Slashdot Mirror
Stopping Linux Desktop Adoption Sabotage
Mark Brunelli, News Editor writes "Outspoken IT consultant John H. Terpstra believes that Microsoft and electronics manufacturers are working together to hinder the adoption of Linux on the desktop. In a three part series, he tells a story about how two guys trying to buy Linux desktops found they were overpriced, and lacked certain tools. He then describes how Microsoft uses its considerable resources and the law to create such roadblocks. (Part 2, Part 3)"
Theres only so much you can push people. Windows XP did not deliver what people thought it would and Vista won't achieve what it set out to do, and updates take too long coming. Many people I know are or will switch to Linux in the near future because it makes more sense in the long run. Keep pushing people and they will try something else, look at Firefox or Opera. All it takes is a little piece of information to hit the public and people will begin to learn more about it, and adopt it.
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
/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!"
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.
"Outspoken IT consultant John H. Terpstra believes that Microsoft and electronics manufacturers are working together to hinder the adoption of Linux on the desktop
Wow, this guy is a genius for his insight. I really should read what he has to say now.
Bottom line if this is true then your company is being price gouged and being offered inferior goods and services ON purpose so that WilliamSoft can play out his personal Passion Play against imaginary enemies.
This would be worthy of Federal Prosecution.
I'm surprised that MS hasn't gotten either the GPL (or the concept of Open Source) legislated out of practice yet. After all, supposedly what's good for Business (and to most legislators MS==IT) is what's supposed to be good for america.
I guess he can apply it to the rest of the world
did you forget to take your meds?
Good set of articles that point to some real issues but, I think he missed this:
d _partner.php?sent=1&country=1)
Linspire List of vendors
(http://www.linspire.com/featured_partner/feature
I lost my sig...
It went something like this...
I started customizing the zv6000 laptop, choosing XP Home, knowing that I probably wouldn't get reasonable tech support without having it installed (never mind that there wasn't an option to not get it). As I got to the end, I looked around for a way to request custom partitioning of the hard drive. No dice. So I cancelled the order and wrote to HP Shopping and asked if they could do a custom partitioning job because I wanted to create a dual-boot system.
The response I got was that they couldn't do it and that they were sorry the web site didn't suit my needs.
I responded by asking if they could sell me a blank laptop and provide the installation media on the side, since it was included, and I didn't feel like trying to reinstall the recovery partition for Windows. This is why you don't get installation media... they put it all on a partition on the hard drive that only the Windows installer can use.
Their reply was that they were contractually obligated to sell the laptop with the latest version of Windows installed.
So I told them that they just lost a sale because of their contractual obligations, and that I would take my money elsewhere.
So they replied again with how they were sorry that the website didn't suit my needs and that they would notify the appropriate people.
Now they've pushed my buttons... so I tell them that this is not about a web site, it's about a person sitting there running an FDISK command and watching the install take place instead of just using a ghosting program. I also tell them that I would've been willing to wait an extra couple of weeks, knowing I was asking for a truly customized job.
In the end, I did get an HP laptop, but got it from CompUSA. I got the HP L2000, and for about $40, the tech desk people there were able to do the customized partitioning job for me, reinstall the version of Windows that came with it, and leave me with blank, unformatted partitions to use for Fedora Core 4 x86_64. The tech guys there knew exactly what I wanted to do, understood it, and thought it was really cool. Yes, I need ndiswrappers to get the wireless card to work, and I have to download a driver for the ATI graphics card in there (both are available via a yum archive at livna.org).
Now if only we could get Macromedia to release a 64-bit version of the flash player and Sun to do a 64-bit verison of Java... (yes, I know about the OSS alternatives... doesn't change the fact that they need to do it).
OCO is Loco
I find that some computers just don't want to run a linux distribution reliably. I think it's often linked to something like an ATI video card, but it wouldn't be hard for HP or another manufacturer to introduce some kind of DRM that only works with Windows or other "sanctioned" Operating System.
I tried Damnsmalllinux.org on my HP Evos and dx2000s at work, and they don't boot at all, when it works fine on most other computers I try. Why can't a brand new HP run a new linux distribution every time?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Linux is on my desktop, and on the desktop of my family.
/.er, but let the use of windows be the penalty in and of itself.
As for manufacturer support, if they don't want to support linux then they also don't want my money.
I hate seeing windows on a PC as much as the next
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
TODO: Update Slashdot Eezi Post.
[X] Copy/Paste "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux"
Then it must've been some time since you last checked... check out this rather glowing Ubuntu review in the Inquirer, for example. Yeah, I know, not exactly the greatest news outlet in the world, but they're probably as non-geeky as you get, so the fact that they found Ubuntu so easy and comfortable to use says a lot, IMO. :)
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
"Part 2", the "what MS is doing to stop Linux" part, points out obvious facts (can't buy Linux computers in major retailers), asks why, and then postulates no decent answers. We should all ask, why does it suggest no decent answers? Is it perhaps because the most likely answer, that retail stores would lose money selling Linux systems due to higher difficulty of making the sale, higher support costs, higher return rates, and lower volume? Or is it perhaps because there is a global conspiracy that stores take against profitable actions?
The author says we should believe: "Obviously, there are forces at work in the IT industry that cause retailers to choose not to participate in being more profitable." Right. Global conspiracy, obvious. Try again. The only thing that is really obvious is that the course of action he is suggesting (selling Linux systems in mass market brick and mortar retailers) is deemed unprofitable for these stores.
Sure, Walmart sells Linux. But only online, not brick and mortar.
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
1. Forced sale of MS stuff still exists. Wow, what a surprise.
2. Before buying hardware, especially laptops, spend an hour googling or otherwise studying what IS supported. The morons in the story buy stuff and then find out compatibility. Fuckin' DUH!
Oh, and buy a system without ANY operating system, if it still is costing you more find someone with a 3 digit IQ to find a cheaper computer for you. Besides this is mostly Microsoft's fault because they won't give special discounts to dealers that sell computers with no OS/Linux.
The guy running SuSE 9.3 sounded like he tried Linux for a grand total of 10 minutes, of course you aren't going to know how everything works in that time frame. Sheesh.
I'm agneglectic, too lazy to care if there is a God.
That opening line was written by the editor of the piece. John Terpstra is a good author and more importantly, a long time contributor to FOSS, namely samba. See "Samba-3 by Example: Practical Exercises to Successful Deployment".
It's probably been a while... At least two distros that I have personally tried offer no-hassle package management and online upgrades: Suse and Ubuntu.
I invite you to try either one and say it's still a mess. If you still think it's a mess, you probably have other axes to grind.
I can say in the corporate world the "ease" of installing software is a complete and total mess. There so many applications that refuse to work without the user having like 15000 user rights, namely the ability to install software (strange that you need this right AFTER the application is installed)
This is not true. In fact, the distros are each trying to beat the others silly by making package management such a breeze.
All Debian derived systems (like ubuntu) use apt/dpkg, Fedora/RedHat uses yum (or apt4rpm), Suse uses YaST and Gentoo uses portage. All of these will find dependancies for you and generally do the right thing - if the package is available, it will be installed and configured properly.
The only place where this is not true is when there are legal roadblocks (like DVD playback) to using the software in a free OS. Most commercial distros are able to bypass this however, since they pay a fee to the IP rights holder for the use of that IP.
In any event, you can't have checked software installation very recently. Today it's easier on linux than it's ever been on Windows.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
People for who I installed linux, say the following is missing:
Good MSN with all smileys, filetransfer, videochat.
Support for all streaming media in your webbrowser.
All multimedia files supported (without having to add (unofficial) repositories to have support for win32codecs and such).
Oh yeah, for the transition, full NTFS writing support.
Apart from that, my friends, mother, sister and girlfriend really like linux.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
Their desktop models in particular have been very flaky over the years. I have a ton of old Vectras here of various versions, and another company I worked for used them as a standard desktop. They were always weird...strange issues with video or certain expansion boards, and they aren't the best choice in the world for Linux.
We waste more time with 20 Vectras than we would with 100 Dells in terms of hardware-related support.
I was really sad when Compaq was bought out. Their higher end x86 compatible machines were very nice indeed, and haven't gotten better since the 'merger'.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
It's probably more to do with the long term installed userbase. There really has never been a popular competitor to Windows on the x86 architecture. Even a company as vast as IBM gave in.
Many electronics companies don't see why they should devote developer time or make technical resources available when it's such a miniscule market.
Over time things will improve.
It's fud fud fud fud. Consperiacy bullshit, I figure.
n _Page
I LOVE Linux. Long time Debian user, I know that I simply couldn't use computers and be as happy with them if I was stuck with only choosing Windows and propriatory applications.
I am a GNU, Free Software, ra-ra-ra type of guy. I probably seem like a nut to many people.
But I don't beleive that it's a consperiacy against Linux. I beleive it's just complacency, laziness, apathy, and other crap like that.
It's not that they care and conspire, it's that they don't give a shit and MS nudges here and there very rarely.
Hardware manufacturers work their asses off making sure the everything works with Windows well. They generally dont' do jack shit about Linux because it doesn't contribute to their bottom line. (it could if they felt like it. No linux support = no Linux-related money = no reason to support linux = no linux support, etc etc etc.)
This is why it's important to support hardware manufacturers that support Linux. Stuff like Ralink-using Wifi cards that use the rt2500 and related chipsets. http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Mai
And specificly requesting Linux support is the only way to go. Seriously. Buying random hardware and expecting it to work in Linux or expecting that your Dell laptop will work 'just because' is foolish.
This guy is spreading fud. There are certainly hardware companies that dislike the idea of free software. They dislike having to tell end-users how to use the hardware or releasing minimal REAL documentation on the hardware. Well then, fuck them. Don't buy their shit and if you do don't cry when you can't get it to work with ndiswrapper.
PS. Don't buy wifi cards with Conextent, Broadcom, Texas Instruments using chipsets. Avoid them like the plague. Modern 802.11g that work in Linux well are Intel Wifi setups and Ralink rt2x00 based chipsets. Intel 'Sonoma' platform with Intel Video and Intel wifi should work well in a modern Linux setup. Avoid ATI and Nvidia if you can, and if you can't and need the 3d horsepower always choose Nvidia.
What Linux needs for the 'average' user however is pre-installed support from a major manufacturer. The most likely canidate would be HP right now, but it seems to me that it's going to take a relative unkown to realy break through and start making buckets of money from this sort of thing. Maybe a successfull company that produces hardware specialized for Linux clustering or server work can step up to the bat and do it. (not talking about IBM.)
It is certainly possible to get a very nice computer for inexpensive that will work in Linux without having to resort to e-crappo hardware to make it cheap.
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity"
It's "tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory crackpottery" to be suspicious that a convicted criminal might commit another crime?
Microsoft has been CONVICTED (not just suspected, not just accused, convicted) of antitrust violations already. Keeping a close eye on them in case they reoffend isn't "crackpottery"-it's common sense.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Well, at least programs work after they are installed and dont crash now and then.
sex is better than war!
Easier on Linux than Windows? What crack pipe are you hitting?
Software installation on Linux is often times a long, painstaking arduous task that seems to go on forever, and then - nothing happens. When it goes right, it's not too bad, but when it goes bad it goes bad in a big way. Nothing like spending hours trying to resolve dependencies, versioning, etc to get something to install - and then to find out that updating existing packages has now broken existing programs.
I'm sure it's all quite simple for the experienced Linux jockeys, but don't expect J6P to be able to jump through all those hoops and command-line gyrations just to get a program to install.
I have done both -- installed 9.3 and recently 10.0. 9.3 has lots of issues -- the audio is turned off by default and works only for one user, and numerous drivers do not install correctly, even when they are available through Yast. I installed 9.3 three different times and always had to do some extra work to get everything working correctly. In one case (to get the NVIDIA 3-D graphics working driver working correctly), I had to recompile the kernel.
Now OpenSuse 10.0 was a completely different story. I installed it recently and everything worked flawlessly -- much to my surprise. It is more polished, and a much better experience. It is an excellent product.
So, regarding that guy, Yes -- he could have gotten it working with some work, and maybe some help, but No -- 9.3 can be a pain, but if he had used 10.00, he likely would have had a good experience. So, far OpenSuse looks like a great step forward in the right direction for the Linux desktop.
Linux's biggest problem is that it requires any "package management" at all. Because of the scattered directory structure, files are littered all over the place, so you have to run a program to install the program, and run a program to remove the program.
.app bundles that allows you to install a program simply by copying to your programs folder. Remove it by deleting it.
.NET, which cover everything from installation/uninstallation to networking to sound to graphics) with instead a reliance on QT on top of KDE on top of X11, are what hold desktop Linux back.
If people were really serious about desktop Linux, they would have long ago standardized a bundled package format like NeXTStep's
These kinds of things, along with the lack of true standardized API foundations (see Cocoa,
The mantra of "choice" that people use to justify the incredible fragmentation in the OSS world doesn't justify the lack of a standardized, vertical solution--there should be a desktop environment with its own sound and graphics engine and APIs (built using OpenGL and OpenAL), not relying on X11 and various extensions after the fact. It should provide its own APIs that tie into its internal engines. And most importantly, it should be designed with actual aesthetics and creativity in mind--no more of this amateurish K-this and K-that crap.
Just my opinion. I think many people gave up hope for desktop Linux and moved to OS X. Seriously, some of us have been waiting for almost ten years. Windows is more dominant than ever.
"Sufferin' succotash."
What you call mess is what I call flexibility and freedom of choice...By the way, try have you tried apt-get or yast?
I have a theory, and it don't involve Microsoft (directly). Support costs. If the laptop in the article was sold with Linux but with no support whatsoever, then I wouldn't understand why it costs more, it should cost less. But if it included the same level of support as Windows, then I can see why it costs more. Now the hardware manufacturer has to test every piece of their hardware against Linux whereas in the Windows world, they would just pick and choose hardware pieces that were already deemed Windows compliant (logo certified) and perform minimal interop testing. Assuming that 95% of their sales is for Windows, they would have to hire a small number of people to take Linux support calls. And this applies to each individual hardware manufacturer (NICs, vid cards, etc...). If only a small subset of their sales is Linux, why spend the extra money to support it?
It comes down to development and support. In order to ship a PC, Dell has to package and certify a boat load of drivers and asssorted software. It has to be more cost-effective to do this and cater to Windows -- the OS that 95% of the world uses. More to the point -- Dell -- and other vendors -- have to do the best they can to make drivers reliable, easy to re-install, configure and troubleshoot in order to maintain their reputations and keep support costs down.
Now consider support. If you are a Windows user -- preferably an XP user -- and you call Dell or HP for support, theoretically all of the drivers have been tested, most issues have been noted and posted to a knowledge base and chances are good that the tech at the other end of the line will have reasonable experience in helping you solve the problem.
Conversely, if you buy a barebones systems and run into problems, Dell will have fewer Linux techs who can help, these techs will be more expensive to retain and _your_ level of competency will have a huge impact on the length and outcome of the support call than if you were a lowly Windows user.
Perhaps if you could purchase with an iron-clad zero-support option, then Dell could justify dropping the price. But probably not. Dell is probably just as greedy and unwilling to pass the savings on to the customer (if they don't have to) as most other companies. This is also true of many open source vendors. Whether it's Dell, RedHat or IBM, they'll work hard to extract money out of us one way or another.
Is this sig nificant?
I just happen to know the manager of a big-box retailer in a near-by major city (I live in the sticks). This retailer thinks they offer the Best prices to Buy things at (hint hint). Up until a couple of years ago, this retailer stocked a selection of Linux software, mainly Suse, RedHat, and Mandrake. It wasn't a lot (5 shelves on one display section about 6 feet wide), but hey, at least it was there.
Every time a new release of Mandrake (now Madriva...at least this week) came out, I went and bought the pro package, even though I could download it for free. I figured it was necessary to show support so they would maybe expand the selection.
Then it slowly disappeared. It has now been replaced by racks of more Windows stuff.
Not long after it disappeared, I asked him why. The basic answer was because aside from me and 4 or 5 other geeks, no one else was buying it. In fact, many people straight-up asked him "why should I buy this from you when I can get it legally and still for free on the internet?"
Stores are in business for one thing, and one thing only...to make their owners (stock holders) money. Any product that doesn't turn a certain level of sales disappears. Quickly.
To get the big box retailers to carry Linux, they are going to have to be shown there is a market there AND THEY CAN MAKE MONEY DOING IT. Thousands of people can talk the talk about wanting Linux, but in the grand scheme of actually spending money on it, its a very tiny segment of us that does so.
The moral of this story is that if you want more retailers to carry more Linux, then people need to step up with their wallets and actually buy some of the stuff that is already out there.
I still get every new release of Mandriva, but now I do it via the Mandriva Club since I can't find a retailer that carries it locally. And my club membership costs me almost as much yearly as a Windows XP Home license (and I don't have to have a new license every year). So Linux does cost me money, but I want to show support so that's okay. More people need to be showing their support with pictures of dead presidents (or what ever is on the currency in your country for non-US readers). Only then will Linux offerings and support increase.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Well, if you WANT every user you have installing software, set up sudo or a similar permissioning system, and give every user on the system that right. On the other hand, most administrators would rather they control (and have veto power over) the installation of software on their machines, and generally for good reason-the administrators keep up with technical bulletins, etc., that might indicate a vulnerability in a given program. The users normally don't.
As for installation itself? I use Gentoo, Ubuntu, and Debian (on various systems), and I use them for the specific reason that the installation of software is ridiculously easy. How much easier can you get then "sudo (emerge|apt-get) package", and watch the system install it for you?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Tell us how much this Slashdot link submitted by "Mark Brunell, News Editor of TechTarget" to "TechTarget" costs.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
OK so 98% of my userbase uses Windows.
2 % use Linux.
I can write Windows drivers for my device and keep 98% of my userbase happy.
I can write Linux drivers for my device, and keep 2% of my userbase happy.
If the cost of writing that Linux driver is more than I would make back in profits, why would I ever do it?
Business decisions......
"He then describes how Microsoft uses its considerable resources and the law to create such roadblocks."
/. summary alleging 3 without evidence.
Where? I couldn't find that anywhere in the article.
Generally, support for Linux sucks in hardware retailing. There are at least three possible reasons for this:
1 There are good commercial reasons why it isn't profitable to support Linux.
2 It would be profitable, but companies lack the vision to see this
3 Big bad Microsoft is conspiring to keep it this way.
I was hoping to see evidence for number 3, but all I saw was the article questioning whether 1 could be true (but without in-depth analysis - how much would Linux support cost, and how many sales would it gain?), and the
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
I hardly shop at BestBuy or CircuitCity these days. BestBuy to me is lot of microsoftish. Bulk of my purchases come from Fry's and what I've seen is that Fry's is pretty good at carrying stuff that works in Linux. I recently bought Airlink101 wireless PCI card and got it to work with MadWIFI in 10 minutes...better that windows, where i had to install the gui frontend, drivers, reboot...reboot again.
First it is the applications, just like it is the quality of the movies, just like it is the quality of the television shows. It is the application.
Secondly, the reason the laptop costs more is because it is carrying more burden of the costs associated with fewer sales, thus more cost per unit. This holds true even for identical units. To sell a Linux laptop requires potentially Linux technical support, sales support (knowledge), adding another product line to the web site, etc. While probably all incremental, it has to be shared by the number of units sold. As units increased, this cost would potentially decrease.
Windows on the other hand is massive in market share so everyone who makes cards, controllers, plug-ins etc want to be viable for this market. It's not a great crime to follow the market leader.
Secondly, one quick puruse on goggle.com would have answered which cards offered Linux support instead of trial by error. Stupidity is not an excuse.
It's not some great crime that Linux isn't adopted on the DT. Believe me, once Linux is REALLY ready, we will all switch. Till then, please stop the reverse FUD.
Peace Out.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
...what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
It's -entirely- possible that the "big boys" treat Linux as a redheaded stepchild, and throw their laziest, stupidest employees at setting it up. "Jim! You're responsible for setting up Linux on these machines!" "But boss, I don't even know how to open the CD drive..."
Still, it's a problem that needs addressing. Granted, I've never gotten a (Dell|Gateway|Compaq|insert other big brand here), I purchase only from a couple of local shops or build my own. However, if adoption is going to take off, it's going to take -decent- preinstallation to work. (And who knows, someone who can build their own may take Dell up on their next $200 CheapPOS 510C with Linux preinstalled for a cheap filewall box or something.)
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Where are the actual facts? BFD .. if I want to install Linux I'll get the box with the best deal - regardless of the pre-installed OS. When the free market demands Linux pre-installed with all the goodies, then the manufacturers will supply it. Until then, for good or for bad, Linux is still in the minority.
The fact is that not *all* companies are going to support Linux. ~Caveat Emptor~
I don't want to read a three part article about a few glitches installing Linux and/or another OS along with some theories about conspiracy. Give me cold hard facts.
I think that Terpstra's main point is that people are comfortable with the status quo and have very little incentive to try to change it. They are mostly afraid of floating inventory (which is a killer due to Moore's Law) appearing to be out of touch with their customers, etc. That and they don't know how to support it.
A few things that Terpstra doesn't mention:
1) Linux is doing *really well* in the embedded market including wireless.
2) Linux desktop adoption overseas is being driven by enforcing copyright restrictions, especially in South-East Asia (this was the case when I lived in Indonesia).
#1 is mostly due to stealth factor. I.e. if it is hidden, nobody gets scared.
#2 is a biggie and is likely to cause a lot of sudden adoption overseas.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Windows desktops are less expensive than Linux? How can that be when the Windows desktop costs not one cent extra to put a FREE copy of Linux on and you get a Windows license left over.
Micrsoft is hindering Linux on the desktop? Excuse me while I laugh myself into an asthma fit.
The regular slew of updates to KDE ALONE will screw up the average KDE installation bad enough and quick enough to make you want to strangle everyone who works on it. Gnome which is supposed to be so much less cool than KDE is five times more stable in my experience and two times less useful. Of course so is a hammer by comparison to a vertical knee mill but at least the hammer does what it is designed to.
I use Fedora Core 3 as my regular desktop and only log into XP when I have an absolute need. I've made Quake run with sound in less than an hour USING the idiotically bad and largely conflicting and contradictory documentation on the net (woot! I can translate geekoid!). I got SSH working with public keys in ten minutes. I regularly customize my FC3 boxes and rework them rather than the lazier nuke and pave method. So... I am not a Windows newbie-to-Linux here.
The ONLY thing killing Linux on the desktop is Linux. XOrg and XFree86 and their ongoing back and forth pecadillos, KDE's zealot army of moronic children screaming the leetness of their preference, Gnome's less than stellar array of boosters, and both desktops' having little to no clue towards stability and regularity are merely the tip of the iceberg. The neverending foreverwar over what goes in the kernel, the endless bs of how drivers and hardware abstraction should work, the "ooh isn't this cool" phenomenon of distros spreading like mold based on their purveyors' egotistical desire to have some note in the history of Linux... All of this and more is what is killing Linux on the desktop.
It's like the movie Braveheart. The penguin sallies forth to do battle with the incredible menace and its own supporters backstabbing, squabbling, infighting, and inability to arrive at a common vision and stick with it do it in. Penguin meat anyone?
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
No, you have it all wrong.
They're just out to get you.
If I was an electronics manufacturer, the thing I'd want is as many operating systems as possible using my hardware to reduce the possibility of control being with one who could set the standards that I'd be forced to follow.
Hardware manufacturers, it seems to me are starting to open up to Linux. They know there's a market out there, and that if you are the only one in there, it's a good income.
Bad troll, get back under the bridge.
Firefox's vulnerabilities are fixed quickly-but to my knowledge, IE still has ActiveX support. That vulnerability's existed for years. And it's not even close to the only one that's taken ages to patch.
Tell you what, though. Turn off your firewall and A/V for a week on a test machine, and use Firefox to browse. See how many viruses and spywares you get. Then repeat the same procedure the next week using IE. If the machine lasts out that week, see how many are there -this- time.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
The GPL is just basic copyright law. If it is not allowed, then other copyrights aren't either. Imagine Microsoft and the RIAA butting heads on that!
I'm sure John is a great and intelligent guy. I was just making fun of the comment that seemed so silly to say on Slashdot.
Usually bare/Linux PCs is more expensive because they are spyware-less. Manufacturers accept money from spyware people to preinstall all that junk. Symbiosis.
It's hard enough making a choice of laptop these days based purely on the numeric stats of the innards. The way they play merry-go-round with their suppliers can really screw up your chances -- basically they play the game of "who's selling the cheapest wireless this week."
Even if you find stable laptop distributors, it's practically IMPOSSIBLE to determine whether you can run Linux on it because they usually won't tell you what's actually inside. Like, is that a Broadcom or a Atheros 802.11 wireless in there? It makes a *huge* difference.
If you don't know what kind of chipsets a laptop has in it, you can't do the research. Easy as that. You have to wait for someone to buy the thing, try installing a flavor of Linux on it, and report back what their successes and failures were.
Even if HP or whoever doesn't support the hardware directly, it'd be nice to know what kind of hardware is in there to begin with. I don't need them to hold my hand. I just want to know what I'm buying.
I don't think that MS is involved in this. I see this as Hardware dealers wanting to use Windows software to deliberately cripple the Hardware to make you pay more. Something they can't get away with in the Linux World because Linux users are like Wolves, and Windows Users are "Sheeple"
... And I say, from Hell's heart I stabbeth thee trade Secret, for they are only worthy of death.
At issue also, is Hardware Manufactueres trying to prevent you from using software to violate their "Trade Secrets" Again, MS Has nothing to do with this, its hardware makers wanting to keep the "Trade Secrets" of their latest Chipsets from being exposed.
When Lokisoft first started distributing through the channel, CompUSA had their titles on the shelves. The problem was that they mixed them in with all the windows titles so you had to look closely at the box to see which OS it was for. Months later they no longer carried Linux software except for OS distributions like Redhat and SuSE. When I asked about it, I was told there were too many returns on the Linux software 'people decided they didn't like it,' I was told. I should have bitchslapped the guy for lying to me. It was obvious that people were buying the Linux versions accidentally only to find out that it wouldn't run on their windows pc and causing the high returns rate. CompUSA lost my favor that day. Now unless it is an urgent need I drive way out of my way to a MicroCenter which has always been much more sensitive to the needs of penguinistas.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
the Ubuntu guys JUST told me that Ubuntu wasn't ready yet - at least regarding audio support. And someone else here on /. recommended me to move to SUSE.
I guess that takes care of your wonderful Ubuntu review.
While I agree with a lot of what is being said one statement is wrong. CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's Electronics and other major consumer electronics retailers do not offer Linux pre-loaded PCs for sale. The Frys Electronics near me in Downers Grove Illinois sells Linux pre-loaded PCs, while they're the bottom of the lineup "Great Quality" brand machines they do sell them.
All I know is that it takes less time for me to make/apt-get/emerge than it does for me to wade through an EULA to figure out if I can actually run a peice of Windows software...
Because I'm a zealot. That's right.
Because it is more of the same tactics Microsoft was found out to be doing before the Antitrust suit. Now that they can't force manufacturers to sign contracts that lock them in for a large number of years, they are trying the same tactic but with a different twist.
:-)
We need stronger laws when it comes to dealing with big businesses. Here are some for everyone to mull over:
1. If a company is run by someone who makes more than a billion dollars a year - that person has to get out of the company. They can start a new company, but the old company has to lose that person. This would effectively remove Bill Gates et al at the top. They could start Microsoft #2, but Microsoft would have to find new people to lead the company.
2. If a company makes more than X amount (obviously in the billions) then the company has to split in two. This would ensure competition because no one company would be able to lord it over everyone else. The two companies can not work together. Neither can any of their siblings when they have to split. Only 4th generations can go back to working together. This might sound radical, but if a company makes, say, $100 billion dollars (Microsoft makes a lot more than that) then they become a threat to everyone else because they are so big they can start throwing their weight around, get stupid laws passed that never should have been passed in the first place, and can even buy people in all areas of the government. By limiting the overall size companies can reach they will spend more time fighting each other than they would trying to rule the country.
2a. When a company has to be split in two the secondary company gets a copy of everything the first company has and must open their offices in a different location (probably a different state). This would spread the wealth around to the various states.
Just some ideas.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
I mean seriously. I read it, but it sounded allot more like hysteria and a creative conspiracy theory than anything else.
The reason Linux isn't in demand by users is because of software. People in small business need lots of special industry software that is only written for windows. Morally right or wrong is another debate. On the flip side, Linux is to complicated for average home user. Manufactures invest in developing hardware for Windows because that is what is in demand by the public.
But more directly to the article; did it ever cross anyone's mind that manufactures (like dell for instance) pay more to support the drivers when testing for linux before they deploy it on their machines. Machines get big $$ thrown at them before they make it to the production line, and lots of that money is spent on how the OS runs on it.
How about the end-user support calls with linux? Some of you are forgetting that Manufactures get calls for every little thing from changing a background to why does is it crash to what's my password. Linux is more overhead for manufactures. You can't honestly say that the average computer user will find Linux easier to use then Windows today. Forget if they started with Linux, they didn't, they most likely started with Windows, and they use Windows at work. Go ahead and scream windows spyware and viruses, but people are already comfortable with windows. Right or wrong, that's just the way it is... sorry to disappoint.
Today it's easier on linux than it's ever been on Windows.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. I can't remember the last time I installed something on Windows that wasn't as easy as clicking "next" a few times. I'm not saying that installing stuff on Linux is hard, I'm just saying that in my experience it's not "easier than it's ever been on Windows".
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Linux's biggest problem is that it requires any "package management" at all. Because of the scattered directory structure, files are littered all over the place, so you have to run a program to install the program, and run a program to remove the program.
Used Windows lately? Every program *I've* installed on Windows in the last several years has not only run a program to install itself and required another to uninstall it, it also usually has to modify the registry and then forces me to reboot after installing. Of course, Windows only has 90%+ of the market - no doubt it would be much larger, were it not for the fact that their package management requires a program to install new software. Imagine if they solved that problem!
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
I think people don't seem to take into account that Dell and other companies run a highly automated, assembly line style manufacture of PC's. They are so tightly integrated that doing something special will involve more labour than otherwise. So having to set up another process to not install an OS might be more difficult than one would realize. So you're paying for the "special order".
:-)
Since the amount of business done for "special order" is not enough to invest in a more robust process you see Dell not bothering until business goes up. You might see better pricing if you were to buy in large bulk I would imagine.
Theories of corporate conspiracy is probably overrated here. But then this is slashdot.
sri
I couldn't care less how much linux is on the shelf at best buy. I'm a BSD guy by choice, so I wouldn't have a use for it anyway. Put all the Windows software on the shelf you want, I don't care.
I want hardware that will work. When I want a wireless adapter for my laptop I want it today, with no hassles otherwise I'd buy it mail order. So I often find myself in Best Buy looking at some box, and wondering if it will work on my system.
My solution: research. First I find out what will work with BSD, and what will not. Then I go in, and buy something that will not. Open the box, installed it and play a little, and sure enough, it won't work with BSD - return it. Buy the part that does work. I'm doing my best to make it expensive to stock hardware that isn't BSD compatible.
Three fellow software developers and I run a small company since 2001. We have employees and freelancers working for us by now, so we do buy and upgrade desktop computers every now and then. We're not Coca Cola's IT budget, sure, but we do spend a bit of money on hardware. We have Macs, Windows PCs and Linux PCs on our desktops, with Linux on about half of them.
I never ever had any problem buying a Linux-friendly desktop PC from our computer suppliers. Ok, we don't buy from Dell etc., we buy from a local computer store here in Hamburg called Comptronic. And this shop isn't specialized on Linux, most likely they sell 99% Windows computers. But when I ask them to make sure it runs Linux, they do make sure to choose the right parts and we don't pay the Windows tax.
It's a regional company, they sell (plain vanilla) hardware to businesses since several years and we are loyal customers. Really good service, we get replacements on the spot if something breaks, sometimes in less than an hour after the phone call. We have also bought several Linux-ready servers from them over the years and I'm more than happy with what we got from them.
So I see no conspirancy here.
If we, as a rather small company, have no problem buying Linux-ready PCs for a good price, a bigger company than us should be even more interesting as a customer for a computer supplier. If you want, say, 150 Linux-ready desktop computers plus three years of service for your business next month, several suppliers like the one we use will be more than eager to provide this to you.
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
It's "tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory crackpottery" to be suspicious that a convicted criminal might commit another crime?
So, best if we have Kevin Mitnick followed around, huh? Why is it that the slashdot crowd always complains that the law's to harsh on crackers, and that once you've done your time, blah blah blah... but that the politicized anti-trust treatment of MS is considered a life sentence? Do you have any idea the scrutiny under which they operate? Give it a rest.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The reason Best Buy and their ilk only sell the Windows only crap wireless cards and such is because they also tend to be the CHEAP CRAP that the clueful sort of folk using linux at a level to be writing device drivers avoid like the plague. So the cheapo cards don't get drivers written for them by the community and since they are CHEAP cards put out by CHEAP companies they ain't going to spring for a driver, they are doing good to compile the chip vendors (also tending to be a CHEAP outfit) reference Windows driver with their name inserted into it.
So avoid buying at Best Buy not because they sell hardware unsupported by Linux, avoid Best Buy because they sell cheap crap that usually isn't all that reliable in Windows either.
If one does their research they can get a pretty well supported desktop machine for Linux. My beef is that no distro has a hardware compatibility list anymore and few hardware vendors mention whether it works under Linux unless they are selling a preloaded box. (Rare for desktop hardware of course vs servers where most are now very happy to sell a penguin inside.)
Laptops are another story. As far as I know the number of current production laptops fully supported by any Linux distribution is zero. You always lose some functionality, the modem, wireless card, pc card slots, power management, 3d or scaled video, something won't work for at least six months, often times never. This is because the people who make laptops don't give enough of a damn to insist on Linux friendly components. Even companies who pretend to be our allies like IBM and HP pull the same stunts with laptops.
My current Thinkpad comes close to working but the USB ports on the dock are broken and the CD drive in the dock only works at 4X for some reason I haven't been able to figure out. Power management is dodgy and requires I degrade the video performance (to AGP 1X) to avoid lockups when running on battery power. By making a special order I got a Cisco wireless card that works... with a special driver and after downgrading the firmware on it from Windows. And of course on a Thinkpad you only get to pick mini-pci cards from a very short list burned into the BIOS because the bastards check during POST and hang if a non-approved card is installed.
Democrat delenda est
Ok. I'm not familiar with .app bundles (similar to .jars) ? /usr/bin since that's in the path and that's where you expect to find apps. /usr/lib so other folks can use them too. /usr/share.
But other app bundles make it very difficult for application sharing and greatly increase the size of programs on your computer.
Not to mention the complexity of updates.
Linux programs install themselves, or a symlink in
They add their libs to
Ditto adding images and music and miscelaney to
I think this is a great system, and I don't see how using application zips improves on it.
Linux application install tools allows both the flexibility of an integrated upgrade and removal interface, while still allowing parts of the system to interoperate easily.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
With a Linux install (at least through my experiences with Fedora and RedHat), they ask you all the pertinent questions up front.
Pertinent questions like "Which of these 10,000 applications do you want", "what are the specific models and specs for every single component and piece of hardware you own", and "what permissions, groups, files, folders, and applications do you want each user to have". Sorry, but the linux install process is the most intimidating part of linux in it's entirety, even for experienced users.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
The reason that Linux costs more in retail is that it is significantly harder to support by the manufacturer. At a minimum they have to write custommer support scripts for a small portion of their custommers that want Linux. Then they have to train at least some of their agents.
Now you get into the problem with Linux, I call in and say it doesn't work - well, are you running our stock, boring kernel ? Well of course not... Please reinstall 2.4.22.xyz - why should I do that, it doesn't support what I need... Thank you very much, please call back after your installation.
Linux is almost impossible to support at the desktop - it is way to customizable for that.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
I live near Best Buy's headquarters. No Fry's in this state, or even the next one (AFAIK). Nobody in my area cares about Linux, yet I know there are many linux users around here.
Umm.. You do know that's not the tabloid but a computer site? Found by the same guy that started The Register. I don't really follow them much, but they're almost satire of a tabloid, but not really, except they focus on computers. It seems to be fooling people...
That's not fair to bring up the EULA. I don't think you sat and read the GPL before you installed or updated anything on linux.
Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
Contrast Windows Update: the bare core of the OS, and a few things like your browser, mail client, and a crashy video player get updated. Only recently does it also update your office suite. This means that even if you keep your box up-to-the-second on Windows Update, there's a strong chance that there is a lot of software on your system that is getting stale.
Now, back to Synaptic/Click-n-Run/etc.: When you want a new program, you open up your graphical software installer, and browse through things that are available, organized by category. You select what you want, it finds the dependencies, and installs them. It will also suggest other things you might want -- plugins for an audio editor, for example. While you're there, you can uninstall anything you've stopped using, and upgrade everything on the system, to patch any security bugs. This is what most people would describe as an integrated vertical software solution.
Contrast the "Executable Installer" model: You open up a web browser, and start doing keyword searches of the Entire Fricking Web for software. You're bombarded with trials, demos, popups, and people who want you to install spyware or buy the "Pro" version of something you've never used. When you're ready to install it, you download an executable binary from a third party and run it with full administrative privileges. This model is pure chaos.
Perhaps for you, placing packages in a 'magic' location on the hard disk is an easy way to install things. Of course, you're going to be the one with a gigantic red bullseye painted on your system when someone's got a zlib exploit in hand, and you've got 80 copies of zlib, one in each of those absurd, unmanaged application bundles.
We can turn Linux support into a downhill battle if we try. Everytime you want to buy hardware, find out what doesn't work in linux.
Go to the local retailer
buy the version that doesn't work
Open the box
install it
Find it doesn't work
place back in box with all parts
bring back to store
Tell clerk that you are returning it because it isn't linux compatible.
Repeat until you have tried all non-working parts
Buy something that does work (from same retailer if they have it)
Get all your friends to do the same.
The last step is important. There are enough linux users that we can make this work for hardware - IF we all work together to make it unprofitable to carry anything without linux drivers.
Well, if I wanted to take this challenge totally and completely literally, IE would win. You see, IE is actually better if you're using a permission-based system (which I am, as certain applications and WU uses IE). Basically, I put in certain domains (Google, WU...that's about it) that I say are perfectly fine. Then those websites get to do whatever they want. Any other site has permission based cookies, blocked ActiveX, and blocked Javascript. If I truly need to use the site, I just add it to my Trusted Sites.
I can honestly say that I use hardware firewalls (no software firewalls that I can "turn off", no Anti-Virus, and no Anti-Spyware/Anti-Adware. At the same time I have a script process monitoring regimen and will stand by the fact that if you installed any of the above applications, I'd be clean.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that if you know how to use IE correctly, it's perfectly fine (although I use Opera as my primary--excellent interface).
Software is like sex. It's better when it's free. -Linus Torvalds
This conversation hasn't been about crackers whatsoever, so I decline to debate on your offtopic strawman.
As to the analogy, it fails-humans have an inherent right to privacy, but I don't see that corporations really do. This is, of course, as it should be. Quite realistically, Microsoft should've been split, as the judge originally ordered, what penalty is a -fine- to a corporation which is clearing billions a year? They got the equivalent of a speeding ticket for significant antitrust violations. They are -known- to deliberately break interoperability in order to hurt their competitors. They are -known- to use underhanded bullying tactics with OEM's/retailers. They are -known- to raise prices on those who don't agree to their massively restrictive contracts. Again, what is wrong with the natural suspicion of wrongdoing from a known wrongdoer?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
I have in fact read the GPL. Did it back in 1998 in fact. Since the GPL hasn't changed since then I don't have to read it again. The BSD license hasn't changed in a while either. (just the drop of the advertising clause)
I read the EULA when I installed XP SP2 as well, and thought "Thank God I'm only agreeing to this on behalf of my company, I don't think I'd agree for my personal machines." I don't have Java installed on my home FreeBSD machine because I didn't like the EULA (I object to the provision that it can't be automatically downloaded and installed by FreeBSD's port system). Not to mention all the other license agreements I have to deal with.
While Microsoft probably has OEM's tied up in exclusive contracts through co-advertising or whatever loophole they need to get around whatever antitrust enforcement there is, hardware vendors still do have a chicken and egg problem. Until the 'market' exists, they can't justify support. If device manufacturers are willing to release the specs, you get a driver. If they are afraid to do that, you don't.
The only solution is for customers to demand support or take their business elsewhere. Problem today is that the big OEM's can sell you a system with XP for less than the white-box guys can sell you a naked system. Of course, the OEM's could sell you a naked system even cheaper, but that's where the MS contracts come in.
You're not going to get end-user handholding any time soon, but it should be reasonable to demand naked systems without paying for XP. Somehow, the remaining MS tax loophole has to be closed. Hell, even a system with XP and a recover disk that doesn't trash your Linux co-install would be a step in the right direction. Is there a profitable class-action suit in any of this? I'd join.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I agree with most of what he says but I think the target populations for Best Buy etc... are not looking for Linux very often. Most people I know who are looking to try Linux have already discovered lower prices by shopping from web retailers. They are often also are savvy enough to build their own pc's and install operating systems. At this point I don't believe there is a large percentage of people who aren't classified as an advanced user who are looking for linux right now. I think there are other factors that are even keeping a lot of advanced Windows users from Linux both deliberate and circumstantial. Things like little or no support or time to learn at work. Desire to use software on existing Windows machines (like games etc) at home rather than taking the time to learn a whole new interface. I'd rather play Tiger Woods Golf than install operating systems. I realize I blow the geek cache with that opinion. I think there a lot of people like my parents for instance who are a customer base Linux needs to tap to break the Microsoft Monopoly that aren't willing or able to make the leap but will buy computer equipment at Best Buy. One of the best things Linux can do to penetrate the market is try why Apple tried in the 70's and early 80's and that is distribute their software in schools and get the kids accustomed to it as their prefered OS. That would also require having software beyond educational that kids are interested in such as highly desireable games, music, etc... Still schools are broke and need technology. I believe it would take a concerted community effort by Linux developers etc... to provide support and documentation directly to schools and I think most importantly initiative to go into school districts and pitch Linux as a viable alternative. This is where I think Microsoft excells and Linux suffers the social networking accross groups. How many times in history have we seen inferior technology win out because of simplicity or greater social engineering and marketing? It's not enough that Linux is better people have to want it.
The reason it isn't cheaper to buy a computer from HP with Linux than with Windows is that it doesn't save any company any money to not put Windows on a machine. Microsoft made a deal with HP to get a certain amount of money per machine they sell in return for letting them put OEM Windows on whatever machines they want. It would cost HP more to buy as many copies of Windows as they actually need, so this deal is in their favor. On Microsoft's end, it saves them money in accounting to let HP have however many copies of Windows they want, as opposed to having to sell them a particular number of copies. In fact, they only have to give HP one copy of Windows and the right to make more, so the OEM deal costs them less to produce than a bunch of copies of Windows.
The fundamental issue is that software is free to produce per unit; there are costs per version and per contract, and putting Linux on some computers and not putting Windows on those computers doesn't reduce either cost. For the same reason that additional copies of Linux don't cost Linux developers anything, additional OEM copies of Windows don't cost Microsoft anything. So there's no reason for any of the companies involved to charge you less for Linux than Windows. If you want to save on a computer with Linux, you need to get it from somebody who sells very few computers with Windows and spends less by buying individual copies than an OEM license would cost.
well you must suck at life then. i am a mostly windows guy but i have a few linux shell accounts which i like to have a uniform set of apps on each so i have installed and sliased both systems to have the programs i want including both binary and source installs all from putty or SSH in cygwin.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
So a end user has to be savvy enough to know all the ins and outs of each distro...
No, an end user only has to know the ins and outs of one distro. The one they use. Which probably came pre-installed on their machine and undoubtably has a simple, easy-to-use, no-rpm-hell package manager GUI. They aren't as rare as some of the trolls here would have you believe.
Don't you hate meta-sigs?
What the hell are you smoking? How hard is "emerge foo" or "apt-get install foo"? Don't have the libraries you need? Don't worry the package manager will install them automatically for you. It doesn't get much easier than that. It's hard to imagine how anyone would prefer the mess that is windows package management. A monkey could install software on Linux.
Time makes more converts than reason
First off let me state that I am posting this from a Debian box & Firefox, and have been using Linux for a long time.
It is my defacto server install. I replace Windows servers left and right with it and get praises for it.
But it drives me crazy as a desktop computer!!! I can't wait for my Mac! I curse it almost as much as I cursed my Windows box.
Here are some of my complaints.
Multimedia:
Linux suffers here, and as the net grows more media rich, it will continue to suffer.
I have MPlayer installed and using it with hesitations. The version installed by Debian and upgraded with apt-get crashed on certain MP3 files. I had to recompile MPlayer to correct this. Average Joe Blow does not want to recompile an app everytime there is a problem or fix.
And MPlayer can't seek streams or DVDs. I can't even pause a stream, it starts over from the beginning when I press play again. Two things the even WMP can handle with ease.
Download Manager:
I have searched for a simple easy to use Download manager and I can't find one. If someone knows of one please let me know. Net Transport and Download Mage are still some of my favorite apps. I like the ability to queue and download files while I sleep.
CD/DVD Burner software:
Linux is totally lacking in this department. I am burning both CDs and DVDs but it is not as simple and feature rich as it is on a Mac or Windows box. I don't even bother burning some stuff at all on Linux, and use my Windows box instead.
Libraries:
I can't tell you how many times I have had to find/download/compile some library just to get some app to work. Or find out that it only supports a certain version of said library. It can be a pain in the ass to even the most experienced user. The average computer user definately does not want to have to deal with this in the slightest.
Support:
Don't even get me started on this. I can't tell you how many times I have had someone get all uppity when I try and seek help to a question, especially to something that should just work. There are a lot of zealots out there that need to lay off the Kool-aid for a minute and actually try listening to someone who wants to use Linux and help them out, instead of immediately going on the defensive and belittling the user. It happens a lot more than people think or realize.
I can go on, but these are the ones that haunt me on a regular basis. And while they might seem trivial to you, I find them very annoying as I would not have to deal with any of these issues on Mac or Windows PC. Not to mention they would probably completely baffle the average Joe user.
I wish everyone the best success on trying to get Linux to the desktops, but I feel that it has a looong way to go. There are a lot of problems that are inherent to Linux due to Linux itself. And I don't see them going away anytime soon.
And that is why I promote Linux 100% in the server arena, and Macs for the desktop.
Kind Herb
--
"Whether you suffer from glaucoma, or you just rented The Matrix, medical marijuana can make things fabulous, medically!" --Homer J. Simpson
Three points.
1. It is easy to get a Linux Desktop in retailers. Just call up companies like Microtel or Linare and stock small shelf space for them.
2. Most major retailers already carry a Linux operating system - including CompUSA. CompUSA has Linspire next to where you can buy Windows XP.
3. Many companies like Dell and HP refuse to support a pc that has linux installed because they have no linux support technicians. I am sure when market share and demand of Linux increases, they might consider hiring qaulified technicians. Most companies like to hire certified and highly trained technicians.
\
What else do you expect from them?
;-P
Apart from that: This Microsoft-Linux black and white scheme makes life so much easier and clearer in this confused and globalized world.
Sigs suck!
This article is a complete gongshow. The crux of this guy's argument is the following:
...
... blame the hardware manufacturers! Blame the kernel developers for not being able to maintain a stable driver API. Smaller hardware manufacturers don't want to waste their time and money developing drivers that will only be deliberately broken with the next kernel update. Fix that problem, and the drivers will start flowing in.
1. SuSE 9.3 64-bit didn't work well with a modern laptop. Waaah.
2. He couldn't find a consumer-level PCMCIA WiFi card that would work in Linux. Waaah.
Remind me again how this is Microsoft's fault, and not the fault of the kernel developers/distro makers? Let me contrast this to a little something I hear on Slashdot a lot
"I installed Linux, but it wouldn't work with my ______! Linux sucks!"
Crowd response: "Don't blame Linux! Blame the hardware manufacturers!"
Well, come on kids, say it with me now
The author of this article really needs to step back to look at his false point of view. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, and everything to do with Linux's shortcomings in hardware support. Would you go to the store, buy a piece of hardware, and then scream bloody murder when you find out that it doesn't work with your OMG-OPTIMIZED GENTOO RICE EDITION?
No. You would RESEARCH the available hardware, pick something that enjoys good Linux support, and THEN go buy it.
Geez.
I used to think Linux was cool -- then I turned 14.
Today it's easier on linux than it's ever been on Windows.
Not true.
I just installed ImageMagick on my Ubuntu box the other day. Took me awhile to to get dselect to get it all right and install it as the package manager GUI couldn't see it.
*shrug*
This being slashdot means that anyone can throw in a smartass comment and be king for the day.
But, I'm tired of being treated like I don't exist: Linux "made it" on my desktop years ago, has run for all of our family's needs (internet, chat, email, games, graphics design, programming, and YES office document use too!), will continue to "make it" on our desktops forever. And we're ALL sick of being discussed as if we were unicorns: "Do home Linux desktop users exist? No, that's just a fairy-tale. It's physically impossible to run Linux on a desktop, because it's just a teletype terminal you have to write the kernel from scratch every time you start it and it doesn't even use a monitor and mouse, it uses punched cards instead." This is all bandied about like it was common knowledge, taught at our universities, discussed with great seriousness in the tech publications, and carried as a confirmed opinion amongst many of my fellow Slashdotters, even.
If you can bear to have your whole reality re-defined, click here: http://www.lynucs.org/ . Behold: Linux desktops! Running on monitors! Note the "taskbar" on the bottom, JustLikeWindows. See the applications open on the desktop, they have a bar at the top with the little "x" thingie to close them and the little box thingie to full-screen them and they use jpg images for wallpaper, JustLikeWindows. Note the scrollbars on the sides of the windows, JustLikeWindows. Note the little icons that you click with the mouse to launch a program or open a file, JustLikeWindows.
Do you suppose, if they spend all this time making all this software...dozens of different window managers and hundreds of distros...that maybe, somewhere, just maybe, somebody could actually use them for anything, at all, at all?
So, the real story is, "Linux struggles daily against Microsoft to survive - and even thrive! - but we'd all be better off if there was less fighting in the world.", not "Linux has been killed by Microsoft. Alas, poor Tux, I knew him...almost." Get it right! Discuss us like we're dead, and we're likely to rise up and prove how alive we are!
Joe went back to the store to return another useless wireless card. Not one wireless card that was on the shelves at CompUSA or Best Buy listed Linux driver support, so Joe gave up. That's right: Not one wireless card currently sold at CompUSA and at Best Buy mentions that it is suitable for use with Linux.
Obviously these people have never heard of the ndiswrapper kerenel module that allows just about _ANY_ wifi network card driver that works under windows work just as well under linux!
People if your going to use linux! you need to RTFM!
No multiple Next buttons for me. Start Synaptic, find package to install, highlight package to install, click apply and it installs the lastest available version. Run program.
For Windows it's Find CD (If you've already purchased it), insert into machine, read EULA, type in CD key, click next a few times, and then it installs. Then you reboot. Then it updates. Then you reboot again. Then you may have another reboot.
I'd say at this point Linux is easier than Windows.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
That's why Linux developers need to change the equation. How could you make it profitable to write a driver for only 2% of the population? There's only one way: Make it 50 times *easier* to write the driver for Linux than Windows.
A possible solution is to provide a cross-platform "driver toolkit" API that allows you to write your Windows driver and your Linux driver (or OS X driver, for that matter) at the same time using the same, or very similar, source code. Make it robust enough so that it won't have a problem passing Windows Logo Testing, and you've just solved the problem. The hardware maker can now just write one version of their driver, and it'll run on 15% more computers than it did before.
But until Linux developers figure out how to change the equation, you'll never see better hardware support. In fact, from what I've read, because of the blind adherence to the GPL, Linus is actually more hostile towards drivers than anything else by frequently breaking the interfaces to them.
Comment of the year
The constant use of the term "Linux" is a misnomer and the sign of an immature market.
No one goes into a store and asks whether they stock "cola-based drinks", They ask for Coke, Pepsi, whatever. We'll know when Linux has really hit the highway when folks stop asking for "Linux", if they ever do, and start asking soley about a brand - Red Hat, Novell, Ubuntu, whatever. As yet I guess the main Linux outfits haven't really extended beyond IT industry workers and enthusiasts but their challenge is to ensure that they do.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
Postgres is a poster child for astonishing progress in a short time from a codebase of purely academic interest to a real, industrially useful product. Over the last ten years its code got radically cleaned up, then it got journaling, increasingly automated administration, and lately replication.
Given the rate of progress in both PostgreSQL and MySQL, Oracle has reason to be worried for its future. It's worried enough, for example, to have bought out Innobase, just to threaten (or tax) the proprietary arm of MySQL, Inc. Oracle certainly has no use for Innobase, so the only plausible reason is that they are worried. They should know, and we should know better than to second-guess them.
There are still things that can be done with Oracle but not PostgreSQL, but they're getting fewer all the time. At some point they will be too few to fund Oracle's corporate expenses, and the money Oracle charges for an annual license will be better spent beefing up PostgreSQL to be able to do the job indefinitely. We may reasonably expect national laboratories to commission such work; they have stringent needs, the budget to satisfy them, and plenty of favorable experience with Free Software projects.
Ok. I'm not familiar with .app bundles (similar to .jars) ?
Pretty much. It's a self contained file (actually a directory that is presented as a single file, but you can drill into it if you want) that contains the executable and all supporting resources and libraries.
But other app bundles make it very difficult for application sharing and greatly increase the size of programs on your computer.
True but mostly irrelevant. Drive space is so cheap that it's easily worth a few megs of redundant libraries per app if it makes things easier for the user. I'll grant that it would be harder on Linux, because you wouldn't have the guarantee of certain libraries always being present like you do on OS X.
Not to mention the complexity of updates.
The update process is usually: download new app version, copy over old version, done.
Linux application install tools allows both the flexibility of an integrated upgrade and removal interface, while still allowing parts of the system to interoperate easily.
Even if that's true, the very fact that you need "application install tools" is a strike against usability. With app bundles, you "install" by copying the single file to your hard drive, and "uninstall" by deleting it. That's always going to be easier than even the best designed package manager.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Microsoft was *not* convicted of being a monopoly. It's OK to be a monopoly. What they were convicted of was worse: using their monopoly power to control the marketplace.
How did they do that? By controlling the distribution chain. Just like they are being accussed of here in the article.
It's not much of a conspiracy if the person being accussed has been convicted of that exact same thing. Is it paranoia to distrust someone who threatens to kill you, if that person is a convicted killer?
Not that it matters. The folks at Microsoft are generally pretty smart. They only behave this way when they are really threatened; and that's a good sign for Linux and the *BSDs.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
As non-geeky as you can get? Check the front page of the inquirer. Notice how EVERY article is computer related? In fact, theinq's rather famous in computer graphics circles for their rumor mongering.
Yeah. Nice try though.
Windows:
Linux:
See? It's very easy in both cases. We don't have to fight about this anymore.
There are online retailers that sell systems with no OS or Linux.
Just because some-retailer-somewhere doesn't sell linux just means they can't pay the vig to get into the store. Once you are in the store there are more fees to pay. Unless customers are beating down the doors to buy, it's a difficult place to have a successful product be profitable without tons of advertising and a great price.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The parent post says "if you know how to use IE correctly [it's safe]"
That's fine, but what percent of the population "use IE correctly?" Here's my guess -- the number has no significant digits to the left of the decimal point.
Put a default install of Firefox on an ordinary user's machine, and they're unlikely to have problems. Put a default install of IE on their machine, and they face non-trivial odds of relaying Nigerian email spam from now until they buy a new computer.
--Pat
1.) Get Xandros, run the install, and it will allow you to resize the XP partition making room for Xandros.
2.) Use Xandros for a bit, and see how you like it.
3.) Then install whatever flavor of Linux you want over it.
Or you can spend the bucks, and get partion magic or something like that. But the Xandros thing can be done for the cost of burning your own ISO
regards
dbcad7
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
When you build a Windows machine, you have to test it to see if all the parts will work together under your chosen version of the OS and your required end-user application(s). Even if you use only Microsoft-certified hardware and applications!
;)) it's even more likely that you will have some hardware that simply won't run the software you require, because the hardware vendors typically only do a windows test suite during their product development cycle.
When you build a linux machine (and I've built a few
So your reason #2 could be real. The rest of your reasons all boil down to "we think we can extort more money from stupid linux users, caveat emptor" or make the assumption that a significant number of end-users buy their software and peripherals from their PC vendor.
Even though the guy in the story (Joe), tried linux, he tried SuSe, which, along with the popular FC4, mandrake, and all those OS's are very GUI-based. For me, real linux is defined by source-compiled operating systems, like Gentoo and arch. They give the user the most power, the most control: Most people could never successfuly do a gentoo install. Linux is not for everyone; I hate to use the term "Elitest OS", but source-compiled operating systems just will not work for the majority of the population. While I am very mad at Microsoft's sabotage techniques, I am not surprised, nor do I plan to do anything radical about it: I run two Gentoo computers, and I personally know that only 1 of my friends would be able to succesfully use the OS as an alternative. There is a reason why windows dominates; they just have the right formula, and a huge brainwashed audience, and the result is a huge ammount of corrupted money income. But most people just will not bother learning anything but windows. I'm used to it, and that's the attitude I expect. I love Linux, but it's not for the majority of computer users, and shouldn't be. Because then we'll just have the same problems as windows users will.
It is believed that the Chinese government is working to hinder capitalism and free speech.
RMS is believed to be working to hinder proprietary software.
Experts propose a theory that Christian priests may preach Christianity.
Even more controversially, Buddhist monks are believed to attempt to reach Nirvana.
Last, but not least, analysts predict that Microsoft will continue releasing Windows-based operating system, rather than switching to a Linux-based system.
The drivre situation is not a conspiracy, it's just a vicious cycle.
Hardware makers write drivers for Windows because if they don't they'll lose, say, 30% (server) to 95% (consumer) of their market. MS doesn't even have to pay them; they pay for the privilege with certification fees.
Then MS, in turn, has drivers for all the hardware, and this reinforces its desktop monopoly.
On the Linux side the factors work the other way: lack of hardware support retards adoption, and lack of market share reduces the incentive for hardware support.
Linux devs have gone a remarkable way toward breaking this situation with reverse engineering, persuasion, and a population of determined users. If there were justice, MS would ahve been forced long ago to make its OEM contracts non-secret, to offer the same price list to everyone, to have OEMs state the price of Windows separately, and to let buyers opt out of it, and then the Linux desktop would be much further along..
I don't know of any major corporations - none, as I sit here in the corporate capital of the world - that do anything other than ghost out a standard image. A PC comes in the door, the disk is formatted and the highly optimized and controlled corporate image is loaded. If the end-user screws it up, re-ghost immediately. Sarbannes-Oxley, HIPAA, GLB, FDA regs all prevent you from storing important data on the local hard drive anyway, so the data's on a server somewhere access controls can be monitored and backups documented.
It can take as long as 400 man-hours to produce a corporate desktop image. The determining factors are the experience and knowledge of the staff member who does it. If that person is a Windows guru, Windows is faster. If the person is a Linux guru, linux is faster.
So it still comes down to the same thing some other poster keeps chanting - it's what the kids are getting taught. My nine-year-old and six-year-old are being thoroughly indoctrinated with Microsoft by the public school system, so there you are. But it's still not malice - the teachers don't know any better.
A large monopoly using its power against the upcoming competition.. Go figure.
This is news?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Story Summary: Windows-only hardware works better with Windows.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Sorry Tim C but I call bullshit on you. I just updated my version of Ubuntu to the newest version. Although I know how to use the CLI, for the heck of it I tried it through the GUI (using Synaptic).
Point, Click to open Synaptic. Edit the word "Hoary" to replace it with the word "Breezy" in the nice GUI edit page. Point and click a couple of more times, Wait for download and install, and poof - done! A perfect upgrade. The entire operating system, and every single application on my Linux system, all upgraded simply by pointing and clicking.
You simply CANNOT do that on Windows. There is no way in Windows you can simultaneously upgrade the OS (say, move from Windows 2000 to Windows XP) and upgrade EVERY application you are using all at the same time.
You need to refamiliarize yourself with Linux. For a long time now, Linux has been better than Windows on the desktop in the following areas: (a) more control afforded to the user; and (b) much easier to install Linux from scratch on a computer than it is to install Windows from scratch.
With Ubuntu, it is time to add a THIRD area where desktop Linux has no become better - way better: program installation and upgrades. No offense, man, but you are out of touch, and you are the one spouting the bullshit, as you call it.
Terpstra's articles are nothing more than propaganda based upon exaggeration and half-truths. I couldn't even read the entire set. I gave up about halfway through part two when I came accross the following:
"If companies really seek to attract the largest number of potential consumers, why are their practices so restrictive? What commercial arrangements have been made behind closed doors so as to keep Linux out of the public eye?"
Companies aren't looking to attract the largest number of potential customers, they're looking to attract the largest number of PROFITABLE customers. Customers cost money, plain and simple. Therefore it is wise to seek out customers that are going to give a return on the company's investment. There just aren't enough people looking to buy systems with Linux pre-installed right now to justify the opportunity cost associated with catering to them.
There are other problems with this article as well. A non-technical person reading it would assume that there were massive incompatibility problems with Linux, whereas in truth the problems are few and generally very minor. His first example points out that one of the users in his story had a hard time getting various wireless interfaces working. If someone didn't know any better, they might assume that this was indicative of a much larger pattern of difficulty with computers and components in general. The truth is that support for wireless cards is the biggest compatability hurdle right now, but it is an anomaly. No other catagory of device is anywhere near as plagued with problems. Laptops are also more difficult to grapple with than desktop systems. My job is to support Linux and unix for the college of engineering at the 5th largest university in the country. I do Linux installs day in and day out, and I can tell you that I'm not often faced with hardware support problems on desktop systems. Laptops can be more tricky, but even then it is usually the wireless interface and/or the video that represents the sole difficulty. In both cases there is a lot of documentation online that details how to get both working for most systems. There have been a few cases where I couldn't get Linux working, but they are very few and far between.
If I were to read these articles on a message board, I would assume that he was a troll due to the way in which he abuses language. He likes to use the term "compatible" in places where "supported" would be much more appropriate. There are not very many vendors who actually officially support Linux with their devices, but that doesn't mean those devices are necessarily incompatible with Linux. In fact I would argue that of all the myriad hardware devices that Linux supports, virtually none are officially "supported" under Linux by the vendor. I neither care nor worry about whether a device is officially "supported." The only thing that matters to me is whether it will work or not. If the drivers are there and they work then that is all the matters to me, and I support Linux for a living.
In general vendors are very willing to work with the Linux community, at least as far as the creation of drivers are concerned. Providing info on a device to someone who wants to create a driver costs these vendors nothing and may even increase their sales. Official support costs money, which is why it is so uncommon, at least on desktop systems. In the server arena things are much different. Most major server vendors both sell systems with Linux pre-installed, and support Linux on these systems. It is only a matter of time before this trickles down onto the desktop.
In all he paints a very distorted picture of where Linux is on the desktop and utilizes 'tin foil hat' logic to do it. There is no vast conspiracy. I do believe that Microsoft does work to try and prevent Linux from succeeding as a desktop OS, but Microsoft alone does not a conspiracy make.
One thing that I don't think he probably mentions is the fact that Best Buy, Circuit City, and Fry's all s
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
No, not *every* program, that's what the 'usually' qualifier means. My structuring of the dependent clause probably didn't make that clear. My intended meaning was that it usually had to modify the registry and usually had to reboot. And yes, frankly, the majority of the packages I've installed have in fact required me to reboot - probably not strictly necessary, but that's what they tell me. Now, maybe if I were installing 20 or 30 bits of shareware and freeware a week, perhaps I'd see more software that didn't tell me I had to reboot. But the only time I'm using Windows in the first place is for something I can't use on another OS, and that means commercial packages, and usually vendor-specific. Yes, those usually require a reboot. Don't like it? Don't jump my shit, call Bill Gates and jump his.
And why the fuck would I install IE? Besides being a security hole you could drive a truck through, it comes preinstalled because it's an integral and irremovable part of the OS! I have no intention of wasting my bandwidth on IE updates, either. That's several tens of megs that COULD be used for d/l porn.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
For companies like IBM/Lenovo, Dell, HP & Fujitsu it is a bit absurd not to have a Linux setup on hand for all their computer builds. Most of them have been making the same computers with literally no changes for a couple of years now. A SATA driver there, a wifi driver here, a Linux image is no hassle to build once and update every couple of years. The support cost is non existant. Most of them dont have Linux support anyway for non servers. On the other hand Linux support is a major selling point. IT managers are more often than not happy to hear how easy it is to install Linux on the computers in question, and they are influential in the decision process and it tends to tilt the balance when every penny counts in this cut-throat business.
I couldn't disagree more. DLL hell in windows is precisely because of lack of DLL versioning as well as a variety of other reasons forcing apps to install their own DLLs.
/etc makes it easier for filesystem maintenance and indexing. Windows registry is a lousy solution to a non-problem that eliminates easy editing. You have a filesystem, use it.
.config files also end up having their parallels even if you install a massive app bundle. You need to keep configs *somewhere* and the registry, well. Enough ranting.
The advantage of shared system libraries ain't "disk space is cheap" - it is being able to rapidly and efficiently incorporate new changes.
If an exploit is discovered in zlib, I update it once with the patch. Done.
I don't have to update every single friggen app across my entire system and replace their hundreds of "disk space is cheap" separate files.
Might as well statically link at that point. Hah.
If you set aside libraries, unix apps actually are fairly consistent. All configuration files under
$HOME
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Writing device drivers is expensive. The $40 for a windows liscense pays for many of the drivers. In order for a Linux based computer to be sold in a brick & mortar store, it would need to recover the cost of writing Linux drivers.
No, I will not work for your startup
When the GP mentions complexity of the update process he probably means the problem of bundled libraries that don't get updated when you (the user) update something but only when the developer of the thing using the lib updates it. And by size RAM size is probably closer to the core of the problem than disk size.
Linux is not Windows
I installed a Windows Software today on 18 PCs. Even though it was able to install from a network drive (big help) I had to manually:
1) go to each PC
2) log in as admin
3) map a network drive (wouldn't run otherwise, why can't you mount things in windows btw)
4) type in the CD-Key
5) click "Next" approx. 10 times
6,7,8) do the same for the second and third CD a few minutes later (yeah, extra installer, how "nice") and the service pack (less "next" but more time between individual install steps due to unpacking)
(insert additional step "get the login box to display the correct Domain for the dumb users" here if your users are really dumb and the admin is in a different domain or a local user)
9) log out the admin
Contrast this with Linux where I can just login via ssh on each PC and execute exactly one command (something like "emerge xilinx-ise" probably if that software were available for Linux in a usable version), log out again (with the use of screen even before the command is finished), not to mention the fact that I could script the whole "do the same on 18 machines" part.
Linux is not Windows
Easier by far!
I can boot a Kanotix CD, connect to the internet, and surf for info while installing Linux from the same CD. I can reboot (once!) after install, and if I break anything I can boot the live CD to fix/get repair info/whatever.
Having made several attempts to switch to Linux, I have come to the conclusion that Linux is already doing a brilliant job of stopping itself from gaining widespread adoption on the desktop. Ubuntu is the closest I've seen to a cheap or free distro that "just works" and even that has severe deal breakers. For me the inability to configure WPA easily would stop me from deploying linux on laptops in a commercial environment - yeah I know about wpasupplicant and all, but why is not installed out-of-the-box in any distro? Home users would baulk at the inability to play DVDs without having to jump through several hoops to install "tainted" or downright illegal codecs. For both home and business users, OpenOffice 2 is the first version that comes even close to being a MS Office replacement and it's *still* in beta. Commercial distros may be better, but if I'm going to shell out money, why not go with the market leader? One of the real sticking points for linux on the desktop is the the desktop environment itself. You don't have to dive into Linux very deep before you get mired in the Gnome vs. KDE debate. Fact is they both blow chunks.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
That's right, you heard right. Simply force the user to buy his OS and software separately, and bar manufacturers from distruting system-specific install software too. Let the user choose his own OS and software according to his needs and install them himself. And no discounts for having just bought a PC, either.
"But Grey, the average user isn't qualified to install his own OS," I hear you cry. Well then how can he possibly be qualified to connect his OS to the Internet, where his zombie PC is currently gumming up the works for everyone. Besides which the Windows install is a point and click thing that anyone with half a brain can do in their sleep. Isn't that what Microsoft would have us believe? And if the user, presented with a choice between Windows for $200 or Debian for the cost of the netinst CD it's burned to, happens to unwisely choose the much harder (Microsoft would have us beleive) to deal with netinst CD, well at least he isn't out that much when he has to go back and buy the Windows media. Right?
As an added benefit, maybe then the manuals will tell us what hardware is actually in the machine we just bought again. Have you ever seen a manual from the pre-Microsoft era? You got ASCII charts and port pin-outs. Seriously. What do you get now? "Here's how to use all the bundled software that's installed on the machine," which I just formatted off in favor of Debian.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I don't see how a company can risk using Microsoft for any mission-critical task. If Linux or Apache break, that bug can be fixed at a trivial (for a business) cost of hiring a consultant. If Windows/IIS breaks, they are dead in the water unless they are the size of Dell and can actually make an impact on Microsoft's revenues. Even home users can type some stuff into bugzilla and have a reasonable chance of getting their problem fixed after a while.
This article is a ridiculous waste of ink. The guy obviously has no idea what goes into PC hardware manufacturing & support - how much time and energy software & hardware developers, integraters, and testers spend getting the umpteen zillion parts of a PC working with the various OSs the system has to support. He seems to think that manufacturers develop their hardware, then ship it - end of story. Nope, we (I'm in the business) spend a godawful amount of time supporting the various operating systems we are required to support. And get this: the OSs with the largest user base get the most energy & resources. We spend countless person-hours making sure our hardare and software works on WinXP. WinME and OS/2 - not so much. Win2000 is ramping down, and Vista is ramping up. Linux is another bottom feeder: there's no great business reason for supporting anything but the barest of hardware functionality. Honestly, you can *thank* the few PC manufacturers that require at least some semblance of Linux support. If it wasn't for those PC manufacturers then most Independent Hardware Vendors wouldn't bother supporting Linux at all.
Linux: sudo apt-get install foo
If I upgrade Paint Shop Pro, Corel will ship a polished commercial product with a thick printed manual and CD. This I like.
It isn't just games that keeps people on Windows. It is an immense end-user oriented program library developed over twenty-five years that fills every market niche.
...and don't whine if you buy some god forsaken piece of hardware for your PC and find it's a bitch to get it working on Linux.
Seriously though, give the OSS developers some credit. How in hell can you expect them to support every damn piece of hardware that is available for your PC? Sure, there are good drivers for what is commonly used and there will continue to be.
For Linux drivers, you will need to stop worrying once Linux becomes a more widely recognized OS. Because it is the manufacturers who will need to provide the drivers for their devices and that's the only way you're going to be sure that something will work. Even then, how many devices do you know come with perfect drivers for Windows? Even after it's so widely used, if you buy cheap hardware, chances are you'll get dodgy drivers.
So if you dont want to Google, buy stuff that's in common use or grin and bear it and if you can, help write the drivers for that exotic piece of hardware. Either that, or buy from a retailer who's known to sell devices that ship with linux drivers. Don't know about the USA, but if you're in Australia or New Zealand, you can shop at Dick Smith Electronics and they'll even tell you which VERSION of the Linux kernel the drivers have been tested with.
So just be patient. Linux is getting there. Device driver support for Linux is on its way. It just takes time. So either be patient for now and do your research to make sure the hardware will work with linux, or try and help Linux to get there.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Let me see if I have it right:
.....
1. Create a product
2. Sell product and build market
3. Ruthlessly through any means stomp on competitors trying to enter market
4. Profit!
Really, this goes back to robber baron days... or are they still with us
Here's a short list of the bad things that have happened to friends because of the commodity crap I've seen them buy in the past six months:
Why would anyone ever want to put up with that?
For myself, my family, and several of my friends - the better way is to either custom build yourself or have a geek friend do it.
Rob Enderle's excellent new book: Everything I needed to know about Computer Science I learned in Marketing School
So you have a domain, and presumably a domain controller, but don't use Active Directory for application deployment and scripting? Why not?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
IMHO we should build a Linux "portal" where all Linux users can go for support. Independent of the dist of choice, where everyone can come to ask questions...developers, coders et al would most definitely sign up, and read/provide insight. ./? distrowatch? Let's get our own passports!
Warning, author clueless.
That is just not correct. There are lots and lots of mature "enterprise" software management applications, from Tivoli, LANDesk, Microsoft's Systems Management Server and package creation tools like Windows Installer, WISE, etc. that are only now getting started in Linux. Administering software installs/updates/removals in large, geographically distributed Windows deployments is not as hard for admins to master as it is for Linux, where, mostly, every management system has to be architected from scratch by a competent admin team, with little hope of congruency across different shops.
I'm not going to go into the history of the Microsoft antitrust cases, but you can't discuss this issue intelligently without looking at them.
Why did you post AC? This post is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
A desktop computer can be purchased for as little as $400. A laptop computer can be purchased at a price point below $550. Linux is free. Microsoft Windows, coupled with its bundled software, must cost at least $40 per machine. So, if Linux were to be pre-loaded, the retailer could offer the device at the same price and make an additional 5% to 10% gross margin.
Anybody see the hole there? How about: what are the COSTS associated with installing and supporting an OS used by 5% of a businesses customers?
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
And throw away my software freedom to watch movies that require non-free software to play? No thanks. I'd consider free software reverse-engineered compatible codecs, though.
Digital Citizen
And those non-free codecs may do things users don't like (spyware, for instance). Copying those non-free codecs might constitute copyright infringement (depending on the license for the codec), patent infringement, and they just plain won't work if you're not running GNU/Linux on a compatible architecture. Finally, it's great that your relatives and girlfriend enjoy the Linux kernel. I hope they enjoy the rest of the operating system as well.
Digital Citizen
Linux support at a manufacturer is not costless. If Dell, for example, decides to sell Linux on some systems, they have to get it running, test, document, change the website to reflect it, advertise, support, duplicate CDs, create part numbers, etc.... These costs need to be allocated to the Linux machines sold -- if it costs you $1M to get to the point where you can ship Linux, and you only sell 5,000 of them, you have to increase the costs by $200 per machine just to break even.
Many of the corresponding costs for Windows are probably higher, but they are also spread across far more machines -- the end result is that even with the Windows license, the per unit cost is lower.
I'm speaking as/for a commercial developer which already has a working port on Linux of a very large and powerful app but can't release because of the license mess the linux GUI/OS is in.
It's entirely one thing to co-develop open tools. It's another to shoot yourself in the foot by making them block entry into your space.
If there is a plot to keep linux off desktops, the significance of it is dwarfed by the OS's licensing problems.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Nearly all of that documentation needs to be written anyway. It is the only reasonable way for the programmers to know how to write the drivers.
Oh sure, you could have the programmers bug the hardware guys directory for every detail, but between the programmer forgetting (where is foo again? Bit 7 or byte offset 0xff3a...), and the interuptions of the train of thought for both guys, you need the paper anyway. If as an investor I found out you used that process I would start a shareholder lawsuit - when someone quits you loose all their knowledge, and that is criminal.
Now there is some more effort in making it publicly releaseable, but it should be much above what you have to do. If it is your documentation isn't usefull internally either.
The title should have said "Linux: Sabotaging Linux Desktop Adoption Sabotage"
Microsoft stopped doing that years ago. Such bundling killed OS/2, but the government stepped in and killed such arrangements years ago.
The vast majority of Windows software doesn't come with *any* printed manual, let along a thick one; the OS doesn't come with a manual at all now. If you really like having the CD, and you don't want to burn one yourself, then buy a copy of your favorite OSS on CD.
There is an immense library of UNIX software, too. The difference is that Windows software is available in brick and mortar stores, and UNIX software largely isn't. It is a chicken-and-egg problem. Stores won't stock and developers won't develop until there is market, and there can't be market if nobody is selling.
putting a free disk in a mainstream non computer magazine. Sounds like something mark shuttleworth -Ubuntu- could afford, but not too many other people. Heck, you can't get a lot of the big name distros to pop 50 grand to include MP3 play out of the box, they just give you hints to offshore servers for the gray area plugin. Cheap is as cheap does, and you have to admit, look at how far ubuntu has come once someone threw some serious cash at actually getting linux "out there", with out there meaning "besides the suit and tie enterprise arena". I don't know exactly what he's dropped, but it's in the millions no doubt. If he were to do this with those mags like you suggested, well...it would get slapped into some disk drives, then word of mouth, etc. FF raised a fifth of a million just for a stupid ad in the newspaper, I wonder if "the Linux Community" could raise an even million bucks for the great magazine give away? I bet several mags would be interested in making some cash just for including a disk.
HOWEVER, I see another way to sneak it into mainstream use,perhaps even to make some enterprising lads some coin, and that is as an impulse item game disk on the gaming shelves at some of the larger stores, heck, even walmart. If you had a "Tons-0-Free-Games!" disk for ten bucks retail,not 20 or 50,but @ 9.99$, which also coincidently was a more or less complete "linux web surfer edition" distro underneath, a LOT of people might accidently try it out. It has to be on the shelf though, and be a Live Cd-installation very optional type deal.
The people who say linux is easier are looking at it from a sysadmin perspective, the people who say Windows is easier are looking from a "dumb user" downloading junk off the web perspective. The fact is however, that for desktop acceptance, the "dumb user" scenario is more important than the sysadmin one, and that is something the people implementing linux by and large don't get (or don't like or care about if they get it).
In reading the article I noticed that the author missed something I think is a major factor in why Linux desktops actually cost more than comparable windows machines. I firmly believe that Microsoft is subsidising the cost of desktops preloaded with Windows. It is the only explaination why a computer with a $100-200 operating system preinstalled cost less than one with an OS that is free (or at least nearly free in the case of Linspire) to load. I think Windows has become a "loss leader" for Microsoft. Note that they will no longer include Office preloaded on a machine and it cost to have it added. MS makes a fortune every year selling software to run on their OS and charging hardware manufacturers for "certifying" their drivers. Not to mention that if you do decide to buy an upgrade version of Windows you still have to pay an arm and a leg to get it. That's a tough thing for Linux to compete with. I know some Linux fan will come along and mod me down for saying this, but it has to be said. (btw I'm on my laptop loaded with Mandriva LE 2k5 right now and later I'll move to my desktop loaded with Mandrake 10.1, I got rid of Windows about 3 years ago) Linux is just not going to beat MS being a free OS, or even a "value added" OS. It's going to take an entreprenuer like Michael Robertson to figure out how to create a real business model out of Linux. Just look at my dad. Regardless of how long I use Linux and refuse to boot MS on a computer in my home, how much college I get behind me in CS, or how often I complainn about having to fix their MS boxes AGAIN, he'll always stick to the same argument he has used against Linux since day 1... "You get what you pay for, how good could something free be. I mean, Windows cost $200, it's got to be better than something that's free" The only hope I can have in this world is to counteract the brainwashing in my son by forcing him to use Linux on a daily basis at my house. Kids are great, you get to decide just how to screw them up from day one and they get no say in the matter!
My software never has bugs.
It just develops random features.
My main suspect is that they're distracting our developers. all these UI-centric articles taht keep coming out are simply a red herring to make OSS try to out Redmond MS. Somehow we've fallen for the ploy and decided taht linux will only win by being more user friendly.
Fucking bullshit. Linux community need to get off its ass and start innovating again.
Right, and if you use windows XP correctly it will run smoothly for weeks and more without reboots, and never need a reinstall (well, random hardware problems notwithstanding). Yet, where I work, we still get people every day paying $140 to clean out the spyware and viruses *yet again*.
Most of these people have no idea about "best practices" for computer use for a number of reasons.
1) 0 attempt at education by manufacturers. Most people who buy store sold PCs *still* haven't heard of AV or Anti-Spyware, and Symantec has been advertising out the wazoo + preinstalling for *HOW LONG*?
2) It's obscure and non trivial. You go to start -> control panel, internet options, etc. etc. Disable this and that, and set this entry. Now some sites don't work, so go into your trusted sites list and add this.
3) Now look at firewalls - many people turn them off because they "break" thier internet or their programs... Because the configuration isn't that simple.
All this leads to effective social engineering attacks against most internet users. Plus the constant manual work - checking if the auto updates are working, possibly approving the update, checking on scans, knowing what to do when something is found etc...
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Excuse my bad english, is not my native tongue. ./ers do.
Trust me i'm no M$ apologizer, i hate them as much as all
Linux sabotages itself, i've worked on a project to sell linux preinstalled on cheap boxes sold in my country, we wasted 3 months trying to develop a distro with a decent GUI. I never been so frustrated by the lack of common sense in the GNOME/KDE/Xfree communities, from problems like being unable to add a goddamn item to a gnome menu to the total confusion created by the mostly useless options in KDE , how is possible that linux users cannot fu**ing change the resolution color depth and refresh rate in realtime? Do a simple test, install XP and Gnome/KDE on the same machine, guess what, XP (i regret to say this and hope that someday this changes) is faster , i mean WAAAAY faster, everything is smoother everything works. Why can't this be done in Linux? I tend to blame X and it's ancient Client/Server architecture, i think that smething must be done to get rid of it or at least make it a modern technology with perhaps direct access to the hardware instead of the kludge of apis and interfaces required (kde/gnome/qt/gtk/ice/X/DRM/etc.etc) today. why can't the very capable OSS community come out with a solution like Apple Quartz did. I don't know much programming as to help or start any project, but i gladly donate to such a project.
So it's not definitely M$ fault, Stop blaming M$ or others for all the shortcomings of Linux GUI development and rethink the whole idea.
You can't fake man-tits like that. Imagine the dank sweat festering beneath them.
My god, dwarves could wear them as floppy, gelatinous hats.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
And how exactly is profit motive different from malice?
Profit motive means "Making myself rich is priority number one. All else, including humane treatment of people is priority number 10 and lower." That's very much what malice is. Malice is not some diabolical desire to destroy the world. Malice is just wanton, unrestrained, unconsidered selfishness.
Compare this with some of these others motives:
"To make everyone happy, including myself"
"To advance the health of the community"
"To be happily content."
"To learn new things."
"To share."
Etc. These are some examples of what I consider to be non-malicious motives. Gathering up and hoarding of stuff for oneself is as evil as it gets.
All motives are selfish at some point. However, wanton, unrestrained selfishness that has not been subjected to some very serious, prolonged inquiry is what malice is (unlike other, more enlightened kinds of selfishness).
- if the package is available, it will be installed and configured properly.
You actually mention the problem in your post. Yeah, apt/dpkg is great. I love how easy it is to install programs with it. If the package is available. And what if its not available? What if, for some reason, it hasn't been added to the repository? At best you have to search until you find a version of the program that's already in a dpkg form, but just isn't in the repository. More likely, you're back dealing with dependencies, compiling from source, etc. Compare that to Windows, where just about every program has an automatic installer. Yes, Linux installation has come a long way, and in some ways is easier to use than Windows. But there is still room for improvement here.
1.0.7 kept crashing on my Gentoo box, roughly once every twelve hours. I'm using Deer Park beta 1 now, and it seems to be more stable. Don't ask me why; 1.0.7 worked fine until last week.
Microsoft shills always blame the user for their 'stupidity'. The GP there expects you to jump through the hoops normally required by older Linux distros just to surf the web. So much for 'intuitive' Windows.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
First, you can mount in Windows. It's net use drive letter: \\server\share
In general, all domain members have administrative shares that can map drives so if you're an admin, you can map any drive in the domain.
You generally can script and automate a windows install. Most Windows software installers come with a cli invocation mode and the ability to include the cd key and other responses to the gui script in a specially named text file you stick in with the installer. You can even remote log in with Microsoft's remote desktop app.
People have done thousands of seats of MS installs with scripting. This isn't new technology.
I've heard this all before despite the fact that I try to pay no attention to it. People can complain all they want, but it won't change anything...
The fact is that Linux - as it is right now - is not going anywhere in the desktop market. Linux is awesome for servers. I love it. I wouldn't dream of using Windows for running a server, and trying to network Windows machines without at least one Linux box to keep it altogether is about as much fun as, say, trying to have sex with an ant nest. But Linux just doesn't work well as a desktop operating system right now.
I love the power, control and security Linux gives me for certain tasks. But when I want to sit down and watch a movie or listen to some music, chat with friends or play games, I don't want to worry about whether or not I'm going to have to install (read: compile) a new piece of software, update my device drivers, or edit config files. I'm fully capable of doing so, but why bother? It's just not worth it. I use Windows for that kind of stuff. Believe it or not, my XP boxes are speedy, virus and spyware free, and I can't even remember the last time I got BSOD'd.
There are still many, many things that need to be changed before Linux has a chance as a desktop. The GUI is pretty bad (neither KDE or Gnome are very good, and X is worse), but that's just the tip of the iceberg. The fundamental design principles of Linux make it a poor desktop operating system (excluding as a development platform; it excels there too.) Too much control, not enough automation. It's the same reason Windows is horrible as a server - it wasn't designed to be one. Too much automation, not enough control. So, making Linux viable for the desktop is a lot of work.
Frankly, I'm not even sure it's possible to make Linux work as a desktop OS. I mean, it's theoretically possible to take Linux and change it enough that the average user could use it, but would it still be Linux? I certainly don't think it would be Linux as we think of it today.
Eh, it doesn't bother me, anyway. I just plan to keep doing what I'm doing - Linux for servers; Windows for desktops.
Because when I go to HP or Dell or any big name website and search for business PCs with long warranties, without useless software bundles and with linux preinstalled, I can't find any. Can you? Are rest of the world surfing some different websites where those kind of machines are offered?
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
Its the third option: can't do anything about it if they wanted to. How do you cross the chaos and make packages that will install in all distros when distros won't work towards a common goal?
You don't.
Open Source Sushi
For a long time, I have suspected that Microsoft are persuading manufacturers not to support the popular GNU/Linux operating system.
..... but no Tux, and no Daemon.
Any cheap ethernet card you can buy will have a Realtek 8139 chip, which is well supported in Linux {it's hard in the kernel on some installation disks is how popular it is} and BSD. It will also have a Microsoft Windows logo on the packaging
Every modern digital camera behaves like a USB disk drive, again well supported in Linux. No driver software is required: just the usb-storage module {NB, don't compile this hard into the kernel}, ImageMagick and the GIMP which are on almost every distro's installation disks. Again, none of them mention on the packaging that they will work happily with GNU/Linux. Yet it's been my experience that digital cameras behave more stably under Linux than under Windows. This is no mystery; this is exactly as I would have expected, since an open API is by definition better documented than a closed one and therefore software can interact much more reliably in such an environment.
Switches and routers absolutely do not care what OS the host computers are running, as long as it supports TCP/IP {and they all do nowadays}. A moderate-to-high-end one -- the sort of thing you might find in a medium-sized office setup where there is someone who has a clue about IT -- might have a Linux logo on the packaging, but a cheap one almost certainly will be labelled as though it were only suitable for Windows.
{This one isn't hardware; but it's a personal crusade of mine. How often have you seen next to a PDF download "requires Acrobat reader" ? Does it bunnies -- gpdf works fine. I'm e-mailing every website owner I can about this because I believe many people are needlessly polluting their GNU/Linux systems with closed-source software.}
Now, I know what I'm doing. I've been using computers since the Sinclair ZX81 and the BBC Model B, and in those days I used to write all my own software in BASIC and assembler; I have always enjoyed testing the boundary between the possible and the impossible. Does that make me a hacker? It's no big deal to me to patch a kernel module and compile it "after the event" so to speak. But I know I'm the exception.
One thing I would like to see done about this is Mandatory Full Disclosure. That is, you should not be allowed to sell a piece of hardware without supplying full details of how to interact with it at every level, gratis and unencumbered, to every rightful owner on request. Register descriptions, communications protocols, and so forth. No or insufficient documentation should mean no CE / TÜV / FCC / UL accreditation. Never mind giving away secrets to your competitors -- not only do your competitors already buy your products and reverse-engineer them anyway, but you will be able to read your competitors' Mandatory Full Disclosure documentation -- or take them to court for not supplying it. {What you won't be able to do is package a 300DPI printer as 2400DPI, or a 2 megapixel camera as a 6 megapixel camera, or sell a graphics card more expensive than an electronically-identical one because it has one byte different in the driver software and one byte different in the firmware. But that, of course, would be called "deception" or "fraud".} And never mind that in the case of wireless or telephony kit, people might be able to use it in ways that might not meet local regulations -- it's not your business what people do with their own property {never mind that they might conceivably be operating wireless tat out-of-spec inside a Faraday cage, or running phone tat out-of-spec on a PABX isolated from the PSTN, and so beyond the scope of regulations}. Breweries are not responsible for drunk driving. Petrol refineries are not responsible for arson. Fertiliser manufacturers are not responsible for terrorist bombs.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Seriously missing. Seriously MS-only.
Seriously you're going to need these to access your bank account in a couple of years.
Conspiracy? Microsoft has Verisign in their back pocket or somethin?
Didn't somebody mention a _contractual_ limitation that one of the vendors acknowledged?
Seriously.
Wait...
/ 211088/MicrosoftworksonfixasFirefoxisupdated.htm
e +vulnerable+than+IE/2100-1002_3-5873273.html l ?articleID=163100338
'It's had more security bugs in this past year than IE'
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2005/07/26
True.
'Note: I still USE Firefox on all my machines but it's because I don't mind wasting time patching it every few weeks when another vulnerability comes out.'
Favourable comment regardless fo previous fact.
'Don't get me wrong, I love the features of Firefox but from a security standpoint I realize I'm taking a risk by using it.'
http://news.com.com/Symantec+Mozilla+browsers+mor
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtm
Also True.
So how exactly is this flamebait?
People who graded this as a flame are burying there heads in the sand. Firefox has become more popular it has therefore come under more attack and yes it has been found not to be particularly secure. Theres a simple reason why. No Web Browser non of them witout exception are secure nor will they probably ever be.
Take a step back from your MS bashing two seconds to realise that IE has actually been working hard on sealing its bugs up non stop since its conception. MS wasnt leaving bugs in for a laugh, and the people working on this arnt rubbish programmers or incompetant. The problem is simply overwhelming.
The idea that Firefox, which hasnt had years of being tested against a vast army of crackers, and has only even been a particular target for spyware and such relatively recently, would be more secure is ludicrous.
Now whether the speed and how they handle the security flaws is good enough to counteract the greater numbers of bugs is another argument and not one Id want to speculate on.
Will the Microsoft (or most other commercial software) telephone support provide fixes for bugs? No, all they will do is help you use the software or suggest work-arounds for bugs. If you are lucky 'your' bug might be fixed in the next (or later) release of software for which you will (normally) have to pay.
A system without Windows will cost more because third-party companies will pay OEMs to install their software onto the system. Their software is compatible only with Windows. That link for AOL on your new Dell, for instance, was paid for by AOL.
Think about it this way: people have to pay you to install Windows on your computer.
Haha.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
(Note: I like Linux, I run Linux, the company runs Linux in the infrastructure. The following is a business discussion NOT a personal preference.)
OK, go to Dell chose a Linux PC and note the price. Now go to a windows XP Home based PC and 'upgrade' the config to match the Linux PC from a speed/memory/disk/video perspective. Last time I did this the price difference was ~$40 on an $800 PC (5%). Remember that while XP is $200 retail it is ~$30-50 OEM (hey $40 times a million PC per year per 'Dell' adds up).
On Walmart.com I see a celeron D 2.8Ghz 256meg 80G drive Win XP Pro for $407. A celeron D 2.8 Ghz, 128 Meg, 40G drive, no OS is $78 cheaper (note smaller drive and less ram on No OS and the Win box is Win PRO not home). Walmart does not really do support (manufacturer support) so it is less likely to mark up for support costs (the manufacturer to walmart costs MAY already have a markup for it).
So the 'manufacturer' has double the OS test/certification costs to reduce his retail price ~$50 or ~5%. For this effort he gets entry into a small market space. THAT IS THE MAJOR ISSUE. If I have to test on multiple OSes and support multiple OSes I need a reasonable return on that cost. Right now it is not there.
The cost of training the support staff to support Linux doubles or triples my support training costs. I now have N sets of drivers to track and make available on my support web site. I have extra sales training (I want to use Linux and I want to do X, what PC model and software should I buy).
The expectation as has been stated here a zillion times is the PC will 'cost less'. So for my ~$50 in price difference I MIGHT sell a few PCs to the currently small Linux market place. For that I have to control my support costs and sales costs to market two different OS systems in order to keep a profit. (note: assumption, the $50 difference in price is roughly what the OEM cost of Windows is, does anyone know the OEM pricing for large retailers like Dell?).
That's on an entire PC. For a network card manufacturer selling product at ~$20 retail his 'profit' is probably a couple bucks per card, why should he assume the extra cost burden of doing driver dev and testing twice and supporting them?
I can 'almost' double my training and software tracking/'driver dev' costs and support the whole market or get ~90% of the market at half that cost.
Please explain again why the business guys are not making a good business decision?
If we develop more applications in Java, we could port to any OS we feel like. If I could use my Windows-based programs in Linux, I would give it a try. Right now, I'm stuck. :(
"To err is human, doing it again is downright stupidity!"
I agree that manuals are nice, but they're disappearing fast. Even windows (or maybe I shouldn't say "even") has no useful manual anymore. Even the integrated help is dismal in my opinion (and I'm not saying Linux is perfect, far from it).
I agree that if the software you need is only on windows, then pick windows. That's never been in debate.
However the original point was ease of installation, and my experience is that installation is vastly easier on Linux. Granted, I don't often buy stuff that's expensive enough to have a manual that I'd care about (but I'm sure that if I buy Oracle for Linux it'll come with a couple binders of documentation).
If an exploit is discovered in zlib, I update it once with the patch. Done.
And if that update contains an unintended side-effect, also known as a bug, you've now propogated that to all programs on the system too. And if that bug only affects certain programs, no amount of testing it with programs that aren't affected will catch it before you've foobar'd your system either.
I don't have to update every single friggen app across my entire system and replace their hundreds of "disk space is cheap" separate files.
Find is your friend. At least with discrete copies you've got a choice about what gets 'upgraded' when. With a single central copy, it is all or nothing.
You just keep proving my case.
It is far easier to fix a bug once than hundreds of times.
And find only finds code if you know what code/function you are looking for.
Given you were the one who was talking about difficulty of maintenance, this is becoming a sad refusal to admit that programmers
know what they are doing when they implement shared objects.
And lets not forget the advantage in memory savings with loading it once, etc.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
You just keep proving my case.
No, you just lack enough experience doing software Q&A to understand the magnitude of the issue.
It is far easier to fix a bug once than hundreds of times.
You choose to see only half the picture. The most accurate statement is that, "It is far easier to make a change once than a hundreds of times." As long as you ignore the fact that an untested change can cause problems, you are only addressing half of the issue.
Ask any sysadmin with a production server what he thinks of installing a patch, for, say Oracle that has been thoroughly tested against Oracle but will also modify his mail server which has received no testing against the patch. He'll tell you that no way in hell is that patch going on his system until ALL apps have been thoroughly tested against it.
Given you were the one who was talking about difficulty of maintenance, this is becoming a sad refusal to admit that programmers know what they are doing when they implement shared objects.
Yeah, boofookinghoo, I'm so sad, cry me a river. Keep the random invective to yourself, ok?
And lets not forget the advantage in memory savings with loading it once, etc.
No, let us. Because any runtime linker of any sophistication should be able to prevent duplication of identical code with a decent versioning system.
Microsoft and electronics corporations are just the kind that will do _anything_ to get an edge over the competition. Unfortunately, the linux community is left to go up against the big guys.
ignorance will killus all --eric
Terpstra is wrong to complain that Suse x.x did not install flawlessly on both laptops in his example, in which the buyers did not pay for that system integration. It costs enginering time and money to get any operatng system working reliably on a particular machine configuration. All system integrators spend time (money) getting Windows (or any other OS) working on their systems. Yes, MS charges money for its OS. So does Red Hat. Big deal.
Hardly even worth going in circles on this. /usr/lib.
I just wanted to focus on that last amusing point.
Yes. absolutely. Versioning of *trusted* libraries put, oh, lets say, in a *trusted* location like
Ah well.
Thankfully you did not design linux.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
BTW, Apple's solution is quite nice, but even they have a place for system libraries, and installers. Sure it is optional, but then, you can always statically link as one large file under linux too.
But seriously, this is getting silly.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Ah well.
Thankfully you did not design linux.
Hey, random invective boy, fortunately you did not design linux either because then there would be no way but your broken way.
Repeat after me: Heavy Use Of A Linux Desktop Does Not Require The Command Prompt.
If you use a popular distribution and you know your hardware is supported you do not ever need to open a command shell window.