Rickford Grant Interview

Yin and Yang by ackthpt · 2005-09-14 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

As for whether or not there is a place for Windows in the computing world... well, I would definitely say yes. I don't like Windows, and, from what I've heard and read, I don't particularly like Mr. Bill [Gates], but you have to give credit where credit is due. If it weren't for the Gates gang, I really doubt the personal computer world would be where it is today.

This is also is a strong reason why Linux, MacOS, etc, get better. Without Microsoft's machinations there wouldn't be much motivation for innovation. Imagine a world where the PC actually died out due to the superior interface and usability of the Mac, yet the Mac remained expensive and advanced slowly, painstakingly.

[On the arrive of Vista/IE7]Also, the fact that Vista will reportedly only work on machines with accelerated graphics might also cause some folks lacking in that department to take a second look at the Linux option.

Or in our case stagnate at XP for years to come.

The author is a strong supporter of desktop Linux and has been getting quite a bit of attention for his views on the subject." "Steve, hire him and put him in the office next to ESR."

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Yin and Yang by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 05:33 · Score: 0

Imagine a world where the PC actually died out due to the superior interface and usability of the Mac

Well, let's start with imagining Macs that are not ridiculously overpriced and overpowered.

Then, we can revisit the issue of usability (a one-button mouse does not make a Mac more usable, not even if you are a die-hard Steve Jobs cock-gobbing Mac-apologist).

100 points to the Apple-astroturfs for getting their bullshit on the front-page once more, though.
Re:Yin and Yang by Alioth · 2005-09-14 05:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, I don't think it needed Microsoft or the PC.

When the Mac was storming ahead in the 1980s, if the PC had faded into obscurity, there were many other architectures that could have quite easily become what the PC eventually did. Capable computers like the Acorn Archimedes running RiscOS, the Amiga, Atari - any one of those could have easily burgeoned had the IBM PC failed.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:Yin and Yang by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 05:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

If it weren't for the Gates gang, I really doubt the personal computer world would be where it is today I remember OS/2 and NeXT from the early 90s. I thank the Gates gang is why we are were we are today...and that's not a good thing.
Re:Yin and Yang by Bogtha · 2005-09-14 06:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

If it weren't for the Gates gang, I really doubt the personal computer world would be where it is today.

So true. It would be much further along.

If Microsoft hadn't crushed DR-DOS, perhaps Digital Research would have come out with something better than Windows. If Microsoft hadn't crushed Netscape, perhaps Netscape's vision of network applications in the vein of XUL would have come along years earlier. If Microsoft hadn't included illegally copied software in DOS from Stac Electronics, perhaps Apple would have been able to compete more effectively and brought us a stable operating system years before Microsoft managed to do it. If Microsoft hadn't conned their way into a cheap deal for Mosaic, perhaps Internet Explorer wouldn't have the death grip it has on the market, and perhaps web developers would be able to use CSS, PNG, HTML, HTTP, etc without being held back by Internet Explorer's flaws.

Without Microsoft's machinations there wouldn't be much motivation for innovation.

Without Microsoft's machinations, there would be much more possibility for innovation. It's pretty hard to innovate when the biggest software company in the world is willing to break the law and use all of its resources to crush competition.

The number of things Microsoft have done to destroy and hold back competition is mind-boggling. I have no problems believing that if another company, run by people who weren't quite so willing to break the law, had been in the same position as Microsoft, the computer industry would be much further along.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:Yin and Yang by ackthpt · 2005-09-14 06:08 · Score: 1

When the Mac was storming ahead in the 1980s,
The Mac was hardly storming ahead. The computer was seriously expensive and IIRC Apple's discounts to educators, which got them firmly inside the door with education, had dwindled. Apple was nearly complacent. If they'd been highly aggressive, Bill Gates would probably have shifted Microsoft to Office Automation.
if the PC had faded into obscurity, there were many other architectures that could have quite easily become what the PC eventually did. Capable computers like the Acorn Archimedes running RiscOS, the Amiga, Atari - any one of those could have easily burgeoned had the IBM PC failed.
I never encountered the Acorn, but the Amiga was highly promising, if not for the catastrophic marketing blunders, it could have seized a large chunk of the market. One former Amiga employees described the company's marketing strategy as something akin to
"Ready!
Fire!
Aim!"
As for the Atari ST, a decent computer, but the company behind it had even less savvy in marketing to businesses than Commodore. Commodore at least did sell PC clones, whereas Atari was known almost exclusively as a video game company. They really should have spun a new company name for the brand and distanced it from games if they wanted to attract customers who would see it as more than a toy. The ST survived largely as a choice for musicians, while the Amiga was an economical choice for video specialists (thanks to the Video Toaster)

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Yin and Yang by caspper69 · 2005-09-14 06:29 · Score: 1

If Microsoft hadn't included illegally copied software in DOS from Stac Electronics, perhaps Apple would have been able to compete more effectively and brought us a stable operating system years before Microsoft managed to do it.

You're kidding right? What in the hell does stealing a drive compression routine for DOS, a 16-bit, non-protected, single threaded operating system have to do with Apple delivering us a stable operating system? Or Microsoft for that matter? More likely, if Mac customers had been clamoring for a true multithreaded, protected operating system then Apple would have delivered it, rather than sitting on their asses for six years talking about Taligent, Pink, Copeland, and all the other pipe dreams that never materialized into anything. And if Mac customers had not continued to fork over inflated prices for underpowered machines, then Apple would have been forced sooner. Don't underestimate market forces. MS and Apple haven't competed directly against one another in about 12 years. If you want a Mac, buy a Mac.. We've still got Office @ $499!

If Microsoft hadn't conned their way into a cheap deal for Mosaic, perhaps Internet Explorer wouldn't have the death grip it has on the market, and perhaps web developers would be able to use CSS, PNG, HTML, HTTP, etc without being held back by Internet Explorer's flaws.

The problem with standards and everything else OSS folks bitch about is that you folks don't understand: standards don't mean shit. They really don't. No for profit entity has ever strived for interoperability unless it was in their absolute best interest. He who has the money and the marketshare makes the standards. Period. It's that way in every facet of capitalism, whether it be computers or prosthetic limbs. Gosh, I hope many slashdotters never become entrepeneurs. You'll get eaten for breakfast. Some of the things in our society make Gates & Co. seem like angels. The problem is you're too busy reading slashdot and not busy enough reading about the corporate culture in the rest of America. As crooked as they've been, I doubt Bill Gates has ever taken millions of dollars illegally, lied to investors, inflated numbers, then skipped town when the shit hit the fan. Give me a break.

Sorry for yelling...
Re:Yin and Yang by rumblin'rabbit · 2005-09-14 06:30 · Score: 1

I find many people seem prone to categorizing everything as either good or evil:

Good Companies: IBM, Google, Apple
Evil Companies: Microsoft, SCO

And let's not even start with people's opinions on George W. Bush.
The idea that such categorization is not only wrong, but actually harmful to clear thinking, seems to send some into apoplectic shock. It's refreshing to hear from a Linux advocate who doesn't view Bill Gates as The Great Satan.
Re:Yin and Yang by Bogtha · 2005-09-14 06:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

What in the hell does stealing a drive compression routine for DOS, a 16-bit, non-protected, single threaded operating system have to do with Apple delivering us a stable operating system?

Did the drive compression add value to Microsoft's operating system? Could the added value conceivably have cost Apple sales? If Apple had a better position in the market with more money, could they have done better?

My point was that Microsoft broke the law numerous times in order to gain an unfair advantage over companies that could have outperformed them if Microsoft hadn't have broken the law.

standards don't mean shit. They really don't. No for profit entity has ever strived for interoperability unless it was in their absolute best interest.

Before Internet Explorer came on the scene, there was at least a little healthy competition in the browser market. With no browser having 90%+ market share, interoperability was in everybody's best interests.

He who has the money and the marketshare makes the standards. Period. It's that way in every facet of capitalism, whether it be computers or prosthetic limbs.

Rich people and rich organisations are not above the law and should still be held accountable for their actions.

Some of the things in our society make Gates & Co. seem like angels.

Completely irrelevent. Transgressions of unrelated organisations do not have the slightest bearing on whether or not Microsoft held back the computer industry.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:Yin and Yang by colenski · 2005-09-14 06:46 · Score: 1

Atari *did* make an MSDOS clone and it sold decently enough. As for ST's, I personally sold 100 1040's to a large financial institution in Alberta in '87, where they were used as glorified WYSE terminals. At the time, things were wide open, nobody knew which way things were going to go, and in '88 or '89 I think the Alberta government bought several hundred Next boxes for their front line DMV workers. Their app? Telnet to the mainframe! What a waste.
Re:Yin and Yang by Zathrus · 2005-09-14 07:39 · Score: 1

If Microsoft hadn't crushed DR-DOS, perhaps Digital Research would have come out with something better than Windows

And perhaps they wouldn't have. Given that Digital Research wasn't exactly going anywhere with graphical UIs, I rather doubt it.

DR-DOS was vastly superior to MS-DOS, no question. But it came out toward the end of DOS's lifespan.

If Microsoft hadn't crushed Netscape, perhaps Netscape's vision of network applications in the vein of XUL would have come along years earlier

Or, more likely, we'd still be stuck with the craptacular Netscape 4.x and 6.x releases that were so godawful bad that Internet Explorer was an massive improvement. And before you forget, the Netscape source code was quite closed source for some time after Netscape had ceased being a factor in the market. It wasn't until it was open sourced (due to nearly no value in the existing code base) and completely scrapped and rewritten by the Mozilla Foundation that it became better. And even then it was several years until Mozilla (or derivatives) was truely in a position to challenge IE. Yeah, I've been using Mozilla for years (and Firefox more recently since the Seamonkey suite has behaviors I despise), but up until about a year or so ago the compatability wasn't high enough to recommend it to non-geeks.

BTW, your other statement about browser dominance is deeply, deeply wrong. Prior to IE4 Netscape had a >90% market share. I very much remember despairing at the lack of Netscape on OS/2 because it meant we didn't have a browser worth a shit -- you'd have to run Netscape in a Win16 session. IBM's own browser was nifty, but late to the game.

If Microsoft hadn't included illegally copied software in DOS from Stac Electronics, perhaps Apple

Wow, you really had to stretch there didn't you. While what MS did was extremely wrong, the only company it really impacted was Stac (and it nearly destroyed them). Apple was in no position to improve its market share. IBM may have been, but OS/2 had its own raft of problems (and I ran OS/2 2.x as my sole OS for 3 years). And, again, the drive compression bit occurred just as it was becoming a non-issue. Hard drive prices started falling shortly thereafter and nowadays software based on-the-fly compression of volumes is hardly considered a significant feature.

If Microsoft hadn't conned their way into a cheap deal for Mosaic

Ah, they conned how? Kindly be explict in how they somehow got such a different deal than any other licensee.

perhaps web developers would be able to use CSS, PNG, HTML, HTTP, etc without being held back by Internet Explorer's flaws

No, they'd merely be held back by a close-sourced Netscape run by AOL instead. My, that would be so much better wouldn't it?

It's pretty hard to innovate when the biggest software company in the world is willing to break the law and use all of its resources to crush competition.

And yet it happens anyway. I despise MS's business practices as well, you've put forth an incredibly weak case for saying that it would be "further along". We would either end up with a single OS dominating the landscape again -- decent odds on OS/2 -- or we'd have a massively fragmented landscape split over incompatible processors and operating systems. We already know what happens in either case -- people get annoyed at the monopoly despite (or because of) its success, and the highly varied systems end up stagnating due to a lack of focus, difficulty of development, and reduced development resources (c.f. - x86 vs everyone else and Unix variants for the last 30 years).

I have no problems believing that if another company, run by people who weren't quite so willing to break the law, had been in the same position as Microsoft, the computer industry would be much further along.

Yes, because IBM would've been such a kinder, gentler overlord. That is who would be in control if it wasn't for MS. And MS learned deceptive business practices from the master of the game.
Re:Yin and Yang by Hognoxious · 2005-09-14 07:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Imagine a world where people don't hard code the absolute width of text columns. Or where there's a nice link to a printer-friendly version.
It's not Mr Firstname-looks-like-a-surname's world, apparently.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Yin and Yang by Bloke+down+the+pub · 2005-09-14 07:54 · Score: 1

I find many people seem prone to categorizing everything as either good or evil
Fascinating. I find that some people are prone to that, and others aren't.

--
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Re:Yin and Yang by Bogtha · 2005-09-14 08:30 · Score: 1

Given that Digital Research wasn't exactly going anywhere with graphical UIs, I rather doubt it.
DR-DOS 5 had a cut down version of the GEM GUI. There's no reason to assume that wouldn't have led anywhere.

If Microsoft hadn't crushed Netscape, perhaps Netscape's vision of network applications in the vein of XUL would have come along years earlier
Or, more likely, we'd still be stuck with the craptacular Netscape 4.x and 6.x releases that were so godawful bad that Internet Explorer was an massive improvement.
The reason why Netscape 6.x was so bad was because the Mozilla project gave in to the geeks and decided that, although the world had been quite happily implementing GUI applications for years, not-invented-here was a terrible curse, and so they felt the need to develop their own GUI toolkit based on XML and Javascript.
If the Mozilla project was driven by actual business needs of a competitive browser vendor, I think it's very likely it would not have fallen into this trap. Netscape no longer being such a competitive browser vendor is directly attributable to Microsoft's illegal actions.

up until about a year or so ago the compatability wasn't high enough to recommend it to non-geeks.
Comptibility with what exactly? Internet Explorer oddities. Oddities that wouldn't exist had Microsoft not been in the market. This is another example of Microsoft's presence in the market holding back competitors. If Mozilla didn't need to be compatible with such code, you'd have been able to recommend it to non-geeks sooner.

BTW, your other statement about browser dominance is deeply, deeply wrong. Prior to IE4 Netscape had a >90% market share.
I don't think that's right. There were lots of browsers about in those days that people don't generally remember nowadays. Evolt has archived dozens. A contemporary article lists Internet Explorer as having 25% of the market during Internet Explorer 3.0 times. I don't think any browser prior to Internet Explorer attained 90% market share (not counting the early days, of course).

Wow, you really had to stretch there didn't you.
See my response to the other guy about that. I didn't mean to imply that the Stac infringement was directly linked to Apple, I was just giving it as another example of an unfair advantage over compteitors due to illegal action.

nowadays software based on-the-fly compression of volumes is hardly considered a significant feature.
I was just reading a comment yesterday about how great it is that Reiser4 will include this as a plugin.

If Microsoft hadn't conned their way into a cheap deal for Mosaic
Ah, they conned how?
At the time, browsers were applications businesses paid for. Microsoft "paid" for licensing Mosaic in part with royalties from Internet Explorer profits, neglecting to mention the salient fact that they were going to give it away for free. A cut of zero profits doesn't add up to a lot. And then they included it in Windows and charged for it too. Microsoft eventually settled for $8 million after being threatened with a contractual audit by Spyglass.

perhaps web developers would be able to use CSS, PNG, HTML, HTTP, etc without being held back by Internet Explorer's flaws
No, they'd merely be held back by a close-sourced Netscape run by AOL instead.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:Yin and Yang by xpyr · 2005-09-16 11:05 · Score: 1

[On the arrive of Vista/IE7]Also, the fact that Vista will reportedly only work on machines with accelerated graphics might also cause some folks lacking in that department to take a second look at the Linux option.

Wrong. If you don't have an accelerated graphics chip, then you'll just use the software accelerated gui instead of it being hardware accelerated. It's optional, not a requirement. Not even the latest Mac OS X, doesn't require you to have a accelerated graphics chip for its gui.

--
My Gawd WTF...

Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 05:20 · Score: 0

Why is every Windows user not on Linux?

Some don't care, others don't know, others are afraid to try.

How about "Some don't care, others don't know, others are afraid to try, some need Windows for certain software, and the rest lack the technological prowess to use Google to help themselves" ?

Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 05:24 · Score: 1, Funny

And the rest have motherboard RAID, and don't feel like playing 'Linux installation Russian roulette', a fun game where you get to see whether your chosen Linux distribution screws over all your data or just the boot sector.
Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 05:46 · Score: 1, Interesting

So what you mean is motherboard RAID under Linux isn't a problem as long as you don't use it and use Linux software RAID instead. For those who already have data on motherboard RAID partitions, they might as well give up.

It's attitudes like this to certain pretty common features that stop Linux being 'ready' for the desktop. There isn't one installer out there that properly supports motherboard RAID.

Another is the insistance of many Linux distros of leaving out proprietary content like functionality to play MP3s and DVD movies. The average user doesn't care about the reasons, and just wants to put a disc in the machine and have it work. Forcing them to jump through hoops and type a bunch of stuff at the command line just to download the required codecs is a sure way to put them off Linux for good.
Re:Hmm by ghukov · 2005-09-14 05:49 · Score: 0

most home users looking to go to linux from windows that have motherboard raid are actually running 'software raid' specific to windows. I think if they are using raid already on windows, they ought to be savvy enough to figure it out. (or at least back up their pr0n before overhauling the OS)

--
...because Plutonians are teh suck
Re:Hmm by CrazedWalrus · 2005-09-14 06:13 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, the Data screws YOU!
Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 07:07 · Score: 0

There are a millions of Windows users who use their computers for nothing other than web browsing and maybe a game of solitaire. Not everyone is ripping DVDs, writing doctoral dissertations, remixing hip hop. Folks who use just a few basic applications are ideal candidates for Linux use. Once Linux is setup, it remains robust and stable with very little extra effort.
Re:Hmm by gauauu · 2005-09-14 13:06 · Score: 1

Or how about "even after hours digging on google, ubuntu still wouldn't recognize my wireless card. I'll use an OS that lets me use my wireless."

Technical Subjects by Brainix · 2005-09-14 05:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

My dad doesn't know as much about computers as I do. Whenever he asks a technical question, he reminds me, "Simplify, but don't over-simplify."

From this interview, it looks like Rickford Grant knows what he's talking about, but crosses the line into over-simplification.

I don't think I'll recommend this book.

--
Raj Against the Machine! http://social-butterfly.appspot.com/

Re:Technical Subjects by ghukov · 2005-09-14 05:31 · Score: 0

yeah it looks to me (from TFA) like he is just hoping to generate book sales based on the book's title. I didn't really see anything in there that you couldn't find out using a simple google query.

--
...because Plutonians are teh suck
Re:Technical Subjects by mblase · 2005-09-14 05:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

Whenever he asks a technical question, he reminds me, "Simplify, but don't over-simplify."

I think he's paraphrasing Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Re:Technical Subjects by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2005-09-14 06:08 · Score: 1

And Einstein was apparently trying to say something like "Be careful, Occam's razor is very sharp."

--
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Re:Technical Subjects by oringo · 2005-09-14 07:25 · Score: 1

Quote: "From this interview, it looks like Rickford Grant knows what he's talking about, but crosses the line into over-simplification. I don't think I'll recommend this book."

Why don't you try making a recommendation after actually reading the book? And to the person who modded the parent "insightful", do you not understand the difference between reading an interview and reading a book? His comments make no didilo sense at all.

Nice interview by MaestroSartori · 2005-09-14 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's always interesting to hear other people's opinions. One bit I felt a need to comment on was the following:

Interviewer: Why is every Windows user not on Linux?

Grant: Some don't care, others don't know, others are afraid to try.

Some of us do care, know all too well, and haven't been afraid to try - but our apps just aren't on Linux. In my case, one remarkably lovely music app keeps me using Windows. I also have no idea if Linux supports my Terratec sound card, but it probably does. Last time I used Linux audio was problematic to say the least, but that was around Mandrake 9 and with a Soundblaster, so it may well have changed for the better.

It's all about the apps, sometimes people seem forget that. If all the apps that a given person needs are available, and are easy enough to use, they'll probably be entirely happy on whatever OS they end up with. For someone with a specific itch to scratch, that isn't always the case...

--
Game dev and music blog

Re:Nice interview by ettlz · 2005-09-14 05:34 · Score: 1

Check to see if your Terratec card is listed here. However, I will admit that getting sound "right" under Linux with some of the high-end cards can be tricky (my brother's machine has an Envy24-based card).
Re:Nice interview by 110010001000 · 2005-09-14 05:34 · Score: 1

And also some people believe that Windows offers a better solution for them than any Linux distribution. The main reason though is that Windows ships as the default OS on most computers. Until that situation changes there is hardly any opportunity for Linux on the desktop.
Re:Nice interview by alcmaeon · 2005-09-14 05:36 · Score: 1

I don't use Windows, but I don't use Linux either. The reasons are pretty much the same. If Windows is the benchmark standard by which all configuration pains in the ass are measured, then Linux is at least a 3xWindows on that scale.
At least, if I were to use Windows, I could play games.
Re:Nice interview by eno2001 · 2005-09-14 05:39 · Score: 1

Yeah... I would say that the ALSA (Advanced Linux Sound Architecture) project being intergrated into the Linux kernel is going a long way to improving the audio experience beyond what Windows can ever offer. (With the exception of audio boards that aren't supported by ALSA for the usual corporate non-disclosure reasons) I have a semi-pro audio system (Echo Layla 20) that wasn't supported fully (I needed MIDI, not just audio) for a while so I still had to run XP. But now, I've been able to ditch it and the only thing that keeps me on Windows is video editing. Of course, per my latest journal entry I am trying Cinelerra in the hopes that I can finally ditch that one last reason to run Windows. Everything else that I do (and there is a lot) can be done in Linux and I only need Windows for that last thing.

--
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Re:Nice interview by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 05:44 · Score: 0

Everyone is missing the point due to the fact you wondered if you certain sound card is supported in Linux.

The more important point here (in his case) is Ableton Live (which my brother uses, and it totally kicks ass) doesn't run in Linux.
Re:Nice interview by slashflood · 2005-09-14 05:57 · Score: 2, Informative

I know, that nothing comes close to Ableton Live, but I like the combination of seq24, ZynAddSubFX and LinuxSampler. I haven't tried FreeWheeling so far, but it looks very interesting. Absolutely not comparable to Live, but a very interesting approach.
Re:Nice interview by kfg · 2005-09-14 05:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

One of the issues here is not to ask "does it run my app?," but rather to ask "does it do this?"

Often the answer is, "Yes. Yes it does; and here's how."

Since Linux is structured as a workplace for engineers, rather than as a platform for application sales, it uses the "tool" metaphor, rather than the "app" metaphor. It doesn't have a machine that cranks out chairs at the touch of a button. It's got table saws and drill presses and screw drivers, but. . .

it's also got the means to automate the tools to be a machine that cranks out chairs at the touch of a button.

It doesn't have a machine to crank out chairs, it's a machine to crank out machines.

But here's the kicker; we share the machines.

And the tools, which, since they are independant of the "app" are independantly upgradable. You only have one spell checking tool on your system which all of your "apps" share. Only one dictionary to maintain, only one set of commands to learn, and if a better one comes along you just swap it out and every "app" instantly has a better spell checker. Just like buying a better table saw instead of buying a new chair making machine to make squarer cuts, although perhaps drill poorer holes.

But if you ask if a particular "app" has spell checking, from the Windows user point of view the answer will be "no."

The problem is that from a Windows user point of view they don't look like what you expect an "app" to look like, although they perform the same function.

Think function, not app.

But sometimes, you're right, the answer is also,"No, Linux does not perform that function yet, because the function is a Windows app."

Just not as often as most people think.

KFG
Re:Nice interview by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 05:59 · Score: 0

It's always interesting to hear other people's opinions

Well, you've certainly come to the right place.
Re:Nice interview by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 06:26 · Score: 0

There are very good apps available for Linux that aren't for Windows or MacOS, and some available for MacOS that aren't for Windows or Linux... I guess it just depends how hard you looked. While switching it took me a while to find favourite applications again, but I found them, and even consider other applications for other OSes to be missing features that seemed obvious in the Linux version as soon as I started using them. I guess the same could be said of any platform though.
Re:Nice interview by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2005-09-14 06:38 · Score: 1

It's all about the apps, sometimes people seem forget that. If all the apps that a given person needs are available, and are easy enough to use, they'll probably be entirely happy on whatever OS they end up with.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. I run many apps on many OS's. Sometimes I run the same app on several OS's and sometimes I run different applications to do the same thing on different OS's. Saying it is all about the apps, however, is discounting all the functionality included in OS's. Technically copying a file from one place to another is a function that is usually handled by the OS (although you could argue that is an application on that OS). The thing is, OS's provide a base level of functionality including managing other applications, the basic UI, the filesystem, networking, user accounts, allowing apps to interact with one another, etc., etc.

These functions are often some of the most used on a computer. There is a great deal of difference between OS's as to how well they provide this functionality and what it entails.

Managing networking, for example is very different on different OS's. On Windows multiple network services that are not intended to be accessed remotely are required to run at all times. This is one of the reasons Windows is so subject to attacks by internet worms. It has some poorly designed networking. Other OS's not only have better networking security, but implement newer networking protocols for auto-discovery of network services. This is why when you plug in a newer network printer some OS's automatically find it and add it to your available printers while others do not.

Searching is big right now. On some OS's you can search for a term not only in filenames, but also within the text of documents in myriad formats. In some OS's searching is very fast because everything is pre-indexed by the filesystem, while others it is glacially slow.

Then there is how well the OS allows apps to work with on another. If one application includes a grammar checker, can other apps use that functionality? Can they do so without copying and pasting text back and forth? Without having to run the whole application that has grammar checking? What about bug fixes? Does fixing a bug in a library used by one application fix it in others as well, or do you need to get a new copy of every application that relies upon that library?

What about downloading, installing, uninstalling, copying, and upgrading applications? Some OS's make all that easy and make sensible choices to prevent trojans from masquerading as data, while others make some or all of these tasks impossible. Windows, for example, makes it nearly impossible to copy an app from one machine to another, or one volume to another. With other OS's you just copy and paste.

To summarize, it is not "all about the apps." It is all about the functionality as a whole. Which combination of OS(es) and apps is best to accomplish that tasks you want to get done. For some of us, that is a fairly large number of OS's and apps. The problem is there is no one OS that is best for everything, and every OS has serious limitations. After using multiple OS's most people develop a favorite base OS and often wish they could run particular applications from another OS on it to simplify things. Having run dozens of OS's I can say there are few things more annoying than needing to use an OS for a task it is unsuited.
Re:Nice interview by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 07:01 · Score: 0

In his specific example, the answer is no.
Re:Nice interview by MaestroSartori · 2005-09-14 09:01 · Score: 1

Fair points, but some of them seem to miss what I was getting at...

I understand that each OS has its own strengths and weaknesses, but I think you overestimate exactly how much difference there is in some respects, and oversimplify others.

The networking aspect, yes, you're entirely correct.

Searching is, I think, a red herring - there are advanced search applications of the type you discuss on both Windows and MacOS, I don't know about Linux et al but assume there is. I'd also say that file systems optimised for searching may not be the best thing in all circumstances, but that's a very minor point.

Application interaction is another - as far as I know, all Windows applications are free, if they wish, to use and share DLLs. I know Linux apps can do the same, but don't know anything about Apple development although again I assume it's possible. However, it's a developer's choice as to whether they enable this sort of thing, and closed-source apps probably don't allow it as much as open source ones.

Finally, Windows doesn't make it much more impossible to copy apps around than any other OS. Developers might choose to use things like the registry instead of config files which make it considerably harder, but it's wrong to say that the OS doesn't allow it. With many apps, you *can* just copy them somewhere else and have them work.

I agree with your general point that the functionality as a whole is what counts, but I still think that as long as the underlying OS is "good enough" to allow the required apps to run, most people will be happy enough. After all, what would you rather have - a limited OS which has enough apps to allow you to do what you want, or a perfect OS with no practical application?

(note - writing your own apps deliberately ignored, I am a programmer too y'know!) :)

--
Game dev and music blog
Re:Nice interview by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2005-09-14 09:27 · Score: 1

Windows doesn't make it much more impossible to copy apps around than any other OS. Developers might choose to use things like the registry instead of config files which make it considerably harder, but it's wrong to say that the OS doesn't allow it. With many apps, you *can* just copy them somewhere else and have them work.

As far as I know this only works for java and very simple programs. The truth of the matter is, windows does not allow for the practical encapsulation of resources within a program executable, nor for the easy saving of preferences and configuration on a per user basis. You could probably create some sort of weird hack to encapsulate all the resources needed by a program, but then those resources would be very difficult to get to for users.

The upshot of this is I drag MS Word.app for the mac onto a network drive and run it from a different machine. I can't do that with Windows.

I still think that as long as the underlying OS is "good enough" to allow the required apps to run, most people will be happy enough. After all, what would you rather have - a limited OS which has enough apps to allow you to do what you want, or a perfect OS with no practical application?

I'd rather have the perfect OS, since then I would not need applications. But pipe dreams aside, The OS is the base and the facilitator. The user experience relies heavily upon the security, stability, and functionality of the OS. If the OS does not allow apps to share functionality, does not enable them to search the filesystem quickly, does not allocate resource to them properly then the end user experience suffers.

Anyone who has tried to use a Windows system for heavy multitasking, or who just wanted their spellchecker to be available in every bit of text they can see is aware of how much the OS affects them. On a Linux box I can rapidly move and intelligently rename a thousand files with a one line regular expression. On OS X I can lookup any word I can highlight in a thesaurus. On Windows I can find applications designed for certain specialty tasks. All of those are things I want to do regularly and as a result I use multiple OS's. I guess I would argue that I don't think most OS's are "good enough" to be ignored most of the time. I often have to try to think of a way to do something in one OS that is trivially simple in another. Until I stop having to worry about what OS I'm using and what it makes it hard or impossible for me to do, I'm not willing to to call it "good enough" and I think it a a very poor and irresponsible view for others.
Re:Nice interview by online-shopper · 2005-09-15 03:05 · Score: 1

Dunno what you're talking about, I can play all kinds of games on my linux box, NWN, Unreal Tournament, Majesty, Most of Lucas Arts storyline games(sam n max, full throttle, etc), many of the Humoungous storyline games(Pajama Sam, the fox set, Freddi Fish, etc) at least it's not like a mac, where you get to play Photoshop, and that number game.
Re:Nice interview by alcmaeon · 2005-09-16 09:53 · Score: 1

Oh, so you can play all the latest PC games on your Linux box? Sure, when you reboot it in Windows.
I don't think anyone would confuse Linux with a good gaming platform. That doesn't mean that some old games haven't been ported over, it just means you can't play all the latest and greatest.
Believe me, I'm not touting the Mac as a good gaming platform either, but it is at least as good as Linux.
Re:Nice interview by online-shopper · 2005-09-17 02:39 · Score: 1

*all* of the latest games? no, again, Unreal Tournament ships with binaries on the CD(and I mean 2004 and 2005, not the original) ID ships linux binaries on their stuff too. World of Warcraft isn't exactly old either. Yeah quite a few of the games I are older games, but that doesn't mean they're not fun.
Re:Nice interview by alcmaeon · 2005-09-19 14:51 · Score: 1

No argument about old games not being fun. I still like Ultima II. But, being able to play old games doesn't make Linux a gaming platform. Neither does a handful of new games. For that matter, neither does sucky sound support. LOL

Re:Over-under... by Shadow+Wrought · 2005-09-14 05:28 · Score: 1

Over/Under?

Figure this topic gets 250 posts. I'd guess that at least 40 but no more than 80 will comment on it already being a viable desktop. Now, the Insightful to Troll ratio, now that's where the action is.

--
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?

Re:Over-under... by temojen · 2005-09-14 05:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Whose desktop?

Linux vs Windows by Daveznet · 2005-09-14 05:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

It sounds like he knows what hes talking about, even though he is not a fan of Microsoft he knows when to give credit when its due. Microsoft did help revolutionize the Computer Industry as we know it today whether it was for the good or bad. What I belive is that use an operating system that meets your needs, if you are gonna be playing alot of games and watching movies and surfing the web then sure go with windows , if you are going to be doing some hardcore development where you need access to alot of open source applications and need more control of your system then Linux is the way to go. Its all about going with what suits your needs.

--
GL HF!

More importantly by DogDude · 2005-09-14 05:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't forget that there's a large contingent of us who know that Linux is out there, but simply don't care. I know it's out there, I know that some people like it, but I really don't care enough to spend time trying to Google help for an OS when the current one I have (Windows 2000) isn't broken. If some Linux zealot were to approach me, foaming at the mouth about "Linuxth", my response would be "Why should I bother? I've got better things to do." It's on par with a mechanic insisting that people have to switch to Wankel rotary engines because they're better. 99.99% of people are gonna shrug their shoulders and say: "so what?"

--
I don't respond to AC's.

Re:More importantly by ruben.gutierrez · 2005-09-14 05:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

For some people, Linux is one of their "better things to do." You're right, noboby should try to convince you of anything, especially if you're already convinced otherwise. But, if you have an idea in which implementing Linux could save you or your customers a bundle of money, Googling for help with the OS is not a waste of time.
Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 05:52 · Score: 0

First of all, I disagree. The Wankel rotary engines really sucks.

All your other points I agree with. My problem with linux, having tried it on the desk top is that it's just not a desktop environment. It was awesome for development, but when I needed those other things, even if they were working, which was not always, they were clumsy and quite frankly buggy as hell. Terribly inconsistent user interfaces.

Quick Example: In Firefox on Linux, the OK and Cancel buttons are reversed... why? It's annoying, makes you prone to mistakes. I know you can alter this-and-that setting to fix it, but I can't be bothered to alter settings every time something like that happens. That goes for all the little config file editing and setting thingymajiggers you have to do. It's really alot to ask of a user who just wants to work. I'm a linux USER not a linux ADMINISTRATOR. That's where things go wrong. Linux kind of requires everyone to have admin type thinking and knowledge in order to just use the system.

After a while I just realized that all I do efficiently in linux is development/coding stuff. I went back to windows and just used a shell account to get my work done. People might think it's kind of ghetto to log into a windows box, SSH to a linux box, and then code in VI, but that's one of the largest leaps in efficiency I've ever made.

At the end of the day, I just needed to get my actual WORK done.
Re:More importantly by ruben.gutierrez · 2005-09-14 06:02 · Score: 1

I have to admit, I primarily use Windows at home. But, I've been interested in Linux for a while, now. I think that it's making great strides toward becoming a user-friendly desktop system. It may be a very long time until it reaches the ease of Windows, but you have to start somewhere. The big idea is that it's completely open, to everyone. Anyone can participate in it. It's free. Innovation is driven by everyone. How can you argue against those principles?
Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 06:08 · Score: 0

It's not the principles that I have any problem with at all. It's the practicality. I LIKE linux. I use it EVERY day. I just can't really use it as a functional desktop for an end user.

I like the environment too, but I just can't make it to work without my car.
Re:More importantly by hungrygrue · 2005-09-14 06:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Quick Example: In Firefox on Linux, the OK and Cancel buttons are reversed... why?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. If you mean that they are the reverse of other applications, then I guess I just have never noticed. If you mean "in the opposite order from Windows", then who really cares? Developers better things to do than check with their Windows user neighbor to see which button Windows puts on the left and which it puts on the right.
Re:More importantly by marcosdumay · 2005-09-14 06:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

I also felt that I was more productive on Linux just for programming, but this was by 1999 - 2000. It is only a matter of getting used to the new system, and discover what tools are usefull*. By that time, I used Windows a lot of times, and rebooted my machine very often.

Now I my feelings are the oposite, I hate working on Windows. I assume that this is both because of getting used to another way of doing things and because of the huge degradation that Windows interface suffered from that time to now.

*And a matter of the tool existing. There where a lot of gaps by 1999 - 2000.

--
Rethinking email
Re:More importantly by benjcurry · 2005-09-14 06:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

I do agree...in the sense that everyone finds what works for them. I do, however, think that people would get a lot more out of their computers if they all started on Linux rather than Windows. The longer I use Linux, the more powerful it feels. I could NOT go back to the Windows world now when I live in a utopia of full OS and application updates at a single command. No adware, spyware or virus and no system performance degradation or crashes even though I've been using the same install for over a year. I used Windows going back to 3.1 through XP and 2003 (XP for years, 2003 a bit), and I'm glad I've left that world behind.

--
BenCurry.net
Re:More importantly by coolGuyZak · 2005-09-14 06:51 · Score: 1

It was awesome for development, but when I needed those other things, even if they were working, which was not always, they were clumsy and quite frankly buggy as hell. Terribly inconsistent user interfaces.
Inconsistent with what you are used to, or inconsistent internally? I've been using KDE since the 2.2.x release series. While there were a good bit of bugs at that time, the consistency was still there. Now, I find that there are very few bugs, and even less inconsistencies. (And they finally are getting around to cleaning up their Application UIs :)
Also, you have to realize that on the "Modern Linux Desktop Environment", in order to get the most consistent feel, you should only use apps developed for it. For instance, running Konqueror in GNOME... and expecting it to behave like the rest of GNOME... is not going to work out.
In Firefox on Linux, the OK and Cancel buttons are reversed... why?
Well, for one: Linux isn't Windows. Do you also complain that you don't have lettered drives? Or that you have to enter a password before becoming an "Administrator" level user?
The reason why it is swapped is because the GTK/GNOME developers decided that it was more usable that way, and FireFox uses the GTK. As for why they made that decision, I'll leave that for them to answer, as I don't want to start a flamewar.
After a while I just realized that all I do efficiently in linux is development/coding stuff. I went back to windows and just used a shell account to get my work done. People might think it's kind of ghetto to log into a windows box, SSH to a linux box, and then code in VI, but that's one of the largest leaps in efficiency I've ever made.
When was the last time you tried linux? And when you tried it, what was your DE? Linux has made leaps and strides in usability within both KDE and GNOME. As a matter of fact, I find myself more productive on my KDE box then I will ever be in Windows. (Note, though: I run Gentoo... I love to configure it. I'd reccomend an easier distro if you don't want to tweak things).
Part of this is probably due to the different way that each of these desktops work. Basically, I find Windows uncomfortable because I "miss features". You may find KDE uncomfortable because there are "too many features".
Re:More importantly by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2005-09-14 06:58 · Score: 1

...an OS when the current one I have (Windows 2000) isn't broken.

You don't think Win2K is broken? ...and you use it? Now listen, I have used Win2K plenty and let me tell you, it is pretty broken. Maybe you're just so used to using a broken OS you don't really notice how broken it is. Like one of those people who has only ever driven a 1985 Ford Escort, with no muffler, ruined suspension, bald tires, and a rabid raccoon in the back seat. "Shucks mister, it got me all the way here from my paw's place. It works just fine. Do you have any of those rabies shots or not?"
Re:More importantly by orasio · 2005-09-14 07:01 · Score: 1

In firefox the OK/Cancel buttons are not reversed.
There is such thing as a correct placement of the buttons, and the one firefox uses it the correct one.
You might be accustomed to other arrangement, but that would be the worng arrangement, and you are just not used to the right arrangement. In fact, you really are prone to mistakes when using the wrong arrangement, and that is why it it thw wrogn arrangement.
In fact, I don't recall Ok/Cancel buttons on Firefox , I recall dialogs in the sense of "Cancel"/"Perform some action". Ok/Cancel doesn't mean anything. That's why you don't find it in firefox.
Re:More importantly by orasio · 2005-09-14 07:06 · Score: 1

Well, the other issue is that you don't resent administering your windows box, because you already know how to use it, and it doesn't hurt.
My girlfriend uses Firefox, Gnome, OpenOffice, GNU/Linux, and I am the administrator, and she doesn't have any usability problems.
The problem you have is that you just don't care about administering Windows, but you dont't like administering Linux. Use Ubuntu :)
Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 07:13 · Score: 0

In much the same way none of us care about you and your Windows 2000. I know its out there, I know it breaks all the time, but I really don't care enough to spend time trying to Google for help when the current one I have (Linux) isn't broken. If some Microsoft-head were to approach me, foaming at the groin about "XP SP2", my response would be "Go away, I've got better things to do".
Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 07:16 · Score: 0

"I do, however, think that people would get a lot more out of their computers if they all started on Linux rather than Windows."

And that's precisely the problem. Many of the people who know about Linux but don't use it aren't trying to get the most out of their computer, they're trying to get the most out of their life. Their perception is that the time it would take to make the conversion would be better spent watching TV, playing with their kids, or indulging in one of the bazillions of non-computer-related hobbies (yes, they do exist).

If you prefer to make the investment needed to maximize your computer usage, then more power to you. But please recognize that there are plenty of others with very different, and equally valid, priorities.
Re:More importantly by SlightlyOldGuy · 2005-09-14 08:14 · Score: 1

..the current one I have (Windows 2000) isn't broken
Maybe your Win2000 isn't broken but mine sure is. Yesterday Windows update downloaded a bunch of patches, installed them, and froze. Now Windows wont even boot, not even safe mode. It was a dual boot machine, now it just runs Linux.
Re:More importantly by yuri+benjamin · 2005-09-14 17:34 · Score: 1

Quick Example: In Firefox on Linux, the OK and Cancel buttons are reversed

I've never noticed that. I'll have a look when I get home tonight.

--
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.

Adwords by defsdoor · 2005-09-14 05:35 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Just how annoying are those adwords ?

Re:Adwords by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 05:43 · Score: 0

first thing i did was add kontera.com to my adblock black list.

No more adwords, and i can read the article :)

by whos book? by myspys · 2005-09-14 05:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

"topics as diverse as Windows Vista, desktop Linux, GNOME vs. KDE"

i can think of things that are WAY more diverse

99.99% of dinosaurs ignored mammals by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 05:46 · Score: 0

Ignore Linux at your own peril.

Re:99.99% of dinosaurs ignored mammals by dragonp12 · 2005-09-14 06:07 · Score: 1

So far as I can remember, it wasn't the mammals who did for the dinosaurs though...

--
This is me. Don't like it? That's unlucky.

Lack of cross-platform developers by kollivier · 2005-09-14 05:48 · Score: 1

Some of us do care, know all too well, and haven't been afraid to try - but our apps just aren't on Linux. In my case, one remarkably lovely music app keeps me using Windows.

You know, to be honest, many apps with great usability run on Mac or Windows, and those developers need to be convinced to go cross-platform. The open source "clones" usually miss out on a lot of the usability issues and only succeed when cloning so well as to get sued for it. :) Right now developing and packaging for Linux distros is hard, and most developers who want to get the most bang for their buck (i.e. users or money) just don't see the value in it.

The thing that Linux distros really need to "get" is that people aren't going to write Linux-only apps if they want to have a large audience for their software. Developers could probably be convinced to go cross-platform if it were fairly easy to do (wxPython, anyone?), but Linux vendors want to push Linux-only solutions (if they don't ignore the entire app development aspect entirely...). That's not going to work for the desktop, and in fact cross-platform apps are in general seeing more success than Linux-only apps. Firefox and OpenOffice are critical components of any Linux distro, but the truth is that they owe some part of their success to the Windows versions of the software. People just don't want lock-in anymore and cross-platform apps ease migration and comfort. The apps running on the platform don't need to be "better" than their Windows counterparts, they can be "just as good" or even "just the same". But the underlying OS has to be better (easier to install, manage, and keep secure), and to be able to run those apps. That, I think, would be more than enough to motivate switchers.

Why? by mblase · 2005-09-14 05:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why is every Windows user not on Linux?

Because of the pervasive (mis?)conception that Linux requires a lot of geeky tweaking to get it to work.
Because Linux on the desktop has been chasing Windows for years, feature-wise, and has yet to get ahead.
Because they like to play games they can buy at Wal-Mart.
Because they have to use Microsoft Office to be fully compatible with the .doc files they get from work.
Because they haven't heard of it.
Because Windows is already bundled on the PC they bought at Best Buy.
Because they're used to Windows.
Because they don't know the difference between GNOME and KDE, and honestly don't care.

Or something like that.

Re:Why? by jedidiah · 2005-09-14 06:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

The bulk of your bulletpoints can be summed up in one phrase:

"it's gotta be DOS compatable"

This is why we're not complaining about the Apple hegemony despite the fact that their product is vastly superior (to windows) and has been for over 20 years.

Whether or not KDE & GNOME have eclipsed windows doesn't really enter into it. DOS and Win3x both demonstrated this rather well.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Why? by TheRaven64 · 2005-09-14 06:32 · Score: 1

This is why we're not complaining about the Apple hegemony despite the fact that their product is vastly superior (to windows) and has been for over 20 years.
I disagree that Apple have offered a superior product for over 20 years. NT 4 offered a UI that was not that far off the Mac OS available at the time (7.x) and was vastly more stable - boasting support for pre-emptive multitasking and protected memory. Later, MS released Windows 2000 had similar benefits over Mac OS 9. I would say Mac OS X 10.2 was the first time that an Apple OS had stability parity with current versions of NT[1] and a better user interface - although the UI did suffer when they tried to merge NeXT and Mac OS Classic UI philosophies.
[1] Ignoring A/UX from 1988, which predates NT and was quite an interesting OS in spite of running on underpowered hardware.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Why? by Snoolas · 2005-09-14 06:36 · Score: 1

Because Windows is already bundled on the PC they bought at Best Buy.

That is the number one problem, I think. Average people aren't going to install Linux on a machine that already has a fully functional system installed.

But strides are being made in this area. Wal-Mart sells a few models of Linspire based PC's. There are plenty of online retailers, like Sub300 (Or Sub500 for our Canadian friends).
Re:Why? by DataCannibal · 2005-09-14 22:15 · Score: 1

"Because of the pervasive (mis?)conception that Linux requires a lot of geeky tweaking to get it to work"

You've never tried to get ACPI suspend-to-ram and suspend-to-disk working on a laptop have you?

--
No but, yeah but, no but...
Re:Why? by westlake · 2005-09-15 11:10 · Score: 1

Why is every Windows user not on Linux?
1 MSDOS and Windows have been in the home and office for twenty-five years.
The complexities of the home market are generally ignored on Slashdot. This is an environment where a $500 sewing machine can be a Windows peripheral: Singer CE-100 Futura Sewing and Embroidery Machine
2. Most of the good stuff (Half-Life) makes its first appearance on Windows or gains credibility and market share only after the Windows port (iTunes).
iTunes for Windows is a perfect example of how a nominal competitor can leverage Windows' enormous installed base to its advantage. But it hasn't done much for sales of the Mac.
3. Windows targets the middle class: market oriented, pragmatic, and with limited free time. These folks buy $3000 plasma TVs for the pleasures of viewing Master and Commander in high-definition, not to feed home-made screeners to the P2P nets. Napster was fun, but Rhapsody at $15 a month can be better.
Re:Why? by leobh · 2005-09-17 02:22 · Score: 1
Let me add:
- Because, amazingly, some people think it's solely text based, I kid you not.

Doing my best to hold back the spelling fascism... by DeafByBeheading · 2005-09-14 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

...but both you/you're and its/it's errors in the same article? I don't complain about that in /. posts (hell, it's an informal forum), but if you're going to write an article, at least try to appear semi-literate...

Not particularly impressed with the content, either. His "Why Xandros?" paragraph is somewhat insightful, but nothing others haven't been saying for ages...

--
Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max

original content by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 05:54 · Score: 0

donate or die MF!

Diverse by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 06:00 · Score: 0

Windows Vista, desktop Linux, GNOME vs. KDE

So.... Desktop, Desktop and err, Desktop.
How diverse.

Windows Firewall by CSHARP123 · 2005-09-14 06:01 · Score: 1

By being the dominant force in the market, Windows stands as the ultimate target for those interested in causing digital mischief. Linux and Mac OS are virtually virus free primarily because the great behemoth, Windows, is there to take the incoming.
Windows as Firewall for Mac and Linux. Shhhhhh..

Be patient, it will come by Serveert · 2005-09-14 06:08 · Score: 1

Did you have that fancy software back when everyone used word perfect? The word processing craze got people hooked on the PC. After that we got more elaborate 'fancy' apps like the one you want.

And right now we have open office and it kicks serious ass. With version 2 of Open Office, it's becoming less apparant that you need Microsoft Office. Eventually it will smother MS Office and people will slowly switch to linux because as you said, it's all about the apps. The pieces are slowly coming together, give it time.

In fact, I think open office is as important as kde vs gnome, that is the killer app that will ultimately convince people. From there we need to merge kde and gnome.

--
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.

Re:Be patient, it will come by kaschei · 2005-09-14 07:34 · Score: 1

Why would you want to merge kde and gnome? It seems to me that the reason KDE and Gnome exist as separate options is because enough people want different things from their desktop. Cross-compatibility would be nice enough, but it would likely come at the expense of "bloat" in both desktops. I say they're fine as-is, since there aren't really any KDE-only tools that don't have gnome-equivalents nor vice-versa. Eliminating diversity of choice is not a good thing for anyone.

--
I should not talk so much about myself if there were anybody else whom I knew as well. -Henry David Thoreau
Re:Be patient, it will come by Serveert · 2005-09-14 08:06 · Score: 1

Right now you have menus which only appear in KDE and not gnome and other inconsistencies. The KDE control center is amazing. If someone switches from KDE to gnome, they'll be lost when customizing their desktop and navigating around.

I feel the same as you: diversity is good and both compete with eachother resulting in more choice for all of us, a sort of darwinian process. There is also the aspect of uniformity. If we are to appeal to the common joe shmoe who expects a uniform interface, then we should merge the two at some point. I hope KDE and gnome can fight it out then we can unify them at that point, creating one seperior open source GUI, one look and feel and write all our apps for that new beast.

Just a pipe dream of mine.

--
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.

"If I had never used a computer before..." by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 06:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

A friend of mine bought his first PC just a few months ago. Guess who supports it? He had it a week before I had to reload XP, as viruses and spyware had it completely unuseable.

I reloaded XP from the Ghost disks, installed Zone Alarm, Firefox, and a couple of anti-spyware apps, removed the IE icons (I wish I could remove IE itself), and gave him a few pointers on safe computing.

It lasted three weeks before it needed Ghosting again. Seems he let his girlfriend's click-happy kid loose on it.

This time after installing the ghost image and safety apps, I also installed Mandrake, set up so it logged into a default user by itself on boot. No logging into "the computer," no running a proprietary DSL app to get on the internet; just turn on the computer and it works.

Three weeks later it was hosed again - seems he "needed" Yahoo! IM, which was a Windows app. I couldn't get the Linux version working. Damn.

Finally I remembered getting my daughter on AIM with Gaim - and lo and behold, it works on Yahoo, too.

What sold him on Linux? "You can click on anything," I told him. I mean, between him, his porn-happy nephew and girl friend's kid, somebody was going to click on "anything" anyway.

The next week the KDE desktop was littered with downloaded Flash installs, which the kid couldn't install. Heh, even if she'd got the Linux versions rather than the Windows version it still wouldn't install, as I'm the only one who knows the root password.

It's been a few weeks since I've had to reinstall anything.

The moral of the story? New users should not be trusted with Windows, or with a Linux root password. And unless you're into games (and new users aren't) there is really no valid need for Windows at home.

Re:"If I had never used a computer before..." by phishtrader · 2005-09-14 06:54 · Score: 1

"The moral of the story? New users should not be trusted with Windows, or with a Linux root password."

It sounds like you had them running as administrator on Win NT/2K/XP. That is akin to running as root on *nix. I've had a fair amount of success setting up WinBoxes with the owners running as non-admins without those boxes getting trashed in a couple of weeks.
Re:"If I had never used a computer before..." by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 06:59 · Score: 0

Responding to "The next week the KDE desktop was littered with downloaded Flash installs, which the kid couldn't install. Heh, even if she'd got the Linux versions rather than the Windows version it still wouldn't install, as I'm the only one who knows the root password."

I don't give my teenage kids the root password to my home desktop Linux machine, and somehow they have managed to install a working Flash player (and Java, and Real Audio), that I'm too pure to install on the system.

I guess they know how to read.
Re:"If I had never used a computer before..." by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 11:17 · Score: 0

But you see, both systems were setup completely different!

You should have said "New users should not be trusted with a windows root password or a linux root password."

Your "friend" was running Windows as root and allowing his kid ro run windows as root. If they were running root on their Linux box it would have lasted exactly as long "clicking anywhere".

Installing "zoneAlarm" is not administering the machine AT ALL. Setting up proper accouns and permissions (Which windows makes far easier than Linux) is.

And the old BS line about "having to run windows as root" is just that, total BS. It requires root to do major software and hardware setup (as it should)but then a lowly user account from then on to actually USE the machine.

So set up both machines the same wrt actual security and the results will be the same.

I do this all the time and have ZERO problems.

This is just more example of the rampant Slashdot hypocrisy either by ignorance (as is likely in this case) or by deciet that permiates the atmosphere here to the point that we lose all of our credability!
Re:"If I had never used a computer before..." by mhearne · 2005-09-14 14:01 · Score: 1

That's ok, if each user has their own desktop. They can trash out their own area, without trashing their neighbor's home directory or crashing the machine.

If you have a good amount of memory, you can have 4 or 5 users logged in at once, using remote terminals (like the computer in the bedroom, for example).

One of the best uses that I've found for Linux, is that when a Linux machine is used as the firewall and access point, very few bugs get through to the Windows machines.

Of course, you still need the anti-virus and spyware programs running, but there are far fewer break-ins because the Windows machines have become invisible to the Internet, and tougher to scan.

In addition, I also run WinPatrol on the Windows machines http://www.winpatrol.com/ which lets you know when anything at all is attempting an install, so you can say goodbye to those nasty little bugs that come from IM or the porn sites.

Michael
Re:"If I had never used a computer before..." by cyclomedia · 2005-09-14 21:27 · Score: 1

>(I wish I could remove IE itself) www.litepc.com

--
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.

Why windows? by JymBrittain · 2005-09-14 06:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

I respectfully submit that it boils down to this... Windows, as an operating system, will be threatened when Joe 6 pack can go into or call a consumer electronics store and pick up a computer pre-loaded with an alternate OS that will run the games their kids want.

Re:Doing my best to hold back the spelling fascism by ghukov · 2005-09-14 06:12 · Score: 0

don't forget the "Mac folks came back and ripped off a bit of this and hat from Windows" line on the first page...

--
...because Plutonians are teh suck

Why I'm not on Linux yet by hackwrench · 2005-09-14 06:17 · Score: 1

I want to convert from NTFS to Reiser4, and I don't know how yet, and I don't want to deal with any other FS's.

I know the Console Window commands for Windows. They're not that different from DOS, which is what I was using before Windows.

For that matter, I know enough to write little programs that will run in Windows.

I can do English and Japanese stuff in Windows.

Getting to the point where I can do that stuff in Linux will result in significant amounts of time not doing that stuff.

I am, however, looking at replacing Windows XP files with Wine/ReactOS files.

Re:Why I'm not on Linux yet by someone300 · 2005-09-14 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

NTFS to Reiser4 can be a confusing task, but it's not Windows' or Linux's fault as such.
What I did is put all my documents onto another hdd (no point keeping system files...) then completely reformatted with reiserfs 3 (for posix acls and posix extended data). The installer can do that automatically with most distros.

If you're a console user in Windows, you'll be very satisfied with the terminal/console on Linux, since the commands are much more powerful and complete, and the basic ones aren't even a great deal different from DOS.
There are also many sites with the equivelant commands listed.

Also, for the fun of it, there are several DOS emulators.

Writing quick programs in Linux (C, C#, C++, Bash, Python, Perl) has proved to be much much easier in Linux than Windows in my experience.. as well as more complicated ones. Then again, I have always been on a limited budget and could never use more than the likes of DevC++ on Windows.

English and Japanese is possible in Linux too (at least with Gnome). There is a keyboard layout switcher, and if you want to start a single application in a different locale and language, you just need to change an environment variable.
GTK+ with Pango is often praised for it's unicode and multilingual support.

Linux was a bit difficult to start using (especially since I chose Gentoo, since I wanted to learn), but once I learned it, it was much faster to use. Of course, if you really want to stay on Windows it's your choice, but don't give up on Linux.
Re:Why I'm not on Linux yet by level_headed_midwest · 2005-09-14 07:05 · Score: 1

Well, DOS/Windows commands aren't that different from Linux commands as a whole. Yes, the options in Windows cmd.exe are generally given as (space) option or /option and they are always -option or --option in Linux. And the whole \ vs. / and drive letters versus mount paths.

Give yourself a week or two and you'll adjust just fine. I did (from Linux to Windows, but I assume the reciprocal to hold about as true)

--
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
Re:Why I'm not on Linux yet by hazah · 2005-09-14 10:08 · Score: 1

In my experience, reiser4, console commands, multilingual support, are all up-to-par or even better (usually) in Linux. I suggest you download and burn a knoppix cd, and boot it up. You will pretty much have a plantora of apps to play with, and you can test what it's like to program under linux.

Re:Over-under... by hungrygrue · 2005-09-14 06:22 · Score: 2, Informative

I have not used Windows since 1995. I fully admit that Linux has long been an operating system that requires more experience, thinking, problem solving, and learning than the average person wants to invest. Most people certainly would never immagine running an operating system where they ever have to edit a configuration file by hand - fstab? huh? I would say that that has changed quite a bit in recent years. I am now running Ubuntu and can honestly say that this is the first time, after a decade as a Linux user, that I have installed a distro and not once had to touch a configuration file or manually set up anything. My sound, wireless, X11, etc. were all correctly configured. We have now gotten to the point where Linux is very much "ready for the desktop" with one little catch: It is perfect as a primary operating system for anyone with broadband internet. Dialup users would be unable to install or update software without a lot of time and hassle. Windows makes more sense for dial-up users, but no sense for anyone with a broadband connection.

Re:Doing my best to hold back the spelling fascism by kidcharles · 2005-09-14 06:23 · Score: 1

Hey spelling fascist, go "such" eggs! ;)

I agree. This article, while interesting, was riddled with spelling errors. Enough to make reading it a chore.

--
Ceci n'est pas une sig.

tooltip ads by veg_all · 2005-09-14 06:35 · Score: 1

Man, those tooltip ads on the anchors are very annoying. But fiendishly ingenius.

--
grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)

Re:tooltip ads by Fred+Foobar · 2005-09-14 09:26 · Score: 1

Just put "kona.kontera.com" in your /etc/hosts file with a black-hole IP address (e.g., 0.0.0.0). I do this for over 55000 hosts that are known for spyware, ads, and other nasties, so I see hardly any ads on the web anymore. :)

--
It was a really good paper.

Re:Over-under... by ifwm · 2005-09-14 06:42 · Score: 1

By the way, isn't it hilarious that linux geeks are so thin-skinned that one of them modded me flamebait?

It was a J-O-K-E. Perhaps you should recompile your sense of humor.

Java, Flash, Real != root by Orrin+Bloquy · 2005-09-14 07:49 · Score: 1

Why shouldn't they be able to install those as users? The whole point to having non-root users is to allow them to work within their permissions without worrying about it.

These plugins aren't going to magically rootkit your Linux box any more than GAIM will, and having them installed at the user level isolates them a step further from that possibility.

Moreover, your kids playing on a Linux box with support for Java, Flash and Real content means kids who will eventually tell other kids "yeah, Linux can do those things, too."

--
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."

Who Rickford? by mooingyak · 2005-09-14 08:26 · Score: 3, Funny

It nice that Rickford grant interview, but who Rickford?

--
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.

Re:Doing my best to hold back the spelling fascism by 51mon · 2005-09-14 08:28 · Score: 1

"This article, while interesting, was riddled with spelling errors. Enough to make reading it a chore."

I was too busy coping with the bizarre font changes, to notice any spelling mistakes (not that I can spell).

Still interesting article. Eventually I'll find enough time to peel the shrinkwrap off the Xandros v3 Deluxe edition here, and build a PC for my partners father.

Re:Over-under... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-14 08:38 · Score: 0

With windows one has to spend a ton of hours on dail-up getting anti-spy-ware, anti-virus, firefox, windows updates and various utils.

In anycase, it's not all that bandwidth friendly either.

Because it's less filling... Tastes great... by Sir_Eptishous · 2005-09-14 08:39 · Score: 1

As far as the consumer, non-business sector goes, you're right on the money. Joe sixpack just wants those games to run.

But, I see gaming moving more and more to the consoles, PS, Xbox, etc;

What is most ridiculous is that anyone would have a total hard-on for either over the other. Both windows and linux are tools. Tools like any other, that have their uses and their place. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range

Re:Why? I'll tell you why. by TheAwfulTruth · 2005-09-14 11:29 · Score: 1

Why am I not on Linux full time?

No Photoshop
No Reason
No Wavelab
No MaximDl
No TheSky/Starry Nights or any real astronomy software at all

and so on... That's just the begining of my little personal list. The list is actually quite large. And no, nothing on Linux even comes close on any of those fronts. Don't even bother with the tired "The GIMP is as good as photoshop" line, it isn't. And neither is most of the other "alternatives".

All software gladly purchased and registered becuase they actually function and go far beyond anything in the 0.9 free software world. In fact if there were Linux versions of all that software that worked as well as they work on Windows then I'd gladly purchase Linux versions! But there is simply NO choice in the matter, and there may never be commercial versions of such software becuase so many Linux people fight so hard against it!

As long as people completely ignore the application problem, as you obviously have, then Linux will only be an "alternative" and far from first choice for people that actually use their machines in a creative or productive way.

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!

Re:Why? I'll tell you why. by strider44 · 2005-09-14 14:13 · Score: 1

I've always wondered how KStars does on the astronomy scale. People have been raving about it, but I haven't asked any actual astronomers I know. If you haven't tried it, perhaps you should try it before saying there's no "real astronomy software at all".

As for the gimp vs photoshop, I find photoshop horrific to use personally and I'd rather the gimp every time. I'm also aware because I've gotten my head out of the bucket that it's not because the gimp is a better program, it's because I'm used to the gimp and I know exactly how to use it whereas I don't know exactly how to use photoshop. Perhaps you should try gimpshop.

We need Windows users.. by barrrrrnnneeeyy!! · 2005-09-14 17:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Linux exists for those of us who like to feel that we've accomplished something with our desktop other than understand the mind of some Microsoft employee. If everyone used Linux, we would have nobody to feel superior to.

116 comments