Slashdot Mirror
Linux & Open Source Software, the Present
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.
Dear god, I'm sorry I wrote that.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
A good introduction. I have to chuckle a bit at the Fragmentation section, not because it's not valid but because I've always marveled anyone got away with trying to banish Un*x with it.
Even at its most fragmented (IBM/AIX, are you listening?) I was still able to sit down in front of any flavor Un*x and be instantly productive. Jumping from one version of Windows to the others doesn't hold the same promise of portable skills.
Regardless, more good information, always useful. Let me point to this article/blog: 10,000 bugs away from World Domination as a worthwhile read -- I have no vested interest in this author's (Keith Curtis, a former 10+ year Microsoft programmer) readership, but I think it is a great article with valuable insight into how close linux is and how far away it is at the same time. A good read, highly recommended.
On a related note is an old but still relevant essay: Debunking Common GNU/Linux Myths by Jem Matzan.
Developers: We can use your help.
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.
The writer seems to want to bring up Gnome/KDE wars. Smells of trolling. What the hey, I'll bite.
Gnome has, with it's "more is less" focus achieved, IMO, a better new user experience than KDE. Not that KDE isn't good, I'm only saying that for people I know that aren't necessarily technical but just want it to work, I set them up with Gnome (on Ubuntu). My biggest success story on that front was setting up a Gnome/Linux PC for my cousin (RedHat in this case, it was a while ago). She used it to do homework for 4 years, having never used Linux/Unix before, and never called me once for support. The only call I ever got was one from her Mom asking me how to mount a floppy disk to get a document copied.
Personally, I don't think we have that far to go for Linux to be easily usable...
Politics, Culture, Food?
1
1995 - widespread adoption of desktop linux. yeah right.
1997 - widespread adoption of desktop linux is 3 years away
2000 - widespread adoption of desktop linux is 2 years away
2002 - widespread adoption of desktop linux is 2 years away
2004 - widespread adoption of desktop linux is 2 years way
2006 - widespread adoption of desktop linux is 2 years away
The article is not exactly ment to reflect...
Welcome to part two of a series for beginners explaining what Linux is, where it came from, where it's going, how to use it and why you should.
In short: nothing to see here, except the forever raging flamewar of KDE vs GNOME.
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
Remember from 1st grade? The packman ">" always eats the bigger number...
Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package":
:-) The fact that this is not simple is not Linux's fault. Quake (like the old Loki ports of games) could ship with a nice installer, but maybe it doesn't. It could even ship with a nice shell script command line installer, but maybe it doesn't. I don't know because I don't play Quake.
With Fedora, you can also go to the web site, click on the RPM, type the root password when requested, and it will install it for you or at least tell you what packages you are missing. I prefer to use yum but for those who are afraid of the command line, there are other ways.
As for installation of the distro, Linux is far easier as a distro to install than Windows is. I hate having to come back every 15 minutes and answer a bunch of questions that really should have been asked up front. And don't get me started on product activation.
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed.
You do realize you can do essentially all of this in the GUI. And if I have customers that need this done, I usually send them a shell script so that they don't have to worry about it.
In my experience and the experience of my non-techie parents, Linux is as easy to use as Windows, and because once it works, it just works, and because it is comparitively transparent, it is actually easier to learn once you get used to it (but we are not to say that familiarity is the standard of user-friendliness are we? Because if it is, then we should never try to do anything new).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
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.
Not quite sure what to say. My mother (she got used to computers at work, ... she asked me many questions about how to
using a Wyse terminal and a set of mainframe apps) could never make any sense
of MacOS, OS/2, Windows or Linux
use any of them.
My mother-in-law gave me more calls about her previous Windows installations
(ranging from 95 to 2000) than she now does regarding Slackware 10.2 with
KDE, and needless to say there were no spy-ware removal or virus-cleaning
sessions since.
As far as I'm concerned it depends on the initial set-up, and that's the
case for all current OSes. If you are a geek, or know a geek very well,
you'll be fine. If you simply want to use something, and it's not pre-installed
to perfection (in other words, to how you'd like (it) to work) there's hassle.
Cheers
First there's the hypocrisy in running free software on Windows.
.odt, but of course all Linux software is expected to be 100% compatible with Windows, or else it's dismissed as C.R.A.P. Every linux office worker will receive .doc files from their colleagues, who just *expect* them to own the £100 suite. But I would never post them .odt. Mozilla has to render crappy sites bodged to work in IE, but I'm not allowed to use transparent pngs when I design a site. None of my Windows friends will talk to me on Jabber, so I have to talk to them in MSN.
But also remember Linux is it's community. I might not write the software I use, but those who to are in my reach and willing to discuss. If I feel there is a problem, I can make others aware of that problem, leading to a solution. Microsoft doesn't have a community, there's no dialogue between consumer and producer. The backlash of Linux users against Windows users is a reaction against Microsoft not playing fair.
Microsoft purposely make their products difficult to be compatible with. They don't conform to purposeful neutral standards set out by the W3C etc, but use their own secret ways.. Office documents are notoriously difficult to read. Internet Explorer won't render perfect HTML/CSS but encourages malformed HTML. A specification for the MSN protocol has never been made avaliable. They play foul, they are a parasite burrowing deeper into their hosts. Microsoft never and aren't even expected to meet Linux half way in being able to read