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)
You can have your cake and eat it too.
Linux has to made more useable "out of the box", expert users can always strip-down their install or use only certain tools or pick "expert" distros.
No harm is done (to expert users) if a smart company decides to release a user-friendly linux distro.
www.weberseite.at
"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.
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.
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
___ 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.
Like on Apple OS X. If you want to install an Application you can normally drag and drop it in your application folder (easy enough). But if you wanted to you can go into the terminal and do a ./configure; make; sudo make install
Just because there is a easy way it doesn't stop you from doing it the hard way. Having an easy option usually save the person time in deployment.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
My fonts look fine. I live in the "real" world, and have spent approximately zero time screwing with fonts. What, exactly, is the problem with your fonts?
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
Of course, as reasonable people, we all understand that he means LINUX distributions rather than the LINUX kernel.
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
There ya go! This is the core of the Linux problem. Everyone sees Linux vs. Windows, and in this battle, I have little doubt Linux would win. But that's just not what it's all about. Linux is a kernel, not an OS. The problem is the Linux OSes fragmentation. There is not one, but many Linuxes fighting for the crown, and this is weakening their common kernel: Linux.
;)
If only SuSe, Red Hat, Debian and Mandrake could just agree on some STANDARDS !!! For crying out loud, everyone is bashing microsoft for not adopting an "open" standard (actually plenty of them) but the key distros cannot even agree on a common way to distribute and install an application. How can anyone blame Microsoft when the exact same idiocy is happenning in their supposedly "perfect" open-source world?
</rant>
Write boring code, not shiny code!
"Linux to be 100% RISK FREE. 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." So linux should use a fat32 fs so it can be "uninstalled"? Try installing XP and "restoring" win98 or win2k. If you want to tryout linux use knoppix, it's stupid to expect _any_ OS to adopt a deprecated fs from another OS in order for a user to be able to "restore" his old OS. Don't put absurd requirements for Linux that the latest MS Windows can't accomplish..
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.
I can do the same under Windows, yet Windows has a central installation architecture. Why is that? Dependencies, for one. If a program has no dependencies or externals, I can just extract and run the binary (in fact, a lot more programs under Windows work this way than one would think).
The OS should ensure that applications are installed before they can be executed.
I don't know of any OS that requires that one. However, that isn't an arguement against the former part of the excerpt, which is the only part I'm addressing.
Linux as a whole needs one. Something that lets joeuser download a file (ONE) from the net, run the file, and it installs everything needed for the program downloaded and runs correctly the first time on any modern linux platform. I still can't do that on SUSE even for most programs.
Compare to the Windows world. You can download a single file (a self-installing executable file) from the net and assume it will work on any modern windows platform (2K/XP/2K3). In fact, the only things I can think of as exceptions off the top of my head are ports from Linux to Windows.
--- Ãther SPOON!
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.
Must use? Can use? Mandatory to use but can use other methods as well?
I think I'd want to lean towards the latter. If there were an install wizard-like method, consistently available across every Linux app (or at least the ones most people want to use) I'm sure a lot of people would like to be able to use that. On the other hand if I want to compile from source, hand-hack some config files, and manually move them to the directories where they belong, I want to be able to retain that level of control. If they take that away and give us a shiny GUI wizard-like installer, I think a lot of people would be upset. But if they give us that easy install AND let us continue to do things as we see fit, everyone wins.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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
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.
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.
>> 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.
> 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?
I think that Greg Raiz may have just overstated a truth somewhat, and confused things. From the article:
>> you need to reduce confusion and risk.
I think we can all agree that reducing confusion and risk are very good things. The issue seems to come in in terms of "HOW do we reduce confusion and risk?" For some people, the answer is, just autorun when I put in a CD. For others, it's document the damn thing and use standard techniques so I can do it manually. Same goal, different direction.
>> This means users can't be expected to untar, unzip and burn ISO images,
Fair enough. This doesn't mean that Linux can't support those who want to untar, unzip, and burn ISO images; just that any distro shooting for mainstream has to offer a simple alternative. And for the techies, a README file with manual instructions; best of both worlds so far.
>> they also can't be expected to properly partition their hard drive.
Same as above. Offer simple installation tools to do this, and let the techies do it manually.
>> Users don't want to manually import their favorites and browser settings
>> and email configuration.
Ditto above. The main thing is that, if you come up with a tool to automate this, let the user choose to not run it if he desires (a simple command-line-switch or config file setting like --noautoimport takes care of that).
>> To get people to switch you need to get them to try. To do this you need
>> to get Linux to be 100% RISK FREE. 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.
Very true. A lot of techies use something like RCS to back up config files and whatnot. Automating this kind of thing in an installer would help a lot.
> 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.
A key point. For adoption of a "new Windows killer OS", solely to lure windows users looking to switch, -and no one else-, you might argue that just having simple installers is a good idea. Because we are talking about an OS that is designed to appeal also to people who don't like Windows, we need to support both methods. I think the author understands this, although he didn't say it.
I think the main thing he meant with an "installation architecture" is that we need to have consistent methods for installing. MS introduced this in Windows Installer, the APIs that installation programs can use. Linux lacks this kind of uniformity, and an API would always appeal to a limited subset of developers.
For Linux installation and configuration scripts and programs, every developer reinvents the wheel for himself. I've fought with many a nifty little application whose build scripts contain tons of hard-coded references to non-standard file locations. It's just not worth futzing with sometimes.
Perhaps a standard set of routines to identify file locations and update config files would help. Something with code to handle all major distros. Someone is probably working on that very thing, of course.
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.
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
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.
Cool games? Run an installer.
"Video" Run an installer.
Granny isn't going to be fine with installing even an XP game. So she is already out of the equation.
You are also confusing maturity of solutions with 3rd party vendor support.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They only made one.
I do admit that VB may not be the best thing around, but it is fairly easy to learn, and it can get some simple jobs done. And I would venture that VB meets the minimum set of requirements of a programming language as defined by Turing himself.
So, VB is not for you. Thank you for deciding what is best for the whole world. For your next trick, please tell us what the solution is for world hunger or poverty.
Next, I suppose that you will be saying that VI is the only real editor, and anybody who uses anything else is dumb.
I apologive for appearing trollish, but this sort of attitude is quite annoying.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
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.
What's so difficult to write "yum install application_name"? (and yes - there is GUI also - "yumex").
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.
Windows Max Uptime: 62 days, 3 hours (stopped from a power outage lasting longer than my UPS allows). Same machine, same hardware.
Hrm, seems to me that someone just can't run Windows worth crap or blames things on Windows that should be blamed on other sources (like faulty drivers for hardware, or PEBKAC.). To me, I set up an XP box and I can sit it in the corner - it will work until I screw something up on it or until external influences (hardware failure, power failure, et cetra). In fact, I can install things that I know and trust and have absolutely no problems, no need for dependencies, no need to freaking compile the thing from source, no need to set certain list locations to pull from, I can just grab a CD with the programs I want, run the installers right off the CD and they work. Or, I can even create my own installer that will install everything I want to the XP machine correctly, the first time, in the way I want to, and have it all set up in the identical settings I want the first time, with the lovely methods of executing the programs appearing exactly where I want them in an applications menu.
Why the hell can't I do that in Linux? Yes, I know more about Windows than Linux, just as you obviously know more about Linux than Windows. I'm not exactly half bad at Linux, but the fustration of dependency hell or trying to install a specific xyz program has driven me away from it time and time again except in certain instances (Communications server runs Linux and my laptop runs Linux - neither have any problems with them, and the server at least just sits in a corner and is only accessed through Synergy when I feel like speaking in IRC).
It doesn't seem to me that rpms are flawless. I download a RPM, try to install, and I have a dependency issue. That is something that simply doesn't happen (some exceptions apply, just as some RPMs work great the first time) under Windows (and OSX, but I'm not as sure on that since my OSX knowledge is about as great as your apparent Windows knowledge). Compiling from source is slow and has the same dependency issues that RPMs have. apt-get doesn't have everything, it is essentially a white list of programs that work from the sources you choose. When I want xyz program offered up on a website for download, I want to just download an installer, have it install, and have it work. Nothing more.
This one though is a classic:
Yeah. You know, those compiler things MUST be Linux only. Just ignore the compilers installed on the Windows machine I'm typing this from, of course, and ignore that I have more open source programs currently running on this Windows machine than the Linux machine sitting right next to me.
Who cares about quantity of programs? I certainly don't - I have specific requirements for computers, just like joeuser (although joeuser probably doesn't know what programs would satisfy those requirements, but similar concept). I want a program that does xyz, so I want to download it and install it. How the hell does a billion variations on a text editor help me when I want xyz?
I'm not saying Windows is superior in all ways - no way in hell would I want a webserver running Windows 2003 Server, I'd want a Linux box or a BSD box. However, if Linux as a whole wants to go after a general user market, let it actually be able to be used by general users!
--- Ãther SPOON!
"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
In Linux, having a command-line option, the "hard way", is what saves time in deployment.
Apt, for instance. Or kickstart. Even RPM lets me install software and manage machines remotely in a way I couldn't do with your "easy way".
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Oh, so what you don't like is the way OO.o looks on Linux? That's not a desktop problem, or a Linux problem - that's an OpenOffice problem. It's a legitimate complaint, and I completely agree with you - but your unhappiness is the result of how OO.o uses system fonts, not the result of poor-looking fonts on Linux. OO.o apparently needs to be tweaked to look nice on linux for a variety of reasons, none of which seem logical to me but I'm not an OO.o developer.
Linux fonts look fine. OO.o doesn't by default use those perfectly suitable fonts. It can be made to look fine: this page seems to have some useful information, and even though one of the suggestions does talk about editing your xorg.conf (may be distro-specific instructions) it shouldn't take any four hours to do it. I'm sure that a less cursory Googling would turn up even better results, like this one. I know, I know - you shouldn't have to Google to solve basic problems like this. You're right. Email the OO.o devs and let them know. It's still not a Linux problem, it's an OO.o problem.
I have never argued that OO.o looks as good on Linux as it does on Windows. That wasn't what your original comment implied, though - it implied that the default fonts in Linux were ugly, required lots of configuration to make the desktop usable, and that the OO.o problems were a symptom of that. THAT implication is incorrect. Since you no longer appear to be maintaining that position, though, we can consider this conversation to be complete.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
First of all, there is no "Linux community" in that they have a single answer or position on things. I wish people would stop generalizing like that.
/usr or /usr/local.
It's true that it's a generalization. However, my point is that enough of the community stands in the way of some forms of progress to prevent it. Generally Linux is seem as "Elite". Anything that bolsters that leetness is well received while anything that threatens it is heavily challenged by a portion of the community. It can be challenged so heavily, that it can give the impression that the challengers speak for the entire community. Their position also doesn't help the rest of the community in moving forward on many user-friendly ideas.
I would say Linux's answer has been: "If you move to Linux, your computer will run for years without getting slower, there is no risk of viruses or spyware, you can customize the look of your computer or just stick with the elegant default, the operating system comes with hundreds of applications that are of high quality and absolutely free."
That's a nice thing to say, but that's not the value proposition that's seen by much of the market. Plus it's blatently incorrect. There have been several Linux viruses thanks to security flaws, and your computer is just as much at risk of slowing down due to more background programs and desktop widgets being installed. Older Linux systems can also have a great number of compatibility problems stemming from their insisitence on installing everything in
You think Mac's don't have any viruses?
I think Mac OS X doesn't have any, primarily because not a single one has EVER been identified. Mac OS 9 and less were highly vulnerable, but the two systems are not the same.
friend of mine had OS 10.something destroyed by one
You're going to have to back this up with facts. For example, from this link: "As of now, there are no viruses for OS X Macintoshes."
Regardless of whether or not there will be any in the future, this is an exceptional marketing tool that draws in new users.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Wow, you've got some very serious issues going on that spending any amount of time on /. will only make worse if not intolerable.
.rpm and .deb's fail in this manner than Installshields (proportionally speaking!)
Millions of single file downloads I can accept.. somewhere.. yes. Another billion in tar.gz? ok.. *maybe* but a billion is a whole lot. You've still not addressed the issue however, which as I understand it is simplicity of install and that a single windows install package most often has all of the required dependencies within the package itself. That's not usually the case with linux distributions which tend to require that a package be installed prior to, or with the package you're installing.
Source code? I can get source code to applications for windows. I even write some; and happily look at the source. There *are* open source windows applications out there. That's not a linux specialty. It's the computer world, and us geeks like to have a go at the grizzly entrails of an application.
RPMs? Yep they work most of the time. Until a package maintainer requires the use of a particular version of a library that is now too old, or too new--or otherwise conflicts with something else. Yeah, I'm sure that there are ways to get around this with linux, but the average user isn't going to know (or care) how to do it. I'd hazard to guess that more
Now of course you mention sourceforge and the others. yes, they're fantastic resources and valuable in the extreme. However lumping them all together and claiming more available software is kinda a bad thing. Many of those projects are extremely focused on one tiny aspect of one very esoteric segment of computing, many times uncompleted and abandoned, wrapped around the axles in poorly chosen coding styles, esoteric languages and pointed ideology that make it distasteful for the average user. JoeBlow doesn't give a rats posterior if mp3 is "encumbered." He just wants to listen to music.
I'm not trying to set you off, or light a flame war. I've even tried to be really diplomatic and refrain from zealotry and insults. I'm not a Windows lackey, but I use it. I'm also not a Linux lackey either.. but I use that too. I prefer to use the best tool (in my opinion) for the job. My servers rock as linux. My desktop is Windows 2000. You'll have to pry it out of my cold dead hands, or show me a linux desktop that can keep up. My kids will be overjoyed to find those games running in X.
The world according to SComps
In other words, it's not enough to know you're running GNU/Linux: you have to know what distro you're running, and then you have to know how to use that distro's particular installation tool, and you'd better hope that the program you want to install has been packaged for your distribution and not just someone else's!
If you deny there's a problem, you're burying your head in the sand.
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.
Yeah, I know, we've all heard it-- more than a few times.
R. Stallman and persnickety enthusiasts can say it until they are blue in the face, but it doesn't matter to the general public and never will.
"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.
"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
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.
How to type ./configure && make && sudo make install in case of unpackaged apps; 3. Whether your distro uses sudo or su so you can modify Step 2 appropriately.
yea, because that is straight forward to someone who just wants to pick up linux...
I swear to god, you linux types will not get anywhere until you realize that having more than 1 step for getting the installation of programs going is too much.
I don't even know what the fuck those two steps are, but I do know that I installed linux on a machine I had at home and gave up on trying to get it to work because I couldn't get the drivers to work for my wireless network card and installing programs makes fuckall sense.
Why can't I just double click on the executable and have the installation process start? What is so hard about that? Linux works great for servers, but it is so far away from being ready for desktop use by most users it is amazing.
With windows xp, things just work. With 95 and 98 things were a pain, and you needed to know some tricks to get around problems you had and I learned those tricks. Now I'm spoiled. When I want to install a new program I like the fact that I can just pop the CD in my drive and it tells me to start the installation and walks me through it.
In short, there is a lot that is difficult about those 3 steps, mainly because THEY ARE NOT INTUATIVE. Explain to me how knowing how my distro deals with packages, then having to type some bullshit into a command line is easier than putting a CD in the drive and following the steps presented.
Linux may be a really nice OS, but some people just want their computer to be a tool where they are able to get things done quickly and effienctly with a low learning curve. Until linux can offer all those things it will remain a niche OS relegated to servers.
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.
Server and service uptime are not necessarily the same thing.
In a well-designed architecture, individual server uptimes are irrelevant.