Slashdot Mirror
Why are Free-Desktop Developers Wedded to Linux?
An anonymous reader wonders: "We have been hearing promising predictions like 'This year will be the year of Linux on the desktop' for the last decade. However, the Linux of today seems to be as far away as ever from realizing the expectations of mass adoption we once had for it, without significant growth in home usage since the late 90s. Clearly, if Linux is unable to reproduce a third of Firefox's end user uptake over a much longer time-frame, there are deficiencies with the direction the GNU/Linux/X/Gnome/KDE system has taken. Of course, almost all free software and desktop efforts and development remain unquestioningly oriented around Linux.
Other free-desktop operating system projects which take different and innovative approaches like ReactOS, AROS, Mona and Syllable remain comparatively starved of developers and interest. An often cited reason for using a non-Microsoft OS is to avoid a monoculture, but free-desktop efforts have created a total monoculture around developing and promoting Linux, despite a decade of failure in supplanting Microsoft's proprietorial OSes with it. Why are free-desktop developers neglecting to consider an alternative to the penguin?"
So, what's BSD then, chopped liver?
--- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
This is going to be the year of the penguin
It is very unlikely that developers follow Linux only.
They support some well documented and mature standards like Gnu Libc, X window and POSIX, among others.
Infact, for example, most of the desktop software can be compiled and run under almost all OS that comply to those standards.
Sometimes even under Microsoft's OSs.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Because there are basically 3 alternatives: Windows, Apple, Linux. Only one of these is Free/Free.
To choose exactly the same thing as they do.
I know this will get troll/flamebait, this community does not like criticism, even though taking it into account could cause improvements.
Seriously though, the thoughts are this:
(1) They are enamored by the GPL license. I'll grant for certain uses and purposes, it's an excellent license, even if I don't agree with it.
(2) Momentum - Linux is the first OSS OS to gain popularity, and it hit it off big for such things. What this means is that it has more support and developers, which provides a more feature-filled system which brings the people and culture more of what they want.
(3) Flexibility - I'm not sure the whole background of it, partially it's the GPL, partially it's the management, but the Linux system is highly flexible in terms of development, allowing people to develop their projects how they want to. Especially at the kernel level. It may not be a coders dream environment, but it's pretty close.
(4) UNIX Like. I know ReactOS isn't Unix like, I don't know about the others. I know BSD, which you didn't mention, but lacks 1-3 is also a Unix OS. Regardless, the Unix methidologies are very comfortable to developers because (a) they are relatively regular in setup. (b) They tend to be highly modular, making things easier to work with and build - lots of re-use of things you made or thigns others made. B can exist in other OSes as well, but it isn't as pervasive as in the UNIX environments.
Note, there's probably a lot more to it than this, but this is what I've gathered from what I have seen and read on the various topics. and discussions.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
The entire summary sounds like a severe case of sour grapes.
As to why Linux is popular as a target platform, how about existing adaption, source code compatibility (well, almost) with a range of other UNIX- and UNIX-like operating systems, hardware compatibility etc.
All the interesting stuff in supplanting Windows in the desktop is in, well, the desktop. The underlying operating system is irrelevent so long as it works, and Linux is going to continue doing that far better than upstart efforts.
When has anyone ever known a zealot to change their mind? I can't believe this is even being asked.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
See also Xfce (www.xfce.org), which has several key developers who work using BSD and Solaris instead of linux.
The main reason why Firefox gained so much popularity compared to Linux is it's so easy to install and use. Linux has so many flavours that people don't know which one to pick and shy away from it.
I'm still looking for a Linux that's easy to install and use without having to "rebuild kernels, install hundreds of packages, etc". I tried Ubuntu and that never worked...
I'm sure I'm not the only one wanting to give Linux a try but it's so compilicated.
Linux is an OS. Firefox is a desktop application. An OS differs from an application in many ways, including ease of installation and the impact to the rest of the desktop.
Perhaps this suggests "alternative OSs" should make it even easier to make use of virtualization on "popular OSs" (LiveCDs are popular & this would be the next logical step).
Of course the way to find the adoption of any software is difficult & the ways people look at browser usage compared to OS usage often differ.
Firefox can run on many OSs, including Linux. Unless another browser becomes very dominant on Linux or Firefox becomes unpopular in other OSs, it isn't a good point of comparison.
The fact that a browser was the basis for comparison is telling--server-side apps are becoming more important & many of these do run on Linux.
Some do consider alternatives, and that is why programs like ReactOS exist. Most of the smaller alternatives aren't really designed to be desktop replacements for the world, but rather small niche desktops. Of all the alternatives, Linux is the best candidate to supplant Windows on someone's PC.
Firefox used aggressive marketing in quick blitz. It had a great name. And Firefox had rapid growth because of that.
Linux is associated with geeks and carries plenty of negative baggage with the average person. When Mozilla became Firefox, it was able to be reborn in a marketing perspective, and may someday win the fight that Mozilla never could.
If Linux gets a similiar marketing facelift, you could see similiar adoption rates that Firefox had. It is a much bigger adjustment for people, but in the wake of Vista, more people may be looking for alternatives. However, the majority of the Linux community is quite content to cater to themselves rather than try to cater to the outside market. For mass consumption you would really need:
1 major primary distro for home users.
1 major desktop
Easy conversion wizard to help people convert Microsoft documents, desktops and settings.
1 major form of package management, and thusly one major package repository
Remember the GetFirefox.com campaign? Remember all the CDs thrown around?
Imagine a LiveCD distribution campaign that did the same thing, but also helped you convert/migrate? Give it a snappy name, and a cute mascot and there you go!
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Here's the Flamebait/Insightful reason why Linux will never be a desktop OS: 99% of the development is driven by developers. Developers are geeks. Developers have their friends and the rest of the OSS community test their stuff. If they ran it by their grandmothers once in awhile maybe we'd make some headway...
That is because these projects are not finished and stable operating systems. Linux is quite mainstream now the others you mention are just toys with no real future really. Maybe that is why people tend to prefer running Linux than not running some Toy OS which does not work.
I know that the question concerns other operating systems, but I've had the same questions concerning the portability-layer projects like cygwin (windows) and fink (osx). I tried in vain for a few months to get stock garnome to compile and run on cygwin. As for fink, KDE seems to run, albeit in a crippled state.
:)
IMHO, if the desktop layer of OSS becomes too coupled with the kernel, then we've shot ourselves right in the foot. However, if OSS can continue to develop a somewhat uniform desktop system across multiple platforms...... now that's a developers dream
-dave
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
I disagree "free-desktop efforts have created a total monoculture around developing and promoting Linux" because KDE, Blackbox, XFCE, etc, etc.. all compile on pretty much any implementation of Unix, of which Linux is just a clone. Solaris now runs Gnome (branded as Java Desktop System) as the prefered desktop.
Unix is probably popular with developers because it is "open" and standardized in the specifications and widely know and taught in computer science departments.
So the "failure" to catch on is wider than Linux. Solaris/SunOS alone has been deployed in probably every large corporation in America and Western Europe since the '80s, but has never broken out of the specialist server/workstation market and into the general desktop market. And during all that time, SunOS/Solaris has gone from OpenLook, to CDE, to Gnome. The various X-Windows desktops really didn't get off the ground in a meaningful way until the mid-1990's with CDE (which was announced in 1993, I first saw it myself in 1996 on HP-UX), by which time Win3.1 and Win95 were already entrenched. Also, compare Win95 and FVWM circa 1995, and you'll see why Windows was the only desktop game in town at the time.
Windows owes it sucess to the ubiquity of MS-DOS in the 1980s-early 1990s. MS-DOS owed its ubiquity to the "street-credit" granted to it by IBM's endorsement. Had IBM implemented their PC with Xenix or some flavor of Unix capable of running on an 8088, then we would all have unix desktops.
While I can understand your situation, Windows may meet your needs best...the crux of your example was photoshop, one application used for specific types of work. It hardly makes the case that only Windows can get the job done for computing...especially since its also available on the Mac.
I know this is slightly off-topic for this question, but I still think that all the people and developers who keep talking about the 'ability to choose' is so great - is the big reason why Linux on the desktop never gets anywhere.
If all the bright minds of KDE, gnome, QT, the people behind xfree etc would come together, and work out one single system that they all afterwards work on together, I think Linux could stand a chance again. They should focus on what apple has done and how the MacOSX desktop works and try and copy and/or improve on that.
I as a simple user frankly don't care about having 2 or 3 or 15 mediocre different choices of desktop systems.
Give me just one good choice instead and I will be happy.
Sam has one liberty, which he sacrifices for one security. Can you tell me what Sam has now?
I think the simple answer is critical mass: you need a sufficient number of developers developing not just the platform itself, but applications to run on it. Without a sufficient base of applications you're going to inevitably be perceived as a minority player and fail to attract many users, and hence many extra developers. Past a certain threshold you can be roughly self sustaining - Linux is across it, and so is MacOS X, but I don't think the projects you mention are even close. There is simply too much software built up on the GNU and X11 toolchain (and increasingly on GNOME and KDE) that people would have to leave behind to move to a new open source OS - it just isn't that tempting when the alternatives look so application poor.
To succeed you really need some base to start with (as Apple had when they moved to MacOS X, although even they lean on X11 and apps built on the GNU toolchain to some extent), or you need to support the toolchains of the applications (see OpenSolaris and BSD, which lean on X11, GNOME, KDE, etc.). Depending on what it is you wish to get rid off things can go from easy to very hard. Just ditching the Linux kernel is feasible - see the BSD and OpenSolaris options, among others. If you want to get rid of X11 as well... well that's trickier, but if you have a graphics system that will run GTK+ and or QT you might get by because you'll still have the rich supply of GTK+ apps, and can probably get KDE ported. If you want to ditch everything up to GNOME and KDE... well that means rewriting all your applications from scratch, and really that's a huge and incredibly daunting task. It's not just the big applications like web browsers and email clients, its all the different little niche applications that make the environment so rich. Its that that keeps many people on Windows - the one little application that few other people have any interest in, but happens to be vital to them; because everyone has a slightly different vital niche program it adds up to a lot of applications to reproduce before you can truly draw a large user base.
Linux has crossed the first threshold: it has enough users and application developers working on it that its self sustaining. It has yet to cross the next threshold where it provides a rich enough ecosystem of applications to entice the myriad of home users. It is, however, slowly crawling toward that goal.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Try using a BSD or solaris and see just how standards compliant most open source software is. There's tons of linuxism and gnuisms in not just the software, but also their configure and build setups. And glibc is not a standard. If you mean one of the C standards like C99, then no, lots of people write gnu/C.
I use Linux because I prefer it, not because I want to spite a business. Same reason, I think, that many developers work on Linux. They like the system; they don't (all) feel the need for penguiny desktop domination.
why am i not interested in developing for platforms other than linux? a short list:
- linux is what i use on a daily basis for work. if i'm going to write software on my own time, it's going to be for a platform that i use
- i know enough linux apis that i can be useful (e.g: posix, qt, opengl, etc.) whereas with most of the alternative OSes that you've listed, i'd have to start from scratch learning pre-alpha APIs. no thanks.
- i have the right tools under linux to get the job done, while the OSes you've mentioned are still playing catch-up to get pretty basic things in place
- i have a plethora of documentation and easily accessible expertise readily available to help me with linux development
if those other OSes gain linux-like momentum in the next two to five years, i'll reconsider. until then, no thanks.
You have posted two questions, why are all free software developers headed towards Linux and why Linux has not supplanted Windows as a Desktop OS..
Answers:
1) Most free software developers I know gravitate towards standards, not an OS. Their programs will run well on a GNU BSD system and cygwin. That's their goal. Every developer whose motivation for development is philanthropy or ego will aim to maximize compatibility rather than being exclusive to Linux.
2) Linux cannot take over the desktop for a few simple reasons. First and foremost is the lack of standards. Theres gnome AND kde. And there are several popular distros to develop and test for to make sure installation is smooth and seamless like in Windows. Windows is a single distro and extremely predictable in that regard. Developing and deploying a desktop app for it is much easier.
Secondly there is a lack of opensourced drivers and directx doesnt exist. DirectX makes things much easier than opengl plus other api.
Once a real and effective standard is settled upon in Linux (api, distro, installation and package maintenance mechanism) I suspect Linux would be much more popular on the layman's desktop.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
We can't blame Linux for being more succesfull in attracting the workforce. The question should be: "Why are the projects you mention unable to attract the same kind of attention?" Maybe there is no answer, maybe some of their good parts will one day merge into what is now considered the main stream (like the BeOS developer that is now hired by Microsoft).
For the past year or two I've half-jokingly told people that I think that Linux has as much as 35% marketshare when you discount people who use nothing but a web browser (since in this case the OS doesn't really matter, so the user doesn't have to make a choice). I'm curious what the real number is. Does anyone here know how to find out?
Though i've lived an internet connectionless home life for well over a year now, so havent actually had anything to show for it for a while. The goals of AROS, aside from promoting a warm fuzzy feeling amongst amiga stalwarts, are a small, efficient, multitasking, modular OS. and by small we mean less megabytes than you can count on one hand. and by multitasking we mean being able to process more than one thing at once, which lets face it, windows sucks at 20+ years after AmigaOS 1 came out.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
No, no they aren't. No critical functionality in KDE or GNOME relies on the Linux kernel, and both desktops will run happily in the various BSDs. So maybe a more accurate question for Ask Slashdot would be, "Why are Free-Desktop developers wedded to the X Window System?"
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the merits of X, but there are a number of advantages to using it that I can think of off the top of my head:
- It's based on an open standard.
- The most often used open source implementation of it, X.Org, supports a large number of graphics cards.
- X.Org 7.1 and up support hardware acceleration via AIGLX, allowing for window distortions, particle effects, alpha blending, etc.
- It's already used by a lot of other projects and is in active development.
- It's network transparent.
An often cited reason for using a non-Microsoft OS is to avoid a monoculture, but free-desktop efforts have created a total monoculture around developing and promoting Linux, despite a decade of failure in supplanting Microsoft's proprietorial OSes with it.I'll mentally sustitute "Linux" with "X" here. What exactly makes the equivalent GUI layer on Windows significantly better than X.org? I can't think of anything; so it would seem that we cannot blame X.org for Linux failing to achieve a large market share.
Indeed, it's debatable whether the desktop is to blame at all. I'd have thought it was more to do with lack of compatibility with Windows applications, and that again would seem to be a problem that's largely independant of the kernel or the desktop. You can run Wine or Mono applications on KDE, GNOME, Linux or BSD; the problems with Wine or Mono aren't anything to do with the systems on which they run.
And what license would you suggest? A more open but less free license, like the GPL?
Freedom means being able to make choices and decisions. Suggesting that using GPL, which is more restrictive of the choices avialable, over the BSD/MIT/LGPL/etc. licenses is not a push for freedom, it's a push for openness, there is a difference.
Stand on your platform all you like, but don't call it a name that would fool others into thinking it's anything other than what it is.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
LINUX has readily available development tools that do not cost the software developer anything beyond hardware and an internet connection to access, therefore they can maintain the lowest possible overhead while developing their free desktop applications, and because LINUX can be run on older computer systems, the cost of hardware can be kept significantly low as well.
When you are creating something that is going to be offered to the general public as "free", the only significant investment you wish to commit is time. Oddly enough, time is the only resource we as human beings will always run out of, plus we do not know how much time is allotted to any of us, and therefore its value cannot be calculated (even though lawyers sure seem know how to put a price-tag on it).
Sorry, but I smell troll. Your post just doesn't make sense.
I have been able to do my work on either GNU/Linux or XP for quite some time now (except for some CE app development projects). I just cannot buy the concept that a "unix admin" feels that "Windows" fixes usability problems.
It's a simple matter of complex programming.
Excuse me for saying so, but the submission is a load of bollocks.
...in some market segments, and among certain groups of users. Linux has made major inroads in segments other than the desktop, and even on the desktop, it's slowly but surely replacing Windows. I don't recall that I was walking into rooms or offices and seeing devices running Linux a lot a decade ago, but nowadays, it happens all the time.
``However, the Linux of today seems to be as far away as ever from realizing the expectations of mass adoption we once had for it, without significant growth in home usage since the late 90s.''
Where do you get your numbers? People all around me have switched to GNU/Linux, and some more are currently making the switch. Ubuntu, in particular, has worked wonders. If the fora are any indication, a lot of people have started using Linux thanks to Ubuntu.
``Clearly, if Linux is unable to reproduce a third of Firefox's end user uptake over a much longer time-frame, there are deficiencies with the direction the GNU/Linux/X/Gnome/KDE system has taken.''
That's not so clear to me. Switching web browsers is a much smaller step than switching operating systems. That seems a simple and plausible explanation of why Firefox could be more popular than Linux.
``Of course, almost all free software and desktop efforts and development remain unquestioningly oriented around Linux.''
Most, perhaps, but there's a lot going on around FreeBSD, Solaris, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Windows, and ReactOS, too, as well as around some smaller operating systems.
``Other free-desktop operating system projects which take different and innovative approaches like ReactOS, AROS, Mona and Syllable remain comparatively starved of developers and interest.''
That is true, and it's probably a combination of factors. Particularly, the fact that GNU/Linux is a known quantity; it implements APIs that have been around for decades, whereas innovative APIs have yet to prove themselves. Secondly, the fact that many of these OSes don't stack up in terms of usability means that many people don't get past the stage of taking a look and going back to whatever they were using. Thirdly, "Linux" is very well known by now, thanks to hype generated by both advocates and the press.
``An often cited reason for using a non-Microsoft OS is to avoid a monoculture, but free-desktop efforts have created a total monoculture around developing and promoting Linux,''
Now, that's really outrageous. First of all, GNU/Linux implements many standard APIs which are also implemented by other operating systems, meaning that monoculture, if it exists at all, is more of a choice made by users than something forced by developers. Secondly, some of the operating systems implementing said APIs are also Free, notwithstanding your suggestion that all free-desktop efforts are about Linux. Thirdly, people do actually use other Free OSes besides GNU/Linux. Fourthly, as long as Windows has the lion's share of the market, any increase in market share by another OS, including GNU/Linux, is likely to reduce monoculture.
``despite a decade of failure in supplanting Microsoft's proprietorial OSes with it.''
``Why are free-desktop developers neglecting to consider an alternative to the penguin?''
To the extent that they are, I would imagine it is because Linux works so well. This causes people to use it, and some of these users contribute to it.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
This is a bit of a red herring. Firefox gained market share for a number of reasons, some that may be applicable to Linux as well. But the single biggest reason for Firefox's market share is that you could install it on Windows.
Have you ever tried installing Windows from scratch? That is like two days effort (by the time you get all your drivers and programs installed, and everything set up as you like). I don't think Linux is worse than Windows, just different. And for certain setups, its better (consider all the good programs that are already available by most distros default install).
So, the main reason Firefox gained so much popularity compared to Linux, was that you could use it on whatever OS you were already using. Possibly this includes it being "so easy to install and use", but that is a misleading statement because you are implying a Linux distro isn't. Firefox installs like any other application on any supported OS, and is as usable as most mature programs. Linux distros are likely the easiest operating systems to install, but that doesn't really matter, because most people will never install an OS. Linux is quite usable, as long as you don't expect it to be the same as Windows or OSX and are willing to get used to it.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seus
The premise of the question is that Linux' lack of desktop market penetration indicates some failing with Linux. I think that premise is flawed. I think Linux has achieved more desktop market share than could reasonably be expected in the time elapsed, and that all of those who have predicted more widespread use were simply fooling themselves.
See, every bit of desktop market share that Linux achieves must be taken away from the Microsoft desktop monopoly (plus maybe a bit from Apple, but that's a tiny corner of the market and one that is very hard to crack). That means that Linux has to deal with the fact that pretty much all of the desktop software in the world, and all of the PC hardware in the world, is built for and around Microsoft Windows.
Look, for example, at the reasons why people here on /. commonly say that they don't want to (or can't) switch to Linux:
Looking beyond the slashdot crowd to the more general PC user base, Linux has another, even bigger obstacle: Most people don't install their own operating system, ever. They buy a PC with an OS already on it, and that's what they use. What OS comes on every PC on the shelf? The latest version of Microsoft Windows, of course.
Given that these are the real problems holding back widespread desktop adoption of Linux, what is some other OS, that supports less hardware and has less software available, and even less mindshare among PC vendors going to do to fix the problem?
Not a damned thing, obviously.
Desktop Linux will make its breakout, if it does, in exactly the same way that Desktop DOS and Windows achieved theirs -- via the business desktop. In the more-controlled corporate environment, where hardware is less varied, the IT support staff is better educated (i.e., there is an IT support staff), application sets are more limited (e.g. no games), and there is a stronger focus on cost containment and security, Linux is beginning to make some inroads, and will continue to make more. Linux is getting serious attention as a preferred desktop platform by governments, both for reasons of openness and for reasons of cost management.
When a significant percentage of the world's desktop PC users use Linux at work, then you'll start to see significant home market penetration as well. And that business desktop penetration is happening, but it's going to be a long, slow process because it's a fight against a very deeply entrenched and very powerful monopoly.
I think Linux is doing an excellent job of getting there. The Free desktop environments and application suites are in excellent shape, and are continuing to improve rapidly. I think KDE and GNOME are both much *more* usable than MS Windows, each in their own way, and I can cite numerous Free applications that rival or even exceed the best of their commercial competition. Linux is *ready* for the desktop, and has been for quite some time. But being ready isn't enough to displace Windows. There have to be other advantages, to counter the massive juggernaut of Windows inertia. And there *are* other advantages, but even so, it will take time. Lots of time.
People don't focus much on the other a
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
First of all, they come with very little GNU stuff, pretty much just the compiler/toolchain. And that is maintained as a patched version for the OS in question. Of course, I didn't say anything about GNU software, I said most open source software. Download some random software from sourceforge, half of it won't compile on anything but linux, and even then often only i386 or i386 and amd64. And the stuff that does compile is often subtly broken because of linuxisms or gnuisms in it. Hell, I've seen plenty of stuff that won't even work on all popular linux distros. Assuming broken glibc behaviour, or stupid GNU extensions is very common in open source software since most people writing it have never tried unix before, so they assume the entire world is just like their distro or choice.
How in the hell can any of you talk in definites in an industry shown to be indefinite? How can you give one or two examples/reasons, weak ones at that, and then hyperbolize them into some "universal principle" of the software industry and somehow indicative of the future? You give weak comparisons and draw weaker analogies. I can count but two or three other main replies to this article that make any sense. You should all be hung, drawn, and quartered. Fucking retards, sorry but this shit is stupid!
Firefox is a browser. Stop. Linux is a popular kernel for free software distributions. Stop. How do you begin to compare the two?
Over half of the world hold to the Christian faith, very few people are Atheist. Does that mean that there is some inherent flaw within Atheism?
Most of the world eats meat. Does that mean that Vegetarians need to rethink their approach?
You call Linux developers and free software proponents zealots, look at yourselves! The free software movement is not here to replace your hated OS, it is not here to be the next big thing, or the newest golden child and it most definitely is NOT just GNU/Linux. It was never meant to be the golden child and any one who expected that is clearly dillusional. It is not here for the immediate future, they are not looking at some commercial strategy, they don't need to reinvest in their packaging and they are not interested in competing with a dying operating system.
If you are so convinced that GNU/Linux/BSD/Free Software are not going anywhere and will never go anywhere than stick with your bloody mass of a bullet ridden dying operating system. Free Software is not qualified to compete on those grounds, the same that Microsoft is on. If the market wants to run Free Software, it needs to change the way that it operates or move on. Free Software will not go anywhere, it will still be here no matter what.
Sorry if GNU/Linux is not meeting your expected quotas Mr. CEO's. Let us all strive to do a better job of marketing less this board of the chair of Free Software cancel Linux!
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." -Asimov
Yeah right, people go to the store and shop for an OS - they don't even know what an OS is. Might as well ask, "Which is better, Beige or Translucent computers.". If somebody wants linux to be cool then Gnome & KDE need to special order a bunch of pc cases with nice power supplies.
BSD developers are force feeding geese?
Don't forget Haiku, the free BeOS reimplementation. What's been done so far is impressive for the number of developers working on it; if a few more developers joined the progress, I (personally, IMHO) think R1 could happen this year.
It seems to me, in theory at least, that every Free/Open Source Software project developed for/ported to Windows is in effect developed for or ported to ReactOS - at least once ReactOS actually works.
Maybe the reason it is not well supported and tested is that the driver installation process is an absolute beast. Ever try to get an All in Wonder card set up in ReactOS? I got partway through and quit out of sheer boredom.
Why?
Here is the process:
- Install a clean Windows installation (Win2K for this situation)
- Dump the registry
- Capture a file listing of the entire system. Don't forget to include meta data such as file size, date, and version
- Install the All in Wonder drivers/software
- Dump the registry
- Capture a file listing of the entire system. Don't forget to include meta data such as file size, date, and version
- Diff the registry dumps, create a patch file (a properly-formatted
- diff the file listing, figure out which files $vendor changed, note location
- Import the registry into ReactOS
- manually copy the files over
- watch it croak. Use depends or another dependency checker to figure out what else needs to be copied from Windows to ReactOS to make it work (and if you do not own a Windows license, at this point copyright law becomes an issue, especially if you want to offer a "free" and *cough*"100% compatible"*cough* Windows alternative to customers)
Why does ReactOS enjoy more support, including developer, tester, and user? Gee, I don't know. That's a tough question.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
A simple principle that holds up when the bull (real one) is charging at you as well as metaphorically.
The road is littered with technology panaceas spanning the gamut from programming languages that are the "greatest" and "will make developers far more productive" to operating systems that never went anywhere, e.g., BeOS.
Call me jaded, who cares about the others you mentioned. LINUX still sucks on the desktop for average users, largely because the software ecosystem that surrounds Windows is so massive and is quite hard to ignore. Just let me listen to music and play games (and no, I don't mean "checkers"). I want to install and run iTunes without thinking about downloading emulation software. I want to play cutting edge games.
I like LINUX on the back end but that is about it (as far as its proximity to my desktop). My strategy has been to leverage open source technologies on Windows, Cygwin, PERL, etc., etc. Besides I can always fire up the X window server and view graphical applications on Windows. Kudos to MIT for such prescience two decades ago, i.e., "the network s the computer."
-M
In order to dominate the desktop the monopoly currently strangling the market needs to be removed. The linux desktop does not dominate only because of the noose on the OEMs and it is also the reason BEOS got no where.
I am no Mac fan but I actually think that apple currently has the ability to shake the market to it's core. They now have a intel version of the operating system, increase the driver support and put it on the shelves and I think it could really create a explosive impact on the home desktop industry.
Got Code?
X11 was great back in 1990. But we've stuck with it for too long. The various widget sets built on top of it (motif/gtk/etc...) are just lipstick on the pig.
Look at OS X... Throw out X11. Implement a nice clean OO GUI desktop, and add a rootless X11 compatability layer back in for the legacy apps.
The problems the stated will get non-win32 operating systems nowhere.
No one *wants* to change simply to substitute one OS for another. No one! They switch when there is a problem with their computer that they get so sick and tired of dealing with, they go to another platform.
My Dad (an aol user no less) switched when I told him I won't fix his Windows box any more. Switched to Linux, got AOHell working and never looked back. He wanted a new PC, so he got a mac mini. Why? Because I won't support windows.
In his case he was compelled to switch, as nearly every user that actually switches. There are many many people that talk, but few actually do. Copy-cat applications will never drive adoption. Apple is a visible example where the applications are driving adoption.
Today's lesson: It takes a compelling application, not one that already exists in the Windows world to make people switch. The variety of apps is the fertilizer out of which a killer app will come that will make people switch.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Linux sucks less. Mostly.
Besides, did you have a better plan? And why is it better? Anyhow most mature OSS projects strive for some measure portability, so this question smells pretty rhetorical.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
I wish i could delete this question from my brain
It is not a "false analogy". Its not even any kind of analogy. It is a non sequitur. This is not pedantic. It is completely different.
My life is an open book ... up to a point.
ReactOS is one of the more interesting projects around. Like FreeDOS, ReactOS fills an important niche in the free software family tree. A free NT/2000/XP clone would be extremely useful for many individuals and organizations. Plus, there is a lot of knowledge to be gained by the mere act of trying to do this. Certainly there has been cross fertilization between the ReactOS project and WINE.
I'm a Linux user, and am happy with Linux for my purposes. But I will be giving ReactOS a try after its next release. It won't replace Linux for me, but complement it.
Unless you have put the portage folders and /usr/tmp on a different filesystem from /home and/or / then your gentoo will over time become much slower than pretty much any other system.
/usr/tmp/portage for a long time, then finally get deleted leaving 'holes'.
/usr/tmp, /usr/portage, /var/db and /var/tmp links to a separate reiserfs (not reiser4) partition gentoo has been much faster.
Gentoo has to be the worst-case usage for causing a filesystem to get fragmented and to scatter data all about, with its hundreds of thousands of tiny portage files that get updated/modified/deleted regularly along with lots of large files (source tarballs) mixed in with compile cycles that make lots of temporary that get mixed in with that. Sometimes say when a compile fails the compiled files get left in
Since I made
And I imagine on almost anything that implements the right libraries and hooks. I think it is up to the advocates of a particular OS to port in the desktop, not the desktop developers.
Dog is my co-pilot.
blatant flamebait. I thought that was the point of having editorial control ... to control trolls- right, cmdrtaco or are we just going to be lord to the flies and shit. If you'd used any of those platforms you'd know why their development starved and anyway why don't you develop on them, dipshit.... having windows and linux is not a monoculture you, asshat... I just quit smoking sorry, I'm not previewing it, and you can go shove your karma up some developer ass who ignores systems that have no users and no apps and no fucking reason to live .. so there ....
If you had read /. yesterday, you would have known that.
This toll doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. One just need to look at AVRFreaks to know that open source is often better supported on winblows to the dismay of many of us Linux users. If I want good development on Linux, be with the ARM or AVR I must often do it on my own as the bulk of the fancy support is on windoze and not on Linux.
The irony is that the code is linux (and or Unix) code to start with.
This is simple. It would cost too much to develop free software on the MS platform. Just think of all the time you will spend working around stability issues and support problems. Then you have to figure out all the undocumented API's and hidden functionality. On top of that, Windows doesn't have half the support, libraries, and code that Linux/FreeBSD has. You have to even _pay_ for the stinking OS to program free software on it.
Why would you want to program free software on something that is not free to develop on?
The above is not worth reading.
A desktop is all about the device. Linux will always have better device drivers htan any other open source os.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
./configure
make
su
(enter root password)
make install
exit
Have fun with your new software!
Obviously it is harder to get people to switch to a completely different OS which means they have to change all of the software they are using compared to switching just to a more secure and just as easy to use web browser. The article summary is flamebait!
This post will probably be less relevant in 7 months when the OLPC project ships its first units. In a few more years, when this project is in full bloom, then the majority of desktop users in the world (maybe not the US) may very well be running the Linux kernel on their desktops.
Thats not clear, at all.
A web browser and a OS Desktop are very different things, and require very different reasons to switch. Perhaps most importantly, whereas many users have noticed that IE began to suck (with viruses, popups, et al), Windows just is; for non-Windows users, its always sucked. For Windows users it just has been; and 95-98-XP, it has gotten better. The Firefox marketing campaign has been "Take back the web", not "Get a brand new web that you don't know about".
The effort to implement a switch to FF, from IE is 5 minutes. And to become just as proficient as a user, from a couple of hours to a couple of days. For Windows to some other Desktop, days and months. The "undo" time for FF is 0, IE is still installed. Undo Linux may be 0, or as much as a few days too.
To repeat myself: browsers and Desktops are very different things; users annoyance with them is different, the effort to switch is different. Comparing the relative "success" of OSS versions of these different things is blatantly wrong, and a disservice to hackers on both teams.
Think of Linux, which is a kernel not really an overall OS per se, as General Motors. You have your choice of Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, Saab, Cadillac, etc. But underneath it all is General Motors. Linux is just an inner core that developers can build whatever they want around it.
In what way is a clone of the Windows kernel innovative?
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
...it's one of three underlying kernels (win32, linux, osx/darwin) that have something like a market share?
Besides, I'm very excited to see what happens with KDE4 is released for Windows, bringing the whole free desktop to the biggest market there is - Windows. If that works out well (KDE + games + whatever else win-only apps you need, I don't see how it couldn't) then that might be the gateway. People that find they don't need Windows can "pull the carpet" moving from KDE/Windows to KDE/Linux, and even if they stay on Windows their fileformats are compatible with Linux. I certainly look forward to that.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Analogy: Linux is like Firefox
Observation: Linux is much less popular than Firefox
Conclusion: Linux is doomed.
The trouble with linux isn't linux, it's the lack of big-name applications. The FOSS solution has been to create free alternatives, and that's fine if your market is yourself, but normal people don't want programmerware.
I recently wrote about why GIMP and other great applications aren't useful to normal people. The short of it is that when you google for a way to accomplish a graphic design or photo editing task you find tutorials that work with Photoshop and don't work with GIMP. If you want a book you'll find only Photoshop books at Borders. No matter how good GIMP is it's inaccessible to normal people.
[She says, sitting down to learn Illustrator with a Borders-purchased book.]
Why, when you have an OS that has support for a lot of hardware, modern niceties such as hotplugging hardware, building blocks such as X11 and standards-compliant building blocks such as CUPS, why must that be ditched in favor of a from-scratch effort such as ReactOS? Or why should it be a necessity to target a server-targeted OS such as FreeBSD?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I strongly disagree with the person who posted these nonsense statements. For the past year Linux has been enjoying tremendous popularity and now even larger corporations are switching to Linux to escape horrors of Windows XP and the outrageous licensing fees of desktop slowdown of Vista. A bit more collaboration and joining of forces would help but overall Linux is currently the best basis for free desktop development and is definitely heading in the right direction.
I was flipping through a software catalogue a while back, and I know I saw a few XServer for Windows apps, so, doesn't that also mean you could run KDE/Gnome on Windows? I do know there is a F/OSS window manager for Windows, I used to use it, but can't remember the name now.
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price.
I don't know why anyone cares about this.
I've been using a Linux desktop for about eight years and it's generally been quite nice. I have a windows machine, and I know how to use it pretty well, but I only turn it on when I want to play a game. Maybe I'm just set in my ways, but I don't think I'd enjoy using the Windows machine for much else, since I wouldn't care for not having virtual desktops and a useful shell.
But it doesn't really affect me if other people want to use Windows for their own reasons. I can still use Linux when I want to. Lots of people are constantly improving it, and I get to enjoy their efforts. I suppose if my bank stopped supporting Linux or something, that might be irritating, but it seems that the trend has been for more people to support Firefox since it's gaining traction on Windows, so it probably won't happen.
I probably shouldn't be encouraging such trollish behavior by responding to this flamebait article, but here goes:
Free-desktop developers are "wedded" (well, they aren't really) to GNU/Linux because it will be the last OS. They've seen the light, they know better than the users, and they know what's coming. It's all well and good to develop alternative free operating systems, and I would encourage anyone who wants to to do it, but the fact is that if you create something really neat, it will make it into GNU/Linux sooner or later.
Nathan's blog
the Unix methidologies are very comfortable to developers because (a) they are relatively regular in setup. (b) They tend to be highly modular, making things easier to work with and build - lots of re-use of things you made or thigns others made.
Sometimes it seems to me that the Unix and Linux methodologies have forked somewhat. Modularity in old-school Unix took an almost completely bottom-approach with small self-contained basic apps that could be tied together at the user interface level or from within scripts or even programs themselves. Linux devs seem to focus on modularity at a source code level, to the exclusion of user interface level. Sure, you can still use switches, pipes and redirection on most modern programs, but generally only to do the most high-level tasks, not the low level primitives. Some people are trying to correct this, but (eg) the Gimp came years before the Gimp Command-Line Tools -- and that's not Unix methodology, it's practically top-down.
Real modularity, based on Unix pipes, could completely decouple the GUI from the code. This would be a Very Good Thing.
Right now, the biggest obstacle to any sort of Unix/Linux on the desktop is the inconsistency in GUIs. Scream KDE or Gnome if you want, but these don't enforce any consistency on apps. In fact, by being compatible with non-KDE/Gnome apps, they invite inconsistency in. Yes! - it means there's a lot of apps available, but! - it scares non-geeks.
If we had our UIs decoupled from our apps, it would take very little time to gather all sorts of old code and put together a consistent GUI from X widget libraries.
Everything would look the same, people wouldn't be scared. And the code may just be more maintainable.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
If you're concerned about the adoption of alternative Desktop's, whether it's Linux-based (or more accurately has a large Linux population) is irrelavent. In fact, it seems relatively simple for GNOME apps to run on Windows. I imagine someone's got (or is working on) porting the entire GNOME environment for Windows as well.
The question really is why do OSS Desktops currently suck? Why does GNOME insist on taking away features or cloning the bad features of Windows that Windows doesn't even use anymore. I haven't used KDE in a while, but I felt KDE lacked a bit of coherency in the apps.
In addition, why are all the desktop OS's playing catchup, and still using outdated models of "icons" as bitmap images? Why couldn't an "icon" be composed of 3D rendered animation with sound effects, and an understanding of user/desktop/system events? eg. an icon that "schwings" whenever the app is loaded (whether it was loaded via the icon or some other way). That's just an example of course. But the closest desktop I know of to do anything like that is OS X.
The only problem with Linux in the home is that it doesn't run the programs that users are already used to running. It seems like most geeks forget that the average joe user does NOT use a computer for its OS, they use it for the word processor/game/media player/porn organizer that they already know and love. Want linux to be a raging success in the home? Make it run windows apps. Same thing with OSX...
Personally, I run Linux everywhere. And, every time I see a windows app that I want to buy, I make it a point to email the company and say, "Boy, I sure was ready to buy your software until I realized it wouldn't run on Linux. When is the Linux version due out?"
PS, This is part of why virtualization is going to be so important in the future (even though it isn't a final solution).
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
KDE and Gnome require a great deal of effort to be ported to other OSs besides linux. They are written for linux, and then people who use other OSs have to port it themselves if they want it to run anywhere else. On a reasonably current openbsd system:
/usr/ports/x11/kde/ -name patch-* | wc -l /usr/ports/x11/gnome -name patch-* | wc -l
$ find
115
$ find
92
Do you really think software that requires ~100 files to be patched if you aren't running on linux isn't linux centric?
that Linux would make a good desktop. Other than the MS moral issues, the greatest reason that Linux is making in roads on MS is that it's a fine _server_. With the integral GUI, MS has more overhead than Linux. (I understand that may be changing though.) With that overhead, Linux is faster and with less code in play at one time, more reliable.
On the other side of the issue, Linux will not be a good desktop (my opinion). It's more complex than a desktop needs to be. You don't need to serve out Apache on a desktop. You do need a good GUI.
I haven't seen a alternative OS that truly stands out yet. Of course, in order for one to do so, developers have to give up the mistaken belief that Linux would make a good desktop and the client OS would have to tie into Linux (and most likely MS) well. Until that happens, you aren't going to see a desktop that is really popular other than Windows (again... my opinion).
Ever heard of a concept called 'free as in freedom'?
my password really is 'stinkypants'
Why doesn't Dan "Lyin'" Lyons just ask the question on his OWN damned anti-Linux bash-fest troll blog, instead of wasting his time posting here?
(Not that it really IS a statement from old Danny boy, but it sounds exactly like him, complete with false analogies and strawmen galore... I guess for guys like him, and Rob "Rent-a-rant" Enderle, when you've been suckling at the withered teat of Microsoft for most of your life, it's difficult to learn any other way to survive.)
...on the other hand, I think some aspiring coders out there should build a nice desktop for Windows that isn't as bad as the existing one.
I installed Linux a few days ago, hoping to see some improvement in the general desktop stuff since I last used it about two years ago.. unfortunatly, the whole time I was in X, it felt like I was stuck in 1990, with Gnome. I didn't make it to KDE because Debian pissed me off too much.
Then I went and installed Windows, and was equally pissed off that it's installation process felt like I was stuck in 1991.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
As an ex-Amigan, the main reason I switched to Linux was that I wanted a platform that was getting maintenance. But the second reason was that I was tired of .. well .. "being a weirdo" -- being so far from the mainstream that I was always alone. Linux, because of its Unix ties, is orthodox, mainstream, whatever you want to call it. It's mainstream enough that there's a whole lot of popular interest in it, and it's getting lots of development. It's off the beaten path enough, that the development isn't stupid and destructive (e.g. Microsoft's "Genuine Advantage" or Apple's efforts to keep their new OS from running on whiteboxes) and instead oriented toward giving people what they want. It's not a product, it's technology (even if a bit bland and outdated).
Those other (arguably higher-tech) OSes are so small and isolated, that development happens very, very slowly. They have the potential to have non-stupid development (and maybe they really do) but the smallness of the teams and isolation put them at risk of becoming cults. Despite fanaticism that is sometimes seen (and exaggerated) among Linux users, one thing that has struck me about most Linux developers (and really, Linus himself even if I think he's wrong about some things) is sanity. There's no cultiness to it. Linux has a long-term stability that I really feel like I can count on. I don't feel that confidence with the fringe projects (whether deserved or not).
As for monoculture, I have two takes on it. Linux is a monoculture in terms of ideas, and creativity is somewhat retarded. A lot of things never really get thought about. But in terms of security, there's enough variety in distributions, configuration options, etc, that I think there is considerable resistance to the kinds of risks that systems like MS Windows face. If I were at a large company and every computer were running the same version and installation of Fedora, I might feel a little uneasy. The culture as a whole, though, isn't like that.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The reason that we don't see wider Linux adoption is because calling the it all "Linux" is a faulty assumption.
2 9/1214225
There isn't one Linux operating system, there are many. And they are all different.
Different leaders, different philosophies, different bug tracking systems...
If the distros weren't the only problem you have multiple window managers, multiple desktop managers, multiple ways of doing package management, etc etc...
It's called the Paradox of Choice, and it's been covered on this site many times...
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/
Until there is a clear winner, we won't see a good jump in Linux market share.
Until the "Linux Community" actually starts working in the same direction this is simply going to stay a collection of stuff that doesn't always work together.
The original poster is right in a way, we have failed. Until there is a significant amount of people working towards a stable "Linux Desktop", a product we can all get behind, we can't mount an organized campaign.
But this is contrary to the whole "Linux Community" philosophy which basically says "If I don't like it your way, or I don't understand it your way I'm going to rewrite/engineer/fork the code. Then I'm going to make a distro and support my users... Sure it may confuse the users, but my machine is going to work. We're going to get into bitter flame wars, we're going to have all this redundant code. We're going to keep fighting each other while the big boys get the market."
Today's lesson: It takes a compelling application, not one that already exists in the Windows world to make people switch. The variety of apps is the fertilizer out of which a killer app will come that will make people switch.
Why won't this app be ported to Windows a month later? Killer apps don't exist anymore.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
"Why are free-desktop developers neglecting to consider an alternative to the penguin?"
Why does "they all run Linux" imply neglect, that "none of them ever considered the alternatives"? It seems to me that considering the alternatives is just the thing that brought the majority of the Linux users (and the Mac OS X users and the Solaris users and the *BSD users too, for that matter) to the platform where they are today.
Ironically, since this is a Linux-centric column, I think Steve Jobs summed this kind of thinking up best: "Some of our competitors say we're not offering people choice. We're offering them choice, they just don't like the choice our customers are making."
Is only the greatest OS ever made!!! Easier to install and add applications than Windows or Linux; there are tons of free software packages that have there own GUI installer for download on their site. If I want something not there, then I simply have to compile from source like in Linux. More people should get behind PC-BSD, and I think they are. What doomed BSD early on is that it was extremely hard to install. PC-BSD remedies this, I installed it on my computer in about four mouse clicks, everything on my system auto-detected and worked without any input from me.
The reason that Linux cannot match firefox is that most people buy a computer with an OS installed on it. True they also have Internet Explorer, but it is relatively trivial for them (or a relative) to install Firefox without changing anything else in the way they use their computer (and it doesn't take much time). Changing the OS takes a major commitment. If they were offered different OSes at the salepoint (with corresponding cost), things would be different. My aunt got her new computer with Linux pre-installed (by me), and she's just as happy as when she had Windows on her old computer. I'm happier because calls to fix her computer have gone from one every couple of weeks to... I haven't had one in the 2 years she's been on Linux. She's happier because it just works. People who only need a computer to play around on the web, send-receive e-mails, view their pictures from cameras, and burn said pictures or music on CDs don't need anything more. Grad students who have to produce all kinds of graphs and data analysis probably can't ask for anything better. But it rarely comes pre-installed. You have to go out of your way to get it. Most people don't like to go out of their way. Firefox is not quite the same. One click and bang. Not much out of the way. And even then most people won't use it because it's too much. It's at the consumer goods providers level that Linux, BSDs, ReactOS etc, etc, can reach people. Or at the school level by showing learning minds what's out there.
Couldn't agree more with the article. GNU/Linux users should also try GNU/Hurd just for the heck of it. That would atleast help us understand 'Linux' alone is not FOSS.
For me the most important aspect of using free and open source software is the amount of CS knowledge we get without even realizing it! More options at the kernel, desktop and distro levels mean that you invariably learn more trying to choose from them! Imagine the millions of Computer Science graduates coming from countries like India who have never used a non-Windows OS let alone installing or contributing to FOSS. Several theory courses in OS may not equal one GNU/Linux installation!
Ofcourse non-technical people should not have to worry about these things. Hence popular GNU/Linux distros like Ubuntu/Fedora/SUSE which even non-techies can install are welcome.
Balaji.
I know Linux is taking off. Tesco has finally admitted a Linux magazine into their limited range of computer magazines in my city... this means that the sales of the magazines are good enough to warrant the shelf space... which means there are sufficient Linux users out there to generate demand...
of course they are basically uncountable because the vast majority of them will have bought their machine with windows on it in the first place. This means that they were all counted as windows sales...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
It's a useful unix. The most developed one these days and a beautiful OS. It is an absolute joy for someone who "likes" computers.
It is a twisty maze for users and people who just want it to "just work". Tough.
It's a killer HTPC, my present jones, and I can't even imagine what I would have to go through to get my present functionality in windose or osex.
The reason you find the Linux kernel in most free desktop systems should be pretty obvious - it's currently better at handling the random hardware that desktop users throw at it than anything else out there.
That's sort of a catch22 isn' it? I mean more people use Linux because it works with more hardware, yet it works with more hardware because more people develop drivers and otherwise work to get hardware working on Linux. To get more people to use these other OSes more people need to develop for them yet many won't until they see them being used more.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I think drivers is what pulls developers towards linux. That and the abundance of developing tools. Also, how fun is it to make your own os nowadays and then populate it with Firefox, OpenOffice, Gimp and whatnot and realize that your new shiny OS is looking more and more lika a heavily altered linux distribution? It would be fun to see more projects with new ideas and conventions for the desktop and the file system. By starting off with Linux such projects can concentrate on the fun part right away, That said, there are room for more OS as long as they follow standards in protocols and file formats.
HTTP/1.1 400
The basic premise of the author is flawed. This is akin to asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" The author presumes that free desktop authors develop for Linux only; and that assumption is flat out wrong.
Consider these points:
Heck, I can execute many free desktop applications on my Windows PC via Cygwin.
And the reason that Linux has failed (and will continue to fail) to obtain widespread adoption has much more to do with Microsoft's monopoly and their continued antitrust activities than Linux desktop functionality.
Label this article as flame bait. Let's move on...
I've played with a number of research/hobby OSs, and, for the most part, they work as advertised. They often have interesting ideas. Sometimes it's just plain fun to mess around.
The catch always seems to be applications. If the OS doesn't actually do anything, there is little point in using it. And while many apps can be ported, if you're not using, for example, the native GUI and API of Syllable, what's the point of running Syllable at all?
I suspect this is a critical-mass-meets-chicken-and-the-egg problem. Nobody will write apps if people aren't using the system. Nobody will use the system if there aren't apps.
...laura
There's probably a very good, technical reason for this, but I'm going to ask anyway. Why can't KDE and/or Gnome be ported over to Windows? You could then have your free desktop on your already paid for (or pirated) windows installation. You could still run your Windows apps until free alternatives are developed or learned, and then switch to Linux (if you want) when it isn't as painful.
I have a handful of things keeping me from running Linux full time on the desktop, but I wouldn't mind being able to use Gnome instead of Explorer (natively, not via cygwin or whatever).
This space for rent.
What about Solaris? What about OS X? Can anybody share why they do or do not prefer one of these over GNU/Linux?
I can only talk about myself when saying what OS I prefer, others may agree or disagree. As for Solaris, I've never used it and I don't have any prctical knowledge about it. On using MacOS, not just OSX but the MacOS family, I've first used it sometime around 1985 or so and for about 10 years I used it more than anyother OS though I did use AmigaOS, DOS, and Windows some. But the past 10 years I've used Windows almost exclusively. I have used Linux some but that was some year ago, however as I recently got a new PC with Linux preinstalled I'll be using it more. Also because I'd like a laptop, and I don't to have to deal with any Activation, WGA, or any other BS MS wants users to do to use Windows I plan on getting a Macbook for a laptop. Though I haven't decided to yet, I may setup the Macbook as a dualboot between OSX and Linux.
As for what OSes I prefer, of those I used I liked Amiga the best, then either Macs or Linux.
FalconShould there be a Law?
First of all, strlcpy/cat are very well thought out. If you have a problem with them, say what it is. Second, they are not in glibc because Ulrich Drepper is a moron with a severe case of NIH syndrome. Third, it IS in the linux kernel, Linus accepted it just fine. He had to put it in the kernel so he could use it because Ulrich Drepper is too dense to let it into glibc. And fourth, nobody writes software that relies on strlcpy without also including a configure check and strlcpy, making it portable. Duh?
Clearly you haven't done the porting you claim you have, or you would realize valgrind is linux only, and thus does not help you porting to other systems. Valgrind isn't going to do jack for you on z/os.
Clearly, if Linux is unable to reproduce a third of Firefox's end user uptake over a much longer time-frame, there are deficiencies with the direction the GNU/Linux/X/Gnome/KDE system has taken.
:P), 2. Install Firefox, 3. Work as before. Linux is a completely different world. "So it doesn't have C: and D:... can it use my hard disk then?"... The direction taken by GNU/Linux/X/Gnome/KDE is wonderful.
Nonsense. Firefox is a drop-in replacement for IE: 1. Remove IE (yeah right
Besides, Linux is not a monoculture. The kernel, sure. But the entire system has distributions. My Gentoo is a lot different than the millions of Ubuntu desktops there are.
It seems to me that someone needs to read this: http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
I don't mean to be an ass, but I've never heard of a 'proprietorial' OS. Proprietary OS? Yes. Proprietorial rights? Yes. 'Proprietorial OS'? No. Shouldn't editors, I dunno, edit things?
Once again, the point of free and open source software is NOT USER BASE.
It's freedom.
That's why call it "Free Software" and not "Popular Software".
If user's don't pick up GNU or Linux, it is not because something is "wrong" with it. It just means that, well, freedom isn't popular. Too bad. Is this so hard to believe? Have you looked at what the White House has been doing lately?
Most people who come to and develop GNU/Linux do so because they want the freedom, not the popularity. There's a lot of work being done to make freedom function fully for non-geeks as well as the experienced. That's the direction.
So if you want take steps to change "the" direction of GNU/Linux to make it more popular, knock yourself out. You are free to do that. Unlike other platforms, we let you. Just don't expect to monopolize the whole "direction", or tell us our preferred priorities are "wrong" because they don't match an old-school commercial worldview that puts market domination on top of the stack, over user freedom.
GNU/Linux is open source and is under GPL. From a Hacker/Developer perspective it can't get better than that. What would be the purpose of forking for the sake of forking?
One reason, why there are multiple forks even inside the GNU world, could be the fact that promoting decentralization is an imperative principle of hackers.
Main Linux distributions come with couple of THOUSAND packages. Do your grandmas really need that one extra package?
The reason for the lack of Linux on desktop systems is not a bad desktop environment. KDE does well, Gnome too.
To my mind the problem is threefold:
1) Installing desktop hardware (especially notebooks) can still be a nightmare, even for advanced Linux users: Webcams, modesm, scanners, soundcards, new motherboard chipsets, bluetooth, graphic cards, input devices (keyboard/mouse/joystick) - they all come in various fashions and nearly none of them have native Linux driver support. This is different with server hardware, where drivers most often exist for Linux - moreover people who install servers are seldom Linux newbies.
2) Missing applications: No MS-Office, no CorelDraw, no Adobe Writer, no xyz, no... - the list is sooo long. And people often _have_ to use these applications.
3) Various content can not / not easily be viewed from Linux. This can be blamed on missing applications as denoted above but also on DRM, such as encrypted DVD's and the like. And for sure, new multimedia content will emerge that can not be viewed on Linux due to DRM restrictions.
The above three points apply to all other operating systems, such as ReactOS, BSD - regardless if these operating systems have "better" concepts or not. If there are no drivers, no applications and no content, no one will use it and it's pretty useless to port KDE/Gnome...
Well yeah, which is why I'm glad they put in the Bill of Rights after all. Otherwise we'd see Congress claiming that the Commerce Clause grants them the power to regulate the speech in books sold across state lines.
Substitute medical marijuana for everything after "the speech" and you have exactly what the USSC Justices are allowing the federal government to do. In a California case on medical marijuana that went up to the USSC the Justices ruled that the federal government could prevent California from using marijuana medically. They said if the states wanted to allow it to be used legally then federal laws had to be changed.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I've seen dumb stories posted to Slashdot before, but this one takes the booby prize for utter, heathen ignorance. Linux is simply the most famous and widespread of the FOSS distros. Rest assured, anybody who uses Linux is well aware of BSD, Open Solaris, and Minix, and more likely than not follows the progress of ReactOS, GNU/HURD, and other pocket niches such as Plan 9 from Bell Labs.
The only people married here is Microsoft married to the idea that they can defeat their main competitor on the PC by hiring asstroturfers to post FUD on how 'Linux is failing'. Yes, Boo-Hoo, I'm so discouraged, I guess I'll go turn myself in to Redmond for my mandatory borging now.
Fucking idiot.
The difference between GPL and BSD licenses:
1. GPL = code freedom
2. BSD = coders freedom
I care about people more than source code. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
As for the article, it makes a good point. I've had constant problems getting GNU types to accept patches for my BSD. I get lovely replies like "BSD is dead", "why not use linux?", "I only care about linux.", etc. This is a real problem. I know considering I'm working on BSD desktop environment. Linux adopters had to fight hard for drivers, applications and other things that many new linux users take for granted. Now the BSD community is fighting that fight and losing because people point at Linux. I'd argue that part of the problem is the corporate involvement in linux, but there are advantages to it as well. Plus FreeBSD seems to be getting handouts from companies as well. I'm not so lucky.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
except the developer whose motivation is philanthropy AND ego, this guy is interested in licensing his code so that in can only be used on his terms.
s/the developer/stallman/
Hey, I don't really have a problem with it, and I resent your language. Learn to talk nice, even if disagree, please. My personal opinion, if you care, is that they are poorly designed functions, but so are just about all the str* function (at least, for inclusion in the stdlib), and 2 more won't really hurt. As I said, it is the glibc team (and yes, Ulrich among them) and Linus that spearheaded rejection of that patch. (I found this out via searching the group with google; I'm sure you can do the same since you seem to care so much)
As I recall, the reasons (not my reasons, though I find them reasonably sounds) were:
Personally, if I ever wanted to do any development in C that involved more than a few string would be to pick up a better library, that handled the reallocs automatically. If none exists (which I sincerely doubt), I would write it. I prefer C++ for my own writings, or ruby or perl or something, depending on the job at hand.
As for Ulrich Drepper, from my few (electronic) impressions, seems a nice if passionate guy. I'm sure he does the best he can, and I for one appreciate all the efforts he does. He is quite stubborn, which I think is pretty much mandatory in the job he has.
Yes, valgrind helped in Z/Os, not that you can run it there, as I well know, but the bugs that appears in one system tends to be hidden on other systems as well... but for various, the bugs aren't triggered. The most common is branching on uninitialized data, which tend to be completely predicable for a given system. I squashed a great many bugs that way, which helped in the porting. Gdb doesn't run on Z/Os either, at least not in the installation I had. And yes, I've worked on Z/Os, the OS that tended to handle everything a little different. E.g, if you fork()'ed, you had to be sure only to close any sockets in one of the branches, as the FIN... sequence was sent on the first close. Great, eh? Or how about fork() not forking every file handle, automatically closing those it did not want to fork. No, the standards does not, as far as I could determine, prevent an OS from doing this. Add to that the pletora of compiler bugs in IBM's C++ compiler.... I was glad to get out of that.
My point was, most application are easy enough to port, inserting the configure or cmake or whatever checks as neccessary. At least, that is my experience. Of course, if the libraries it uses doesn't work... it can become a big issue. Luckily, I have escaped from that part during my porting works. Porting to windows is a bit harder, but if the GUI toolkit is available on windows (most are), it is not *that* hard, depending on the application of course.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
people adopted firefox cause it gave them real benefits that THEY actually cared about and cause it was not that hard (me personally, i cared bout tabs, security, book mark all tabs to folder, cntrl+ increases font)
/.s out there who have tried to sell products will tell yo0u that displacing an existing product wiht a variant is very very very...very hard.
why would I adopt linux when the barrier is high and there are no benfits. I personally don't care bout security and multi thread and all that crap; that linux has a cool desktop with a nice gui is like the ford dealer saying the car comes with 4 wheels, and adopting linux is a pain - gotta go out and get a new printer , gotta go out and get a new wireless card, gotta do this, gotta do that, for what ?
tell me why I - not you but me- wants linux
tell me some real vendors who sell predone machines (I went to dell/hp sites the other day, if preloaded consumer machines are there, they are hard to find)
the rant that drivers are the barrier is nonsense
the barrier is that linux does not do something new that people care about. people don't care about security and file systems and all that crap. maybe people are stupid, or dumb, or whatever, but you are learning something about life when you learn that all the technical crap in the world does not matter if people don't care about it.
one thing and one thing only will drive linux adoption to the desktop: do something that people care about
the corallary is that you have to patent it, to restrict MS and sun, otherwise they will just steal it, and even if they do it badly people wont care
I am sure any
call me troll, but I speak the truth: do something that people care about and they will come.
This issue is because several problems: 1) Like driving in Boston, if you do not know how to use the tool you do not belong here, so get out 2) My SDK is better than your SDK. 3) Because is not for profit, is for glory. I cannot be a follower (see #2) 4) Games, every time that I mentioned Linux to friends said NO GAMES (yes there is some games, but no like Windows) 5) Installers: Something so basic for a GUI do not exists for Linux (yes they are about 2000 of them, nothing works, if you do not believe me, see the Reviews for the Nvidia Driver installer) Problem with Linux GUI is that is fragmented into multiple camps, everyone has wonderful ideas and implementations, but they never are complete.
The userbase for GNU/Linux is the largest in all the Open Source OSes. Developers are shooting for the biggest audience. *BSD is certainly second in userbase numbers. Both appear in multiple variations to suit the needs of niche users. But, they are not monolithic in the many thousands of viable applications. The applications tend to be fast and light in the code, because they share support applications (ex: spellchecker is shared by 26 Office and editor, browser, programs). Open Source is code done right, from the first line through the full release it is inspected, detected, and bad parts rejected, by millions of developers, coders, users. Hey, it works for me, and for all of the Eastbrook Elementary kids, who prefer http://pclinuxos.com/ that you could run, so you would see how good FREEdom can be!
Once you DO get the Linux system the way you like it:
/etc
/etc/apt/sources.list
# tar cvfz etc_correctly_configured.tar.gz
If you running a Debian derivative add this too:
dpkg --get-selections > installed_packages.txt
You should use checkinstall to install any non repo software built from source and keep either the debs or source trees. All this can be tucked out of the way. Finally, keep a backup of your home directory on an external hard drive or burned to DVDs.
I can replicate my perfectly working setups in about four hours and most of that is waiting for apt-get to pull in and install the stuff. You don't want to drop the etc tarball on a new system. It is strictly a reference to save you from googling up how say mplayer works. I've certainly made judicious use of old config files though. What you can do with the installed_packages.txt file though is simply magical:
cp old_etc/apt/sources.list
dpkg --set-selections (less than symbol - f'ing lameness filter) installed_packages.txt
apt-get dselect-upgrade
Those three commands will install everything that was on the old system minus anything that didn't come from the repos; that is 95% of the work of replicating a system right there. But you kept all of that stuff or know where to find it?
If you aren't using a Debian derivative, I assume equivalent tricks can be played with yum.
The Linux console in framebuffer mode is pretty cool. A lot of Gentoo users typically have it loaded so as to use the spiffy bootsplash system, and the graphics consoles are wonderful.
If you are into text console stuff, there is Twin - Textmode window environment which is surprisingly neat. It can run bash boxes in a ncurses based environment. Gentoo had it in portage and it compiled easily for me. A bit rough around the edges, but cool.
Also, I just have to plug Turbo Vision for POSIX which is that classic Borland library used for the great DOS apps of yore. I've been tinkering with it on Gentoo amd64 and even submitted a patch for the terminal class upstream. (Yes, I managed to compile it with debugging symbols, and trace down a segfault using gdb). I'd love to see Turbo Vision get a little luvin' so that it can run Bash boxes like Twin can, for no real reason other that its just such a darned nifty (and fast) environment.
And back to the framebuffer graphics consoles themselves. I believe you can write SDL apps that use the framebuffer. There was a FBUI project going, but I think it's dead.
Clickety Click
The only area where Linux really lags in hardware support these days is wireless card support.
Another area where Linux lags in hardware support is with double or dual layer DVDs. For the past few months I've been looking for one for my Linux box but I haven't found one I can just walk into a store and pickup. Sure I may be able to order one but I want a physical brick and mortor store I can return it to if I have a problem with it. I'd also like it if my distro supports it, but as it is most of the drives my distro supports are single layered and discontinued.
FalconShould there be a Law?
While I somewhat disagree with your opinion that "Linux is ready for the desktop" (having your package management system break is NOT very user-friendly), I definitely agree with you when you say that Linux is "doing an excellent job" in entering the business desktop scene.
I have a lot of respect for ReactOS and the other free OSes out there, and I don't want to marginalize work that has gone into those systems, but I believe that improving Linux is the right direction. If an average PC user sees several operating systems with mediocre application and hardware support, she is not likely to want to try them out, because Windows offers a better experience than those operating systems. She will be more attracted to a single, powerful OS with lots of support that is easy to install. This is why Ubuntu is gaining popularity. Once I installed it, I fell in love and will probably never go back. Never again do I have to spend time on figuring out how to support my hardware. Everything works. I appreciate this the most because time is valuable to me - I am a college student at a fast-paced university, and I can't afford to spend lots of time on the inner details of my OS. I just want to use my computer.
The ONLY thing holding linux back from a desktop point of view at this point is a lack of a standardized LDAP backend for businesses thats as retardedly easy to work with as Active Directory (from an admin standpoint). _Thats it_
Not at all. What is holding Linux back from most people's desktops is that most users can't just walk into a store and buy a PC with Linux preinstalled. Most PCs have Windows preinstalled and Macs have OSX preinstalled, for most people to use Linux they have to install Linux themself, yet most people hardly ever install an OS, and I dare say that most of the tyme they do they do because the PC companies tech support said to reinstall the OS when they've had a problem and called tech support.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Oh, knock it off. The trouble with the BSD is that it's prone toward proprietary forks, which splits the community and bleeds off energy from the projects. Take a look at the Unix wars of the 80s. For that matter, take a look at Mac OS X.
On another front, I'm a bit disappointed that no one seems to be touting Linspire/Freespire as a distribution. It's one of the few that's really been targeting the consumer market.
I got a new PC with Linspire preinstalled a few months ago, and I've made mention of it a number of tymes. Once booted up it acts pretty much like Windows, so like you say, it's targetted at the consumer market. Get more OEMs to preinstall Linux and more stores to carry them is what it will take for linux to have a bigger market share.
FalconShould there be a Law?
none of the HP chipmunks were there running SCHEME?
They were in the software labs for the undergrads during that era.
The BSD is a wonderful license if you want to effectively place something in the public domain but can't bring yourself to accept that you might not get any credit for it... but IMO it's just a half-assed half-step towards making it PD.
The BSD License isn't all just about putting software into the PD, public domain. I'm not a developer myself, however as a photographer I'd like to work on graphics, photo editing, software comparable to Photoshop and if I were to put the effort required in developing such an app I'd want to be able to make money off of selling it without having someone else take the source code and selling it as well without paying me anything. More like what I'd like to do is to keep the code closed until I have made enough money to make it worthwhile then release or copyleft the code. Though I'm not sure I think the BSD license allows this whereas the GPL most definitely does not.
FalconShould there be a Law?
fragmentation.
If the GPL prevented fragmentation then what are all of the different distros? Isn't having all of them causing fragmentation?
FalconShould there be a Law?
You say 'iBook'. Which I assumes means you've got a much older laptop there. I completely agree, the G3 iBooks were real dogs. But you shouldn't extend that to the modern system. When I pull up something lightweight like a command line utility or an X11 app (running over Apple's X11 layer) the response is about as fast as any of my linux boxes.
Otherwise, about the only thing my linux install does faster is boot.
This is better than it used to be, but certainly Fink and DarwinPorts leave a lot to be desired. But as time has gone on, the free and open source mac software world has grown significantly. Most of the irreplacable linux-oriented apps are in a package manager, and there are great FOSS alternatives for many common mac tasks.
There are also some closed products that are so good that they beg for that fact to be excused. For example, the now extremely popular TextMate editor is something so incredibly good that if it and emacs had a fight, I'm not sure who'd win. And certainly TextMate is easier to get started with, Emacs has a very stiff learning curve and lacks the awesome video podcast showing tips and tricks.
You know, thinking about this, I realized that a lot of my linux stuff has to be outside the package structure too. If you're developing, you often get nightlies and betas well before any kind of package can be submitted and piped through. Personally I call this a wash. Most Linux distros update core components, provide a marginally complete but not terribly up-to-date package directory, and that's what OS X does.
Your information is outdated.
I find myself far more productive in OS X than in Linux, and I have used both for years and understand them both quite well. I think the real reason is that OS X has Quicksilver, whereas there is no good competition for that in the linux space.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Idiot... No, really...
I don't think the problem is with the penguin. It's the environment this penguin is trying to survive in...
Not the whole of it, anyway. A loosely connected collection of operating systems won't suddenly get popular, because that's just not promotable. It's a hell of a lot more feasible to get people to switch when you say "Get Ubuntu!" rather than "Get Linux! One of three hundred different flavors!" It's one distro that will rise up and take the desktop (well...hopefully).
Remember, kids: it's only judicial activism when the rulings support left-wing positions.
That's about the size of it, for right-wing positions. On the left, if a judge doesn't support their position s/he is an activist judge. And the same on the right. I say get back to the orignial meaning of the USA Constitution!!! Liberty and SMALL government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
WINE is. People aren't going to move to Linux *or any other* platform for much the same reason that Microsoft is tied to supporting decades-old software -- because people want all their stuff to work without having to become programmers themselves to get it working.
Trying to move consumers to another platform would simply erase all of the progress made by Linux -- you would have to start over and eventually end up at the same bottleneck. Pick your battles. It does no good to fight over the scraps of FOSS operating systems when MS still has a monopoly.
Game support especially is terrible for Linux, which is why WINE is so important. While games may seem trivial to some, the average consumer is going to balk whenever they hear the word "except". As in, this OS supports everything you would use a computer for, except...
Why would the average person use a different OS if it meant having less functionality? You have to keep in mind that concepts like open source are lost to people who don't work with source code. The key to beating Windows is to be compatible with it.
(See also: Macintosh)
Using firefox has no effect on what other apps I can run, or what hardware I can run. I don't have to change anything to put firefox on my windows box. Using linux means I have to change everything.
To compare linux/firefox marketshare, and conclude that the FSF must be doing something wrong is idiotic.
It's all about drivers and apps. Windows has them, Linux doesn't.
Linux hasn't failed to take over the world because it needs a microkernel or a different IP stack or whatever
I don't think so, Linux hasn't taken over because it is the rare PC that has Linux preinstalled. The vast majority of people don't buy a PC then install an OS. When they get home with a new PC all they want to do is set it up, plug it in, and have it work. When PCs with Linux preinstalled can be found anywhere and are easy to setup then they will gain market share.
FalconShould there be a Law?
A lot of these open-source projects are developed outside the United States. We want to be able to distribute this Windows clone in territories where courts have recognized patents on methods of communication defined by data processing algorithms (e.g. LZW, MP3).
As for WMA, well I see that as far less of a problem, however presumably the reason someone would be using WMA's is if they're using a portable device which plays them, in which case the software/codecs installed by the device would provide the playability?WMA player software on Windows relies on the codecs provided as part of the Windows Media Player software, which require a validly licensed copy of Windows to be present.
With the market-dominance of WMA-incompatible iPods I don't see this as a huge issue anyway.AAC is just as much patented, and FairPlay is just as much a trade secret, as WMA technologies.
Well IE, Media Player, and Office don't necessarily come into play here. [...] That software could be installed and run thanks to Windows compatability if necessary.Per copyright law, you'll have to have a validly licensed copy of Windows present in order to run these programs, so why not just use Windows and avoid the bother of maintaining a dual boot?
As far as the Windows 98 comment, why would Windows 98 be the Windows to mimic? Vista or XP seem the obvious choice.I was imagining the following use case: Windows 98 is released. Free software developers take years to clone all of its user interface, relying on the uncopyrightability of user interfaces under United States copyright case law (Lotus v. Borland). Before they finish, Windows XP is released. Or: Windows XP is released. Free software developers take years to clone all of its user interface. Before they finish, Windows Vista is released.
I live in the US. Our Constitution specifically mentions copyright as a specifically granted limited-time monopoly with legal enforcement. Our guiding philosophy also acknowledges the presence of certain (and unexhaustively enumerated) natural rights. I take this to mean that copyright is not a natural right.
Your political jurisdiction and views may differ.
I live in the USA too, and you're right. Copyrights aren't a natural right. It is a right, along with patents, granted by the Constitution to encourage progress in the arts and sciences. However congress has gone way past the point of encouraging progress by making the duration of copyrights last longer than the creater lives. If you want to encourage progress then you want creaters to continue creating, and one of the best ways is financial so you want copyrights to last a short period to encourage more creativity. Once a person creates a blockbuster, admittedly not many people do, they don't have much reason to create more.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Apple has contributed code back to the FreeBSD project. There are a few portions of darwin that were released under BSD license, etc. I'll agree there are many interesting bits under more restrictive licenses. Besides, OS X is just a continuation of NEXTSTEP anyway. Your 80s comment covered it already.
I don't know if I agree with your comment about bleeding either. Many BSD developers work on several projects. For instance, Oliver Fromme (sp?) recently proposed a patch for FreeBSD's init to allow chroot for use with Live CDs, etc. He also has worked with DragonFly.
There are also people who tried to join a project, but were pushed aside or treated unkindly. Most BSD forks start with conflict or a disagreement with direction. Isn't that one of the benefits of open source? You can explore different directions?
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
My mom can install Windows XP on a computer all by herself (Step 1: Insert OS CD, keep clicking next / yes / ok. Pick your time zone. Continue clicking next / yes / ok. Be sure to remove the CD when it tells you to. Step 2: Insert MoBo CD. Keep clicking next / yes / ok. Remove CD. Step 3: Insert Video Card CD. Keep clicking next / yes / ok. Remove CD. DONE!) I don't expect *nix to be THAT easy, but it would be nice to be confident that without having a secondary PC available, a given Linux can be installed on a 1 year old or less PC in less than 10 utterances of WTF, SOAB, or MFPOS.
I haven't tried to in several years but from I've heard some Linux distros are as easy to install as Windows. I may find out soon, I got a new PC and I've been thinking of setting it as a multiboot PC, currently it runs Linspire Linux but I'd like to try Ubuntu and maybe Kubuntu as well as gentoo and one or two more distros.
FalconShould there be a Law?
OS - Linux - OpenSolaris
JSP - Tomcat
DB - Postgres - Similar to Oracle, so if an upgrade is necessary you do have the Oracle Option.
Email Server - Sendmail - QMail - Postfix
IDE: Netbeans
Testing in a virtual environment: VMWare Workstation - Parallels
- Apple uses Postfix
Oh, knock it off. The problem with the GPL is that it's prone to proprietary dual-licensing schemes.
To contribute to a large GPLed project, it's required that you agree to legal documents whereupon you promise to give away your copyright to the project.
They then can dual-license it, or sell per-seat licenses, get rich, while you sit in a corner and suck your thumb, living in your mother's basement, coding for free.
At least with the BSD license, the code is yours, wherever and whenever you want it, be it in a community situation or a corporate setting. Hence, "freedom for coders." Your motivation to contribute to a code base should not be a "moral imperative", but a technical decision. I'll leave morality to religious zealots or for fans of personality cults that choose their leader's definition of "freedom."
Some coders just happen to think it's to their advantage they can use code that can be made into a proprietary fork. Besides, what is the point of having patches, in Linux, for a lot of shit you don't even have, and will never have? About one or two years ago, major commercial Linux distros were complaining that the kernel was too big.
Fact: the majority of open source project out there with "massive" adoption _do_ _not_ license under GPL or GPL-like terms. They are more like the BSD license. Even Google and Intel release BSDed code. Get real. The FSF religion is in the minority.
In fact, small ISVs probably do not want to develop for Linux, due to "GPL virus fear." I know some like that. Besides, Linux is a PITA, anyways. Too bad there's a lot of hype behind this thing now, instead of BSDs.
Linux is backed up by corporations that work on the same hardware. Consider that Apple, for instance, uses BSD code, because they have exclusive hardware and are not on the same competition niche as vanilla-hardware manufacturers. So, case in point, there is no "highl moral ground" explanation as to why IBM supports the GPL. They just commoditize their complements, as Joel Spolsky wrote.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
I would hate to get a call from someone who doesn't know what they're doing trying to set up Gentoo, but I don't know that I'd recommend Ubuntu or openSUSE because of the lack of effective package management when they're trying to get a new application running.
Have you checked out Linspire Linux? I don't know how well installation of it goes, my new PC came with it preinstalled, but Linspire maintains a warehouse of software that only requires a click to download and install. As long as you've got a broadband collection it's easier to install software in Linspire than in Windows.
FalconShould there be a Law?
to this:
less stress, semi-freedom of choice, higher availability, less crashes, higher productivity, increased to the max usability, what more *your suggestions*?
but first of all: it is non M.
Rhapsody in Numbers
A point perhaps -- and this may be a bug in the GPL -- but it's somewhat muted in the case of distributed ownership of copyright, as is the case of the Linux kernel. The copyright owners can't play games with you, because it's nearly impossible to even find all of them.
The FSF does things that way, it is true, but (1) I'm not worried about FSF corruption scenarios any time soon and (2) unlike nearly every other group out there, the FSF actually employs lawyers, so I'm inclined to cut them some slack if they tell me they need this for legal reasons.
If the Linux guys are demanding this now, that's a new one on me.
And how is this case any different from the BSD case? In the GPL case, if you don't like what the copyright holder is doing you can fork it and maintain a GPL version...
At least with the BSD license, the code is yours, wherever and whenever you want it, be it in a community situation or a corporate setting. Hence, "freedom for coders."
I disagree. What this really does do is encourage people to indulge in dreams of avarice, forking off the BSD version, adding some bells and whistles, and selling their proprietary version for a gazillion dollars. This is (a) largely a pipe dream, these days (b) likely to be a screw-the-coder scenario. The original authors don't often get a cut of the pie... unless they start pushing their own proprietary versions...
My motivation should be whatever I want it to be.
Note to self: don't take anyone seriously who uses the word "zealot". They can't see past the end of their nose.
And there are several popular distros to develop and test for to make sure installation is smooth and seamless like in Windows. Windows is a single distro and extremely predictable in that regard.
There hasn't been one Windows distro for years, and now with Vista there are even more. I lost track, but isn't there 4 or 5 versions of Vista?
Once a real and effective standard is settled upon in Linux (api, distro, installation and package maintenance mechanism) I suspect Linux would be much more popular on the layman's desktop.
And a lot less popular on geeks', power users', and developers' desktop. Once this happens less people will work on or develop for linux. Linux lets it's users setup their PCs the way they want, if it no longer does then they will use something else that will.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Yes, but the media says lots of stuff like that. We have also been hearing that the world is going to end this year, or in a few years, for thousands of years. People say stuff. Unless there is a radical change, we will continue hearing all of this stuff for a long time. Just try to ignore it.
Don't say "clearly" when referring to a speculation. You have a theory that answers a question. I have a different theory. I think the reason that Linux is not so popular is because Linux is not installed by default. Firefox, also, is not installed by default, but Firefox is much easier to install. There are bugs and problems with GNU / Linux / X / Gnome / KDE / etc, but there are bugs and problems with most software, even Windows. I think the general public would be happier with Linux if it suddenly and magically replaced Windows on all OEM computers. But that's probably not going to happen soon, so we can only speculate.
I never heard of those. Perhaps I'm not as geeky as others. I've been using Linux for the past year, and am happy with it. Part of the reason I chose Linux rather than looking at a bunch of free solutions is that I had heard of Linux, and knew that the user and developer bases were strong and solid. So, maybe people ignore those OSes because other people ignore those OSes? Kind of like saying AROS is to Linux as Linux is to Windows?
Yeah. There are pros and cons to monocultures. On the the con side, it leads to less choice for users, and inappropriate solutions for developers. It leads to webmasters and developers only writing for one platform, which can be especially a nuisance if that platform is buggy.
On the plus side, a monoculture, or in this case, a limited culture, consolidates users and developers. Developers can concentrate on just a few OSes, rather than hundreds. Do you know of any AROS user groups? It's easier to find help on the internet for something that more people use.
I mean really, you practically answered it yourself.
As big as it is, Linux is too small a community and userbase to ever usurp Windows on the desktop. So you ask why even *smaller* projects can't do it either?
The fact of the matter is that any desktop OS is in the unenviable catch-22 of "noone uses our OS because there's not enough software, and there's not enough developers making software because noone uses it."
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
I've run into some odd problems running Linux software under Cygwin. Nothing insurmountable; the developers just hadn't tried it under that platform. In general, the fixes were pretty straightforward, standards-compliance sorts of things.
It supposedly also runs as part of Sun's Java Desktop System, under Cygwin (which is kind of Linuxy, I suppose), and under a large variety of Unix-like systems. Supposedly. If people were actually using it, there would be portability bug reports, right?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Using the old Betamax example - when consumers (even businesses) are faced with a decision where added cost or complexity or having to wait - competes with a technology that is "good enough" or "works well enough to get the job done" and that technology is readily available ....... the answer is a no-brainer (literally). If its good enough and works most of the time its a done deal - hence MS on the desktop.
.... you might have a horse race
The consumer (i.e. a non-geek) will make the simple decision every time.
I know longer think about Linux torpedoing MS - I use Linux because its superior for both my home computing and for servers at work. I also use Macs, and when I have to I use Xpeeee.
Now if Linux was as mature as it is now when Win95 came out
Its not the years, its the mileage
So... you can't tell the difference between criticizing current copyright terms, decrying the rise of grotesquely grabby DRM software and bitching about incredibly harsh penalties for minor copyright infringements, and the pirate-worshipping strawman you've set up there? Man, it must suck to be you.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It should be noted that it is far easier for the average home / work user to use Firefox instead of IE than it is for said user to switch completely to a Free Software operating system such as GNU/Linux or BSD.
This article speak about Linux, the fact that I use Windows or Mac is irrelevant, but indeed I am thinking about switching to the Mac, but the Photoshop license are not transferable.
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
I not unix admin anymore, I don't say I need office, I use OpenOffice to write tps report and stack them under my red stapler.
Photoshop, because I love taking picture of my vacantion (http://denis.b.bergeron.googlepages.com/) and that why I need photoshop. I prefert gimp, because I know it better, but it doesn't support raw files and 32 bits images.
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
The parent are not a flamebait, hum some a$$h*le receive mod point !
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Hum flamebait and Redundant, this site is loaded woth a$$h*le with mod point who don't know what is a flamebait!
For the Redundant point, hum I was the 18th post, when I post an no one speak about this probleme what did Redundant mean !
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
did Netcraft confirm this?
Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
Why people like an O/S is somewhat like a discussion of the technical merits of blonds vs. redheads. I like the better user interface of Linux, with realistic choices for both GUI and a command line interface where that makes sense. People develop free software for attaboys, not money, and frankly how many will you get if you write for one of the O/S variants even geeks don't recognize?
People write desktop for Linux because it's the only viable open source alternative to Windows at the moment, and as a fringe benefit the Mac folks can use most applications as well.
Wine as it exists today smart ass, not a version from 1999 that can't run any windows software at all.
Yes, I am counting manufacturer drivers. Many (but not all) people using Linux or *BSD would be willing to install proprietary drivers from the CD bundled with the device, if such drivers weren't entirely ENOENT. Why can't I find a single NIC or scanner with a drawing of a penguin in the corner of the box?
Hey, this is a great idea... since all the open source desktop developers have yet to make one truly compelling desktop environment, let's just splinter the group and get them working on several unrelated projects. That ought to speed things up.
Linux has critical mass and is the most mature open source OS. Let's get it to the point where it's on 50% of new PC's, then maybe we can start toying with other ideas.
Personally I think Linux has a good chance of taking on Windows even more so than Mac, but a few things have to get doen first. 1. These developers need to realize that most people do not care to do any compiling or anything else special to install a package and go. There needs to be something that will do this for the person so that only an executable is used. 2. One unified desktop, or at least one that runs programs for any of the major ones and is completly transparent to the user. 3. Absolutly no CLI. GUI apps need to be made that are nice looking and feature filled, and do not require a user to run a CLI to do anything they normally do. 4. Honestly, a better bootup screen would help as well. And faster.. much faster. Linux takes a long time to start up compared to windows or QNX. But it needs a more professional look to it at the boot screen as well. 5. Good advertising. Linux doesnt really have any advertising. MS advertises, even on TV. Their name is know. Linux companies need todo the same or there isnt a chance in hell of Linux going far because few will know much about it. Those that do know have it in their head it is hard and a geek OS. That image needs to change.
I don't know anybody using open-source OS other than Linux? Why should you bother to ask people to work other open-source OS that almost nobody uses?