Slashdot Mirror
Linux, to be (Like Microsoft) or Not to be?
David writes "Stephen Shipman delivers a very articulate and concise view of how Linux fits in server and end user environments. He expresses his view in response to Nicolas Petreley's 'rant' in Linux Journal. He points out the subtle implications of efficiency versus consistency." From the article: "[...] efficiency (as measured by keystrokes) isn't the only metric for ease of use. Consistency must also be taken into account. Microsoft has made a lot of hay (and green) by flogging consistency".
Microsoft doesn't get it. There are things in Windows XP which are still as idiotic as ever. This isn't evidence of a superiour product, but the result of understanding. The Registry is once again a completely backwards way of contending with things, and worse, you sometimes have to get into the Registry to change things which should be straight-forward options in personalising your computer.
Then there's the Single User aspect, all over again. No matter how they pass XP off as a multi-user environment, it carriest considerable baggage of being single user - case in point: the pop-up key-stealer, when apps suddenly thrust themselves forward and steal a keystroke for the [ignore] [retry] [cancel] [OK] whatever prompt and vanish if it meets the input expectation.
What I repeatedly hear from Mac enthusiasts is how quickly a new user can sit down and get right to business, without thinking half as hard where things are or how settings work. Microsoft made a big deal out of bringing a tonne of people on board to advise them and examine their user interfaces, but I grow increasingly skeptical that these were actually people flown to a nice resort, given fine amenities and still shown what Microsoft thought they should see, rather than simply gaining some real inside, i.e. "so what's the thing you most dislike about Windows/Office/Etc.?" Rather like a homeless guy will be your best friend if you give him a few bucks.
Consistency must also be taken into account. Microsoft has made a lot of hay (and green) by flogging consistency".
They also have become extremely overconfident because success came too easily. Note many of their recent failures. And may I be among the first of many to recognise Origami as an utter flop. Looks neat, but it's a niche player, same as Tablet Computers. It's too big and too small at the same time. Once again a complete misunderstanding of the market.
Linux should strive to be efficient and easy to use, not mugging one of the most inexplicably frustrating environments ever.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's not Microsoft's continual flogging of consistency that bothers me. It's that they consistently flog the dolphin.
Seriously, Microsoft. You'll eventually go blind.
Does anyone have a mirror of the rant?
It appears to already have been slashdotted.
There's a conference this Thursday, March 16th in Belfast called FOSS Means Business where Stallman and Perens are both doing business-orientated lectures, plus presentations by Google, Open Source Academy, and Oracle.
People trying to encourage IT decision makers to transition to free software have to learn to explain it. Bruce Perens is good at this, but as well as telling people about the value of free software, we have to tell them how to hang on to it - how to not let it slip through their fingers. That's Stallman's angle, as can be read in this transcript of his lecture on GPLv3.
Microsoft isn't top because of their software quality, and free software won't displace them purely based on quality either. We'll win for other reasons.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
"Microsoft doesn't get it. There are things in Windows XP which are still as idiotic as ever. This isn't evidence of a superiour product, but the result of understanding. The Registry is once again a completely backwards way of contending with things, and worse, you sometimes have to get into the Registry to change things which should be straight-forward options in personalising your computer."
So what's the difference between a registry used properly by programmers, and one that isn't?
"Then there's the Single User aspect, all over again. No matter how they pass XP off as a multi-user environment, it carriest considerable baggage of being single user - case in point: the pop-up key-stealer, when apps suddenly thrust themselves forward and steal a keystroke for the [ignore] [retry] [cancel] [OK] whatever prompt and vanish if it meets the input expectation."
How many people are sitting in your chair?
"What I repeatedly hear from Mac enthusiasts is how quickly a new user can sit down and get right to business, without thinking half as hard where things are or how settings work. Microsoft made a big deal out of bringing a tonne of people on board to advise them and examine their user interfaces, but I grow increasingly skeptical that these were actually people flown to a nice resort, given fine amenities and still shown what Microsoft thought they should see, rather than simply gaining some real inside, i.e. "so what's the thing you most dislike about Windows/Office/Etc.?" Rather like a homeless guy will be your best friend if you give him a few bucks."
Since the stories about LINUX. It looks to me like Linux has a perfect opportunity to get it all correct.
"They also have become extremely overconfident because success came too easily. Note many of their recent failures. And may I be among the first of many to recognise Origami as an utter flop. Looks neat, but it's a niche player, same as Tablet Computers. It's too big and too small at the same time. Once again a complete misunderstanding of the market."
How long has Origami been in the market again?
"Linux should strive to be efficient and easy to use, not mugging one of the most inexplicably frustrating environments ever."
Good thing we dispensed with that whole "global domination" crap then. Second best is looking better and better.
An application can consistently non-inituitive, and extremely efficient when used by those who wrote it. However if the learning curve is too steep for the average user, they aren't going to bother, and will stick with what they know - even if it costs more and isn't as good.
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
To be or not to be Open Source, that is the question.
Whether it is nobler in mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Microsoft fortune, or to take up your arms against a sea of troubles and by using Linux, end them.
To die, to sleep no more.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Linux is Not Windows
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
According to the rant, there is now something of a linux equivalent to the windows registry? Where is that exactly?
What the hell?
(The above should be flagged "sarcastic" for those who happen to lack such a barometer internally. I hear it's coming in Hurd 1.0, though.)
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Considering that there's really not been any real consistency throughout MS' product offerings or
anything else about Windows' operating environment:
- Printing that doesn't work the same from Windows 95/98/Me to NT/2000/XP because of different
driver rules at the GDI layer.
- API's that change from one ruleset to the next without warning (the move from 16-bit to 32-bit
generated at least several API calls that produced nasty results because they used zero as the
default but in the 32-bit version they used a string for that parameter and they didn't account
for this in the API...)
- Consumer WinCE devices being allowed out the door with missing functionalities (i.e. The Uniden
UniPro 100 PDA was missing the Finder and a few other things- for no good reasons other than they
were short on firmware memory because of the added recording functionalities- and instead of
increasing the BOM costs slightly for more ROM capacity, they opted to omit some of the functionalities
that make it consistent with the other WinCE devices.)
- Apps don't have any consistent install/uninstall interface. (While Linux IS better in this regard,
it's got many of the same problems...).
- Apps often install their own DLLs to prevent being hosed by other apps and Microsoft when they do
updates.
There's tons more. "Windows" only seems consistent because the end-user community sees something that
"works like Windows" and is therefore familiar- since it's familiar, they whitewash over all the
issues about consistency and it "being easier to use". Issues that plague them day in, day out.
Microsoft may talk the talk, but when the rubber meets the pavement, they're not walking the walk- not even close.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
No matter how they pass XP off as a multi-user environment, it carriest considerable baggage of being single user - case in point: the pop-up key-stealer, when apps suddenly thrust themselves forward and steal a keystroke for the [ignore] [retry] [cancel] [OK] whatever prompt and vanish if it meets the input expectation.
Of all the things you could propose as a reason for considering it "single user", that's the oddest. It's hateful and frustrating, and more prevalent in MS WIndows than X11 or Mac OS, but it's more prevalent in X11 than Mac OS, and more prevalent in Mac OS than 8 1/2.
You could have pointed to the single-application-instance shared with Mac OS (which Firefox has imported to X11). Whether it's services, desktop applications, or just logged in users, it takes a huge effort to have two instances of ANYTHING running in Windows.
Their virtual terminal and user switching required years of development work from Citrix, Xerox, Metaframe, and other companies to figure out what parts of the user environment should be shared, what should be duplicated, and what should be switched from instance to instance... and you still can't have two login sessions under the same user id.
For applications that run as services there's been even less work done to get around the problems... so it's actually more cost effective to build "blade" servers or run multiple copies of the OS in virtual machines than to run multiple webservers or other applications in the same instance of Windows.
I mean, I had a 486/50... this is a machine that wasn't powerful enough to run one instance of even NT 3.51... and I was running multiple webservers on different addresses under the same kernel. This kind of thing is routine and easy in UNIX, because it was designed for multiple users (and thus multiple instances of every possible resource) from the very start.
It has, as the logical postivists say, "no cognitive content", or at least very little. By talking about "Linux" and indeed "Windows" so broadly, you can make the figures for consistency come out to whatever you want. In either case the largest source of inconsistency is the choice of optional software you choose to put on the system; as it is much more convenient and you have a much wider variety of software you can install on a distro like Ubuntu, naturally you can easily make your system wildly inconsistent. It's because there's so much software, from different sources, that are available at a touch of a button under Linux. A lot of that software is of course really bad from a UI perspective, but even if you restricted yourself to reasonably good software, it's still easy to end up with a LOT of software installed on a Linux box.
None of which of course applies in the server domains, where you're better off with less UI. Wildly divergent configuration files are bad, but not as bad as wildly divergent GUIs.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
In order to assert that Microsoft has made a lot of green off of consistancy over efficiency, Microsoft's programs would have to be a lot more consistant. I hate hate hate that ctrl-tab does NOTHING in Word. UI options are hidden all over the damned place and only some of the settings are stored in the user directory (making portability a nightmare).
-
Linux distro developers might want to explore voluntary standards for certain types of configurations. Maybe something like configuration assumptions for desktops v servers. Like that commercial with the Easy button? Maybe we have an "easy" configuration for desktop distros that tucks more the inner workings out of sight. But if you take away the inconsistency in the Linux environment, you may be undermining one of its most important strengths.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
1. it breaks.
What about linux?
1. it's hard for beginners to use
Ignoring everything else about both OSes, these two characteristics mean that windows wins. Not everyone wants to be an expert or a hacker, and windows is easier to deal with. Everything in windows is more intuitive at the Joe User level than in Linux. That's why windows wins.
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
For example, plenty of Windows users will be quite happy by going to "file" to print or close an application. "Find" is under edit, not view. That's fine for people who think that way and for them it SHOULD be that way. The rest of the userbase shouldn't have to suffer for it, though.
Myself, I like visuals. The idea of dragging an application window to a printer, OR dragging the printer to the application windows, appeals to me. (To me, drag&drop needs to work by object, not by destination.)
"But writing all those interfaces would be massively overwhelming!" I'm not suggesting anyone does. Just provide a rational, consistant, standard skin that the majority can use, then provide a powerful enough engine that can handle application look&feel and drag&drop events not otherwise handled. Then write a simple UI editing engine. If people want their own UI, give them the tools to provide it.
"Most people wouldn't bother." Probably true, but the Open Source dictum is that some will, and that evolution will lead to superior interfaces.
"How does that benefit company X that sells products?" Easy enough. Every time you're about to release a next major version, look and see whether other skins are doing better than your default. If they are, switch. If that's how everyone sees your program anyway, it won't hurt anyone's ability to use it.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The above should be flagged "sarcastic" for those who happen to lack such a barometer internally
No, it's true actually. A lot of businesses in Northern Ireland were poking at free software but no one wants to be first, so we're organising a big free software conference aimed at businesses. Stallman's name is a big draw. He knows it's a business audience and he'll adapt to that. He'll be including a substantial section about GPLv3, which has gotten a surprising level of interest from public administration bodies.
Interest has been huge and there were many requests for speaking slots that had to be turned down. I guess there will be a FOSS Means Business 2007 too, but one at a time. On Thursday we expect at least 300. The venue can hold up to 1150.
I think events like these, and the networking that happens at them, is more important than increasing efficiency of the software. We'll see.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Average users won't know the difference.
Of course, they wouldn't know the difference even if you didn't skin it.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
Wow. Sexism met with heterosexism.
Ahh. Feel the love.
Let me start this out by saying I am in no way a microsoft enthusiast, I loath their business policies just like almost everyone else here.
Now let me get to my post. As it stands now, Open source is not ready for average users. There just isnt enough focus on the learning curve. I believe the main reason for this is because of it being free. Developers of open source projects don't hire graphic artists and average joe testers to make sure that their products look good and are easy to use. They put in all the features that they want, and make it intuitive enough for them to use. I know this because I am a developer. I constantly write software that I think is really easy to use, then I hand it off to one of the people here at work who arent so great with computers. I watch them use it and usually they come up with all kinds of reasons why its hard to use that I could never think of, just because I already know how to use it. Until more companies start funding open source projects and sinking real good resources into them I just dont see them coming massivly mainstream. One of the obvious exceptions to my theory is firefox. I installed it for my parents and they had absolutly no problem using it, but when my wife sees me messing with my mythtv box she normally has no frickin clue whats going on, and shes an above-average user.
Companies should start focusing on releasing their products open source and charging for the support. That way, the minority of people like us can get their software for free, learn to love it, and tell our friends and family how great it is. They, in turn, will go get it and buy the support because while I dont mind googling to look up and fix every little problem I come accross, most people out there just dont have the attention span or willingness to do it. Companies will buy the support. Its really a win-win situation.
The goal of Linux as Desktop OS should be to fix Microsoft's design mistakes, not adding their own.
.ini files instead of the dreaded registry)
By rejecting everything in Windows as "evil", they're rejecting many good things like the UI and configuration consistency. Why should we have to rely on MANY DIFFERENT stuff for configuration, when Windows does it elegantly with its Control Panel? (I'm talking about the first tier, not the registry crap - Control Panel would do as well by using
To configure stuff in Linux, you have an app to configure the screen, another to configure the network, etc. etc. And THIS is the problem with Linux fundies. "Why change it? It works". It was attitudes like this that gave birth to answers like the famous quake 3 under linux troll, which originally was a legitimate complaint.
In comparison, Ubuntu (as we saw recently) has an extensive list of things-to-be fixed to make it more user friendly (like hardware recognition, boot loaders, package management), and this was the reason to delay Dapper, so they can finish the ones currently being worked.
My theory is that Linux needs a critical-mass of user friendliness to replace Windows on the Joe Users' desktops, and Ubuntu seems to approach that critical mass quite fast. Maybe in 3 or 4 years, it will happen.
You can try KUbuntu, Ubuntu, Knoppix, Linspire, Xandros in that order..
You can try out, Linux + Java based solutions with ServiceRules who is a small argentinian company that performed several linux migrations.http://www.servicerules.com.ar/
I believe that the main reasons that people have choosen linux over microsoft is the same reason I have, choice. With linux we have the ability to make it appear and work how we want it to, without having to apply third party applications just to provide basic security and functionality. If you like the way windows runs and acts, use it. If you like tweaking your system to become an extension of your personality then I would suggest Linux. Because what it all boils down to is the ability to choose.
A bunch of Tech Stuff
/etc is for configuration files, NOT rants. Rants go in /usr/share.
.program directories (sometimes they were more well-behaved and left .program.d) and .program files. Theoretically, they read configuration information from /etc/program, then .program, the the command line, each location overriding the previous one's directives. Theoretically. Some programs did it that way, some didn't, and you had to read the manual to figure it all out.
GConf is not nearly as much of a mess as this guy makes it out to be. Remember what programs did before GConf? they littered your home directory with
Remember X Resources? X Resources are another kludge that GConf seeks to replace. foo.bar.* String, or Program.foo String, all in one big file. At least what overrides what is clearly specified.
Each program has to provide parsing code for its command line and its configure files, stat() those files manually to determine if they exist, do overriding correctly...
But the GConf puts these configuration directives in an XML format in clearly-defined places and lets the individual application developers not have to write buggy, poorly-documented configuration management, and suddenly people cry 'registry'?
What was wrong with the Windows registry was its corruptible, unrecoverably binary format and the random distribution of keys between the system and user registries. GConf does not have executable keys. GConf does not let one user change system preferences unless that user is root. If a GConf configuration gets corrupt, that corruption is localized to the specific corrupt file, and the user can try to repair that file because it's XML and not some undocumented binary format.
I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about how Linux is so much better than Windows. I'm a Linux guy... I run Linux on 90% of my servers I have a Linux desktop but it's all about personal preference people. Linux is not better than Windows for a lot of people... if it were there would be more people using it. It's not about one OS being better than the other, its about what the users want and right now they want Windows.
If Linux gets to the point where it's better you wont see rants of this nature... you'll see rants like you see on Slashdot daily about how "crappy" it is or how "bloated it is". The flavor of the day is the one that gets hit the hardest and right now like it or not Windows is the flavor of the day.
While Mr. Petreley has some points which could be considered worthwhile reading they are encapsulated in his fanboi rant thus losing any and all credit they might have gotten.
Regards, Ryan McAdams
Shipman's response attacks Petreley for saying things that he didn't say. Petreley never said that the Free Software community shouldn't do things in a consistent way, he just said that they should stop imitating Microsoft. Yes, there's a good reason to have desktop environments where ctrl-c copies and ctrl-v pastes. Users expect that. It's also nice to be able to enable emacs/readline keybindings in your desktop apps, because a different kind of user expects that (fortunately gtk+ makes it quite easy, though I don't know how to do it for qt-based programs). There's no reason that when Microsoft decided that blue gradient toolbars were a good look for Office OO.o had to make the same awful decision, and there's no reason to duplicate the registry. That's what Petreley said. And Shipman claims that that makes him some kind of hacker-elitist that wants new users out, when that's simply not the case; he says in his article that skimming the cream of Microsoft's ideas is good!
We always hear the smug statement that those that don't understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it badly. Perhaps those that don't understand Windows are doomed to reinvent it even worse. If we don't understand what's useful and what's not in Windows we'll continue to duplicate some of its good ideas and some of its bad ones, and some will be completely out of context with the goals of our Unix-like Free operating systems. If you want Free Windows, wait for ReactOS to finish its code audit and contribute to that; that is the place to really duplicate all of Microsoft's design decisions, for better or worse, in the name of ABI compatibility. Our Free environments should make the best decisions and offer a choice. Everyone likes to pose vi/vim's editing style against more Windows-like editing styles and claim one is superior, citing "efficiency" or "consistency". For some people a text editor should be consistent with the other programs they use. They should run nedit, or the MSVS editor, or kate. I'm in my editor enough that it only needs to be consistent with itself, and as efficient as possible; vim is a good choice for me. Petreley doesn't call for kate to be vim-ized; he simply says that OO.o shouldn't have those garish blue gradients in its toolbars.
Unix: Everything is a file. Microsoft: All kinds of different metaphors, none the same version to version.
The article claims that linux does waste efficiency but it doesn't matter because it does so in a very consistant way?
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Bottom line: if you want Windows, you know where to get it, and you're welcome to it. I've never twisted anybody's arm to use Linux, and it is an act of collosal stupidity to turn Linux into "I Can't Believe It's Not Windows!(TM)" just to make users of one system feel more at home. I could see having one or two distros be "ex-Windows-user-friendly"; that's fine, that's choice, that's what Linux is all about. Steamrolling *all* of Linux into a Windows-clone takes away *my* choices of wanting a system as different from Windows as possible.
Thank God I'm not the only one screaming this into the void anymore. People are finally starting to wake up. Where have you all BEEN for five years?
Don't compare a car to a motorbike. A more accurate comparison would be a car (xp) to a heavy track (linux). Linux is slower but takes more load, multitasking, but you have to get your hands dirty cause it doesn't work all the time off the box. Xp requires a lot of third-party software to work properly (extra money or risk of bundled spyware), a linux distro comes with (some) low quality or unstable apps. But the main reason of someone choosing open source is freedom. The notion that there is such a thing as free software that you are free to develop, use, modify, distribute or even make money out of.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm not forced to put the Xgl Desktop on my file server, and I'm not forced to use the console screen to do my text editing. I can put the Umbutu desktop on my friend's desktop and a smoothwall install on his firewall.
And best of all, I don't have to write to Washington for permission to start the computers.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I'd be happy if they "all" just adopted the same damn end of line characters!
You're talking about a future product. Vaproware at this point. I guess we can feel good that Microsoft Windows will finally catch up to the functionality of Linux desktops at some point in the future.
Linux: An operating system kernel.
Microsoft: A multinational corporation.
Unless the laws of reality turn in on themselves, I do not think Linux is going to become anything even remotely like Microsoft.
Linux got to where it is today by being both better and different from Windows, not by trying to be a cut-rate knock-off.
To play devil's advocate - Linux did get to where it is today by being a cut-rate knock-off. But it was a cut-rate Free knock-off, and it was a knock-off of UNIX, not Windows.
Linux has since surpassed many competitors in many ways, and has killer features that no longer relegate it to being a "cut-rate knock-off", but that's what it grew into when it became more than a hobby, and that's what enabled it to become as popular as it did in the mid-to-late 90s.
If Windows had all the features which the linux/mac guys want and worked exactly the same way,its the same geeks who now rant against MS who would be trying to create a new OS..different from Win/Mac/*nix..
Windows has its own way of doing things and so does everybody else. We should either accept it and move on or keep bickering for ever.
I make it clear that I am a mac guy and I just feel disoriented on Windows. But if one day i want a change, my only option should not be a Linux or Unix based distro.
you all look like little children crying for your toys... GNU is more than one thing! We have built an operating system for (according to Linus) dull users (ubuntu with gnome). But that is not how it started, GNU started for hackers, for geeks that wanted to *build* and *understand* their system. These are two groups of people, with compeletely different requests.
With the base we have created, we should be able to split the fun in two parts: users and hackers. Let's create a million zillion different solution for one problem, give the users the standard choice, let the hackers find out themselves.
For the inconsistent GUI, thats Gnome/KDE/others problem, they must keep it consistent in every way they can...
For the M$ problem, there is no way you can beat them... so try to ignore what they do, just pretend they don't exist right now. Make a solution, and compare it with others. With the way we are going, we will inflict a great deal of 'better' in the software industry.
gl,
MAD
I think it would be a huge mistake for Linux to imitate Windows or any Microsoft product. Windows is ass-backwards. It is system and application centric, not user or document centric. Sure, XP has some features that seem to have been made in an effort to move towards serving the user - i.e., the dumbed-down default settings for start menu - but that is just a sham. It is a thin veneer on top of a rough, unfinished, mindless interface - at least as mindless as Microsoft's current leadership - that sees the system, Internet Explorer, and Microsoft-only applications as the centre of the "Windows experience". It's an annoying hodge-podge of an "experience" that should never have gone golden master. The way I see it, Windows is still very much in a beta stage of development. So, instead Linux should perhaps look elsewhere for inspiration - Apple, for instance, are the real masters at this sort of thing - but also go it's own way. Screw Microsoft! They did everything wrong. Linux developers should find out what the right way is, and in what direction - towards detailed complexity or logical simplicity? - Linux should go. The real obstacle, in my view, for Linux to be universally adopted on the desktop - that's what everybody wants, right? - is the lack of a consistent, completely standardised interface from the system and application level all the way to the user space. Linux' revolutionary breakthrough will come only when that has been accomplished, and not before.
1)The title is flaimbait.
2)The way to go about bridging the gap between efficiency and consistency is not difficult: it's called user interface.
3)How about an article called "To be like Java" since MS is generally very good at stealing ideas, particularly in software development.
4)Windoze registry sux.
Its not actually accurate to say "in Linux, you have an app to configure the screen, another to configure the network, etc. etc.".
I mean its partially true, but its actually even more frustrating then that.
In Red Hat you have system-config*, which is a whole mess of applets to configure A or B. Thats messy. In Suse you have YAST, which last time I looked...well kind of sucked. You certainly couldn't do everything you'd need to from there (although like most of the configuration tool's I'll mention it did something very well). Mandriva you've got DrakeConf. Its the closest thing to a working Control Center I've seen, but still your left with some very fundamental features either missing or seriously lacking (to the point, IMHO, of basically not working).
Why all these distributions insist on focusing their efforts on rebuilding the same functionality baffles me. I mean I "get" the want to be unique thing. Don't want to copy thing. But basic functionality like configuration isn't the right place to show off you 'own product' in favor of standardizing and making a single product thats simply better for the customer.
The control panel style is fine because it allows flexibility for Suse to add custom Active Directory integration applets for their enterprise edition. But all these tools are really one of the best examples of what Linux vendors consistently (insistently) do wrong.
At the end of the day I don't care who founded the project I use to do basic configuration. I just care that it works without having to do a lot of extra fucking around.
Today no-one provides that and I bet idiotic egos will keep it that way for a long while into the future.
At least we've got Webmin...
Quack, quack.
Ok, I'm neither an expert using MS (take your pick) or Linux (take your pick). In an attempt to diversify my understanding of Linux, I started using RedHat 7.2, many years ago.
/etc/blah/blah, port(ed), API, drivers.
It was a slow, long, widing road, but I've learned, using a certain amount of perseverance.
It is the perseverance that the "average" user is lacking. Tell me how many of the following terms/words the shopper going to Best Buy or Circuit City are willing to learn: Source, Binary, Compile, RPM, apt-get, x86, X11,
There are more, but I can't think of anything right now that would add to user/consumer confusion when all people want to know are things like "Can I use the internet with this", "I need some word processing", or the more experienced user that know that a hard drive size is measured in bytes, and the processor speed in herz.
Microsoft makes many things automated. Want OS updates? Go to windowsupdate.com, or click on the "Windows Update" icon. Want driver updates? Go to manufacturer, get drivers for 2000/xp OR 98/ME. No pointing to mirrors, no compilation, no source, no RPM, no Yum, just "Do It Now!", wait for the icon to appear, double click, make a sandwich, reboot.
That's what Linux is lacking. Does anyone realize this?
Just like his rants in Infoworld and IWETHEY forums, he is short sighted and cannot see the bigger picture. I tried to comment on his rant, only to see that Linuxmafia had removed the ability to comment in an attempt to censor critics of Mr. Petreley.
.NET development environment for Linux to help Windows developers use existing code for Windows over to Linux, without having to re-learn a new language.
Anyone who took Information Systems or Computer Science knows that you develop software to the needs of the customers, you don't just tell the customers what they need. If your customers want a software that is easier to use, or works a bit like a Windows counter-part, you develop it for them. Find a need, and fill it. Quite simple.
Take Linspire for example, their success has been that they made Linspire work a lot like Windows does, so much that they have helped switch people over to it. While critics claim that Linspire is a commercial Linux, Linspire did give away free copies via BitTorrents at times, and the install CD costs $50. Linspire has also helped bring Linux to the masses with their $300USD Linux PC sold at discount stores. What has Mr. Petreley done to bring Linux to the masses, over that be a Mad Prophet of Linux who spouts out negative things?
Ever wonder that Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird are popular because they work a bit like Internet Explorer and Outlook/Outlook Express? Why there are even Windows versions of those software programs to help ween users off Windows and onto Linux where they can use the Linux versions of those programs. Novel Mono helps bring a
No, Mr. Petreley, we will help people decide to convert to Linux by meeting their needs, rather than ranting and raving and yelling at them. Your way does not meet their needs.
Take Mac OSX for example, see how it tried to catch up to Microsoft Windows when Mac OS 9.0 and Copeland failed to do so. See how Microsoft tries to make Windows Vista work like OSX. Linux is not the only OS on the block, as Mac OSX now runs on X86 hardware (Apple branded Mactel boxes) which could take marketshare away from Linux.
No rather, Linux needs to evolve in order to adapt to change. Customers are changing to wanting software that is easier to use, and works like Microsoft Windows. Refuse to adapt to change, and risk becoming a dinosaur. Would Mr. Petreley like Linux to become the next Plan 9 type operating system? Different from Windows, but hardly anyone uses it? Don't focus on the negative, but on the positive. If you are not meeting customers' needs, someone else will.
Besides a registry if done right, need not bite us on our behinds. Make it an OSS database based registry on MySQL, Postgres, Firebird, etc. When I developed software I had a fax program that used a most recently used name and number list. The way Microsoft does a registry is a flat file, which is sort of like using an INI or Text file. If I stored 50 names on a file, it took a long time to load and sort them. When I migrated to a database, I was able to use more than 50 names, and was able to load and sort them faster.
See the bigger picture, learn to grow and evolve.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Microsoft doesn't get it.
Apparently, the 'it' in your statement is not referring to 'money.'
Both arguments are oversimplifying the problem; usability can't be summed up into single metrics. People are complex things. What's "usable" can vary wildly depending upon the person. Often, when folks say "usable", they usually mean "intuitive". As in, the person can walk up and figure things out without thinking.
Should Linux work like Windows, or be it's own dog? Well, it depends entirely upon who you're marketing towards. If it's ex-Windows users, then it's a resounding yes. So, if you're Linspire, you want a Windows-like app so that your user base can do things like they always have. But if you're not, then you need to figure out who's going to use it, then tune to their needs.
Methinks that "what the Linux interface should be" is a little silly, since its not even a single platform. I'd just prefer more options that do things like remove the desktop interface metaphor, stuff like that. Not sure what exists today in the various HCI labs nationwide.
Could it be better? Sure. But once you learn the basic syntax (and it IS basic) you can to a lot. I use IIS and Apache regularly in production. There are things that are easier in one and things that are easier in the other. But I wouldn't call either easier and by any means.
And *don't* even get me started on Exchange vs. Sendmail/Postfix/etc. I used to actually think Sendmail was tough and now I find myself lamenting the good old days when Sendmail was all I had to worry about!
All the rest of your points I tend to agree with.
And YES, Apache could be made simpler to configure. In fact because the configuration is so simple for most common things I think the fact that no-one has really made a serious attempt is probably related to the fear that no-one who actually uses it would use such a tool (Webmin doesn't count, it doesn't work most of the time and doesn't really like Apache2).
I would however like to SPANK the maintainers of most all popular distro's for fscking with the layout of the HTTPD configuration files. That gets a bit old...fast. Debian's my favorite, but I'm using RHEL4.
Meh.
Quack, quack.
but when my wife sees me messing with my mythtv box she normally has no frickin clue whats going on, and shes an above-average user
Sometimes I miss the good ole days... when my wife thought that white text on black was Linux and green text on black was MUD. I got many a good hour of "Linux" in before she figured that one out. *Grin*
Reformed 14hr a day computer user. Yesterday I went fishing and got sunburned...but at least I was outside. Man you should have seen the one that got away!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
That's programmable through the window manager, though. With my current setup of Gnome, if I launch a new program, it pops up in the background, rather than in front.
I haven't been able to make this work consistently - what steps do you take to make this work? I use a very recent GNOME on most desktops, in several cases latest development. Thanks.
On a side note, I think it should automatically work like this: If you launch a program and then do nothing - it should get focus. Otherwise it shouldn't. If I actively touch any other app, that should retain focus when the other app loads. That would be completely awesome. (URGENT hints are wanted still, of course, so there's notification). There is nothing more irritating than keystrokes suddenly being eaten by some other application. I specifically choose to start working in this other app, who are you to come distrurb me?
Spine World
Seriously, out of all the things to borrow from MS, the 2 big desktop managers copy the start menu. It has to be the most un-intuitive GUI feature in the history of the GUI.
I dislike Nicolas Petreley's arguements as much as the next guy, but I hate it when I try a new distro and have a start button staring up at me. E and XFCE users will site bloat and memory leaks and lag all day. Me, the reason I use E is that there's no start menu. I click, the menu is there. Now _that's_ intuitive!
Exchange? Tough? Only when you have to retrieve a single email message some dumbass deleted two weeks ago and didn't tell you about until today. Or, whenever you need to update Exchange. Or.. well, have you ever seen what happens when an Exchange DB corrupts? It's not fun. I'm sure those things have not gotten better with the latest releases since all they did was make the freaking monolithic DBs have an even larger capacity.
And AD... now there's something just waiting to get fritzed.
Nope, don't regret leaving the Exchange/Windows sysadmin post at all.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Ah i didnt get to read all the comments. All i got to say on linux is; other day i installed ubuntu.. (heard much about it) It found my SATA setup, it found all three network cards... everything in my system. I crapped my pants.. and after cleaning up i was on the net via wireless in like 2 toggled menues. Compared to my last Suse install.. 9.something This is a major improvment. The last thing for linux to do (before Vista comes out please) Is get all the phreakin games working. I need to destroy people between jobs and such. Wine loads SilkRoad, but crashes on server indexing. /shrug
and thats it. my thoughts for the second.
Kill your TV
inconsistent. Everything about Windows is inconsistent. That was one of the things I really liked about Mac OSX. Things are largely consistent across all apps. Not everything, but certainly a large percentage.
Linux isn't as consistent, but it's more consistent than Windows. Heck, it would have to be designed for inconsistency to be less consistent.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
> I click, the menu is there. Now _that's_ intuitive!
<sarcasm>
Yeah, clicking on a non-existing button is way intuitive. Lord knows that in real life, we are all conditioned to push buttons that aren't there to make stuff happen. For example, if I need to summon the elevator, I just push some random spot on the wall.
</sarcasm>
Brace yourself when you upgrade to e17 dude.e s/3.6.html
http://www1.get-e.org/E17_User_Guide/English/_pag
By the way: Could one of you Windows users, any lovely one of you at all, explain to me why you're so hot to use Linux if Windows is all you love? Because whatever's lacking in Windows that's making you switch to Linux, shouldn't you just stick with Windows and complain to Bill gates to give you what you want - whatever it is that you're not getting? I mean, come on, Microsoft is getting your money - surely you have more sway with MS than you do with a bunch of hobbyist hippies who are doing it for free, anyway?
Yes, but when E17 comes out, I'll be playing Duke Nukem Forever on my wearible PC.
Sorry, I'm really not trying to troll here, but who the heck is the author? The article summary doesn't say jack about this. It looks like a random rant on some dude's Livejournal to an article he read. What am I missing here and why is this slashdot news worthy again?
The sig line is not part of the message, but rather a part of your user information. Your sig, like your user name and UID in the header, is inserted at the end of the message when the page full of messages is generated. "Why do it that way" is a tougher question. I guess if nothing else, it means that the sig only needs one copy that exists in one place and the message database doesn't have to store the appended sig line text for each and every message.
Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
PLEASE don't recommend ubuntu to noobs - why does ubuntu get a free pass? A default ubuntu install cannot do many of the most basic features that Windows users will want.
Move ubuntu to the BACK. Insert SuSE, Mandriva, MEPIS and Kanotix in front.
Knoppix is fine to run from CD, not fine to install - you end up with package nightmares since it uses a mixed system. Xandros is fine only if they buy the non-free version. The free version caps CD/DVD write speeds low, and prevents easy install of third party CD-burning apps via their graphical too, to give just one example.
If you try to shoot yourself in the foot in Windows, it will try and stop you. It may save you, you may end up shooting yourself in the gut, but it *will* try.
If you try to shoot yourself in the foot in Linux, it will recommend a better weapon with which to do so. This may save you too when you realize the new tool doesn't have a caliber so much as a blast radius.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
It really doesn't make sense to flog others (Microsoft), instead we all should work on improving (Linux) as much as we can and in any possible way. That's the sole reason I designed wyoGuide (http://wyoguide.sf.net/). So instead of loosing our effort and strength in silly flame wars, start improving Linux not only in the kernel, the desktop, the distributions but also in the free applications. Only then the whole picture of a free system will fit.
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
I would really love to see some comparisons between systems of all types, where cost and (the holy open source crusaders) don't get an opinion, but the systems are judged simply on usability in their respective environments.
We should whip the grandmother test on some of these systems. Call it what you will, but take the person you know who has the least knowledge about computers, even sombody who doesn't use them casually, and whip both types of system on them and ask them to do something simple like google a receipe for biscuits, or send an e-mail or buy a pair of jeans online or write a letter and save it- and be able to find it again. Remember, were talking un-prepped systems here. Install the OS and however it lands is it. No installing any drivers or packages or what-have-you.
I dunno, just an idea. I'd like to see some perceptions and ideas from anybody who might be willing to conduct such an experament. Arguing which system is better when only experts are arguing is stupid, it's all a matter of taste at that point.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
yeah right. i am re-loading a pc right now, using ibm's restore tool. it is loading hotfixes as we speak. each one is completely different. some use /q some are /quiet some are /n some are /noreboot. if that's what microsoft calls consistancy.....
Supplies!
Actually, this can be done under Win2k at least, although it's a tedious procedure. I was desperate enough to work it out once, though, and I've done it a few times since. Prerequisites: a windows-only box, a gig or two of unformatted (or reformatable) disk space, a local (not domain) admin account, several reboots and maybe a shot of courage.
/var/www on its own partition. In OpenBSD I could do that as part of the install, and it was about five extra lines of interaction within the installer. (Actually, I forgot to set aside the space the first time, so I reinstalled OpenBSD from a boot floppy/ftp. It was still easier and faster to do that than the Windows process above... and I'm pretty sure I did it the hard way in OpenBSD.)
1) Back up whatever you dare not lose.
2) In disk management, upgrade your boot disk to dynamic. This requires at least one reboot... it's often taken me two. ("Dynamic disks" is alleged to make the drive unreadable by other OSs. I do not know the truth of this, as I've only done this on windows-only boxen.)
3) Once dynamic disks are enabled, create a directory c:\Program Files.new.
4) In disk management, create a partition sufficiently large to hold the contents of Program Files and all anticipated future usage. Do not assign a drive letter, but instead mount it at c:\Program Files.new.
5) Reboot into safe mode. (Networking optional? I always do it without net, but it probably doesn't matter. You need safe mode to overcome any "file is locked/in use" problems when following the next couple steps.)
6) Copy the contents of c:\Program Files to c:\Program Files.new.
7) Rename c:\Program Files to c:\Program Files.old.
8) Rename c:\Program Files.new to c:\Program Files.
8.9) [Optional: Down a shot of courage.]
9) Reboot.
At this point, you should have the contents of Program Files mounted in a separate partition, which is effectively linked to the right spot on C:\. It shows up in explorer with a little disk icon instead of a file icon. I've never had a problem with a system once I got this working, but of course that's no guarantee. Caveat emptor and all that.
I will probably try the same trick on Documents and Settings during some downtime this weekend, but as I recall it fails. I'm pretty sure you can't log in without locking a file somewhere in that tree, so it can't be renamed. (Which is a damn shame, because that's where I really need to put extra space on a terminal server.) There might be a workaround via the recovery console, though. And your comment implies there's an easier way to move Docs and Settings anyway? I'll have to look into that.
For reference, I did pretty much the same thing for a new internal webserver I set up on OpenBSD a few weeks ago, mounting
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
At the end of the day, you're damned if you do try to imitate Windows and you're damned if you don't. If you try to be like Windows, that can mean copying inherently broken behaviour -- and will lose you friends in the "keep it pure" camp. If you don't try to be like Windows, somebody will complain that Linux is "too hard" {i.e. "not like Windows"}. If you try to make an application finely customisable, you end up driving people away because it's "hard to use"; if you don't include options to change things, you end up accused of "dumbing down".
I can only really attribute the "problem" to Microsoft's dominance in the marketplace combined with the popular mindset, which deems that "ignorance is bliss" and eschews learning to do something very hard, very well in favour of instant gratification with a half-arsed job.
That's why I think it's important for distributions to specialise. At the moment we have Ubuntu and Mandriva for people who want everything easy; Slackware and Debian for server administrators who feel the need to ride the metal; and Red Hat and SUSE for people who would rather pay someone else to do the donkey work. Not to mention hundreds if not thousands of less well-known distributions, catering to niche markets {self-booting mini-CDs, distributions tailored for antique hardware, retro gaming kits, movies on a self-booting CD, Linux on a USB stick and so forth}. One distribution simply can't be all things to all people.
One thing I would like to see would be a GUI front-end to the configure, make, make install process. It's distribution-agnostic, sometimes even architecture-agnostic. Now that processor power is so cheap, the only compelling reason not to compile locally has been mitigated. A graphical front-end would look a little bit like a Windows InstallShield installer. What puts people off source tarballs isn't so much the idea of compilation {though that's where they will inevitably transfer the blame}, as the thought of unresolved dependencies breaking the process. There's no reason why a properly-put-together automake/autoconf package should not be able to detect everything it needs at the configure stage. Linux allows you to mix and match libraries to an extent; so if a particular application imperatively requires newer libraries than are already installed, that need not be a problem. The installer should be able to determine for itself whether it's possible to download and install its own dependencies, and proceed automatically if it is safe to do so.
Of course, probably before the GUI source installer goes mainstream, we will need a reliable developer tool for creating self-installing packages; analysing libraries and creating a dependency database. Although this sounds like a huge effort, it probably will be more likely to succeed than any attempt towards achieving cross-distribution binary compatibility; binaries were never really meant to be compatible, source was always meant to be compatible.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
It is system and application centric, not user or document centric.
Worse than that: it's vendor centric.
Click on the glossy candy-like start button, and what do you see? I mean, once you click on "All Programs."
That's right! A list of vendors. Not a list of useful categories, as you get in both Gnome and KDE, and also in Enlightenment and Windowmaker and XFCE in their various menus. You get things like, "Dell." "Adobe." "Dell Accessories." "Mozilla Firefox." Oh, and then a bunch of icons pushing Microsoft's stuff, like MSN and Internet Explorer.
It's all branded and inconsistent and terrible to try to find what you are looking for. Users aren't stupid: they figure out the maze of applications under different menu picks. Hell, some users even like it.
Lately I've come to realize it's a form of Stockholm Syndrome. So please, treat MS-Windows users gently. They suffer from a mental illness. It is treatable, but it takes time and healing.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Spend less time focusing on the (custom) configuration tools, which frankly *most* users (at least in the desktop market space) should be able to take for granted.
Red Hat almost got it with Bluecurve.
The focus should be on the real day-to-day user stuff. And if its just too hard making a unique distro with strong enough selling points that you have to resort to slight-of-hand tricks with your configuration GUI...
Well, maybe this just isn't the right business.
Fooling yourself into sacrificing usability for marketability is a fools game and after the end user gets wise or tired of playing the game everyone loses.
Look at the desktop market today and tell me how wasting developer hours tweaking incomplete, incompatible configuration tools has helped? I've been using Linux a long time now, not just as a server, and I believe the only thing holding it out of the mainstream marketplace is kludge and the patchwork collection of configuration GUI's is a shining example of this.
Do you think my WIFE cares that Suse developer YAST? Or does she just want to get work done like she can with OSX or Windows?
Quack, quack.
I mean, both sides are as usual exaggerating the value of their positions.
What matters is functionality and usability. If Linux can match Windows in functionality, and if Linux is easily usable, it doesn't matter whether the technigues used are the same as Windows.
It only matters from the viewpoint of those people who wish to lure Windows users into using Linux. While it is true that most people, as one of my instructors likes to say, "use computers because they have to, not because they want to", this doesn't need to have any significant effect on Linux adoption, provided that the functionality and usability are there. Re-training is not that big a hassle IF properly done.
Most corporations are not going to switch to Linux just for improvements in usability or even functionality. They are going to switch for other reasons: cost, security, flexibility, lack of vendor lock-in. They will only switch for functionality if that functionality is mission-critical. Once the decision is made, people will either be re-trained or required to learn the new systems themselves.
Comparing vi and Microsoft Word on keystrokes is abysmally stupid. Vi is an overly complicated mess of un-usability. The learning curve is so ridiculous that nobody but a geek would even try to use it. The same applies to Emacs. Neither of them is intended to be a word processor, which is by definition designed for end users, not geeks. Even if Word needs more keystrokes than vi to do a particular task, this says nothing about why those keystrokes were chosen. While I wouldn't doubt that Microsoft designers are less capable of designing efficient keystrokes than Linux designers, just comparing the keystrokes doesn't tell you why it was designed that way. There may have been good reasons for using those particular keystrokes. My point is that comparing two totally difference systems - even if the function being compared is identical - based on keystrokes is utterly irrelevant to the usability issue, and by definition irrelevant to the functionality issue.
There was recently an article elsewhere about how GIMP wasn't as good as PhotoShop. As usual, everyone said it didn't need to be as the GIMP developers didn't care about that, and further, that no one had the right to ask that GIMP be equal in usability to PhotoShop as that was abrogating the rights of the GIMP developers to go their own way.
This is incorrect reasoning. The issue is whether GIMP is intended to be the best graphics program in terms of functionality and usability. The second - and different - issue is whether it can be recommended to Windows users as a replacement for PhotoShop in order to lure Windows users to Linux. The two questions are entirely different. If the GIMP has functionality and usability problems - and it does either when COMPARED to PhotoShop or in some cases on its own merits - then it should be changed to solve those problems . Whether the GUI is changed to look like PhotoShop or not is not relevant EXCEPT to those people on Windows who don't want to learn a new GUI. THAT is not the GIMP developers problem, clearly. But if the GIMP developers do not INTEND to develop GIMP to the same level of usability and functionality, they should say so, and people should then stop recommending the GIMP as a replacement for PhotoShop.
It does OSS no good to recommend OSS products that do not adequately replace their Windows counterparts. It's okay to recommend OSS products that are less functional for those people who do not NEED that extra functionality. It is not okay to recommend OSS products for those people who DO need that extra functionality. Saying that GIMP is a replacement for PhotoShop without specifying the limits on functionality and usability is not helping OSS because when the faults are experienced, the new user will feel cheated. Any recommendation of OSS software to users of other software should acknowledge any significant differences in usability or functionality. That is, if the product doesn't do a certain thing, say s
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
We are moving over to Scalix at least on some of our servers. I don't dislike Exchange for its features, just its screwed up backend.
Quack, quack.
It's reasons just like this that I use Window Maker and Fluxbox (E and Xfce are nice, too). Except when I'm testing a new live CD and my *only* option is to look at a faux-Windows desktop. Then...I use the console...and note my displeasure in my review.
I don't need uniformity of lookout on Linux. I run admin stuff on console 1, KDE apps in KDE on virtual terminal 7, Gnome apps in Gnome on virtual terminal 8 and OpenGL 3D accelerated games in Fluxbox on virtual terminal 9, all on the same box AT THE SAME MOMENT! Do not tell me nonsenses about efficiency versus consistency of user environment while playing Warzone 2100 and reading Slashdot at the same time.
There you are, staring at me again.
Linux is a great OS for people who want to get to know their computers. It is also a great OS for people who just want to get things done. People "just using" their Linux box are in fact contributing something, even if they never contribute code or documentation or anything the rest of us see.
They are contributing numbers and support. And numbers and support are more important than most people have yet realized, IMHO.
I made (well, am making) the switch to Linux because I am tired of others owning my data (e.g., MS 0wnz my email since only their application can access it for me). The more I think about this, the more I believe that open, unencumbered, and standardized data formats and protocols are vital to our future documentary heritage.
Unfortunately vendors of proprietary operating systems and applications will likely always break standards - and certainly will do so behind closed doors - in an effort to gain every single bit of competitive advantage they can. And that threatens our future documentary heritage.
We are moving, slowly slowly slowly, to an electronic world. We must conserve and protect that documentary heritage now before it becomes endangered. Open source is a great enabler - perhaps a necessary enabler - of this conservation.
The more people we get "just living" on open source systems, the more people who will be "just using" open and standardized systems (as we get them built and out there). And the more people there will be thinking about these issues, thinking about the viability of open source and wondering why they ever considered paying a vendor to hold their data hostage.
Users who are "just users" make open source spread into and beyond the mainstream. And that's where we need it to be to protect our own data and our documentary heritage.
One day, we will wonder how we ever let vendors control our information. That day cannot come, IMHO, until we no longer depend upon them. That takes many, many, many "just users" consuming and loving what a few thousand motivated developers and writers and testers and project managers have done, even if they never actually think about them or make contributions in the expected or desired way.
I'm here EdgeKeep Inc.
Petreley is obsessed with Microsoft, which clouds his analytical abilities. It would behoove OSS devs to ignore him.
OSS devs shouldn't define themselves in terms of "Microsoft". They should do whatever they want or whatever they think is best. If some of that happens to be similar to something Microsoft already did, so be it. If it happens to be different than what Microsoft has done, then so be it. But doing things simply for the purpose of imitating Microsoft or simply for the purpose of being different than Microsoft leads to inferior software because it allows a political agenda to intrude into the software development process.
Petreley has made his carreer based on promoting tech that he thinks will destroy Microsoft (OS/2, SOM, Java, Network Computers, and now Linux). He doesn't give a damn about OSS other than its potential to destroy a company he hates. OSS devs, on the other hand, have actual skill and can create things without having to worry about whether it harms Microsoft, strengthens Microsoft (e.g. Firefox actually improves the Windows platform), or does neither.
P.S. Petreley's rant claims that OLE doesn't support links, which is either ignorance or a lie; just one more example of his buffoonery.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Having developed, deployed and supported apps on both servers, I can say without reservation the Apache way is *much* better.
In theory, the IIS way is better for someone who doesn't know what they're doing - they can hunt and peck in dialog boxes and toggle options until they get it going. In practice, many of those dialog boxes are harder to find and understand than the equivalent config entry for Apache.
With Apache, I can take a config file that works and one that doesn't, run them through diff and get a meaningful comparison. Or I can keep my Apache config in a revision control system, enabling me to roll back to a previous version very quickly. Or I can develop a config change as a patch file and be confident that it will be applied correctly as my code progresses through testing, staging and into production. Some of these things are possible with IIS but they are harder, they are poorly documented and they are completely different for every major release of IIS.
Because X ultimately handles the display, there would be nothing to stop someone adding a skinning layer to X to add the ability to control the look & feel, disrupting exactly nothing, not altering a single application or window manager.
It would mean that those who like their system the way it is would have the system exactly the way it is. It would not impact anybody's ability to choose a different WM or desktop environment. All it would do is give you the ability to tailor it IF you so chose.
You already have some of that. KDE and Gnome both allow a lot of customization. Not to the degree I'd like, but it's there. Indeed, the ability to pick a Window Manager at all is a significant piece of customization.
I doubt I'll ever write this mod, but if I did, it would merely be offering you the option of having more of what you already have - choice - with no obligation to either take the option or even take the offer. That's leaving something alone fairly, because it's then by choice and not by design.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What a joke to have someone say that MS is consistent. The only thing they are consisten in is inconsistency. Every iteration of Windows changes the way you configure it. Policies, users, networks, routes, you name it and they've changed it. From Win95 to NT to Win2k to Windows 2003 server lots changed. And it appears that they change things just to make people re-take their certification exams because the functionality hasn't changed that much.
If anything is consistent it's Unix/Linux. In fact, to those who ask me how I manage to remember all those Linux commands I tell them that those commands haven't changed much in 25 years. I had to learn a few right off the bat and a few along the way, but I can still use the same commands I learned on Unix in 1979. Not so with Windows.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
I guess Citrix should just pack up it's multi-billion dollar business and go home because Microsoft (who co-developed the technology) doesn't want them.
Ok, FUD boy, NT has been multi-user for a long, long time. The fact that they want end users to PAY for licenses to be able to simultaneously run several users at once is a business decision, not a technical limitation. Why in the world would you need full desktop access for several people for a HOME computer?
There are no such limitations on remote management, remote configuration, CLI remoting, file sharing, the remote help system, printer sharing, etc. So, again, why in the hell would you want multiple users on single machine at the same time with full desktop access in a home environment on a home PC?
I am really sick of the naivete of people who have never really used, devoloped for, or managed Windows in a business environment (I am talking 1000's of PC's...not some Mom-n-Pop) harping on the stupidest of FUD.
There are lot's of great reasons to go with open source applications, OS's, and infrastructure but in the end it is just a tool to accomplish a goal, just like Windows.
Zealotry serves no one.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Linux got to where it is today by being a cut-rate knock-off of *unix*, not Windows. While Linux has massacred commercial unix marketshare, it's had little (if any) impact on Windows marketshare.
Different folks, different strokes. If Linux was just another brand of Windows, would you still want it? Choice, my friends, choice: that's what free software is all about!
Why in the world would you need full desktop access for several people for a HOME computer?
I do it all the time on OSX. I fix things for my wife while she is in word or powerpoint. I don't need to interrupt her to fix various problems. And if it were Linux then I could solve applications problems the same way using network transparency.
for Linux to be universally adopted on the desktop - that's what everybody wants, right
No. I don't think that's the goal at all. At least as far as I'm concerned the goal of the free software project (which is completed IMHO) is to have a freely available open source feature rich Unix. So for example people who want a Unix desktop can have a good desktop. What does universal adoption get the Linux community?
I've used it and love the one feature it offers. Prevent Other app from stealing focus. That's all that's needed. Sure the new app will flash it's button on the task bar but that's all it can do. The only apps that do not honor nor should they are security related, things like the Firewall or Antivirus and as I'm at my computer for long periods of time, I definately appreciate this little enhancement and Have provided feedback to MS on it sugesting that they incorporate it into Vista and possibly add it to SP3 for XP.
Mandriva/Mandrakes committed to following the GPL with all their additional software.
Of course not to be left out Novell released YaST under the GPL too.
I won't bother googling for it, but since its part of the FC development cycle I've got to imagine RHEL's system-config* set is another GPL release.
Thats 3 major configuration utilities.
Now for marketing I agree differentiation *is* important. But the under-the-hood configuration area is the wrong place to try to strut your stuff. You lose (what do I care which distro I use if I have to use vi > 50% to get stuff done anyway) your customers *still* lose and you're absolutely right 90% of the market is serving up products that are 99% the same.
What something to market? Stop fscking with distro specific configuration toolsets and work on a completely integrated DE. Give me a copy buffer that doesn't care if I'm in X, KDE or Gnome. Or better yet scrap KDE/Gnome/etc and build a good DE from scratch.
Linux and OSS in general have done so much of the footwork already. All thats missing is someone willing to make it more then the patchwork it is today.
Its time for someone to take a real risk and shift the paradigm. Is Linux a toolset or a desktop? If your a company you'd better start thinking about which you think it is.
Quack, quack.
Y'know... the Linux community should unite and produce a Linux distro... to BRING THEM ALL... (and in the darkness bind them)
And for that, they would need to make a super configurable installation... (look at it as if it were a game... the user would choose 'Easy', 'Medium' or 'Hard' difficulties of installation...
Easy would only let you choose between Conservative (or Organized, if you will) GUI, and Radical (or pretty) (KDE or Gnome).
Medium would let you customize some things... (heavy or light installation... which types of programs to include)
And advanced would allow you to choose filesystems or other things... or which features to include/exclude.
I'm guessing this isn't possible and that's why there are no initiatives to do this nowadays... but it'd be sweet to see what the whole opensource community can come up if they could get organized... (I'm willing to bet they'd roxxor Microsoft's socks).
The complete and utter absence of YaST?
Something that proprietary software users don't know about FOSS is that free/open source software matures FAST. You snarf a copy of a new utility that's nothing but a text-mode program that flakes out, and you dump it and forget about it. A week later, you discuss your negative experience, but by then that same utility has a GTK frontend, a themable interface, a book of documentation, and has been ported to three other platforms. Next month, it goes 3.0 and everybody derides it as bloatware.
Free Software never sleeps. The sun never sets on Open Source development.
What exactly is consistent about windos? Let's ignore that every release works differently. Let's ignore that even within releases, there are differences (e.g. XP Pro vs. XP Home). But even within the same release, the same version, the same installation on the same system, there are huge inconsistencies.
Take the system settings thing. Not only are there multiple paths to arrive there, you also end up with different views depending on where you go (e.g. a menu-look if you come through the start menu, but a folder look if you open the menu item).
Then there's the plethora of dialogs, many of them subtly different from each other. Sometimes you have tree views, sometimes you have folder views, sometimes you have lists, all of that on items that are essentially the same (i.e. lists). When you go about changing things, you sometimes get a wizard, sometimes you get an options dialog.
Not to mention the subtle and very unintuitive connections between not obviously (e.g. visually) connected elements.
Sorry, there's very little about windos that is consistent. There's a reason it has its own section in the Interface Hall of Shame.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'm a longtime Mac user (and finally dumped Windows altogether and definitively a few weeks ago), so I have little insight into the future plans of Linux. What is the next step for Linux? Will it remain a server OS or will it become more universally adopted? I don't know. But if that's what the Linux companies want to do, then I am pretty sure a standardized and consistent desktop is absolutely necessary. That's all I wanted to say.
Every 2 years or so I reinstall my WinOS (partition 1), while keeping my applications installed (on partition 2). I use lots of software, yet cannot recall the last time an application I use failed to start because it was missing registry keys. Apart from registration information and some special applications like debuggers, of course.
That statement is so at odds with reality that there is no explanation other than that you making it up. Among other things, file associations disappear when you do that. Also, shared DLLs disappear.
One in VMware, one in game box, one unused. Selling the unused XP key would probably break some idiotic EULA. Oh the joys of proprietary crap.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
NT has been multi-user for a long, long time.
No, it's not. I think you misunderstand what multi-user means.
multi-user OS: an OS where multiple users can login and use it at the same time. Not one at a time.
As an example, let's say you're buying a new car. You ask your vendor, is it multi-user? They say ofcourse it is. you can use it and so can your wife, with one caveat. If you both want to go somewhere at the same time, you cann't give a lift to your wife. You'll have to buy another car for your wife instead. Would you put up with that?
The fact that they want end users to PAY for licenses to be able to simultaneously run several users at once is a business decision, not a technical limitation.
It's actually both a technical limitation and a business decision. The OS is broken, but it's broken on purpose. MS can fix it, but they won't. They prefer you go and buy a new copy instead.
Why in the world would you need full desktop access for several people for a HOME computer?
Let's see...because I can use my desktop at the same time as my partner. (we use thin clients on linux). Because I don't have to buy 2-3 expensive machines for each person who wants to use their desktop. Instead, cheap, tiny and noiseless machines will do, since the main computer(linux server) does all the work(hidden away from the living room). I can also login remotelly to my desktop when I'm away without worrying that I'll kick someone out of their desktop. And ofcourse the server does alot more than just serving a few users. It works as a PVR backend, it does FTP, it does SSH, etc etc.
VStrider.
Why don't Windows and Linux get rid of all that initialization code, delay building structures until first use, so that the damn window shows up within a half second of when you launched the program? This used to work on 1Mhz X terminals so it certainly should be possible on our 2Ghz processors today! Then there would not be any worry about this focus stealing.
Of course this is probably too hard for modern programmers to do, huh.