Slashdot Mirror
Windows and Linux User Interfaces
Anonymous Coward writes "Greg Raiz, Boston based interface designer and former Microsftie takes a look at Linux and outlines key shortcomings and strengths of an OS that could take on a giant."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Perhaps there's some truth to this. If Linux is to gain more widespread adoption, then maybe that would help. If so, then I personally hope Linux remains a niche OS. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that some of us would rather remain true to the Unix ideals and philosophy than to chase mass market popularity. I want to just be able to extract an archive and run a binary contained within. I don't want to have to inform the OS that I've done so, and have to "install" the software. I want to be able to compile an app and run it from my home directory. Why should I have to register it with the OS in order to do so?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
I have been reading about Linux being "ready for the desktop" for like 8 years now.
I for one am sick of it.
I use Linux every day on the desktop.
Yes, at first it was a bit confusing, but over the years it has matured ten-fold.
My parents use it, my grandmother runs Fedora, and I convert others on a daily basis.
ENOUGH already with this GUI/desktop debate. It is over and done and we have done it.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
Not a word on user interfaces in the article itself.
Linux should stop copying Microsoft feature for feature and embrace the differences and features that advanced users love.
I would disagree. What about enlightenment, fluxbox, openbox?
This article doesn't really make much sense overall.
That's why I'm still booting CP/M on my Commodore 128!
What?
Sun seem to be dropping GNOME as their Desktop
http://www.gnome.org/~gman/blog/02112005
Read more on above link!!!!
Linux already HAS widespread adoption.
The MAJORITY of all new servers today are slated to run Linux.
This is not going to change, I repeat, it will NOT change.
How can you call Linux a "niche" OS?
First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL.
But more importantly, it is hugely successful and I am personally offended that you post a trite, mocking comment regarding something that I and thousands others have worked hard on the past 10-15 years.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
www.weberseite.at
So does this means M$ core mantra is "Over complicated and flashy in everything we do, but give me a command line so I can get shit done post-BSOD" ?
Don't anthropomorphize computers: they hate that.
Greg Raiz, Boston based interface designer and former Microsftie
Who?? Never heard of him. RaizLabs? Never heard of them. Former Microsoftie?
Ok, I get the picture. Some loser was fired from Microsoft and no one will give them a job. So the hang out their own shingle, claim to be an expert, and start issuing Slashvertisements.
Start the unemployement paperwork pal. No one will buy what you're selling.
"The core mantra should be: "Simple and easy in everything we do, but give me a command line and I can move the world.""
I'm guessing he hasnt spent a lot of time in OS X then. Especially since he says in the article that Apple took the simplistic (ie not technical) approach.
bear/shit/woods
pope/catholic
etc.
As a long fan/user of the Linux desktop (six years) I think is on of the best peices of advice I have seen.
Make upgrading from windows as easy as possible, Standardize on your widgets, and Make Installing Software Easy and secure.
I tend to agree with most of the articles comments except for 1 random jab at Apple for choosing the lower ground of loosing functionality for better interface, where I believe that Apples interface is middle ground like windows but it is just better designed so it is easer. But I digress.
For Installing why can't Most Linux distributions support Loopback files, So they can install Linux on top of a Windows partition and if they don't like linux just delete the ISO file. Also a Non-destructive partition system like Partition-Magic.
More effort should be put into WINE, and MONO projects. It should be easy to run Windows programs. Just like the migration from Apple OS 9 to OS 10 or from DOS to Windows or Windows 3.1 to 95. People prefer "Optimized" to their OS applications, and will ask for them, but if they can't get it they want to run the old ones. These projects will not make developers think "Well Linux emulates it so we don't need to port it." they will think wow we have xx% of our customers using our product in linux, Perhaps we should make a Linux Version before our competitor does so we don't loose them.
Standardizing on the User Interface is extremely important. I can't even count the times I have to go to a newbe who is using KDE or GNOME and opens an Application build with the other tool kit or worse a different one like X11 and explain to them that they may have some trouble Copying and Pasting, and oh this is a x application you need to do it this way instead. And your files are by default saved here except for there. It is confusing and they do not comprehend why things are so diverse.
Installing, I really don't see why Linux can't take a lesson from Apple and improve on it. To install an application drag the folder to where you want to run the application. Have all its files that it needs to run self contained inside itself and uninstalling it is just deleting the directory. And try as much as possible to make the application statically built With Drive space below $1 per gigabyte the extra space lest be a little wasteful to make installation easy. Only spread the files across the OS when you Really-Really Need to.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The logical question to ask is: why should Linux (or the Linux community) care if it's more and more widespread? What's wrong with the way it is now? This is not a flame, I'm asking because I'm looking for a good answer, believe it or not.
For the second point, the photo system would be entirely dependent on the window manager and basic shell suite, and I know that Gnome has thumbnailing. I personally almost never use the default photo management stuff, opting for better software than baseline, but I can understand the author's argument.
The productivity suite one is a difficult one, as it'll require unrelated projects to have some kind of common backbone that may require extensive editing. It also won't be consistent to web-delivered rich-text editors that are common in forums that allow fonts and formatting. Even more annoying would be if it were difficult to remove or supplant with a better productivity suite.
As for contacts, while I'll agree that a baseline system would be nice, I'm inclined to specifically avoid something that's across-the-board for privacy and security purposes. I'd rather not have some malicious software that gets in through some exploit manage to retrieve my entire list of contacts and their types, only to then try to spread to them or to spam them.
The thing that the author doesn't address is that these responsibilities are the job of the distributions moreseo than the application developers. The distributions could very easily hire their own developers to take a project or application and modify it to meet these requirements. It might cost some money, but that's where RedHat or SuSE can 'value add' their part.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Guys, we need to have an attractive desktop by default in order to make the user experience at least more appealing. In one installation of Ubuntu, I had to tweak the X.org conf file in order to have it display these fonts correctly! And believe me...it took more than 4 hours to get right! Who would have that time in the "real" world?
While it's true that the summary mis-characterizes the article as being about the UI when it's really about the whole OS, it's also true that the article contains a fair amount that really is related to the UI -- specifically the section on common controls, which are much of what comprise the UI.
--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
That was a pretty good article but the one thing that struck me is that he starts by talking about how much people fear change. Then towards the end he is writing that Linux should be "different." I think it would be pretty difficult to achieve both of those goals. I think right now that the fact that Linux is different is just feeding this fear of change. I'm not advocating that Linux follow suit with Windows and give it the same look/feel but if it becomes too unique, good luck getting people to switch.
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux.
It is a good commercial idea. But will any FOSS programmers bother implementing VB under Linux? On a more inflamatory note do we even want those VB programmers to develop for Linux?
The Linux community needs to learn about standards, every fucking distribution has a different way of doing things. No wonder hardware companies don't release drivers, as soon as the kernel gets upraded, the driver no logner works. Ready for the desktop? Yeah right
This probably won't be a popular comment, but I think Mac OS will eventually be bigger on the desktop than Linux.
1) Easier Support - your computer breaks, you know who to go to
2) Less of a learning curve.
3) Less confusing in terms of options (there are a lot of types and kinds of Linux, or so it seems).
4) Media acceptance. Macs are more well known than Linux, which isn't Linux's fault, it's just the fact that OS X has Apple behind it.
5) Application Support - Things are ported to Mac quicker than to Linux usually. Apple also stands to get more software compatibility when they go to Intel computers.
::Braces for "-1 Flamebait"::
___ In the words of Gen. Douglas McArthur: "I'll be right back."
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
- Create a single music solution that is consistent and flows easily from OS to music applications to TV experience.
- Create a single photo solution that is consistent and flows easily from OS thumbnails to previewing full screen to editing in a photo applications.
Actually, these are both there already. Sound in general, as well as video, are all handled byty a group of libraries common to most Linux platform audio and video software. I do think, for example, that Kaffiene and amaroK could be integrated, but their functionality is so disparate that I don't think its necessary. Meanwhile, on the back-end, Kaffiene uses xine. As does Totem. (why all three come installed in Knoppix is beyond me; maybe they were just trying to find ways of filling that 4G of DVD).
Right now there are dozens and perhaps even hundreds of different Linux distributions. Each one has its own quirks, bugs and issues. Linux is currently an idea it's not a brand. There doesn't seem to be a central floodgate to dictate the standard interface. Each distribution creates its own icons, interface elements, configurations and sometimes even their own shell. To gain momentum some level of standardization is necessary to be called "Linux."
Linux is the name of the kernel. I run Debian, and the specific distribution is Knoppix. Some people run Gentoo, some people run Red Hat, some people run Slackware. Each distribution, like you said, has it's points and problems. Most of these points and problems have to do with the preferred method of software management. Apt works for me.
Part of the fragmentation problem for Linux is that the fragmentation forces a problem for software installation. Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software.
Again, Apt works for me. I haven't had to untar and compile anything except my own software (and its dependant libraries on occasion).
Just.. I realize you're not actually asking much, but it definately seems you're asking from the wrong context. Desktop linux is not a windows replacement. It's a windows alternative. It seems strange, but we're not actually out to kill microsoft... just to not contribute to them.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
I don't see much new here. We even have the traditional misspellings.
The speed of innovation in any software can be both a boon and a bomb.
It's easy to drop in the word "framework": with a well-designed framework, you can extend and reuse existing tech. This is why the underlying pipe mechanism in Unix derivatives is so powerful. It's also why it's hard for many to master.
There's also a point when the framework - which should be strong-yet-supple - can instead ossify, like so much old glue that's set up and cracks easily.
Ultimately it is real work to take the time to design something that meets both current *and* future needs. While many working in the kernel and the distributions realize this, there remain the folk who just want to sling code and do the sexy, fun stuff first and fast and loose.
SUPPORT.
.ZIP up files on Windows or do other simple things such as send an email, etc.
:)
As a Linux developer you and I often deal with companies that will not publish open specifications regarding their hardware.
As such, it is necessary to "break the law" and reverse engineer these devices in order to create decent Linux drivers that interface between the device and the application/user level software on the GNU/Linux kernel and operating system tools.
Some say that if Linux slowly gains market share of say 20-30% that manufacturers will stop making Windows-specific devices.
Another benefit would be support: all of us Slashdot/Linux guys would instantly become experts on people's home PCs if everyone ran Linux.
As it stands now, most of my friends have trouble figuring out how to
It is funny/amazing to watch them because they write code like protein-folding applications in Linux but on a Windows computer all they can manage to figure out is how to start Solitaire
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
This article may have some valid points in it but it is all presented at a very high level. I think the author may be biting off more than he can chew with this brief article, I would like to hear more of his ideas but with more specific proposed solutions. There is also little justification for his logic. I'm not sure where he got his "Two rules" of operating systems from but I don't exactly agree with them--he may be over-simplifying this.
My work here is dung.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
To use, go the usual
./configure
make
then (as root) checkinstall
Try it out!
http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/
"Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
As a corollary to the first rule, users don't like installing applications. Part of the fragmentation problem for Linux is that the fragmentation forces a problem for software installation. Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software. To gain momentum Linux needs a central installation architecture that all applications must use to properly install and run. The OS should ensure that applications are installed before they can be executed.
Wow, I couldn't have described apt or emerge any better. Isn't it common that those who review Linux OS's vs. Windows almost always head to the biggest vendor (Redhat) which is exactly the wrong idea: directly motivated by Microsoft's position on the closed source market? Biggest is best is necessarily a universal philosophy. Also, there are rpm managers in Redhat that do the same thing as apt, I think you can even use apt on Redhat without too much trouble.
Sure one might say, "How would the avg. Windows user know to apt-get install ?"
I would answer, "They could figure that out long before they understood how to dl and compile source code, and would certainly require less user knowledge and decisions than going apt-get install , which rarely asks for user input"
I see a ton of skilled Windows IT folk that are scared away from Linux because they try to compile everything. Apparently they haven't heard, and/or common linux knowledge doesn't include important tips that would make Avg Joe Windows user's first Linux experience much more enjoyable.
Linux is currently an idea it's not a brand. ... Don't just think different. Be Different.
Umm, yeah. Be different by becoming a brand. I'll pass.
Linux should stop copying Microsoft feature for feature and embrace the differences and features that advanced users love.
Actually, it's been my experience that this works in reverse. XP's tabbed completion in the cmd shell, for example. Vista's transparent desktop elements. Vista's MSH (now with piping). Tabbed browsing in IE sold as *innovation*.
And how long will it be before Microsoft also picks up on multiple desktops? I know every time I have to use a Windows machine, I find their absense frustrating.
It's implicitly assumed he meant it was a niche OS among the Windows/Home PC crowd.
While I agree with your comments for the most part, to say that the majority of all new servers are slated to run GNU/Linux is typical of the naive slashdot groupthink and is not remotely true. However, I'm in the middle of installing FreeBSD 5.4 on a Sun Blade 100 machine so I'm doing my part!
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
Microsoft has put most its eggs in the .NET platform and has abandoned tens of thousands of VB developers by pulling support and further development on VB6. There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux. Such an IDE in conjunction with WINE could bring not only applications but also developers to the Linux platform.
so basically the strategy here is to take the shittiest developers from the windows platform and get them to write garbage code on linux?
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
some level of standardization is necessary to be called "Linux."
.
There already is said standard: they use a linux kernel
*DrugCheese rants*
Not a word on user interfaces in the article itself.
The reason is simple. Microsoft is still borrowing from the Linux UI. One thing this stupid article does not say is the Linux UI, X Winodows was around before Microsoft had an OS!!!!!
It is also why Microsoft can't sue anyone for "windows" as Microsoft was not the first, nor the second to have windows.
After a few more days I'm probably going to wipe my linux partition unless I can get my Linksys wireless PCI card working with WPA encryption. Who knew it would take an act of God to configure correctly?
Fedora Core 4's network configuration gui is worthless. Ndiswrapper hung the machine. And it took me hours and hours to find that I needed some WPA supplicant something.
I think he makes a good point that the clean solution is always better than trying to support older decisions that turned out to be less than ideal. But the problem is, users aren't interested in details. Details don't matter. They only want something to work, and keep working.
Most modern interface elements are implemented by most toolkits. I think a solution would be to take the concept of the X server, which implements low level functionality available via byte stream communications, and implement much higher level concepts using the same idea. Rather than linking in libraries (and tying your graphical concepts to one language - C for GTK, C++ + custom weirdness for QT) have an X server analog that can speak in terms of Menus, Canvas w/ Scrollbar, Button, Text Input, Text Output, etc. Instead of Xlib (or clx in Lisp) you would have a much, much higher level communication protocal. Language bindings for C, C++, what have you would build on the primatives and higher level widigets provided by this X-server plus, and themes and other details would no longer be different because of what language binding you happened to be using. Translating code between languages would also be much easier, since concept names in different languages could all build off of the standard in the server.
Look sometime at the problems people have writing Python bindings for QT. I think the idea of a high level graphical object server with server side theme configuration would take us a long way towards a common desktop look and feel.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
"::Braces for "-1 Flamebait"::"
Well I like GWB.
*Braces for atomic bomb drop*
Seriously I agree. Apple gets a lot of things right, and proves that the cathedral model is a viable one. You don't need a thousand eyes to create good software, just a few good ones.
---
"Don't make me think by Steve Krug" about the web, but a lot of advice carries over.
To take on Microsoft, you'd need an OS that is nearly as easy to install as Windows. It needs to find and auto-configure for common hardware, make reasonable assumptions and continue with the installation without pestering the user unless it's absolutely necessary.
"People avoid change"- I guess that is why this site runs a 45 year old OS.
I don't really care if people avoid change. I want to be the most productive I can be, and I want to help my clients be the most productive they can be.
Becoming more productive means changing. Sometimes the changes mean sacraficing backwards compatability.
I am always amazed how people on this site seem to want to be cutting-edge and state-of-the-art but when the choice comes between new-and-improved, like AMD 64-bit x86 vs Intel Itanium, or new OSes vs 45 year old *nix, there are always complaints about the new architecture being too different.
Do you want progress?
Linux and Windows UI pales in comparison to Mac OS X. So when I see these debates I only think of one thing:
Cripple fight!
Who is modding this as "insightful"? Just because Sun has dropped their "linux java desktop" and they're focusing in using gnome + opensolaris doesn't means they've "dropped" gnome
According to this insider's blog, Microsoft has stole Gorm, among other open source software.
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || http://AdTerrasPerAspera.com
I've been using linux for over a decade. It's a wonderful OS system for servers. The UI has finally started to develop into something nice... but it's still not ready for prime time.
A lot of the things mentioned in the article were mentioned 10 years ago. How much progress have we really made?
By default SUSE's fonts are anti-aliased and, oddly, the toggle box in KDE has no effect on this. But here is a quick way to get great fonts without anti-aliasing.
Penny - plain text accounting
I've read Asa Dotzler and you, sir, you are no Asa Dotzler. For one thing, he actually had experience with what he was talking about. This isn't to say I agreed with Asa on most points (I do run desktop Linux), but his arguments didn't seem to be from 10 years ago. Has Greg actually run Linux? Which distro? Where are his credentials?
+1, Flamebait?
No comment.
Suns Java Desktop based on GNOME is, quite frankly, crap. I would much rather see them develop something of their own, something that isn't slow as hell on a 2.2GHz AMD64 with with 1GB of RAM and a Radeon 9700
Despite its ugliness, I'm still using CDE on my OpenSolaris box, sipmply because it's about a hundred times snappier, and also it doesn't lack menu entries for some of the most essential management utilities for X, like JDS does.
Slagborr
He makes it sound so simple, doesn't he?
Writing a complete VB clone isn;t as simple as writing an IDE. VB 6 worked because of the underlying Windows infrastructure — ADO, Access, COM, and all those other acronyms that could be glued together with VB to make an application. VB provides a great environment for hacking together in-house and vertical market applications. It's good for rapid prototyping, too.
The Unix world has some very strong biases that make cloning VB difficult, not the least of which is a general prejudice that all VB code sucks. I've worked in shops with VB programmers (I'm a C++ guy), and saw some darned ugly code; the anti-VB prejudice has some basis in fact. Be that as it may, VB is a powerful force that locks many developers into Windows. If any of this code is to move to Linux, we would need to replicate the entire foundation of acronyms used in VB programs — a daunting task that most Unix-oriented folk will find unpalatable.
In part, Mono was trying to accomplish Windows-Linux interoperability, albeit using .Net as the foundation. Mono, however, does not address the vast quantity of VB 6 applications. And Mono's viability is still open for debate, given Microsoft's proprietary attitudes.
A while back, I was tried to sell the idea of a FOSS Access and VB to several major Linux "players", without success. Perhaps my pitch just wasn't that good, or maybe, just maybe, Unix people really are letting their prejudices get in the way of a Really Good Idea.
All about me
If the author chooses to touch on a specific field of a subject, Risk Free completely uninstallable Linux(ie. bootable distro's), and neglects to commentate on those key components of that subject, I'm not sure the author is up to writing about the topic they've chosen!!!
/possibly a run-on ...
It's apparent that Greg Raiz doesn't "get" Unix, and so his choice of language is open to criticism. Unix is not a monolithic black box intended for narrowly defined use. It's an extensible workbench written by developers for developers.
That said, Greg has made an intuitive connection with an idea which is very important for any modular operating system, and that is that it should be possible for the modules to be managed in a structured way, taking into account authentication, dependencies, versioning, installation, and removal.
It's not like this is a new idea. Package management has been in Unix for a decade or two at least, and for example in Solaris the entire operating system install is managed in terms of packages. We don't have a package standard that is common across all Unix and Linux variants, though we have several candidates. I often wish we could converge on one of them because it would be very helpful for site management, especially at heterogenous sites.
Greg is profoundly misguided in suggesting that such package management must be (a) centralized or (b) mandatory. Those are classic weaknesses of the Microsoft approach which Unix developers have prudently managed to avoid. On the contrary, package management should support a distributed model which sites can define to suit their particular requirements. And certainly it makes no sense in a development environment to mandate that all software be "installed" under the same restrictive conditions as might be desired for production software.
The reason we have Linux is because it turns out that the world is not just made up of software "consumers". Some of us actually prefer to work within a development environment. We'll tend to choose development tools that give us more, not less, control over our systems.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
Linux does not have ANY user interface, fucktard.
The article stated: As a general rule most people do not enjoy switching, upgrading or installing anything new. Ummm I for one don't agree. I think people don't want to be made to spend hours and hours doing it..ie MS security patches farmed out to server after server after being tested for 6 mos to make sure they don't mess everything up. People dont want to have to install new versions of applications over and over and upgrade documents and databases, ie Office version whatever now. People don't want to have to re-install applications over and over because they were written badly again ... Office version whatever. Ask my wife who has to learn Word because it is part of her college classes.
People don't want to have to endure feeling like they are being watched and have everything they do and download and run checked for license, authenticity and if its updated everytime they run it.
>On a more inflamatory note do we even want those VB programmers to develop for Linux?
Probably not. It may be a stereo type, but in general, VB code is sub-par. If a given VB programmer is of quality, they've probably jumped ship already to one of the many other RAD languages. Obviously some people still have to keep up with legacy applications; but maintaining software written for windows 98 becomes more of a problem with each release cycle. That can't go on forever!
The effort that would go into trying to support VB could be spent in improving one of the many awesome open source RAD environments. The community would spend all this time and effort, for what? To support a legacy piece of crap? In reality, VB was/is rarely used as the right tool for the job. There are a glut of VB applications that, when translated to the Unix world, would be much more effective as a shell script, ruby/phython/perl/etc script, Java/C/C++ program, etc etc. I'm all for supporting quality languages. But I don't see the point in trying to bring over a language that will create our own September that never ended.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
..but can you stop referring to Microsoft as M$? It immerdiatly voids any argument you are trying to make.
-- TRUST ME! I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING!
Wow... Linux a niche OS in the Windows crowd? That's news to me.
However, I'm in the middle of installing FreeBSD 5.4 on a Sun Blade 100 machine so I'm doing my part!
You mean those things can actually be good for something?
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Microsoft has put most its eggs in the .NET platform and has abandoned tens of thousands of VB developers by pulling support and further development on VB6. There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux. Such an IDE in conjunction with WINE could bring not only applications but also developers to the Linux platform."
What the heck is a VB developer. VB is the most overblown piece of shiet ever touted as a dev platform. First of all the key APIs cannot do sheit at the system level that is necessary to create real innovative software. Second of all you have to know C inside out if you really want to innovate and not just fit square pegs in round holes. Bringing VB "developers" technology to GNU and OSS would be like bringing barbarians to a banquet. Alot of grunts and groans, farts, belches and a hell of a mess to clean up!
Some good ideas, but Greg is really out of touch with Linux and free software development in general.
He seems to miss the idea that (a) we can't throw out diversity of applications. It's confusion, but it's also a fact. (b) There *are* different distribution brands, though they try to lean on the common Linux name (RedHat Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, Gentoo Linux). (c) Most importantly, it's up to independent distributions to make the system into a cohesive user experience, and the success of GNU/Linux systems is precicely *because* of the ability for lots of independent developers to create software packages for it, not some central Linux authority. Linux *is* just the kernel,. It's up to other people to make more complete systems. He makes the very common mistake of confusing "Linux" with "OS consisting of a Linux kernel and GNU libraries and other tools with some user-oriented desktop environment".
There can be no Linux Inc. creating The One And Only Linux Desktop System. It shouldn't happen, and it fundamentally *can't*. There can only be a variety of Desktop Systems that are based on GNU/Linux.
Microsoft is doing nothing of the sort. Microsoft borrowed from the Apple ui, not the Linux. Yes, X has been around since the 80's... but at that point, UNIX was not a contender for the desktop market AT ALL (hence Linux being created so Linus could use a UNIX-like OS in his dorm, with more features than Minix). At that point, when things could have been borrowed, Gates wouldn't have even thought of UNIX, as he wasn't even thinking of taking over the mainframe world. His only competition was Apple, which he duped into giving out secrets (ala Pirates of Silicon Valley)...
Linux is not Windows. They have 2 completly different design goals.
Many of his points are without merit as they have already been addressed.
first he mentions that you cant expect someone to download untar and bur an ISO to try linux. DUH, ubuntu Cd's are available all over the place. Most computer shopps have the free CD sitting on their counter. I have even seen a free take one display of ubuntu at a local compusa.
Second he talks about software install.. almost every linux distro outside the pro level stuff like Slackware has everything already on there. Hell Mandriva comes with a non linear video editor, and most make point and drool install from a repository simple as pie.
I stopped reading after the 3rd paragraph as it sounds like issues that were real 4 years ago but were taken care of already. Did the guy even look at a modern linux distro or even read any linux news from the past 6-12 months?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This is yet another article saying that "If only Linux was a single unified force, it would be good." with a few sentences about interfaces at the front.
Let me dispell some of the myths. First, people don't want things to change. It's wrong.
If that were true, no one would have moved to OS X. "iPod, what's an iPod? I listen to music on my walkman."
People aren't going to change to GNU/Linux for no reason, but once they make the switch, we don't need it to look and behave like Windows. We have our own interfaces, and they work. OS X doesn't look like Microsoft Windows and people don't have that much trouble using it.
Some of the interface integration ideas he presents are allright- some of them are already in place, and others will take more work.
But the idea we need to drop KDE or GNOME, and drop distributions is old and tiring.
The simple fact is that when you consolodate for the sake of a unified force, you remove what makes the Free Software world great- competition.
If we'd all consolodated with Slackware in 92, we wouldn't have had packages. If we'd consolodated behind, say GNUStep, we wouldn't have had KDE, or GNOME, and so on.
The idea of lots of distributions and lots of interfaces and lots of every app is to let them all go, find which work best, borrow ideas, and, in the end, everyone benefits.
If we'd decided to "consolodate" and make an incompatible change, then that change would have to be left out. Once that happens, progress stops, and then someone else comes along and steals the rug from right under us.
Even "Consolodated" OSes like FreeBSD are, like GNU/Linux, collections of programs from other places.
I can't believe these articles still make it to Slashdot. They're old and tired.
There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux.
TFA is OK up until this point. Is this guy off his rocker? No self respecting Open Source geek is going to implement anything for VB. He would get laughed off of slashdot, sourceforge and every OSS community on the net in seconds.
Find coupons in Greeley
Doncha get tired of pushing FUD like this on /.?
Arncha feeling a bit left behind?
My *mother* runs Mandriva, an uncle uses Ubuntu --- these are 60+ y.o. total non-geeks who made the switch on my advice. I did provide some phone support but mostly they just found their default installs pretty easy to deal with. The main thing they needed help with was multimedia support and getting online. And BTW, when my mother first encountered a Windows computer she needed help to find help. And now she runs Mandriva.
IOW one would have to be an utter *OAF* to have much trouble running an nice GNU/Linux desktop such as many distros now provide. Even Debian (my choice) has become very easy to install and run.
Do try to keep up people...
Time for the FOSS community to start working on OpenOSX.
"The MAJORITY of all new servers today are slated to run Linux.
This is not going to change, I repeat, it will NOT change."
Right, because nothing better than Linux at running servers will ever come along. By the way, what OS always has the best uptimes? Linux right...
"How can you call Linux a "niche" OS?"
Because all of the estimates I have found place Linux desktop usage somwhere between 3 and 6%. If you need to ask now, it's because you don't understand what "niche" means.
"First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL."
Man, you lost that battle years ago, give it up already.
"But more importantly, it is hugely successful and I am personally offended"
And NOW, FINALLY we get to the crux of the issue. YOU are personally invested, so rather than accept honest criticism, you get "offended" because someone spoke unfavorably about your hobby, and you feel that criticizing Linux is equivalent to criticizing you.
I'm feeling snarky, so I'm tempted to say that's patheitc. But I won't.
What I will say is that of that's the best argument you have, then Linux had better have someone else arguing for it. Luckily it does.
If you don't like it you need to be able to easily uninstall and your computer will be exactly the same as before you started
:)
Wrong! It should be impossible to uninstall properly and break any competeing application so as to render them useless. Hey, it worked for MS
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Mod parent up, mod parent up, mod parent up!
You're wrong on all points.
If Microsoft stole its UI from anyone, it's Macintosh (Lisa, 1983 and Mac OS, 1984).
Windows 1.0 came out in 1985 (MS-DOS 1981). The X Windows project started in 1984, and the public X11 we're all familiar with didn't come about until 1988. X Windows isn't even a UI, it's just a UI protocol.
If anything, modern desktop environments for Linux borrow heavily from Windows, which is a common complaint actually.
..hello?
I really don't see why this pathetic excuse for an article deserves to be posted on Slashdot.
first of all, the idiot who wrote it doesn't even understand that 'Linux' is a KERNEL, not an OS.
And second, he's comparing Windows, which has one largely unvarying GUI, to an Oort's Cloud of various GNU/Linux-based GUIs, without even specifying whether he's talking about KDE, or GNOME, or FluxBox, or whatever. Pure idiocy.
Yay, more misconceptions. Can I flame now, mommy?
``For years the open-source Linux community has been competing with Microsoft to become the dominant desktop operating system.''
Some have, but more have been writing great software regardless of what Microsoft did, and Linux has moved into several domains where Windows isn't a realistic option. The Linux community is not just about toppling Microsoft, and I don't even think that's the most important goal.
``Progress has been quick to match features with Redmond but this type of progress will only allow Linux to play catch-up, never to lead. In order to break away Linux has to do the things that Microsoft hasnt done or perhaps will never do''
I don't know how one can write that down without spontaneously disintegrating. Linux has done things that Microsoft won't do from the beginning, and has had features Microsoft has been copying for a long time. Sure, if you come from a Windows-only world, you probably see only how Linux performs worse or better on the features that Windows has, but if you look at it from the other direction, you can see the lead that Linux still has.
Shell scripting? Ability to run software originally developed for Unix? Open source options for every part of the system? Ability to absolutely customize anything and everything? Ability to have multiple users work on the system at the same time? Ability to adapt to any environment, no matter if it has keyboard, mouse, display, or anything of the sort? Need I go on?
``New Operating Systems break old applications''
Maybe new Microsoft operating systems do, but it seems to me that Linux can still run a lot of software that was developed for other Unix systems before Linux even existed, and I certainly don't know many applications that worked on Linux 2.0 that don't work on 2.6 anymore. This is all about standards; Linux can run old Unix software, because it the same APIs that have matured over the years. Microsoft tried to roll their own, and the need to go back and correct the mistakes is what makes new releases break old software. That, and the fact that no recompiling is done.
``This means users cant be expected to untar, unzip and burn ISO images, they also cant be expected to properly partition their hard drive.''
That suggests that this is currently expected of them. You can get Linux on CDs for free (from Ubuntu, among many others), and you don't need to manually partition your hard drive; you can use a live CD, or use any of the distributions that have an automatic partitioning option and use that.
``Creating compatibility through Wine and similar efforts is a great way to bootstrap an operating system with existing application but its not a long term solution. Linux not only has to migrate applications they have to migrate application developers.''
As if Windows is the only platform that applications are available for and that developers are writing for. Linux can stand on it's own with the applications it has just fine; it's just the types who want to run the exact same software that runs on Windows that WINE is good for. There are plenty of developers who write software for Linux, or did anyone think that Debian got their 20000 or so packages from Santa Claus?
``There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux''
Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather have no developers than the whole VB crowd, much less only those VB devs who will only work with something that is exactly like what they already have. VB offers a low barrier entry into programming, which is great, because that's what enables a great hacker culture from forming around a platform; but if people won't use the tools that Linux already has to offer here, I'd say Linux is the better for it.
``Microsoft will struggle to innovate because its competing with previous versions of Windows (not linux.)''
Yeah, right. That's why they have those shared
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Yeah did this guy miss the memo on how he should be comparing the desktop interfaces with the windows desktop and then comparing the actual usability and strengths of the kernels? Maybe he is just another one of those ignorant sots who thinks he knows something about computers and can therefore explain them oh so perfectly.
The fact is simple, the majority of Linux distros have adopted KDE or Gnome. If you want simpler interfaces you have Englightenment, Blackbox, and Windowmaker to name a few. Does he not realize how simple the Mac OS X interface is? Both Linux and Mac have simpler and more user friendly interfaces available to users then M$ does. I mean they talk about revolutionizing things with Vista, shit it is XP with some prettiness on top. Why not innovate the interface a bit more instead of taking the Mac polished metal look and throwing it into the existing Windows GUI.
To be honest, I use to hate Mac in the days of OS 9 and older. It wasn't a good interface IMO and the hardware was still fairly sluggish. My only complain about Mac today is they won't sell me OS X so I can run it on my Desktop. Their loss I suppose, since instead I run Windows (probably changing to Mandriva soon) on my desktop, and Mandriva on my laptop. I really wish they would change this policy but I really doubt that will ever happen.
But hey, slashdot will continue to push crappy blog posts on us to drive up peoples ad revenue at the expense of our own sanity...
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
What is that supposed to mean?
Looks better according to whom?
Or who made a poll to listen to The People on this matter?
You don't like it and from there you generalize to the entire known Universe....
Give me a brake...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL.
That's not even what the "GNU/Linux" people think. If you're going to advocate something like that, you should at least get your facts straight.
Linux is the operating system KERNEL.
GNU/Linux is the kernel plus the collection of (almost entirely GNU) applications and libraries that make up the OPERATING SYSTEM.
But, as noted above, even though Linux technically only refers to the kernel, the colloquial usage of the word has long been understood to refer to either the kernel or the operating system, depending on context.
1) Easier Support - your computer breaks, you know who to go to
if you are part of a linux community, you get help faster, friendlier and for free. and you after giving advice to others have even a good conscience of being helpful! ... but for the average "i-do-not-want-to-learn-but-it-must-just-work" user, you are perfectly right!
2) Less of a learning curve.
true, but longer learning curve. depending on where you want to get, this may be advantagous or not. also depends on the mentality of the user.
3) Less confusing in terms of options (there are a lot of types and kinds of Linux, or so it seems).
that's true. but on the other hand, that's an advantage for the people who are in search for their individual: linux has a lot of diversity in choosing distributions. (also here, this may be of a disadvantage, if you are completely new and do not know some basic resources where to search/compare this huge diversity)
4) Media acceptance. Macs are more well known than Linux, which isn't Linux's fault, it's just the fact that OS X has Apple behind it.
as a linux user, actually, i like to be unknown. of course, you need to be a narcistic, individualistic egoist with a strong character to be like me, so my opinion does not count here. ... the apple is nice, but penguins are cool! ;-)
5) Application Support - Things are ported to Mac quicker than to Linux usually. Apple also stands to get more software compatibility when they go to Intel computers.
"ported quicker"? everything taht is ported to mac that is/was opensource, already worked on linux. win32 apps run on linux too, if you are drunk enough (wine) and they are not written too much exotical that wine do not understands them. porting to mac os x is very similar to porting to linux/Xorg and it only depends on resources how quick it is ported. and resourced depend on demand for mac and ideas for linux, as in linux, the mayority of coders are also users who mainly do this work for themselves but let also others profit (not monetary meant) from their work.
in general, i think that it's not the meaning that ways of living should compete each other or fight. challenging each other is - on the other hand - very useful for movement and developement. a mac has a more interesting cpu (powerpc) but as it will not have a future, they (in my opinion) did a very wrong decision on that. using intel cpu's is maybe a nice marketing or financial/globalisation move, but in the long term it will not be very successfull. i like white computers because of style and design, but if i would own a powerbook/ibook, i would install linux on it anyway.
let's face the future together challenging each other but not fighting against each other!
Eventually? I though it has always been bigger on the desktop, depending on whose research you believe.
Not sure about the app compatibility; the hardest thing to port is the GUI and that won't change, OS X is still OS X and Windows is still Windows, with two completely different GUI APIs and philosophies.
But I do agree with you, while Linux mounts a full frontal assault on Windows, OS X will outflank them and take the hill.
Linux is a great server OS, my favourity by far, in fact. But I wouldn't put up with it on the desktop if you paid me to.
"How can you call Linux a "niche" OS?"
Because a tiny tiny fraction of people use it as a desktop OS?
"First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL."
I think it's generally assumed that one says Linux in this context, they're referring to every distro of Linux out there. In this more particular case, they're talking about desktop machines and not servers.
"...and I am personally offended that you post a trite, mocking comment regarding something that I and thousands others have worked hard on the past 10-15 years."
Chill. A 'niche OS' is not an insult.
"Derp de derp."
Some of his comments are good, some are abysmal:
There is an opportunity for the open source community to create a VB compatible IDE that could compile applications for both to Windows and Linux.
Please, by all the gods you believe in, NO!. The very last thing we need is all this crappy VB stuff on Linux. VB is - by rights - famous for the shoddy software created with it. And don't tell me you can write good software with VB, the fact is that the vast majority of VB software are abominations that should've never left the author's imagination.
Entice users with well thought out end to end solutions
That entire chapter would've been much shorter if he had simply written: "Look to OSX for ideas on how to do it right, and to Windos for ideas on what to avoid at all costs".
Users are forced to untar, un-gzip, copy, configure and sometimes compile in order to properly install software.
Has the dude used any Linux distribution during the past 5 years or so? Now I do compile stuff occasionally, but then I want to be on the bleeding edge and some of that stuff was written by me. Almost all actual applications I use rely much more on apt-get and dselect than on tar and gzip.
Linux should stop copying Microsoft feature for feature and embrace the differences and features that advanced users love.
YES. Besides some of the stupid comments, he's got the basics right. Hey, wait. Some of us have been saying this for years. The problem is that too many decision makers in both KDE and Gnome believe copying windos is the road to heaven.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
General users are not, and never will become, computer geeks. They need to control their computer through GUIs. This means that the GUI must present the following inescapable, unavoidable characteristics: - Clarity (When people say they want simplicity, they usually mean clarity); - Exhaustivity (Everything that must be done must be available through the GUI. No dropping into .config files for the end user);
- Consistency (To minimize learning curve or, in other words, reuse what the user has learned);
The role of clarity and consistency is to provide quick and painless learning.
By exhaustivity, I mean that users must have a (clear and consistent) way to do the following:
- install Linux;
- upgrade Linux;
- install and uninstall applications;
- replace hardware parts and their associated drivers;
- personalize their own Linux;
- manage security;
- and everything else I may have missed.
We need an organisation structured like the IETF or the W3C whose purpose would be to evolve a complete specification of a clear and consistent user experience giving the user total control of his machine. Programmers and distributions would be free to branch out, but over time, the availability of a good user experience proposition (and high level libraries to easily implement its various facets) would win over developers as well as users, and a commun culture will develop.
Right now, the geeks are happy with Linux, but the genral user is totally, utterly confused.
Ok, guys, I'm tired of this.
I've been using linux exclusively for so long that everytime I see "to be ready for the desktop" I just want to reach to the writer's neck and strangle it.
IT IS FUCKING READY FOR THE DESKTOP!
That guy is just a loser who, coming from MS thinks he's smarter and can give us lessons about how to do things.
Yeah, sure, he makes some good points, but most of his arguments are BS.
I sure don't want red underlining everywhere I type, think about the whole BLOAT, that's useless. If people learned how to spell to start with, you WOULDN"T NEED THAT SHIT!
He's making up excuses for why windows is still better and why we should stick to it.
The guy is just pathetically ignorant. Why do we need to INSTALL applications when you can just download it, open the file and RUN the damn thing? Isn't that easier for most people???
Or is everyone going to frantically look for a "setup.exe" file when they use linux?
I mean seriously, the linux community is filled with brilliant people, some smarter than those at MS, because the reason there are so many distributions is to give each option for package management a try, and let people decide which frontend they'd rather deal with.
Slashdot, please do me a favor? stop posting those stupid blog rants about what Linux needs to get on the desktop? they're always way off topic.
The only thing Linux needs to get on the desktop is people going out and reaching their friends and suggesting that their computer would run better if it didn't have MS bugs on it... I just converted one of my friends to linux this weekend doing just that. Now her laptop runs on gentoo flawlessly and without slowing down, making her computer experience smoother than anything she'll ever have with windows.
Oh, and she likes the option of changing desktop environments too...
More freedom of actions will make people grow smart, whereas locking them in one mindset will make them dumb. Proof: someone who has the option of going to work by car, bus or bike will choose the way to get there based on his/her own preferences, one of cheap, fast, tree-friendly or a compromise of both.
Let people learn on their own, they cannot be taught everything about life by movies and then be ready for real-world experience.
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
What does this mean? I think that the exact opposite would be neat: An OS that can execute an app BEFORE it's installed.
A week ago I started learning 'Unix' and all related stuff. I'm surprised at how fast I'm progressing. I'm also impressed by what I'm learning. I can use LaTeX and ConTeXt instead of MSWord, and they really kick MSWord's ass big time. I can use gnumeric and R project for statistics, and they really, really kick MSExcel's ass (I can cite studies where gnumeric proved far much superior and accurate, but I don't want their sites slashdotted). I can use grep, sed, awk and perl for parsing text. I can use vim for editing. I can use the superior cdraw, imagemagick for images (I can cite studies where cdraw and imagemagick proved much better in quality of results than photoshop, but I don't want their sites slashdotted). Soon I'll be able to use avisynth on linux.
Here's my point, people don't need to be beginners all their friggin' life. They should learn a little computing if they're going to use the computer for hours everyday. I wish I had done this much earlier, but had I not considered a switch to linux I wouldn't have; I have been using MS platform and related applications for 20 yeras and now I feel I have been encouraged to remain dumb for 20 years. In my experience, linux is the clear winner platform. I wish they'd teach linux skills in school - had kids learnt to use Bash, LaTex, Python, and R, this would be a much, much better world.
I am not sure I agree with this. It is almost as if the author does not understand Linux distributions, but I see an interesting idea here. I think the wider adoption of the Linux Standard Base (LSB) would improve user experiences. It would make installing and compiling software that is not part of your distribution much easier. Since Linus owns the trademark for Linux, he could make LSB compliance required for the use of the Linux trademark. This would not force distributions to comply, but it would encourage more of them to. Also it would make it easier for end users, because then you would know that if it said Linux, it would be LSB compliant.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
...is some random dude's blog considered _news_?! GAAH!! SlashDot just keeps getting worse at this. *sigh*...
Why is uptime constantly used as a measure of all things good and wonderful in the IT world? Those updates are pretty important, and every now and then a healthy reboot will load some of those new kernel toys/fixes etc. Not to mention, a fresh boot from time to time can expose problems that might otherwise be hidden by an old (but now updated) driver etc.
The world according to SComps
Bring up the blurry fonts on Linux and you get modded troll because 'they look fine to me'. But on some systems the *do* look *much* worse than Windows' fonts. For example, the Dell 1703FP monitor uses v-shaped pixels (they literally look like this: >>>>>>... for RGBRGB...). The linux fonts look like crap on this monitor no matter what unless the smoothing is turned off, in which case they look okay but have hard, jagged edges.
I have another linux system with a viewsonic monitor and the fonts look okay on it so I know where the mod's are coming from, but the point is that the Windows fonts look good on both monitors. I think the main difference is that fonts in windows are rendered to pixels instead of points, so they can tweak the hinting and whatnot to always produce a crisp image regardless of monitor.
Anyway I just wanted to point out that people complaining about linux fonts are not always retards and whiners.
What's the market share for all versions of MacOS? At best, it's roughly the same.
While even 6% is hardly a large percentage compared to the 90% or so enjoyed by versions of Microsoft Windows, being the second or even third most popular choice qualifies as more than a "niche" in terms of its overall impact.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Not because "VB sucks", but because implementing VB on Linux would create a tremendous sinkhole, sucking up developer hours that could better be used solving other problems. Heck, implementing VB on Windows was so difficult that M$ abandoned it - so why should Linux developers pick up the broken pieces for m$?
Since the introduction of .NET and the abandonment of VB and ASP, the M$ development community has been bleeding developers to FOSS. It isn't necessary to initiate special efforts to get those VB developers - they're already moving to Linux.
Best to let M$ stew in the problems that it created.
Right, because nothing better than Linux at running servers will ever come along. By the way, what OS always has the best uptimes? Linux right...
Actually, I believe that the *BSD's tend to have the best uptimes, not Linux.
Linux already accomplishes a lot of things that Windows can't accomplish, but that fact has done very little to increase its market share on the desktop outside of hobbyists and early adopters.
The key to Linux's success in the home market is games. Without games, it really doesn't matter what features it has -- people won't buy it.
The key to Linux's success in the business market is twofold: a recognized solution in basic office applications (OpenOffice might well be the required wedge there), and recognition on the part of the business purchaser than Linux is in fact a better generalized desktop solution than the status quo for other types of vertical applications.
OS-specific features are far down the list for most people. Far far down the list...
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
There are many areas where GNU/Linux distros (and the other *nix-like OSes) go far beyond anything that is possible in Windows or on the MacOS in terms of features. Many of these "beyond" areas would be VERY attractive to the average user. Unfortunately many of them are obscured behind the CLI or very complicated concepts. A few examples:
1. The xmdx extension for X window system (X.org) which would allow multiple machines to act as one shared screen over the network. Combined with the proper simple user interface and an xmdx aware pager, A user could execute their web browser on Machine A and go surfing. They could then drag-and-drop the browser to Machine B's desktop and keep on going down there. If this was further combined with an xmdx aware sound server, A music player could be made to follow it's user from machine to machine without ever stopping.
2. Virtualization might seem like a concept that would be useless to grandma, but you're not thinking straight if you believe that. If a GNU/Linux distro were set up to to run on top of a Xen paravirtualization environment in a transparent way and across multiple machines, imagine the user friendliness... To grandma, it looks like a desktop that is always where she left it and it never stops. She can shut her machine down and the Xen domain would migrate to the central home computer/data store.
3. Clustering. Again, a lot of people would think it's a dumb idea for "Joe Average" to have a cluster. But is it REALLY a dumb idea? I say no. Why should people be forced to throw away old computer systems once the latest version of Windows won't install? Why can't they just have an automatic cluster solution with a very transparent UI that provides them with MORE power than they would ever get from a single Windows box?
Just in general, the key should be to take very advanced concepts that don't even exist in the Windows world and make them available to the end-user in a very simple, transparent way. This is all possible with Linux. But most Linux folks don't think this way and therein lies the problem.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
The correct term is GNU/Linux. Linux is the kernel, GNU is the unix-cloned operating system, which originally ran just on the unix kernel, and after the GNU foundation 's own kernel Hurd was unnsuccessful, GNU was ported to Linux to bring GNU/Linux that we all use today.
But a lot of companies don't say GNU/Linux because they want to push their product with the buzzword 'open-source' without commiting to freedom. (cough) Mandrake, Suse, Novell, etc providing only the source-code freely and charging for installers etc (until recently). Should openSUSE be freeSUSE?
This article makes alot of good points. You blind zealots just cannot see it objectively anymore.
8 .1/rpm/fedora/fc3/vlc/, I can almost gurantee that whatever packaage he downloads will have additional dependency requirements.
The biggest point to me is the new software installation. If I want a new MP3 player for Windows what do I do? I get on the net and search for 'winxp mp3 player', right? Regardless what what piece of crap site I end up at I will be able to download install.exe or the like that I can simply double-click. THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE EXPECT!
Now that uncle Bob wants a new mp3 player for Linux he will most likely do the same thing, right? So he gets on the net and searches for something like 'linux mp3 player'At this point he will be lucky to end up at a site he can download a binary from. Even if he is lucky enough not to be staring blankly at something like this: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-fedora.html or this http://downloads.videolan.org/pub/videolan/vlc/0.
If he was zealous he spent awhile searching around for something like xorg-x11-XFree86-glue-Mesa-libGLU-4.4.0-2 . . .
But now uncle bob is rebooting back into Windows . . .
--------
Linux is only free if your time is of no value.
If you look at the article being linked to on LXer it says:
...
"The Linux desktop has gone way past the excellent product Sun released in December 2003. That desktop offered the Gnome 2.2 desktop and some very nice engineering. Most Linux desktops now offer Gnome 2.12 which has incorporated the nice engineering found in the original Sun project Madhatter. So, no one wants Sun's throwback desktop today.
Don't get your hopes up about the JDS desktop for Linux. They need to prove that they can follow through on something first. So far, the jury remains out. We don't know who would want their desktop anyway: It's old, they changed the look and feel and who will support it?
"
Basically, they realized that their Java Desktop has been obsoleted by GNOME and they no longer want to maintain their fork which few people wanted.
Progress has been quick to match features with Redmond but this type of progress will only allow Linux to play catch-up, never to lead. In order to break away Linux has to do the things that Microsoft hasn't done or perhaps will never do to differentiate and become a practical desktop alternative. Linux is verbatim free to do whatever it can. :-)
You may want to try the latest build of 6.0-RC1 on the Sun Blade 100, or disable ATA DMA if you are using IDE hard drives in that machine. I also have a Sun Blade 100 that throw fits with ATA DMA enabled, but the problem was fixed prior to 6.0-RC1 was released.
Thanks for the heads up. I was actually putting it on there to test the upgrade procedure from 5.4 to 6.0 before I applied it to the other sparc machines but not Blade 100s.
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
I agree... one of Linux's strengths is its natural diversity and the pioneering attitude of many projects.
For example, my desktop is Ion3 wm. I have one main pane in the middle in which most desktop apps open as tabs. on the sides of the screen I have two 1 cm wide portins of panes that if I move my mouse to the edge or alt-tab to them, the come to the fore. On the left side, I have a clock/calendar (xfclock) and gkrellm which shows system stats and the weather. Also there is a pane xterm running there.
On the right "float" pane is Gvim in outline mode which keeps a detailed hierarchy of the tasks I'm working.
In the middle pane which has the foreground most of the time is Evolution, Firefox, and VMware which I use for Windows development.
With this wm I never need to fiddle with resizing applications, they all open just the way I want them, where I want them and it's totally configurable. My windowing manager actually manages windows!
100% gui and also 100% keyboard accessible.
Alt-2 away is a non-tabbed workspace for some problem applications which don't work well with Ion3 wm.
The idea though is that unique things are possible for any Linux user or distro creator. It is natural to have many flavors of Linux. I think it's possible that some distros can start "fashion trends," which is a good thing, but generally no distro is ever going to look like all the others and it is stupid to try. That would be giving up too much.
Concentrating on OSS advantages, it is actually possible to create an OS with a unified look across applications because we have the source to everything we use. In Windows, and Mac worlds this is plainly impossible. I think that would be nice to see with one of the more unique desktops/windowing management systems.
-- John.
While the writer makes many good points, he seems not to understand that it is less likely that Linux will achieve the goals he wants than Microsoft Windows.
This is a legitimate criticism of Windows, but it applies to Linux in spades. GTK, QT, Lesstif, GNU Step, and the custom built toolkits for Mozilla and Open Office duplicate basic GUI widgets in spades, all looking and behaving different and all, of course, with different APIs. Again, this is all made much harder by the fact that in Linux every widget is implemented at least 6 times in different toolkits and languages. It is far more likely that Microsoft will succeed in enforcing one right, correct way to do each of these things than the herd of cats that is Linux developers.To be sure, if you stick within one class of applications, such as the KDE suite, you can get pretty close to what the author wants. But KDE lacks a lot of things, and inevitably people have a mishmash of inconsistent looking and behaving applications on their Linux desktop. The nature of Linux development is that it is much less likely to achieve uniformity and consistency than an OS produced by a corporate monolith.
The author should just get a MAC OS/X machine and be happy.
I don't think you know what it means.
"If you make the interface too simple you may loose some functionality that advanced users will like."
It's funny that unleashing the functionality that advanced users will like is apparently the result of simplifying the interface. I'm pretty sure the author did not intend this, but I'd say that the sentence is correct with such examples as Automator introduced in Mac OS 10.4 -- by making the interface simpler for advanced tasks, you make all users more advanced!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
This kind of attitude I am certain holds back many people who would be adopters and great supporters of Linux. I am certain there are many VB and other 'doze programmers who would be readily willing to help develop the pieces necessary to create a "VB-like" development system under Linux, but I bet they are put off by this attitude.
I have used and developed on Linux since 1997 - not a veteran by any means, but I have been here a long time. Guess what: I am also a VB programmer (VB6 was the last version I used at a former job - I don't use it at home anymore). I don't write "shitty" code. My code is clean, well structured, and well commented. Regardless of what language I use (and I know a slew of them), I always try to make my code shine first (maintainable), then optimize it where it is needed last. If such optimization requires me to "roll up my sleeves" and get down-n-dirty with some C/C++ and/or assembler, so be it (although this need hasn't been true for a while - last time I had to do some C coding was when I created a scanline triangle rasterizer for custom 3D engine I was coding in VB - ahem).
All of this isn't to say there aren't crappy VB coders - but there are just as many crappy C, C++, Perl, Python, etc coders as there are crappy VB coders. In the end, the language is just a syntax to tell the computer what to do. How you code and structure your program according to the syntax of that language is up to the individual programmer. If he is bad, the code will be bad, if he is good, the code will also reflect this. Personally, some of the crappiest code I have seen has tended to commercial game development houses (although I do give props to ID for having good code that is fairly readable, with comments where absolutely needed, and clear layout of algorithms where you can easily read the code and figure it out without too much headache). This could be due to a number of reasons (too many cooks and such), but then again, I have seen excellent code created by other commercial software companies as well. There are excellent VB coders out there - all one has to do is read a few back issues of Visual Basic Developers Journal to see that (the code they publish is *excellent* code, in terms of structure and readability).
Painting all VB developers as being "shitty" programmers does nothing but disservice to the abilities of those VB programmers who develop great code and software. It also does nothing to help their perception of the Linux development community. These are the programmers that the Linux community needs if it is ever to make serious inroads to the desktops in businesses. Many businesses worldwide utilize tons of in-house (and otherwise) custom developed VB applications, running on their Windows desktops, that aren't typically represented at all by similar software available for Linux. If the desktop is ever really wanted to be "owned" by Linux, the community of developers on Linux needs to see past the arrogant and elitist attitude it has towards VB developers, and instead extend a helping hand toward getting them onboard helping to develop an easy-to-use, RAD tool for the Linux desktop (it is my personal opinion that we are already 99% of the way there - notwithstanding the various VB-like RAD tools that do exist for Linux, I believe a modern approach could utilize Qt or Gtk coupled with Python under KDevelop or a similar IDE to create a very nice and extensible RAD tool that would attract many VB developers and others to developing software for Linux desktops).
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
If you can't see that this article is a joke, then you don't deserve to read Slashdot
I read your post. Wow.
Rather than respond to the content (most of what you said has already been refuted) I'll respond to the sentiment.
If you want people to adopt Linux, such zealotry will get you nowhere. Just as some are scared off of SciFi by Rabid Trekkies, you've just potentially scared people out of trying Linux. In trying to do one thing you're actually accomplishing the opposite. Congratulations.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Well..... I don't know which flavors of Linux this guy has tried but Linux is closer to Windows wrt this idea (though LSB 3 is working on moving Linux away from it for reasons that will become obvious).
.deb and .rpm. These form the core of any installation architecture (though there are some things that even when the rest of the system is managed via these, I tend to install from source in order to place them *outside* the control of them). These systems handle dependency tracking, scriptable installation, and many other useful features.
/home/ is on a different fs I can use the noexec option in the fstab to prevent it. Otherwise, one could use SELinux policies to accomplish the same thing. However, almost nobody does this and for good reason. Linux/UNIX permissions allow for a better balance of these things than the complicated system policies that Microsoft uses.
First, we have two very good package management systems:
Secondly we have several good installation front-ends: Synaptic, apt-get, and yum are all good examples.
Now in terms of being able to just unzip an archive and run the application, this is actually easier to do in Windows provided that the application doesn't use the registry. PuTTY and Cygwin, for example, can be installed in one's user account with only guest privilages. On Linux, you can often do the same thing provided that you are running a very standard and well supported version, but library dependencies will often prevent an application compiled for one distro from working on another (this is a major barrier to proprietary app developers who want to compile once and run on many distros, hence LSB 3). This being said, I did successfully get the binary builds of Nvu 1.0 built on Fedora to run on OpenSUSE 10.0 RC1.
Now, if I am a system administrator, there is no reason why I cannot prevent people from running executables from their home directories. No reason at all. For example if
Now the one that gave me a laugh was the request to put full spreadsheet capabilities in every grid control. As if the fact that Emacs has an email client, a web browser, and a text adventure game is a good thing... As if one does not have enough bloat in GNOME as it is... And anyway if you need that functionality, why not just use Bonobo to embed Gnumeric? I am sure one could even create a widget that would accomplish this automatically.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Fuck off, we like our Linux(s) just the way it(they) is(are)!
Go back home to Microsoft.
"Linux vs. Microsoft, Microsoft vs. Linux" I'm sick of it. Let's try viewing Linux and Microsoft as two operating systems, not opponents in a winner-take-all prize fight. It is Microsoft who is at fault, here. As a Linux user and contributor, I DO NOT WANT TO CONQUER MICROSOFT. I JUST WANT MICROSOFT TO QUIT TRYING TO KILL MY FAVORITE OS. We don't all have to use one operating system. We are, the last time I checked, individuals.
It's Microsoft that can't stand competition, because Bill Gates suffers from the delusion that he must be the ONLY software company. But the rest of us have no need to smoke his hash pipe. We are still free to use our own common sense. We do not need to let ourselves be swept up in the mod frenzy.
Too bad, my simple sentiments will get flamed and modded down. Panic does make the monkeys scatter so! But what I prefer...what I've *always* preferred...is to let my "enemy" (who is only so because he defines himself that way) bash his brains out against my brick wall. I'm cozy inside, doing what I want with my own computer. I could give a rat's what other people do on theirs.
Hey! I've got it! After we "win" "our" war, why don't we start a new one between races? The Caucasians will try to force everybody who isn't Caucasian to become Caucasian. Everybody else will try to force the Caucasians to not be Caucasians. It will make just as much sense as what we're doing now! It doesn't have to make *any* sense, apparently. All you have to do is scream "WA-A-AR!!!" and all the monkeys start hurling coconuts at each other without knowing or caring why.
From TFA:
" To gain momentum some level of standardization is necessary to be called "Linux."
The brand "Linux" should stand for an entire operating system not just a kernel. There should be only one true Linux and perhaps many derivatives that should have their own brand and name."
So LSB must be a good thing, right?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"You may want to try the latest build of 6.0-RC1 on the Sun Blade 100, or disable ATA DMA if you are using IDE hard drives in that machine. I also have a Sun Blade 100 that throw fits with ATA DMA enabled, but the problem was fixed prior to 6.0-RC1 was released."
"Thanks for the heads up. I was actually putting it on there to test the upgrade procedure from 5.4 to 6.0 before I applied it to the other sparc machines but not Blade 100s."
And you wonder why the average person uses Windows.
What "linux" really needs is a functional, easy-to-develop-for, GUI to replace X windows.
What I mean by this, is currently X relies on the window manager (and/or a bajillion helper apps) to make things like "drag and drop" work. I'm well aware of the advantages of this, however there are also significant disadvantages. One of the things we need to do is get ourselves a new GUI with APIs for common desktop stuff, rather than APIs for complex network socket operations. Ditch the X clent/server model, and tool up the GUI to provide --BASIC-- windowing and so on, to give a functional base to start from. Of course, it would need to be "mod-able" enough for various window-manager-like applications however provide those apps a common API for tasks they are going to want like drag n drop, transparancy, and so on without the need for the developers to create thier own implementation unique to only thier app. This would allow me to "drag and drop" the icon in a file manager for a text ascii file into a form-field in a web browser, and have it dump the contents of the file into the field. Common APIs for that kind of thing.
IMHO the nature of X windows prevents much of this, by providing nothing but a resolution and a pointing device to applications...
I know im just describing basic integration here, but at the same time that package fragmentation is linux' strongest strength its also its biggest shortcoming.
-GenTimJS
Should read: Yes, it's definitely good for everyone to have completely access to free (gratis&libre) software.
"For years the open-source Linux community has been competing with Microsoft to become the dominant desktop operating system."
Opening statement. Really.
Greg doesn't get it. Linux (FOSS) *does not* compete with Microsoft (or anyone else). We do software, sure, and that's about it.
If Microsoft (or anyone else) actually feels THREATENED, they should do something about it. Improve their product? Adopt a FOSS solution? Whatever. As long as it makes money, I don't care.
But, we (FOSS) don't compete with them. It is competely ludicrous to assume that. I have put out some FOSS projects... and have received NO MONEY from them. I didn't EXPECT money. On the other hand, I am a Microsoft shareholder. I get very upset when Microsoft gives stuff away. I bought those shares for a reason -- to make me money.
What the two share is "software". Sort of like a car manufacturer vs. a kit car home builder.
I will summarize:
Microsoft's final product is money (shareholder value). FOSS final product is software. These are not the same.
Please Greg, get a clue... I know you worked at Microsoft 'n stuff, and it may make it difficult to get a handle on FOSS, but I am sure you can wrap your brain around this.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Does anybody really care? I mean really, do people want windoze converts over to the Linux/BSD side? I personnaly want to keep Linux/BSD for smart people. Another thing, enough with the interface comparisions, again, who gives a flying fuck.... if people are intersted in guis or interfaces of operating systems, they will try them out and find out on their own, not by reading flames on /.
This is getting rediculous. I converted both my in-laws and my parents over to Ubuntu. It prints, it works with their digital cameras, it surfs the web, and it's got an office suite. Once a year I come around and patch stuff if needed. Since I live 600 miles away I was planning on using SSH or just telling them to create a new user if they ever hosed anything up to the point where everything stops working (like XP, 98, 95 etc...). That hasn't happened. Not only that but now I have a serious computer that I can use when I visit. Don't let fear stop you from removing the training wheels!
Greg's Head is part of my daily reading and he always has interesting things to say about the field of user interfaces. His latest post is Linux Thoughts. While the post has some very shrewd observations, there was something that nagged at me while I read it.
Going back through the post, I think his basic premise is wrong. The first paragraph of the post opens with,
And I think that's where he's wrong. I think there are definitely players in the Linux arena who want to use Linux to compete with Microsoft, but I don't think that's true for Linux as a whole. The drive behind Linux isn't to compete with Microsoft, to replace Windows, or even to provide a mom-and-pop OS to the mainstream. As with almost all open source software, the drive behind Linux is the scratching of an itch. No more, no less.
Looking from that point of view greatly changes some of the things Greg had to say. For instance,
If Linux was trying to be a brand, this would hold very true. However, from the standpoint that Linux progress comes from people scratching an itch, it doesn't hold any water. Part of why Linux is where it is today is because there are "dozens and perhaps even hundreds of different Linux distributions."
If you are trying to understand how Microsoft could compete against Linux, it becomes easier if you take the viewpoint that Linux is trying to be a brand that is competing back against Microsoft. But I believe you would be fooling yourself to take that viewpoint. The simple fact that it's not trying to be a brand is why it's so hard to compete against Linux.
As I said before, there are players in the Linux arena who would like to use Linux to compete against Microsoft, and the most obvious player that comes to mind is Novell. With Linux as a whole, though, there's nothing really for Microsoft to compete against. Microsoft could crush SuSe into the dust and it wouldn't really affect Linux.
Keeping all that in mind, I want to stress that this does not invalidate anything Greg has said about Linux in his post. He brings up some excellent points, lays some very good directions for Linux developers to take, and really hits the nail on the head with a lot of things with regard to how Linux could expand to the masses. But...
As long as there are a handful of programmers who are happy with their Linux distribution and are continuing to tinker with it, Linux will be wildly successful. Why? Because that handful of programmers are scratching an itch. It's as simple as that.
would be a GUI for source installations. Point it at an archive. It untars it, runs ./configure --help, parses the options, gives you a chance to set environment variables, select options (if you want to), does make and make install. I am not familiar with any such app but have been thinking of writing one. Ideally it would allow you to save your options for later reuse to a file that could easily be reused in command-line compiles via a shell script.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Thanks for the well thought out piece. I'm glad you did not flame him.
It will probably take Greg about six months to be embarrassed of writing that piece as he discovers the really cool world of free software. He'll be pleasantly surprised by spell checking in Konqueror, blown away by the Kontrol center, very happy with the excellent integration between KDE components, like being able to open and edit a Kword document in a browser tab that's split with google for research and many other fine features Windoze will never get past the vapor stage with. More interestingly to him is the very real and good support Window managers and programs from different groups have for each other. As a Microsoftie, he's put up with far greater quirks than any free software program will deliver. Just how much better free software is will come to him in waves.
Now, the way his blog looks is something that he should be taken to task for right away. The victorian wallpaper .... gag. Oh well, there's no accounting for taste.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I've piddled around with linux and have used various distros over the years. I however am a gamer and i'm stuck with MS for that reason.
./configure, make, make install. oh crap i need this package. find package online, download, "what's the command for just a regular tar" bah.. ./configure, make, make install. Oh another package?
You guys talk about how simple it is to do things in linux now and it's ready for main stream. No quite frankly it isn't. I know my way around commands enough to know some things just don't install properly and won't function without time spent that 99% of users won't jack with. Yeah for the "web/email" user it's fine(sometimes) but anybody that does more than that has to work at getting differant apps to install.
I spent god knows how long trying to install superkaramba. tar -xzvf name-version.tar.gz,
PPTP setup is a horrible mess. I just don't have time to deal with a config file.
WPA doesn't exist. sorry guys. I'll pay you to figure it out on my box. ndiswrapper got me close.... still no WPA-TDK... damn
slackware 10 and suse 10 are the distros I use.
Yeah there is tons of stuff out there and tons of people use it. I'm sure i could get my mother to switch... cause she does internet stuff. firefox and gaim should suffice. fine... till she wants a laptop that is wireless.. then wpa shoots that idea down.
it's not as uber as you think. and standards need to happen. i love the diverse distros keep that. but some stuff needs to get simpler.
and i want to play half-life 2 without all the hoops of an emulator. and the games that get released in a month without waiting for a emulation patch.
If you thought Windows became bloated, slow, and unstable when it got Active Desktop and Internet Explorer integrated into everything, just try to imagine how horrible a Linux distribution would be if it had OpenOffice integrated into every list and every text field in every possible app in the OS. That's just one thing that this lunatic is proposing.
I've never wondered that. Average people are... Average. They have average PCs. Not something like a Sun Blade 100
There should be absolutely one installation method, that should encompass ALL distributions.
/usr/bin, every doc into /usr/doc, every lib into /usr/lib*, or a distribution that keeps every single application's components in it's own seperate directories. All using the same install format.
/usr/lib/xlib1.0.so and /usr/lib/xlib1.1.so are actually totally compatible with each other, so you can erase /usr/lib/xlib1.0.so when installing 1.1.so .. but, /usr/lib/xlib2.0.so has a totally different interface, so if you have programs that depend on /usr/lib/xlib1.1.so and you install /usr/lib/xlib2.0.so, the installer will know to keep the 1.1 version around as well. (this would also eliminate the idiocy of having things like "glib-5" and "glib2-2", when glib2 replaces glib .. don't take any of these examples as examples of absolute truth, i'm just using the names as examples, rather than as case studies)
How each distribution actually DOES it can vary as it wants.
Each application should be packaged, with a file that has a lot of information about whatever is in the archive.
What each file is, wether it's source code, a library, an extension for something else, the main executeable, or some stupid utility to go with it.
Then it's up to the installer, based on WHAT the file IS, to determine where it goes.
Then you can have distributions that use the traditional *throw every executeable in the entire world into
Of course, each would also have version information, and also "compatible with" and "incompatible with" information, particularly for libraries, where
And I really love the idea of "nothing should ever be executed without the installer having previously known about it".. that would be a great thing to add to a distribution, IMO. Hell, the installer could keep track of checksums of the executeables, and make sure they haven't been modified (such as by a virus or worm or rootkit or malicious hacker) before running.
A unified installation METHOD (doesn't have to be the same program on all distros) would solve a huge amount of Linux distribution problems, and perhaps even provide an answer to more general computing problems.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
I am the public, I thought. I found about Linux (ha ha see we all do it) by myself, read a bit about it, and then decided to what the hey and install it, to see what it was really about, after hearing so much. I'm still using it. Moving to Linux from Windows was no more of a jump than switching from IE to Firefox as I did previously. There were some new concepts, lessons to be learnt, but it benefited me in the long run.
The "get people to switch from Windows" debate is raging again here - it reminded me that I wanted to know if there was a Linux-to-Windows conversion tool to ease the process. If not, let me say what I'm thinking.
I'd like a Windows executable that will scan my system, identify settings (TCP/IP settings, SMTP settings, dialup/VPN, background desktop image, you name it), and burn a CD of my settings. Then, I want a Linux executable that will read those settings, and set me up in Linux as close as possible to Windows.
This tool should ideally also work Windows-to-Windows for moving to a new computer. Ideally it should have a plugin architecture so folks can write add-ons. The XMMS folks can write a plugin to suck in my Winamp settings and so on. Done correctly, this tool could even analyze my installed programs and suggest what programs I'm going to need. "I see you have Yahoo Messenger - you'll want to get Yahoo Messenger for Linux or Gaim. Once it's installed, I'll pre-populate your settings."
Throw it all on a live CD and you have a great way to convince folks that switching to Linux is easy.
I'm not a developer, but I'm a Windows power user (the key demographic, yes?) who'd be happy to be on a team of folks interested in this.
How come I can't install and run Windows, OSX, Solaris and Linux binaries from ONE file downloaded over the internet? There's no legitimate technical reason for this, it's just nerds in their IVORY TOWER who refuse to make their systems more usable for us, the common man. They resort to fabricating stories of "DLL Hell" and library versioning, binary incompatible C library compiles, differing base installs, conflicting file overwrites, and the costs of distributing static compiled binaries, but refuse to recognize the immense value I place on this. Why is it that Microsoft, Sun, Apple, Novell, Redhat, Debian, Gentoo, Mandriva, and IBM can't cooperate to determine exactly what it is that my system should be providing as a bare minimum of computing system facilities?
I'd like to conclude by thanking the superlative Stephen Colbert for giving me the inspiration for this post. May the Lord protect us, the keepers of the light of Truth.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
"The MAJORITY of all new servers today are slated to run Linux.
The FA talks about how Linux can get into the home market so from that perspective the number of servers that are using Linux is irrelevant.
For Snoop if he is reading:
The FA raps `bout how Linux can git into tha home market so from tizzy perspective tha baller of drug deala that is using Linux is na needin.
It's true that MS Windows was based on the Apple GUI, not X11. On the other hand, there were previous window system, in addition to the Xerox Star on which the Apple interface was modelled. X was based on W, the window system for the experimental V operating system at Stanford. There was even an earlier window system on Unix proper. In the early 1980s Bell Labs had a bit-mapped terminal called the BLIT that ran a window system under Unix. I saw it at Bell Labs in 1983. If I'm not mistaken, the the terminal had a CPU to which a lot of the processing was downloaded.
This sounds like a whole heap of, "Linux would be so much better if it was more like Windows" rhetoric. I can't stand that thought. Much like I can't stand Windows.
Isn't that what the Live CDs are for? Maybe he hasn't researched that far into this.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Right, but what about when someone wants to play a Windows game or run a Windows only app? Most casual users don't care as long as they don't have to trouble with anything. Also, most casual user will never go near regedit. It's not fear, it's convenience that rules the mind of the casual user.
No. I don't...
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
So users don't want to burn an ISO and boot from it? Um. Sure. Whatever. If they're not prepared to go this far, then they'd better give up now. Maybe their time would be better spent developing their VB skills?
WTF? This guy has never used Linux. Seriously. WTF?
He goes on to say that we should develop 'one' application for each purpose. Of course, he hasn't created any of these best-of-breed applications, nor has he caused other developers to cease development of their competing projects. Perhaps he's waiting for that VB port?
Where did we find this toss, exactly? I wouldn't trust him to install Windows XP. He's probably stack internet explorer with 5 different spyware bars because they're so fucking cool, give me his own VB calender with scrollable months (!), and then litter my desktop with folders upon folders of clip-art. Jesus Christ.
Share.
because those pesky users like to have access to their server. If you take the server out of the client-server equation the client is NEVER happy. Often, companies are only paid when their server is up. Even if they aren't, companies who host servers don't stay in business very long if their servers go down all the time.
I think you might be trying to be funny, but if not, understand that there are two issues with this. 1) rebooting a server alot means less uptime, and that's bad for the reasons I said earlier. 2) rebooting a server should be superfast so as to minimize any downtime associated with that reboot.
After all, if uptime wasn't an issue why would companies spend so much on UPS's?
Ira
My sister is a graphic artist in the DC area. Her company has had various restructurings and layoffs in recent years, dumping more work on her.
This got me thinking about how much money a typical graphic shop spends on Mac hardware and software. I wondered if a Mac shop could switch to Linux (PPC or x86), save money, and still be able to do everything they could before with a comparable ease of use. I spent a while analyzing OS X 10.4 Tiger and Linux in a series of articles on my blog.
What I came up with is that Linux itself is certainly easy enough for a Mac user to pick up, and can be customized to look and act enough like OS X that while there would be a learning curve, it wouldn't be a steep one.
There are lots of open source and free packages out there to do the kinds of things Mac designers do, and most of them compare favorably to their commercial counterparts on the Mac.
The only real drawbacks I saw were (as noted here in the article and commentary) that software installation is a touch easier on the Mac and that the Linux applications aren't (yet) capable of reading Macintosh files.
This led me to the conclusion that a "new" designer with no existing library of graphics in proprietary formats (e.g., PageMaker, FreeHand, Illustrator) could pretty easily use Linux and OSS.
A more experienced designer with lots of graphics in proprietary formats could still do it, but would have a heck of a time getting those graphics moved to Linux. In exchange for that effort, they'd save a ton of cash on hardware (since Linux runs on cheaper x86 iron) and software (since most of the Linux stuff is free).
If you would like to read the (even more) long-winded version, see my blog at http://mikesalsbury.com/mambo/content/view/243/
Because none of those things should require a reboot. Ideally, one should never have to shut off their computer for anything, and any modifications could be done on the fly.
Yes, I realize it's near impossible...but that's the idea.
Uptime key because people in business have this little personality tic where they don't like turning away customers for two days while the sysadmin reboots to try out different kernel configurations...
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
probably not going to be the first to say this, but GNU/Linux is the Operating system, only Linux is the kernel.
Secondly, you shouldn't be offended by someone from slashdot. You should, however, be offended by your own face.
Do you really think because you're able to insert a cd, click "install" and "start" microsoft word makes your opinion of value to anybody?
If you wanna talk linux, talk linux.
We dont need MS Word Install-Professionals to tell us the better way, we're way ahead!
Think about it.
It is obvious that the problem is that the world is divided into people who prefer antialiased and those who prefer non-antialiased (for small letters at least). Each of these say the other system "looks like crap and it took forever to fix it" and then the other camp says "no my system looks perfect, you are full of shit."
One huge problem is that it is almost impossible to figure out what the person complaining about the fonts wants. If they say "it looks blurry" then they are probably alias-lovers, but otherwise it is hard to tell. I think anybody complaining should be required to send two screenshots, one showing what they call "bad" and one showing what they call "good", so we can tell.
Now I prefer antialiased all the time as the text matches all the photographic information on the screen and the weights of the letter strokes look much more even. I feel that the opponents are so brainwashed by using Windows that any fonts that look different, they don't like. This also explains why Microsoft themselves has been unable to turn ClearType on by default in their system, despite the fact that to the average doofus who does not use a computer all day, but does watch a lot of TV, greatly prefers antialiasing on everything. OS/X uses antialiasing everywhere and Mac users don't seem to complain, but Windows users also complain about blurry fonts on Mac.
Also some terms as I understand them, just to make sure everybody is arguing about the same things:
"Font smoothing" is an obsolete method used by Windows to make fake antialiasing by filtering the aliased image. It did not work for small fonts so they turned it off, though it did a good job of recognizing the slope of larger letter edges and smoothing that.
"Antialiasing" is using information about the actual shape to produce gray scales. The most common method now is to just draw it aliased a lot bigger, like 4x4 bigger, then scale down the boxes of pixels, turning the number of "on" ones into a gray shade. This is exactly the technique used by Windows ClearType, Linux FreeType, and Macintosh.
"Hinting" is adjusting the shape to line up better with the pixels so that either the antialiased or the aliased image looks better. If horizontal and vertical lines land on pixel boundaries the letter will have fewer gray pixels and look sharper. This is totally different than "turn off antialiasing" except that hinting is much harder if there is no antialiasing. Originally this was the big defect in Linux in that the hinting algorithim was broken, but this appears to have been fixed for years now. Hinting is NOT perfect because the distortions in the letters can get really annoying, and scaling a document cannot be done smoothly, instead it appears to wiggle.
"ClearType" in Windows means "turn on antialiasing". It is not subpixel rendering, you can see that is a totally different checkmark that you turn on after turning on cleartype.
"SubPixel rendering" is a trick invented by Microsoft to use the LCD colors as smaller pixels. You render antialiased for a 3x wider image, then use the result grayscale image to control the colors. It must also interact with hinting so that colors don't shift (ie lines that are 2 pixels wide will be some color, so make them 3), but both Linux and Windows abandons this for very small sizes, which seems to indicate that hinting is not as important as once believed.
The average person is not a network engineer.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
OK, I'll tell you that it's been a long time since I've seen any desktop besides OSX look as good as Debian or Mepis default installs. Solaris and Windoze don't come close anymore. I don't know what you did in four hours of messing with config files or why you needed to, but the story is really the same on Windoze. I dare you to try to change menu fonts there. For more than a year now, default X configurations have been excellent. As Windoze performance declines over time, so does it's appearance, but X continues to look good.
When you combine good fonts in X with KDE menu and Enlightenment theme transparencies, you have the best looking desktop in the world. Mac OSX can match fonts and has nice GUI zooming and other tricks which rate about equal in utility, but given the choice between free and non free, why chose non free?
Windoze is an unmitigated dissaster. Any "real" graphics program there comes with it's own version of directX which might screw every other program you have. Beyond that, consistency between vendors and even between versions is non-existant. You might be able to go to the font fairy and get pretty looking fonts, but messing with your actual system fonts is liable to blow up more than it fixes. Systems that are simply run by normal people start off ugly and get uglier.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Also, in case the guy didn't notice, not all distributions are even about providing a pretty GUI; while my system is somewhat graphically oriented I quite frequently run it in text mode, and have been known to leave X off some of my systems altogether depending on what I use them for.
Someday more people will understand.
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
If it makes it out to the market, there's a pretty good chance of PalmOS with the MontaVista kernel doing what MacOS X did for desktop/laptop computing awhile back. In fact, it may even push Linux further into the consumer market, despite Palm releasing their WinMob Treo. Devices running PalmOS are often cheaper than devices running WinMob...whereas it's usually the opposite with Macs vs. PCs. Anyway, I saw a demo of it (Palm/Linux) running on a phone during the last Palmsource, cool stuff.
That's cause Linux resets it's timer. So does Windows and newer versions of FreeBSD. Anyway, uptime is mostly a messure that tells you how stopid admin of that machine is.
Server and service uptime are not necessarily the same thing.
In a well-designed architecture, individual server uptimes are irrelevant.
Having done some Windows Forms development in .Net I can say I whole heartedly agree with the need for consistent controls. MS's buttons in .NET suck, in writing a toolbar add-in for IE (For our internal environment, not spyware) there was way too much work involved in trying to get the buttons and gradients to match IE. A button should be a button and it should always be the same, I should never have to write a button class for a windowed application. Same for all the other controls.
.Net Framework for Linux. That way current developments could be easily ported, rather than just porting crappy VB6 developers.
I disagree with the need for a VB6 IDE, VB sucks. Much better for portability of software would be a robust implementation of the
Quite a lot of commercial linux software ships as statically linked binaries, where the dependencies are linked in. Indeed, if you're shipping closed source software this is strongly adviseable, as it avoids lots of dependency trouble.
t ion/instjava.html
.. and it downloads it and its dependencies, installs them, asks any necessary configuration questions, and integrates itself into the desktop menu system.
You can also ship things as a single self-installing file: it's called a shar archive. E.g. Sun ship their JDK this way: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Nvidia-OpenGL-Configura
Or you can go one better and have APT (or similar systems) where I type:
apt-get install openoffice
Quite a lot of people ship software as source tarballs because that's the preferred form for modification. Ease of use isn't everything to everyone.
As a Linux user
Why use it if you hate it so much? Who's holding the gun to your head?
OSX Blows .....Sorry, but this pissed me off to see so many people saying OSX has everything. Try to support OSX for 2000 users and not give them Admin rights. And Try to find software that allows for that, oh yeah then try to find an OSX server that doesn't have to be rebooted routinely. The hardware
is the cheapest constructed crap on the face of the planet. From the loudest fans I have ever heard on the Xserves.To the shoddiest constructed Ibooks, with keyboard marks on the screens, cheap hinges, soft white plastic,one Button Mice? We bought 300 airports all of which had to be returned and replaced. As far as the OS. Their updates to OSX break so much more than it fixes. Try using Workgroup Manager, don't break your list. How about 100mb Homedirectory Preference files. How well do you think that works wirelessly if at all.Think logins are slow? Font cache is fun. Owe yeah Using 10.4 with Word and network logins is impossible in a restricted multiple user environment. Mobile accounts that have to be recreated rather routinely. Don't try and setup location preferences for mobile users and expect them to beable to login with out changing their location prior to the move. Check out resolv.conf and see what network preferences actually reports. Managing the Dock with workgroup manager you never see ?'s it always works, right. Don't even think about using shortcuts to network shares. Launching Adobe Acrobat as a nonpriviledged user the first time for a 1000 users, then having to authenticate them. DVD Region Codes have to be set for each machine manually as administrator. Printer Drivers, don't get me started. Watch how apple talk only binds to one Network device, that is fun when using printers using appletalk. Yeah appletalk, another hunk of crap that is. How many friggin harddrive partitions do you need apple? Machines that simply logoff to a blue screen. What is up with Netbooting acrossed subnets yeah we can do it, but it wasn't fun at first, needing helper addresses and such. The Browser situation is the worst. How many company's really write for Safari, We have to struggle with IE on the Mac for many of our WebApps. Safari Fonts just losing touch with everything at random. Ipod Batteries they are great, That whole situation sucks. Apple is strung out in too many directions this is blatantly obvious when you try to get anything that resembles tech support. It is sad when you have someone come to your business and setup an XSan and admit that he know much more than any of the engineers at apple. What is even more sad is realizing he is right. His famous last words were don't start the metadata controllers out of order or you will blow the raid, not bad when we spen 130K on an XSAN backup solution we spent 4 months with only beta Backup software that the company would not install cause of lack of reliability. Apple is just putting stuff out with out supporting it or even expecting any sort of reliablility or consistency out of it. They make their money on preying on the ignorant abusing the concepts shiek and mystery. Pardon the run on rambling and lack of puncuation and spelling. If it wasn't for the lack of solid hardware construction I might recommend apple products to novice users. That need email, word processing and internet. I don't have the heart to recommend to people that they spend more money than they should and not get quality hardware. I have seen the consistency of 1000's of apples work come and go over the last 6 years. I don't like what I see.
PS, the only thing that is cool about OSX is Expose, Thats it, As far as the
french they use. That is plain cheezy, They need youth or someone with a clue
to come up with better names for stuff. How about black instead of white for everything, would that be alternative, goth or what? I ain't proof reading this cause I am busy working on Macs.
"First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL."
Bullshit! It is not true neither what you literally say nor what you try to imply.
Not even a completely drunken RMS would state that the Linux KERNEL should have to be called GNU/Linux.
On the other hand, while even a recently showed RMS would state for all and every Linux Operative Systems (o collection, or "distro", or whatever the name you prefer) to be known as GNU/Linux mainly because the "marketing hype", I'd say (first he tried Lignux, with no success), it is quite clear that only distros coming from the FSF or accepting to entrust its ideals and objectives should be known as GNU/Linux.
Thus, "Debian GNU/Linux", but "Red Hat Linux", for instance.
"First off, Linux, or rather GNU/Linux, is an operating system KERNEL."
Linux is the Kernel
GNU/Linux is the Operating System
indows has one way of searching for files but Office has a completely different way and MSN is pushing yet another way. Windows uses ACLS for security but Internet Explorer uses trusted zones. Outlook, Windows and Instant Messenger all have separate ways to deal with contacts and address information. These inconsistencies not only add complexity to the platform but they add confusion for end users.
Yes, exactly thats why I use a Mac
More or less every application follows the same metaphore
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
My take has always been that if you make Linux appeal to the lowest common denominator like Windows, then you remove from Linux what appealed to the hacker (old school definition there) who saw in Linux that thing which inspired him back when computers were what you made of them, and not what you bought and installed on them. As far as being an 'elite' Linux snob, well I am and unashamed to say I am. That was the whole point of Linux to me, it was an OS that wasn't shrink-wrapped and one-size-fits-all. I don't care if Linux 'wins', I just want it to remain available, and remain true to the spirit of those who have used it for years simply because it wasn't "for the masses" and not despite it.
What could be simpler than store the bootloaders/bootstrappers and a disk image on the fat32. Modify boot.ini to give you the option to try out Linux.
To a windows user this will look like 3 or 4 files on the disk.
Read-write disk image can contain all the bells and whistles of a unix file system, but appear as a single big file in windows. Heck, you can make it be sparce and compressed, and that will take really little space.
Don't wanna mess with boot.ini? Start up from CD, but use that sparse file on fat32 to store deltas (new files, temps, whatnot).
User not happy with the tryout? Run the uninstall to remove bootloaders and disk image file.
Like it and want to uninstall windows? Just copy the files from the image onto the entire disk. This is so easily do-able (at least on with Apple's machines & OS X), I am surprised nobody done that for Linux. But then again, I have no clue how supported disk images are in Linux...
Linux community could learn a thing or two from Apple with their fancy netboot, bootCDs, bootCDs with image-file on the HD, etc.
"Linux" does not need uniformity!
"Linux" is just a kernel!
There are plenty of crap OS's based on Linux, you are free to ignore them, I do!
Just choose one good OS (whether it is Linux-based or any other), and judge it on its own merits.
It is not a disadvantage of Debian or another, that some other Crappo-Linux-based OS sucks.
What the grandparent was saying is that having both options provides the best of all worlds.
Linux generally has immensely powerful command line tools, with corresponding lack of useability. Windows generally has immensely useable GUI systems, with corresponding lack of flexibility.
Wouldn't it be nice to have both? I think Linux could achieve that. If so, it'd be fairly unbeatable.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-the-graphi cal-user-interface
Apple was far from first. But the point still remains, MS Windows is about as original as a $6 USD dollar bill.
The thing that needs to happen is that a real company has to decide to do a Linux for Consumers. Corel did a half assed job and other small groups are trying, but you simply need a company with money and organisation and influence to throw around to get it done. Why doesn't Google or Real or IBM do it. 90% of the work is done but nobody has put the polishing touch on it. In today's world, to get a project to the finish line AND to make it successful takes massive co-ordination and a singular vision only a mid to large company can provide. The server and specialist strains of Linux are going to flourish on their own but there's a big opportunity for the company that brings Apple-style leadership to Linux.
A vertical market application is an application that serves some specific type of business. Software to run a veterinary office is vertical. Other vertical markets: software for oil change places or video rental stores.
For contrast, word processing is NOT a vertical market application; it's horizontal.
Now just how many average people do you figure run Sun Blade 100's? That's right, they don't run obscure server only hardware.
Either way, the users won't appreciate it if the service they're in the middle of using goes down and loses the connection. Minimizing that is a good thing, right? I mean, the timeliness and predictability of some transactions might be important to someone right? Or are you arguing that all services should be connectionless?
because most users don't care about how long a server has BEEN running, they care that it's running [properly] *now* and those lovely UPS's don't protect your uptime as much as they protect you from unplanned downtime. There *is* a difference there. EVERY server needs maintenance reboots etc.
The world according to SComps
Yep, because Windows runs so well on Sun Blade 100s. Geez!
Open Source Sushi
How can you call Linux a "niche" OS?
Thanks for pointing out that Linux is niche OS by saying that it is very successful in the niche market "servers".
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
The reason MacOS X is so well thought out and written I think comes down to two reasons for a starters:
- MacOS developers are concerned with user experience as the ultimate design goal: zero entry cost, consistent interface, complete functionality, optimized for speed and responsivity; Linux developers (most of them?) are more concerned with writing great code, writing 'free' code, and feeling so personal about the whole issue that they can't look at it objectively.
- Apple is an organisation, as such it is organized and is able to work on a common vision, created at some level in the organisation by those who are experts in their field, and used throughout that organisation. Apple must be special in its culture; to create quality comes before getting rich as fast as possible(?). I believe Microsoft's culture/essence is just wrong and that's why it produces bogus products. In Linux's case however, there is just no adequate organisation. No one supervises the whole, and so the whole is not taken care of. Distribution creators such as SUSE/Novell and Red Hat have not sufficient power to set things right.