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.

16 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Kubuntu Kinte, I've found you! by Orrin+Bloquy · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dear god, I'm sorry I wrote that.

    --
    "Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on /. and I must look smart."
  2. linux is good, very good, we're THIS close! by yagu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. 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.

  3. Related link by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Informative

    On a related note is an old but still relevant essay: Debunking Common GNU/Linux Myths by Jem Matzan.

  4. 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. Re:Rare Statement by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Informative

      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".


      Many people underestimate the differences between the two platforms. Often there are odd problems such that even if the app is supported on Windows, it may have limited functionality. For example, HERMES (a PHP app) is a pain to install on Windows because of a lack of symlinks, and SQL-Ledger (a Perl app) can't use MD5 authentication with PostgreSQL on Windows, nor does the LaTeX support work right if you are trying to print directly to a printer. In once case, it is a DBD::Pg versioning issue, and on the other, it is a limitation with the printing mechanism.

      My advice to you is this: If it is designed for Linux, run it on Linux. If it is designed for Windows run it on Windows. If you need to consolidate, use SFU and Apache on Windows (I have never gotten Apache on Cygwin to work properly with PHP and even if it did, I suspect there would be performance issues).

      Otherwise, if you need help integrating even if you don't like my advice, you can pay for our services ;-)

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  5. My linux timeline: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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

  6. Re:GNOME vs. KDE debate again? by MudButt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gnome has, with it's "more is less" focus achieved, IMO, a better new user experience than KDE.

    Look on the bright side... I a couple years, when KDE 0wn3rs the desktop and Gnome is out of business, the flame wars will be over. j/k =P

    As a serious response, I think a big part of how a person adopts a desktop preference is based on their personality. I, for example, am the type of person that goes into a store, grabs a pair of jeans, looks them over and says, "these'll do", and leaves without looking at anything else. I was introduced to KDE first... It worked and I had no problems... 3 years later, do I want to learn how to use Gnome? Not really, because like I said, KDE works for me and I have no problems.

    My point (if I have one)... From what I can see, most distros tend to default to a KDE installation (even though both are available), and there are a lot of people like me out there. I'm sure I'm be a Gnome guy had that been the first linux desktop for me to use.

  7. Re:Bullshit! by MudButt · · Score: 3, Funny

    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...

  8. 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.
  9. Re:Bullshit! by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package":

    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. :-) 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.

    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
  10. 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.

  11. Re:GNOME vs. KDE debate again? by null_session · · Score: 3, Interesting

    a couple years, when KDE 0wn3rs the desktop and Gnome is out of business, the flame wars will be over.

    But it's Gnome that has all the corporate backing!

    j/k also, but you bring up a good point (or reinforce my earlier one, or something)... Mainly that as long as it works, for most people Gnome vs KDE vs WindowMaker vs Aqua vs Vista vs XP etcetera makes no difference whatsoever. As long as it works, and continues to work.

    The advantage with a Linux system is that it usually doesn't sit and collect spyware, trojans, etcetera and so doesn't have to be completely reinstalled every couple of years, it can run for as long as you want it to, acting exactly like it did the first time you ran it.

  12. 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.
  13. roots & perceived difficulties by Tinkster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not quite sure what to say. My mother (she got used to computers at work,
    using a Wyse terminal and a set of mainframe apps) could never make any sense
    of MacOS, OS/2, Windows or Linux ... she asked me many questions about how to
    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