about box for example (oh no...), but the about menu is still in the same spot and labeled the same way. Big deal. KDE is consistant within itself, yes. However, that falls apart as soon as you install any other software. My point is all 3rd party Cocoa apps fit right in. However, install vanilla Firefox in KDE, and forget it.
Speaking for myself. I find that modern linux distros do a *great* job of finding and installing existing HW. Way better than Windows in many cases.
But, updating a driver, or changing your video card, is far easier in windows.
Again, JMHO.
90% of this is down to hardware manufacturers refusing to cooperate with the driver developers, let alone develop their own drivers like they do for Windows. It would be wonderful if devices came with Linux drivers on CD; as it is, people have to do terrifying things like NDISwrapper. You're lucky that works at all...
I agree. I've been doing this exact operation for a couple of years, and I've never had a problem reading on a PC the CDs created on a Mac, and everybody I've known has had the same results. This guy is full of shit. Either there's something that he's not telling us, or he just made up the problem.
The Finder help even explicitly states that "by default, Mac OS X burns CD discs in a format that can also be used on non-Macintosh computers," and elsewhere that "the disc contains these filesystems: HFS+, ISO-9660 with Rock Ridge, and Joliet with Rock Ridge."
Seriously, people have that kind of problem on anything. Except seemingly MacOS, although with MacOS you still have the "You fool! You didn't try to buy software for your computer? Of course it won't work!" problem.
Have you ever tried to talk someone through IP or email settings in Microsoft software? Never had the "my internet doesn't work" phone call? Or the "why has my home page set itself to a porn site" spyware issue?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
I switched the other way. I went from OSX to Ubuntu Linux the moment I saw it on a friends PB. There are a few reasons for this:
- 1. I actually like the UI. It is cleaner, easier to look at and a hell of a lot faster on my TiPB than OSX. It is also fully customiseable. I am a designer by trade, this is __very__ appealing.
- 2. Vendor lock in (i want to repeat that a thousand times)
- 3. Upgrade cycles. People say "OSXs Spotlight". Spotlight is not in OSX, it is in an upgrade of OSX called Tiger, and an expensive one at that. What the hell is the problem with waiting 6months to have something arguably better, like beagle (that was around, I found out, before Spotlight was released. Tiger contains alot of unneccessary shit I do not want to pay for. Apple does not allow me the right, as a customer to __choose__ what I damn well pay for. Fuck that.
- 4. Lack of flexibility. OSX simply lacks the squeeze factor that Linux has. My Ubuntu PPC screams. It was fast out of the box, but now after one script and a patch (my first patch application) it simply belts along. You really cannot beat that.
- 5. I want to learn a system I can install and use on any computer. I had windows at home and OSX on my PB. I did _not_ want to buy a whole new machine to have OSX. Now I have Ubuntu Linux on both. Brilliant. That feels great.
- 6. I want to OWN my computer. With OSX, you always feel like you are renting the bloody thing.
Smart Package Manager makes installing, updating, and removing software easy. It subsumes deb, rpm, apt, apt-rpm, yum, etc, and even lets you use multiple application repositories even if they are in different formats (apt-rpm, deb, yum, etc). Really, installing software can be as easy as searching for what you want in Smart's GUI and then selecting what you want to install. Removing an application is similarly easy, and updating is even easier!
/ smart-0.35-2.2.fc4.rf.i386.rpm / smart-gui-0.35-2.2.fc4.rf.i386.rpm
Smart also has a commandline _and_ GUI interface, so you can use whatever interface you like best, unlike yum. It also allows for prioritizing package repositories so that you can make use of any repository you want and leave overlaps/conflict resolution up to smart.
I am using it under Fedora Core 4. It is still beta, so it has a few cosmetic bugs, but otherwise it works nicely. If you are using Fedora Core 4 and want to try it out, you can, even if you are already using yum or apt, as Smart can be used alongside other managers.
rpm -Uvh http://apt.sw.be/dries/fedora/fc4/i386/dries/RPMS
rpm -Uvh http://apt.sw.be/dries/fedora/fc4/i386/dries/RPMS
Another thing I've found about Linux. It isn't very tolerant. How many times has a config file change by the developers caused mystery errors? Here's another recent example. Upgrading a package via the package manager. This takes about two hours for this process. Power failure halfway through. Restart machine and get back to the point of starting the process over. Package is downloaded back at the beginning, instead of midpoint. Good design would have put a "process completed" flag at the end. Power failures don't clear this flag, so when you have to restart, state is preserved.
BTW Why isn't any package manager using BT?
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
So long as Linux costs 0.00001 percent of the cost of Windows and other OS, it will always have less than 1 percent of marketshare.
Marketshare - by definition - is based on the cost of the OS per unit shipped. So if Win and Mac ship an OS that costs $100, and the average cost per Linux install - in paid OS copies - is $1, then even if Linux is on 50 percent of all PCs, and Win/Mac/etc is on 50 percent, it will by definition have a marketshare of $50 out of $10000 - or 0.5 percent.
Using marketshare as a metric is the wrong solution. What you want is installed user base.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
for tech support - and then be told it's the manufacturer's fault, even though it isn't.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So you wanna find file.dat and computer tells you it is 1/2 inch right and 1 inch upwards from bottom left corner of your drive. Then what? You'll pry open your box to get to the file?
Everytime something like this comes up, I get tired of whiners on the WinBox side and the zealots on the LinBox side.
./configure, make, Suse has Yast, Ubuntu has Synaptic and FC4 has yum. The first two are point and click apps. Between them they provide more apps than the number of hair follicles on you head. So if you find yourself in a position to use ./configure, make, make install maybe you need to spend more time learning what the fuck you are doing instead of complaining that the app is not packaged for your pkg manager.
<rant>
So here goes my rant at them:
To the whiners:
1. For almost every windows app that you use, there is a reasonably comparable OSS solution. Sure it may not be frilly, with clippy and all, but 'it just works'. A lot of people have gone to great lengths to get that to you so stop bitching that it doesnt have a cute button.
2. Installation is not that hard. Suse, Fedora and even Ubuntu have very straightforward installers, Ubuntu inspite of being text based is more easier than the XP Pro setup. The fact that you cannot get it pre-installed is due to your shopping preferences not because of lack of trying.
3. Stop complaining about
To the zealots:
1. Linux is definitely not ready for primetime. Although I am impressed with the leaps it has made in the past three years, it still has a long way to go. A uniform, consistent look and feel would go a long way. Open standards stop mattering when there are 200 fucking standards.
2. Development of a set of recommended apps across all distros based on the quality and stability of the app. At some point of time there gets to be too much choice. I dont want to spend 3 hours deciding which apps I want/or have 8 image viewers installed. I do that at the grocery store anyway. A set of recognized 'good' apps, which are installed by default would be great.
3. Write your own damn app is not an option. The community is great at providing tech support to newbies (despite constant references to RTFM by WinGizers), how about taking a request from a non-programmer newbie and starting a new project, hell the non-programmer could even manage the project and contribute in his/her capacity as they can.
</rant>
At the end of the day, AFAIK it all comes down to whether or not you willing to change. I heard this great series on NPR during the election where the interviewer kept in touch and talked to a doc(R) in Cincinatti about who he was voting for and why. After weeks of conversation the doc realized that he hated Bush and that the Dem ideology was closer to his. However when asked who he would vote for he kind of went for the radio analogy of 'but.. but.. I have always voted Rep.' If you are like him and unwilling to change (Rep or Dem doesnt matter, all politicians hand out BS, its just a real example, thats all) it really wont matter if Linux changed overnight to be the most user friendly, hw compatible os. So before you come out here and bitch one way or another stop for sec and think, do you (or the person you are responding to) really want to switch to Linux.
BSD or other GPL-incompatible Free Software developers.
The BSD license (at least the one used nowadays) is GPL-compatible.
In fact, there are parts of KDE licensed under BSD-style licenses.
Here's FSF's list of licenses and their relation to the GPL.
The filesystem is the package manager
a) Reduce the bloat.A basic linux desktop should run on 128 Mb Ram/400 Mhz processor. /KDE +firefox +Ooo+ Evolution wont run even with 256 mb Ram simultaneously.
.Most companies are skipping Gnome/KDE framework because they are not mature .GTK and QT are just tool kits ,they are not frameworks.
A fully functional linux desktop ie Gnome
b) Create a good application development framework for desktop applications
c)A good framework similar to COM/Activex for interface based programming.(Bonobo is still complex and KParts is tied up to QT).We need something really cool,I still dont know how D-Bus fits into picture.
Mono/Java may be the future for developers.What about the present.
That was really quite well written. I am quite impressed. It actually reminded me rather strongly of some of the best of ESR's writings, which I have recently discovered, and been working my way through. You have my commendation, what little value it might have. Keep writing.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
I disagree. I think the real problem is that many developers, administrators, and users don't like the idea of trusting an application to install itself correctly on a system. There's no automatic way to be sure the program hasn't been tampered with, no way to ensure that security updates get installed according to the preferred update policy, no way to ensure the installer won't clobber existing files or install spyware or a rootkit, and no way to ensure the uninstaller will even work.
If rpm/yum is percieved to be harder to use than a gui installer, it's because the interface and/or documentation is bad and should be fixed (perhaps rpms should be treated like executables, and running "./foo.rpm" should be equivalent to "rpm -i foo.rpm") and configuration is unnecessarily difficult. Conceptually, installing an rpm should be easier than running a gui installer because it doesn't ask any questions.
My input requirements:
1) Don't confuse eye candy with usability. A corrolary is don't confuse trendy with usability. OSX has a lot of eye candy, but it's usability really isn't all that stunning if you look at it objectively.
2) Don't make the unwashed newbie your core audience. Newbie friendly isn't synonymous with usability. Everyone grows up, and no one stays a newbie forever. It's hard to believe, but it's true. You don't want to frighten away the newbie, but neither do you want to force him to abandon your desktop in disgust once he graduates to an intermediate or advanced user.
5) Don't dump legacy functionality. Just because you don't use the network connectivity of X11 doesn't mean no one else does either. If you haven't noticed, "the network" is getting bigger and more heterogenous every day. If I can't use your desktop over the network, it's going to suck.
4) I don't use Linux, so don't make a Linux-only desktop. Most of you developers know this, but unfortunately there's enough of you that don't to make things a real pain in the butt.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
-AT
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
Evilest Windows XP experience ever, right here:
So, I download and install graphics drivers on a freshly installed machine. The resolution changes to the default high-color or whatever. I'm rather impressed. I go to change the refresh rate, because it's 60Hz, and it's hurting my brain. Still, I'm impressed by setting up graphics drivers without restarting the interface---that's pretty damn nice, right?
What's this? The Display control panel doesn't have more than one tab. It just has the 'Themes' tab, except it's unmarked---there's just the one tab. Well, that's not very useful. Maybe it started wrong, or something. I went in through Control Panel. I went in through Control Panel Classic. I went in through right-clicking on the desktop. I remember restarting at some point. The Display control remained inexplicably and infuriatingly crippled.
Long story short, after a lot of cursing and poking, I hit shift-tab to move onto the tabs at the top of the window, which had been squished down somehow. Yes, a vital part of the interface had been cut off of a nonresizable window, essentially made invisible. I tabbed over, set the resolution and was all good. But what the gray hell was that?!
Eventually, Googling brought me to someone suggesting the use of shift-tab. But, as has been said before, if you're Googling, something's broken.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Do you know to the usual, average guy who attempts to start to argue about sanity of X11 existence and attempts to propose possible directions that could make sense today? Do you? Punk!
.conf files are...
Be very careful. As soon as you step against this achievement of TheUnixWay you have crossed the last line. Now they are after you. They will flame you. They will argue that they routinely run remote sessions from their cellphones or fridges. They will tell you how beautifull those cryptic writings in
The saving grace of Linux is that, due to it's openness, it can be modified to give everyone what they want. It can still be my vodka screwdriver while we water down another version to the Shirley-Temple-on-the-rocks-with-extra-sugar that will be demanded by the GUI-only crowd.
But rockier coastlines are in sight. The effect, I predict, will be called "distro drift", with certain distributions falling off the Linux bandwagon altogether...when you've reduced it to a toy, it can't be called a "real system" any more! So we'll have the "two Linuxes", the weak-n-easy camp, and the Real-computers camp. This is happening already...who today can look at Mandrake and Debian and identify them as the same system? Maybe so, for a while longer, but it's getting to where some Linux distros have as much in common with each other as they have in common with...any other operating system!
Must we go this way? Or is it just time for us Linux fanatics to tell everybody to just go away? Why torture Linux and try to mold it like a bonsai tree until it becomes something else? Why not just BUILD SOMETHING ELSE, and let Linux be Linux? What is the point of switching from Windows to Linux, if you demand that Linux become the exact, duplicate, genetic clone of Windows?
Yes, I'm a Linux fanatic...and even I, since day one, have told people "Linux is not for everyone". If all the computer is to you is an entertainment device, used just to play games and chat online, you need something that caters just to those needs. Get an Xbox and a Web TV. Get one of those new cell phones with a screen on them. Get an Ipod.
You will only meet with failure if you keep beating on the computer trying to hammer it into something that's a completely different shape from a computer!!!
The only other possible outcome: we slash Linux down to a shadow of it's former self, abandon it to the Suits, and go off and build our own cool operating system again. Then the cycle will begin again...have I explained this clearly enough, at last? Can everybody clearly see what the path leads to?
Background I got into the *.OSS stuff when I was in coledge because at the time, being a nomad I used a protoge laptop. Windows died on me, and a dorm bud turned me onto slackware, it worked, I was sold. Then slackware did something minor to the laptop code, it didn't work. I went to FreeBSD. It worked. It just worked. I almost pissed in my pants because not only did Xwin and the like work very well with my lil laptop, took up less space but my gery riged setup printed, and saved top floppies. I eventually got a POS mac PPC. When Apple stoped supporting it I used Linux. It was a disasaster, what didn't work? I meen honestly I liked the cute lil penguin and GAIM and all but that was about the only thing that worked. my network card BAIRLY gimped along (ethernet) the modem barfed etc. To speak nothing of having no core comunity diologuge. I switched out and went to NetBSD that was only mildly better and was bequiefed a iMac that will always have a soft spot in my heart (even if the power supply is failing). lessons from my experience is not that Linux per se is the issue, its the god awful stuff that gets chucked on top of it, and that no one is willing to admit that for look and feel Apple is kicking ass and calling for names. LoL that being said as apple is phasing out my sexy lil ibook g4, with a POS WLAN card (airport extreme). Browse throught the *BSD archives: OSS Unix is failing horidly in PPC land. What offends me is that while KDE is damn sexy X11 is a backwards, that to much time is spent over licence politics and not doing what OSS is suposed to do: Let me install and use it, not sweat the details because somones bound to fix it when it breaks. Someone please get the the fundimentanls of the darn thing! I hate having KDE barf because of circular depencendices, I hate having OpenDarwin unable to support it's own vid/sound/network cards. PLEASE FIX THIS TRAIN WRECK!
What annoys me mostly is not stumbling over some problems in programmes (that happens on all systems), but when i need hours to find the solution even if it's something simple and the answer is already somewhere on the web.
:(
I think linux could benefit more from the power of the web when it comes to documentation. So there is my idea (not nearly enough thought out, but i'm still at work right now *g*):
Allow to send all errors to a database on the web and open a wiki-side which is specifically for the error encountered. The database is for additional logging information which is of no interest to the user.
How could it be implemented? Basicly in GUI programms you could use an "Wikihelp"-Button in all error-dialogs. In consoleapps you could write on each error information in a... lets call it "wikihelpfile", which can be parsed by another application (for example by an mozilla-plugin).
The information in those wikihelpfiles would be the server which should be connected, the error which was encountered, the versionnumber of his application and any additional logging information which the programmer finds useful (like the logs on a mozilla-crash).
Whenever an user encounters a problem he would automatically be at a side where other people with same problem would land. Chances are high that he could find a fast solution there. Also the programmers would probably get more feedback about errors than in the current state, where you first have to find out who to contact.
Disadvantage could be a high-webtraffic on the projectsides. And it certainly would not work when you have networkproblems.
And yeah - i know the "just do it" mantra, but i won't find time for doing that anytime soon
Installing any app in KDE (in my experience) that uses the KDE libraries (and I think QT apps as well) will cause the exact same behavior. E.G. QT apps and 3rd-party KDE apps "fit right in".
There is nothing saying that Linux must fragment into two different OSes. It is perfectly possible for developers to build user-friendly interfaces onto fundamentally complex and technical software. Apple has been doing this, with varying degress of success, for twenty-one years now. (Arguably, they have been doing it somewhat longer, but the eight-bit Apple machines don't fit the current ideas of 'usable' or 'friendly'.) To pick a better example, the Internet itself is used by all kinds of determinedly anti-technical people all the time, and it was designed in the late 1960s as a military communications network that could survive a nuclear war.
I called the Internet a better example because Linux can learn from the Internet more than it can learn from Apple. The Internet now is still based on the same fundamental packet-switching technology as it was in the 1970s, but what we do with it now is vastly different. This works because the Internet is flexible and simple, and it works well when someone wants to try out a simple hacked-together protocol. HTTP and NNTP are both examples of this fact. TCP/IP, the core protocols, are almost completely system- and use-agnostic.
Unix is similar. Unix has been implemented on machines ranging from Cray supercomputers to 8088 microcomputers. It has user interfaces that go from the tersest, most primitive shell to the most bloated GUI Apple has ever called Aqua. The core has remained largely unchanged since 1969. Creating a user-friendly interface, and I do not consider any current GUI really friendly, should be more than possible without fracturing the foundation. Unix has seen more radical changes.
How can you use my intestines as a gift? -Actual Hong Kong subtitle.
All I need right here and now is a search function in Nautilus. It is just insane that there isn't one, even a basic one, integrated.
Type-ahead has strange timeouts, and guess what: if lots of files start with the same string, it is effectively useless, especially as it stops so easily. Not to mention recursive searches...
The external search application is crappy and unintiutive in many ways, among other things how to get to the directory you already have open in Nautilus. And if you go through all that, there is no good way to do anything with your results. You can open them, that's about it. Maybe that wasn't what you wanted?
Maybe, just maybe, I a) wanted to just move to a file I knew a substring in the name of, or b) want a file view with a list that matches my criteria - taken from the directory I'm currently in, and a possibility to manipulate these results as if they were ordinary files.
All other file managers I have used do these very simple things. I know Gnome devs sometimes "knows better" than everybody else what "is best for them" but hell, this is a feature that is impossible to do without.
It isn't supposed to be needed to do finds and copys in the shell to being able to work with your files.
Ok, so there are other things I need fixed. But this particular one is screaming in my face every day.
Spine World
I saw this article in akaimbatman's (I think that was his name) sig a while ago. Yep that's all I wanted to say.
No existe.
Only one thing should be changed: map /usr/share/doc readonly to $HOME/doc.
That should be enough for everyone. No need to worry about a complicated directory structure.
Thanks for your input, but I think you may be missing the point: GoboLinux is not replicating the Windows structure. We don't like the Windows dir structure either.
Under each program directory, what we have in GoboLinux is a Unix tree: /Programs/Bash/3.0/bin, /Programs/Bash/3.0/lib, etc. We compile programs with their own --prefix, for organizational purposes. It's the same reason why a user compiles "his/her stuff" in /usr/local rather than /usr -- so it doesn't get mixed up with system stuff... but then their various programs get mixed up in /usr/local. We're just taking this idea one step further, applying it to the whole system (and throwing versioning into it, while we're at it). Think /opt on steroids.
The goal of GoboLinux is not to make the fs tree "look prettier" or "more like Windows". It's a matter of organization. About the 'pretty' names (/Users, /System), we took the clue from NeXT, Mac OS X, RISC OS and many others before, and in fact it's a way very good way to avoid clashing with the ever-changing "standard" Linux tree (think /sys).
Exactly! Neither do we! And the thing is, the usual Linux structure also has binaries, libraries and config files scattered "all over the place" -- /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/X11R6/bin, /usr/X11R6/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /opt/bin, /opt/sbin... -- with no clear distinction of what should go where. Sure there are some vague rules, but given a program you can't tell a priori where it is [I know about the 'which' program, duh; I'm arguing about the principle of the layout]. Sure, in GoboLinux you'll have a hundred different ".../bin" directories, but there's a logic and deterministic way to determine what is where, and that is the file path: /Programs/Bash/3.1/bin/bash. (And no, the $PATH is not a hundred entries long, because we use symlink directories to index the system -- and you can use that to do 'reverse lookup' easily).
So, in GoboLinux we don't have the mess that is /windows/system (or whatever it's called these days) or the mess that is /usr/lib. Sure, the package managers try to, err, manage that mess in Linux. But isn't a better idea to have things layout properly instead?
Don't let the name "Programs" fool you into thinking of "Program Files". It works very differently. Well, I guess we should have picked a different name, if only to avoid this kind of confusions.
I hope I clarified some points, and thanks for checking out the project! :)
The filesystem is the package manager
This isn't about people "flocking to it". If you don't like it, don't use it. Linux is not for everyone. We can learn from criticism, and it's a laudable goal to make the operating system widely usable, but trying to foist it where it's not wanted is a losing game.
There was a time when I recommended Linux to anyone within earshot. That time is past. Ironically, some of the people who had Linux foisted onto them (not by me; my advocacy has its limits) have told me that they "finally got it right" with Ubuntu now. So perhaps it's time to upgrade, and see what the fuss is about.
Different tools for different tasks. I use Windows for Warcrafting. I use Linux for programming. (Although cygwin lets me get away with a lot on my Windows machine.)
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
And at least I didn't see him mentioning 9fs, only some db based filesystem; his page long ranting on directory layout, where apps install their files or even the package manager vs. individual apps (each in a folder) could be interesting... but he never seems to give an reasoning. Why is it a good idea to store docs in a DB instead of a normal file? Does he really think apps should be a single file containing everything (mounted by loopback?; this needs uid0!). Why create a 'new' /home/$USER in a DB, just because /bin, /usr, ... /$bla are too complicated? Just use a filemanager that allows to filter. Why blame linux [the kernel] or linux [the apps] for something either the distro-maker (or each user) _HAS_ to do.
In the end I think Linux would improve if a few Plan9 concepts where ported; maybe even a few ideas from MS or Apple, but personally I prefer rpm/deb to ZeroInstall, AppFolders or WhatEverTheRageIs.
And I didn't read anything about 'Beagle' as well (which I still know it as 'dashboard'), but what is KDE Plasma? The link is down, and TFA [a=author] didn't mention it...
Where did the fucking editor get the keywords? Out of his stupid ass?
If a user is too stupid to learn howto use Linux/a computer, then so be it. Not my problem. Shut up, go away... next question?
"...you're going to have to start acting like one"
Amen! Grandparent wants a free lunch and is childishly whinning about getting freedom (and free beer too) instead.
Exactly. I'm not blaming KDE here. It is more just the nature of the FOSS world at the moment. Most of the software I personally want to use isn't written with KDE or Gnome in mind. In the Mac, a program that isn't written in Cocoa nowadays is very rare. In the FOSS world, a program written using the KDE libraries are more the exception than the rule.
My desktop of the future runs linux+vmware or some other emulator. Processors are getting faster by the quarter as are the emulators.
I remember the first time I heard "D.C.L." All I knew what that this was used to track trouble tickets and Work Orders, and bugs with out in-house application. I didn't want to sound like an idiot so I just nodded my head when I heard "yadda yadda yadda yadda DCL yadda yadda yadda..." I finally had the balls to ask what the hell did DCL stand for. "Double Choco Latte". "What a freakin' strange name!" Now I can't imagine my work place without it. It keeps us sane! I will forever recommend DCL wherever I go. IT'S FREE TO!
What he said.
I am so sick of computers it's not funny. I don't want to know all the different idiosyncrasies I know anymore.
Like the parent suggests, users spend a lot of time working for the computer rather than letting the computer work for the user.
Everything should be easier.
and 8.2. I installed 8.2 a couple years back. At that time, the first problem I encountered was that it did not correctly support my USB keyboard. Then the printer (a common HP one) was not configured correctly. There was no 3-D support built in for my NVIDIA graphics card. Well, you all know the drill -- research each issue on the internet, find a solution -- all time consuming and irritating.
Well, I just upgraded to SUSE 9.3. And what do I see? My NVIDIA driver is uninstalled and replaced with one without 3-D support again. The provided YAST install of the 3-D driver fails, so I have to download the driver and do it all myself from the command line. The sound card is configured as "muted" by default.
Now, the errors with the keyboard and with the NVIDIA drivers were bugs in SUSE. Other issues included poor choices of default behavior. I am happy to put up with it all in order to have a LAMP platform to work with, how on earth is your average computer user going to deal with these issues? Every issue I had to fix involved using unix commands from the command line. 95% of your potential users would have know clue what to do. It is these minor technical barriers that infest most (all?) Linux distributions and kill Linux on the desktop. Microsoft used to use dirty tricks to trip up competitors with technical barriers that would frustrate users and destroy their competitors business. Fortunately for Microsoft, Linux vendors destroy their own business by creating their own unnecessary technical barriers.
instead of just griping about problems with Linux, how it compares to other systems and how everything sucks.
/. topic: "Why does Linux suck so much and why won't it ever get to where it needs to be". Alternatively, asking "How do I get to that spot" in a positive way will get you there without having to force yourself.
I haven't read a post that really discusses the article and that's a bad sign for Linux because the article is very good. Instead I've read posts that have a lot of off topic negativity in them.
To set up the rest of this post, I have to make a side-track. Your brain has the older, more powerful subconcious and the newer, less powerful conciousness. People who study the mind will know that the way they work together is that "you" ask your subconcious a question and it will come up with an answer.
If you ask a negative question, like why can't I score with chicks, your subconcious mind will think "ah, so not scoring with chicks is the subject" and come up with answers to your questions and will give answers and work towards the goal of not getting laid. This is the mentality I see in this
Another reason the positive is not discussed (apart from personalities focussing on the negative) is because some people have a subconcious resistance against progress within the Linux community because of the "payoff" they get from having cryptic knowledge. What do I mean? well there are certain advantages you gain by being in the small group that knows the archaic. You'll get an emotional kick when people say: "You're such an expert on Linux/PCs". People even make MONEY from being an expert on the cryptic and naturally, the selfish side of your subconcious will find subtle ways of convincing "you" that sabotaging change in the Linux system is a good thing. This self-delusion is perfectly normal in humans but aren't we striving for something better? Now that you know, please help humankind to go forward by giving humanity an ideal OS in the Free-Source way.
What the community needs to do instead of spouting negativity is to switch the "topic" to the positive, to the ideal situation that we want to end up with. Asking positive "how" questions will give results on the subject of our future Linux (and will make you happier during your life). Fortunately, the article of this topic has already spelled out the how and the ideal system. I'll be dreaming about this future version of Linux and anxiously waiting for the day that it'll be operational.
Linux is created bottom-up by a community of individuals instead of top-down like MacOS X is made by a company "dictator". The way forward, both for mentality of the community and of Linux. we have to spread the right ideals into the the community so that the bottom level of the development process will mostly work into the right, the positive direction which is towards the ideal, towards perfection. This process can only work if I can convince you with this post and that you convince others, the meme will spread from there. That's why people say, improving the world starts with you and that's especially true in the Linux world. THE ARTICLE IS EXCELLENT and is a good meme/link to spread!
Last point I want to make, It's true that PC users, not developers, choose an operating system based on the level of the UI and other high-level things, not on the level of what kind of kernel or what kind of file system is running underneath the things they see on screen. So on the level of Gnome, KDE and Aqua. However, everyone's overlooking GNUstep.
From the article:
1. Installing Applications is complicated
2. Directory structures can be confusing to navigate
3. Interface is confusing and inconsistent
4. Steep learning curve required to understand system functions
Most of these problems will go away if you install GNUstep on top of Linux. GNUstep is not just a thin shell around Linx in the way Gnome and KDE are, it creates a consistent environm
- -- Truth addict for life.
Uh, GCC 4.0? Not exactly stable production code -- that's a masked build even in Gentoo and will be for some time. Even the GCC devs don't advise using it yet because 3.4 is better optimized (4.0 is a better framework, but still lacks 3.4's optimizations).
.NET (not exactly the same thing as compiling a bunch of C++ code and dependent libraries, which isn't exactly a walk in the park under Windows either.)
So you're mixing your distro's base libraries, with random RPMs you find on the net, and with source-compiled stuff, and you're complaining things don't work 100%?
And your points of comparison are to RHEL (very limited set of very stable but 3-year-old software packages) and Windows
If you're building software from source like that you can't complain if it isn't as easy as a wizard or drag-and-drop. Plus, that totally misses the point of TFA, because it's absolutely NOT what grandma and aunt tilly want to do going to be trying to do with their computers. They aren't going to be trying to run DNS servers or build their own TiVos!
Seriously, you sound like a perfect candidate for Gentoo or a BSD -- you can mix and match stable and unstable versions of various things to your heart's content, and everything works.
MythTV's dependencies, like ffmpeg, mplayer and lame, aren't "exotic" at all, they just happen to be left out of Fedora/RHEL. But they're completely stable and have been included in all the open-source distros for years.
This is a 20-year retrograde step.
Why not look into ACLs, etc.
In fact, why bother with Linux kernel at all - there's nothing here relevant to Linux, it's just about "some kind of OS I would like to see" - let Linux get on with being Unixy and doing a good job at it. /bin, /usr, etc? How is this worse than "C:\Program Files\"?
Feel free to design a system (with or without a Linux kernel) which has your own bizarre filesystem config, because there's no way on earth that you'll get buy-in for some freakish filesystem layout for mainstream use.
Design your own distro with this config - feel free, you'll end up doing all your own packaging, and have even less developer support than Linspire get due to your weird and proprietary (not to mention fucking obscure and unusable) methods.
What is so evil about
As for the supposed fix for library support - everyone bundles every library with every application... there are still a *LOT* of people on dialup, and you totally gloss over the security implications.
So, let's review: An OS with random libraries installed all over the place, with no central control, no way of auditing the security, random config possibly based on some undefined "registry", I think you've just achieved the impossible - proposing a worse OS than Windows on Slashdot and actually getting it onto the front page!
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
1985: 1986 will be the year of the LAN
1986: 1987 will be the year of the LAN
1987: 1988 will be the year of the LAN
1988: 1989 will be the year of the LAN
1989: 1990 will be the year of the LAN
1990: 1991 will be the year of the LAN
1991: 1992 will be the year of the LAN
1992: 1993 will be the year of the LAN
1993 was not the year of the LAN. However 1993 was the year columnists realized that the LAN was everywhere despite never exploding. Linux will be the same, just around the corner from mass adaptation, until suddenly it is everywhere, yet there is no one year of linux.
I might not recall the exact years LAN started and ended as topics of "next years big thing", but it was around the ones I mentioned.
I suppose that XML is better at validating configuration settings so that they make sense (or fails to validate if they don't).
You should choose linux friendly hardware even if you decide linux isn't for you. By doing so you leave your options open should things change latter on.
Perhaps today linux isn't for you, but what about tommorrow? Your boss (might not be your current boss) may say you need to know linux for some project. Perhaps Microsoft donate money to fight your religion. Perhaps you will want to learn something new latter. Perhaps you will want a piece of the Linux job market that is currently (currently as of that day in the future, not today) paying better by a lot. Perhaps...
Even if none of the above come about, a medium or large company should insist on only Linux friendly hardware so that Microsoft does not dare to call their bluff when they ask for lower prices. If your hardware is linux friendly the only thing standing in the way of moving the company to linux is training, and that effort is generally overestimated (compared to training to move to the next Windows version). If Microsoft does not believe your threat is serious they are a monopoly and won't need to treat you like a valued customer.
I have to say, after moving back to WinXP after an enjoyable stay in OSX-land: while there is not nearly *as much* documentation lying around, the stuff there is tends to be written by intelligent, literate, unpaid types that care... it's of much higher quality, and is found easily through http://google.com/mac.html . Instead of poring through 12 forums, 53 web pages, and 13 semi-related articles at the MS "knowledge base", read two articles by people aware of each other's efforts, polite about it, and who are testing their fixes and responding to complaints.
It's sort of like the Linux setup I've seen, but with fewer portals into whole new subject areas which must be learned before you can apply the fix.
And goddamnit, I hate Windows. What a piece of shit. (But necessary app not ported to Linux yet, so... tough luck.)
fucking beautiful. why is this so hard for people to understand? what is non-obvious about it? why is the history and the structure obscuring the point?
Yes, heard of it. Used it when the installation docs with a package that uses configure told me to use it.
... I want it improved so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. More (end)user friendly as it were.
Hadn't heard of it when using a plain makefile. Do you mean that I should know that sort of stuff in order to install a software package? An admin should be expected to, but I'm not an admin (although I'm the only one who has the password for root on my machine), I'm an end-user.
This is what I am complaining about: needing to know things about makefiles when all I want is to install and use a software package. I feel I shouldn't have to know things like this.
Personally I don't mind learning about them, but that's not the point. The point is that its unhelpful and unfriendly of the software, take a lot of time to learn about if you didn't know, and therefore presents a significant barrier. I needed that JGR package for my work, and wasted 2 days installing it.
I don't want to bash Linux
In passing, but I'm not really interested in learning about it. Not until I absolutely have to.
... but I don't know about it, and neither did the developers of the libraries or the package.
But I'm all for Standards if that means that software packages install without a hitch.
My only reservation is: do software developers who distribute their software know?
At least one of the libraries or the package itself (I forgot which) didn't adhere to this standard. And that obligated me to dive in and figure it out.
I think that this sort of thing should be automated. Perhaps it is
sort -k1n isn't necessary; sort -n will so the exact same thing.
I was doing the du in a silly way before, though---I was writing du . --max-depth=1 to get a first-level directory structure. Doing the -s * is much less typing. Thanks!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
About your points:
1) I believe that if I can program, I have the right to call myself 'computer literate'. And I did get that package installed in the end.
2) Read my post please. Editing the makefile was an attempt to make the package aware of where the libraries were.
3,4) Message not understood. Please clarify.
Hint: it benefits legibility if you start sentences with capitals. It's easy: just press the key while you press the key for a letter and it will appear capitalised. Try it!
When I was a student, I worked at different machines all day, and ssh'd into my dorm computer to do various things. I kinda wish I'd known about screen at that point, because I wouldn't have had to kill vim whenever I moved to another computer and forgot to shut it down on my dorm computer.
What I really could have used at the time was a D-BUS like method for instant messaging. I could just ls -lart the logs directory to see when I'd gotten my last message, and tail the newer logs to see what I'd been sent, but I couldn't respond without walking back there. Being able to do something like (not having ever used d-bus or DCOP or whatever, I'm making this up) dcop imer send bob_at_work "I'm stuck at the lab for another hour; I should be back around six." would have been terrifically useful.
Even more useful would have been connecting a basic IM client to an instance running on my computer, so I could have contiguous logs and whatnot.
Music Player Daemon seems like an interesting idea, but uses its own control architecture. What a pain it would be to do that for every application that one wanted to control remotely or from the command line.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
The only packages I've actually compiled were obscure little utilities that a casual user would be unlikely to use (a nifty antialiasing DVI rasterizer and a PNG optimizer). Everything else, the distribution provides. Debian has what, ten thousand packages available in its stable distribution? Unless you're running a bleeding-edge copy of transcode, when was the last time a major app (like gaim or firefox) wasn't available from your distribution?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Hmm. . . And how difficult is it to parse *.ini files?
I'm all for integration and interoperability, but I don't think you're on the right tack here. Glomming a variety of applications which do fundamentally different things together seems like a brittle idea.
It's a false simplicity. Ignoring the idea of apps by sweeping them under the carpet and pretending they don't exist isn't the road to usability---it's the road to monolithic, irreducible complexity. There's a reason we have small programs that do one thing, and do them well.
On the other hand, Konqueror's KParts architecture may be part of what you're looking for. A lot of documents will simply open in Konqueror instead of launching their own applications. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? Because that's one way of keeping things modular while still integrating them.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
... on my blog before this article was written
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.