Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux & Open Source Software, the Present

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the remember-where-you-started dept.

Mark writes to tell us that LinuxForums is running the second in a series of articles designed to reflect on "what Linux is, where it came from, where it's going, how to use it and why you should." With all of the recent talk about the perceived difficulties within the OSS community sometimes it is just good to take a look at our roots.

6 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Rare Statement by MudButt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FTFA: Is OSS any good? Yes. Not perfect, but better than closed source in some respects and worse in others.

    In my line of work (system administration in a medium sized business) I'm often having to integrate closed source and open source solutions (or at least make them play nice). I like a lot of Microsoft's products. I also like a lot of OSS. But I find that (generally) whenever I look to the OSS community for help integrating the two solutions, I'm met with resistance or flat out rudeness.

    For example, if I'm seeking help with getting samba working nicely in a mixed environment or figuring out how to run a PHP app on a windows box, I get responses like, "Just ditch XP, d00d, it sux", and "Apache is better than IIS".

    I think if the community, in general, could adopt the idea quoted in TFA, a "newbie's perceived difficulties" with the OSS community would be drastically different.

    1. Re:Rare Statement by cp.tar · · Score: 3, Insightful
      whenever I look to the OSS community for help integrating the two solutions, I'm met with resistance or flat out rudeness.

      Not that I'm defending said attitude, but...

      How come you don't look for help on the other side?

      What would be, say, Microsoft's reaction if you asked them for help on plugging your Windows box in a mixed network using Samba?

      Especially in the light of Microsoft's intentional changing (i.e. breaking) the SMB, so that it wouldn't work with Samba.

      Let's face it... more often than not, it's the clash of religions.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  2. There are still severe disadvantages... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    • Gaming: sure, you can buy a compatibility layer that makes some Windows games work reasonably well, assuming you don't believe in open source too fully to do so, but ugh. If Linux was ever going to work on the desktop it'd have games being developed for it by now.
    • Printing: flip a coin. Either as easy as Windows or requires days of futzing with obscure utilities depending on your distribution and printer.
    • Wireless network: there's that concept of a compatibility layer again, if you've managed to find a card that even works with it.
    • Video drivers: not taken nearly as seriously for Linux when developed by the card manufacturers, for example leading to bugs that don't get fixed in more recent driver releases that you must run to be compatible with newer versions of Linux. Just buy a new card. Even though Linux is open source closed source binary drivers somehow acceptable.
    • Distribution obfuscatory confusion: more than enough standards to choose from, some fully-developed, some incompatible with others, some with commercial industry cramming undesireable features in, some fighting commercial industry on cramming desireable features in.
  3. Why you should by petrus4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although my current addiction to gaming means that most of my recent computing has been Windows based, I have long believed and will continue to believe that for the most part, UNIX and its' derivatives genuinely represent the way God intended man to use a computer.

    Despite continual advances and new wrinkles being thrown at us in the area of graphical user interfaces, for many tasks the console is still fundamental and without peer where speed is concerned. Microsoft and Apple can crow about their own approaches all they like; UNIX existed before both of them, and its' descendants will exist after those two companies' names have passed out of human memory.

    On reading Eric Raymond's The Art of UNIX Programming, I came to realise that that book offered not just a methodology for programming, but for life in general. It also describes the thoughts and philosophies of a group of people who were as pioneering, adventurous, and brilliant as any other in human history, and to whom larger humanity will owe a debt of gratitude for at least the next several hundred years to come.

  4. Translation by kbielefe · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I get responses like, "Just ditch XP, d00d, it sux", and "Apache is better than IIS".

    Translation: "I don't know because I've never had the desire to try it, but my ego doesn't allow me to admit that I don't know."

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
  5. Re:linux is good, very good, we're THIS close! by schon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, I couldn't get past this line:

    In contrast OSS new features arise either in response to features seen in proprietary software, or simply because a developer discovers how to do something cool and suggests that it be included.

    Wow, what a great picture. OSS coders are either lazy, unimaginitive losers who copy MS, or freaks fascinated by new, shiny things.

    What about features that appear because a developer needs them? You know, like how 90% of all successful OSS projects start?

    I've made some (minor) contributions to OSS projects, and in no case was it because I was copying a closed source feature or because I "discovered how to do something cool". It's because I needed a feature that didn't exist, so I made it happen.