Virtues of Monoculture, Or Why Microsoft Wins

blackbearnh writes to ask, "Why does Microsoft win the development environment war so often, when we all know it's a lifetime lock-in to Windows? Perhaps it's because the open source community offers too much choice." From the post: "Microsoft offers the certainty of no choices. Choice isn't always good, and the open source community sometimes offers far too many ways to skin the same cat, choices that are born more out of pride, ego, or stubbornness than a genuine need for two different paths. I won't point fingers, everyone knows examples... The reality is that there are good, practical reasons that drive people into the arms of the Redmond tool set, and we need to accept that as a fact and learn from it, rather than shake our fists and curse the darkness."

Comments

FAQ item

[Wonko the Sane]

This really needs to be put in a FAQ somewhere.

Does this author have a valid point? Probably
Is this point, and any relevant discussion, different from the last time this was brought up a few months ago?

Probably not.

Re:FAQ item

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the author does have a point. After using Vista, I think it's the money put behind discovering the the sweetspot, and zeroing on that. Is Vista perfect, no. But is that a reflection of my deviation from the exact center of the sweetspot, or microsofts failure to anticipate users wants and needs. No, I think that they cast a wide and tight net, catch 95% of the fish, and the rest serve everyone else. Which is good, a real and public good, which doesn't seem to be recognized by the article. Vista will win me back from KDE, it already has honestly. I even had occasion to use OS X intensively this week, and it is not for me. But that heterogenious nature of the OS spectrum insures no one has to go unserved. If Vista had been a horrible catastrophe in my eyes, KDE would have continued to serve me well. Failing that, 2k. To be sure there is someone with a MacBook out there thinking "I love OS X, but worst case scenerio, but if I had to settle, Gnome is good enough." Now if me and him were to meet there would jungle rythems and one of us would be Kirk, and the other would be a lizard man in a loincloth. But the fact remains that while Microsoft serves most, likely best, all should be served as they wish, even if it's a cloud of rabbid individuals who demand full control, no matter how byzantine, over their user experience. We are all discreet elements in an appearently continuous spectrum.

Re:FAQ item

[Wonko the Sane]

The only definite point I got from that article was "sometimes too much choice is bad". I don't think you can really seriously argue with that statement, but on the other hand it'd not all that helpful either.

Re:FAQ item

[CokoBWare]

/* begin flamebait comment */

Does the open source community do anything to change it's fractured ways since the last time this was mentioned?

Probably not. /* end flamebait end */

I agree with him... I think open-source software is awesome. But there is too much fractured choice in the OSS community, and sometimes businesses are better managed and operate smoother when OSS is not part of the equation.

Just my opinion... I know someone will flame me *toast* *poof*

Re:FAQ item

[mrsteveman1]

No you shouldn't be flamed, you haven't said anything incorrect.

The difference i think is management, which Microsoft has, however flawed, and open source as a general rule, does not. Even within single projects there is useless argument, and forks for ridiculous reasons. In most cases, the required action is for one party to be kicked in the ass, hard. There are RARE cases where the majority of the community sees something going wrong and forks, such is the case with X.org.

Then you have cases like gnome and kde, which each develop totally redundant, sometimes useless ways to do the same thing, sometimes neither one does it well either.

Over and over again i see MAJOR parts of the system literally missing, like a device manager, while other parts, like file managers or office applications (openoffice, gnome office, koffice) are developed 3 or 4 times over in parallel by groups who either refuse to use code from another group simply because it has a G- or a K- in front of its name, or neglect to even look around to see if someone has already coded a similar app that could be used and improved.

In all honesty, gnome and kde have driven me away from linux for everything but core server use, and my next laptop will be a Macbook simply because i'm tired of it all.

Re:FAQ item

[Teh Noob Cheese]

I don't think the author does have a point. After using Vista, I think it's the money put behind discovering the the sweetspot, and zeroing on that. Is Vista perfect, no. But is that a reflection of my deviation from the exact center of the sweetspot, or microsofts failure to anticipate users wants and needs. No, I think that they cast a wide and tight net, catch 95% of the fish, and the rest serve everyone else. Which is good, a real and public good, which doesn't seem to be recognized by the article. Vista will win me back from KDE, it already has honestly. I even had occasion to use OS X intensively this week, and it is not for me. But that heterogenious nature of the OS spectrum insures no one has to go unserved. If Vista had been a horrible catastrophe in my eyes, KDE would have continued to serve me well. Failing that, 2k. To be sure there is someone with a MacBook out there thinking "I love OS X, but worst case scenerio, but if I had to settle, Gnome is good enough." Now if me and him were to meet there would jungle rythems and one of us would be Kirk, and the other would be a lizard man in a loincloth. But the fact remains that while Microsoft serves most, likely best, all should be served as they wish, even if it's a cloud of rabbid individuals who demand full control, no matter how byzantine, over their user experience. We are all discreet elements in an appearently continuous spectrum

Whoever gave this 0 is obviusly biased towards OS-X or something I give you a 5 for writing a story about you're opinion. Why? Because somebody with two sentances of nothingness got a 5 I am dissapointed in whoever rated this..... And yes I agree with what you said,"for the most part". God dang OS-X user probably rated you 0 cause he uses it, just stupid. But the main problem there is that its not on the main page of this article, and it should.

Re:FAQ item

[tftp]

groups who either refuse to use code from another group

• How many programmers have you seen who like to use someone's else (NIH) code?
• How many programmers produce code that is worth reusing?
• How many programmers write structured, reusable code to begin with?
• How many of the F/OSS programmers have design specifications finished and approved before the first line of code is written? Compare to the realities of commercial programming. This affects the structure of the code.
• How long will it take you to find the free code instead of writing it from scratch? You need to match: license, language, interface, libraries, and other requirements. You also need a good documentation on the code that you are reusing (guess that excludes many F/OSS projects right here) because if you plan to read through the source you indeed might be better off just writing your own.

Besides, many F/OSS people write code not just because they want to produce something specific, but because they like to write the code. There are many babies in the world, but every woman wants her own, strangely enough.

What commercial coding adds is discipline. Your manager may order you to write this documentation, or to use that library - because he has a reason, good or bad. And he has power to make sure you do it. If the project requires coding an ugly routine in an ugly language a F/OSS coder would rather not do it, and he'd be right - he is not paid to suffer. But a commercial coder will do the job, even if it involves 8052 assembly language instead of Python on Planes :-) Every job has its unpleasant parts, and while a F/OSS coder can skip them a commercial coder can not; if the spec calls for an embedded testing code, for example, or Doxygen comments, you put it in.

Discipline and dictatorial approach affect the result a lot. Basically, every commercial product is designed either by one person, or by very small group of people. This person (or group) has complete control over every aspect of the product; s/he might be wrong but at least the product is consistent, and not designed by a committee as it sometimes happens.

In addition to that, commercial products pass the rigorous testing by the free market, and that testing starts when someone thinks about the very idea of a new product. The project may not go forward until there is a good plan how it will be sold, and to who, and for how much. If these numbers make no sense then the product won't be even made. In F/OSS world, for example, I am free to write - and to release into the world - yet another clone of Vi or Notepad (we have hundreds by now, probably.) These clones haven't been weeded out by the market, and so many of them are not viable - but they are out there, just polluting the set of choices because someone will pick some and will be disappointed. You can't reasonably expect a user to choose one out of so many apps? That is a problem.

And, as someone already mentioned, if you combine AbiWord, KWord and OO's Writer you still don't get MS Word, even though the combined labor that went into all three is probably comparable. Effort dispersed, spent on competing projects is ultimately wasted. But it is so hard to join efforts because compromises and agreements are needed. In a business that would not be a problem.

Re:FAQ item

[chromatic]

How many of the F/OSS programmers have design specifications finished and approved before the first line of code is written? Compare to the realities of commercial programming.

What commercial coding adds is discipline.

Discipline and dictatorial approach affect the result a lot. Basically, every commercial product is designed either by one person, or by very small group of people. This person (or group) has complete control over every aspect of the product; s/he might be wrong but at least the product is consistent, and not designed by a committee as it sometimes happens.

Where in the world have you worked? This is so far from my experience that I'm starting to wonder if I ever worked in software at all.

Re:FAQ item

[tsdw]

This is the elephant in the room that nobody notices (or something to that effect) While its great in theory, too many choices lead to indecision and apathy. Its a truism I say

Re:FAQ item

[Tanuki64]

Where in the world have you worked? This is so far from my experience that I'm starting to wonder if I ever worked in software at all.

Hey, his error is understandable. My company told me the same lies when I started there. ;-)

Re:FAQ item

[tftp]

There are plenty of places that subscribe to CMM and in some markets (government/military, medical/life-related, aerospace, etc.) you can't even get a proposal out if you are not CMM/CMMI all the way through. I work for one of those markets.

Re:FAQ item

[SillyNickName4me]

The difference i think is management, which Microsoft has, however flawed, and open source as a general rule, does not. Even within single projects there is useless argument,

That you as a customer don't get to see the useless arguments does in no way mean they don't exist. Having worked with Microsoft (on OS software no less, and worked WITH, I never was a MS employee) I am pretty sure that they have plenty of them.

and forks for ridiculous reasons. In most cases, the required action is for one party to be kicked in the ass, hard. There are RARE cases where the majority of the community sees something going wrong and forks, such is the case with X.org.

So, you ignore forks for ridiculous reasons, whats the problem there?

Re:FAQ item

[Aladrin]

Yeah, he's wrong about 'every commercial product is designed either by one person, or by very small group of people'. But small companies DO tend to have a strict visionary leading the way. The company I work for does. Every time I am blinded by possibilities, I simply ask. He always has an answer, and it usually goes WAY deeper than I was thinking when I asked the question. He's got a goal clearly in mind and the programming team is how he's going to get there.

So instead, I'd say that initially, every -new- commercial product is -dreamt- 'either by one person, or by very small group of people.' Where it goes from there makes the difference.

FOSS projects, on the other hand, may have come from that, but they might also just be someone's passing fancy.

I really like the idea of Extreme Programming and building an app a little at a time. But I've found it's a LOT easier to have a vision of the end-goal and work towards that, rather than work on a little piece at a time as if that piece was a distinct unit. Commercial vs FOSS is kind of like that, too. A commercial product typically heads right for the goal, where a FOSS project has a smaller goal, then a larger one, then... etc etc. It grows, instead of being built.

Re:FAQ item

[JohnFluxx]

> Does the open source community do anything to change it's fractured ways since the last time this was mentioned?

Take a look at freedesktop.org.

* Sharing of sound system - both Gnome and KDE 4 will work with gstreamer
* Joining of messaging system. It was dcop (kde) and corba (Gnome). Now both will use DBus
* Common themes that make kde and gnome apps look the same.

Plus lots of 'small' points. Both follow the .desktop standard for menu items, actions etc. Both use the freedesktop.org icon naming system, and mimetype system, and so on.

Re:FAQ item

[WilliamSChips]

Okay, you now get 1048576 choices for car, portable music player, TV, political party, religion, Computer, food, clothes, camera, restaurant chain, color, race, ...etc.

Re:FAQ item

[Secrity]

Two things;

I needed a duplicate file finder for Windows; I googled for it and found a huge selection, I tried several and found that almost all of them were crap and the one that wasn't crap wanted money to use it. I googled for a F/OSS duplicate file finder and found that many people said good things about FSLint. I installed FSLint and it works fine for me. As a bonus, FSLint has no nag screens and it installed much easier than the dupe finders for Windows.

I don't know where you did program development, where I did program development it was done by a number of committees that required MANY conference calls. There were even project managers who did nothing but conduct weekly conference calls and send out MS Project files before and after each weekly meeting. There were committees that did database design, committees that did GUI or web design, committees that did middle ware design, there were sys admin committees; and all too frequently there were committees that the main groups of committees, including the project managers, didn't even know existed.

Re:FAQ item

[garaged]

I don't think you are serious

If someone has used KDE productively, it means that he knows what is good about it and linux/bsd/*nix in general, he must have discovered the stability and reliability.

And if you can afford and want to buy the hardware required for vista plus the license, even when all it provides is a new desktop (beryl is pretty much the same) then you have a problem, I would not trust your decisions too much

Re:FAQ item

[ScottSwanson]

The status "FAQ item" is only appropriate if the answer never changes. The fact that it has been discussed before does not mean that it should not be discussed in the future. Every time it is brought up new people will be exposed to the issue. People who have seen it before might have changed their opinion on the issue. My personal opinion is that open-source software will only succeed when a sufficiently large number of people agree to stop forking projects for spurious reasons instead of putting their effort into improving the existing first- or second-most popular project in a given category.

Re:FAQ item

[neural cooker]

There is a lot of holes in what you are saying. Most of it simply isn't true. I think generally you are assuming that if something will increase the quality of the project then F/OSS developers won't do it because it takes some work and they are just doing it for fun or something. I think you are also assuming that commercial developers don't have a choice and must do it "the right way".

This is not really true for either case in my experience. I've done a lot of commercial software and I'll tell you the focus is never on the quality of the product beyond just getting the damn thing done while meeting the known requirements and under budget. The little bit of F/OSS software that I've worked on was all about the quality of the work, there were no budgets or running to meet some sales deadlines or expectations or what have you, just the natural desire that developers have to do good work. This desire is overshadowed by other needs of the company in commercial software.

Since commercial software is participating in a market, it's not the quality of the software that matters so much but it's the revenue that it can generate. Mostly the business and marketing is the key player in success of these products not quality of product. In F/OSS the main goal is the software itself so they don't have to worry about all that other junk. They are the ones that are free to do it right.

Re:FAQ item

[bob.appleyard]

In addition to that, commercial products pass the rigorous testing by the free market, and that testing starts when someone thinks about the very idea of a new product. The project may not go forward until there is a good plan how it will be sold, and to who, and for how much. If these numbers make no sense then the product won't be even made. That sounds more like "rigorous testing by some committee in my company."

Re:FAQ item

[TorKlingberg]

A lot of FOSS code is actually written by paid developers. Especially in the bigger projects like OpenOffice.org, KDE, the Linux kernel etc.

Re:FAQ item

[sheepweevil]

Microsoft: I am going to kill you with a rusty knife in your kidney. Me: Great! I don't like choice.

Re:FAQ item

[jedidiah]

Ok, name all 1048576 GUI app development libraries for Linux.

Can you even name 5 distinct ones?

I'd be surprised if you got past the 3 that have already been mentioned here.

You twits are complaining about "excessive choice" when there really isn't any. Just like with the other things you mentioned, there a small number (single digit) number of meaningful choices. There are other choices too IF YOU GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO HUNT THEM DOWN.

The "burden" is vastly overstated.

Re:FAQ item

[pherthyl]

Effort dispersed, spent on competing projects is ultimately wasted. But it is so hard to join efforts because compromises and agreements are needed. In a business that would not be a problem.

Firstly, effort dispersed is not wasted. The atmosphere in different teams leads to different implemented ideas, and inspiration/motivation for the other team.

But more importantly, your analogy is completely flawed. You can't compare the whole of open source software to one company. It is sometimes hard to get different OSS projects to co-operate with each other, just like it would be impossible to get all the companies of the world to co-operate. After all, why is there not just one widget maker in the world? Wouldn't it be more productive if all the widget companies pooled their expertise and made one superwidget?

Re:FAQ item

[chromatic]

I really like the idea of Extreme Programming and building an app a little at a time. But I've found it's a LOT easier to have a vision of the end-goal and work towards that, rather than work on a little piece at a time as if that piece was a distinct unit.

That seems perfectly compatible with XP and agile development to me. A friend of mine wrote an excellent piece on product vision in agile development as part of an upcoming book.

Re:FAQ item

[drinkypoo]

there is too much fractured choice in the OSS community, and sometimes businesses are better managed and operate smoother when OSS is not part of the equation.

I strongly disagree. Choice is always positive. You have the option to go with the solution that best fits your needs. You may or may not have noticed but Microsoft isn't the only company selling software that runs on Windows. Even on Windows you have a choice! You don't have to use Exchange for your mailserver, for example, even on Windows. There are numerous other options and many of them are in broad use today.

As such, this article is pure bullshit. Windows offers you choice. Linux offers you choice. It's choice all around. Of course, Linux offers you Freedom. You can get some freedom on Windows but the OS is closed. But that's not what this article is about, I'm just offering a quick summary for comparison.

But basically I want to make the argument that choice is not the problem. Idiots are the problem. FTFA, "IT managers and CIOs look at it and call it chaos, confusion and uncertainty." Well, my father says the same thing about hip-hop, but it doesn't make him right. The Free Software world presents a fundamentally new model and it is no surprise that some people have not adjusted to it. It's not even based on age; some people just aren't flexible. It's not their fault, but at the same time, we shouldn't be listening to these people, or especially taking them seriously.

The world is a complicated place which is always in flux. The world of software is the same. And even if it were actually true that Windows presented a monoculture devoid of choice (which it isn't) then that wouldn't be a benefit anyway. When you buy Microsoft products, they either do what you need or not. When you use Linux products, if they don't do what you need, you can either find an alternative to what isn't working for you, or you can make it work the way you need to (through paid development if you lack the skills/employees with the skills.)

Chaos, confusion, and uncertainty? That's life. To the untrained eye, the world of Linux might look that way. But I believe that if you want to approach the truth, you're going to have to say that Linux is simply the system that best fits the real world. Also, a fundamental tenet of the Open world is that standards are more important than products. And frankly, I don't care if someone knows a product. I want someone to know the concepts, because then they can learn any product. If they can't, I don't want to work with them. I want people whose brains are still able to absorb new ideas and integrate their experiences into their personality and their learning.

Anyone who complains that the Open Source landscape is too cluttered simply hasn't learned how to see it properly.

Re:FAQ item

[einhverfr]

Well, I can give you my experience from forking LSMB:

How many programmers have you seen who like to use someone's else (NIH) code?

Not so many, but our team would rather maintain a smaller codebase using a lot of external dependencies than a large codebase. The SQL-Ledger author did not take this approach and actually went as far as to copy Perl code out of standard CPAN modules. However, he had a serious NIH problem and only resorted to that once.

How many programmers produce code that is worth reusing?

Quite a number, but still a small minority ;-)

How many programmers write structured, reusable code to begin with?

All the really good programmers do, IMO. But they are still a small minority.

How many of the F/OSS programmers have design specifications finished and approved before the first line of code is written? Compare to the realities of commercial programming. This affects the structure of the code.

Sure that affects the structure of the code, but it is not the only way to get well structured code. The LedgerSMB project, for example, requests design proposals for modifications. This is true even of those with commit access. So instead of a single spec, we have a set of smaller specs with a single coding standard and an emphasis on re-use.

My experience working with commerical code suggests that with the exception of development environments, most code, FOSS or not, is in bad shape, mostly for the reasons you mention. I am not sure that commercial code is any better than FOSS. In fact, it may be the other way around. I know people are going to read my code, so I try to make it readable. Indeed, I have gotten a lot of comments about how readable my code is.

I also believe that good bug-free software comes from sound structure of the codebase. The SQL-Ledger codebase (and hence LedgerSMB for now) suffers from the fact that the code is sufficiently unstructured that fixing something one place is very likely to break something somewhere else (we had a *lot* of problems with this in 1.2.x). By 2.0, we expect to have a well-structured application that others can reuse as they see fit. But that may be 1-2 years away.

Re:FAQ item

[MajorCatastrophe]

I think the author does have a good point. Sadly, all too many replies to this thread have resorted to ludicrous extremes and car analogies in order to dodge the point.

Choice IS good, but it using it as a wildcard argument for hackers to do whatever the hell they want is an abuse of choice. As the author says, choice for the sake of choice serves no practical, technical purpose, save to confuse users and massage the egos of coders with incurable NIH syndrome. I find it ironic that a community that so frequently preaches sermons on the merits of standards is so quick to take issue with anyone who dares to suggest that unlimited choice is a bad thing, especially with respect to the basics.

The choices I take issue with are really the fundamental things, such as where programs are installed in different distros. For example, on my system Open Office is under /usr/share, on other systems it goes under /opt - why? What purpose does this serve? Or package management; why does the community insist on having so many different ways to put an executable under /usr/bin, docs under /usr/share/doc etc. These programs all do fundamentally the same thing just with different command line arguments, why does that require so many different implementations? Why so many sound systems, printing systems, GUI desktop APIs; different user environments is fine, but different APIs and configuration as well, duplicating masses of infrastructure?

This is not like trying to argue we don't need different types of car/fruit/pick you favourite analogy. These are fundamental things that affect Linux based OSs as stable, consistent targets to develop for, which is important from a testing and support perspective as well.

It's easy (and fashionable) to hate Microsoft, and acknowledging what's good about what they produce seems to be treated as an unforgivable sin. But the Linux community would do well to understand what developers genuinely like about developing for Windows, and what they don't like about developing for Linux, and standardise on some solutions.

Re:FAQ item

[sgt_doom]

Unless Monoculture is the latest buzzword for monopoly, I think someone is woefully confused (i.e., the author, of course). Factual history would suggest monopoly, definitely not monoculture, unless we're talking the spread of bacteria here......

Re:FAQ item

[GWBasic]

In all honesty, gnome and kde have driven me away from linux for everything but core server use, and my next laptop will be a Macbook simply because i'm tired of it all.

I saw that coming back when I turned my back on Linux in 1999/2000. I recently bought a MacBook, and when my Windows desktop died, (which I use as a Server,) I replaced it with a MacPro.

This week, I set up my first cron job ever. You know what I realized: Unix is really cool when you have a GUI system on top of it that actually works!

+5 (Obvious)

[dreamchaser]

A monoculture is not 'diluted' by various compteting camps. The very nature of Open Source allows for such diversity that it will obviously be split ito smaller groups of enthusiasts. It's the nature of the beast.

Re:+5 (Obvious)

[TubeSteak]

The very nature of Open Source allows for such diversity that it will obviously be split ito smaller groups of enthusiasts. It's the nature of the beast.

To many choices are demotivating.
People feel overwhelmed and decide not to choose anything.
That is basic psych.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=too+much+choi ce

Re:+5 (Obvious)

[gusmao]

Actually, that's how open source brings in innovation. Since there is so many choices, there is a kind of natural selection between projects and only the best ones end up succeeding. You just have to check source forge to see how many dead projects exist, and how in the end only the projects which were more robust, documented, organized and tackled the problem more effectively are still alive.

Re:+5 (Obvious)

[Rayin]

Actually, that's how open source brings in innovation. Since there is so many choices, there is a kind of natural selection between projects and only the best ones end up succeeding. You just have to check source forge to see how many dead projects exist, and how in the end only the projects which were more robust, documented, organized and tackled the problem more effectively are still alive.

Which only reinforces the author's ideas. Who wants to spend time and effort working on a project for one platform/language/architecture/component system/etc., only to find it dead a few months later? At least with Windows, there is the certainty that 10 years from now, your project will still perform well, with relatively minor modifications to adjust for OS updates, for a massive number of users. Contrast that your view of the open source community, and you will quickly see why many people make the decision to go with Windows.

The reality, however, is that while there are many dead projects, there is quite a bit of stability in open source, as long as you stick to the basics. Just look at the LAMP architecture, and you will see a programming paradigm that is here to stay for quite some time. Ultimately, for the well-informed developer, I would feel that, for some applications at least, open source is better than Windows. Here I'm thinking primarily of web-based applications. Developing apps for specific desktop environments in Linux, however, can be a bit more risky and time-consuming, and it is in this arena that I much prefer to stick to Windows, regardless of the fact that a program built for Windows will be accessible to a much larger target market than one built for KDE or Gnome.

Re:+5 (Obvious)

[tsdw]

People feel overwhelmed and decide not to choose anything. As the great storytellers of RUSH say: If you choose not to decide, still you have made a choice :)

Re:+5 (Obvious)

[pjay_dml]

If you actually had read the ongoing research, you would know, that it is unstructured choice that makes it difficult for consumers, and hence turns them off. If you offer structure, i.a. distributions, they are happy to choose from a wide variety. If your simplistic views were true, jeans wouldn't have been selling for years. Not to mention, that consumption would be going down, not up, as modern production has allowed for an incredible increase in the selection of products.

Oh, and just to mention an example outside of consumerism. I haven't heard of people living in cities dating less either. Although there is a far greater choice. People start to choose avenues that allow for "structured choices". Be it dating services, relying on networks, the clubbing scene, you name your favourite distribution, or community.

And in regards to your inflammatory remark, this is not basic psych, but business psychology. Huge difference. Just as basic engineering is not aerospace engineering.

Re:+5 (Obvious)

[Aladrin]

"it is unstructured choice that makes it difficult for consumers"

I'll agree with that. Now tell me where the structure is in choosing a distro for Linux.

MS offers choices in their new Vista, and the 5 or so versions that they offer is an almost unbearable choice for consumers. ('Ohhh, do I really need feature X? What if I choose not to get it, and need it later?') At least they have a chart that shows you the features and what you'll be missing if you buy the cheap ones.

Linux offers dozens of distros and I've never yet seen a chart that shows the pros and cons of each one, or even the biggest 5. For instance, check this page. http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2005/10/ 27/what-is-a-linux-distribution.html It says 'Choosing a Linux Distribution' and lists the major ones. Does it tell you what they do? No, it tells you how they were born. WTF good is that?? It does recommend Debian for servers, and Ubuntu for newcomers. But it doesn't say the features at all.

So it's unstructured choice. You could spend months on the net researching distros before you actually found the one that suited you. With the Windows Vista chart, it would take an hour, tops.

BTW, that link was the first result from Googling 'linux distro chart' and none of the other results even seem relevant.

Re:+5 (Obvious)

[jedidiah]

It's Linux. Just like the variants of Windows, they all do the same thing.

The Windows variants don't even provide any real differences. It's just a matter
of paying more for features you might want to use.

The "why are they here" probably address why they are distinct from everyone else.
The fact that Ubuntu was created to be user friendly is most certainly relevant to
someone trying to choose as is the fact that Debian is well respected as a server
distribution.

Both are just operating systems. Most of the rest is just bolt ons. This includes
just about EVERYTHING you could likely find in a comparison between various forms
of Windows.

Although buying a collection of the most popular ones and just TRYING them for
yourself is hardly a problem. You make it sound like consumers can are no longer
capable of going for test drives or trying things on or tasting things before they
buy them.

You're just trying to perpetuate at consumer culture of total laziness. Nevermind
evaluating the product or trying to find out if it has glaring problems as reported
by consumers union. Just hand over money for the first thing shoved in your face.

Doesn't anyone just SHOP anymore?

Re:+5 (Obvious)

[Aladrin]

Shop? Have you SEEN the selection out there? I'm sure they DO shop... For things they CARE about. Most users don't have ANY clue what the OS itself does. They don't care, and shouldn't have to. It's the apps on top of it that matter.

My father would rather be shopping for new tools. My mother, clothes. My sisters, toys for their kids and clothes for themselves. None of them have ANY interest in shopping for an OS.

You shop for things that will DO something for you. If you can't tell the difference between 2 apparently identical items, how do you decide between them? You buy the most popular one. In this case, it's even more simple: Windows runs all their current programs and Linux does not. That's why they choose it. You can advocate Linux all day long and that's what will make 99% of 'users' choose Windows. (This does not include anyone with any computer know-how.)

Re:+5 (Obvious)

[Endo13]

You're right, the problem isn't so simple as just "too many choices". The problem is too many choices in a type of product where most consumers don't know what the differences are between the choices and most don't WANT to know. The average consumer really doesn't even care about the differences between Windows and Linux, let alone all the differences between the different variations of Linux. Combine that with the fact that most software easily available to the average consumer works on Windows (and only Windows) well, it's a pretty obvious choice. Especially when most consumers don't even know that Linux exists, and wouldn't care about it if they did know.

My personal intuition is that until some large, well-established company with lots of funding available (Google I'm looking at you...) partners up with an easy-to-use, already-popular distro (Ubuntu sounds like a good choice) and runs with it, Linux will never claim any significant market-share in home desktop use.

At this point I wouldn't even care if such a project were commercialized to the neck and priced the same as Windows. At least it would give us another real option that everyone would take very seriously.

Re:+5 (Obvious)

[thsths]

> Linux offers dozens of distros and I've never yet seen a chart that shows the pros and cons of each one

I have seen a few, but they are rare. Most charts focus too much on completeness, which leads to a long long list of niche distros. Wikipedia is the perfect example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_d istributions . But then there are also good ones, like http://www.emperorlinux.com/quality/value/distros/ . That may not be complete, and not exhaustive, but it is at least helpful.

de facto standards

[swordgeek]

What the monopoly says, goes. They define a standard. Because they're MS, they define a standard that's different and incompatible with official standards. You either go with the market, or you swim upstream. This is about as clever as saying, "the reason red is red is because it's not yellow."

Nothing to see here. Market forces and ease of use win over features, stability, or quality.

Re:de facto standards

[hydroxy]

It's all boils down to the fact that very few Open Source people (or so it seems) do it for money. This means that no matter if the product 'sells' to 1000 people or a million, they will keep doing it. MS won't sell something that isn't making money, yet Open Source people will keep devoting their time to something that hardly anyone uses.

Think of it like this... you have 50 car dealerships in a small town. They all get their cars for free from the factory. Everything they sell is for a profit, but because there are so many of them, they barely make any profit. The only ones that shut down, are those who get tired of not making any profit. Some owners are content to keep their dealership open without making a profit, because they get to say they own a dealership, or they have a select few customers who always come in to buy cars, thus making them think that what they are doing is worthwhile.

Re:de facto standards

[hendersj]

In other words, the lowest common denominator wins - and getting the LCD is something that a monopoly has an easy job doing.

Re:de facto standards

[Osty]

This means that no matter if the product 'sells' to 1000 people or a million, they will keep doing it.

Really? How many dead apps exist on sourceforge? Freshmeat?

MS won't sell something that isn't making money

That's why they killed Xbox, right? Oh, wait ...

Think of it like this... you have 50 car dealerships in a small town. They all get their cars for free from the factory. Everything they sell is for a profit, but because there are so many of them, they barely make any profit. The only ones that shut down, are those who get tired of not making any profit. Some owners are content to keep their dealership open without making a profit, because they get to say they own a dealership, or they have a select few customers who always come in to buy cars, thus making them think that what they are doing is worthwhile.

Worst. Car analogy. Ever.

Keeping a dealership open when it's selling no cars still costs money even the cars are free to the dealer. Similarly, open source projects that don't make money are done in spare time because the author(s) still have to work to eat. Yes, some authors will keep doing it for love of the problem well past the point where they've scratched their own itch. More will get the app just to point of scratching that itch and then mothball it (see open source apps that haven't been updated in years). Most will never get to the point of scratching their own itch and will die in a planning, pre-alpha, or alpha stage, never to be useful by anyone including the original author.

The open source projects that survive are the ones that can either drum up enough interest to build a large developer community such that the author doesn't have to spread himself so thin, or the ones that are able to scrape up some cash in order to pay a developer or two to work on them. Linux is not solely developed by Linus anymore. Perl is not solely developed by Larry Wall. And so on.

Re:de facto standards

[stewbacca]

What the monopoly says, goes. They define a standard.

Well said! This is the same reason that software that follows the monopoly "sucks". For example, for all three of us users familiar with it, I love the potential that Pages offers. However, it "sucks", because it doesn't use MS Word standards and their are compatability problems. Even though it is a better layout program with more output options, stronger typography, blah blah blah (ok, yeah it is kind of rough in version 1.0, but substitute Pages for your favorite non-MS App), it doesn't use .doc at the end of the file name, so people get confused.

Are there even any other spread sheet programs available anymore? Even if there were, I like Excel enough (and have been using it since 1990) that I doubt I would switch, even if a newer product were massively better....again, proving many people's point on this thread that we stick to what we are comfortable with, even if it is a big shiny piece of poo.

Re:de facto standards

[stewbacca]

Are you infering something about Walmart? If you aren't, then I'll infer for you :-)

Re:de facto standards

[O1iver]

There is a whole great literature on why companies can maintain dominance - for example, Michael Porter's "Competitive Positioning". Ultimately, it comes down to and mix of three things: unique capabilities, high entry costs for rivals and high exit costs for customers. MS, just like IBM before it, has harnessed the high switching cost component. If you are purchasing for a company, you have another three things to consider. Your thoughts are always going to be relative - that is, relative to doing nothing, or using a rival product. You weight cash cost and intangible cost - disruption, retraining and so on. The three things are: One: Will the product perform not excellently, but adequately: can they type, save, print; and will it crash or otherwise malfunction? Two: What is the friction costs associated with the change: that is, loss of productivity while they learn something new, training cost and time, the cost of mistakes made by inexpert hands, incompatibility during roll out, incompatibility with partners and so on. Three: Risk to me as finance/ IT director: risk that irritation will exceed satisfaction, risk that there will be major disruption, that the thing will be a nightmare to install, risk that my people will need retraining before they are competent, risk that our team will behave flawlessly but that brand new risks will emerge from within the new system. Taken together, product bases such as MS (or IBM before it) represent a no-loss option. "No one ever got fired for buying Ford (or IBM, or...)" is a perfectly good marketing position to take, and MS have - up until now - taken to it very strongly. Windows plus Office answers extremely well to all generic corporate needs, with Oracle to hanled the big dB issues. Yoiu can find hundreds of external experts, your staff know how to use the products - there are probably billions of person hours of experience in using Excel or Word, for example - and a firm will feel that the three points above are covered very well. However, and it is a vast, huge 'however' - companies can fell their own forest. IBM did it with the mass market IBM PC. That shattered the central Blue Priesthood (revertly placing punch cards on the Holy Blue Altar), enpowered distributed stuff and sank the firm. So the critical question is whether, with its 2007 offer, MS started chopping at the trunks of its very own forest. There are two criteria for an answer to this question, which are: = Do the new products offer advantages which exceed the cost of acquisition and transition? (Not: are they innately good, but are they relatively good?) = Second, if life cycles mean that kit and software will be replaced by whatever is current, do the new products have negative qualities that will cause people to pause and rethink this cycle - will it shatter comfortable habit? Vista seems to fail on question (1) but probably wobble through on Question 2. It oiffers no advantages, but it is not an active hindrance to the general user. Office 2007, however, fails on both criteria. It is actively worse for an experienced user than Office 2003 (See http://www.chforum.org/library/ms_office_discontin uity.html for more on this.) It is sufficiently awful for purchasers to get their butts kicked by internal customers if they try to force it onto them. One is talking of hundreds of millions of users here, and I have seen experienced staff pounding the desk and screaming at the screen as they try to forget a decade of learning and fiddle withthe bloody ribbon thing. So: consider a 'sell' on that stock.

Re:de facto standards

[WilliamSChips]

OpenOffice has a spreadsheet program, and there's also gnumeric.

Re:de facto standards

[swordgeek]

Well I was going to point out what was wrong in your post, but then I realised that it would leave nothing left. Still, I can't resist making a few points:

First of all, this has nothing to do with Open Source whatsoever. It has everything to do with monopolies and monoculture. The competition could be OSS or commercial software, and there would be no difference.

Microsoft and other large companies will routinely sell things that don't make money, in order to increase market share. Once they have a hard lock on the market, they will increase their prices to make a profit. Also, it's more accurate to say that open source people will keep devoting their time to something that (perhaps) hardly anyone uses, UNTIL THEY GET BORED OF IT. Then it languishes as another abandoned bit of unusable code. Try to count how many abandoned projects there are on freshmeat sometime when you have a spare week.

I'm not going to touch that car dealership analogy. It's...fascinating just as it is.

Re:de facto standards

[hendersj]

I'm not, but if I had mod points I'd mod you insightful - hadn't thought about it that way, but that's a great analogy.

Re:de facto standards

[swordgeek]

Lots of very good points there. I'm not sure I'd agree with the final point about Office, though.

First of all, exit cost is absolutely key. However, exit cost is a one-time event. If you turf an existing product for a new one, you have to retrain everyone to use the new product, and then you're done. At least, for your existing staff. If new people come in, then they need to be trained on the new product if they don't already know it. That's an area where the monopoly can drive (and in fact, force) changes. Office 2007 DOES break the continuity, and forces a company to change their product from "old office" to "something new." Now this leads to two scenarios: A company can decide to avoid excess effort and retraining, and stick with their "old office;" or they can migrate to "something new." In the first case, no one will buy Office 2007, so MS will eliminate that possibility by cutting off support for previous versions. Now the company is forced to migrate to something new, and could theoretically reevaluate the field evenly, since all products are equally new. (In fact, most competing products will have been working hard to lower the entry cost by behaving as much like old office as possible, so they're likely much easier to retrain towards. Regardless...)

However, here's the thing: Everyone "knows" that Office is the standard. Everyone knows that Office 2007 will become the new standard eventually. If you have to switch to a new product, will you go with the one that is most likely to exploit the largest knowledge and user base after a year or so, or do you use a fringe product (relatively)?

Microsoft knows that they won't lose many customers by releasing a completely revamped piece of turd, so they're taking advantage of that fact to recreate the interface. It doesn't matter how good or bad it is, market forces will force it on a big enough segment that the competition will be left in the dust again. StarOffice (for instance) is a better product in many ways that MS Office 2003 and very similar to use; but now that the paradigm of an office suite has changed, they'll have to retool. In the meantime, SO will be less compatible from a usage perspective.

Or put another way, Microsoft changed the interface to break the end-user training compatibility that other products have been building. By increasing the entry costs to their own product for one generation, they've bumped the entry cost to other suites even more.

As in

[sugarmotor]

As in - Why not limit the number of websites? Too much choice!

Re:As in

[Sancho]

If there was a community with similar interests but widely varied products (think 10 clones of Google, all with mostly the same services, and each with its own small sub-community) it would likely be harder for all of them to survive against a common competitor than for a single Google with all of the userbase of the sub-commmunities.

Re:As in

[sugarmotor]

Questions are not arguments. "Questions ask"

You write "So anyone want to get into this argument has to start asking themselves..."

I already asked. Now you can argue.

But, more seriously, who is that "we", who is going to draw the lines?

I've hardly ever come across too much choice (PHP or Perl? That's not a real problem) when it comes to solving real-world problems. I just stay away from MS and save myself a lot of headaches.

Re:As in

[Spy der Mann]

Why not limit the number of websites? Too much choice!

In other words, you're saying that 99% of people visit too few sites like myspace, while the other 1% of us stays in a wide variety of sites like... slashdot.

Touché.

Re:As in

[tftp]

And what do you think /. is then? One choice for all your technogeeky info needs.

Re:As in

[rabtech]

More like if the web were run like most open source projects there would be five incompatible forks of HTTP:

HTTP - the original
NHTTP - Not HTTP, fork due to changing the word "if" to "when" in the original license
SHTTP - SSH HTTP, runs HTTP over SSH for security
HTTPS - HTTP over SSL, but adds new incompatible commands making it not backwards compatible.
DTF - Document transfer protocol, because John L., a major contributor to NHTTP, was offended when another contributor made a "yo-mamma" joke and left the project to start his own fork

Not to mention the 300 forks-that-never-were where the forking person got tired of working on it, gave up, or never finished the fork in the first place.

Re:As in

[suv4x4]

As in - Why not limit the number of websites? Too much choice!

Noone is limiting the number of OS, people just pick one OS most of the time. But congrats for your absurd pointless example, nonetheless.

Re:As in

[johncadengo]

He is not asking that we limit the number of operating system choices. He isn't saying we have too much choice. He's saying that the reason why Microsoft wins is we have too much choice.

As far as your analogy goes, it would be better said: Google wins because it is simple. Yahoo has too much "choice"

Where choice in this sense is clutter on their front page: Yahoo games, Yahoo autos, Yahoo Finance, Yahoo Movies, and the list just goes on. Although Google offers some similar choices, its primary feature is the search engine (at least towards attracting people to its site, but if we speak of generating revenue we have another story). Most people come to Google to search, and that's all there is to it. But Yahoo tries to draw you away with its many, many, many abundant tangents.

Re:As in

[Filip22012005]

The web would be a mess if it ran on open-source technology!

Re:As in

[Jugalator]

A flawed comparison, as the benefits from a monoculture comes from the interoperability you can achieve much quicker than get a group of individuals agree on a common standard. After all, it's the same company building all apps. There are obvious disadvantages with this too, but the website comparison is flawed because usually, you don't try to make websites interoperable. On the other hand, that you can in the same software development product write software in the same language for anything between Smartphones to PDA's to desktop applications to web services (where the web service is specifically designed to work best with their own technologies), well, that's definitely a breeding ground for market adoption once you've reached critical mass.

Re:As in

[SillyNickName4me]

,i>If there was a community with similar interests but widely varied products (think 10 clones of Google, all with mostly the same services, and each with its own small sub-community) it would likely be harder for all of them to survive against a common competitor than for a single Google with all of the userbase of the sub-commmunities.

Replace 'google' with search engine, and you'll find that there are in fact quite a number of them.

Google is big today, but started out as just another search engine.. Before them, Altavista was the way to search the web, they weren't the only one either.

That Google exists and had a chance to become big is the result of choice, and when you take away such choice, the result is that inovation such as Google has provided won't happen as often if at all.

Re:As in

[iamacat]

If you tried to actually implement an HTTP client from scratch, you would be horrified of how inconsistent the data received from servers really is. There is that weird chunked encoding that mixes text and binary. There are SOAP requests that are returned with no headers. There is a big mystery on when persistent connections actually persist.

Re:As in

[WilliamSChips]

The division caused by open source is actually pretty tame compared to the NIH-load of "standards" made during the pre-TCP days.

Re:As in

[Sancho]

I didn't realize that anyone was advocating the removal of choice. I thought the point was an explanation of how the monoculture has helped Microsoft to succeed.

In fact, it's impossible to take choice away from FOSS, because you can always fork and start a new project. I suppose some sort of TPM which prevented Linux from booting could be an issue, but that's certainly nothing I'd suggest, either.

As for Google--I'm talking about what it is today. It doesn't have the biggest market share, outside of search. Imagine if there was no Yahoo mail, no hushmail, no other medium-sized mail services. If Google had more of a shot at grabbing those users, they would be able to compete more with MSN/Hotmail/whatever.

Choice Wins

[xzvf]

Interestingly enough, I had this arguement today with a co-worker. Choice and flexibility afforded by open source and more importantly open standards will pay dividends for companies that think long term. The shrink wrapped mono-culture beat can be the less expensive option in the short term (no retraining, prepackaged apps with ready training and documentation, cheap labor). But, open with lots of choices wins in the long run every time because it gives ownership of IT to the companies that use it instead of the companies the produce it. Freedom and choice may be the difficult choice in a short-term return corportate culture, but the companies that embrace open standards will be the long term winners.

Re:Choice Wins

[maxume]

Training, packaging and licensing costs are basically irrelevant if the product is enough better. Witness Apache. It is better, and that fact is reflected in widespread use. Similarly, people aren't using Oracle and Microsoft and IBM software because they are stupid.

Re:Choice Wins

[Anonymous Coward]

companies that think long term

Well, there's your problem.

"Long term" these days is "next quarter".

Re:Choice Wins

[sheldon]

I'm leaving my company now, and I'm writing up some documentation on the systems I've left behind.

They're all similar. They are web apps which did similar things, so I wrote the applications in similar ways using similar technologies. The build similarly, they install similarly. I would choose new technologies as I went, if they were clearly better but I tried to fit them into my existing assumptions.

Choice is great if you are a rogue cowboy developer. Lot's of stuff all over the place, bits and pieces thrown together. I remember a project we had here, it'd been outsourced to some third party. It came back with just about every piece of free open source software you can imagine. The data entry screens were Java running on Apache, the reporting screens were Python, the admin screens were running Perl scripts. The data entry stuff used Oracle, the reporting used postgres. The whole thing was tied together with some other bits of glue and tape. Thank God the morons who wrote it were horrible architects and the thing couldn't scale, otherwise this piece of unmaintable crap might have ended up in production.

But when you're trying to write documentation to hand stuff off to the next person, it is so much easier if what you have left behind is all similar to other stuff. It's just so much more maintainable, and easier to train the new guy in.

That's what wins in the long term. It's not raw freedom and choice, it's making intelligent choices and then sticking with them.

Re:Choice Wins

[Kwirl]

"...the companies that embrace open standards will be the long term winners" Can you cite an example of this having ever been this case, or is it just your opinion based on the way things should be?

Re:Choice Wins

[KingMotley]

That assumes that companies actually want ownership. Most don't. As a developer, I don't want ownership of the IDE. I don't want to have to learn how to recompile it, or learn the inner workings of it. I don't get paid to change the font it uses from the default, nor do I really want to try and help a fellow developer, only to realize his program won't compile because of some optimization he did to his compiler so that it ran .01% faster.

I don't demand that sears give me the complete schematics to the hammer I bought, along with detailed instructions how to cut down a tree to form the handle, and smelt the metal for the head. I just want to hit something with it, and it to work. That's something that I think many in the OSS fan clubs fail to realize that most people who really want to use something DON'T want to tinker with the internals of it.

Re:Choice Wins

[jimicus]

But, open with lots of choices wins in the long run every time because it gives ownership of IT to the companies that use it instead of the companies the produce it.

Lots of companies are quite happy with limited ownership of their own IT systems - it means that no matter what goes wrong, there's no politics, no messing about. Just one number to call to raise a fault, and an account manager if things get really out of hand. Were that not the case, there would be no such thing as outsourcing.

I'm not going to get into the merits of how well that works in the real world - myself, I'm not convinced - but nevertheless, plenty of businesses are. At one point, my manager was thinking of outsourcing all our IT - and we're a software development firm.

Re:Choice Wins

[Opportunist]

But companies don't want freedom. They want working applications. They don't care about vendor lock-in, as long as it doesn't cut into their ability to produce. And as long as you're more productive in the cage of proprietary software, they will stick with it.

Short or long term.

Re:Choice Wins

[Macthorpe]

M$ toy languages that break your work every two or three years Yawn. Example?

Re:Choice Wins

[vitality-jtw]

Lots of companies are quite happy with limited ownership of their own IT systems - it means that no matter what goes wrong, there's no politics, no messing about. Just one number to call to raise a fault, and an account manager if things get really out of hand. Were that not the case, there would be no such thing as outsourcing.

I agree completely. Management tends to favor this style of ownership, which is precisely why open source products fail to really gain a grasp at the organization I'm with. With proprietary solutions, when things go wrong with the product or service, there is a firm or product to point a finger to to go fix it and correct it for us, or else we can take our money elsewhere. It takes the onus off of management, outside of making decisions to buy a product - decisions that won't get chastised regardless of how poor the product/vendor is as long as the product/vendor meets some need. In contrast, when we use a piece of open source software and things go awry, we have no one to turn to fix things but ourselves. When we can't solve the problem that has come up, we have no finger to point and no buying power to force the product to be fixed or changed. Sure we can branch and modify the source, but this assumes that a) you have development skills/time to do such and b) don't mind branching away from the stable source the community provides. This puts management in handcuffs.

Re:Choice Wins

[marcosdumay]

"That's what wins in the long term. It's not raw freedom and choice, it's making intelligent choices and then sticking with them."

And how do you plan on makng inteligent choices without 'raw freedom and choice'? The only point that I can take from your post is that lack of choice is (badly) a replacement for good management. Well, that is a nice point, but it doesn't seem you where trying to make it.

Re:Choice Wins

[jimicus]

With proprietary solutions, when things go wrong with the product or service, there is a firm or product to point a finger to to go fix it and correct it for us, or else we can take our money elsewhere.

The issue they tend not to be aware of is - in much of the world that's dead easy with commodity stuff like electricity or telephone service or even the building the company's leasing.

You ever tried doing that with a piece of software? Even if you've just spend thousands of (insert currency unit here) on it, it's far from uncommon to find vendors who don't really want to support the product, but at the same time if you've just spent so much money on a product, you don't really want to throw it away and start again from scratch.

The management style we're discussing treats more-or-less all computing as a commodity - an item where one product is more or less indistinguishable from any other, therefore it should be easy to get someone to sell it to you, sort out any problems and take your business elsewhere should the vendor not be up to scratch.

That's true and it broadly works with x86 hardware. It certainly isn't the case with software.

Re:Choice Wins

[poot_rootbeer]

But, open with lots of choices wins in the long run every time because it gives ownership of IT to the companies that use it instead of the companies the produce it.

While true, a lot of companies consider IT ownership to be more of a liability than an asset.

Re:Choice Wins

[Maximum Prophet]

True story. Large Company was writing a large application in VB version N. They ran into a memory leak. Microsoft said, "We're not going to fix version N, migrate to version N+1, it's fixed there"

Now, Large Company had Hobson's choice. Their large application needed a lot of work to compile/run in VB version N+1 and they couldn't live with the memory leak problem. No matter which choice they went with, it was going to be expensive. I never did find out which path they took.

If they had written their application in something like Perl or Tk/Tcl, they would have had more choices when faced with a memory leak problem. They would have been able to decide to live with the problem, fix it in house, hire another firm to fix it, or upgrade the the latest version where it's fixed.

Vendor lock-in can bite you. Smart companies have at least two suppliers of everything they buy. That way they can get the suppliers to beat each other up on price.

Re:Choice Wins

[sheldon]

I was trying to write my comment in a technology neutral way. It really doesn't matter what you choose, just kind of work around it. Sometimes you do have to change radically. Older stuff, which just isn't around any more, etc. forces that. This is as much true of open source as anything else.

Too often IT is about building something and dumping it onto the next guy. One must always think of that next guy.

Re:Choice Wins

[Opportunist]

The creed most companies (at least here) still run after is "We don't want open source or small petty code hack shops, we prefer it from big corps. Because when something's running wrong, there's someone who you can sue to cover your losses".

What they fail to see is that large corps prefer to put their money into lawyers instead of settlements.

Re:Choice Wins

[azrider]

But when you're trying to write documentation to hand stuff off to the next person, it is so much easier if what you have left behind is all similar to other stuff. It's just so much more maintainable, and easier to train the new guy in.

(emphasis mine)

Choice is great if you are a rogue cowboy developer.

Frankly, if you were not documenting the necessary items (you know, the stuff *you* forgot about why this path or that path) sometime close to when you were writing the application(s) you *are* a "rouge cowboy developer". When I left a job (I was the only OS/2 developer, creating applications which communicated with an IBM mainframe, a VAX and problem management systems located in customer locations, my (distributed/duplicated in 5 dispatch centers) took all of 5 days to completely cross over to the new programmer.

Re:Choice Wins

[Maximum Prophet]

I've seen that as well and it's baffled me. What I think is going on in the minds of the middle managers is something like this. "I can pick small shop X or IBM. If the product breaks, small shop X might go out of business or IBM might stiff us. In the first senario, I get blamed for choosing X. In the 2nd senario, it gets bumped to our corporate lawyers and if they can't get a settlement, well, that's their fault for not having the cojones to take on the big boys."

Similar "logic" has been used when I've built a tool in house. It was about 3000 lines of code and had a multi-week testing schedule. So far so good. We were also looking at an outside product that was over 1,000,000 lines of code from a vendor known to produce buggy software. Did we prepare for an 80 week testing cycle? No, just a few weeks. An in-house solution produced so much c.y.a. behaviour and fear on the part of management I couldn't believe I was working for a fortune 100 company.

Re:Choice Wins

[littlewink]

It came back with just about every piece of free open source software you can imagine. The data entry screens were Java running on Apache, the reporting screens were Python, the admin screens were running Perl scripts. The data entry stuff used Oracle, the reporting used postgres. The whole thing was tied together with some other bits of glue and tape. Thank God the morons who wrote it were horrible architects and the thing couldn't scale, otherwise this piece of unmaintable crap might have ended up in production.

Does "piece of unmaintainable crap" refer to Java, Perl, Apache, PostGreSQL, Oracle, Python or all of them? Because each of those has a reputation far better than yours.

Or is it supposedly a "piece of unmaintainable crap" because of the architects' design?

Before you post again, try to determine exactly _where_ the problem lies. Here you attempt to besmirch, to no effect, the very pillars of Open Source (Java, Perl, Apache, PostGreSQL, Oracle, Python) yet, when distilled down, your only possible criticisms are that

1. Open Source has multiple languages and
   
2. the architects built something that did not scale.
   

Point 1 is obvious and silly. Point 2 is questionable at best, because you're making the claim by yourself with no supporting evidence.

Maybe you weren't willing to examine the system to see what was wrong and fix it? So you left. Should we trust the word of a man who quits a company and then criticises it's new systems? I think not.

Re:Choice Wins

[Opportunist]

What I learned (the long, slow and painful way) is that, in corporate world, it does not matter if something works. It doesn't even matter if the company loses a ton of money. What matters is that your bases are covered and that there's someone else who has to do the cleanup if (let's say when) something blows up.

Your example with shop X and IBM is a classic. Shop X's software might even work better, but managers usually don't know jack about software and whether or not it works. They know that they can't be blamed if IBM doesn't work, because with IBM you can't be wrong, and if you are, hell, who could've forseen that?

What's seriously fu..ed up with large corps is that nobody who works there gives a shit about the company. The workers don't (hell, why'd I put any 2 thoughts more than necessary into a company that hires and fires me as it pleases?), the managers don't (they have to deliver quarter reports and they have to look nice so they can keep their well paying seats) and the top level managers don't either (if it blows up, they receive a ton of money and are sent on to the next Fortune 100 corp).

What puzzles me, though, is how those companies manage to stay in business. By the laws of the market, they should actually crumble and die.

Re:Choice Wins

[Skuld-Chan]

Choice is great if you are a rogue cowboy developer. Lot's of stuff all over the place, bits and pieces thrown together. I remember a project we had here, it'd been outsourced to some third party. It came back with just about every piece of free open source software you can imagine. The data entry screens were Java running on Apache, the reporting screens were Python, the admin screens were running Perl scripts. The data entry stuff used Oracle, the reporting used postgres. The whole thing was tied together with some other bits of glue and tape. Thank God the morons who wrote it were horrible architects and the thing couldn't scale, otherwise this piece of unmaintable crap might have ended up in production. This wasn't SAP was it?

Re:Choice Wins

[Maximum Prophet]

What puzzles me, though, is how those companies manage to stay in business. By the laws of the market, they should actually crumble and die.

The problem with the standard Adam Smith style "laws of the market" is that they are to economics what Newton was to physics. That's the easily observable stuff that's true, but there are invisible forces that also have great affect on markets. An economist recently won the noble prize for his work applying psychology to economics which makes a lot of the "stupid politics" of corporate life make sense. You can probably learn more about this stuff by watching a season or two of Don Trump's "Apprentice" than reading most economics 101 text books.

My alias, Maximum Prophet, was choosen because I have an idea I'm working on that most, if not all business decisions in the world today are *not* decided based on maximum profit, but on the ego of the business person. Large corporations have interia and are insulated from the effect of the mistakes of their individuals. Small business have no such luxury. If a small business owner makes even one major error because of his own ego, he can sink his company in a hardbeat. It's much harder for a large corporation to be sunk due to one mistake like that, not impossible, but harder.

Imagine there are several quick serve restaurants in town, some are chains, some are independent. Each makes mistakes that might drive customers away. The independents most likely will not be able to weather the loss of business, but at some of the chains, the corporations will decide to spend the money to stay in the area. As restaurants go out of business and are replaced with new ones, after awhile, only chains are left.

Corporations were originally a method for many investors to share the risk of the shipping trade. If one person invested in a boat, and that boat sunk, he lost everything, but if 10 people invested in 10 boats, most likely they would all make some money. That in a nutshell, is how companies stay in business despite some poor decisions.

Re:Choice Wins

[WilliamSChips]

Where did my gp mention Apple? You appear to be confused by the fact that Slashdot contains many members with different opinions. I'd suggest returning to corporate press release sites, those tend to have more homogenuity of opinion.

Re:Choice Wins

[ciggieposeur]

Yawn. Example?

Access 4.0 -> Access 97 -> Access 2000

VB 3.x -> VB 6.x -> VB.Net

Excel 97 VBA -> Excel XP VBA

And of course the master example (it's an API, not a language, but still): DDE -> OLE -> OLE 2.0 -> ActiveX

Re:Choice Wins

[Macthorpe]

Access 4.0 never existed. It went straight from 2.0 to 7. I'm not an Access user however, but regardless of this if you're even right about this it's the only example you've provided of a 'toy language' that breaks 'every two to three years', and it's debatable.

VB 3.x was released in 1993, 6.x in 1998, and VB.Net is barely in it's infancy. This is not 'every two to three years'. It's pretty much double that. Also, VB is not a toy language to those of us who make our living using it.

I found trivial differences between 97 VBA and XP VBA but YMMV.

OLE 2.0 was released in 1993. I'll repeat that one: 1993. Please note that nobody can just sit on something for 14 years. Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft should have retained all backwards compatibility for that long? Sometimes things have to break to move forward. Take every kernel upgrade to Linux that breaks one thing or another in a distribution. Shit happens, but you fix it. I don't know about you, but that's my job.

Have you got any others? Those examples wouldn't cut the mustard even if you looked at them generously.

Re:Choice Wins

[Opportunist]

Personally I don't think it's an ego problem. More that people are inherently egoistic (ok, so it's an ego problem but a different one).

A small business owner has the businesses' wellbeing as the primary goal. For a very good reason: His income depends on it. If he fu..s up, his business is gone, his income is gone, finito. If his business thrives, first and foremost his income grows. It's an immediate positive feedback.

A manager in a corporation has his personal wellbeing as the primary target. He wants to make more money, if necessary at the cost of the company. If the company crumbles, he moves on to the next one. Worse, if he decides to invest more work and make the company thrive, more often than not he will not be rewarded. It does simply not matter if he works for the company, so he works for himself.

Companies tried to counter this by handing options to their workers. The idea behind it makes sense: If you are partly owner of the company, you will benefit from a rising share price. What people did was predictable: They did whatever they could to pump the price, using the inside knowledge they had to predict it, then sold their papers. Then the ego kicked in: The price must not raise any further, or I'd be a fool for selling already. In short, it actually hurt the company in the long run.

Yes, corporations were (and are) a way to share risk. Today, though, it's more a way to share headaches and red tape.

Re:Choice Wins

[Maximum Prophet]

I had an artist friend who made dark depressing fused glass art that didn't sell well. I gave her the advice that bright colorful pieces would sell better. They did. In this one case, her business sense overrode her artistic sense and she was able to maximize profit. (After she's dead, collectors will probably bid up the dark depressing pieces, but what good does that do her?)

Not all business owners will put aside their ego like this. Many consider themselves "Artists" that are above things like business. They seem to feel that the world should be beating a path to their door, just because of their greatness. Look at the way the RIAA is handling itself. Sueing it's best customers. Sueing MIX DJs that promote acts that have no other venue of promotion. It's always possible that the RIAA goons are actually evil geniuses that have every move covered and these actions are really the best way to maximize profits, but I tend to think they are just trying to maximize control and money is secondary.

It's been shown through psychological testing that people would rather make a small amount of money if they live around people who make less, than make a large amount of money if they have to live around people who make more.

Back to my thesis. If you give the small business owner a choice between making $5 or $10, they'll choose the $10 every time, except when you get in that one area they really care about. Look how many businesses are named for the person who started them rather that what they do. "Johnson & Sons" tells you nothing about the business, but "AAA Hairdressing", tells you what they do, and gets them first in the phone book.

But you are right about the corporate manager vs. the small business owner. The corp. manager is just there to make a paycheck. Someone once wrote in the Wall Street Journal that if you ever hear anyone talking about a "corporate family", you need to put your bullsh*t detector on high alert. A corporation is *not* a family. When money gets tight for a family, they cancel cable and eating out, they don't lay off little Timmy. "I'm sorry Timmy, I know you've been with us for 6 years now, but your services just won't be needed any more. No need to cry."

The business owner puts his heart and soul into the business. This makes him go the extra mile, but sometimes it can trip him up. I knew this other guy that was into wood working. He did great stuff making wooden games and ornimental wooden things that he'd take to art & craft shows. He said he couldn't keep up with demand, and at the price he was selling, there wasn't enough profit to make a go of it. He quit and got a 9-5 job, because he couldn't justify in his own mind selling his great stuff for enough money to make a living. This would not be a problem from a business standpoint, but from the artistic view it was enough to stop him.

I've heard from many independent computer programmers that demand for their services acually goes up when they raised their rates, because it made them seem more valuable. Back to the glass artist. She had one expensive piece that she'd take to art show that would never sell, and she was thinking of not taking it any more. I told her that might not be a good idea, because if it's a piece that people want, but can't afford, it will attract customers who might then buy a less expensive piece. Just having an expensive piece around increase the perceived value of her other pieces.

Hmm

[pembo13]

This article assumes that open source developers are aiming at becoming Microsoft like. Maybe they're just in it to make good software: not a profit, not make money for shareholders, or anything that that Microsoft is obviously aiming for. And the article is also using a very narrow definition of "win", one which I'm not sure is possible for OSS to attain.

Re:Hmm

[tftp]

Maybe they're just in it to make good software

Then you'd better define what does the word "good" mean here. How do you measure goodness? One common and sensible metric is popularity, since it measures the willingness of people to use the product. Is a software that is fast and secure good, even though nobody uses it? (because the interface is command line, in Mayan for example.)

MS surely measures goodness by sales numbers and by market penetration; that flows from the fact that MS Office, [= 2003] for example, just works for most of the people. You install it, and you are in business. That's good. On the other hand, take LaTeX - it can do things that you'd have to struggle with in MS Word, but you also must be a rocket scientist (or a mathematician, which is the same) to use LaTeX. That is seen as seriously ungood.

It's not the choice

[AKAImBatman]

The problem isn't the choice, it's the follow-through. Open Source software maintains its momentum as long as there is an itch to scratch. As soon as that itch is satisfied, the work stops. Even if the code is unsuitable for your average joe. Technically, this is where the commercial distributions are supposed to pick up the slack and do the rest of the work. You know, offer an integrated Linux environment. Something to make all that money we're throwing at them worth something. But they don't. And I have no idea why.

Perhaps the most telling event was when I got a copy of Sun's Java Desktop System. It was a complete SUSE-based distro with Sun's unified desktop on top of it. I forget what the exact problem was, but in order to change a *BASIC* system setting, the instructions required that I directly edit a system file.

Excuse me?

This little gaffe was repeated by Mandrake with its command-line audio setup. RedHat with its inability to automatically handle its own damn package format. So on and so forth. I forget how many times integrated tools should have existed, and... well... didn't. I won't even get into the "broken by design" GUI choices of GNOME.

Now Ubuntu has been slowly trying to push this back; to make Linux a bit more user-friendly. But it's just one distro among many. There needs to be a concerted effort from all companies that SELL Linux. They need to give as good of an experience as they can possibly give. Simply repackaging the same software with a new GUI theme isn't going to cut it. They need to actually spend some money on covering the gaps that the unpaid community isn't going to cover. (I mean, let's be reasonable. They're not getting paid to develop a boring dialog and test flipping the switch 300 different ways.)

The development tools themselves are fine. In fact, Java is pretty well covered by Eclipse and Netbeans. If Linux distros make more of an effort to integrate the (now OPEN SOURCE!) Java into the system, they can make developer's lives even easier. Mono is also an acceptable choice, but the key thing is to get it integrated. Make your commercial Operating Systems FEEL like commercial Operating Systems. Not hobby OSes that have a nice coat of paint on them. In other words, maybe you commercial guys could pull your weight a little? Maybe?

* Ok, you can start flaming me now. I'm sure I've said something that offends distro X fanboys. Bring it on so I can ignore it. :-/

Re:It's not the choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh...

It is idiotic posts like that the make us all dread these types of stories on Slashdot.

Sigh...

It is idiotic posts like this that make us all dread these types of stories on Slashdot.

Re:It's not the choice

[MightyMartian]

This always seems to assume that all those using open source operating systems are interested in GUIs. My old job was running a small ISP, so I could care less about GUIs, Java, Mono or anything else of that nature. I was building routers, firewalls and mail proxy servers, and I picked the distro that I was the most comfortable with and delivered what I wanted with relative ease. In this case it was Slackware, because I could download a kernel and with little or no effort get it up and running on my Slack boxes. Maintenance was easy, and I avoided package systems in favor of compiling the software with the options I wanted. Now, in my new job, I'm back at it again, building a Samba domain, and again I don't give a rat's ass about all the wonderous stuff that people seem to pick Windows for. It's about ease of management and ease of maintenance. I may be an old school guy, but I find my twenty or thirty line smb.conf and ldap configs infinitely easier to maintain than the GUI tools that I find so damn non-intuitive (I'll admit I'm old school here, having cut my teeth on DOS and Xenix systems).

The point I'm trying to make is that I like the choice. I like that I could use FreeBSD for my Postfix server but Slackware with a custom kernel for my routing and firewall needs. I liked that I could create the tools I needed rather than having to work with the very fixed monoculture that is Windows and its networking tools. I like that I could build streamlined servers that didn't possess a whole bunch of shit that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am doing.

Re:It's not the choice

[nametaken]

You've struck on a few things there that I've been thinking for a long time.

I would happily spend money on a solid linux distro that does what I want it to. In fact, I'd pay a premium over the competing version of Windows. The problem is that for that money I expect it to, as you said, feel like a commercial OS.

I'd really like to see better development environments (eclipse makes me want to wretch, netbeans is pretty slick). I suppose I'd consider java again if we can get everyone off of blackdown and on to the real jre. I'd even like to clean up a bunch of my .net work and run it in mono if someone comes up with something better than monodevelop. Something tells me that's a ways off though. :)

Re:It's not the choice

[alshithead]

"The problem isn't the choice, it's the follow-through."

I'm not disagreeing with your post. I will however try a somewhat different angle with little or no opinion as to MS functionality.

The problem isn't the choice, it's the research involved in trying to make an educated decision and then make a transition. I say make a transition because the fact of the matter is that MS rules. MS-centric is easy. You are a MS OS and app shop or you are not. It is easy to choose MS server and workstation OS, MS Office, MS Exchange, and MS SQL if you are a business of X size. You may have a specialty app or two that is non-MS, that may run on a non-MS OS, but for the most part, most medium, large, and even small businesses find it easier to just go ahead and use MS OS and apps. That is because the effort involved in researching and implementing non-MS requires too much effort and specialized expertise.

Sure, some entities use Lotus Notes instead of MS Exchange. But, how many use OpenOffice instead of MS Office? What effort is involved in migrating form templates, spreadsheets, and databases between the two much less training the end users? How many of your MS server and apps folks can support any *nix flavor? The effort required for change far exceeds the perceived benefit. "We are where we are. This is the way we have always done it." That is the rule until the perceived benefit grows exponentially.

Re:It's not the choice

[Tablizer]

The point I'm trying to make is that I like the choice. I like that I could use FreeBSD for my Postfix server but Slackware with a custom kernel for my routing and firewall needs. I liked that I could create the tools I needed rather than having to work with the very fixed monoculture that is Windows and its networking tools. I like that I could build streamlined servers that didn't possess a whole bunch of shit that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am doing.

You assume that everyone else likes what you do. My favorite tools fell out of style and don't really exist anymore. Thus, it doesn't matter what I like. It is what the majority likes that matter. MS might be mediocre, but at least it is consistent mediocre. When you step into a different MS shop, you don't see a custom-made OS built by some Lisp or Perl guru that you have to reverse engineer and learn. That takes too long. OSS needs more de-facto standards. Sometimes mediocre standards are better than great-but-uncommon tools. SQL has survived because it is a common good-enough standard, not because it is the best possible relational language.

Re:It's not the choice

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with "The problem isn't the choice, it's the follow-through." I'm going to slighly change the argument.

I think there are two types of developers. Those that make "legos" and those that make "sculptures."

The first type make rock solid building blocks. They want to solve problem x, or possibly problem set X. But avoid assembling the pieces (they are more powerful divided, think about how in Unix you are given a handful of command line tools and can build really cool shell scripts easily).

A worse crime is assembling the pieces but doing a piss poor job and creating a tool that is neither powerful or simple (Microsoft's use of "Wizards" comes to mind, but there are plenty of open source tools that meet this criteria).

Then the sculpters come along. They see these great tools, and assemble them really nicely, so that everyone can enjoy them. The problem is that there are very few talented sculpters out there, worse still, even if you know what a tool should look like, you may not be able to assemble it (well enough to be user-friendly anyway).

The example of sculpters that is going through my head is Apple. For years they've been looking at other people's work and assembling it very nicely. Yet, in terms of creating legos how "innovative" is Apple? In my opinion, not very (relative to all the work they've done). But they are very innovative at putting the legos together.

A good cathedral (monoculture) should look at the bazaar, and take the best stuff. While the bazaar should be left to explore new tools and ideas. Both have their place (yin and yang kinda thing).

I will also join you in the praising of ubuntu on this front. I believe they are exactly what FLOSS needs.

Re:It's not the choice

[Burz]

Its enough to make someone go back to basics on their C64 ;-)

Seriously, I appreciate and agree with your comments. But more than that, the fact is that FOSS vendors do not promote a default modern development environment that budding application developers would appreciate. Its all geared toward system-level developers (which probably explains why our applications are managed in centralized repositories as if they were just another part of the OS).

Its all terribly backward when applied to the personal computing domain, because influential PC (incl. Wintel and Mac) users expect a clearly-defined platform that encourages the installation and development of third-party products.

Windows has Visual Studio + MSDN as a default choice for developers.

OS X has Xcode + ADC as a default choice as well.

"Linux" (or LSB or whatever distro like RedHat) has...... ?

Right now, FOSS mostly gets major applications that were developed commercially for Windows then ported to Unix for niche appeal before being pushed out of the proprietary market. The home-grown Linux apps tend to have many shortcomings that, IMO, stem from a system programmers trying to scratch the application itch while not really knowing what they're doing... many are trying to fill a void that application programmers won't go near because the latter can't identify a clearly defined and promoted development platform. Also, the former collectively look down their noses at the latter quite intently.

So outside of the systems development sphere, the other important players in the "Desktop Linux" game - end users and application developers - are not seeing a consistent and easily identifiable platform.

Re:It's not the choice

[Vanders]

It's nice to see someone who actually understands the problem. I've never seen it described so eloquently, either.

Re:It's not the choice

[xtracto]

MS might be mediocre, but at least it is consistent mediocre

Please someone give parent poster the prize, the discussion is over.

You completely hit the nail on the head. The reason why people prefer Microsoft over whatever else is the reason why McDonalds and starbucks have spread like cancer all over the world. McDonalds hamburgers are horrible, yet, when you go to Istanbulilash you *know* what you are going to get if you go to the McDonalds, after eating the kabu-kebab or the costillas-mexicanas or whatever else the country offers, you know you can count on a McDonalds... even if it is terrible.

With Microsoft is the same, you can count on Windows, it is the same in all the places, the "lack" of choice translates into consistency. Even if it is just "good enough", thats all they need "enough". Enough for whom? for the 80% of the population, the other 20% can cry and kick all the way.

Just as a side example, is the ability of turning the screen image 90 or flippling it horiz. or vert. I just learnt you can do that in X-Window, but you need a command called "xrandr", so, if someone wanted to do it, they will have to learn that command and their flags and all... In Windows, you can do it with a menu in your manufacturers card or you can use just isntall irotate (via Next-nextnext-next-finlize) and you will have an icon placed on your tray notification area which you can right click and select the rotation.
The difference is, that although the second option seems to have more steps, it is more intuitive, because it follows the *same * logic that every Windows program follows, open installer, click next-next-enxt and click your way through the menues. Whereas in Linux you have to guess the commands and options to write, oh and those are different for each program.

I Also find very funny how, lots of Linux "GUIs" that are supposed to be frontends for command line programs are nothing more than a GTK frame with a text box were you have to put the parameter string (ala -HSLk -p 300).

Re:It's not the choice

[eMbry00s]

Maybe you should have sent this to some CEO. I don't think they have time to drudge around slashdot, but an insightful email is always welcome.

I'd assume they get a lot of them, though, so try making a very concrete list of your points, along with some motivation for each of them.

Re:It's not the choice

[einhverfr]

I am not denying that what you describe happens all to often. However, I do believe that successful projects look for ways to move beyond motivating people by scrating an itch.

Of all the forks of SQL-Ledger, only two that I know of (out of at least 5) are still active, and both have the advantage of having businesses built on them. In short it means that we get let customers motivate us.

Hits the nail on the head...

[Sancho]

We celebrate the diversity of choices available to solve a problem and call it freedom. IT managers and CIOs look at it and call it chaos, confusion and uncertainty. That's a pretty solid difference between the two, and honestly, I think it's probably a good point. Linux desktops compete with other Linux desktops. Gnome competes with KDE. It's still choice, and I still like choice, but fragmentation and a hundred different ways of doing things makes it hard to find the information you're looking for online, makes it hard to support (Helpdesk workers complain about having to support more than 3 versions of Windows!), and makes it hard for the user to choose.

Re:Hits the nail on the head...

[Coryoth]

fragmentation and a hundred different ways of doing things makes it hard to find the information you're looking for online, makes it hard to support (Helpdesk workers complain about having to support more than 3 versions of Windows!), and makes it hard for the user to choose. Right now the choice in Linux seems to be vast and confusing because Linux in general is a niche system, so all the different choices are all equally niche options. As Linux slowly gains popularity (and it will -- if nothing else it is imporving faster than Windows: compare Windows 98 with Redhat 5.2, then compare Windows Vista with Ubuntu 7.04) you won't find the vast array of options all gaining equally from the influx of users. Ultimately, despite the vast array of distributions, only a very small handful (probably 2 or 3 at most) will gain any significant share. For most people Linux will simply be whatever the most popular of those 2 or 3 distros turns out to be. There won't be a plethora of choice, there'll be one distro that everyone you know uses, and then a whole bunch of other niche Linux stuff that only the geeks care about. The same will happen with desktop environments and development libraries: at most 2 options will be supportable as mainstream choices and the rest will be firmly relegated to small niche options -- they'll still be at least as popular as they are now, they will just be completely eclipsed by the increased popularity of the 1 or 2 winners.

Once all of that happens you'll find that, for almost any average user, there is 1 or at most 2 ways of doign things, and all the information online that is easy to find is all relevant to you. Support will be for the 1 or 2 most popular distributions, which will have very standardised configurations that everyone uses. Sure, the hundred different ways of doing things will still exist, and anyone geeky enough to mess with them will find that things are little different than they are now -- its just that most people who aren't interested will never even be aware of all of that. In the same way that most average Windows users are only dimly aware of Linux as a small niche player, eventually we'll reach a point where most average Linux users are only dimly aware of other distros as small niche players. Nothing changes for us geeks, and nothing changes for average users (except the OS they consider "standard").

Re:Hits the nail on the head...

[Hooya]

let's not forget that diversity is essential for long term survival. unless you belong to the camp that believes evolution theory is just a 'theory', it's hard to argue against diversity. the mono-culture leads to susceptibility, in nature as well as in computing, to various ailments in the long run. it's uncanny how the real world tracks with the computing world in this regard - viruses can wipe out mono-cultures pretty easily. much harder with a diversified target.

Re:Hits the nail on the head...

[Ginger Unicorn]

finally, someone with some actual insight.

Re:Hits the nail on the head...

[hey!]

It's not the existence of choices per se.

It's the consequences of the choice -- or more precisely, the uncertainty in the consequences of the choices.

Human decision making is biased towards selecting actions that produce certain outcomes, even if those outcomes are mediocre.

Suppose I give you the responsibility of selecting a server OS to host an apache/mysql/perl website. Chances are most of us will reach for our favorite Linux distro. If we're told we have to use Red Hat instead of Ubuntu, we aren't going to freak out, because we know we can get the various things we need to get the job done.

But wait... we haven't even considered one of the BSDs. Chances are we can get all the same software in BSD, as long as we don't have to run on any oddball hardware. You have to speak with a funny accent in BSD userland, but on the plus side the BSDs have excellent security track records. We all know that the BSDs are superb server operating systems, but it never even occurs to us to consider a BSD when faced with this task.

This is not to mention Solaris.

We all know the BSDs and Solaris would be excellent choices for this decision, not to mention other Linux distros, but we all still reach for our favorite Linux distro. And unlike most people who go to Windows as their first choice, most people who are familiar with Linux will feel pretty confident they can find their way around BSD or Solaris well enough to make the project work. There is no practical reason for a Linux admin not to consider a different Unix flavor. There is some learning curve, but not enough to really deter you from considering an alternative if it would be good for the project.

So it isn't just a game-theoretical confidence at work here. It's plain old familiarity and habit.

This is the power which sustains the Microsoft monopoly. As long as Microsoft produces software that is good enough and cheap enough, familiarity and habit will make that software impossible to displace.

If you have ten thousand MS Windows/MS Office workstations, and your company wants you to add another thousand workstations, the massive license costs will make this a reasonable time to consider whether you should consider Linux/OpenOffice for these thousand workstations. There may be good reasons not to (VBA apps your company relies upon, new users dispersed among Windows users), or it may be a good opportunity to go that way (a new division or group that is relatively stand-alone). But if the boss does not blink at the cost of licenses, 99% of people in this position, even Linux fans, are not going to consider this unless the boss doesn't give them enough money to do same old same old.

If the default decision was to go Linux/OO, and you had to cost justify Windows/Office, the MS monopoly would collapse overnight. Even though Office is arguably still better than OO, you'd have a hell of a time convincing the boss to shell out the money for the difference, because OO is good enough.

Re:Hits the nail on the head...

[Sancho]

The difference is that we can force evolution in computers. If a virus comes along, we can detect it. If a vulnerability is discovered, we can patch it. There is no such thing as a computer virus which is incurable and irreparably destroys any computer it touches.

In fact, while a monoculture means that you're more susceptible to the virus, in the computer world, it means that it's easier to fix. A buffer overrun in Mozilla may have to be addressed in several different places in the code (depending upon whether it was in a portable section of code, or if the same techniques were used in sections compiled specifically for Linux/MS/OS X/BeOS/Windows Moble/whatever). In a monoculture, this is less likely.

Re:Hits the nail on the head...

[Sancho]

Chances are most of us will reach for our favorite Linux distro. I'm gonna be that asshole who says, "Not me!" When I need to deploy a system, I take several things into account: maintainability and security are two of the biggest ones. Performance is also a big concern.

I consider Linux best suited as an alternate desktop machine. I tend to use it solely for this purpose. Most of my servers are FreeBSD, because I like how clean and simple it is, and it tends to perform fairly well. It's also a snap to maintain, though not always as easy as some binary distros of Linux (FreeBSD finally got a good binary security update system, though!) I reject OpenBSD outright because the upgrade path is atrocious, and support is fairly limited for older versions. NetBSD certainly seems fine enough, but I've never seen anything it particularly excels at.

I stay away from Solaris for mostly the same reasons that I stay away from OpenBSD--maintainability. That said, if I was trying to serve filesystems from a general purpose box, you can bet I'd be using Solaris and ZFS (which is available in FreeBSD current, but not as stable as Solaris).

But here's the kicker: it would be pretty nice if all of these systems were good at all of these tasks. That is, it'd be nice if there was an OS called SoLinBSD, which had the maintainability and simplicity of FreeBSD, security of OpenBSD, software binary updates (and desktop capabilities) of Linux, and a good ZFS implementation. It would be nice if we could have a homogeneous OS to ease administration. It'd be nice.

The Windows monoculture does this. As the article points out, it actually does a lot of things pretty well, and the interfaces are pretty well documented. It doesn't do everything I want, which is why I don't use it for these tasks, but some people consider a generic tool which does lots of things in an acceptable way to be superior to lots of separate, exceptional tools. That's why we have general purpose computers instead of standalone word processors, e-mail readers, web portals, and game consoles. It's why firewalls are often run on generic hardware when extremely high bandwidth doesn't require an embedded solution. We have a virtual monoculture of hardware (even Macs have gone to x86) for most purposes.

Ug. Rant off.

Joel links

[Falladir]

backslash: http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/22/15 51236
and the original Joel blog post: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/11/21.htm l

In advance, to any GNOME fanboys (because I feel like I'm on the front lines of that holy war): this doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to do things. If it's easy to learn how to do things, then it's *great* to be able to do things. By 'things', I mean reassigning hotkeys, and changing the contents of the toolbar. The interface for these actions is uniform across all of the core KDE apps and many of the peripheral ones, so after learning just one simple gui, the user gains great control over all the programs in his KDE desktop.

As if choice is inexistant on MS platforms

[xenocide2]

There's plenty of choice on Windows. The only difference is that these choices involve paying money for things whose worth you can't evaluate until you've used them for longer than a month. Branding helps tremendously in such a situation, as does bundling, both of which MS has in spades.

Some examples of choices developers have on windows platforms:
* IDEs - visual studio, eclipse, netbeans, dev-c++, codewarrior, just to name a few I've used
* The various .NET languages
* Databases
* Webservers, IIS, apache, or something else?
* antivirus, Vista tried pretty hard to end all of these though.

If you're just moaning about how Microsoft has a large vertically integrated set of tools, well, there's Java. Nobody does this, because its stupid and they have the choice not to.

Re:As if choice is inexistant on MS platforms

[casings]

While I agree with your point, these points are more or less choices made during the design of a program or platform and are made either depending on the project or the company. I believe the article is referring to not only these standard design choices, but also the fact that there are literally infinite numbers of configurations using open source software which go beyond simple design choices, and which most firms want some kind of standard over.

AFAIK, managers don't want to have to spend the time making sure the environment is properly setup when that time could be used to make important design decisions.

Re:As if choice is inexistant on MS platforms

[clarkn0va]

* antivirus

My choice of antivirus on Windows? Well screw linux! here's one prodigal son that's coming home!

Re:As if choice is inexistant on MS platforms

[Osty]

There's plenty of choice on Windows. The only difference is that these choices involve paying money for things whose worth you can't evaluate until you've used them for longer than a month.

If you're going to claim that you have to pay for everything on Windows, you probably ought to choose better examples.

IDEs - visual studio, eclipse, netbeans, dev-c++, codewarrior, just to name a few I've used

Visual Studio (Express versions), Eclipse, NetBeans, Dev-C++ -- all free

The various .NET languages

Again, free. You don't need anything but a text editor and the .NET SDK (free) to build .NET applications. Also, other languages like F# (variant of ML) and IronPython (uh ... Python on .NET) are free as well. In fact, IronPython is even open source.

Databases

SQL Server Express, PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite, all free. Sure, SQL Server (non-Express), Oracle, and db2 are not free, but Oracle and db2 are not free on Linux either.

Webservers, IIS, apache, or something else?

IIS is "free" (comes with the OS you paid for), and Apache is obviously free as well.

If you're just moaning about how Microsoft has a large vertically integrated set of tools, well, there's Java. Nobody does this, because its stupid and they have the choice not to.

They have the choice not to moan about Microsoft's vertically integrated toolset? Or they have the choice not to use Java?

For independent or small developers, an integrated set of tools isn't really all that important (though nice). For a medium to large business, it's critical if you want to get anything done in a reasonable amount of time without reinventing the wheel over and over again. That toolset doesn't have to be Microsoft, but they do provide a compelling set of developer utilities (Visual Studio is easily one of the best IDEs available for any price, for example). That's what the article was getting at -- when it comes to developers, Microsoft Gets It(tm) (queue Ballmer's infamous "Developers developers developers" video here).

Re:As if choice is inexistant on MS platforms

[xenocide2]

All you've done is demonstrate that most all the choices you have on Linux are there on Microsoft too. In addition to the choices that don't exist on the Linux platform. I didn't really mean to harp on the paid aspect quite as much, though I'm sure that someone could highlight a few more commercial tools.

What I meant by java is that should you really want to, you can run your entire large scale applcation on java. iPlanet, tomcat, java db, servlets and jsps, netBeans, the Java language, the JVM, etc. Nobody uses all of this, because there's better choices out there. Postgresql, for example works well. I can't really speak to what developers with .NET use, though the author suggests .NET developers stay with MS tools. Point is, if you're looking for best of breed, you have to stop caring about vertical integration. You have the choice to use only parts of the vertical integration.

On an unrelated note, I wasn't aware the .NET SDK was free. Interesting, but I can't see the justification in using F# over Ocaml. Of course, if you're using .NET you might as well get an MSDN kit and visual studio, so I can see where they're going with it.

Re:As if choice is inexistant on MS platforms

[Osty]

On an unrelated note, I wasn't aware the .NET SDK was free. Interesting, but I can't see the justification in using F# over Ocaml. Of course, if you're using .NET you might as well get an MSDN kit and visual studio, so I can see where they're going with it.

.NET SDK 2.0. Also, as I mentioned, Visual Studio Express products are available for free for many different uses (app development, web development, database development, game development, etc). If you're developing software professionally, you probably would want to spring for a full Visual Studio product, but for individuals and small projects the Express SKUs work great. XNA's Game Studio Express is built on top of Visual C# Express, for example, and allows you to build games for Windows and/or Xbox 360.

As for why you would use F# instead of OCAML, IronPython instead of Python, Ruby.NET instead of Ruby, etc, is for interoperability. Because the languages are implemented to compile down to IL (.NET's Intermediate Language), they can be used with any other .NET language. For most people it's just a novelty, but it's still cool in a geeky way. BTW, this is no different than building compilers to target languages to the Java VM, like Jython. Why would you use Jython rather than Python? Because it can more easily interact with Java components and other languages compiled to the Java VM. Not a big deal if you're only doing Python work, but invaluable if parts of your product are written in Java and it makes sense to build other portions with Python.

Re:As if choice is inexistant on MS platforms

[KingMotley]

It's much less of a novelty than you think. Quite a few ASP.NET controls are written in C#, and quite a few are written in VB.NET. Depending on which shop you land up in, your pages will be written in one or the other, and all the code libraries you have written are equally available to both. I've got quite a few websites that have classes written in C# and VB.NET both (some even inherit/extend from a class written in the other language).

Bones!

[conn3x]

I choose the danger!

de facto arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

"What the monopoly says, goes. They define a standard. Because they're MS, they define a standard that's different and incompatible with official standards."

Would that be the .NET standard, or the Mono standard?

"Nothing to see here. Market forces and ease of use win over features, stability, or quality."

Well considering the story is about development environments (I'm not certain how desktop environments got dragged into this). Are you saying that Visual Studio is incapable of producing quality code that's stable? Or is two and three a function of the programmer wielding the tool, and not the tool itself?

Re:de facto arguments

[swordgeek]

I think we're both looking at a fringe part of the article's central argument, and different fringes at that.

The /. article started by saying, "Why does Microsoft win the development environment war so often, when we all know it's a lifetime lock-in to Windows?"

But the question begs the answer: "Microsoft wins the development environment war so often because it's a lifetime lock-in to Windows." Being 'locked-in' in this manner means that this is potentially the best way to exploit all of the non-standard but friendly Windows development features. (And even languages, for that matter - C# comes to mind.) Furthermore, developers are happy and willing to be locked into Windows in this manner because they're already there.

Part of my original point is that monopolies are self-supporting. An end-user monopoly (i.e. Windows) will drive progress towards sustaining that monopoly (development tools designed for Windows, writing Windows software with Windows quirks, for Windows users). That's about it.

The reason why everyone uses Microsoft....

[linguae]

...is not because open source offers too many choices. After all, Microsoft's products are still a choice among many other solutions. The reason why much of us still use Microsoft software (to be more specific, Windows, Office, and programming environments related to those two products) is because of a few reasons:

1. Microsoft Windows is simply where the user base is; hence, software is prioritized to be written for Windows. For example, I recently had to buy Windows XP to install on my MacBook because my statistics class required the use of Minitab for its assignments, where no OS X or Linux version exist. AutoCad, a popular engineering tool, is also Windows only.
2. People are comfortable with Microsoft products, and don't feel like switching to alternatives, even if the alternative is technologically superior or can improve their productivity. Why don't they switch? Well, many people figured that they've invested a lot of time learning a product, and they don't want to spend that same amount of time learning an alternative. As much as we geeks wish otherwise, not everybody is very interested in the tools that they use.

Microsoft alternatives do have their merits. To use operating systems as an example, OS X is a great general purpose OS, and I love the customizability of open-source OSes such as Linux and BSD. However, most software is written for Windows (you're guaranteed to find a Windows software package for almost anything, whereas you'll have to search harder when using an alternate platform), and if you have a Windows problem, somebody will know how to fix it.

I admit, I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft. However, most of us can't avoid their software, like it or not. After nearly a year of not having a Windows machine, I installed a Windows partition to do class assignments. I don't like Windows, but I need to do what is necessary to complete the assignment. For some people, replace assignment with job and add "to pay the bills."

I don't think MS's monopoly will last forever. But, for now, expect to be still using Windows and other Microsoft solutions. When you are in a lion's mouth, wiggle until you wiggle yourself out.

Re:The reason why everyone uses Microsoft....

[stewbacca]

I don't like Windows, but I need to do what is necessary to complete the assignment. For some people, replace assignment with job and add "to pay the bills."

I too have WinXP in a partition for Grad school work (MS Access, and some statistics add-on for Excel that was PC-only). I also own two PC's but would rather just use my Mac in XP mode. Sadly, the same mindset that keeps people using Windows, will also prevent most people from taking the time to install XP partitions on Macs.

The second part of your statement is one I'll never understand. Just because you need a PC at work, doesn't mean you need a PC at home, unless you are in business for yourself, or work from home. This has been true for me since my first Mac back in 1989. I simply don't understand people who feel the need to punish themselves with gawd-awful work-related software and hardware by bringing it into the sanctuary of their private lives and homes!

I agree totally that users are comfortable using what they know and are afraid to switch. I've seen it time and time again with reasonably intelligent people. Even my own family members can't seem to escape the grip of Microsoft, citing the same mantra: "need-it-for-work." Uh, Mom and Dad, you've been retired since your last two new computers.

Re:The reason why everyone uses Microsoft....

[tftp]

I simply don't understand people who feel the need to punish themselves with gawd-awful work-related software and hardware by bringing it into the sanctuary of their private lives and homes!

When you graduate and get a job you will sometimes ask yourself what you'd like more - to go to work on Sunday, or to work at home on Sunday. It's not something that you'd do often, but when job requires it you do it - there are plenty of deadlines in every job, and people are supposed to meet them no matter what - especially if you had to spend a few business hours on a family errand earlier that week. You sometimes take, and you sometimes give.

Re:The reason why everyone uses Microsoft....

[marsm]

The 'I need Windows to run $application' argument doesn't stand anymore, imho. Not since we have VirtualBox (as 'easy to use' as Ubuntu) out in the open and virtualisation support has been officially added to the kernel. And yes, it runs very smoothly even on my crappy (1.5GHz, 512MB RAM, onboard Intel Graphics) laptop! Almost any Windows program can be downloaded, installed and used in Virtualbox (except graphically intense games, obviously ... the emulation isn't that good yet). You can share files directly between Windows and Linux without rebooting. You get the best of both worlds at the same time!

Re:The reason why everyone uses Microsoft....

[DragonFodder]

No thanks, I think I'll just "shake my fist at the darkness" while I help design a better lamp.

Re:The reason why everyone uses Microsoft....

[stewbacca]

ometimes ask yourself what you'd like more - to go to work on Sunday, or to work at home on Sunday.

Or my option: sleep in, drink beer and watch sports on Sunday. Who says you have to go to work or bring it home at all?

Re:The reason why everyone uses Microsoft....

[tftp]

Your family, who wants you to earn that money (if you are self-employed, a contractor for example.) Or, if you an employee of a large company, your boss may ask you to work extra on that proposal that is due on Monday morning. You can refuse, but then say goodbye to your promotion hopes.

Re:The reason why everyone uses Microsoft....

[linguae]

One problem. You still need a copy of Windows to do virtualization with. So you still need Windows; you're just running it in a VM instead of natively.

I hears yah

[Anonymous Coward]

Saw the headline, immediately groaned "Oh God, not this sh*t again!" And I'm only an AC!

Once again for the whole thread to follow: if having too many choices bothers you, then just pick one tool for each job at random, cling to it for life, and refuse to acknowledge that the others exist. After all, that's how a lot of you became Windows users back in 1995...

Re:I hears yah

[Wonko the Sane]

"This one time, I tried to use a 1/2" socket wrench and wasted a bunch of time until I realized that I actually needed a 9/16" box end wrench"

"Having this many different tools is too confusing. Instead of socket wrenches, box end wrenches, open-end wrenches and hammers, we should just use crescent wrenches for everything"

Re:I hears yah

[bug1]

I went to bottle shop the other day to buy some beer, to my surprise they had 100 different types, i really enjoyed sampling them all at the time, but today i am sick and bloated.

Just because you can have something doesnt mean you should.

Re:I hears yah

[Helldesk Hound]

> "Having this many different tools is too confusing. Instead of socket
> wrenches, box end wrenches, open-end wrenches and hammers, we should
> just use crescent wrenches for everything"

But sometimes you need a spanner.

Sometimes you also need a screw driver.

And sometimes you need a tool designed specifically to get into that awkward spot that no other tool can get into.

tools are precision instruments designed to manipulate precision parts without damaging those parts.

If you have a one-tool-fits-all approach then you only end up reducing either the variety or the quality of what you can produce.

Re:I hears yah

[aslate]

I'd say it's more like a toolbox, where Windows provides you with a set of standardly used tools already included.

Linus is the toolbox, but you've got a huge store of screwdrivers and whatnot to choose from, with 5 different versions of the same screwdriver and a loads variations in size and shape.

It's nice to get a toolbox and get the same stuff as everyone else, rather than hunt for the 6/9th inch screwdriver amoungst the 61/90ths and the 58/90th versions.

Re:I hears yah

[Fred_A]

I'd say it's more like a toolbox, where Windows provides you with a set of standardly used tools already included.

Linus is the toolbox, but you've got a huge store of screwdrivers and whatnot to choose from, with 5 different versions of the same screwdriver and a loads variations in size and shape.

That may be what it feels like if you've never seen a toolbox. Windows really feels like one of those Chinese discount "all the tools included" boxed sets which neither have all the tools you really need and where the ones included tend to break if you look at them funny anyway. Once you've tried working with real tools there's no going back.

Re:I hears yah

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to crack house the other day to buy some pussy, to my surprise they had 20 different women, all shapes and races, i really enjoyed sampling them all at the time, but today i am broke. Damn.

Just because you can have something means you should. Unless you're a cheapass.

(I like Linda best, she's a little old but she only charges ten bucks. Kind of like Linux;)

A more likely explanation is simple

[Whuffo]

Given that approximately 90% of PCs run Windows - if you were writing software for commercial distribution, what platform would you target?

The "problem" that open source based systems have isn't all that complex - it's their tiny "market share" that holds development back. Various flavors of distribution just fragement the tiny market - even if every distribution sang the same tune it wouldn't change the big picture.

The way to "fix" this is to help others to migrate to Linux systems. With the open source advocates pulling - and Microsoft pushing (with their anti-consumer acts) it's a sure win for Linux. It's going to take some time to get there, though...

Re:A more likely explanation is simple

[cdrguru]

Market share is a factor, but so is compatability.

I can develop a product which is sold to Windows users all over the world and works on Windows 95 through Windows Vista with a single binary that is less than 2MB and can be installed by anyone in 2 minutes.

Yes, the basic API level code hasn't changed that much, so I could probably distribute a Linux application that would work across many distributions and many versions of Linux and some window manager. But it wouldn't work for everyone because the installed KDE instead of GTK. And they would have to compile it and have all of the necessary libraries installed. This can be brutal even for someone that knows how to do it. Trying to get the 60+ retired gentleman with a digital camera to be able to do it is next to impossible.

And until that changes, Linux will be a small niche player.

Re:A more likely explanation is simple

[yoasif]

Very few people install OSes on their own for their PCs. They generally buy them preinstalled with their computers. The OS X thing is interesting, since after a long period of Apple becoming almost irrelevant outside their own community, they are actually taking some marketshare -- look at college campuses and the many new Macbooks floating around -- there's obviously still an opportunity for other OSes to make it in the market, but consumers want the choice preinstalled on their PCs.

When and if Dell (or another mass market PC vendor) installs Linux on their PCs, we can get a better idea of how Linux can do against the Microsoft monoculture... until then, it's almost a moot point for most users.

Consumers hate choice

[Synn]

This is why there is only 1 car manufacturer. 1 brand of soda, shoes, toothe paste and so on.

Consumers would get confused if they had to choose from 15 different versions of laundry detergent, so we only have Tide.

Re:Consumers hate choice

[heinousjay]

It doesn't require much investment of time to learn the differences involved in dispensing laundry detergent. They are effectively drop in replacements replacements for each other, from a user's perspective.

As are all your examples, actually. The differences lie in taste, not capability.

You've basically demonstrated that you don't get the point in the article at all. I guess that is why this keeps getting posted, over and over again. It's the sledgehammer technique.

Re:Consumers hate choice

[Lemmy Caution]

I was about to invent a "if different laundry detergents only worked on some washers" kind of analogy, but the point is better made by observing that software has a lot of interdependencies that aren't reflected by comparison to things like washing detergent.

Re:Consumers hate choice

[plasmacutter]

As are all your examples, actually. The differences lie in taste, not capability.

You've basically demonstrated that you don't get the point in the article at all.

I think he got the point perfectly.

Os is also a difference in taste.

I switched to linux from windows because it suited my taste, and to mac from linux because it suited my taste better.

I don't see the difference.. an os is an os is an os.. theyre there to provide basic computer operation, filebrowsing, and a foundation from which to run specialized apps. all 3 of these choices (and many more) provide that functionality.

They use different applications, but then again cars use different parts, different gas.

Now if you want to argue it stems from the american mentality of "technology is for geeks so i dont want to do any of the legwork", that's another story, but his comparison was valid.

i can take any x86 pc and "drop in" linux or bsd as a replacement (or osX if it's a mac).

Re:Consumers hate choice

[MechaBlue]

One of the first things that Steve Jobs did when he got back into the CEO chair was to reduce the number of Macs. Why? Too many choices are daunting. Now, there are 5 different families of computers: Macbook, Macbook Pro, Mac-Mini, iMac, and PowerMac. While there are some variations to be had, this makes it easy for most people to find the right one (especially since most retail stores don't allow for customization). It doesn't look like this lack of choice has done much to hold Apple back.

Choice is good when there is significant differences between the options (e.g., Windows, Linux, Mac) and bad when there are many options without strong selling points (e.g., a bazillion window managers for Linux). Sure, there will be some people that love choosing and customizing every small thing. The other 99.99% of the will be happy in choosing the right broad strokes.

Re:Consumers hate choice

[rm69990]

That's an incredibly stupid comparison. More or less, all cars are driven using almost identical controls. You don't have to learn how to drink different kinds of soda, or use different kinds of tooth paste. Any laundry detergent will work in any washing machine and are all used the same way. This obviously isn't the case with development environments, GUI toolkits, etc etc. If you're going to make an analogy...try to make one that isn't...you know...retarded. Lest you look like a moron.

Re:Consumers hate choice

[rm69990]

I wouldn't talk about getting the point when you apparently didn't read the article or the summary. They're talking about development environments. As in, Linux is a fractured bloody mess, unlike OS X and Windows, which is why plenty of companies will write software for OS X but won't touch Linux with a 10-foot pole despite Linux having about the same number of users or more users than OS X.

While there are different environments for OS X or Windows, you don't have to worry about things like "will my app use a different file selector dialog than every other program the user uses because their desktop uses toolkit def instead of ghi", or "will my app stick out like a sore thumb because the user is using desktop environment xyz as opposed to abc" or "will my app correctly add itself to the menus on all distros or only on distros 1-5 and not 6-10 because they all insist on implementing something as simple as a menu system differently (when I used Linux, I had to constantly fix this problem)", etc etc. That isn't even beginning to address the problems with the kernel and the ever-shifting but never-stable for a moment API for drivers.

Re:Consumers hate choice

[tftp]

reduce the number of Macs. Why? Too many choices are daunting

So many people said the same about the 17 flavors of MS Vista (and they are right about that.)

Re:Consumers hate choice

[rm69990]

I'm assuming you meant Mac Pro and not Powermac :-P

Re:Consumers hate choice

[MechaBlue]

That's what happens when you've been on the Mac platform as long as I have. Ah, the days of 10.3.9...

Re:Consumers hate choice

[GauteL]

"This is why there is only 1 car manufacturer. 1 brand of soda, shoes, toothe paste and so on."

Interesting that you say this, because most consumers simply will not evaluate all car manufacturers all brands of soda, all shoes, all toothpastes, etc. In most cases they simply chose what they are used to or whatever is on offer at Tesco.

When it comes to cars, most people do not search around to find the best car for them, they rely heavily on brand recognition which is why advertisement is so successful, and why Linux will not outsell Windows even if it was vastly superiour.

There is an enormous amount of research available on this, particularly because there is so much money in consumer decisions, and most seem to suggest that people make 'binary decisions' rather than comparisons.

That is; people look at one choice at a time, and if the choice is acceptable, they stop their search. Only if the choice is unacceptable do they move on to the next product. This is because massive amounts of choice is indeed painful.

Re:Consumers hate choice

[heinousjay]

Difference in OS choice is a lot more than just taste, unless you boil everything down to taste. Windows is not a drop-in replacement for OS X. Linux is not a drop in replacement for Windows. You don't need to reformulate how you wash your clothes because Era was on sale so you bought that instead of Tide. I think you didn't get my point.

Re:Consumers hate choice

[DaAdder]

The *point* of this debate is that a lot of people do not want choice at all.

I'd wager most in fact do not.
My parents for instance do not.

Also you can argue semantics all day. People can't suddenly use linux due to a lifetime of MacOS or Windows usage. All the products you listed can be used without any further training. Different gas doesn't in any sane universe compare to a different OS. It's x86 so therefor it's compatible?
Come on, we're arguing from the point of a user here, mostly, since the vast majority of people are users after all, not developers. Although in fact a lot of developers aren't too fond of fragmentation either. And they're the type of people that often take the time to make the rational choice that'll best benefit them if they can.

Stop trying to act superior, start applying some common sense, instead of just trying to out argue.

Re:Consumers hate choice

[Yogs]

There is no learning curve in any of those switches so, it's not a valid comparison.

A more valid comparison might be DVORAK vs. QUERTY.

In principle, DVORAK is a more efficient, better choice, but I never seem to get around to investing the time to pick it up.
Why? Because I already touch type QUERTY and so it's good enough for me on a day to day basis.

That, and in the likely event I had to go back to QUERTY for some task (someone else's machine), I know I'd be awfully clumsy with it.

Re:Consumers hate choice

[Oligonicella]

DVORAK isn't even a good example. The Navy found it to be a push after familiarization.

Re:Consumers hate choice

[JacksBrokenCode]

So many people said the same about the 17 flavors of MS Vista (and they are right about that.)

**WARNING** You are pointing out fanboy hypocrisy which is a clear violation of Slashdot social contract!

• Choice is good if presented by F/OSS (many Linux flavors) but bad when presented by MS (several Vista flavors).
• Pointing out progress is required if describing Linux (more usable than it used to be) but disparaged when addressing Windows (daily BSOD jokes still occur?).
• When discussing existing features, make sure that MS products are described as bloated (MS Word) while F/OSS products have features (OO.o).
• When discussing innovations, make sure that MS innovations are described as rip-offs or "I would never use that useless thing" (Office ribbon interface) while F/OSS innovations are creative and "wouldn't exist if somebody didn't want them" (Beryl).

All above bullet points can be applied to fanboys of any system juxtaposed with an opposing system, this just happens to be a largely anti-MS site so I wrote them in that context.

Lifetime Lock-in?

[MrSteveSD]

Why does Microsoft win the development environment war so often, when we all know it's a lifetime lock-in

It's not a lifetime lock-in when they discontinue your entire development environment and language. Yep, by discontinuing the VB6 language they saved us from that terrible lock-in. Now we are free to re-type those millions of lines of code (and years of effort) in another language on any platform we like. How thoughtful of them.

Re:Lifetime Lock-in?

[LordEd]

Actually anything you wrote in VB6 will still work. You can still install the VB6 development system and edit it as much as you like.

I personally hate VB6 and am glad it has been send back to the fiery pit from whence it came. I highly prefer the .NET languages over it. 99% of the code I wrote in 1.0 is still working in 2.0. Now that 2.0 reintroduced a serial port class, we can completely drop VB6.

Re:Lifetime Lock-in?

[MrSteveSD]

Actually anything you wrote in VB6 will still work.

Really? Are you sure there are no issues at all on Vista? Once a language is no longer supported, customers will have no confidence in a product written in that language.

You can still install the VB6 development system and edit it as much as you like.

I have heard various reports that the development environment itself has problems installing on Vista.

I personally hate VB6 and am glad it has been send back to the fiery pit from whence it came. I highly prefer the .NET languages over it. 99% of the code I wrote in 1.0 is still working in 2.0. Now that 2.0 reintroduced a serial port class, we can completely drop VB6.

I agree that .NET is much better than VB6, but that's not the point. If your company has spent years and hundreds of thousands developing products in VB6, it's a bit of a bummer when Microsoft ditches the language. Many small companies are still clinging onto their VB6 products because they do not have the time or money for rewrites. Moving over to a new language should be a business decision, not one forced on you by Microsoft.

Re:Lifetime Lock-in?

[tgcid]

While I can't say "anything in VB6" will work; our company's largest application tests out ok on Vista with "minor" non-VB6 issues:

1. The application requires a Cancel / Allow on load

I know, shame on us for writing to the hard drive outside our little "Documents and Settings" sandbox. Unfortunately, the type of multi-user support our customers want requires it.

2. A few labels are unreadable

The background was originally set to a system-defined gray (under Vista's default theme gray is black).

Note: This is not an endorsement of Vista, nor does Vista provide any benefits to our application. Unless you consider requiring a significant hardware upgrade to run almost as fast as it did on XP. "Almost as fast" is defined as the same speed while the application is idle, and 1.5-3x slower during cpu-intensive tasks (like loading or sorting a batch) But at least it works when the serial connection doesn't randomly fail!

Spooky

[Rorian]

I was thinking about all of this just yesterday - At work I develop code almost entirely in Visual Studio (98, 2k3 and 2k5) with a little netbeans on the side when I have to deal with Java. I installed Ubuntu 7.04 on the weekend (haven't used Linux in a while, thought I'd have another play). Now I have KDevelop, Eclipse, GCC+Vi, GDB, DDD, KDB, and about 15 other tools that all provide portions of what MS VS wraps up in one neat package, and none of them do it with half the quality. Eclipse is not bad, but 1. It's written in Java, and fairly slow, 2. Debugger integration was average at best and 3. The GUI is overly verbose, borders are too big etc. There are other issues but I guess most of them dissapear with prolonged usage (I'm still not 100% happy with Visual Studio, and I've used that for years).

My point is, Microsoft has made it MUCH easier for developers than Linux, at least for in-house software development. I must admit that there are some benefits to Open Source development tools for distributed development, but not all that many - Svn/Cvs are equally as usable under Windows (if not easier, with tortoisesvn/cvs), Cygwin covers a lot of gaps for GNU-Win32 development, etc.

I don't know if it's the amount of choice or what, and I must admit I haven't used KDevelop in a long time, it may be really awesome by now, but I really don't look forward to the day when M$ explodes and I am forced onto Linux/Mac OS X (I hear the Mac OS X IDE of choice is pretty nasty).

Re:Spooky

[Rorian]

uhuh.. what if I want to provide a full blown application suite? You are right, Linux can do all sorts of wonderful things like that (but then, so can Cygwin under win32.. if html2pdf doesn't exist in Cygwin yet, porting cannot be all that hard) so that point is slightly moot. I've also found that Python is fantastic tool for thousands of such odd-jobs like that, and Python is just as happy under Win32 as Linux.

The fact is that for large application development, Visual Studio IS a fantastic tool and I would use it before any other development environment I have experienced to date, for such a task. As for Windows being a closed platform, care to actually elaborate on how it is closed, and how this closed nature has a negative impact on daily productivity?

I appreciate Linux advocacy, I used to be a Linux advocate myself, and ran Linux exclusively for a long time, but the fact is that I am not going to be Pro-Linux just because it's cool. Windows does everything I want (which generally consists of watching the occasional movie, bit of music, web browsing and the odd bit of World of Warcraft). Linux does all of this as well, but just not quite as nicely, so why bother?

Perhaps I'm with the wrong crowd here, being Slashdot and all, but I'm starting to get bored with the whole "Support Linux because it's not Microsoft" rant - How about supporting the best tool for the job, no matter what that tool is? It's just a little bit more mature.

Re:Spooky

[0kComputer]

Lets use a little example here, say I wish to do something simple like take a html document and convert it to pdf and deploy it to a remote server some place.

Heres an easy way using windows
1. Install CutePdf (free)
2. File>Print>Save As... [Remote Server]

Any other stumpers?

monoculture bad

[bugi]

Keep in mind that monoculture has disadvantages too.

Variety, for example, is necessary for adaptation, creativity and resistance to disease.

Re:monoculture bad

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The irony of your post is that your biology analogy doesn't really work.

I'm surprised that in the hundreds of posts to this thread, no-one yet seems to have noticed that one good possibility is worth more than a choice among many poor options.

MS Office is my usual example. While some OSS has been very successful, there is more creativity in the search bar in Firefox than in the entirety of OpenOffice Writer. It is unashamedly written as a Word rip-off. So are most of the other big-name OSS word processors. The only real adaptation most of these products do is to run on a non-Windows platform. They aren't creative at all, for the most part at least. Resistance to disease? Like what, the macro viruses everyone complains about yet strangely I never seem to encounter?

If you're fond of analogies, try a few different ones to see what fits. You might like to consider the old redundancy for safety vs. wasted effort conundrum as a starting point.

Re:monoculture bad

[bugi]

Does any analogy really work?

Anyhow, to further extend the biology analogy, msword evolved in relatively healthy competition with wordperfect and its ilk. MSWord is well adapted to its limited environment, but it better hope no more flexible sport wanders into its valley to take over niche.

Take xml for example. XML has only recently wandered out of its niche in specialized structured document editors, and has demonstrated its utility in a wide variety of environs. Now msword is struggling to compete in the changed ecosystem, and has avoided extinction only by virtue of the vicious protectiveness of its mommy.

At this point, new word processor adaptations are more likely to succeed if they provide an interface familiar to the potential users; that doesn't mean they're the same in all ways.

Re:monoculture bad

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Now msword is struggling to compete in the changed ecosystem, and has avoided extinction only by virtue of the vicious protectiveness of its mommy.

At this point, new word processor adaptations are more likely to succeed if they provide an interface familiar to the potential users; that doesn't mean they're the same in all ways.

I disagree with your basic premise. Word hasn't avoided extinction because of its mommy's protectiveness. It has avoided extinction because it is the best word processor available today, bar none. AFAICS, those new word processors are all trying to be the same in all ways, but of course they'll always be one step behind because they're letting Microsoft define the game. Can you name a single serious feature that something like OO Writer or AbiWord has that Word doesn't do at least as well? (Please don't anyone shout the "PDF export" mantra. Leaving aside recent developments in Microsoft land, the PDF export in OO Writer is so crippled as to be a liability anyway.)

Re:monoculture bad

[bugi]

I haven't used msword in ages, so I can't answer your feature comparison the way you want. You may want to look at http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/06 /14/2137222&tid=152 if you need a feature comparison.

That however, wasn't my point. MS has isolated itself and its products. It does dominate its own ecosystem, but other beasties have overrun their own ecosystem by virtue of openness and interoperability (cooperation) and are invading MS's ecosystem. At present they have the advantage of being entrenched, but if they don't adapt to the new conditions, they will lose relevance.

MSWord may even be the best word processor on MSWindows, but who cares? One only has to look as far as VHS vs. BetaMAX to discover how relevant that is.

Re:monoculture bad

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I appreciate your taking the time to post a link, but in this case, I would refer you to my posting history. (You can find this fairly quickly via Google: search for my user name and site:slashdot.org if you can't see far enough back using Slashdot's own tools.) I have criticised both Word and OpenOffice Writer in the past, in far more detail than the article you cited. And FWIW, I disagree with the article's conclusions, because while Writer might claim the same features as Word on paper, it has some basic usability flaws and fundamental bugs that in practice render many of those features unusable for serious work.

MSWord may even be the best word processor on MSWindows, but who cares? One only has to look as far as VHS vs. BetaMAX to discover how relevant that is.

Perhaps an ironic choice of example: VHS was technically inferior to its rival, but became the dominant standard for VCRs due to greater early market penetration and better branding. Today, decades later, it still holds that position, while no-one has cared about Betamax compatibility for years.

Re:Who needs choices? Let's be slaves instead

[luismm75]

Too much choice.

Thanks, we know

[The Bungi]

From TFA:

Guess what? Microsoft has a pretty good development suite on their hands. To be honest, C# is largely what I'd do if I could rewrite Java from scratch with no concerns for backward compatibility. It has a couple of really cool features, like the virtual, override and new keywords that let you specify what should happen when you cast a class to it's base class and then call a method on it that's defined in both.

Guess what? We all know that. We've tried Eclipse and KDevelop and Glade all your other tools. You have pretty cool languages but you insist on keeping your barriers artificially high by forcing a primitive toolset on everyone so that only the anointed few can develop software for your platform.

Of course one of the core problems is someone like this, who from the article seems like the quintessential "Microsoft sux" type-A personality suddenly realizes that Microsoft (and Borland and others) have been writing far superior development tools for the past ten years that actually increase developer productivity and having great success at it. What an idea! Having to learn 14 different tools to get something done might be good for bragging and leetness, but they kill productivity. In the real world, that kills the deal.

Imagine what kind of killer product you would have if you paired Ruby with a good IDE and a good graphical debugger. Or Python. A good front-end to MySQL that's actually easy to use. Or an admin tool for Apache that makes sense. But "ease of use" is not "leet", so no dice. "We don't want VB in Linux". That's a great attitude, and it will continue to perpetuate the idea that Windows is the only "easy" platform to write software in, with Microsoft tools. There's no reality distortion field here - that's just the truth.

So much potential wasted because of a culture that idolizes unecessary complexity as if it were a badge of honor.

Re:Thanks, we know

[mattgreen]

Well put. You see blowhards on here who insist that Linux should be hard to use, because, damn it, it was hard for them to learn it. Or some tripe about how computers should require a license to use. And it amuses me when I inquire why OSS alternatives have a hard time parsing C++ for autocomplete: "it's hard to do." Cry me a river, of course it is. I thought the many eyes of open source could solve *any* problem? In reality, nobody wants to, so it stays in a state below half-assed. Visual Studio limps on by and at least gets right enough to be useful.

Visual Studio is far from perfect, but for a tool that I used day in and day out, I don't have many complaints overall. How many programs can you really say that about?

Re:Thanks, we know

[pembo13]

The only IDE on Windows that I prefer to KDevelop is Borland Delphi. BTW, have you tried the official MySQL front end? Also, why are you confusing ease of use with ease of development?

Re:Thanks, we know

[Llywelyn]

Imagine what kind of killer product you would have if you paired Ruby with a good IDE and a good graphical debugger. Or Python.

Eclipse w/ PyDev is fairly killer and not difficult to set up. Objective-C w/ XCode and Interface Builder is also very nice to work with.

Re:Thanks, we know

[throx]

BTW, have you tried the official MySQL front end? Have you tried the SQL Server front end? Seriously, it makes the MySQL front end look like a toy someone hacked up over the weekend. In fact, it makes every other database front end look lame in comparison. The whole graphical showplan thing is pretty damn cool.

I will grant that Dev Studio has lost a lot of its lead over other IDEs in the recent years. Some of the debugging stuff is still fairly far ahead of anything available for other systems though - especially the ability to do cross language things (stepping from C# to C++ to SQL stored procs).

Re:Thanks, we know

[tftp]

Imagine what kind of killer product you would have

In all my Linux coding experience I never had any luck whatsoever with autoconf tools - they seem to be just archaic, and nevertheless everyone uses them... I think I managed to do one small project once, and that's it.

RPM was also unpleasant, but at least it wasn't that old, and if you follow the rules you can do it. Still, improvements could be made.

But on MSVC 2005 ... drag a few files into the proper folders and you can make an installation package in literally seconds; a .msi file ready for distribution (and no ./configure && make install either.) For a business this is the only way to do things.

Re:Thanks, we know

[MechaBlue]

C#.NET is wonderful, far better than Java.
- Exception handling is much better. Rather than having the compiler complain when I forget to handle an exception, it encourages me to wade through many pages of docmentation and manually trace it.
- Generics have a great naming convention. Instead of being able to remember 1 name and interface for a class, I need to know 2. It even encourages me to learn both by forcing me to modify sizeable portions of the code when moving from non-generics to generics.
- The documentation is so much better than Java, too. Rather than have 1 page per class and making me use the page-up and page-down keys, it lets me use the much more convenient type-to-search-and-click-through-6-pages approach.
- It's great that the solution file changes every time that I pick my nose. It makes using Subversion and CVS so much easier, especially with a large team.
- The kept all the good stuff from Java, such as: ArrayList arrayList = new ArrayList();
- Also, I don't have to worry about another creating a non-standard implementation of the CLR and trying to lock-out clones. Microsoft can do this all by itself.
- I don't need to worry about trying to get .NET applications working on non-Windows platforms because MS has only released a reference implementation for Windows.
- I don't need to worry about adding in code generation for repetitive tasks because there doesn't seem to be any facility for it.

I'm sure that there are workarounds for some of these issues but, really, I don't care. I learned Java a decade ago and, if I want to program in something like Java, I'd rather do it in Java than learn C#.NET. Especially when I can use vim or Eclipse to crank out a Ruby or Bash script to tie together a few simple programs. C#.NET is Java that tried to not be Java, but only succeeded in the bad ways.

Admittedly, Visual Studio 2k3 and 2k5 have advantages over Eclipse. The comments in C# are somewhat nice (// comments are better than /* */ comments when commenting out large blocks of code, though the XML thing is really verbose). The word-completion is totally sexy. I could do without the curious glitches, though...

Re:Thanks, we know

[revengebomber]

Guess what? We all know that. We've tried Eclipse and KDevelop and Glade all your other tools. You have pretty cool languages but you insist on keeping your barriers artificially high by forcing a primitive toolset on everyone so that only the anointed few can develop software for your platform. Fuck you. I'm taking my Snoopy calendar and leaving.

Re:Thanks, we know

[Alpha77]

Ease of use is not very cool in certain circles. Lots of people who are really interested in developing software tend to be curious and want to try new things all the time. Contrast this with the greyhaired COBOL coder that is still typing ugly code, but gets the job done.

I happen to develop in Java, and a lot of the stuff we use is, well, mature. Apache Jakarta is a great source of quality software, most of the version control systems that are NOT Visual Source Safe are usable, IntelliJ runs circles around VS as far as refactroing and basic code editing is concerned.

Ehat is missing is the tooling to do the quick and dirty prototypes in that business people love and tend to use as the final product. OSS needs things like VB, Access and FrontPage that allow people with very limited knowledge to produce something that works for them. We know it's ugly, but it will scratch THEIR itch. Want to be famous? Write an Access with VBA clone that uses drag 'n drop that allows someone to slap together an application in a couple of hours. Allow the result to run on your platform of choice and everybody should be happy.

Re:Thanks, we know

[checkup21]

In many points you are absolutely right, but then you get it terribly wrong.
Because you cross the point where "something is easy to use" and "something is just bad". Using MySQL GUI interfaces (mysqlcc for example) is absolutely intuitive to somebody with theoretical knowledge of relational databases. It gets more and more complicated the less the user knows about databases! Same with VB(.NET). I'm sick ranting about this piece of shit language to ppl who just want it "easy and only know VB".
And this is the exact point for the success of Microsoft. PPl with no knowledge at all can set up SQL servers and LDAP directories (for the mcses : ADS) without any knowledge of this stuff. They learn they can insert data and create user accounts, delete tables and organize in "organizational units". They think of this as "MS features" and have no clue about the matter at all.
This discussion is coming up from time to tim when ppl defend Outlook/Exchange as being a groupware and rant about Notes/Domino. Linux ppl want it easy too, but we have to have a point, where we can distinct the 2% ppl with skill out of the 100% with a certificate. "Administrating" an SQL Server makes you nothing, you would not even get a DB2 Process up running!

And thank god for the difference he made and we can clearly see.

Re:Thanks, we know

[QuantumG]

You aint just whistlin' dixie brother. I'm an experienced Open Source developer (and professional software engineer) and I just refuse to touch autoconf, etc. As for rpm/deb packaging? Someone else, do it for me, please.

Re:Thanks, we know

[Ash-Fox]

A good front-end to MySQL that's actually easy to use.

I have seen so many of those over the years...

Or an admin tool for Apache that makes sense.

Seen quite a few of those too...

"We don't want VB in Linux"

Yes, you're right, people should work on a language that was abandoned years ago that people barely use, instead of useful things like Mono that brings a opensource .NET to all platforms.

it will continue to perpetuate the idea that Windows is the only "easy" platform to write software in, with Microsoft tools.

"Behind this mask is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas can't be killed with bullets."

Re:Thanks, we know

[swilver]

What's funny is that a lot of people don't realize WHY there aren't any good integrated development environments for languages like PHP, Python and Ruby. Java for example has Eclipse, which does things with refactoring that most people don't even believe are possible these days. The reason however that the IDE's for Java can do this kind of stuff (and get away with it, by creating code that does the same as before with hardly any side-effects) is because for a large part Java was designed that way. It is designed so it can be extensively analyzed at compile time. Types are resolved at compile time. Which (overloaded) method is called is already known at compile time determine by the STATIC (not runtime) types of its parameters. No magic happens during runtime.

Fancy languages like PHP, Python and Ruby with lots of 'convenient' features, like resolving their types at runtime, make it impossible for IDE's to do extensive refactoring without running the risk of introducing major side effects or simply breaking the code completely. For example, in Java (with full source code available) I can determine at compile time which (public) methods could possibly be called (apart from reflection use), even if the method is overloaded it is possible to statically determine which one could possibly be called and which one can't.

Same goes for the declaring and strict typing of fields and variables. Because this information is known at compile time, IDE's can make use of that knowledge to refactor code, but also to make suggestions and provide other helpful features. You'll never have an IDE that comes even close to what's available for Java for languages that resolve so much of their internal state at runtime.

Re:Thanks, we know

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Visual Studio is far from perfect, but for a tool that I used day in and day out, I don't have many complaints overall. How many programs can you really say that about?

Hang on...

• Windows XP
• Word
• Excel
• LaTeX
• Firefox
• Visual C++ (though it's actually gone backwards in many ways since all the .Net stuff was introduced)

Yep, that's about it. Interesting that without any prior intent, I've come up with four big name MS products I use routinely, two big name products that are freely available, and no commercial software from vendors other than Microsoft.

The list of big name software I use regularly but wouldn't classify as "far from perfect, but not many complaints overall" is also quite intriguing, but I'll omit it here to avoid the flame-war. Suffice it to say that several big name products in OSS world and several very well known commercial vendors would feature prominently.

Re:Thanks, we know

[Demona]

"You see blowhards on here who insist that Linux should be hard to use, because, damn it, it was hard for them to learn it." Why do you pretend those people are saying anything sensible or valid? Why validate their nonsense with even the slightest acknowledgment? "Or some tripe about how computers should require a license to use." Unless that person works in government and has the gun to back up their whims, why should we do anything other than ignore them?

Re:Thanks, we know

[mattgreen]

Good point, I admit to caring about this stuff way more than one should.

Re:Thanks, we know

[pembo13]

While you didn't answer my question, I'll answer yours. I have, infact I still have it installed... I don't care for it much.

Re:Thanks, we know

[mdielmann]

"We don't want VB in Linux". That's a great attitude, and it will continue to perpetuate the idea that Windows is the only "easy" platform to write software in, with Microsoft tools. Fortunately, there's REALbasic. It looks promising, and I have plans to use it. Even for Windows-only development it has two features that VB.NET doesn't have - compiled executables (no .NET framework) and native widgets (actually behaves like other windows apps). And it compiles to Mac OS and Linux. The purists may hate the idea, but I think it has great potential.

Re:Thanks, we know

[throx]

I would hardly be able to compare the two if I hadn't tried MySQL's offering, would I? So yes, I did answer your question.

Re:Thanks, we know

[littlewink]

Microsoft (and Borland and others) have been writing far superior development tools for the past ten years that actually increase developer productivity and having great success at it

And every 4 years they toss out the old tools and create another toolset that is incompatible.

Re:Thanks, we know

[RightSaidFred99]

Most of these people are worse than blowhards, they're closed minded idiots. I've recently moved to developing stuff in .NET with all the latest goodies, and I absolutely dread moving back to developing code on UNIX or in Java. Microsoft provides end to end goodness - VS2005, .NET 2/3, Team Foundation Server, Workflow Foundation, Enterprise Library, etc... All of it just works almost perfectly together.

My only problems with VS2005 is it's kind of slow and some of the new .NET 3.0 stuff has occasional issues in VS2005, e.g. workflow designer. I'm willing to pay that price for the massive productivity benefit, I'd pay it if it were twice as slow. I'm hoping they fix it in Orcas.

Re:Thanks, we know

[slycrel]

Using MySQL GUI interfaces (mysqlcc for example) is absolutely intuitive to somebody with theoretical knowledge of relational databases. It gets more and more complicated the less the user knows about databases! Same with VB(.NET). I'm sick ranting about this piece of shit language to ppl who just want it "easy and only know VB". And this is the exact point for the success of Microsoft. PPl with no knowledge at all can set up SQL servers and LDAP directories (for the mcses : ADS) without any knowledge of this stuff. They learn they can insert data and create user accounts, delete tables and organize in "organizational units". They think of this as "MS features" and have no clue about the matter at all. This discussion is coming up from time to tim when ppl defend Outlook/Exchange as being a groupware and rant about Notes/Domino. Linux ppl want it easy too, but we have to have a point, where we can distinct the 2% ppl with skill out of the 100% with a certificate. "Administrating" an SQL Server makes you nothing, you would not even get a DB2 Process up running! I think what you're ranting about is part of the point of the GP. It doesn't take artisan carpenters to manufacture all of the kitchen tables that wal-mart sells. Good software will allow a user to be less knowledgeable. It will also (of necessity) limit some functionality unless you know what you're doing. And if it's truly good software, it will allow access to all those things "under the hood" that you may need access to. This doesn't particularly have anything to do with open source, but you can see some obvious pros with adding that into the mix. The bottom line is that your general, run of the mill application developer doesn't know (and arguably shouldn't need to know) the underpinnings of the OS or need to make all sorts of tool/API/package/whatever decisions to make a basic application. The learning curve is a bit steep for most developers that have a casual interest in the alternative OSes.

Re:Thanks, we know

[Allador]

Now, when you start using a corporate pc and start installing applications made by VisualStudio, how do you fine tune the installation of dlls and executables so they dont mash up another app? Is there an easy way to fine tune the AutoInstaller or do you have to go down to the Microsoft "Autoconf" files and read a stack of documentation? It's not all that bad. In the end, everything is just a file or a registry entry. And really the only complicated part is if you have multiple conflicting versions of COM components on the system, and you need to make sure that each app only works with its correct version. And there is very specific, relatively straightforward guidance from MS on how to do this.

Search on registration-free COM and similar terms in google.

Re:Thanks, we know

[HighPerformanceCoder]

Maybe the tools I happen to use instead of VS: emacs, gcc, gdb and make. Yes, VS has some nice features - the ability to directly to the definition of a variable of function (not that it gets this right all the time!) for instance. But it also has some shockers - its insane build system, which makes make's arcane build system look like a cake walk. Also some things are not at all obvious, like how to set the name of the executable for the debugger for instance. I wasted more than an hour on this particular stupidity. Because I need to run my codes on supercomputers, which these days invariably run some flavour of Linux, I need to know how to drive my linux toolchain. It works quite well, and I have few complaints. By contrast, VS is just an annoying distraction.

Re:Thanks, we know

[Dak'kon-Joe]

So much potential wasted because of a culture that idolizes unecessary complexity as if it were a badge of honor. If anything, it's Microsoft technologies that are to pity for their wasted potential. Wasted because of the commercial software culture of closeness and lack of choice. Now, what you describe as "unnecessary complexity" (which others describe as necessary flexibility), a developer -and any user- can overcome and eventually even learn to appreciate by trying hard enough, however the lack of freedom, no matter how hard he tries, will still be there.

In the end it is a matter of priorities, which I get the idea that users of free software have consciously selected, contrary to the majority of Microsoft users.

Having to learn 14 different tools to get something done might be good for bragging and leetness, but they kill productivity. In the real world, that kills the deal. That is if you ignore reusability. In the real world, what you learn once applies many. So yes, you might have a slower start, but after a while you'll end up being equal -if not more- productive.

Maybe

[Timesprout]

Just maybe its that until quite recently the Microsoft development environment was vastly superior to anything being offered by the Open Source community. There were quality development and debugging environments from MS and Borland. More dev editors than you could shake a stick at. There was easy integration with multiple databases and it was easy to develop slick front ends to this data. There was tooling availabe for easy project management and application testing.

Maybe Microsoft actually copped on to the fact that businesses wanted tools to build the apps they needed while the Open Source community were patting themselves on the back about how cool and fantastically leet they were for having text editors and shell scripts.

Whats interesting is that the two current leading Java Open Source IDEs (Eclipse and Netbeans) are both tools which started out life intended as commercial offerings but were donated to the community by IBM and SUN.

Self-defeating argument

[Gregory Cox]

The author of the article shoots himself in the foot here:

Should I use iBatis or Hibernate? XFire or AXIS? Perl, PHP or Ruby? Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu or Suse? Make the wrong decision, and you can waste a ton of time, as we found out on a recent project when we wasted a week try to make AXIS2 work for a web service project, only to find out that XFire was the right choice.

So by his own admission, XFire and AXIS don't compete with each other directly - they're different tools for different jobs.

The solution to his problem is not to get rid of one of them, but to put something in the documentation for AXIS saying "If you're working on a web service project, you may be better off using XFire." The fact that an open source project is able to recommend another solution like this is a strength. In contrast, a company (in this case Microsoft) with a vested interest in promoting its own monoculture is unlikely to tell potential customers to go elsewhere.

Conversely, if you have a choice of near-identical tools, any of which would be acceptable, why not just pick the one which is most popular at the time? This leaves you at the mercy of programming fads, but if you want a monoculture, you should expect that anyway.

Re:Self-defeating argument

[hf256]

Perhaps I can persuade you with this list of Java Frameworks for web development: Struts 1, Struts 2 (yes they're that different), Stripes, Tapestry, Spring MVC, JSF?

Re:Self-defeating argument

[Gregory Cox]

Thank you for replying, but sorry, I don't think a list on its own addresses the point I was making.

I can agree with you that maybe the world doesn't need six different Java web development frameworks. However, my point was that the article doesn't state clearly why the existence of multiple software tools is a problem, which means that its argument isn't convincing.

To go over the article again: the author says he had the difficult choice of either XFire or AXIS for his project. He picked AXIS only to find out a week later that in his case XFire was the better option. (Presumably AXIS is better for other things too - otherwise the developers of AXIS are wasting their time on it.) So what if there was a monoculture? He wouldn't have to make the choice, but instead he'd be stuck with one or the other. Or does a monoculture automatically mean having the best of all possible worlds?

I admit that I'm not familiar with the Java Frameworks in your example, but since you say they're for web development, I assume they're each intended to cover the same broad area. On the other hand, it's a fair bet that because of various design choices, they each have different strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps if I'm working on task A, Struts 2 has a function that lets me do it right away, but with Tapestry, I'd have to do more work by hand. And for task B, maybe the other way around.

So what should happen in this situation? I'd say: do your research and choose the best one for you. Or to shift the burden to the framework developers: they should write good documentation telling you what the strengths of their own framework are, and how they compare with the others. As well as helping their users, this should help each of them iron out the weaknesses in their frameworks, and make things better for everyone.

How would a monoculture help here? You wouldn't have to choose any more, but if you found that the standard framework wasn't up to the task, you'd be stuck with it. And if you really want a monoculture, why not just pick whatever framework Sun likes to use, and pretend the others don't exist? There's your monoculture.

Or maybe there's no real difference between all those different frameworks, and it's only the developers' pride that stops them being combined together into a single one. But if they're all the same, it doesn't matter which one you pick for your project. How can you go wrong?

In short, the questions I have about the article are: (1) why is having a choice of tools so bad? and (2) is a monoculture really so much better?

Maybe there are good answers to these questions, but I didn't find them in the article.

This is dumb

[Tim_UWA]

So what if I have a choice between openoffice.org, abiword or LaTeX to produce my documents? As long as I save it as a PDF, anyone can read it. If I use Microsoft Word, I either install a 3rd party program to save it as a PDF, or require that the people I send the document to have the same version of Word as me, running on the same platform. Disclaimer: I didnt' read the article.

Re:This is dumb

[DaAdder]

Fragmentation in software leads to fragmentation in doctumentation.

Instead of a few common choices, there's often a vast amount of software with varying degrees of popularity to choose from in open source country. Since your livelyhood isn't dependant on keeping every last customer around, there's also a tendency to break backwards compatibility more often than one would otherwise see, which again leads to documentation being slightly harder.

I think the big difference is that it's far easier to get documentation going once you hit critical mass with your software. Something less projects due when there's always several almost equal choices to make from and no commercial company forcing you to do the documentation dirty work.

Because we're not claiming people are documenting commercial software in their spare time now are we?

MS's anticonsumer tactics

[falconwolf]

The way to "fix" this is to help others to migrate to Linux systems. With the open source advocates pulling - and Microsoft pushing (with their anti-consumer acts) it's a sure win for Linux. It's going to take some time to get there, though...

It's those MS tactics that treat consumers like criminals like Activation and WGA/WPA that have finally driven me away from MS. Though I'm using Windows now my desktop replacement PC came with Linux preinstalled, I haven't compleatly switched yet due to not having the new PC ready yet, and for a laptop I plan on getting a Macbook Pro.

Falcon

You're looking at the wrong market

[Rix]

The people paying money for commercial Linux distributions aren't Uncle Ed and Aunt Martha. They're corporate or government IT departments, and they don't need every setting available to the GUI.

What you want requires a commercial distribution target for pre install on low end consumer grade equipment. Even ignoring the Microsoft tax, such a proposition is a bit shakey, financially.

Re:You're looking at the wrong market

[Coryoth]

The people paying money for commercial Linux distributions aren't Uncle Ed and Aunt Martha. They're corporate or government IT departments, and they don't need every setting available to the GUI. Indeed, this is exactly the point. We are getting what we pay for, and what we are paying for is a robust system that works well on servers and developer workstations, and perhaps as desktops in a managed corporate environment -- at least, that's what the people who are shelling out the big bucks to the major distros want, and so that's exactly what we have. Linux had a certain amont of inexorable momentum in servers, and then as developer workstations, before distros were pulling in serious money to develop systems. Prior to that we were paying for hobbyist systems ripe for tinkering, and surprise surprise, that's exactly what distros used to provide. We won't really see desktop distros for average home users until there is significant momentum for that already. Distros need some convincing before they'll dip their toes in that water.

For some reason some people have a "if you build it, they will come" mentality, thinking that if someone would just build some perfect home desktop user distro then all of a sudden people would buy it and fund its development. That just isn't happening. People have tried: there's Linspire, Lycoris, and Xandros, but their not exactly packing in the customers. The most successful "home desktop" distro is Ubuntu, which got their through not even pretending it was expecting people to pay for it (and instead coming straight out of Shuttleworth's pocket), nor trying to do it all at once. Instead Ubuntu is trying to slowly shift in the general direction of desktop friendliness, and build momentum for that sort of market equally slowly.

The solution for desktop linux, and for the plethora of choice in open source software, is not magic, it is patience. The systems will steadily improve, and with greater popularity in general, the popularity of the different choices will become ever more stark. There will always be the plethora of choice, but in time, and with increased adoption, there will only be 1 or 2 standard choices; the other choices will remain in the same niche position they are now, ignored by average users, and obsessed over by us geeks.

Here's another reason...

[davmoo]

A major problem, in my opinion, that a lot of open source products have is the lack of decent documentation. Everyone wants to code, no one wants to document. I'd be here all day if I tried to list all the open source products I've looked at and tried that I gave up on simply because there was no documentation, or only poor documentation, and I had to move to something commercial that was at least properly documented.

And before someone drags out the dead horse named "why don't you document some of these projects", the answer is I can't document something I can't figure out how to use. And as others have already pointed out, a lot of open source software is not intuitive.

Re:Here's another reason...

[plasmacutter]

oh i agree with this.

I had a practicum project revolving around trying to takeover a freeware vb project.. the only dev had completely vanished from the picture before we got to it.

the code had no comments and was unbelievably disorganized. Between the exceedingly specialized application to which the program was geared and the insane number of indirections used (each level of which had little rhyme or reason), it took me months to put together a simple uml diagram & documentation set. I only hope my efforts will be helpful to others who come later. maybe with actual documentation they could... you know.. actually optimize and debug the code.

frankly.. i could have rewritten the whole thing in java in less time than it took to demystify that abomination.

Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

I prefer Apache since it's free but....

This goes for virtually every non-default configuration of Apache and IIS but here are a couple examples.

Allowing only certain IP addresses to access a website:
Apache -
1. Research on the web how this is done using Google.
2. Find something called "mod_authz_host" and an example of its use here http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/mod/mod_authz_hos t.html .
3. Get confused by all the different examples.
4. Attempt to insert "code" into httpd.conf to limit access to certain IP addresses.
5. Test to see if it worked.
6. Research, edit, test more as needed.

IIS -
1. Click a few buttons
2. Enter IP addresses allowed.
3. Test (it works first try as expected since editing was intuitive).

Use SSL:
Apache -
1. Research on the web how this is done using Google (lots of research).
2. Install something called OpenSSL
3. Copy a few files to a windows directory
4. Find an openssl.cnf file that doesn't exist with the OpenSSL install for some reason.
5. Create a SSL certificate using command line.
6. Due to legal/political constraints, download a different copy of Apache with SSL from a strange 3rd party website and replace current copy of Apache that you had installed.
7. Make several changes to httpd.conf file.
8. Install this new Apache as a service using command line if needed.
9. Make several more changes to httpd.conf file (uncommenting LoadModule line, including ssl.conf in an IfModule thing).
10. Copy the certificate files made earlier to an Apache directory.
11. Edit ssl.conf file on several lines to identify server name, document root directory, then also include the certificate path.
12. Restart Apache, pray it works.

IIS -
1. Go to website properties using GUI
2. Click Directory Security tab
3. Click Server Certificate
4. Follow Web Server Certificate Wizard to create certificate.

For extra credit, require SSL connection - In Directory Security tab, Secure Communication area, click Edit, and check the Require secure channel SSL checkbox. I gave up on that for Apache and figured out some way to just forward requests to https (a bit of a hack it seems).

Things just seem more intuitive when using IIS rather than editing conf files and hoping things work in Apache. There is a lot less frustration. It's a shame. Yes I did look for 3rd party Apache config GUIs and couldn't find anything that looked good.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[EEBaum]

Wow, you had a lot less trouble with your Apache install than I did with the one I just set up. It's like the installation docs intentionally withhold useful information to increase the fun!

Yes, your system comes with apache preinstalled, like you asked for in the setup. You just want to use it to host static webpages, right? Cool, just start the daemon. Ohhhhhhh, you want it to start when the computer boots? No problem. Just set it that way in the proper location. Which location? Well, you're using RedHat, so instead of the 4 other ways you set it up before in other distros, in this case you'll have to rename a file somewhere. Got it? Cool.

Ohhhhhhhh, you wanted to use apache for SUBVERSION? Go back and recompile Apache. You'll have to get the tarball. And the things it depends on. Ohhhhhhh, you wanted to compile apache? Go back and recompile apr-utils. Cool now? Cool.

Ohhhhhhhhh, you wanted to use LDAP for authentication? Yeah, I know you have LDAP working elsewhere on your machine. If you want it to work with apache, you have to recompile apache for LDAP. I hope you wrote down the 8 ./configure options you used last time, because if you leave one out, you gotta do it again.

Now let's see how to set this up. More google!
Which of the 83 different ways to set up your httpd.conf (you're using the one in the right location, yes?) will work properly with your configuration? There's only one way to find out. Oh, and that's 83 hex.

Ohhhhhhh, you want to use python??

Re:Apache vs IIS

[centuren]

This is a great post, because it illustrates the real divide between Microsoft server & development products and OSS server and development products. I don't know if the parent was trying to install Apache in Windows ("something called OpenSSL" was a tip-off), but the point is that IIS seems more intuitive because that's the environment in which the parent's comfortable.

I'm comfortable in an OSS environment. First of all, none of our Apache servers even have GUIs installed, and I'm quite pleased to not have to worry about Windows locking up or slowing down due to something entirely unrelated to IIS. Install and configuration of the server, modules, and virtual hosts can be done quickly and easily via ssh. IIS checkboxes are fine enough if you have physical access or blazingly quick remote access, and also if it's for an option that is widely used enough to warrent a checkbox. It may seem inconvenient to have to load modules to set up HTTPS vs a series of clicks, but how does ease of configuration compare when you don't find a checkbox for what you want? It took me 10 minutes to set up a particular virtual host (and only that one) to run PHP 4.3.11 because it was specifically required by a client's application, and rather doubt that sort of flexibility is so easily achieved with IIS.

The parent post shows a Windows user dealing with an unfamiliar environment. I'm sure I could come up with the same list from my perspective, involving loads of cursing about having to run a GUI on a GUI to configure a server that shouldn't need a GUI, getting confused by all the different menus, and so on. That which seems like a strength to some is a frustration to others, and vice versa.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[JonJ]

What the fuck? If you want apache to start at boot time, there's chkconfig: chkconfig --level 3 httpd on
Finished. Red Hat uses the proper name for the daemon, httpd, since Apache is a whole lot more than a web server. As for the recompile arguments, whenever I need some more functionality from my webserver, I use yum to install the binary packages. Any sysadmin worth his god damn salary should know about this. Please stop being a fucktard.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

It's like the installation docs intentionally withhold useful information to increase the fun!

Haha, amen. It did take me more than a day and lots of hair pulling to get it all working the way I wanted. You can bet I saved how I set those up and also the most useful websites I used.
Something is seriously wrong when I have to google all day to find a step by step method after going over the "real" documentation over and over and getting frustrated as hell.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[dodobh]

There is Webmin as a GUI for Apache.

On the other hand, once you have things working:

Commit Apache config to SVN. Put common config in one file, per virtual host configs in their own files.
Checkout config(s) on new box, with automatic merging of base and per virtual host configs.
Reliably roll out the same configuration multiple times, across host upgrades, reinstalls and datacentre moves.

Do the same thing for every service you run. One host? Ten? A hundred? A thousand? ...

The end result of the difference between the Windows philosophy and the Unix philosophy is that Unix adds a bit of a startup cost, but keeps operating costs low.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

duh you dummy dumbass, how could you not know that??!!

lol

Actually with the regular windows installation of Apache httpd, the wizard asks if you want to install it as a service I believe. Anyway it just happens very easily so I guess that's another advantage of MS, this time Windows vs Linux.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[EEBaum]

And where is slackware-accustomed little me supposed to find out about chkconfig?

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Yes. Sorry I forgot to mention it was in Windows.

...but the point is that IIS seems more intuitive because that's the environment in which the parent's comfortable.

No, actually it is more intuitive because you don't have to know how to do something before you do it with IIS since it's a GUI. You can click around and find the settings to change. When editing conf files, you have to already know everything you can set there and what each does, and where to type it, or look it up which seems to take quite a while for me.

Ok, you got me on the remote access. I'm developing on my machine first so it's nice to use the GUI but once the project moves to the server I use Remote Desktop or something to access the IIS config GUI. Our Remote Desktop is quite fast, but yes that is a clunky way of doing things. So how do you do it? Do you edit text files over SSH? That's pretty darn clunky too.

Actually it's very easy to create a virtual host in IIS. There are friendly icons on the left for each of your websites and you can create a new one right there. As for PHP, well I got that working with IIS a while ago so it works with all my virtualhosts currently but to add or remove PHP interpreting once it's already set up, you just go to your virtualhost's properties and then click the configuration button on the home directory page, and it lists all the mappings of various types of files. Edit the mapping for the .php extension (delete it or set it to the php executable).

Re:Apache vs IIS

[benjymouse]

That used to be more difficult on IIS, but IIS version 6 (which comes with server 2003 and XP) uses configuration stored in file called metabase.xml. As the name indicates this is an xml file (not a strange hybrid apache httpd style config file). The GUI management (MMS management console plugin) is merely a way to edit this file, like Webmin for Apache. That translates into easier management by tools and scripts. Think xslt, xpath, installation scripts etc. Changes to the xml file can be set to take effect immediately, removing the need to restart the server. IIS will "drain" processes using the old configuration by not dispatching any more requests and terminating them when they have finished processing the requests. At the same time IIS starts new processes up to handle new requests using the new configuration. The result is uninterrupted service, even when doing config changes. And that can be triggered by simply editing or overwriting the config file.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Sorry for the extra post but I just found this image that shows what I was talking about for the php mapping. It's within the properties of the virtualhost website you are working with that you got to by right clicking the icon for it :)
There would be a .php entry in there with the path going to your php executable.

http://www.direct-link-ads.com/Images/html_to_asp_ iis.png

Re:Apache vs IIS

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Ohhhhhhh, you want it to start when the computer boots? No problem. Just set it that way in the proper location. Which location? Well, you're using RedHat, so instead of the 4 other ways you set it up before in other distros, in this case you'll have to rename a file somewhere. Got it? Cool.

What? In order to setup a web server on an operating system, you need to understand the basics of administering the OS? Outrageous, I say. I'll just stay with Windows.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[hey]

Lets say you have a virtual host on your Apache box and you want to clone it with minor mods.
Easy... cut'n'paste in the config file. But on IIS... I wouldn't know where to begin.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[EEBaum]

Yeah, I guess that's my problem with it... not a fan of the graphical interfaces on Linux. Got used to running stuff command line, and if I have X open (which is not often) it's usually so I can have multiple terminals up. Linux is my escape from the GUI clickfest world. Most often, I'm ssh'd from another room. Having much of the configuraiton of the machine only accessible by pretty buttons while sitting at the box itself tends to hinder the whole admin-from-anywhere appeal of Linux, so I avoid it when I can.

As for reading up on it, yeah, more of that needs to be done. So many manuals (which to use?), so little time, and as a native Windows user I sometimes find myself under the misguided delusion that, once I've figured out how to run something, I should be able to run that exact same thing elsewhere by following the same steps.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[ror]

Editting text files over SSH is clunky? It's exactly the same experience as editting text files as if you were standing at the physical machine. If you don't run a GUI you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a shell over SSH and a shell at the machine itself.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[cortana]

You should really install Debian. Just think of all the extra productivity you will have now that you're not recompiling every time you want to enable a feature!

Your cute little straw man is more telling that you realise. What are IIS' equivalents of the and directives? How can I use TLS SNI with IIS? How do I use IIS as a backend for a subversion server? How do I enable AccessFileName functionality on IIS? How can I set up filters that deny requests based on the occurance of suspicious strings in their headers? How can I have an IIS server publish its virtual hosts via DNS-SD? How can I set it up to fire off requests for different virtual hosts as different system users, so that I can grant different priviliges to different web applications? How can I have IIS get the value that it uses for the Content-Type header of its responses from an extended attribute on the file being served, rather than a dumb lookup in a table of file extension (god, don't get me STARTED on file extensions!) to media type? How can I embed arbitrary Perl code into my IIS config that is run when the server starts up?

Re:Apache vs IIS

[centuren]

Yes, I use SSH and find being connected to our dev box or a live server, from either home work my workstation, to be identical to working locally in BASH. My 10 minute config example included creating the virtual host, downloading and building a specific, out-moded version of PHP, and setting it up for use by the one client, and transferring the changes over to the live. I'm sure it's not so hard to install PHP and set a virtual host to use it, but does the simplicity remain constant when you're dealing with multiple, specific versions of it on the your dev server to reflect the various live server configurations. If we get a client with a very customized Apache configuration, it's pretty much zero-hassle to create an identical environment on our dev server, including configurations, required modules, code, and database structure/data. I hope IIS has a good import / export for all server settings, because tracking down checked boxes on one machine to check them on another would be a colossal waste of time.

A mighty strength of the SSH/config file setup (i.e. non-gui), is that I'm essentially able to transfer changes across servers in seconds, or have configuration files open for as many remote servers as I like. The question I've always had for an IIS admin, is if you need to make a few changes on 10 remote servers, all of which differ either a lot or slightly, are you really firing up Remote Desktop 10 separate times, opening up the IIS GUI 10 times, and finding / clicking the relevant buttons 10 times? Is there a good export/import for all your configurations on one server that lets you migrate it (or sections of it) to another?

No, actually it is more intuitive because you don't have to know how to do something before you do it with IIS since it's a GUI.

I suppose that's got some truth to it, but in the question of what web server to run, we're not starting from a position of zero-knowledge, and what knowledge we have affects what we see as intuitive, because we may have come to expect different standards. If I want to find in which file and on which line number a bit of code is coming from on a large, remotely-hosted website, I expect to be able to connect to it, run a complex search, and maybe copy the relevant files back to my computer with a very minimal investment of time and effort. SSH in, cd to server root, run my regular expressions, and scp back, all without opening any applications (since I've got a terminal open already). I can't really defend that as intuitive in the sense of being able to do it without any knowledge on how to do it, but I think of it as more intuitive in terms of "what's an efficient method of administering a remote server", considering that a server admin will have the skill set for whatever method of administering his/her job requires.

When we introduced an IIS/ASP.NET project to our workload a few months ago, the first thing I did was SSH in, which worked. Found myself on the windows command prompt, which has none of the OSS tools I come to expect, both in a terminal as when I'm writing PHP code. It was frustrating, first because I expect to have that option, and secondly because while I KNOW that it's "dir" and not "ls" I can't help but type it, and "ls" just happened to be the only unrecognized command failed to return the "command not found" error and instead would cause a complete crash (and I'd have to reconnect). I'm rambling on a tangent now, I know, but Windows users will flounder in Linux and Linux users will flounder in Windows. I really only see the conversions going in one direction, though.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[AlexTurner]

I have run both IIS and Apache. 100% correct,IIS is easier to set up. However, it has proven very much harder indeed to make it 'bomb proof'. There is a critical difference between open source and close source that we seem to be missing here. If you write open source, people can see your source code. If the code is for a mission critical component (like a web server) then people are _really_ going to care that it is well written!

I have a motto about the differences in systems running on Linux (or FreeBSD etc) and Windows. On the xnix platforms, it takes days to set up and it runs for years without crashing. On Windows it takes minutes to set up and runs for hours without crashing.

Oh - and one other little point. It is very interesting to see the word 'monoculture'. One of the major challenges for farmers when they grown monocultures is preventing the spread of disease (like viruses) because lack of differentiation of species makes it so easy for disease agents to spread. Sound familiar?

Up to Vista, I found Windows best for home and business functions. Linux/FreeBSD was best for 24/7 servers. Now I thin ubuntu has taken the lead for the home as well. But the barrier for the business systems is much much higher, the alternatives will really have to pull their socks up if they are interested in entering the market in a large way.

AJ [www.nerds-central.com|nerds-central.blogspot.com| twitter/AlexTurner]

Re:Apache vs IIS

[DaleGlass]

I dread working with MS GUIs. Everything has 20 tabs, sometimes pops up extra windows and requires half an hour of clicking. It's not possible to figure out what the full current config is without clicking everywhere. Then there's my favourite annoyance: Fixed size windows with list views that sometimes require scrolling to see all the information in them.

Take for instance setting up a DHCP server.
Task: Switch 100 hosts from static IP address to DHCP, configured to give them the same address they currently have, by MAC.

Windows: Hand falls off due to clicking for an hour, and mindlessly copy/pasting. Error prone. MS DHCP is completely braindead by the way, and seems to confuse the description and MAC fields (did anybody even test that?)

Linux: Maybe 5 minutes to write a script that: pings subnet, parses output of 'arp -a', and automatically generates a dhcpd config file. If the hosts were Linux ones I could also automatically replace the network settings on all of them. If it goes wrong, fix script then run again. Not all hosts are on? No problem, I can tweak the script to run periodically, detecting new computers and adding the config for them.

Yes, GUIs are easier for tiny tasks, but once you need something uncommon they're a huge pain in the ass. And it's not like there can't be a GUI that generates dhcpd.conf either.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[great om]

you could script that using netsh and and arp. It isn't as easy, but it is do-able

Re:Apache vs IIS

[Monkier]

if you need to make a few changes on 10 remote servers, all of which differ either a lot or slightly, are you really firing up Remote Desktop 10 separate times, opening up the IIS GUI 10 times, and finding / clicking the relevant buttons 10 times? To answer your question - there's two options I can think of...

• As of IIS 6.0 the 'metabase' configuration is all in an XML file - you can edit the xml files directly or programmatically.
• There a few configuration settings you can set via nant tasks - which I think use metabase APIs themselves...

Re:Apache vs IIS

[Nurgled]

Microsoft's DHCP server does actually have a command line interface. I rejoiced the day I discovered that, since I no longer needed to manually copy and paste the settings out of my company's registry of IP address allocations.

netsh dhcp server \\servername scope 10.0.0.0 add reservedip 10.0.0.1 001238DCC43D hostname.example.com

Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a similar interface for the DNS server, but it does support the standard DNS update protocol after a fashion, so you can automate the creation of matching hostnames too, or just let the DHCP server do it for you when it gives out a lease.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[frogstar_robot]

Since you style yourself a "Windows user", then why Slackware for Pete's sake? I won't argue the user friendliness of Slackware but it is definitely picky who it is friends with. On other distros, those capabilities you were recompiling for are only an apt-get or a yum away. If you don't like the Linux GUIs, some of these other distros even have super-commented config files that lead you by the hand a bit.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[Mista2]

Horses for courses. One day I was off sick but there was a work project on that required the setup of a webserver to host a php based application. The project had a tight deadline, so I worked from my sick bed 8) Get laptop and connect to internet: working over crappy DSL line, 2Mb top speed 8( run ssh to get to a suse server I had installed earlier in the week for the project, (the server was also running some other services so could not be restarted during the working day) Use Yast to install apache and php requiremements from up-to-date suse internet repository. Use vi to edit the apache config to create virtual server. Use rsync to copy the php application to the server (for windows users, rsync is a little like FTP, but over an ssh connection, and can easily replicate a full folder structure). Test, debug, then secure access to only http, https and ssh. Approx 4 hrs for the whole job. To do the same thing in Windows - Take Previously installed Windows 2K3 server, enable remote desktop access, oh hang on, that wasn't done initially so will have to call someone at the office to do it for me, Oh, and have to install whole citrix gateway infrastructure to support secure encrypted remote access. Add software - IIS, hang on, no network repository for i386 directory, get someone at the office to stick in a CD, then restart. Add php services to IIS - umm, haven't done that before so I don't know how hard it is to do. Run Windows Update to patch - reboot (current installs I have done from Win2K3-R2 CD usually require at least 2 restarts to get fully up-to-date) No easy way to copy the full application to the server (as no way I am opening up MS FTP to the internet without a proxy 8)) so tar or zip it up, mail to the client, get someone to copy tar file to the server, then login and extract it. I think the point is here that the job would have been nearly impossible for me to do that day had the host been a Windows host with IIS. It would have requried the server to be restarted to patch and install software, and none of the secure remote access is available out of the box. Apart from a kernel patch late last year, the web server has never been restarted. Apache has been restarted a few times, but it hands over connections to the new httpd as it shuts down so users don't really see an outage if it's done right. Oh, yeah, I also have a dev server with the same apache config. When I make a change I test it in dev, then copy over the conf file before restarting. Anyone know how to copy IIS settings from one server to another? Please let me know.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[codepunk]

Yes if you are gonna run a web server in the wild you had better know everything about
the OS it's running on and how to make sure you still own it the next day.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[51mon]

Urm, surely editing the config file automatically is kind of doing it the Apache way.

Once you accept it is required for a task, then it is easier to do it the "config file" way, since my distro of choice already includes a load of tools for automatically editing the Apache config files, and has nicely broken the config into a set of files that include each other as needed, allowing fine grained modification of the config without having to version control one huge config file. This allows the installers to automatically add modules to the config, or add and remove virtual hosts with one short command.

Alas our IIS is still 5, but at least the Metabase file seems to have stopped corrupting itself routinely. But with several hundreds of virtual servers IIS is slow to start, and it is only that the config of all these servers is identical that it is is reasonable to manage at all. And a load of scripts that automatically add virtual hosts and remove them.

Basically boils down to as you scale it in either size or complexity, you want scripting and/or automation, and scripting and GUI's don't generally mix well (although I'm sure they can).

If I get the choice, Apache on Debian is my choice. But of course rarely do they ask the system administrator what will be easiest to configure, most reliable to maintain, more often you hear "we bought X, make it work".

Re:Apache vs IIS

[dodobh]

It isn't just IIS, it's *everything* in Unix which can be automagically maintained that way. You only need to learn to maintain things once, not multiple times.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[ortholattice]

Perhaps it's time for me to repost what was involved installing a private certificate server on Windows 2000 via its "intuitive" point-and-click GUI. These were the actual procedures involved, that I precisely documented for the respective customers so that they could replicate them, for two different projects that accomplished exactly the same goal. (Scroll past the lameness filter stuff at the beginning.) This was several years ago, but AFAIK it hasn't changed significantly.

The problem with your "procedure" is that steps like "follow wizard" involve answering multiple questions, which you've neglected to fill in. The answers to these questions weren't always obvious, at least to me. Maybe I'm just dumb, but it took several attempts over two days, some by trial-and-error answering questions in different ways, before I got the IIS version to work. It involved researching a number of pages on the MS site as well as searching through newsgroups to resolve unanswered or unclear info. Basically, you have given a rough summary with the details missing.

Once I found the correct Apache how-to - and yes, it did take a little research, but it wasn't that hard - it just worked the first time, with no guesswork involved.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[EEBaum]

Clarification: I'm most familiar with Slackware. It's not what I'm running at the moment.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RightSaidFred99]

The real problem is people who tout all UNIX's supposed superiority in every way don't really know shit about modern Windows. You can easily manage 10, 100, or 1000 IIS servers identically with as much ease, and far more intuitively, than the same number of Apache.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[DaleGlass]

That reminds me, why does MS DHCP have such a weird format for MAC addresses? It doesn't match anything at all! Neither the Windows nor the Linux tools output MAC addresses like that. Although in Linux at least I could use sed to convert it.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[ratboy666]

Sounds like you could benefit from a Redhat admin course.

chkconfig --level 345 httpd on takes care of starting apache at boot time. service httpd start starts apache if it isn't going. Modules such as ssl and ldap are supplied.

I don't understand what subsversion has to do with apache. I use cvs, which has its server on a different port.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[dodobh]

Lots of tools around to manage Unix systems. Mind pointing me to reliable software which lets you manage a few dozen (or more) IIS boxes?, with version control and client managed virtual hosts?

Re:Apache vs IIS

[EEBaum]

My install of redhat, apache couldn't find the ldap module. Could be I was looking in the wrong place, but I ran out of places to look. (i.e. "find" couldn't find the ldap module and it wasn't compiled in).

As for subversion, it works differently than cvs (or so the svn install docs have led me to believe). If you want LDAP and some of the more sophistocated features, it says to use apache. The standalone server is pretty limited.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

It's exactly the same experience as editting text files as if you were standing at the physical machine.

Well, I don't think I can use my favorite text editor that way so it's not the exact same, is it.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Hey, I'm not a hosting company or a sysadmin. I'm a developer. So much configuring before even testing my apps is not developing. It's just a pain in the butt.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Thanks for that. I have used both for a while now too. Like I said in a reply to someone else, I am a developer (entry level too how about that!) and not a sysadmin or IT person or hosting company. I use the webserver for developing and testing so I guess that is why IIS seems easier to me. I am using Tomcat through Apache httpd (and moving my company that way) since I am doing a lot of Java stuff so it frustrates me a little to see how much easier IIS is. The boss says do this interesting thing, it takes a few minutes in IIS in our current configuration and maybe a whole day in Apache. Maybe eventually I'll know everything and can make changes more quickly. I hope so.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

It sounds like you have an agenda. Thanks for the belittling remarks. Dude, I'm using Apache and my OpenSSL certificate, I don't dislike it. Actually I want to like it better than IIS. IIS just seems easier.

This whole MS ecosystem means that mostly everyone takes mediocrity for granted and clueless companies keep hiring monkeys holding MSCE certificate.

I'm not a monkey. I don't have an MSCE. I am not a sysadmin or an IT guy or a hosting company. I am an entry level developer (yes they do exist... I worked my butt off in school and worked hard to get my first job). I have a CS degree from a solid CS Department/Engineering College/public university. I don't use the MS ecosystem at all and I'm actually moving my company away from it now. I use Apache httpd, Tomcat, Java, PHP, MySQL, blah blah blah. I grew up with Windows so that's what I'm using for my OS. I will be trying Linux soon on my next computer certainly.

I'm not responsible for our current production IIS installation but it is always on and has been for freaking long time. It's never been down since I worked here. It's on Windows Server 2003.

PS. My desktop PCs are not plagued by malware :)

Re:Apache vs IIS

[colinrichardday]

I'm not a sysadmin, either, but at $24,999 for a single-processor version of IIS (Enterprise) I'll try to do without. The trial version is free, but still requires Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server. Apache and PostgreSQL may be harder on my brain, but they are easier on my wallet.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/miis/evaluate/how tobuy.mspx

Re:Apache vs IIS

[ratboy666]

On Fedora Core 5 - apache modules in /etc/httpd/modules
and ldap is included

On Redhat 9 - apache modules in same place, ldap is not included

Not sure about rhel at this point (don't have it loaded)

As to subversion -- I use cvs because that is "mainstream" supported (rh9 and above, for sure).

Re:Apache vs IIS

[dcam]

IIS is great until you move just a little off the beaten path. Apache is *way* more flexible.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[Allador]

Just for fun I'm going to answer your questions, as I think most folks just dont know all of what you can do with IIS, so lets see how we fare.

What are IIS' equivalents of the and directives?

Is there a word missing here, or is apache lingo that I just dont know? What is an 'and directive'?

Do you mean what is commonly referred to as 'security modules and directives'?

The 'allow' and 'deny' directives are largely present in IIS. Not so simple to do partial host-names and partial-IP addresses in quite the way that apache directives do them, but its doable. An IIS filter written in C# is always your fallback here.

'AuthGroupFile' equivalent functionality is also present, you just stick the user/pass pairs in the metabase.xml (iirc).

All of the 'AuthName', 'AuthType', etc functionality is there, its just configured differently than apache does it. Same for the 'options' directive.

I pulled all of these from here.

How can I use TLS SNI with IIS?

You've got me there. But be patient, SNI is very young, and from what I found in a quick google, isnt well integrated into apache yet either. In a pinch, as I said earlier, you could always write a filter yourself if you wanted to.

Then again, how about just use one IP for each SSL enabled domain. It's not that big of a barrier. Or am I missing something? I'm not hugely up to speed on the driving force behind this.

How do I use IIS as a backend for a subversion server?

Do you mean as a front-end to a subversion server? As I am not aware of a way to use apache as a backend to a subversion server. You either stick it in the file system, or use BerkeleyDB.

If you mean use IIS as a front-end to SVN, then there's no easy way to do it without writing some code. IIS supports WebDAV but I'm frankly not sure how much support there is for DeltaV, which SVN over a web server requires.

So here the answer (to the probably correct modification of your question), is no. There is no software currently written to allow you to use IIS to host SVN. Like so many things, probably very doable if you want to do the code, but no one is doing it yet.

How can I set up filters that deny requests based on the occurance of suspicious strings in their headers?

This one is easy. URLScan.

Now mind you, using URLScan on IIS6 isnt as common as it was on previous versions, but its very doable, and gives you this nice of control.

Another thing to mention, URLScan is just an ISAPI filter written and loaded into IIS, anyone can write similar modules.

How can I have an IIS server publish its virtual hosts via DNS-SD?

Not that I can find. Though in all honesty, DNS-SD and TLS-SNI is some pretty esoteric stuff at the moment.

How can I set it up to fire off requests for different virtual hosts as different system users, so that I can grant different priviliges to different web applications?

Trivially. Each host uses its own application pool, which can run as whatever user account you want. So if you want 600 different sites, each running under its own unique user-account, then you just do it. Thats how shared-hosting services on IIS are done.

How can I have IIS get the value that it uses for the Content-Type header of its responses from an extended attribute on the file being served, rather than a dumb lookup in a table of file extension (god, don't get me STARTED on file extensions!) to media type?

Well, no, but this isnt much to do with IIS, its more of a windows philosophy thing.

In addition, not everyone buys into determining content-type via magic numbers. And its definitely not how its done in the windows world. So even if IIS offered this, it wouldnt do you much good, as not much in the windows world

Re:Apache vs IIS

[Allador]

I think you may be misunderstanding the server products.

You cannot buy IIS, and there is no enterprise version.

If you're looking for a webserver, you dont want Windows 2003 Server Enterprise, you want Windows 2003 Web Server Edition. Both of which include IIS6.

Getting the enterprise version of server would be way overkill.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsserver/eva luate/features/compare.mspx

And it'll run you a few hundred dollars ($380 at newegg):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16832116114

And for small to medium-sized uses, you can just download SQL Server 2005 Express, for free.

You can also do the same thing on your XP Pro box with no additional costs whatsoever, but with some scalability limitations (ie, good for dev box, no good for real production box).

Re:Apache vs IIS

[Allador]

Uggh, look. Yes, you know your unix skills, but you dont have a clue what you're doing on windows.

So you go make the assumption that your very limited knowledge of how to do things reflects the actual extent of possibilities?

How about the possibility that the straw man you've setup here (doing everything the easy way on unix, then doing everything the hard way on windows) isnt the way anyone with half a year of experience would do it?

So lets break it down how to do it properly on windows.

Get laptop and connect to internet: working over crappy DSL line, 2Mb top speed 8( run ssh to get to a suse server I had installed earlier in the week for the project, (the server was also running some other services so could not be restarted during the working day)

Same on the windows side, even a crappy dsl line is more than enough to support RDP, which works pretty cleanly over dial-up, once it caches any bitmaps you might encounter.

Use Yast to install apache and php requiremements from up-to-date suse internet repository.

Use Add/Remove Programs to install IIS and WWW on windows. Due to the way windows is setup, as long as your base OS is patched, then your IIS/WWW is already patched. So that was easy.

(and although you dont need the install media to install IIS on an installed server, if you dont have install media on your network or on the server, then you're not doing a good job of setting up your environment. alternatively, you can just use the RAC/ILO on the server to remote mount the CD or an ISO. Whatever works best for you.)

Use vi to edit the apache config to create virtual server.

Use IIS Admin to do this, or use the command line tool, or modify the metabase.xml directly. Whichever way is more comfortable for you, there are lots of options.

To install PHP, take 30 seconds and read this:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/install.windows.php#i nstall.windows.installer.msi

Use rsync to copy the php application to the server. (for windows users, rsync is a little like FTP, but over an ssh connection, and can easily replicate a full folder structure)

Use XCOPY to copy the php application to the server. (for unix users, XCOPY is a little like rsync, but will run over any CIFS connection (including an RDP connection), and can easily replicate a full folder structure)

Test, debug, then secure access to only http, https and ssh. Approx 4 hrs for the whole job.

Test, debug, then secure access to only http, https, and rdp from inside the network (ie, requires vpn).

Compare that to what you wrote:

To do the same thing in Windows - Take Previously installed Windows 2K3 server, enable remote desktop access, oh hang on, that wasn't done initially so will have to call someone at the office to do it for me,

Why didnt you do it right the first time?

Oh, and have to install whole citrix gateway infrastructure to support secure encrypted remote access.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. The SOP way to do this is to VPN into your protected network and RDP from there.

Add software - IIS, hang on, no network repository for i386 directory, get someone at the office to stick in a CD, then restart.

Why dont you have a network repository for i386? Thats SOP for this kind of environment when done by competent admins. CD? And why would you restart? You dont need to restart after installing IIS.

And I'm about 80% sure that you dont need the CD or media at all to install IIS on a box that is already installed and setup.

Add php services to IIS - umm, haven't done that before so I don't know how hard it is to do.

Go to php.net, download the msi, run it. Yawn.

Here's the link to make it easier:

Re:Apache vs IIS

[AlexTurner]

I am with you there! I am a system architect. That means that if a live system goes down - I get the kicking of a life time. I get feedback from developers saying 'but it would be much easier and faster to do this with xyz product (exchange, iis, etc). My response is that I really don't mind if it takes a days extra to do it with a product which will not fall over. On the knowing everything. Apache comes from a UNIX background and that is a different mind set. Once you start to get the mind set more - the chances are that it will all start to make more sense to you. When I went over to using Windows systems I could not figure out what was going on - it works both ways to a certain extent - but I think the Windows learning curve is easier to climb.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[cortana]

It seems slashdot munged one of my questions. I wanted to know what the equivalent of the Location and Directory directives were. It's been a while since I had to use IIS (thank god), but I don't remember any way to implement the full functionality of Location and Directory, for instance how they can overlap and their directives combine.

I certainly wouldn't want to be in the business of configuring web servers if I couldn't use mod_macro or mod_perl!

I'm pretty sure that IIS can be made to do many of the cool things that are only an apt-get install away with Apache. But you're then going to have to hunt down loads of code from disparate places accross the web, watch out for security vulnerabilities in each thing you donwload, keep them all updated separately; it's Windows in a nutshell. But with Apache, all the cool features (and those are just some of the one's that I am familiar with) are just an apt-get away. And if you want to extend the server yourself, the source code is only an 'apt-get source' away... with IIS, you are stuck with the API Microsoft provides you with, and you have to deal with all the other annoyances that make Windows a crap platform for development.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Sorry, forgot to set the sarcasm bit in my post ;)

Re:Apache vs IIS

[colinrichardday]

I think you may be misunderstanding the server products.

You cannot buy IIS, and there is no enterprise version.

My bad, I was looking at another product whose name had the same initials.

And I could do the same thing on my XP box if it had included XP Pro instead of XP Home. As for Windows 2003 Web Server Edition, what languages does it include besides ASP.NET and .NET? Can I run other services (mail, ftp) on it? As for the free stuff, why should I download when Linux distros already have such software, including PHP, Python, and Perl?

Re:Apache vs IIS

[Allador]

As for Windows 2003 Web Server Edition, what languages does it include besides ASP.NET and .NET? Can I run other services (mail, ftp) on it? As for the free stuff, why should I download when Linux distros already have such software, including PHP, Python, and Perl? Windows just ships by default with ASP (VBScript & JScript), ASP.NET (C#, VB.NET, and J#). So only the MS stuff.

I'm not sure that spending a couple minutes downloading and installing another language is really that big of a barrier, but if it is critical to you then you're right, it doesnt come included.

Even on the Linux distros though, isnt it regular practice to update whatever version of PHP (say) to the current version, anyway? So depending on the distro, a couple minutes of work (apt-get, or whatever) to update to the current version. And then, I believe, you have to modify apache to bind the language (install mod_perl, etc). I know its not much work in either case, but frankly neither is downloading and installing Perl or PHP on Windows. Even Python is just an MSI on Windows, and ActiveState has a great windows package as well.

I guess my point is that on either platform, once you are up to speed and familiar with the platform, this stuff is easy. There's no question that the Linux package managers (particularly the debian ones) are much more elegant. But the time/effort difference is very minor, for adepts on either platform.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[colinrichardday]

But then the time/effort difference between configuring Apache and IIS is also very minor, so why use IIS?

Re:Apache vs IIS

[Allador]

Are you serious? Well, lets see, here are just the immediate possibilities that leap to mind.

• You already have a windows machine available with IIS, but dont have a Unix machine around, or dont want to put Apache on Windows.
• The work you're going to do is ASP or ASP.NET based, or based on/assuming an IIS install.
• Your admins are skilled on Windows but no Unices, so you know you can lock down and secure the IIS box effectively, but can't guarantee that you can do the same for the Unix box.
• You prefer IIS.
• Your infrastructure is homogenous windows.
• And so forth

Re:Apache vs IIS

[colinrichardday]

Or

You don't have a machine with IIS, but have three Linux boxes with Apache.

The work is not in ASP.NET, and is not based on an IIS install.

Your admins are skilled in Unix, but they wouldn't touch Windows with a 10-foot pole.

You prefer Apache.

Your infrastructure is heterogeneous.

You decide that Microsoft has enough money this quarter.

And so forth

Re:Apache vs IIS

[centuren]

You can if you use an scp client that lets you open remote files in the editor of your choice.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Have you ever worked with a non-trivial application in IIS?

I've done hand-configuration of Windchill in IIS. It was a true nightmare, dozens of different widgets, menus, windows and panels, all IIS.

Click a button, open a widget, change some settings, click another button open another widget change some different settings. Repeat until application is configured, check that all configuration wizards are correct, then test and hope the settings are correct, because the server debugging sucks.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Oooh that sounds cool. Is it open as if editing a text file on your computer? Then click save and it saves?

Actually that reminds me of editing files on Microsoft Sharepoint, you click on a word doc, if you have rights you can edit it and just click save.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Have you ever worked with a non-trivial application in IIS?

No, because I'm a trivial person, lol.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[EEBaum]

Am not running Slack. Am *used to* running Slack, and frustrated at the degree of relearning necessary to run other, "easier" flavors.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[giuntag]

Ok, so did you also try to:
- read the apache manual that comes with the distro instead of googling around as 1st stop help shop
- add to logfiles a custom http request header (requires writing a custom dll in IIS)
- have different logs generated by different virtual hosts / folders / requests
- edit by using a text editor the iis config / back it up or restore it / write a plugin to manipulate it (impossible up to iis 6)
- use ldap as authentication backend for IIS
- find out the access perms set on a huge tree of IIS folders without clicking them open one by one
- set up decent http compression in IIS without resorting to external tools such as Port80
- set up IIS as reverse proxy or load balancing proxy

sorry, but as far as ease of use, configurability and sheer number of features there really is no match. Apache can be tweaked to serve every possible imaginable unconceivable convoluted application you design. IIS cannot.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

-I did read the apache documentation. I did that first. It didn't help much with what I wanted to do. Also, I've always found that their documentation isn't as easy to follow for a beginner like me. A step by step description helped much more. Did you read the apache documentation and see how not easy it is to learn how to do some things?

-I did not add logfiles. I do not know how to make a custom http request header or maybe I don't know the term.

-I have not made different logs generate for different virtual hosts etc.

-I have not used a text editor for config/backup for IIS but obviously I have for apache. I wasn't possible with IIS pre version 6? so?

-I haven't used an ldap authentication before. I have used Windows authentication though with IIS.

-I have set access permissions in IIS with a huge tree of folders. I try to keep it simple so I just set the parent.

-I don't even know what http compression is. what the hell.

-I haven't done reverse proxy or load balancing proxy stuff at all. I know the general idea of load balancing but I don't really know what those are.

You are probably right about configurability and sheer number of features, but in my experience not ease of use. In my post above, it was very far from obvious to me how to make those changes in apache.

Re:Apache vs IIS

[giuntag]

I guess different people have different learning approaches, so what is perceived as "easy" or natural by someone is deemed obscure and arcane by someone else. In general, I prefer to read the 'technical specification' manual rather than the 'filled with examples' tutorial, but I understand that in order to get any benefit out of it you need at least a basic understanding of the topic at hand.

More to the point:

- I find Apache docs very good, both when compared to many other OSS projects and when evaluated on their own. The basic params are described one by one, and you can usually find the correct combination with a little trial and error, but for the most complex tasks there are dedicated sections which are very helpful (eg tuning)

- 'using a text editor' to edit the config file has a very nice side consequence: it makes backing up the config and reimporting it later / duplicating it extremely easy. But I am sure a lot of other /. readers have duly pointed out all the many advantages that apache has (such as using a simple search command to find out if a parameter exists/has been set: it can be a real time saver compared to the infinite series of tabs/dialogs that have to be navigated with IIS when you are not really sure where things are set)

- by your own admission, you have never configured a moderately complex website. I would consider the fact that you do not know what http compression is a sore spot in your CV, but that is just my own personal opinion. IMHO the good coders are the ones that have a passion for learning (at least at the basic level) all the aspects involved in their work, be it system administration, network protocols or memory allocation / cpu architecture.

- to be honest, IIS is indeed more friendly 'out of the box' to the complete newbie. It complements that with the sheer inability to implement all of the complex setups that apache can do, and with an exponential growth of the time needed to configure it vs. configuration complexity (the example about setting folder perms being a prime example: it's fine and dandy as long as you develop your small app over which you have complete control, but just imagine having to manage tens of different web applications developed by different people, that do not write down clear specs for configuration and have very sloppy security practices, and you see the mess it becomes. Last week I had to deploy an app. where the file containing the db credentials - in clear was set to be world-readable... I was NOT pleased).
Otoh Apache has a higher barrier to entry, but it gets easier to use the more you know it. This is a well known paradigm for both OSS (makes easy the hard things, but not easier the easy ones) and microsoft sw, which makes extremely easy the easy things and impossible the complex ones.

Bye
Gaetano

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

I find Apache docs very good

I probably would like them too. I generally like to go to the source to learn something like for APIs. Whenever I looked something up I was unsure of how to use some things, where things went in the textfile, the order of things... basically the structure of the file. Hopefully it will be obvious to me eventually.

by your own admission, you have never configured a moderately complex website. I would consider the fact that you do not know what http compression is a sore spot in your CV

That sounded kind of mean. I am in my first job related to my degree (BS CS) and have been there since August 21st so I don't yet have a year experience. Also, I am at a small company so I'm the only one there doing what I am. None of my classes were about websites/webservers so I guess technically I am a beginner. I have learned a lot so far, believe me!

but just imagine having to manage tens of different web applications developed by different people

It sounds like in your story, my role would correspond to the person developing the web app. However since it's a small company, I am performing your role as well. I'd rather stick to developing. Configuring this stuff annoys the hell out of me and after I've put so much into my app, I'd just like to deploy it and have it work. I'm trying to do server clustering now, woooo. I've managed to figure everything out before so I guess I'll get this too, but it seems pretty iffy.

where the file containing the db credentials - in clear was set to be world-readable... I was NOT pleased

I'm guessing it was in a plain text file and not something interpreted or compiled? Mine is in Java classfiles (and I don't deploy the source files :) ).

Re:Apache vs IIS

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

PS. I just read some about HTTP compression and I guess it's just zipping the website's files so they transfer faster, then the client's browser unzips it. That makes sense. I guess I know what it is now :)

It seems a simple concept. I'm not going to worry about figuring out how to implement it at this point though. I am working on higher priority things.

It's not aboout that

[lynalpha]

It's not about too much choices, it's about easy choices.

Won't be long now.

[Bluesman]

The writing is on the wall for Microsoft. Sure, they've had the developers in the past, but I think it's only a matter of time before they jump ship.

Lots of people aren't too happy with Vista, and OS/X, Linux, and BSD are gaining ground.

The keys to the kingdom are backward compatibility, always an MS strong point. But the open-source community has this nailed -- the POSIX API's are over thirty years old, and won't change. It's only a matter of time before Microsoft changes just enough so that developers can't rely on them to be rock-solid anymore, and there will be a mass exodus.

It will start with specialized apps like video and audio editing software (already happened to some extent) and gradually will work its way through the entire business suite of tools.

Some years ago, I offered to write a Postgresql database app for a small business. They refused, saying they wanted to use SQL Server, even if it was more expensive, since "Microsoft isn't going anywhere anytime soon."

Today, I doubt there would be that same certainty. Ten years from now, I expect the tables will have completely turned, with Linux based apps seen as the "old reliables" that never go away.

Re:Won't be long now.

[Mongoose Disciple]

This seems more than a little optimistic/naive to me.

If you were still writing the simple small business app to the same requirements as ten years ago, sure, Open Source is making fantastic inroads there.

The problem is, those aren't really the market Microsoft is aiming at developer-wise today. For example, when a customer wants an app that runs in Word and integrates seamlessly with it, there isn't really going to be a competitive Open Source way to do that anytime soon -- and an awful lot of customers for an awful lot of business applications, once they understand this is an option they're not going to want it any other way.

On the database side, consider moves like SQL Server Express. It's free (as in beer), is as much of a database as a lot of small businesses need, and it's probably a lot cheaper to find someone who can do basic tuning and admin with it than it is to find somebody equally skilled with Postgre.

Microsoft definitely doesn't do everything better than everyone else, but it's seriously premature to count them out.

Re:Won't be long now.

[RightSaidFred99]

Rich commentary. Unfortunately, MS _isn't_ going anywhere no matter what happens with Vista. Vista will succeed simply through attrition - in 5-6 years XP will be much akin to 2000, still used some places but pretty much dead.

Re:Won't be long now.

[Bluesman]

I just think that a lot of the problems that Linux has making inroads is because until recently, nobody really had heard of it. It was the new kid on the block, which isn't something you're going to bet your business on, even if it makes financial sense in the short term. Everyone knew what Microsoft was.

Ten years later, most people have at least heard of Linux. In another ten years, people making decisions will have been hearing about it for twenty years. And in that time, Microsoft will have changed their development platform five times and released another two or three OS's that are catastrophes. The big advantage that Microsoft enjoyed -- being seen as the only vendor you can count on forever, won't be there anymore.

Microsoft can't compete technologically with a global distributed network of developers, and they can't compete with the entire web for web-apps. And once they lose that bulletproof image, they're done.

It might not happen soon, but it will happen quickly.

Oh, god, what bullshit!

[Russ Nelson]

Oh, god, what bullshit is this! Choice is not a problem! If choice was really a problem, then somebody would create a Linux distro with no choices. "Sit down, shut up, and run the software we choose". Except, nobody does that because nobody wants that.

The whole "choice is bad" meme is complete and utter nonsense. http://angry-economist.russnelson.com/barry-schwar tz-master-chooser.html

Re:Oh, god, what bullshit!

[Zantetsuken]

Not to bash on Macs, and being as I'm a power-user I don't really care for Macs or GNOME, but if what you say is true, why the hell are Macs with their overly dumbed down interface which gives you almost no choice at all so popular (at least thats what the Mac crowd claims) with people who don't know that when you tell them to click on something, by default you mean "left click"?

While what you say might be half true at the moment while Linux is still more of a niche OS, where would people go if a year or 2 from now, MS is kaput, Best Buy and other average joe consumers buy PC's at, and by odd chance Apple went under too (maybe even though they'd be the only major player left, people wouldn't buy em cuz the things are expensive?) - where would people go to for an OS? (ya, stick with XP 5 or 10 years after it stops getting updates and try even sticking a removable disk/drive in it) Linux is the only other viable option left at this point, where else would granny go? BSD? (not that BSD is bad, but its decidely less friendly than Linux)

My point is that just because you and I are power users who directly edit their xorg.conf fairly often and tweak with every little setting in Beryl, or refuse to use anything but Blackbox WM, doesn't mean that I'm ready to give granny KDE, pops Xfce, and Fido Blackbox. I'm already tech support for family and relatives 24/7 as is, I don't need that extended thank you...

Re:Oh, god, what bullshit!

[FranklinDelanoBluth]

You nailed that right on the head, considering that >95% of all desktops who run Microsoft or Apple...

Re:Oh, god, what bullshit!

[toadlife]

"(not that BSD is bad, but its decidely less friendly than Linux) " I take it you haven't tried PC-BSD?

Re:Oh, god, what bullshit!

[sosume]

Oh, god, what bullshit is this! Choice is not a problem! If choice was really a problem, then somebody would create a Linux distro with no choices. "Sit down, shut up, and run the software we choose".

Hmmm MacOS, Windows, OpenBSD, all don't offer much choice in apps for the same task... and still they're hugely popular for the specific tasks they do.

Re:Oh, god, what bullshit!

[Zantetsuken]

No I haven't. While it's not really a fair judgment, I'll admit that when I referred to BSD I was using NetBSD as my reference, which seemed to be rather a pain to install, one of the biggest reasons was that I saw no obvious way to have it use a partition of my HDD for testing it (it only gave options for the whole HDD). Also, each time I screwed up and the installer refused to go further, I basically had to restart the installer...

Again, not really a fair comparison I suppose, and even if NetBSD and PC-BSD were close enough to compare, I guess I dint have much evidence to really bash on NetBSD in the first place...

BTW: I needed NetBSD cuz it seemed to be the only recent OS I could find that fit within the tight constraints of an old "Pizzabox" type Sun SPARCstation20 (approximately that model IIRC)...

Re:Oh, god, what bullshit!

[toadlife]

I've been using FreeBSD on my desktop for several years and would never recommend it to anyone who wanted to switch from Windows, but PC-BSD is as much a viable alternative as any of the newbie linux distros. I've also used OpenBSD, but never had a reason to try NetBSD.

Check out PC-BSD some time if you have the time. It's pretty darn slick.

-Paul

Re:Blurb paraphrased: public = sheep

[davmoo]

I'm not trying to be mean, I'm seriously asking this, because I would have to disagree. And in 26 years of voting in national (and local) elections, I've truly wanted to vote third party every time.

Besides possibly H. Ross Perot, what *viable* third party candidates have we had for President?

The very first election for President that I voted in, I voted for Jon Anderson. I was an idealist back then, and thought he could win. I voted for Badnarik in 2004, but only because I just couldn't bring myself to vote for either major party asshat...a limp dick like Kerry was as bad a choice as an idiot like Bush. But even when I pulled that lever (Anderson) or pressed that button (Badnarik), I knew they couldn't win. And I didn't vote for Perot because he quit in the middle of the campaign (but then came back later) and I don't vote for quiters.

And if you say Ralph Nader is, or has ever been, a viable candidate, I'll have to laugh hysterically.

The truth about Kdevelop

[QueePWNzor]

I'll admit, the difference between Kdevelop (KDE's IDE) and Anjuta (arguably the GNOME alternative) are trivial but too often annoying in reality. But there frankly is a reason why I, among others use Kdevelop: It simply looks better than everything else in KDE. Now, of course, because it is linked in deeply with KDE as a whole, unless you upgrade every time a new KDE release comes out, the development libraries&junk may fall behind. I upgrade about every 6-8 months, but I see how, if somebody didn't, that could be a huge pain. But Anjuta, though it uses GNOME/GTK+ libraries (GTK+ is used for almost all programs, but the GNOME variants can cause trouble), it isn't so deeply linked in. So this deepens the debate, especially since the two environments go forward at often random paces. When I started using GNU/Linux, I got frustrated at this, and it caused me to use my Windows IDE, Microsoft Visual C++ more often. Because it has its own formats for organization, I started becoming more dependent on it as I added more headers and crap. That is why Kdevelop gives Microsoft market-share. I think, but am not sure that KDE is the most common desktop environment. Ubuntu may have altered the balance, though.

ego forks

[timmarhy]

"Choice isn't always good, and the open source community sometimes offers far too many ways to skin the same cat, choices that are born more out of pride, ego, or stubbornness than a genuine need for two different paths"

i'd say thats about spot on. when presented with more then 2 choices most people um and err for ages then just randomly pick an option based on what colour the like, or which has the biggest logo. and i would definately agree that many OSS projects are forked out of ego clashes.

Re:ego forks

[gujo-odori]

I disagree. Not only is the assertion that the reason Microsoft wins is because a monoculture not spot-on, it couldn't be much more wrong.

The top two reasons Microsoft wins most of the time are far simpler and much more plausible than that:

1) Microsoft was there first. They were in the right place at the right time when IBM needed an OS for the IBM PC, and later executed pretty well in following up with Windows and Windows NT. Microsoft had far more successes than failures in those days, and actually produced a lot of software that was better (often far better) than the competition. Excel didn't unseat Lotus 1-2-3 because of vendor lock-in and bundling. It did it because it was already number one on Mac and MS successfully ported it to Windows. MS Word unseated Word Perfect and Wordstar because it was better than them. A lot better. Microsoft's monopoly/lock-in power came later, as a result of the huge success of products like Word, Excel, Access, and Windows 95.

2) Going against Microsoft is going against a powerful, market-dominating player which, apart from its bag of dirty tricks (people like me, who started out in mainframes, remember the adage "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"), can guarantee a developer a much larger market for his/her product(s) than Apple, the entire Linux/BSD camp, or both of those together. That's something that's going to be true for years to come. So, if you're a developer looking to sell a proprietary product (including shareware), which platform are you most likely to be drawn to? Yup. Windows.

Not all developers are going to go that way, of course. Some of them are just Mac or Linux users and have no wish to develop for Windows, not even for a larger market share. Plus, of course, most Linux and BSD developers are not putting out proprietary software anyway, they're releasing under the GPL, the BSD license, or some other open source license.

No, it's completely wrong to say Microsoft wins among (proprietary) developers are about too much choice (did anyone notice that Apple offers the same number of IDEs as Microsoft? One.) It's just about the money. If Linux were the dominant operating system in the home and/or corporate desktops and you could practically sell proprietary software into that market (a tough proposition indeed, because there's always some free or Free product that is as good as the proprietary stuff, or close enough that almost no one can justify paying for the proprietary stuff).

It's also worth noting that Microsoft probably has less developer mindshare today than at any time in the last ten years. If its monoculture were such an opposition killer, this would be strange indeed. I'm aware this is not a scientific measurement, but, FWIW I do live and work near the Silicon Valley area, and everywhere I go I find tremendous interest in both Apple and Linux. The majority of my colleagues are not using Windows; most of us (including me) have either Macs on our desks, FreeBSD, or Linux.

Microsoft will continue to dominate developer mindshare for a long time to come. Like the Willie Sutton quote on robbing banks (although he never said it, just as Bill Gates never made the pronouncement on 640K that is widely attributed to him), why do people program for Windows? Because that's where the money is? You may not like the Windows environment as much as Apple, or KDE, or GNOME, or whatever floats your boat. Or maybe you do like it. Either way, jobs writing for the Microsoft platform are plentiful and will be for a long time to come.

microsoft

[rs2gp]

yeah too much choice...it makes no sence http://www.runescapeblog.cn/

Ya...but

[msimm]

If they were open source you'd first have to put the soda together yourself and the documentation would be incomplete. Come to think of it I'm sure the cars do exist and we all know about he open source beer, right?

Next time you want to go out for drinks just tell your friends it will be a few weeks until their ready (or pay someone to do it for you...or just get tired of it and pick up a six-pack of propriety beer from the supermarket..). (:

Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[fyngyrz]

Oh, it's helpful, all right. For instance, the only reason we've not released a port to linux - a free version, of course, we'd like to give back to the community - is because there is no standard GUI layer. It's a hodgepodge of these widgets and those widgets, this license and that license (really meaning, these liabilities and those liabilities.) Windows provides all that. Free. Built in. Plus a large market. So we developed for them. When Windows became intolerable because of activation DRM, we moved to OSX. Nice GUI layer, free, built-in. development proceeds apace, while linux runs servers. Others may have other reasons, but those are ours. The day the linux core gets BUILT-IN windowing and graphics, and I do NOT mean just xwindows or xwindows plus yet another sometimes-there and restrictively licensed widget set, is the day we make a port that we will release to the community. The community can then, of course, use our stuff or not as they see fit - but as is, it's not a choice. That's been the unanimous decision of the linux community: no coherence.

I want to say one more thing. The existence of a standard GUI layer in NO way means that you can't still have everything you have now. You'd just have one more thing, something people could write to as a default, even just as a fall-back.

That's my 2 cents.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Kristoph]

You seem to misunderstand that Linux is not an operating system, it is a kernel. The various 'distributions' are operating systems built upon the Linux kernel. In the vast majority of cases the distributions which target client solutions offer stable UI layers for any given version.

So you could, for example, create a solution for Ubuntu - currently the most popular client distribution - which includes a windowing system, widget libraries, desktop environment, documentation environment and everything else you may need.

]{

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Simon80]

If you think that it's incoherent for X windows to be in a different module than the kernel, there's something that you don't get. I understand that there's a confusing amount of choice for someone who wants to develop Linux software, but there never will be some kind of "BUILT-IN" Linux(tm) windowing system, the concept just doesn't make sense. However, it is true that a unified API that eases porting between different GUI kits would be nice.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[BlueTrin]

You would then target a fraction of a smaller customer base.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Osty]

If you think that it's incoherent for X windows to be in a different module than the kernel, there's something that you don't get.

"Built-in" does not have to mean built into the kernel. In the case of Linux, "built-in" might mean "available by default in every distribution without having to do anything special". Maybe that's KDE, maybe it's GNOME, maybe it's something else, but it has to always be there (alternatively, you have to really work at making it not be there, in which case you're probably not the target audience).

However, it is true that a unified API that eases porting between different GUI kits would be nice.

I don't think a unified API solves the problem, so long as projects are allowed to implement however much or little of it as they want. What is needed is a single, de-facto GUI widget kit that is ubiquitous across all distributions of Linux. Or at least provide a single easy way for an application to force the installation of that toolkit if it's not there already (and no, debs, rpms, pkgs, and whatever else don't satisfy that criteria because there's too many of them -- one installation method, one dependency resolution method, one toolkit. Not 10 different installation methods, each with their own dependency resolution models, for 20 different toolkits).

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[EsbenMoseHansen]

is because there is no standard GUI layer.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You can use any GUI layer you'd like, and it will work everywhere. Want to use QT? No problem. GTK? No problem. Athena? No problem. It all works. In fact, on any given day, I use applications that uses different toolkits (e.g, firefox, SWT, konqueror) and it never bothered me. Yeah, the open file dialog problem still exists, but there is hope in that. And someday, the look will be unified too, have patience. Neither of those are really important, though.

So if that was your reason for not porting, you didn't port for the wrong reasons.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[salimma]

What is needed is a single, de-facto GUI widget kit that is ubiquitous across all distributions of Linux.

Hmm. As far as I know, most Linux distribution comes with GTK+ and Qt installed by default, regardless of whether they use GNOME or KDE as their default desktops. And freedesktop.org is working at standardizing more parts of the desktop..

As far as licensing goes, with GTK+/GNOME you can develop proprietary applications; with Qt, if you want to do so you have to buy a commercial license, and with KDE.. you cannot. Simple as that.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[pwizard2]

The day the linux core gets BUILT-IN windowing and graphics, and I do NOT mean just xwindows or xwindows plus yet another sometimes-there and restrictively licensed widget set, is the day we make a port that we will release to the community.

I think that merging the kernel and the windowing system is a b> terrible idea, and here's why:

1. It needlessly complicates the kernel, meaning that there are going to be more bugs/exploits.

2. Isolating the kernel from the windowing system is good because if X breaks, I can still use the kernel via a bash shell, which would probably give me the functionality that I need to repair/reinstall X. If the kernel and the windowing system were merged, I probably wouldn't have a fully functional kernel if something happened to the windowing system. The only option then would be a reformat.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[eihab]

Then users demanding "Linux" applications are demanding something that will never happen since you can not write an application to a kernel!

Sarcasm aside, I am (and have always been) shocked at how various Linux distributions differ. I'm by no means a Linux expert, but come on, if you can't agree on where to put your init0.d-init6.d (or whatever it is, yes I'm looking at you Gentoo) then how do you expect an outsider to write something that works for "Linux"?

I mean we hear all this crap about Microsoft and how ME breaks 98, and 2000 breaks ME and Vista breaks XP, etc.
But do the math, how many operating systems are we talking about here? now compare that to Linux distributions available today.

I'm not trolling, I'm no shill and I definitely do not work for Microsoft.. but I just really believe that "too" much choice sucks.

I just (literally) bought a new house (closed escrow today) and I've been in the carpet choice dilemma for the past two weeks! (mind you it took me a while to settle on carpet instead of hard wood floors, pergo, etc.).

Come to think of it, I think this carpet analogy (that I'm about to write) is right on money here. OS is like carpet! It's the foundation that you build on. Think of how carpet pretty much dictates what kind of furniture (style/color etc.) you'll be placing on it, OS will do the same with your applications.

I would have a much easier time choosing between 2-3 carpet types and 10-20 colors than the amazing number of styles/options out there (visit the carpet section next time you're at home depot and you'll know what I'm talking about).

Things like carpet and operating systems (I can't believe I'm lumping them up in the same sentence) are not mundane. They are a *huge* deal because of the consequences of the choice (much like posting this without hitting the "Post Anonymously" checkbox). They're something that you will invest a good amount in, and that will be with you for a long time.

Choice is a VERY good thing, too much choice may even be perfect for those who know "exactly" what they want.

I live and breathe computers, and I think it's silly that I'm spending all this time researching "the" perfect carpet for me and my family. I also believe that the home decoration specialist that knows what kind/make/model/color/class of carpet they want for the hallway of their second house (and have it written somewhere) would be as frustrated as I am with carpet if they had to choose from the plethora of Linux distributions out there today.

The choice is even worse for software companies that put money or even the whole company on the line when they make a platform choice.

I'm done ranting, gotta hit the sack and hope that I come to a decision about the carpet before we get the keys!

Side [OT] (as if this whole thing wasn't anyway) note:
If you happen to know something about carpet, or where I can get more/good information please post it. No pets, one year old and an average budget. Thanks in advance :)

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Anomolous Cowturd]

Bah. KDE-based skype works just fine in a gnome session. It even puts it's status icon in the appropriate place on the gnome panel.

The only built-in thing in linux is the kernel, and most of that is optional, and that's the way it's going to stay. So "no built-in whatever" will always be true. So what. Require X11 for your app. Pick a common gui toolkit and use it. Compile statically if you're worried. Your reasoning lacks merit. Find a better reason (there are plenty) not to support linux, or shut up.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Heembo]

Why not just trump the operating system war and build your (non vid game) apps with Java? Java 6 GUI performance is outstanding.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[ozmanjusri]

how do you expect an outsider to write something that works for "Linux"?

Provide the source code under an open license. It's how we want it to happen.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[cortana]

Why? Are non-Ubuntu users unable to run GTK applications?

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Aladrin]

And you seem to misunderstand his entire point. Maybe it'll help if I call it Gnu/Linux.

Gnu/Linux has too many divergent ways to display graphical things. Windows and OSX each have 1 way and there's no choice. You only have to test with a single windowing system on each of those.

Gnu/Linux has dozens. Literally. There's a few mainstream ones, though, and even that is a hassle. If you had your choice to build an app on a system that you had to test with 1 windowing system or 4, which would you pick? In the long run, making it work with multiple will probably improve the quality of your code, but businesses are worried about getting the product out the door and making money. The GP also noted legal issues. They have to understand and abide by different licenses for each system they officially deploy on. Quite annoying.

Gnu/Linux has 1 major problem left, and this is it. I have no idea how the issue will be resolved, though. I'm a KDE zealot myself, and I never want to give it up, mainly for the extras it provides like KIO slaves. (The FISH protocol is a god-send.)

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Fred_A]

What is needed is a single, de-facto GUI widget kit that is ubiquitous across all distributions of Linux.

There is one but nobody uses it any more. It's called xaw (short for the X Athena Widgets).

Of course it's always possible to statically link your widgets in the application... KDE and Gnome will both usually "dreass up" GTK and Qt apps respectively so that they look like their native widgets.

Finally I actually bought (what an idea) Linux applications, namely Bibble Pro (RAW photo file management) and Antidote RX (French linguistic helper application) and oddly enough they just work on pretty much whatever Linux distribution you install them on. Amazing really, I wonder how they did it.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Fred_A]

It all works. In fact, on any given day, I use applications that uses different toolkits (e.g, firefox, SWT, konqueror) and it never bothered me. Yeah, the open file dialog problem still exists, but there is hope in that. And someday, the look will be unified too, have patience. Neither of those are really important, though.

OTOH of course you regularly have Mac OS users whining because Firefox "doesn't look like a real Mac app". I have an iBook happily running Firefox on OS 10.4 and never really understood what they were talking about, especially since to me, the Apple software doesn't really seem to have that much of a unified look anyway. Maybe it's because I've been running Linux/Unix for too long and don't even notice the mix of styles (back when I started twm was pretty much the norm and a mix of Athena/Motif was typical, Athena3D was considered "sexy" when it appeared).

All this to say that some users can be very sensitive to issues that seem irrelevant or downright silly to the rest of us. Those Mac users won't use Firefox as a result of their perception of its "flaw", whatever its qualities may be.
The example is a bit extreme (Unix/Linux users tend to be more lax with their interface) but is something to keep in mind.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[ErroneousBee]

When I did some (about 1 hours worth) research into this, I came to the conclusion that the only 2 obvious choices were wxWidgets and GTK (perhaps SDL if we are talking games).

Seeing as both are available on windows/mac/linux, its really hard to understand why you are saying that there are too many choices. There are two, and they port to all linux distros as well as Win/Mac.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[dlymper]

That's why toolkits like wxWindows, and scripting languages like python are so valuable. The claims for uniformity are certainly right (this is proven after all), but:

- There are several wrappers ( yes, not a single one :-( ) that can simplify GUI things

- Large portions of win32 software is written in ports of scripting and/or cross-platform systems like Python, Java, etc.

- The time for open standards like ODF is coming...
I love choices and do not want them to be limited. Only one thing should be considered THOROUGHLY, before creating a new F/OSS choice: What does it do BETTER from existing ones? What does it do WORSE? Define that, and you have my full support.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[CarpetShark]

One could argue that windows is the non-standard UI, considering that there are many cross-platform toolkits out there. Don't confuse your own unwillingness to learn a suitable UI with the lack of a suitable UI.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[SQLGuru]

Honestly, though. How many non-/. reading, mainstream users are going to install another widget system on their computer? Few or None. Even if you port your free application to a "Linuxy" version of Windows or OSX, no one will come. If you want my mom to use your program, it better come on CD and run on Windows. If you want my dad to run it, it better come on CD and run on Windows. My sister, well, she'll download it, but it better run on Windows.

Back to the original question, the reason that so many companies choose the Windows development? It just works. I can install MS Visual Studio, connect to MS SQL Server, pull in web services off of IIS. And it just works. I call developing in a Microsoft environment "pointy-clicky-draggy-droppy". You don't really have to think about too many config files or whether something works together. It may be dumbed down, but as a developer, I don't want to really have to think about configuration, I want to think about code.

My primary development environment right now is Eclipse and Java. I hate it. Why? Too many choices and no way to know which is the right choice. I have to deal with this configuration and that configuration and a few .properties files thrown in, too. I spend about six hours each week (sometimes more) fighting the environment I work in because someone made a choice that turns out not to have been the best one (for us - I'm sure for someone else it was the perfect choice).

Layne

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[TheRaven64]

Mac users don't complain that FireFox doesn't look like a real OS X app, they complain that it doesn't feel like one. If you want to see what I mean, try double-clicking on the address bar, or using any of the keyboard shortcuts for moving around it that work in every single text box on the system except FireFox. Qt apps tend to be just as bad, which is why I avoid them like the plague.

A lot of the reason OS X is easy to use is motor memory. Applications all use the same shortcuts, so your brain thinks 'perform this high-level action' and then your fingers do it without any more input from your high-level brain functions. There is much less thinking 'what key do I press to do this?' than I've found on any other platform. Last time I was using a *NIX desktop, I had three different applications open with three different ways of skipping to the end of the line in a text box (not counting Vim, because I get enough visual clues to expect terminal applications to behave differently).

the Apple software doesn't really seem to have that much of a unified look anyway You're probably not consciously aware of this, but Apple software has three distinct looks, with three subtly different behaviours. This gives you a subconscious visual clue, which allows you to expect the correct behaviour, often without thinking about it. In spite of this, core behaviour is the same across applications. One of the worst design decisions the major Linux distros made was to theme KDE and GNOME applications so that they looked the same. They don't behave the same, since KDE and GNOME have different UI philosophies, and so you immediately destroy the visual clue that they will behave differently.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Zonk (troll)]

is because there is no standard GUI layer You have three choices:

1. wxWidgets. Will work on all modern platforms. Will look and feel native on all of them.
2. QT. Will work on all modern platforms. Will look and feel native on all of them. However, it's quite expensive if your software isn't open source.
3. GTK. This will work on Linux and Windows and integrate well with a Linux/BSD desktop, whether the user is using Gnome, KDE, XFCE, or whatever else. I put this last since if you're goal is to be cross platform, you really should use a toolkit designed for that.

So, what exactly is the problem? If you develop with QT or wxWidgets, you can use the same interface on Linux/BSD, Windows, Mac OS X, etc. With wxWidgets you can just ship it linked statically as the license permits that. Also, AutoPackage is your friend.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[dosquatch]

You seem to misunderstand that Linux is not an operating system, it is a kernel.

I swear to FSM, I'm gonna go postal the next time I see this argument. Come over here and let me beat you with a clue.

The vast majority of computer users are not developers, code warriors, uber-geeks, or anything of the sort. All they want is to check their mail, browse the web, and run a word processor. They don't understand this distinction. They don't want to understand this distinction. So what happens is that they call it whatever they hear it being called.

It's akin to pointing to a parking lot and calling all of the vehicles in it "crankshafts", and then berating some hapless would-be driver for not understanding the distinction that that happens to be just one critical part in the overall makeup, and even though you casually call them all "crankshafts" the vehicles are likely to bear little semblance to one another in form or function.

Yeah, I know. Another car analogy. I'm trying to be feel apologetic...

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[ronanbear]

There are a couple of carpet styles that most people use. It's nice to have the choice to pick whatever you want if you know exactly how you want it.

What most people do is talk to a few friends or just pick the same colour as someone who had a nice house.

Apple and Microsoft don't really give you much choice. The difference is that you're picking Steve Jobs' tastes instead of Steve Ballmers'. Jobs picks everything the way he likes it and seems best. Ballmer picks something that he thinks will go everywhere: hotels, offices, bedrooms, living rooms &c.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[lpw]

Honestly, though. How many non-/. reading, mainstream users are going to install another widget system on their computer? Few or None. Even if you port your free application to a "Linuxy" version of Windows or OSX, no one will come. If you want my mom to use your program, it better come on CD and run on Windows. If you want my dad to run it, it better come on CD and run on Windows. My sister, well, she'll download it, but it better run on Windows.

The GTK runtime for win32 is distributed as a collection of DLLs. When distributing a GTK-based application for Windows, I can easily integrate GTK into the installer. With a little effort on my part, the installation can be made seamless. The pain of "installing another widget system on their computer" is, I think, overstated.

I write code ("scientific computing") that is intended for a wide audience ranging from fellow researchers (who are likely to prefer a Unixy environment) to government apparatchiks (who run only Windows). Portability, therefore, is very important to me, because I can get all birds stoned at once and everyone is happy. The convenience to the users, IMO, greatly outweighs the convenience of development in a "pointy-clicky-draggy-droppy" environment.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Fred_A]

Last time I was using a *NIX desktop, I had three different applications open with three different ways of skipping to the end of the line in a text box (not counting Vim, because I get enough visual clues to expect terminal applications to behave differently).

I don't know, it seemed to me that Emacs style shortcuts tended to work everywhere (like C-E for end of line). At least it used to.
If not at least the "End", "Home", etc. keys work in a coherent way across all the applications (even works in vim).

You're probably not consciously aware of this, but Apple software has three distinct looks, with three subtly different behaviours. This gives you a subconscious visual clue, which allows you to expect the correct behaviour, often without thinking about it.

I don't know, it regularly takes quite a while for me to understand how to use some of the apple apps, notably those with "drag and drop" (you can't drag and drop anywhere, it has to be right in that little window or nothing happens). All in all I never figured out those clues or even noticed that there were three styles but then I don't really use much Apple software on my Mac. The only one I tried for a while was iPhoto but it was so painful to use that I removed it. Nowadays I mostly use it as a typewriter and remote terminal. All of that fabled ease of use was pretty much wasted on me. I guess I don't have the right workflow for it.
If the touchpad had come with more than 1 button that machine would have had a KDE desktop on it a long time ago. As it is it's not very comfortable to use in X11 (I tried w/ a live CD) and I don't want to have to add a mouse. In the end it's not perfect but it works as it is and mostly fits my modest needs, it was a nice and cheap machine with decent battery life.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[vdboor]

because there is no standard GUI layer. Windows provides all that.

No, it does not. Well only sort-of.. The "standard GUI layer" of Windows is limited to the plain widgets we all know from Windows 95. The ones Notepad and WordPad still use. Ugly menu's and big bevel toolbar buttons. If you look closer you'll see Notepad, Windows Explorer, Visual Studio, Office all use different menu's and toolbar handles. They're all custom widgets, not standard.

Most advanced widgets for Windows are part of a commercial widget toolkit you've chosen. This can be MFC, ComCtl, VLC (Borland), Windows Forms (.Net), WPF (.Net3), Qt, and I'm missing others (e.g. remember those big sized OK-buttons a big green check icon inside).

All those different frameworks do have something in common. Windows provides central settings for fonts and color schemes. This makes them all look the same. That's something Linux should really improve.

his license and that license (really meaning, these liabilities and those liabilities.)

You have two good options for Linux:

• GTK+. Free for use in commercial projects (LGPL). It's the base of GNOME.
• Qt. IMHO a enterprise class toolkit (see customer list). Requires a license for commercial work, but I don't see how that's different from a license for Visual Studio. And you'll get commercial support in return too. Qt is the base of KDE.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[SerpentMage]

This argument seems to rear its head every now and then, and IT IS FRIGGEN NUTS!

You say, "oh we are not releasing to Linux, because there is too much choice." BS! If there were 2 million customers for your product implying fifteen different systems I bet you that you would do it. The problem is not choice, but the fact that you don't have a market. Saying that Windows is a mono-culture is also BS because there are so many permutations and variations of operating systems, patches, etc that supporting Windows 100% is a royal pain in the butt. I know because everyday I am confronted with Windows, Linux, and OSX.

I think people should wise up that this is not an operating system problem, but in fact a programming problem. For example you mention wxwidgets, and the likes. Well I have a piece of Java GUI that runs the same on three platforms, and you cannot argue the performance card because my Java program is a realtime stock application from Interactive Brokers.

So people lets stop whining and stop blaming "choice". After all last I remember we all choose our clothes, cars, food and everything. Yet when it comes to computers choice happens to be a bad thing!

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnu/Linux has too many divergent ways to display graphical things. This isn't 1996 any more. There are two choices: GTK or QT. wxWidgets wraps around GTK. QT and wxWidgets have the advantage of supporting all modern platforms with the same toolkit. So, what's the problem?

No one develops new applications for Motif, X11 (directly), Tk, etc any more.

Windows and OSX each have 1 way and there's no choice. You obviously haven't used OS X. There are two toolkits: Cocoa and Carbon. QT and wxWidgets wrap around Cocoa.

This is one thing that annoys me about OS X. When I'm using, iTunes, MS Office (I don't like it, but OpenOffice sucks hard on OS X, and yes I'm aware of NeoOffice/J), Camino, Eclipse, etc all have different themes and feels. When I'm running Gnome, everything except for Firefox integrates perfectly and looks the same.

You only have to test with a single windowing system on each of those. Unless you're doing something stupid like rolling your own ui toolkit, it will work equally well with Gnome, KDE, and XFCE.

Gnu/Linux has 1 major problem left, and this is it. I have no idea how the issue will be resolved, though. I'm a KDE zealot myself, and I never want to give it up, mainly for the extras it provides like KIO slaves. (The FISH protocol is a god-send.) I really don't see why it's an issue. 8 years ago I'd agree, but not any more.

Really, it's as simple as:

Linux only: GTK or QT
Multi Platform: wxWidgets or QT.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[demallien2]

May His Great Noodliness banish thee to the realms of meat and three veg for yet another car anolgy. No parmesan for you!

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[demallien2]

I feel your pain on the whole Eclipse thing. I HATE that IDE so badly. For goodness sake, if I want power, I'll do it on the command line. If I'm using an IDE, is so that I don't have to go insane configuring every last detail. Eclipse manages to take the worst of both worlds and merge them together seamlessly...

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Provide the source code under an open license. It's how we want it to happen.

It's not, however, how USERS want it to happen. Hint: if installing your program requires me to run a compiler, I'm just going to stikc with the closed-source Windows version, and maybe get some actual work done that week.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[MrMunkey]

I think I can understand your sentiment. It's difficult for a person new to Linux to know which library set they should use.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't LSB trying to make those standards? They might have some criticism on how they do things, but the idea is pretty much there. Wouldn't it be great if there was a standard API for doing things, and then the different projects could plug into that API? That way you get much better interoperability. That particular sub-set of the community that develops for the API should then be able to submit suggestions for changes to the API as needed.

Just my 2 cents

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[LWATCDR]

Why must a window system be built in? There really isn't a need for it to be built in. If it is built in then what do you do for devices like routers and servers that have no need for a gui?
If you want a standard set of widgets then us GTK. It is the standard as far as I am concerned. It doesn't matter if you are running Gnome, KDE, or ICEwm. Odds are close to 100% that you will have GTK installed so you can run Gimp and or GAIM.
A monoculture isn't really a benefit. One OS dominating means that one vulnerability effects everyone. A standard for a GUI means little to no room for innovation.
If you want to use a standard widget set then GTK is your answer. If you don't mind the up front cost you could buy QT and then have a standard widget set for Windows, OS/X, and Linux.
The real point is that there is no need for a windowing system to be built in because just about nobody programs the windowing system anymore everyone uses a framework. On windows you tend to use MFC or WinFX, on Linux/BSD GTK or KDE are the most common frameworks, and on OS/X people use Carbon or Cocoa.

The lack of a "standard" widget set for Linux is a convent myth. There are many reason for you not to port your software to Linux. Cost, time, a lack of a market, or just not wanting to but the lack of a widget set just isn't a valid reason.

BTW didn't you all create some pretty slick software for the Amiga back in the day? If so maybe you should just port to DragonFly BSD for old times sake.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[lawpoop]

He probably doesn't mean 'built-in', but just a standard GUI with all of the widgets they're using coming along with it.

But that being said, that will never happen; they need to just pick on of the most common ones, make sure the licenses are okay, and tell users that their package depends on it. Hopefully they won't have to help users install a widget package.

Am I wrong in thinking that the major choice comes down to GNOME or KDE?

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Teach]

Choice is a VERY good thing, too much choice may even be perfect for those who know "exactly" what they want.

But as you say, too much choice is crippling. To quote author Madeline L'Engle: "Freedom is a terrible gift, and the theory behind all dictatorships is that 'the people' do not want freedom. They want bread and circuses. They want workman's compensation and fringe benefits and TV. Give up your free will, give up your freedom to make choices, listen to the expert, and you will have three cars in your garage, steak on the table, and you will no longer have to suffer the agony of choice."

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[jedidiah]

...or just use one of the most popular options.

Then allow end users to install support libraries as needed.

This is really all that's happening in that "simple and easy Windows" that the
GP likes so much. Windows is easy because you get to trample all over the system
when you're installing the app. There is NO standard. You simply get to muck about
with the customer's system to your heart content. So things like "wrong version of
Direct3D" are less likely to be a problem.

The notion that Linux isn't standardized enough to write apps for is just
a lame & bogus excuse.

Enough people have been doing it long enough.

Some of these people even get big bucks for their software.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Viol8]

"The day the linux core gets BUILT-IN windowing and graphics, and I do NOT mean just xwindows or xwindows "

You really don't understand the whole point of X-Windows do you? Its a network graphics system. Ie you don't have to be on machine A to run a GUI app on machine A. Sure , now Windows has that functionality , 20 years after the event I might add , but look at the extra hassle you get with it.

Another point - linux/unix frequently gets used as a backend server system that doesn't require any sort of graphical interface. Something MS with its Windows Server 20XX line hasn't quite grasped yet. What would be the advantage of building the graphics into the kernel? I can think of plenty of disadvantages - more bloat , more potential security and stability issues , more disk space required for a basic install. And so forth.

Frankly , you're assertion is daft.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[jedidiah]

Pick a widely used "standard" & document that.

Make a decision and then tell everyone what you did.

Why is this so hard?

Can't you people make decisions anymore?

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[vertinox]

I'm not trolling, I'm no shill and I definitely do not work for Microsoft.. but I just really believe that "too" much choice sucks.

Sounds like a personal problem if they aren't up to the task to making decisions and from my understanding if you are employed and given the responsibility to make decisions then perhaps they should find someone else who is up to the task.

Of course... Less decisions make any decision easier, but sometimes people need to do major research and actually work at finding out what they really should choose rather than having a vendor sweet talk them in with free swag and lunches.

(And anyone who makes decisions based of swag and lunches should not be making decisions)

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[rhavenn]

QT seems to work as well.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Then users demanding "Linux" applications are demanding something that will never happen since you can not write an application to a kernel!

The truth of the matter is, you can easily write a "Linux" application that runs on pretty much all major Linux distributions.

I'm not trolling, I'm no shill and I definitely do not work for Microsoft.. but I just really believe that "too" much choice sucks.

I disagree. The real problems we have with many choices are all because we have a monoculture. Because there is one dominant OS and that OS is intentionally incompatible with other things, fragmentation is an issue. If we had four OS's sharing 75% of the market and another 10 OS's sharing the rest we'd have significant investment in all the major ones and in technologies that allow for good cross-platform development and portable applications so it did not matter which OS you are running as much, since it would preclude your using a given application.

I would have a much easier time choosing between 2-3 carpet types and 10-20 colors than the amazing number of styles/options out there (visit the carpet section next time you're at home depot and you'll know what I'm talking about).

I picked out some carpet a month ago. Like any other decision, I had criteria. It needed to go with two different wall colors and needed to have a pattern to hide the stuff tracked in from outside and the garage. If there were only 10-20 colors, I would have had a carpet that was less suited to my needs than what I did get, since I doubt one of these 20 colors would have been a combination of colors complementary to my walls along with a dark and a neutral to help hide dirt and the like. If you don't like having choices, then just pick from a limited selection from one company or collection. I don't see why this is hard. Variety and competition breed innovation and improvement and allow for a better fit to a given task. It is only when we have a monoculture that the problems appear and one vendor can intentionally make sure you have no choices by making sure floors are either compatible with their carpet or are weird and non-standard ones that do not work with anything other than one specialty floor.

The choice is even worse for software companies that put money or even the whole company on the line when they make a platform choice.

So it is better for a company to have only one or two choices, than many choices to find the best fit for their needs? I'm not sure I understand that argument at all.

If you happen to know something about carpet, or where I can get more/good information please post it. No pets, one year old and an average budget. Thanks in advance :)

I don't know a lot about carpet, but I recently did some research and consulted someone who knew a whole lot. I'm happy with the result. Consider what it will look like in two years given the type of traffic you have. Consider changing trends and what will quickly look dated. Spend the extra money for thick, high quality padding underneath the carpet as that makes a whole lot more difference for the price differential than the cost difference between the carpets themselves.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[metamatic]

Dude, your web site has a ton of broken links, because I have 2 levels of web cache on my browser. Did you ever think about that when coming up with the "clever" idea of moving all the pages around from time to time?

Oh, and I see no evidence of any OS X products on the pages I can get to...

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Spudds]

the reason that so many companies choose the Windows development? It just works

Wrong-o!
The reason why companies choose windows development is because that's what everyone else is running. Period.
It has nothing to do with whether it "just works" or not, it has to do with who uses what, and as a professional linux user/developer it pains me terribly to admit that pretty much everyone uses windows.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[metamatic]

When I did some (about 1 hours worth) research into this, I came to the conclusion that the only 2 obvious choices were wxWidgets and GTK (perhaps SDL if we are talking games) [...] they port to all linux distros as well as Win/Mac.

Or Qt, ditto.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Lorkki]

As long as the ABI remains the same, you can dodge a lot of problems by using some common sense while linking - ie. don't require the exact minor release and patch level of the library your own distribution happens to have. The situation isn't close to as bad as it was some years ago with widget kits and DEs progressing at a fast pace at the same time as major glibc and GCC changes were made.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[metamatic]

So you're saying if my mom starts to call cars "crankshafts", I shouldn't correct her? Or is your analogy exactly backwards from the point you're trying to make?

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[ErroneousBee]

I crossed KDE and QT off my list because of some confusion on the licensing and availability of QT on windows. It seemed that you had to buy a licence or make your produce GPL. Also, if targetting Linux, KDE would be a better choice.

KDE4 may be a good choice in the future, but I guess the choice would still be GTK or wxWidgets for an application that doesnt need fancypants integration with the desktop.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Eccles]

Don't forget about the option with more flexibility: hardwood or laminate and rugs. There's only so much cleaning you can do with wall-to-wall carpet. That's more of an issue, though, if you get pets or have allergies.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[dosquatch]

So you're saying if my mom starts to call cars "crankshafts", I shouldn't correct her? Or is your analogy exactly backwards from the point you're trying to make?

I'm saying monkey see, monkey do. She's calling them crankshafts because she sees you and a bunch of your buddies calling them crankshafts. I'm saying "if" she's wrong, maybe you should set a different example rather than split hairs and confuse her with information she doesn't need, while continuing to do the same thing for which you're "correcting" her.

Nevermind that I'm not completely convinced she's wrong. Nomenclature changes, and it might be that you don't have a lot of say in that change. Majority rules. We call them "cars" now, but they started out as "horseless carriages". If the majority of folks mean a complete OS when they say "linux", you might just have to suck it up and deal lest you find yourself railing against the wind.

And don't kid yourself, the distinction doesn't really matter. (Blasphemy!) No, but it's true! The kernel, without a platform, is pretty useless. A platform, without a kernel, is much the same. There's an intrinsic linking there that you can't put down as (or with) semantics, and the simple fact is that the demarcation point between the two only matters if you're coding parts of the system. To everyone else, it's just geeks making noise which cues the glazed eyeballs.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[thsths]

> is because there is no standard GUI layer.
> It's a hodgepodge of these widgets and those widgets, this license and that license (really meaning, these liabilities and those liabilities.)
> Windows provides all that.

You must be joking. Windows has a standard GUI layer? And what would that be? VB? MFC? XForms? .net? Or one of those third party tools? And did you ever read the small print that comes with Windows, the MFC runtime, MSVC etc? I think the GPL is a very nice license by comparison. Anyway, choice is not really a problem. You just pick something appropriate, and stick with it. KDE, Gnome, Tk, whatever you like, it will do fine. If you can't make up your mind, you are probably not the right person to do the job anyway :-)

> Plus a large market.

I can't argue with that. But is it efficient to ignore 5% of the market? Think about it in terms of revenue.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[amazon10x]

Yes you do; you just don't know it. You use linux because it works and because it costs no money. Those two aspects hinge upon freedom.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

Both GTK and Qt are toolkits that work on all linux variants, and Windows.
If a company wrote their software using one of those toolkits from the start; even if their primary market is Windows. Porting later becomes a non-issue. Most Windows devs probably don't know that they have a choice.

Choice isn't the problem. Ignorance and stubbornness is. You are taking the time to learn about carpet and in the end will be much happier with the finished product.

Now imagine if you found out that the carpet you like most can't be installed in your house. That is the dilemma facing the Linux folks.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[RightSaidFred99]

As a professional linux user/developer and .NET developer, I can say absolutely that people choose to develop in Windows both because it just works and because it's more productive. Ever developed a web service in .NET 3.0? Tried Windows Workflow Foundation? Enterprise Library? Team Foundation Server? I'm absolutely loathe to go back to primitive ass Java coding. I'd rather use Perl, at least it has a niche - Java is inferior in almost every way to .NET.

The only two benefits of Java are cross platform (which I don't care about, I'm writing WS-I(+) compliant web services) and in the rich set of open source libraries available. Both of these are completely overwhelemed by the sheer productivity superiority of .NET in almost every case.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Phisbut]

The truth of the matter is, you can easily write a "Linux" application that runs on pretty much all major Linux distributions.

That is only true if you want to publish the source, and let the user do the compiling. However, even that solution makes it hard to reach out to the masses (if we can call Linux users masses). Many modern distro, when installed as a "Workstation", does not even install a compiler by default. People without a compiler have no use for sources. And even then, in the presence of a compiler, I've seen my share of "./configure && make && make install" that failed. And if you don't want to provide the sources (and there are valid reasons for that), binary compatibility across distros is hard to achieve.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Phisbut]

As far as licensing goes, with GTK+/GNOME you can develop proprietary applications; with Qt, if you want to do so you have to buy a commercial license, and with KDE.. you cannot. Simple as that.

You got misinformed there. You can develop proprietary applications with KDE. KDE is LGPL'd, and the LGPL allows proprietary applications. The caveat though is that KDE links to Qt, and Qt is either GPL or commercial. So in order to develop a proprietary application with KDE, you need a commercial license for Qt, but it is possible.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[PitaBred]

I believe that the touchpad drivers will let you detect one, two and three finger taps of the touchpad, and use those as left, middle and right mouse clicks. I know that I do that with my current Synaptics touchpad on my Compal laptop, and it's not that difficult to learn to use.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Jorgandar]

I dont think thats a very good quote for this instance. It seems like choice is alive and well to me. How many brands of dishwashing liquid are there? Looks like house-mom's (and dads) like choices in their cleaning supplies.

Choosing an OS to me is a lot like buying a car. Yes there are many makes and models, but i dont and shouldnt have to know about how the engine works, or be given a choice about the various internal components. I dont *want* that choice (and neither do you, and neither does my mom).

I want an engineering expert to figure out all the details for me about how the car should be built, and i'll just buy the one that looks pretty, in the color i want, and has the driving experience i want.

Why has this been so difficult for you software zealots to comprehend? Dont expect other people to be experts about comptuers. It better install, it better run, it better work, first time, period.

Or people wont use it.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[scribblej]

The day the linux kernel gets built-in graphics and windowing is the day nearly everyone stops using it. Seriously. Don't be an idiot.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[lordtoran]

Who was suggesting freak stuff like a manual compile? Availability of source code allows the distributor to customize the software and provide a package that plays nice with his particular Linux distribution. This is the usual way software for "Linux" is released. Publish the source and leave the detail work to the community.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[greenbird]

Windows provides all that. Free.

Your seriously delusional if you think anything about Windows is free.

It's a hodgepodge of these widgets and those widgets, this license and that license (really meaning, these liabilities and those liabilities.)

So your argument is you have so many choices you can't decide? Just pick one and run with it. Pick one with a license (and liability) you can live with. Is that so difficult. And in most cases you can ship the widget library with your application so as to ensure it's there. Usually for free. You find windows easier because it restricts you to only a limited set of tools and capabilities rather than having a huge set of tools and capabilities. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[misleb]

No, but getting it installed in a userfriendly manner on multiple LInux distributions can be a pain. Not to mention library dependencies and version mismatches. Commercial vendors often resort to building static binaries and write their own home grown installers that just don't integrate well. And when they do decide to go with the distribution native packages/shared libs, they end up having to maintain like 5 different versions. Each with their own quirks. So really this gets back to the main point that sometimes choice is bad.

-matthew

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Chris Shannon]

.. but I just really believe that "too" much choice sucks.

Very true. This is a very informative Google TechTalk called The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less [warning 1 hour] that describes this issue. It's not intuitive, but is logical. It is very hard for people to make a choice, so hard, that often people will avoid making a decision when doing nothing is actually more costly than making a bad choice. This talk is back up by results of some interesting experiments.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Malc]

I don't want to have to do research. I don't have time any more. When I'm working, it's a waste of money. When I'm not working, well, I want to get away from computer and live life a bit. Don't get me wrong, I like my job, but after 10 years as a software developer and many more as a teenage hobbyist, I've spent enough time at the keyboard.

So your one hour research has to be added to all the other hours researching. All of which will be lost soon. It's annoying, like upgrading the kernel Debian suddenly broke the mouse support under X... I had to spend a few figuring out just WTF went wrong and which configuration files I needed to edit. That's ridiculous! The mouse should always just work. It's so basic and simple. If I chose Microsoft, they've made mostly reasonable choices, and most things (especially a standard mouse) works. Apple seems to do it even better. Maybe it's not perfect, but I don't have to spend an hour here and there researching how to use my computer. I just want to get on with using it to accomplish the task at hand. It's a tool for doing things, not a task itself.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Chandon Seldon]

there is no standard GUI layer.

There is just as much a standard GUI layer on Unix/Linux systems as there is on Mac. That standard is Gtk. There is a second, alternative standard that's appropriate under certain circumstances - Qt - but Mac OS X has two standards as well: Carbon and Cocoa.

Gtk has been available on every major Unix/Linux system for about the same amount of time that Window XP/.NET and Mac OS X have been around. The LGPL license isn't a relevant constraint on programming.

As for "a standard GUI layer", sorry. X has been the standard GUI layer for Linux/Unix systems for longer than 32 bit PCs have been available and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Complaining about it is no more useful or relevant to application programmers than saying that Mac OS X or Windows are using the wrong display layer.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Chandon Seldon]

So... what relevant (desktop targeted) distribution of Linux - or even BSD or Solaris - doesn't include Gtk by default?

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[dave562]

I think that one of the reasons people are so loathsome of .Net and so pro Java, etc. is because .Net is expensive. Visual Studio is expensive. Most people don't have the resources for an MSDN subscription and a whole slew of servers (IIS, SQL, etc) to develop against. On the other hand, anybody can go download a LAMP stack and get to hacking away. I'm sure that if I was some broke guy living in my mom's basement and wanting to make it big as an application developer without any sort of budget, I'd be all over the free stuff too.

The first "code" I ever dealt with was x86 ASM in the early 90s when I was using it to write cracks for copy protection on video games. The next time I touched any sort of code it was .Net. I kind of felt like I was cheating because everything was so simple.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Malc]

Setting the record straight before some wise guy gets an opportunity...

10 years as a software developer and many more as a teenage hobbyist

That should be read as many more years beyond the 10 as a teenage hobbyist, and not that I was a teenage for more than 10 years.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That is only true if you want to publish the source, and let the user do the compiling.

Not really. You just compile it and package it in one or two formats (a very small amount of work compared to writing code in the first place) and post the binaries. It tends to work pretty well.

Many modern distro, when installed as a "Workstation", does not even install a compiler by default.

Really? Which ones? More importantly for those that have a desktop option instead of workstation, do they include a compiler?

And if you don't want to provide the sources (and there are valid reasons for that), binary compatibility across distros is hard to achieve.

This has not been my experience, but even if it is true in the general case, that does not make it all that hard to simply recompile for the top 10 or whatever and distribute binaries for them. No the real problem with getting applications to work cross platform on various Linux distros or between Windows and OS X and Linux and the like is that there is no market for it because of MS's monopolization of the desktop OS market. If one Linux distro had 15% of the market and another had 20% and Windows had 30% and OS X had 30% and the remain 5% was miscellaneous you'd see serious resources put into cross platform toolsets and distribution methods. Almost all programs would work on all platforms whether you had to download a specific binary or something like the JVM became standard. The problem you cite is not an inherent weakness of anything but a monoculture, but a problem resulting from a monoculture.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[einhverfr]

Sarcasm aside, I am (and have always been) shocked at how various Linux distributions differ. I'm by no means a Linux expert, but come on, if you can't agree on where to put your init0.d-init6.d (or whatever it is, yes I'm looking at you Gentoo) then how do you expect an outsider to write something that works for "Linux"?

So, write to the LSB specs. From there, you should be able to build on the vast majority of distros with no problem. And if a distro doesn't support the needed LSB standards, you don't support that distro.

The thing is: there may be a lot of choice for Linux compared to the others but there are also a greater number of standards to work with that should work properly on all distros: POSIX, LSB, and the like. If a distro breaks these, it is the distro's fault, and you can list it as unsupported.

For those saying "there is no standard GUI layer" I would point out that X11 is pretty much *the* standard GUI layer. If you want, you can bundle your own widgets or whatever. Or you can use GTK, Tk, QT, or the like.

The choice is even worse for software companies that put money or even the whole company on the line when they make a platform choice.

So? Program to the standards and worry less about the differences. Of course, just because you write a POSIX app that supports Linux doesn't mean that it will also support AIX (memory management differences), but if it is LSB-compliant and doesn't require too many distro-specific hooks, that is fine.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[einhverfr]

Choosing an OS to me is a lot like buying a car. Yes there are many makes and models, but i dont and shouldnt have to know about how the engine works, or be given a choice about the various internal components. I dont *want* that choice (and neither do you, and neither does my mom).

Given that TFA is about development tools, a better analogy would be:

Choosing an OS to me is a lot like choosing a car to build enhancements for......

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[jgrahn]

The truth of the matter is, you can easily write a "Linux" application that runs on pretty much all major Linux distributions.

That is only true if you want to publish the source, and let the user do the compiling.

One cheap PC, N VMWare images each with one popular x86 distro installed. There's your build environment for the majority of all Linux users. Add a dualbooting Mac for the PPC users, and you cover even more.

However, even that solution makes it hard to reach out to the masses (if we can call Linux users masses). Many modern distro, when installed as a "Workstation", does not even install a compiler by default. People without a compiler have no use for sources.

What are you talking about? All of them have a free compiler, a few seconds of installation away. Installing it will surely be easier (and cheaper) than installing your proprietary software.

And even then, in the presence of a compiler, I've seen my share of "./configure && make && make install" that failed.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[einhverfr]

Honestly, though. How many non-/. reading, mainstream users are going to install another widget system on their computer?

Depends. Does the main installer package do that for them?

Back to the original question, the reason that so many companies choose the Windows development? It just works.

Sometimes. Kinda sorta....

I hate Java too. But that is beside the point. Most of my work is in PHP, Python, or Perl. I can work in C and C++ as well and I see both of those as superior to Java for most tasks. Java is a great language for web applets, but pretty useless IMO for anything else. It is comparatively slow and memory intensive for server apps (how many bytes/char does a string take up?).

Sure, well-coded Java can be faster than poorly coded C++, and well coded C++ is faster than poorly coded C, but that does not make Java a high-performance language, nor does the JRE eliminate portability problems.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[EsbenMoseHansen]

It all works. In fact, on any given day, I use applications that uses different toolkits (e.g, firefox, SWT, konqueror) and it never bothered me. Yeah, the open file dialog problem still exists, but there is hope in that. And someday, the look will be unified too, have patience. Neither of those are really important, though.

OTOH of course you regularly have Mac OS users whining because Firefox "doesn't look like a real Mac app

There will always be whiners. It's not as if Mac doesn't have a few toolkits itself.

I have an iBook happily running Firefox on OS 10.4 and never really understood what they were talking about, especially since to me, the Apple software doesn't really seem to have that much of a unified look anyway. Maybe it's because I've been running Linux/Unix for too long and don't even notice the mix of styles (back when I started twm was pretty much the norm and a mix of Athena/Motif was typical, Athena3D was considered "sexy" when it appeared).

I missed that era while studying (math). Sounds like exiting times, though :)

All this to say that some users can be very sensitive to issues that seem irrelevant or downright silly to the rest of us. Those Mac users won't use Firefox as a result of their perception of its "flaw", whatever its qualities may be.
The example is a bit extreme (Unix/Linux users tend to be more lax with their interface) but is something to keep in mind.

You can't win them all. Anyway, in my experience, many people who complains about look&feel really just prefers another application, but can't put their finger on why.

My point is, multiple toolkits is no reason not to port. In fact, windows have what? 3 different toolkits, besides those Java brings? Mac is somewhere around that too, as I recall. It's true, if you are coding a new application, it is easy to pick the "current" toolkit, which is not the case on Linux. (Well, it is really due to the licenses, but nevermind that). But once the application is ported, most people sensibly stick to that toolkit unless it gets truly unmaintained. I very much doubt QT or GTK is going to be unmaintained in the foreseeable future.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[ciggieposeur]

(e.g. remember those big sized OK-buttons a big green check icon inside).

I believe that was Borland's ObjectWindows Library (OWL), an early competitor to MFC.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[smithmc]

  Find a better reason (there are plenty) not to support linux, or shut up.

Now that's the kind of talk that gives us Linux newbies such a warm, fuzzy feeling - the friendly and helpful attitudes we get from experienced Linux folks. Makes me wanna run home right now and install - uh, Ubuntu? Kubuntu? Xubuntu? Fedora? Mandriva? Novell? KDE? GNOME? Xfce? Beryl? Apt-get? Yum? RPM? Xfree86? X.org? How the hell is someone who doesn't want to devote his entire life to Linux, ever supposed to know what is the best configuration to be running? If I install Ubuntu, how do I know I didn't make a mistake by not installing Fedora? Or similarly with KDE vs. GNOME? And where is anyone supposed to learn all this, except from snobbish jerks who ket their kicks making fun of people who know less than they do?

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[jp10558]

I hear this a lot, but having recently at work delved into Linux for many OSS products that do things we can't afford to buy propriatery versions of, I don't think it's as hard as is claimed.

Baiscally, if it's an RPM, you do rpm -ivh bla vs msexec /options blah not that much different really. Heck, with yum install or apt-get install it's even easier.

Even the install from source I did recently wasn't difficult, I unzip and untar the files to a directory, and run the install.sh - not that much different than unzipping and running setup.exe ...

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Phisbut]

Many modern distro, when installed as a "Workstation", does not even install a compiler by default.

Really? Which ones? More importantly for those that have a desktop option instead of workstation, do they include a compiler?

Fedora (4, 5 and 6), Ubuntu (Dapper and Edgy, haven't tested Feisty yet) and Novell SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop. With all the default installer options (that is, boot from the disk and click next-next-next-next...), none of them install gcc. I haven't tested OpenSuSE, Mandriva and Debian, but of all the majors, I would only expect Debian to include gcc in the standard "desktop" install.

And while gcc is very easy to install on just about any distro, telling a non-geek Linux user they need to install a compiler to use some desktop applications (WTF is a compiler? they ask...) will leave some of them baffled.

And if you don't want to provide the sources (and there are valid reasons for that), binary compatibility across distros is hard to achieve.

This has not been my experience, but even if it is true in the general case, that does not make it all that hard to simply recompile for the top 10 or whatever and distribute binaries for them.

While compiling once for every distro in the top 10 might be possible for some, it requires a lot of logistics for commercial software. Plus, we distribute 3 binaries on 1 CD, one for Windows, one for OSX, and one for Linux. Putting 10 binaries for Linux would require multiple CDs, or a DVD, or maybe even multiple DVDs. And posting updates on the website needs extra links for each distro, and that takes for granted that the customer actually knows what distro he uses. Recompiling on 10 distros is a piece of cake compared to the trouble of distributing those 10 binaries and dealing with the end user.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[jp10558]

However, they already have to distinguish between different versions of Windows... ME vs 98 vs NT vs XP home vs XP Pro vs Vista basic/home basic/home premium/business/ultimate...

While they're all windows, that doesn't mean they are all at all the same thing. And if they haven't learned it yet, Vista ought to teach it to them as they realize that the different names *make a difference*. But, just like with Linuxes, there is a common thread also. You can pretty much install an RPM on RedHat, SuSe, and friends, deb on Debian, Ubuntu etc... I think you can even translate RPMs to other installers.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[RightSaidFred99]

That is a valid point, I'm fortunate to work in a large entperprise and get all that stuff "free" (enterprise pays for it). Still, you can get a pretty decent free .NET development environment from MS to do a good percentage of the stuff most single developers need to do.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[sticky_charris]

I use openSuse and Smart Package Manager. I am no expert.. but I find it very simple to find and install any package I want - with all of the dependencies taken care of.
However, I would say that Linux certainly lends itself to the distribution of free software - the community turns source code into nice packages into nice repositories. Closed source projects have to come up with their own distro-specific packages.

Is the Linux Standard Base not supposed to move us slowly away from distro-specific packages anyway?

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[sticky_charris]

I think that Linux is still fairly young and although it often pushes periphery to the extreme, it results in competition to do better. The 'survival of the fittest' scenario drives the evolution of Linux.

You should also bear in mind that most Linux developers aren't giving their free time to make sure the operating system is dumbed down enough that semi-retarded Johnny six pack can use it without having to think.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[fyngyrz]

The original poster said he wanted to port his application to Linux. And the correct response to that is: Linux is just a kernel.

I'm the original poster. What I said was "the only reason we've not released a port to linux", which is something else entirely. Our key apps have been ported already (which is why I even know about these issues); I have a perfectly functional copy installed under RH9, which in turn is sandboxed on my Mac. But the licensing for the widget set is unacceptable for release, and therefore, we aren't going to release it. Get a standard GUI layer that all desk/lap/tablet-top distributions carry (just as they do xwindows), unencumbered by licensing terms that in any way require that we release our IP to the community, free, and I'd be able to authorize release of a port that won't step on anyone's toes, incur any hidden liabilities, or cost anyone any more money. Obviously, we've spent a lot of money on our application development, but I consider that a fair trade for years of use of apache and perl and python and so forth.

To very quickly address your "kernel" argument: please tell me which distributions of desktop, laptop, and/or tablet versions of the linux kernel come without - for instance - a shell, "rm" and "ls", to name just a few components? None? Why, what a surprise. Now, let's step it up a notch, and turn it around. Which GUI applications, using any widget set you care to name or simply xwindows, like "xnetload", are targeted at a distribution that comes without a kernel? None? Why, again, what a surprise. So apparently, if you call the general set of distributions "linux", which means "kernel" to you, the user still gets everything, assuming only you're not developing a black box of some type. So naturally, when people say "linux", they mean the same thing as they do when they say "OSX" or "Windows." So let's not quibble about terminology. You know what I meant when I said that I wanted a standard GUI layer. I simply want to be able to be certain that all the distributions that are aimed at platforms like desktops, laptops, and tablets carry that functionality, so that when the software calls a system function, it is going to be there, each and every time, there will be no licensing issues, there will be no compatibility / version issues, there will be no additional expense, and there won't be a flock of technical support incidents explaining why the software won't run on distribution XYZ.

I've got apps written for Windows95 that still work just as they were designed to today, across every Windows OS except the non-Intel versions. The same GUI calls that worked back then still work today, just a lot faster. That's what I am suggesting linux distributions need. A basic set of stable, uniform GUI calls. That's all. It isn't magic, and it isn't unreasonable. And of course, it doesn't have to happen. It's just what I think the OS needs to be taken seriously by a large number of developers who don't do so now. I'd like it if it were; I'm a fan of the OS and to some extent, the mindset behind developing for each other (my enthusiasm disappears as soon as someone mentions the word "license.") As far as I am concerned, the words "free" and "license" are about as compatible as are human physiology and the Ebola virus.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[sticky_charris]

Think of how many brands of car there are on the market, and how many models each brand provides. I don't see motorists running with their hand in the air shouting "I wish my choice was more limited". No. Instead they cut the choice in half by considering what they can afford. Then they cut it in half again by considering their space needs, whether they want petrol or diesel, etc etc etc. Okay... its a rubbish analogy because they are all cross compatible with highways... and petrol... but surely something in there proves the case for choice? Anyone?

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Ubuntu (Dapper and Edgy, haven't tested Feisty yet)

Strange, it is in my stock kubuntu install, although it is by no means cutting edge.

And while gcc is very easy to install on just about any distro, telling a non-geek Linux user they need to install a compiler to use some desktop applications (WTF is a compiler? they ask...) will leave some of them baffled.

This is a usability issue rather than an inherent flaw. Personally I'd like to see package management move towards integration of an installer and build instructions, rather than towards more pre-compiled binaries. In my ideal OS, double clicking an icon would run the appropriate included binary and schedule the included source to be built into a custom binary for my system when my machine is next idle... all transparently to the average user.

While compiling once for every distro in the top 10 might be possible for some, it requires a lot of logistics for commercial software. Plus, we distribute 3 binaries on 1 CD, one for Windows, one for OSX, and one for Linux. Putting 10 binaries for Linux would require multiple CDs, or a DVD, or maybe even multiple DVDs.

This sounds like an issue with package management. The bulk of most binaries are reusable data, especially if you're getting to something that required a DVD to fit it on. Just another reason I wish major Linux distros would adopt and extend the OpenStep package format for use with their package manager. Then you could be back down to two packages with everything else reusing most of the same data.

Recompiling on 10 distros is a piece of cake compared to the trouble of distributing those 10 binaries and dealing with the end user.

Yeah, it is a serious limitation of most Linux package managers that they are not accommodating to binaries from commercial enterprises, resulting in the need for stand alone installers outside the normal package management system. I suppose you could always distribute an open source program in the major package repositories that queried the distro version and then downloaded and installed the proper binary itself, but that certainly is a huge pain.

The sad thing is all of these are solvable problems that could actually lead to a much better and easier user experience, if only there were motivation and backing due to competition combined with plain old american greed.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[nick this]

How the hell is someone who doesn't want to devote his entire life to Linux, ever supposed to know what is the best configuration to be running?

That's what you and the article author don't understand. There is no best configuration. There is the configuration you like, that you hand-crafted yourself to work to your needs best. As far as the "jerkishness" of linux geeks, it's because they are traditionally pragmatic, and come from a programmer/engineer mentality. They don't ask questions about how something works, they pull out their Leatherman and tear it apart to find out for themselves. If you want to understand the tao of linux, don't ask questions, answer your own. And while you are at it, answer them by *doing*, not by listening to what some "expert" thinks.

That's what *all* of these "linux will never get mainstream adoption" articles miss. The fact is nobody who develops it cares whether or not it does. They are scratching an itch, and to hell with what anyone else thinks.

The right answer for the software developer above is: so don't release it as binary. Release it as source, and if it's good software and the interface is abstracted decently it will get ported to a variety of windowing toolkits. Unless you only want to release it as binary, in which case, keep your software. You're better off selling to a windows platform.

If I install Ubuntu, how do I know I didn't make a mistake by not installing Fedora?

Install both and find out. Or, install the first one, and if it works for you, don't bother installing the other one.

Or similarly with KDE vs. GNOME? And where is anyone supposed to learn all this, except from snobbish jerks who ket their kicks making fun of people who know less than they do?

See above. And the way to learn is by doing. Download an iso. Install it on a spare machine. Don't be afraid of breaking things. Experiment. Have fun.

If that's antithetical to the way you use computers, then be happy with windows. :)

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[try_anything]

And don't kid yourself, the distinction doesn't really matter. (Blasphemy!) No, but it's true!

Sometimes it matters. Coming to a conclusion about "Linux-the-kernel" and applying that conclusion to "Linux-as-a-platform" is fallacious. They're two different and somewhat incompatible uses of the term. People will tolerate any reasonable usage of "Linux" as long as it does not lead you to incorrect conclusions.

Also, how many people understand that Windows is not a platform? When people think of the "Windows platform" these days, if I understand correctly, they mean win32. .NET introduces a new platform, and Vista introduces a third (or maybe several variations?) But business people who are in charge of buying software still think there is a "Windows platform." That doesn't mean that Microsoft is doomed or those poor deluded business guys have a whole lot of shocks and frustration coming. Windows software vendors will educate some and guide the rest safely through with their delusions intact. There's no reason a commercial Linux software market can't operate the same way.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[fyngyrz]

Dude, your web site has a ton of broken links, because I have 2 levels of web cache on my browser. Did you ever think about that when coming up with the "clever" idea of moving all the pages around from time to time?

So clear your cache. We move the pages around because it breaks most deep mining, which we have a significant problem with. Stolen bandwidth is bandwidth you don't get to use, as someone who, for whatever reason, is actually looking at our site. Also, stolen bandwidth costs money, money I assume you're not willing to pay. Right? Because if you are, let me give you an address for you to send the checks to, OK?

Oh, and I see no evidence of any OS X products on the pages I can get to...

Nope, none yet. We're working on it. Won't be anything until well after the release of Leopard. You can run the current applications under Parallels or Bootcamp, if you need functionality we offer that you can't duplicate elsewhere and you have an Intel machine. There will be an upgrade path provided that 100% accounts for anything you spend.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[innocent_white_lamb]

Your system administrator installs the software for you and you call the IT department if you need more than what's currently available, or if you have a problem.
 
Many businesses would be a lot better off if they followed this computing model (viruses, incompatible software); even your grandmother would be better off with this model.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[wolja]

Yes you do; you just don't know it. You use linux because it works and because it costs no money. Those two aspects hinge upon freedom. You must live in a world other than mine.

I use linux because it's easier than setting up a Solaris install at home. I'd choose Solaris anyday because Solaris here and Solaris there are the same.

Often Linux doesn't work out of the box and often it costs real money.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[innocent_white_lamb]

Get a standard GUI layer that all desk/lap/tablet-top distributions carry (just as they do xwindows), unencumbered by licensing terms that in any way require that we release our IP to the community, free, and I'd be able to authorize release of a port that won't step on anyone's toes, incur any hidden liabilities, or cost anyone any more money. Obviously, we've spent a lot of money on our application development, but I consider that a fair trade for years of use of apache and perl and python and so forth.
 
It really sounds to me that what you want is GTK.
 
GTK applications run on KDE desktops just fine, and the vast, vast majority of Linux desktops include the GTK libraries that are required to do that simply because a lot of GTK applications exist that folks want to run on both Gnome and KDE.
 
GTK is LGPL, so you can compile and release proprietary applications using that without any requirement to release your source code, if that is your choice.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[fyngyrz]

With the LGPL, we can't use static linking, because if we do, the license we release our proprietary code under must allow for reverse engineering to remove the LGPL'd library at a later date. Dynamic linking means that the installation can be broken too easily — if we can't control what we're linked with to a very fine degree, we can't release the product. So GTK is unusable for us. It just isn't designed to integrate reasonably with a proprietary application, which is fine as far as it goes — they have every right to lay down such conditions — but does stop us cold.

Here is the relevant LGPL clause, emphasis mine:

6. As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a "work that uses the Library" with the Library to produce a work containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications.

See the problem? With static linking, we can ensure that the widgets and so forth in use are the ones we need and the ones we tested with. But we can't do that because of the LGPL's reverse engineering clause. With dynamic linking, anyone - literally anyone, since the library is open source - can fool with it to any degree, causing anything from crashes to destabilization to adding outright malware. Or they could simply change the library with the best of intentions and break us hard anyway. We just can't release an application under those conditions; it compounds liability, support and usability issues, and on something we want to give away, and so will have no income stream to cover such issues.

This is why I recommend that if people really want to make their software useful to the widest possible set of users, they stay away from the LGPL and even more so, the GPL. OTOH, If you want your code to be restricted, then by all means, of course, go with one of these licenses. Personally, the things I write that I want other people to use, I just release PD. Then anyone can use them without worrying about what my opinion might be. I've got a tiny SQL-like database engine with some very cool features, written in Python and currently only 20k in size. I've got about 90% done (it works fine, just doesn't have indexing yet) and it'll be PD when the time comes. To me, free means really free, rather than enforcing my idea of what you should do. But that's just me. Anyway, that's what we're looking for, too. We just need widgets; we don't need legal pitfalls and we certainly aren't interested in opening our application up for reverse engineering.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[innocent_white_lamb]

You are trying extremely hard to find reasons not to release your program on Linux. This is, of course, your perogative.
 
However, I can't help but get the feeling that if you put a portion of that effort into finding a way to release your program on Linux, you would find a way to do so.
 
"It can't be done" tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obviously, it can be done if you really, really want to. If you really, really don't want to, then it can't.
 
Standard API calls to GTK won't change much, if at all, for quite some time. And if they do, a simple re-compile for the new version will fix it; by then you will probably have a new and updated version of your software to release anyway. If you are seriously concerned about future API breakage (I doubt it, frankly) you may want to consider using Lesstif instead of GTK. Lesstif is also LGPL, but it is very mature and rock-solid. As I said, I would be rather surprised if GTK changed its standard API's; I would be absolutely shocked if Lesstif did so.
 
I don't want to sound harsh, but your point about problems with dynamic linking is an excuse, not a reason.
 
Again, you're within your rights and I won't pretend to tell you what to do. But please don't pretend to be willing to do something that you're not actually prepared to follow through with on a reasonable basis; it's a waste of both your time and everyone else's. Really.
 
This is a more confrontational tone than I intended to take, but I hope you will consider what I say and not be offended by the way that I have expressed it. I have done the best that I can.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[fyngyrz]

I'm not offended in the least. We have our reasons, and I am satisfied that they are sufficient. I was simply attempting to explain them. The bottom line is, dynamic linking isn't acceptable; and static is impossible because of the license terms.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[jabuzz]

Wrong you can statically link a comercial none free application with an LGPL library, all you must do is provide a .o file of the application so that someone else can statically link your application with a different version of the library (say one with a bug fixed). Consequently the rest of your argument is uninformed twaddle.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[amazon10x]

I use linux because it's easier than setting up a Solaris install at home. I'd choose Solaris anyday because Solaris here and Solaris there are the same.

Just like I said: "You use linux because it works." It probably wouldn't work better than Solaris if it wasn't open source.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[ErroneousBee]

I thought Visual Studio was supposed to be so easy you had loads of time left? And you are cash strapped too? Maybe you need to use some free tools.

But then I use ISPF, development environment of the gods.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Cro Magnon]

Bread & circuses? Fine, but I want whole wheat, not that white bread that TPTB are trying to sell. And I want to choose my seat at the circus. Last time, you guys made me sit too close to the elephants! Even Joe Sixpack wants choices!

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[metamatic]

I don't have any way to clear my cache, 'cause it's on my ISP's server.

Why not just make the art gallery URLs change? That's the only bit anyone's going to want to bandwidth-leech. Or block based on Referer:

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Cro Magnon]

You can pretty much install an RPM on RedHat, SuSe, and friends

At one time, you couldn't install a Mandrake RPM on RedHat and expect it to work. I remember seeing seperate RPMs for RH, Mandrake, Suse, and probably others. I don't know if that's changed.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[nickerr]

As someone who has a support role as a techie for my company (on-site support for my plant) but is not a hardcore techie, I agree with this article. I'm not "in the industry", don't have a degree (or even a diploma) in computer or network science. I have an interest in computers and like to keep up on developments in this area. I know my way around a computer better than anyone else. This has made me the default tech support person for our manufacturing facility. I work with corporate IT as on-site ground support (a gopher basically).

I am the case in point. I've considered trying Linux before, but the forest of choices and unfamiliar terminology is mind-bloggling and just plain scarey. Which distribution do I choose? What is the difference between the distributions? How do I know I'm getting the best distribution version?

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[makomk]

With the LGPL, we can't use static linking, because if we do, the license we release our proprietary code under must allow for reverse engineering to remove the LGPL'd library at a later date. Dynamic linking means that the installation can be broken too easily if we can't control what we're linked with to a very fine degree, we can't release the product. So GTK is unusable for us. It just isn't designed to integrate reasonably with a proprietary application, which is fine as far as it goes they have every right to lay down such conditions but does stop us cold.

Use dynamic linking and bundle a copy of the library and a wrapper script to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH correctly and launch the application. If you do it right, it should be mostly transparent to the user. (Of course, this means anyone can replace the included GTK library with their own version, but that *is* sort of the point of the LGPL. For one thing, it really sucks when there's a security hole in a widely-used library and $BIGNUM of applications that contain staticly-linked copies are now vulnerable and have to be individually tracked down (somehow) and updated.)

Also, I bet you don't "control what [you]'re linked with to a very fine degree" on Windows - your application is almost certainly linked to many system libraries over which you have absolutely no control whatsover. In fact, you have no idea what they're doing internally and no practical way of finding out, even for the versions of the libraries installed on your own system.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[fyngyrz]

Also, I bet you don't "control what [you]'re linked with to a very fine degree" on Windows - your application is almost certainly linked to many system libraries over which you have absolutely no control whatsover.

You'd lose your bet right out of the gate. We use the absolute minimum of system calls, and we develop under a very early version of Visual Studio using an old-school makefile that directly controls what we link with. We use C, not C++, and consequently, there are no hidden dependencies. Further, our code is broken into sections that have no external references at all, and sections that encapsulate the particular OS paradigm that it has to run with for any one version, making it quite trivial (as well as a requirement) to control what OS resources are utilized. That's also why our flagship app has considerably more functionality than anything else in its class while the total executable (including our DLLs) remains a fraction of the size of the competing applications. But I understand why you'd think the way you do; modern application development is a bloated, sluggish mess. A lot of people and companies bought the C++ bait hook, line and sinker, and consequently, application bloat and dependency sprawl are the rule, rather than the exception.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Malc]

Huh? If I have spare time then I get to take on more projects. I'm paid for my time, so if I waste it doing needless research it's wasted money, whether one is cash strapped or not. I don't work for the government when I can't be fired for being lazy being inefficient or suckling too long on the money teat of the taxpayers.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[jp10558]

It has, I've installed SUSE RPMs on SL4, a derivative of RHEL4.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[fyngyrz]

I don't have any way to clear my cache, 'cause it's on my ISP's server.

Wow. I am stunned. That really sucks. In fact, that worse than sucks. That's some kind of magnificently clueless FUBAR, right there. Hmm. Who is your ISP? Can you get them to turn this off for your account, or altogether? Or give you a means to bypass it? I mean, it really isn't a reasonable assumption to make that a page's links won't change from one day to the next. That happens all the time, all over the net; the only thing unusual about our site is that we do it every day, instead of just some days.

Why not just make the art gallery URLs change? That's the only bit anyone's going to want to bandwidth-leech.

Actually not, they take animations off other pages. One particularly common one is an animation of a spinning, ray-traced diamond. Apparently, this is "blingy", and attracts people like (I am not making this up) "PrettyBoyBeBallin'", who deep-mine that, animations of lips made to kiss via morphing, and so on. But the next time we redo the site, probably summer of 2007, we'll probably put all the images, gallery and everything else in one place and then move that around.

The site itself - if you could get to it, which you can't because of your ISP's approach to the net - catches all 404 (not found) errors, and if it is an HTML page you are trying to get to, it will find where the page is now, then silently redirect you to the new location; if it is an image, it won't. So most visitors - you excepted, again, because you're not actually dealing with our site, you're dealing with your ISP - would not see a "page not found" error, they'd just silently end up on the new page, fetching the graphics from the new location, with all the links in the new page correct and ready to go. This works even if you're on the page when the serve changes everything, because as I say, if the link is wrong, the 404 mechanism will catch and fix it as long as you're going to one of our web pages.

Hey - idea - you don't have scripting turned off, do you? Because the 404/forwarding uses one line of script to toss the forward to your browser. You might check that. That seems more likely than your ISP caching unfound links, frankly, though you seem pretty certain you know that. That little bit of forwarding is the only thing we script on the site, it's 100% benign.

Or block based on Referer:

That actually doesn't work because in a fit of almost entirely irrelevant paranoia, various browsers no longer send it, and various software firewalls block it. That means that we either are forced to serve to anyone who doesn't send HTTP_REFERER, which means we're going to get deep mined a lot, or we have to block anyone who shows an invalid HTTP_REFERER, which means that many legitimate customers (who probably have no idea what HTTP_REFERER even is) see blanks or error blocks where the images are supposed to be.

The sad thing is that HTTP_REFERER would be really useful if you could actually use it to ensure someone is on your site. But you can't.

Another way to do this is to "cookie" the visitor and feed the images through a CGI that looks for the cookie. As cookies are site-specific, this ensures that the visitor is on your site. However, if the visitor has cookies off, which, unlike HTTP_REFERER, really is a security issue, again, we're stuck with not showing images. Another issue with this is the overhead of running that degree of CGI. We do use dedicated hardware, but the site is busy enough as it is.

Until today, I honestly had never heard of anyone who was unable to use the site in its current configuration. I hadn't heard of any ISP's caching pages, either, though. DNS systems caching IP's can even cause problems; you'd think that the someone, somewhere, who thunked of this gem would have gone... "Hey! What a great idea... no, wait, it won't work under the following common conditions. Oh well."

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[metamatic]

I mean, it really isn't a reasonable assumption to make that a page's links won't change from one day to the next.

That's why HTTP has a mechanism to say that pages shouldn't be cached. But you don't seem to use that mechanism, so you can hardly blame the ISPs when your pages get cached.

It also has a mechanism to say when the page is expected to change, so that it can be cached until you next move the pages around. You don't seem to bother to set that either.

So I'm afraid from here, it looks like idiocy on your part, not on my ISP's part.

Hey - idea - you don't have scripting turned off, do you?

By default, yes. If your site requires scripting, perhaps you ought to, oh, actually say so on the site?

That means that we either are forced to serve to anyone who doesn't send HTTP_REFERER, which means we're going to get deep mined a lot, or we have to block anyone who shows an invalid HTTP_REFERER, which means that many legitimate customers (who probably have no idea what HTTP_REFERER even is) see blanks or error blocks where the images are supposed to be.

Well, you're apparently OK with serving 404 errors to legitimate potential customers, so what's the problem?

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[wolja]

I use linux because it's easier than setting up a Solaris install at home. I'd choose Solaris anyday because Solaris here and Solaris there are the same.

Just like I said: "You use linux because it works." It probably wouldn't work better than Solaris if it wasn't open source. No that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying Solaris is a better choice vecause it isn't open source and hasn't been developed in an ad hoc way.

To much choice really is a bad thing.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[amazon10x]

Why do you use Linux if Solaris is a "better choice?"

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[makomk]

So basically, you have about as much control over what you're linking with under Windows as you can get under Linux, unless I'm missing something.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[salimma]

So in order to develop a proprietary application with KDE, you need a commercial license for Qt, but it is possible.

Ah, thanks. I didn't realize KDE uses the LGPL license for its libraries -- do they make use of Qt's QPL, then? I was under the assumption that linking against a GPL'ed library would require your application (or extending library) to be GPL'ed as well.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Phisbut]

Ah, thanks. I didn't realize KDE uses the LGPL license for its libraries -- do they make use of Qt's QPL, then? I was under the assumption that linking against a GPL'ed library would require your application (or extending library) to be GPL'ed as well.

Qt is dual-licensed. Anything you link to Qt has to be GPL, unless you buy a commercial license from Trolltech.

KDE links to Qt, and KDE is LGPL. KDE's LGPL is compatible with the Qt's GPL. Therefore, you can develop (L)GPL software and link it against KDE's LGPL and Qt's GPL. You can also develp commercial software and link it against KDE's LGPL and Qt's commercial license.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[salimma]

LGPL is compatible with GPL in the sense that you can link to an LGPL library from a GPL program, but I don't think the reverse is true (for example, see Why not LGPL).

So KDE's LGPL-ed libraries must be linking to Qt using Qt's QPL license rather than GPL. Otherwise it's a big loophole - I can take any GPL-ed library, wrap it in an LGPL interface that changes the API a bit (or not at all) and presto, I get something that can be used in a commercial application. That can't be the case.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[wolja]

I use linux because it's easier than setting up a Solaris install at home However that's no longer really the case with the Solaris VMWare options.

I'll probably go back to Solaris shortly. I certainly spend most of my time on Solaris at work and resist the blandishments to change to Linucx for the very reason it is a consistent build which is well supported and much better suited to mission critical applications than a cobbled together kernel of many parts.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Phisbut]

You're right. I didn't think Qt was still being distributed under the QPL, but I found this:

# If you wish to use the Qt Open Source Edition, you must contribute all your source code to the open source community in accordance with the GPL when your application is distributed.
# For historical reasons, the Qt/X11 version is also available under the QPL license. We do not recommend the use of the QPL, especially if you are planning for your Open Source software to be distributed on Mac OS X or Windows.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[Izhido]

A suggestion: Have a look at Mono. Support for Windows.Forms is already there. Go for it.

Re:Things to learn from Windows and OSX.

[salimma]

Hmm, interesting. That means KDE's Mac port would be GPL, not LPGL'ed, and any patch they get from Mac users would be under the GPL as well.

Sort of like...

[DaveAtFraud]

Sort of like the way the command economy of the Soviet Union did such a great job of both competing with the "chaotic" capitalist west and, at the same time, creating a "workers utopia?" The Soviet Union failed at both the same way the Microsoft monoculture neither provides as stable and secure of a computing environment as open source nor does it meet the needs of specific groups of users. With Microsoft monoculture, one size fits all whether you like it or not. For most applications, Linux provides a plethora of choices from several well designed GUI applications to powerful command line utilities. These choices allow the user to determine which alternative suits his or her needs best.

Continuing with my analogy, the arguments in favor of Microsoft's monoculture remind me of the same ones offerred by Lenin. Stalin, Khrushchev, et al when they argued that their socialist, centrally-planned economy would triumph over the chaotic capitalist system. We all saw how that played out.

Looking at the latest excretions from Redmond, Microsoft seems to only be interested in extracting more money from their users by offering less functionality for more money but with a glitzy interface. Capitalism will slowly drive companies that see Microsoft's offerings for what they are to use open source alternatives and be more profitable than those that pay squeeze to Redmond. People will find a way to manage open source choices in a corporate environment (sort of like the way "corporate distros" like RHEL and SuSE already do). Speaking from experience, it's not at all hard to lock down a RHEL installation while managing the updates and the choices available to users.

Real choice drives real innovation. Lack of choice results in stagnation.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Sort of like...

[Dogtanian]

On the other hand, it could be said that the continual forking and rewriting of open source projects is like the tendency of radical left-wing groups in 1970s/1980s Britain (and elsewhere) to continually split into smaller and smaller pieces along ideological grounds, something the right- like them or not- seemed less inclined to do.

I was going to use an example from Alexei Sayle to illustrate this, but I can't find it, so I'll resort to the ever popular People's Front of Judea scene from "Life of Brian" instead. :-)

Re:Sort of like...

[DaveAtFraud]

That's just it. No one knows a priori which fork will succeed and which will fail. The only way to find out is to try. Lots of chaos but lots of new things to try. Some work; some don't.

The Microsoft monoculture alternative has the same experiments taking place only inside of Microsoft and with the results always colored by how the new technology will affect revenue streams. That's why MS is so reactive. You didn't see a MS browser, search engine, streaming media, or now web 2.0 apps until someone else created them. Even then MS, does it's embrace, extend, extinguish if they can. They'd rather bury a disruptive technology that might upset their monopoly.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Sort of like...

[Dogtanian]

They might *both* fail where pooling their efforts might have succeeded, because they diluted the team, wasted time duplicating a lot of each others work and failed to get anything remotely standard... instead of finding common ground, compromising and remaining together. Just like all those silly little political factions weren't going to do anything except in-fight.

I'm not saying it always happens like that, just that forking comes with costs.

Re:Blurb paraphrased: public = sheep

[melikamp]

You see, people do not want choice because they have no choice in that matter.

Re:Blurb paraphrased: public = sheep

[plasmacutter]

well he was.. anyone who makes it on the ballot is considered viable, and green or libertarian would be true leftist representation, especially compared to "D for right" and "R for ultra right".

i'd still stick with the third party no matter how much you thought "they cant win" .. .because if enough people pull that lever "even though they cant win" then guess what.. they will win.

Economics of scale

[Askmum]

Just call it what it is: Economics of scale. The more people use Windows, the more support (programs and service) there will be for Windows. OSS is small and scattered, so support will be also. It's like running your car on petrol or ethanol. Ethanol is better (just for arguments sake), but why doesn't everybody use it? Because the infrastructure isn't set up for it. Same with Windows. Everybode uses Windows, so someone who doesn't use it has to adapt. And not everyone want's to do that.

Re:1995 Wants it's Non Free PR Back.

[The Bungi]

Oh yeah, like Gnome and KDE are so stagnant and the commercial vendors have better polish.

Why does Ubuntu ship with a set of default window decorations identical to Vista?

Get real, only Sun has managed virtual desktops yet.

I have no idea what that means.

Mac is intersting but the free desktops just blow it away.

ROFL

...Enlightenment ...

Yeah, the MasterMenu model is doing great. Is E out of alpha yet?

The above is a pathetic variant

"I don't like your opinions and I can't argue intelligently, so I'll just go ad hominem on your ass. It's the only thing I know"

compare the experience of installing Mepis to Vista, XP or OSX ... The collapse of Vista sales is going to force Dell and others to ship gnu/linux and that will be the end of M$

Amusing as always.

My $ .02

[pilsner.urquell]

People are zombie like drones that are unable to make up there own minds?

Could be that the buying public is to stupid to know the benefits of choice or must have there hand held.

How about that the basics of freedom are lost on the populace even though is it one of the basics of our culture?

Could be that people like the infringing their personal freedoms.

Could it be that the the clash of competition really isn't is the sound of freedom?

Communism worked, right?

Mark Twain said: It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits -- freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either.

If society fits you comfortably enough, you call it freedom. -- Robert Frost

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom;
and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it values more, it
will lose that, too. -- W. Somerset Maugham

Freedom begins when you tell M$ to go take a leap.

Freedom is nothing else but the chance to do better. -- Camus

The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom. -- Justice Douglas

So did I miss any trite one liners? It is all this subject is worth, anyone who doesn't believe in choice should have there head examined. Even a choice between two bad options is better than no choice at all.

It may be interesting to some that a lot of folks

[melted]

It may be interesting to some that a lot of folks at MSFT do not use the very IDEs their company is so good at. A lot of people use Notepad, Notepad2, Ultra Edit, EMACS, vi, Source Insight. Hardly anyone uses Visual Studio for builds in particular on anything but prototypes. The cause of this is the build system that majority of teams use. It's sort of makefile based (but not quite), and it makes using Visual Studio impractical because things can only be built from the command line.

So folks who talk about the advantage that a good IDE gives you as far as productivity most likely have never worked on anything bigger than a few hundred files in a project.

That said, there's a system now that could change all of that. It's called MSBuild and it ships with Visual Studio. For anyone who does command line builds and whose codebase is mostly managed code, I highly recommend looking into it.

Re:1995 Wants it's Non Free PR Back.

[ChronosWS]

I want some of what you are smoking. On second thought, that would probably bring down the DEA.

Seriously, the end of MS, gnu/Linux taking over consumer PC sales?

That requires a complete integrated system of a level which still doesn't exist in the Linux world. With all due respect to KDE and Gnome, it's not just the GUI we are talking about here. Taking Windows or Mac OS X as an example, they've integrated virtually everything about operating system control into the GUI. The command line doesn't even have to exist to operate either of these systems, ever. Application development for these systems is very well thought out and very integrated. User experiences are highly consistent and easy to make consistent. The drivers do exist, and on Windows, it will even go out and find the latest ones for you (presuming the vendor told Microsoft about them. For the record I am running on Vista 64-bit with modern graphics hardware and can play games just fine.) Installation is a no-brainer, auto-configuration isn't even something that is mentioned any more - it's a given, it HAS to be.

It's fine to be a FOSS fanboy, but you have to give credit where credit is due, otherwise you discredit yourself. Whether Microsoft stole, embraced and extended or invented their current experience, the fact is it's been executed very well, and it's not just something slapped on the face - it goes all the way to the core. You may disagree with certain choices, but if you do, remember that there are a dozen FOSS guys who probably disagree with your choice too and the only reason you aren't railing against them is that they aren't popular enough yet.

To get back to the original topic, FOSS is actually good for MS because it's an open experimentation area. In addition to their own innovation (yes, believe it or not there are people there who are actually as competent) they can build on ideas which are fleshed out in the community. Everyone wins, even the people who are locked into the monoculture because, as you by now may have realized, monoculture as it applies to commercial software developers does NOT mean stagnation, it means integration, and that includes ideas which were not developed in=house.

devstudio incompatible with its past/future selves

[radarsat1]

Why does Microsoft win the development environment war so often, when we all know it's a lifetime lock-in to Windows? Perhaps it's because the open source community offers too much choice

If the damn MS monoculture makes everything so much easier, why is Developer Studio seemingly incapable of maintaining compatibility with its own damn project file format?

I know, I know, not the point of the article, but I've been bitten in the ass so many times by everyone having a different version of DevStudio that I'm bitter about it and I've moved on to the happy land of Emacs and Makefiles.

Why does MS feel the need to BREAK everything whenever they come out with a new product? Right, once one person on a project upgrades, it forces everyone else to do so, too. They have a _terrible_ rap sheet for breaking backwards compatibility. They do it purposely with DevStudio, Office, Windows itself, ... aaargh. Now even DirectX. The problem is one of the main reasons I stopped using that platform. How can anyone trust developing for such a moving target?

Mod parent UP please!

[Burz]

+Insightful

Re:More denial.

[tftp]

Well, IMO Exchange is not that important; I don't have it, and I never thought I need it. Cyrus + Postfix + Thunderbird is the deal here, and it works pretty good. And I don't have IIS, Apache rules.

But what doesn't - Active Directory and inherited ACLs; I have a test OpenSuse 10.x box here, running in PDC mode, and WinXP clients don't see grayed out inherited permissions - they are all enabled, always, and if you set some of them the change is ignored. And I don't have proper security groups (I read about remapping, though) but I have some weird unix groups in the list of ACLs - WTH? I can't unleash this mess onto the users. Samba team does not hide the fact that 3.x release is not a duplicate of a proper Win2k3 DC, but that hardly helps. I guess I'm stuck with Win2k3 for the moment.

Exasperation

[Garrett Fox]

I would be happy to give Linux a serious chance, if it were even nearly as easy to use as Windows. While I'm far from 1337, I'm savvy enough to know what Linux is and to do programming for fun. So, if a piece of software annoys me into not using it, it's too hard for the average user.

I tried out Ubuntu Linux, marketed as the CD distribution that finally makes Linux usable. I installed Firefox and Thunderbird and OpenOffice partly thanks to that CD, and that's great -- for Windows. When I tried out the actual OS, I got a slowly-booting desktop with no tutorial and no obvious way to get started using Python (which is included) or use the file system, or install anything. I was running the "Live CD," which might explain the slowness, but as a new Linux user, how was I supposed to figure out how to do basic things like find where stuff is in the file system or install programs? So I ask around and am told, go on IRC for advice. It's great that there's a community of users to help with problems, but things shouldn't get to that point for a new user. The advice I got online was to start invoking absolutely non-intuitive text commands like "apt-get sudo" just to start doing basic installation tasks for things like getting a firewall and support for a thumb drive (so I could actually transfer files to/from Linux). So I had a system I didn't know how to do anything useful with, and gave up before trying to plug the machine into a network cable to go online to download software to run my wireless card. And then when I later tried the latest distribution, it just wouldn't start up at all.

Upshot: If you build it, they will come. Linux will only be suitable for me and others' tolerance for frustration -- remember, it's competing against something that we already know how to use -- when it's got a little hand-holding and some easy ways to do standard tasks. Dumb it down beyond what you think we need.

That's if we're to use Linux at all. Isn't it possible these days to build something new and easy to use, not dependent on the essentially decades-old Linux?

Re:Exasperation

[yoasif]

Is it me, or should this post be modded "troll"?

Most of your complaints stem from the fact that Linux isn't Windows (big surprise there!) -- it does things differently, but you only notice since you're used to another OS.

Slow booting and no tutorial? You already said that you were using a Live CD. Can you run Windows (officially) in a "live cd" enviornment? Perhaps you should compare the boot times on an Ubuntu install when it's actually installed on your hard drive, like every copy of Windows you have used. No tutorial? The last version of Windows that I can think of that had a tutorial was Windows 3.1 -- and that was a long time ago.

Basic things like "where stuff is in the file system" and "how to install programs"? How many Windows users do you know that dig around in the filesystem anyway -- neither OS is particularly friendly to users in this regard. Most people just stick to the "Start" menu, just like most users will stick to Ubuntu's "Applications" menu. This is probably the wrong audience to ask, but what do you hope to accomplish by digging around in the filesystem of any modern OS? You can't really play with settings, or configure applications; those are mostly tasks that have special areas in the OS. The "how to install programs" is also pretty hilarious -- in my install of Ubuntu, I click on "Applications" and choose "Add/Remove" -- it's a top level menu, for cryin' out loud.

You not being able to use Python to program in is also pretty funny -- you want to program in Python, but you don't want to do a simple google search to find out how it may differ from your Windows way of doing it? I'm sure Windows came with a full Python development kit and runtime libraries, and you didn't have to learn how to do anything -- it was just there and it just worked, right? I typed in "python ubuntu" into google and came up with this as the first result -- now how hard was that?

The same can be said of your firewall complaint -- you may have something here, and in fact, I am going to request that a firewall be listed (or available) in the next version of Ubuntu (Gutsy Gibbon). But this can also be remedied by simply doing a google search... I found a very nice tutorial that requires no touching of a command line at all, that helps you install Firestarter.

Not detecting your flash drive seems to be an anomaly -- I've had no issues mounting removable media at all.

Perhaps the advice you recieved wasn't the most amazing (but you don't always get great advice from Windows "wizards" either), but if you had simply taken some incentive in learning the new OS instead of expecting it to bend over backwards to allow for your expectations of how your computer to run, you may have found that Linux isn't so hard at all... it's mostly just different.

Note: I use Mac OS X as my main OS, and I am referring to my brother's Ubuntu install in this post -- he prefers Ubuntu over Windows (something that surprised me), and has no issues at all using it. This is coming from someone who has used Windows for probably seven years before even trying Ubuntu, and he was sold after a few weeks.

You sound like the same people that say "Mac OS X is hard" -- when they really mean that it's different, and they don't want to learn how to work differently. I'm sure that if you put a complete newbie in front of Windows and Ubuntu, they would have no issues using either one.

Re:Exasperation

[Garrett Fox]

Thank you. That's a more civil response than the other. My attitude towards that one is: how do you expect to attract new users to Linux who have many years' experience with Windows and only casual interest in switching, and hence a low patience level with it? Part of the "monoculture" problem is that regardless of a product's actual quality, people can get locked in by their familiarity with it.

Re:Exasperation

[yoasif]

Regarding the firewall complaint, I looked around a bit, and was informed that Ubuntu already uses iptables, and has no open ports by default. Also, typing in "firewall" into the add/remove app brings up Firestarter. No fuss at all.

Less Choices in OSS

[SilentUrbanFox]

Oddly, I feel less compelled to make choices with open source software, but I feel they are there when I need them. Usually there are one or two mature and active software projects. The KDE/GNOME divide is a perfect example of this. XFCE exists, sure, but it's not considered heavily as a default DE for a corporate environment. On KDE, if you want a collection-based music player, you have Amarok. On GNOME, you have Rhythmbox. Not much thinking involved. On Windows, I am forced to choose between Windows Media Player, Winamp (with collection enabled,) iTunes, and many others I'm sure I'm missing. I'm at a loss for other "application types" for which this is true at the moment. For any given application niche on Windows, there are a number of often-equal-seeming alternatives. In any case, I feel after a default Ubuntu install, I have 90% of what I need there for me already. Apple, if I'm not mistaken, provides a similar experience. You have a small set of choices, and they work well together, and "feel" integrated. At the same time, I retain flexibility; I use mpd as my music player despite Rhythmbox being available and sufficient, I use irssi+bitlbee despite Gaim being available and quite nice. In short, I make choices because I want to, not because I have to. There's a great suite of default applications provided as part of the GNOME project (and included by the ubuntu-desktop package,) and I only need look forward if I want to go a little beyond "being comfortable."

LMAO Non free finally wins.

[twitter]

For instance, the only reason we've not released a port to linux - a free version, of course, we'd like to give back to the community - is because there is no standard GUI layer. It's a hodgepodge of these widgets and those widgets, this license and that license (really meaning, these liabilities and those liabilities.) Windows provides all that. Free. Built in.

Sure, everone knows that M$ licensing and development is far less complicated or expensive than gpl code. Why, you should see how much I have to pay my accountants and lawyers to keep track of the terms on gcc, kde, gnome and so on and so forth. The burden this passes on to my users is just unimaginable. I'm going to give all of that up right now and buy OSX, Vista, Visual Studio and half a dozen software packages that I need to get real work done on these real platforms. Apt-getting is just too complicated. I give up, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, I am truly sorry that I have deprived your companies of well earned revenues over the last seven years that I've been without your spiffy, easy to use, license, develop and distribute software. What was I thinking as I simply did my work without worry or cost?

The day the linux core gets BUILT-IN windowing and graphics, and I do NOT mean just xwindows or xwindows plus yet another sometimes-there and restrictively licensed widget set, is the day we make a port that we will release to the community.

apt-get install kdevelop. Pay attention to the recommended and suggested packages and go. It's that easy. There are others that may be easier, but KDE's package will be more familiar to you. Hope to see your work soon, Happy hacking!

Re:LMAO Non free finally wins.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to give all of that up right now and buy OSX, Vista, Visual Studio and half a dozen software packages that I need to get real work done on these real platforms. Careful. With that attitude you might actually start making money.

Re:LMAO Non free finally wins.

[heinousjay]

Everything that can be done is easy. Learn the steps somehow and follow them. That's all anything is.

The devil, of course, is in the details, but hey! if the sheep are too stupid that's their fault, right? This stuff is supposed to be hard. Errr, easy. Shit.

Re:LMAO Non free finally wins.

[ebbe11]

apt-get install kdevelop

Wow. 'apt-get' works on all distros now? That does make things a lot easier.

Now if we could get the same thing to happen to configuration...

Re:LMAO Non free finally wins.

[analog_line]

apt-get install kdevelop

Here you have two prime examples of "too much choice" in action.

You're assuming that everyone uses an apt-get based package distribution method, and you just can't do that.

You're also assuming KDE is there, and that's an even more flawed assumption.

Re:LMAO Non free finally wins.

[jedidiah]

The people that are zealously anti-something are not your market to begin with.

Fixating on them in pointless.

Re:LMAO Non free finally wins.

[jedidiah]

So?

Then merely RESEARCH how those that have successfully done it, did you.

You will find that they used something rather similar to
installshield using a similar methodology to how an installshield script
might work on Windows.

Some let the end user handle the dependencies, other handle all that stuff
"Windows style", and others just statically link everything in.

All of those work and have worked.

There is no mystery here.

If you view the problem as insoluable than the only problem is YOU.

It's all been done already, 10 YEARS AGO.

It's time to get over your own learned helplessness.

Re:LMAO Non free finally wins.

[jedidiah]

You assume too much.

Aphorisms like WinDOS say nothing of the kind.

I love it when some loser tries to call me a loser.

Re:LMAO Non free finally wins.

[metamatic]

And the pro-Microsoft side is assuming that you're using a version of Windows that runs Microsoft's development tools, and not (say) an old copy of Windows Me.

Assuming a sensible Linux is as reasonable an assumption as assuming a sensible Windows.

Re:LMAO Non free finally wins.

[DaveV1.0]

Accidentally develop an application that uses code under two incompatible free licenses and see what happens.

Re:LMAO Non free finally wins.

[Sax Maniac]

Why, you should see how much I have to pay my accountants and lawyers to keep track of the terms on gcc, kde, gnome and so on and so forth. The burden this passes on to my users is just unimaginable.

I know you're kidding, but your joke is wrong. I think you are confusing using free software in-house versus linking against it. We use lots of free software and love it. gcc, openoffice, etc. But, we also develop propietary software for Linux, and tracking all the licensing is very difficult and expensive because every bit of free software has strings attached. Those strings must have the license reviewed by legal. What you save in cost of the kit itself, can sometimes be totally negated by the legal tracking issues. I've spent days talking to business folks trying to clear up misconceptions over MPL code, stuff even that lawyers have already approved.

Compare that to something like a commerical SDK, where the license is often extremely simple and lets you do whatever you want, no questions asked. Companies sometimes need that flexibility and sometimes, believe it or not, is cheaper.

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and define Sax's Licensing Law: Tracking development use of free software libraries in propietary software is just as difficult as tracking the in-house use of propietary software. The former you have to deal with an annoying pile of licenses that are similar but totally different, the latter you have to deal with a pile of annoying EULAs that are similar but totally different.

Re:LMAO Non free finally wins.

[Synonymous Cowherd]

Sax's Licensing Law: Tracking development use of free software libraries in proprietary software is just as difficult as tracking the in-house use of proprietary software. Exactly. Especially if you are trying to do things correctly, rather than "it's open source, so we can just use it right?".

Re:LMAO Non free finally wins.

[mishagam]

apt-get install kdevelop And so you get the result. You can get Windows applications from anywhere on the internet, and you can get Ubuntu applications from Ubuntu maintained repositories. Or if somebody prepares Ubuntu version of program (less lack for less popular version of programs) (and then Fedora Version, and so on). Or, maybe, you can install program and then play with configuration files, patches and so on (and may be getting pleasure from this).
Of Course, Microsoft model wins 97 times of 100.

Viruses of Monoculture???

[jkrise]

I glanced at the headline, and it dodn't make sense at first. How can MS win when there's Viruses aplenty in a Monoculture? I clicked on the article and it was then I realised it wasn't Viruses, but Virtues.

I think Polyculture is a Virtue. In the IT world faced with a few hefty gorillas, it's "United we Fall, Divided we Stand" that works. Had Open Source been a monoculture, it would've been a sitting duck for predators like MS or Oracle to gobble up at their leisure.

The only common culture that unites the Open Source world is the culture of writing clean, readable, efficient, honest code that works as intended (advertised). These virtues are alien to a Monoculture that is Microsoft. Multiple desktops, multiple browsers (I wish Konqueror, Firefox and Galleon had comparable userbases), multiple programming languages, IDEs, compilers etc. are the precise reason why Open Source wins, and keeps winning. Even if some of these projects are bought over / subverted /destroyed, the 'culture' of Open Source lives on in the remaining forks, and that sustains the philosophy.

Monoculture is a wet-dream for viruses, it has no virtues for the intellectually inclined.

too many?

[nanosquid]

Choice has a cost, but it also has benefits, and the benefits tend to outweigh the costs up to a point. I don't think open source has even reached that point yet. There are about half a dozen significant open source IDEs around, and that is not too many for a market with millions of developers. There are about half a dozen significant Linux distros around, and, again, that's a good number, and it's self-limiting.

And it's not like Microsoft is offering a consistent, coherent, compatible product line either: Microsoft has half a dozen supported but obsolete versions of Windows, a fuzzy platform strategy, multiple incompatible APIs, etc.

Arguing that handing over computers to a single company is a good thing is about like arguing that the Soviet Union represented a better economic system than the US; it does not. Choices have costs, but those are costs we need to bear if we want to have long-term growth, innovation, and success. We need more alternatives to Microsoft, not fewer.

Microsoft is gaining. Realize it.

[Animats]

We have some real problems in the Open Source world of programming. Microsoft has been cleaning up their Mess Inside.

C# is a win for Microsoft. It's a decent language. We have some real problems in the language end of open source. C is still widely used, despite its age and some terrible design flaws. C++ has become something of a mess, and the C++ standards people are off in template fantasyland, instead of fixing the thing. Java has acquired too much baggage, although the underlying language isn't bad. (Amusingly, Java turned out to be the replacement for COBOL, something its designers never intended.) Perl doesn't scale up well, and Python is too slow. We don't have a good, safe, hard-code-generating language in the open source world. (And don't say that's impossible; it's been done several times.)

Microsoft is better at middleware than the open source world, especially the parts that have to play well together. All Microsoft apps have access to a standard interprocess communication system and a standard database. Neither is great, but they're always there, and they're standardized. The Linux world has about a half dozen interprocess communication schemes, none well-supported by the OS. There's CORBA; Gnome and OpenOffice both use CORBA. Incompatible versions. All of this was horribly ugly prior to ".NET", and the transition was even uglier ("Managed C++"). But the all-C# world is relatively clean.

Build tools in the open source world are still 1970s technology. I was using "make", "sccs", "db", and a version of EMACS in 1978. Now we have "gmake", Subversion, "gdb", and EMACS. That's rather minor progress. For some reason, Eclipse has never caught on much.

And, as the original author pointed out, Microsoft is way, way ahead on developer documentation. They have people writing articles on how to deal with the ugly parts of their own software. That's rare in the Open Source world. There's an endless supply of beginner books and recipe books, but quality technical notes on the tough parts are rare.

I don't like it either.

Because everyone uses windows

[Billly Gates]

Which development environment offers the best integration with MS products? Surprise its visual studio.

If you have a windows shop your stuck with it. Borlands tools do not include things like the VBA for office.

Choice is not the problem...

[EEBaum]

...rather, a complete and utter lack of *recommended* choices is the killer. (apologies in advance for lumping Linux and Open Source together)

Every Linux app I install has a laundry list of "you must have ______ installed first" items on the list. Fine. So I go to install those, and each of those apps has its own laundry list. Fine, whatever. It's a pain in the neck, but I can deal. I should only have to install each of those new apps once (and perhaps upgrade once in a long while for security, stability, or new features), yes?

Not so fast, buddy. Most open source Linux apps have this nasty habit of having a good deal of their useful features turned off by default. Turned off, that is, meaning not compiled into the program. At install time, you can specify config options. There's usually a list of 40 or so that you can include if you like... some are harmless, others will nerf the program. But unless you've configured that particular app a half dozen times before, there are probably a few options the hapless admin neglects to specify properly, and he doesn't find out until quite a bit later, when he finds himself re-re-recompiling.

Hey, says the open source community, he should RTFM! And indeed he should. But when the documentation for "--use-feature-x" is "Enables use of Feature X", or worse, "TBD: Write a more helpful explanation," the only source of useful information is a mailing list archive where someone else has encountered your cryptic error message and gotten their problem solved in a manner that is relevant to your situation. That, or there are SO many options that signal gets lost in noise. Or those options are only relevant if he's running Python 2.4 on a version of Fedora Core (64-bit only) that is less than 6 months old and Apache 1.3 or 2.2 but not 2.0, with LDAP implementations other than OpenLDAP, or if it's Thursday.

Repeat this about 15 times as the necessary feature enablings, version upgrades, etc. percolate back to the app you actually WANT to install, and you begin to wonder about how good an idea this whole "open source" thing is.

And this is all AFTER you've made a decision. A frightening number of install docs include a phrase like "you can use one of 4 database/server/scripting implementations. They are all different. They are all good and bad at different things. We used to like option A, but now we're feeling differently about option B, ever since they made a dirty gesture at option C. Option D (the one you already have installed on your system and are familiar with) is far superior, but we don't fully support it, and there's a 1% chance it'll hose your system when used with our software. You should go sit in a corner and mull over the pros and cons for the next two hours." Would "Option B is a good choice unless you're serving a REALLY big filesystem, in which case you should use Option C. A and D are also available, in case you care" be so hard?

The open source world, in its efforts to give the consumer lots of choices, seems reluctant to give recommendations. If they TELL you that you'll save a crapload of time at the expense of a miniscule performance hit by including a few extra modules in your apache install, somehow they've done a disservice to the community as a whole by preferring one feature over another. Which client should I use to connect to my new server? "Well, there are 38 available. 15 of them will hang and leave dangling processes on the server, and another 10 don't even have the support for the most useful feature, but that's not our problem... enjoy the impartial list." The ones that DO give recommendations for packages and configurations then usually have conflicts or inconsistencies with the packages they recommend, leaving you, the admin (or, HORROR OF HORRORS, desktop-users Nana and Pop-Pop), to trial-and-error smooth the edges for the next hour/day/week.


One thing Windows really has going for it is that, for better or worse, applications seem to come with default configura

Re:Choice is not the problem...

[DaveV1.0]

You are so right, I would mod you up if I had the points.

Missed applications that use their own special UI as opposed to the one provided by the window manager.
Should I mention mbox vs. maildir?
How about financial software that tries to be both for professionals and for individuals and ends up missing both targets?
What about the same application or data being in different locations in different distributions?

But I enjoy shaking my fists at the darkness!

[Phil Urich]

Seriously, it's very cathartic to shake my fists in the air and curse the darkness, don't knock it. It's an old tale, having such a powerful implacable enemy stiffens the spirit of the protagonists. Makes for a much better tale, too. To go with the geeky reference, that's why Stargate worked so much better at the start of each enemy-era; once the antagonists get cut down to size it's not nearly as interesting as when the heroes face impossible odds.

Re:More denial.

[MechaBlue]

Is the issue that there needs to be an Exchange killer or that there needs to be something Exchange compatible? A lot of organizations do great without Exchange; without it, it seems almost anything goes. Once Exchange is in the picture, you gotta have Windows. Or Mac and just Termserv into a central server... And there might be a Linux option (never looked).

Re:My $ .02

[MechaBlue]

Is a choice between 30 indistinguisable options better than a choice between 3 distinguishable options?

Incredible

[suv4x4]

Slashdot users, I bow to you. It's hard to beat that much bias and ignorance as you've demonstrated in most of the posts over here. Which is why you'll never be convinced that Windows has benefits, and the world will keep using it.

Don't let this little disparity bother you, just put a spin on it and contribute 100% of it to evil MS schemes, which force you to use Windows, never mind the OSS options.

*raises hand*

[EagleEye1975]

I'm a Microsoft flunky... I admit it. (First post here on /. by the way!) Personally, as a developer, I have explored open source options and found them to be generally incomplete, with little to no documentation (compared to MSDN, most docs are a barren wasteland, but I'm talking about even the most basic of documentation). For example, I am building a 3D game. I explored Ogre, and I found it difficult to use, with far too many independent side-projects that required me to update from 5 or 6 different websites every time the core engine was updated. Seriously... building a commercial app kinda sucks when you have to rely on hobbyists for timely updates. What happens if the core engine updates, and one of the key add-on makers is on vacation for a month? Or just decides they don't want to do it? What if their whole project gets abandoned? These kinds of questions have to be asked when you're making something you want to bring to market. "Just program it yourself" was something I heard often... but that's really not the point, is it? People want to make a product that other people use, but more often than not, the project gets abandoned, gets handed off to new project owners time and time again... and when it's all said and done, it's a pain in the butt to really get a nice, stable, complete, well-documented project out of the open source community. Personally, I've found that PAYING for my software brings with it a lot of perks: For one thing, you can hold over them the "I'm your customer" card... money talks! Secondly, market forces seriously drive quality standards... not really for Microsoft, but for other small developers that are competing. To be blunt, and to really abuse a common saying... "You get what you pay for." If you don't pay jack squat... guess what you usually get.

Re:*raises hand*

[Ash-Fox]

For example, I am building a 3D game. I explored Ogre, and I found it difficult to use, with far too many independent side-projects that required me to update from 5 or 6 different websites every time the core engine was updated.

Oh nos, work!

building a commercial app kinda sucks when you have to rely on hobbyists for timely updates. What happens if the core engine updates, and one of the key add-on makers is on vacation for a month? Or just decides they don't want to do it? What if their whole project gets abandoned?

I don't see how the situation improves when that happens with closed source software. At least with opensource software, it can be continued by anyone.

These kinds of questions have to be asked when you're making something you want to bring to market. "Just program it yourself" was something I heard often... but that's really not the point, is it?

I do believe bounties were created for this reason. So that you could pay someone to code what you need.

Personally, I've found that PAYING for my software brings with it a lot of perks: For one thing, you can hold over them the "I'm your customer" card... money talks!

Uh.. I'm a customer of a few companies that sell opensource software and support like Novell, Sun, Mandriva...

I could pretty much threaten them the same way when I'm not getting the support I paid for, for my opensource software (whether or not that'll work is another story -- I'm not too sure Microsoft would). I'm also pretty sure you can pay someone todo the sort of work you want anyway.

To be blunt, and to really abuse a common saying... "You get what you pay for." If you don't pay jack squat... guess what you usually get.

I don't really find these sayings accurate. I've got Kubuntu Linux and it's repositories for free. I find it a lot better than Windows in many cases -- However, when it comes to office suites, OpenOffice.org doesn't please me completely so I bought a copy of StarOffice (based on OpenOffice.org and vice versa) which gives me the added functionality I wanted.

I really think it depends on the situation more than a mere saying.

Not that simple, sadly

[Moraelin]

This article assumes that open source developers are aiming at becoming Microsoft like. Maybe they're just in it to make good software: not a profit, not make money for shareholders, or anything that that Microsoft is obviously aiming for. And the article is also using a very narrow definition of "win", one which I'm not sure is possible for OSS to attain.

And that is assuming that OSS developpers are a bunch of nerds in their free time, doing software just for fun. Sad to say, his assumption is closer to reality.

Oh, there are thousands of 1-2 man projects on sourceforge done by enthusiasts in their free time. Chances are you haven't even heard of most of them. They also tend to be small projects.

If you look at what's in your favourite Linux distribution, though, it's a different story. Look at the kernel credits some day. You'll see a lot of people from IBM, Red Hat, etc. Hate to break it to you, but they're doing a paid job there. Others may not be employees at such, but got paid/sponsored by a corporation to develop that stuff. E.g., ReiserFS was pretty much paid for by SuSE.

Other programs there? Mozilla? It even got started because Netscape wanted a browser that can stop MS's onslaught onto their business. Then it got bought by AOL, and nowadays it's Google footing the bill. Open Office? Got started as a proprietary project, then bought by Sun. Nowadays it's Sun doing pretty much the whole work, with people paid to code on OOo. It's costing Sun a lot of money. Etc.

See, the F/OSS that gets taken anywhere _near_ seriously these days is the work of corporations. Pretty much it's just a framework for a bunch of corporations to pool their resources into fighting MS. None of them has the resources to challenge the behemoth single-handedly, and some have already lost against the behemoth when trying to "solo" it. E.g., ask IBM what happened to their OS/2.

Where this long rant is going is: of _course_ those corporations are aiming at becoming the next MS. In fact, some of them were the original (near)monopoly long before MS. IBM used to be _the_ name in computing business, long before MS even existed. (And incidentally was just as underhanded as MS. The term "FUD" was first used to describe IBM's tactics, long before MS even existed.) Sun was _the_ name in professional micro-computers. Etc.

And some of them suffered quite humiliating defeats at the hands of the "beast". IBM created the PC, and everything had to be "IBM PC" compatible. Then MS helped shift that to "Intel x86 compatible". When IBM tried to introduce the micro-channel architecture, it discovered that it no longer is in control of the very architecture it created. The market just ignored IBM and took the PC in the direction other companies wanted. Then even Intel lost control. It became "Windows compatible." It may not have been immediately recognizable as a defeat, but it became blatantly so when Intel had to go ask for MS's permission to implement their own 64 bit extensions... and got told to use AMD's instead. Ouch.

In a sense, MS helped "create" Linux. At the anti-trust trial, MS used Linux as an example in their "we're not a monopoly, other people can still make good OS's" sophistry. It just told everyone what other OS they could use instead, if only it was more up to modern standards. And they just proceeded to help with bringing it there.

At any rate, the short story is: most of the successful F/OSS is the work of corporations, and _of_ _course_ they want to be the next MS. Or at least to take some market share from MS. And _of_ _course_ they'd like to make a profit (indirectly) out of it. That's the whole _point_ of bothering with it.

E.g., Sun isn't developping OOo because it just likes making cool software. It's because at some point people were saying, basically, "Yeah, well, but your workstations don't run MS Word." If the software they pay big bucks for doesn't address that problem, they might as well fire that team and move on.

E

Re:Not that simple, sadly

[m50d]

Other programs there? Mozilla? It even got started because Netscape wanted a browser that can stop MS's onslaught onto their business. Then it got bought by AOL, and nowadays it's Google footing the bill. Open Office? Got started as a proprietary project, then bought by Sun. Nowadays it's Sun doing pretty much the whole work, with people paid to code on OOo. It's costing Sun a lot of money. Etc.

And those are taking huge amounts of resources for relatively small benefits, where e.g. konqueror is being written from scratch by a bunch of nerds on their own time and managing to be a better browser than mozilla. It's the corporate-funded projects that are causing the confusion, because they tend to be better in the short term by sheer brute force of man-hours, but less well written and ultimately inferior.

Re:Not that simple, sadly

[marcosdumay]

"Where this long rant is going is: of _course_ those corporations are aiming at becoming the next MS. In fact, some of them were the original (near)monopoly long before MS."

Nop. Most of them just want good software to use, some to support. None of them want software to sell. Notice how your favorite example, IBM, has almost all of its revenue coming from hardware and services. The same applies to Sun.

All of them would obviously like to become a new Microsoft, no one seems to be working toward that. Probably because they belive they can't do it.

general public vs hardcore developers

[davidmillions.com]

There is a very big difference between hardcore developers / computer geeks (us) and the rest of the world. Linux for many is just not as dummy proof as Windows is. (Windows crashes and is buggy but rebooting the thing fixes things, where as if you mess with the kernel on a linux machine, you can cause big trouble).

Borg Good

[Swift2001]

Not Borg Bad. How about cowardice, monopoly and brainlessness? They're not virtues, but sadly, they seem to be permanent fixtures on the human landscape.

I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[KWTm]

I'm not sure I understand you. You say that because Linux has both GNOME and KDE (and others), there is not one standard GUI on which to develop. But why don't you just pick one? People have access to both, you know.

For example, as a die-hard KDE user, I'll ask: what happens if you just pick GNOME and go with that? If it's a useful program to me, I'll install your GNOME program on my KDE machine. For example, I run GnuCash and not KMyMoney, I run Gnumeric and not KSpread, I run Abiword and not KWord (or OpenOffice.org), and I run Firefox and only occasionally Konqueror. I plan to continue to use KDE for the foreseeable future, and I've never downloaded the default Ubuntu, only Kubuntu.

Unless I misunderstand you, you seem to be saying: "Microsoft has a single door to walk through. But Linux provides double-doors, so I don't know whether to walk through the left one or the right one. So I won't bother, and I'll just stick with the single door because the lack of choice is less confusing."

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[Mista2]

Some of may favourite apps have frontend GUIs for both gnome and KDE, by using a common backend. Services and daemons don't need no stinkin GUI 8) This also means most of these apps have very rich command line interfaces so they are easy to script. Hey even MS realise this with Exchange 2007, everything in the Exchange manager GUI creates a command line you can run in the MONAD shell.

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[Trelane]

The door analogy is excellent. "I don't know whether to walk through the left one or the right one, so I won't walk through either." Heh.

Just choose one and go with it!

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[Sax Maniac]

I think he's speaking of making a release of propietary software for Linux. The problem is that some distros use KDE, some use GNOME, and all of them use different versions. On Windows or Mac, it's possible to build a single binary to target nearly all the installed base, because you can be guaranteed the GUI is there and mostly backwards compatible.

For Linux, we don't want to make a custom build for every single distro out there. The cost would be prohibitive and you'd have a lot more combinations to test. Free software simply hands the entire build process over to the individual distros. Sometimes they get it right, but sometimes not: oops, the app doesn't work with libYooble.4.2p3_alpha5 and the distro vendors didn't know about that or, more likely, don't care.

It's possible, just very difficult, to deliver commercial software on Linux. You're swimming upstream.

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[rubycodez]

and really, if one carefully makes an .rpm or .deb GUI app it's possible to then run on all the most common desktop distros out there, I've plopped such rpm into my 7.04 Kubuntu (like Citrix client and oracle 10 client wares) that weren't designed with my distro in mind and things are fine. Or use Java or python bytecode and pick from a few standard cross platform gui libraries.

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[Chandon Seldon]

Google doesn't seem to have had a problem with Google Earth. Nero burning rom works fine. None of the various proprietary games for Linux has any problem. Adobe Acrobat Reader works. Realplayer works great.

Sure - the developer who builds the package has to have a basic understanding of the platform. They may even end up having to spend some time researching the problem. But - if you're willing to go to the effort to port to a new platform a couple hours of study shouldn't bother you.

Realplayer is a perfect example of building and packaging a proprietary application for Linux. They built using Gtk for maximum compatibility, and they initially released in .rpm and .tar.gz. They then allowed free redistribution, so all the major distributions repackaged the program and distributed the packages in their non-free repositories at no cost to Real Networks.

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[Sax Maniac]

I didn't say it's impossible, just difficult. I'm wagering you didn't see all the release engineering, testing, legal approval, etc., that happened before. You just see the binary.

Also note that many companies are just bit a smaller than Google, Adobe, Real. They have a lot more resources to throw at the problem. Also, the economics are different. I don't know about the games, but for the others, their revenue comes from other places. They don't sell Earth, Reader, or RealPlayer. That's to say, Adobe Reader can lose money, if they think they will make more money selling other stuff. If you're just selling a Linux app, it's far less compelling.

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[ratboy666]

And this comes up again...

It is perfectly possible for an application author to produce an application and link it statically.

It is also possible to link with -z origin -rpath '$ORIGIN/../lib' (or similar) allowing the bundling of the EXACT shared objects (dlls for you windows folk) locally into a single directory tree.

If this is done, the application can be put into any directory, and will run from there with no further configuration needed. If glibc is included, it will also run on a WIDE range of kernels.

Of course it isn't in the "packaging system" -- but that can also be done (especially to run pre and post scripts).

As to the GUI? Either include the widget set, or use GNOME. What's the problem?

And (ps.) this is what's generally done on Windows. DirectX is included by every application that needs it.

"Build from source" isn't required to cross x86 Linux boundaries -- it exists to cross processor families (Sparc, PowerPC, MIPS, ARM, etc.), and Operating Systems (Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, etc.).

Even there, tools exist (eg. QEMU) that allow running binaries on other archs.

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[Sax Maniac]

It is perfectly possible for an application author to produce an application and link it statically.

Many licenses don't allow that in a proprietary app. Most notably, GTK which is LGPL last I checked.

As to the GUI? Either include the widget set, or use GNOME. What's the problem?

See above.

And (ps.) this is what's generally done on Windows. DirectX is included by every application that needs it.

You just argued my point for me. That's because it's legal to link DirectX against a proprietary app. MS isn't going to start complaining for you to release your source code.

I didn't say it was impossible, I said using a free software GUI toolkit in a nonfree app is frequently harder than one you pay for. The latter usually has much simpler distribution terms.

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[Chandon Seldon]

Again, if you're capable of devoting the time to port your application to a new platform then dealing with the packaging issues on Linux is pretty trivial time-wise. A commercial proprietary program is slightly harder than RealPlayer, because you can't rely on the various distros packaging it for you, but even that isn't that big a deal - Unreal Tournament 2004 used the Loki installer which works fine.

I'll admit that if you look at the list of different distributions on a site like Distrowatch, it can look like there's a daunting packaging problem. But... worrying about most of that is sort of like worrying about your software not working on Windows because someone built their own installer - i.e. irrelevant. Test on RHEL and Ubuntu and then consider fixing installer bugs that effect other distributions *if* they come up. After RHEL and Ubuntu, it's a toss up between supporting SLES next or just supporting Solaris next - the difference is about the same.

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[Chandon Seldon]

After RHEL and Ubuntu, it's a toss up between supporting SLES next or just supporting Solaris next - the difference is about the same.

To be clearer, I should have said: If you test RHEL and Ubuntu, SLES probably works already. If you want a third tested "distro", I suggest Solaris - it's more likely to actually need a couple tweaks and then you get too support a whole new OS from a PR standpoint.

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[johnnliu]

Both sides have over-zealous users. If you develop for one without caring for another, people call you biased. People demand your support. You simply can't "choose a door" and not expect people rooting for the other door to sneer at/badmouth you.

Even worse, if it's useful and it doesn't appear on KDE, someone will produce an open-sourced K-YourApp and end up competing with you (on an already-tiny market margin).

Like you said, why are there two different products of every useful app on both KDE and Gnome?

If you already have to choose between developing for Windows or Macs, why do you need to yet making more choices with which GUI (or even distro) to develop for?

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[ratboy666]

Why yes, it is the LGPL. Which is the "Lesser GPL". Specifically, the LGPL ALLOWS the linking of non-free programs to it.

Of course, the source of the library itself must be available, but it is not necessary to disclose the program itself (although that might be preferred for other reasons).

Saying "the latter usually has much simpler distribution terms" is also not true. Some of the restrictions on Microsoft redistribution have been: cannot be public domain, cannot be a general purpose word processor, cannot compete with Microsoft Access, must be updated within 90 days of an unspecified time (and be labeled "beta"). Enough to mke MY head spin, anyway. At least the LGPL doesn't try to limit what you distribute with the library!

And the LGPL specifically does not force an application to be GPL, or even LGPL.

Re:I don't get it --why not pick an arbitrary GUI?

[Sax Maniac]

Specifically, the LGPL ALLOWS the linking of non-free programs to it.

That's notionally true, but wrong in the context of this thread. You can't statically link in LGPL code into a non-free program, which is what I was replying to. Go ahead, read it. I'll wait.

Ahum

[Jarth]

That last phrase ...

Too much choice ?

And, oh yeah.

An apparently unnoticed intelectual Elitarian charm-attitude is the cause of all this.

J. with a low-profile grudge

sink or swim or get out of the water

[jack455]

-I've tried a few distro's and come to prefer fedora core (for now)
-rpm was rough, then I settled on yum to install software. I prefer yumex over kyum, not sure why.
-not so much with the compiling sources and the terminals and such but yakuake is a great improvement to konsole
-I've only added choices with livna, freshrpms, and atrpms for 3rd party repos
-amarok, xmms, xine, kplayer, and vlc are the finalists for media players out of how many? I have 15 apps that I could call "mp3 players" but don't know how many I've uninstalled as well. oops forgot mpd and mythtv
-can't decide between konqueror, opera, and ff. but I won't uninstall mozilla or dillo
-evolution, kmail, or thunderbird
-gaim or kopete
-alsa (with or without arts) and jack offer similar functions but aren't fun together; I guess it's more that I can't use jack all the time or live without it, but I usually leave alsa running
-koffice or ooo
-I've setled on kate
-kde or fluxbox

I'm not complaining about any of this. Without this mindset I wouldn't be so loyal to Seagate hdd's and Antec power supplies. I LIKE choice. My computer experience has evolved through trial and error, survival of the fittest. You might even suspect intelligent design. But there's a sacrifice of effort. And only weeks ago I was confused about skype and Vonage and SIP(?!) and I still don't know what I want.
But I wouldn't have it any other way.

Users who need more direction, like Joe from T-Mobile or Joe from T-Mobile can find someone like me and I'll choose for him and pick the apps I currently prefer, or flip a coin, when I install fedora or yellowdog on a PS3 or mepis on a laptop. Whatever.

Perhaps there's too much choice.
Or maybe irresolute doubtmonkeys shouldn't install software at all -- even windows apps!

Maybe somewhere in between. I like that I have to add 3rd party repos for some of this. what's that universe thing some people use? you get the idea...

Now; I think Windows users should be using Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office Dot Org, foobar, Miranda, Photofiltre, and VLC. NOT IE, outlook, msoffice, wmp, msmessenger, mspaint, or mediaplayer. They should replace all windows utilities possible with stuff from portablefreeware.com or tinyapps.org and zonealarm and adaware are necessary. I don't think this paragraph gave anyone any difficult choices, but neither I nor slashdot nor cmmndrtco (sic) can be held accountable for DANGEROUS information you come across on the tubes of the interweb.

Odd, I started out trying to see it from their side, but ended up losing patience and sympathy. These are valuable if you're trying to help people but all I can say is...

"Life is used, get confusing to it"

Big Differences

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Don't play dumb. There are significant differences between your choice of OS and your choice of website, the biggest being that most websites are not a platform for development and expansion. How many times have you purchased something and worried that it was going to be incompatible with your favourite website? None, I bet. Maybe there would be less of a problem if the OS market was standardised as much as the web.

A quote I liked from the article

[sentientbrendan]

>>We spend a lot of time complaining about all the evil ways Microsoft uses to foist
>>themselves on the world. By doing this, we automatically remove any blame that we
>>ourselves may bear for their successes and our failures.

This is what I see as essentially stalling progress in many areas of open source. The community isn't capable of evaluating the community's own flaws. There's a brand of open source "nationalism" where anyone who criticizes community policies and practices is derided as not being patriotic enough.

Re:1995 Wants it's Non Free PR Back.

[J0nne]

The command line doesn't even have to exist to operate either of these systems, ever

If you're trying to do anything that doesn't have a GUI tool on both these OS's, you still need the command line. 2 concrete examples:
-in windows, if you want to know what connections your computer is making, what applications are doing it, etc, what application do you use? I use netstat -ab for that, because AFAIK Windows has no GUI for this. (in Ubuntu I can just do system>network tools, and I have a graphical netstat right there).
And I'm not even mentioning all the stuff you need to dig into the registry for, which is worse than a CLI, IMHO.

-In Mac OS X, if you want to put Safari in debug mode, what do you do? you fire up your terminal, and paste the following:

defaults write com.apple.Safari IncludeDebugMenu 1

(ooh, how polished! It probably was way too hard to add a checkbox to enable debug mode in the menu...)

You may want to claim that that's stuff that's far from trivial, which the average user wouldn't need to do, and you'd be right. But if you put an average user in front of Ubuntu, he wouldn't need the command line either. Installing software is done through add/remove or synaptic, and there are GUI tools available for just about everything if you really don't like the command line.

FOSS allows you to CHOOSE your monoculture ..

[cheros]

I'm not convinced the article provides a solid basis for blaming choice as a problem.

I have yet to see people try to find a new toolset every time they build a platform. Usually, an IT shop decided on which tools it will use to do the job (including which hardware, code language and dev framework) and will stick with that choice, simply because that's where their expertise lies. Only when the toolset is not up to the job or there is a simpler/better way to address the task at hand will there be a re-examination and/or switch, and such changes are in both environments (Win/FOSS) also driven by the people doing the job doing the usual looking around for ideas and products - that's simply part of the work (did I just argue that Slashdot reading is essential? Yes! :-)).

After that it's learning how to maximise your use of the toolset and work around the problems with it, and that tends to result in some branching out from the default platform as well. Do MS shows only use 100% MS code? IF SM had their way, sure, but life's not like that. The only difference with an MS shop is that experimenting doesn't immediately cost license fees and instantly creates the risk of a FAST visit being successful, but that too is an issue hat can be managed.

So this 'choice' is a starting issue, not a live ops issue.

The challenge of a monoculture is not that it's mono, it's about who controls the direction. An MS monoculture doesn't really to be driven by user need, witness the heap of crap that is Vista, and the total mess they made of the different versions of .Net. From an IT strategy point of view you're better off with a direction that YOU set, not the vendor. Not only is it cheaper, it's also less driven by a vendor's need to flog new products.

At that point you can start asking questions about true business benefits and TCO.

Re:FOSS allows you to CHOOSE your monoculture ..

[mshurpik]

>I'm not convinced the article provides a solid basis for blaming choice as a problem.

It's not "choice," it's lack of integration and/or standardization. Right now on Windows I have browser choice - 3 of them. That's because all 3 of them are buggy. If one browser worked the way I wanted, all the time, then the other two would get deleted.

We used to have other choices on Windows, such as word processors and spreadsheets. They got standardized.

A question of self-responsibility

[petrus4]

I watched V for Vendetta again last night, and was reading some related material online afterwards. It introduced me to a couple of ideas which although I'd more or less known about instinctively, I possibly hadn't considered from quite that perspective. This is going to appear to be offtopic at first, but bear with me and you'll see the point as it relates to the issue of choice with Linux.

From what I've read, the central element of anarchic thought is apparently the idea of a scenario where people are genuinely self-responsible; where people are able to make decisions and choices about everything they do, and where it can be at least hoped that the need for an external authority is mitigated by said people having an internalised system of morality. In other words, the idea being while they are able to choose to do whatever they like, that people will eventually figure out what they are meant to do on their own.

However we keep seeing (no doubt unfortunately in the minds of some of us) that the above scenario, not only where Linux is concerned but in every other area of their lives, is overwhelmingly not what the vast majority of people truly want. I've found myself reading quotes from both Freud and George Bernard Shaw over the last 24 hours that stated that contrary to the commonly held belief, the majority genuinely do not want freedom, precisely because a prerequisite of freedom is self-responsibility.

This of course is where not only Microsoft in the case of software, but repressive states of all kinds in general life come into the picture. As V said, they offer order, certainty, stability, an absence of chaos, and most importantly, an absence from the need for a person to think for themselves, and all they ask in return is silent, obedient consent. They give people a scenario where decisions are made for them, where no thought whatsoever is necessary, nor responsibility taken for wrong decisions. As the old saying goes, "Nobody ever got fired for buying from IBM."

This is what people overwhelmingly want; what they are trained from the earliest age to want. National governments use the education system these days in order to start negative reinforcement against the exercise of free will within individuals as early as possible, and if such is instilled deeply enough and early enough, the process produces individuals who refrain from exercising choice as much as possible for the rest of their lives thereafter.

If you're wondering why people continue to want Windows over Linux, and continue to complain about the degree of choice inherent in Linux, you might perhaps also want to ask why people are also willing to allow the likes of George W. Bush and Tony Blair to remain in political office. The answer to both questions is the same, for they are in truth both different elements of the same issue; an insistence on avoiding self-responsibility and reasoned, conscious thought within the majority of the population.

How can Linux advocates overcome such, I hear you ask? Instilling independence in those who do not have it already is by necessity an incredibly slow and transitional process. In the case of someone complaining about being overwhelmed by choice, I'd probably start by asking them what it is that they as individuals want to do with a computer, and then direct their attention to a single distribution (or possibly even Windows itself, if appropriate) which will meet their needs. I've tended to notice that people aren't normally wanting a reduction of choice for people other than themselves, when they are asked, but merely want a scenario where they do not need to engage in it. Hence, if they find something which will meet their own requirements, they will very often cease to complain.

Some individuals are inherently lacking initiative and crave situations where they are taken care of by external parties. Sadly, there isn't much any of us can do in the case of such individuals, other than hand them a copy of Ubuntu or Vista, and a smile. Although I fall into the trap myself on here fairly regularly, I also try and tell myself that such people are not worth getting upset over, since they are a reality that we cannot change anyway.

Re:A question of self-responsibility

[Intrinsic]

I liked your analysis. I agree that people are bred from day one to have their own ability to choose limited. But the process of learning to not be self-responsible is flawed and it is having a destructive effect on everyone human being including the planet itself. Every human being has within them a mechanism to be able to know what is best for them with out having to use much thought. You reach into yourself for the anwswer, and your body gives you a response. Sometimes its not in the form of a thought, but could be a feeling. This process is called intuition and it takes time to develop. I think the thing we are missing when we talk about how to solve the problem is that we are stuck on the idea that every decision has to happen on the level that the mind is capable of. People are able to make snap decisions in the event of an emergency without using any thought, and this process can be used in other situations. Choice isn't the problem. Its the illusion of choice that people with underdeveloped intuition have a problem with. Most of the people on the planet suffer from this. Which is why I believe that we will eventually have to evolve to the point where everyone has to be responsible for there own decision making by using other methods other than deductive reasoning.

If you remember the second matrix movie where neo, morphus and trinity are meeting with the Merovingian, you will notice that he uses this allegory. When Morpheus says everything begins with choice, the Merovingian says "Choice is an illusion, created between thoughs with power and those with out"

What he is basicley saying is we need to understand how we react to situations and understand the meaning behind what we do, and that all begins with accepting our true nature that goes beyond names and forms limited in the minds understanding only. When you can become self-aware of your own being you are truly free from the illusion of choice, because at every moment you know what the right decision is to make, and you don't need to always use the mind to figure out what you need in your life, regardless of how many options you might or might not have. You can literally pick something up and know with out a shadow of a doubt that this (whatever) is the right thing for you by just feeling it inside of your own awareness. People do it all the time with people they meet. You meet someone and something happens inside you that can tell you whether or not this person is safe or not safe. The reason why we cant use this skill all the time is because our minds can make too much noise which can cover up our intuition skills that can be pretty much used for all processes. Some things still require thought, but you don't have to be stuck it it. we are born to learn to rely way to much on thought and we need to unlearn that process if we are going to survive as human species.

Read the "Power of Now" or "A New Earth" by Eckhart Tolle if you haven't already read it. It has given me lots of insight into these topics.

Re:A question of self-responsibility

[DaveV1.0]

Time to hand you your ass, because your argument is horrifically flawed.

In order for anarchism or communism to work, all people, without exception, must be altruistic. Humans are not altruistic by nature. Neither will work because someone who is not altruistic will corrupt the system.

People do not use Microsoft because of some overarching shadow conspiracy the government to use the education system to destroy people's free will. They use it because it is easier to use. They use it because they don't have to be computer geeks to use it. They use it because their lives revolve around other things than computers. Things like family and friends and work and church. People use Windows because it is a known quantity and they can go to a store and buy software that works with little or no effort.

As long as people have bigger things to worry about than getting their Broadcom Wireless card working on their laptops, people will use Windows. As long as people have bigger things to worry about than setting up a chart of accounts in gnuCash, people will use Quicken on Windows.

The majority of people choose Windows over Linux because to them, computers are tools that should work and be easy to use, not extensions of some half-baked ideology.

Now, here is your sign and your tin foil hat, go sit down some where and think about what happens when a small group of malicious individuals encounter the altruistic anarchist society you think is so wonderful.

Re:A question of self-responsibility

[petrus4]

In order for anarchism or communism to work, all people, without exception, must be altruistic. Humans are not altruistic by nature. Neither will work because someone who is not altruistic will corrupt the system.

Did I ever once say, anywhere, that I believed it worked? If anything I would have thought the resounding theme of what I was saying here was that given the current state of human development, it'd have no chance.

The fact that as you say, for the most part it can't work, is the entire reason why the Linux community has as many problems as it does.

go sit down some where and think about what happens when a small group of malicious individuals encounter the altruistic anarchist society you think is so wonderful.

I'm agreeing with you. I apologise for not making that more clear.

Opportunity for OSS Intergrators

[Hairy1]

When I looked at developing in Java I wanted to know what tool sets I should use. With Microsoft it is easy - you buy Visual Studio, develop you apps using MS-SQL, deploy to Windows servers. I was working for a company in 1998 and implemented a non-Microsoft email system called "NT Mail". When I left they ripped the NT Mail solution out and put in Exchange just because it was from Microsoft. It is easy to simply decide "Microsoft is the way".

When you move to Open Source you have a large number of decisions to make. For those of us who are in the OSS community we are comfortable with the idea of mixing many projects together to suit your needs. For example, I use velocity instead of JSP's. If I were in the Microsoft world it would be ASP or nothing. It makes the choices easier, but removing choice decreases diversity.

However, the problem exists for developers new to open source. They ask the question - what should I be using? And they get 100 answers that are all different. Every Linux user has their own favorite distro - and it changes from year to year. We have different development environments, such as Netbeans, Eclipse, JEdit and so on. We have different languages. We have different databases. And each has its proponents who will tell you why you should use their approach.

What we do not have is a "Visual Studio" package that includes everything you need to develop software in one easy to use install. I mean include the language, development environment, database, build tools, and put it into a package that is well documented.

Microsoft wins?

[crhylove]

Microsoft has a hegemony for one reason, and one reason only: Games. There are very few games on Mac and Linux.

If Mark Shuttleworth bought Take Two, and released GTA only for Ubuntu, well.....

I know plenty of non-gamers that are switching to Ubuntu as it is. And there are a FEW games on Linux, such as the excellent "Urban Terror".

Now if only I could get high res textures in Mupen....

rhY

Re:Microsoft wins?

[crhylove]

Well, I'm just saying one REALLY great game that was Ubuntu exclusive would pretty much wipe out MS hegemony at this point.

My personal pick would be online GTA with speex for every player in EAX, but a wiser choice might be some ridiculously fun version of Mario Kart, or even Tetris or something.

rhY

DOH! or, How to write an uninsightful article

[Colin Smith]

What he's really talking about is the Network Effect, but doesn't seem to realise. The Network effect is why we speak national languages instead of reegional ones, why some form of English is ultimately going to replace all others, why TCP/IP is the only protocol our machines talk now. Why all keyboards are querty. Why we use the same currencies, why we all drive on the same side of the road. There is utility in all things being the same.

It also applies to user interfaces, libraries, operating systems etc but to a much weaker level. This simply means that it takes longer for the users of the various interfaces, libraries, development tools to converge on the same solution. The need can't particularly great because if it was, the convergence would be happening far quicker. It'll happen over time in the Linux environment, in the meantime, the market is going through the various Linux softwares and choosing the one which fits their needs best.

Re:DOH! or, How to write an uninsightful article

[cyborg_zx]

There are some practical differences though.

Most keyboards are QWERTY, this is certainly the case for a good portion of the English speaking world. Of course not all the world speaks English. Either way it is only really a 'necessity' that all keyboards have the same layout if one intends for the users to be interchangeable between keyboards. If a user can happily switch keyboard layouts (this certainly being the case as keyboard mapping is very 'cheap' to change) or the user is only going to use one keyboard then it becomes moot.

The point here is that whilst you may say some form of English will replace all others the history of the development of language shows otherwise. The first thing to realise about human language is that because it is a set reciprocally defined conventions that evolve with usage and individual understanding there is no strongly defined standard. There have certainly been attempts to do so but such attempts to achieve this with human language have failed because the users of language seem so very determined to recombine, reuse, break and invent new grammatical constructs, words and concepts in an ad hoc manner that a formally parametrised language cannot cope with. As such we get pedants bemoaning nounification of verbs, verbification of nouns, split infinitives (despite being an artificial grammatical limitation of Latin that cannot be said to strictly apply to English), txt spk and so on. The simple fact is that, in a way, all human language is pidgin and as such the only quality a language really needs to be adopted is that it facilitates the exchange of information between its users within a certain degree of accuracy.

As such the reason why English has been successful is not because it is a standardising language, on the contrary, it is successful because it is promiscuous and tends to absorbs useful constructs and ideas that its users like with great aplomb. If we were still living in a world where communication between users of the various dialects of English was limited the end result would be a radiation of new language forms branching from English. However due to the high volume of cross-conceptualisation between various groups of English users this effect is being reduced and instead the lexicon of the language seems likely to continue to grow and diversify.

Now, what has this got to do with Linux? Well in the computing world we have not yet begun to deal with language systems that work like natural languages. Attempts to create, say, a formalised computer conceptualisation of English are frustrated by the nature of the way humans tend to find new and novel ways to morph the language. Simply put any static system is doomed to fail in an attempt to model English - as AI researchers have certainly been finding out.

Of course we don't need a communication protocol that is dynamic like natural languages in order for computer subsystems to communicate with each other, in fact, so far, we have only been able to really deal with ones that are clearly defined and have static instances.

So finally we get to my major point: when you have protocols, libraries, interfaces and so on that are all clearly defined and parametrised not only do we get the benefit of the fact that within these protocols we can be clear about meaning but intra-protocol communication is also vastly simplified. Translating English to French gives us the dual headaches of dealing with two dynamic languages with different conceptualisations of communication. Writing a windowing system that can understand how to deal with widgets from GTK, Swing, Aqua, Windows, etc... is a problem of a significantly reduced order of complexity.

So whilst it is certainly more straightforward to simply speak English in the computing world you at least have the chance of being able to translate to French if necessary and in the Linux world you can get a precise idea of what English and French formally say.

As such convergence really is not as important as intra-protocol communication. Therefore I think it would be most useful for developers to bear in mind how their systems will play with OTHER systems that are not their own.

Balmer was right - It's all about the Developers

[pilybaby]

Yeah I know it's cool to bash Balmer around here but he was so right.... "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!" Provide good development tools to develop software quickly and effectivly and people will choose your platform over the competitor platform that does not. Microsoft has been creating great development environments and languages for fast application development (VB etc) for years and they would be totally stupid to stop doing that now. It is what gets apps written for their platform which creates users, and so on.

The author DOES have a point

[Conanymous Award]

We forget easily that choice itself is a choice. It's really something optional. Choice is a good thing to exist, because at some point people will always ask for something different and better. N00b and Joe Sixpack users, however, only get confused by too much choice. They'll be happy with the tools that come bundled with their OS/computer. When (if) they become more computer and internet literate, they'll come looking for a replacement for that blue E, for example. To put it short: initial myriads of choice is bad, it confuses the user. The possibility to have more choice is good.

Re:It may be interesting to some that a lot of fol

[Taagehornet]

That said, there's a system now that could change all of that. It's called MSBuild and it ships with Visual Studio. For anyone who does command line builds and whose codebase is mostly managed code, I highly recommend looking into it.

Eh, you do know that such tools have existed for quite a while now? You might want to first check out Apache Ant, or if you're a .NET developer then take a look at NAnt instead. You'll find a good introduction to NAnt here.

Once you've gotten the hang of (N)Ant you might want to set up a automated build server: CruiseControl or CruiseControl.NET

I'm normally a big fan of MS development tools, but when it comes to automating the build process MS is really playing catch up.

Re:Mono-mono-culture

[cortana]

It's very cunning really. The CLR environment is so incredibly limited that in order to do anything useful or interesting, you have to rely on calling on code outside of the CLR; so any interesting/nontrivial .NET app ends up being wedded to MICROS~1's implementation, anyway.

Re:1995 Wants it's Non Free PR Back.

[cortana]

FYI, sysinternals publish a very nice TCPVIEW.EXE program that does the same thing on Windows. Of course, it's nowhere near as powerful as netstat (the version that ships with Linux' net-tools, of course, not the crappy ripoff that comes with windows) but that's always the case with GUI tools.

Preposterous.

[Inoshiro]

"Every job has its unpleasant parts, and while a F/OSS coder can skip them a commercial coder can not; if the spec calls for an embedded testing code, for example, or Doxygen comments, you put it in."

The percentage of non-FOSS which is documented and the percentage of FOSS which is documented are pretty similar in my experience. Perhaps you are unaware of the incredible 95% of software which is developed commercially, but which is not sold in a shrink-wrapped box in Circuit City. Many companies have internal IT departments which couldn't code their way out of a paper bag in VB, let alone document it. Go read the daily WTF if you think I'm lying.

"s/he might be wrong but at least the product is consistent, and not designed by a committee as it sometimes happens."

Andrew Morton. That's a name I can think of when I think of someone with vision for a particular FOSS project which are willing to say when things (don't) match their vision. Linus Torvalds also fits this bill. There are similar names in other projects, but I'm most familiar with the kernel.

"These clones haven't been weeded out by the market, and so many of them are not viable - but they are out there,"

The weeding doesn't occur at the store level, it occurs at the reputation level. All FOSS stuff is staked on reputation. If you have a high reputation, you are going to be used more and included in more distributions. If you are a crappy app, you'll never see a real user base. Since the programmer is programming for ego (see the somewhat inaccurate women/baby analogy), the programmer should be motivated to produce better work which becomes more popular. The KDE programmers sure seem to have worked to make sure that KDE is useful. The Gnome programmers have also worked towards some mindshare. Given how people used to choose window managers, but now choose desktop environments, I'd say that these programmers have changed the game wrt GUI interfaces on Linux. That sounds much like a market shift, but with eyeballs and hearts instead of money.

"Effort dispersed, spent on competing projects is ultimately wasted."

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess you're just a troll. Or you simply don't understand what FOSS is.

<AOL> YES! YES! YES! </AOL>

[hummassa]

at least 15 thousand software packages do exactly this: provide the source and let others filter out the differences.

I'd like to know

[epine]

If only I could get a look at the user-agent strings to see how many of the "all praise consistency" crowd have posted their comments under Firefox. Those of you who did should feel a small twinge of moral ambiguity the next time you open a page under tabbed browsing. Microsoft only came out with tabbed browsing when choice put their back to the wall. I was reading the other day that ninety odd percent of the world's food production is confined to twenty odd species of plant and animal. While we're on the subject of restricting choice for the greater good, I hear that arranged marriage offers many practical efficiencies.

Definitely

[NekoXP]

Simply put, he's right in a way. After all, developing software for an environment you choose, means anyone who didn't choose your environment who wants to run your software has to switch, or install more software, and deal with the problems possibly associated with such a thing.

Remember when KDE, GNOME, Xfce and Enlightenment didn't share a desktop API? Look now at how Enlightenment reinvents everything using it's own special libraries? While Enlightenment has some distinct advantages over the way the others are designed, it is a DIFFERENT system. Want to install a GNOME core application on KDE? Well, you have to drag in most of GNOME, still. The same in reverse. Install Enlightenment tools on top? Well you have to drag in the rest of the E17 framework.

Install X on my system, and it still pulls in 5 different sound daemons.. yikes, and yikes again. Xine, MPlayer and GStreamer/Totem too. They all use the same libraries after all, but do I need 3 different ways to play a movie?

I personally prefer GNOME and Xfce if only because they use the same GTK toolkit - however I personally loathe GTK and the GTK API. I don't want to even get started in Enlightenment.

So, when you sit down and use Windows, what do you do? Well, you're pretty much stuck using Windows. And for all intents and purposes, there is a strict set of toolkits and APIs they provide for you (DLL hell wipes that off the map though). There is no "which API do I use to open a window and add a button" if you are using VisualC++ and reading the documentation, it will pretty much railroad you into one choice. But there ARE other choices.. they are just less obvious and less relevant.

I think this is why I like the concept of RAD stuff like Ruby On Rails, however I do hate Ruby, and Python, and I never got into Perl in a big way, and while I'm stuck with PHP, it's because it's closer to C++, which I absolutely love. If I had a choice I'd be coding everything in C++, with a single toolkit, but unfortunately because everyone else makes other choices, I can't.

Does my life deserve to be made this difficult by virtue of the freedom of choice? Probably ;D

Re:Definitely

[frogstar_robot]

I use GTK apps in KDE all the time. It just doesn't seem that heavy. I've also noticed that many so-callled "GNOME apps" really just need GTK. I use a similar GTK theme so that everything doesn't look all cruddy when I fire one up. Back when I played with GNOME, I noticed the reverse isn't as true. While there ARE apps just need QT, they tend to be a handful of commercial apps. Firing up KWord or Konqueror does indeed start up a large chunk of KDE. It isn't entirely fair but running a slew of GTK apps in KDE is neither jarring to eye and hand nor terribly expensive in terms of system resources. I'd feel really annoyed by this except that I happen to like the KDE Desktop better (no flames - it's just a preference. GNOME is perfectly good for those that like it. yadda yadda......)

Now, there are GNOME apps that will indeed cause a slew of GNOME related things to start up (Nautilus say) but then they all have decent KDE equivalents. I don't encounter them in practice. Again this doesn't seem entirely fair but........

Hogwash.

[jotaeleemeese]

In the Linux world we have 2 dominant windowing systems: GNOME & KDE.

If you really wanted to you could develop for one of them (hint: Ubuntu, Red Hat and Fedora are GNOME shops, sorry Kubuntu guys, the distro is too green) and let the comunity port to the other, and you would have all your bases covered.

The no coherence argument is ludicrous, the Linux community has decided to have two main graphical environment, with several others for falling back or for specifical situations (low memory, low spec machines, etc).

The too much choice argument is a way to weasel out, it is a non argument frankly.

What a load of tosh.

[jotaeleemeese]

If you think there are no arguments and forks inside MS then you are more naive than is decen to be.

The only difference is that they happen behind closed doors and you rarely hear about them.

If you want any indication that there are forks, simply look at 2 major consecutive versions of most MS offerings, in some cases are so unrecognizable from its predecessor that you wonder if the latest development team kidnapped the previous one and sent them to Guantanamo or something like that.

Re:What a load of tosh.

[mrsteveman1]

Thats my point, microsoft ends up with a finished product, and FOSS ends up with 12, none of which do it very well.

Don't confuse shoice with chaos.

[jotaeleemeese]

A company can limit perfectly their choice of products and technologies to open ones, once that choice is made inhouse developpers must constrain themselves to use that limited "approved" set.

Don't demonize abundance of choice when the problem is lack of clear management strategies.

I love Linux...but as a software engineer...

[zurtle]

I also love Kubuntu and use it on all my machines at home... However I develop for Windows at work. Developing application in Windows can be as easy as VB. As far as I have seen there is nothing on this (OSS) side of the fence that comes close to it for ease of use, with (reasonably) good debugging. From there it's a skip and a jump into C# and beyond.

As a (bad) example of how far UIs have to go, I use Visual Studio 2005 at work and I use Matlab for my postgrad work. Both professional, closed-source products. The Matlab debugging facilities pale in comparison to Visual Studio's power. Makes life so much easier. I find Matlab a bit archaic, but KOctave seems even worse. I guess Matlab only has to do better than Octave on Linux systems.

Of course my argument is omitting things like Eclipse... but I have only used it a few times and found it too slow (slower than VS.Net!!) and user unfriendly.

Re:I love Linux...but as a software engineer...

[JesseMcDonald]

Developing application in Windows can be as easy as VB. As far as I have seen there is nothing on this (OSS) side of the fence that comes close to it for ease of use, with (reasonably) good debugging.

Have you tried Gambas by any chance? I don't know about the debugging support, but the interface and language are very similar to VB.

Re:I love Linux...but as a software engineer...

[metamatic]

Try RealBASIC. It's VB for Linux (and Mac).

Re:I love Linux...but as a software engineer...

[darkwhite]

I hear you. Visual Studio is still by far the best IDE out there, one of the few competently made and well-organized products at Microsoft. Meanwhile, I think engineers and scientists have this die-hard attitude that enamors them with Matlab and other, even worse products (you think Matlab is bad? Try using IDL sometime) or at least gives them this notion that it's an OK development environment, whereas it just plain sucks in most respects.

Eclipse however might save things yet. It's a little bloated, but very usable for Java if you have enough RAM, and support for other languages is coming along steadily (if slowly). I wish there was an OSS project for a data programming environment and language that didn't suck. Hmm...

Re:I love Linux...but as a software engineer...

[Bluesman]

The reason engineers use Matlab is because it has a ton of stuff built in that is extremely useful to engineers.

So it's a very simple way to do quick and dirty simulations. Want an FFT, or a FIR filter? They're built-in.

I have a B.S. in CompSci and I'm doing my masters in EE. Because of my background, I can't stand the awful Matlab programming language that obviously started simple, and was continuously extended based on whatever the popular programming paradigm was at the time. I do all of my simulations in Lisp. But I have to write many things from scratch, like a function which generates average white gaussian noise. Matlab has a randn() function for that. And the Matlab plotting functions are much better than Gnuplot.

Not to mention, Matlab's built-in matrices are a real boon if you need them. Only Python comes close with Numpy and Scipy.

But anyone without a B.S. in comp sci would take ten times as long to do the things I do in Lisp. For them, Matlab is the obvious choice. For me, it's a toss up, but my preference was for a real general purpose programming language.

What would be really cool would be a Lisp->Matlab compiler.

Unnecessary nitpicking.

[jotaeleemeese]

I am sure any user of any complex piece of software is going to find different pet peeves.

The reality is that Linux works, and like with any other software product, not all design decisions will adjust to your view of what is logical.

Of course if most people decide that the design choices are shitty then the product will not be popular and will not be used.

Well, great, we have discovered the black thread, what is next, the wheel?

That's the wrong end of the stick

[ChameleonDave]

Although Linux distros have many flaws, they have nothing to do with the reason why most people and businesses use Windows.

Linux and Open Source are new as a mature software solution. Microsoft started dominating the market many years ago now. If everyone bought computers today and gave them to employees that had never used a computer before, then of course we would win. But that is not the situation. Companies have documents in Word format; they have employees who think the big blue e equals the internet; people have paid for licences already. It will take time, but we will win.

Re:John McCain on the Daily Show: Bomb bomb bomb

[dreamchaser]

Yeah yeah I know I was being a smart ass. Sorry about that (sort of).

I haven't seen a thing about this implosion of McCain's yet. This is the only place I've heard about it.

Complete bunk.

[jotaeleemeese]

IT managers and CIOs know there are several commerciallly supported versions of Linux.

IT managers have had to deal with far more complex decisions when each company was pushing their own OS (at some point you had many different versions of UNIX, VMS, Windows, OS2, MSDOS, MacOS, and many mainframe propieatry ones (CANDE, A12 and who knows what else).

If anything, IT decision makers have it immensily easier now a days: one of the few remaining UNIXes for mission critical, scalabel problems, Linux for mission critical problems (mostly Red Hat) that may not scale well, Windows, Linux (Ubuntu I would say, Red Hat is good as well, SuSE) and OSX for desktop systems and departamental servers,

How chaotic is that?

Only lazy people want a one size fit all solution, that in the long term will cost them more money than the time and effor invested in doing a proper evaluation of what is available out there.

You must be joking.

[jotaeleemeese]

What the heck is "difference of taste"???

You clearly wanted to use choice, or need, but taste?

You are just trying to hide behind a lame word your bias.

In any given healthy market you will have lots of choice. The OS market is not very healthy, the abomination WIndows VIsta is is enough proof of that.

Lack of choice equals shitty products.

Re:You must be joking.

[heinousjay]

No, I clearly meant taste. After all, it was my thought I was expressing. Thanks for telling me what I'm thinking though. I enjoy that sort of arrogance you only get with geeks and young adolescents.

Article is studid, not worth the network bandwidth

[bonefry]

The second I encountered this text ... "It has a couple of really cool features, like the virtual, override and new keywords that let you specify what should happen when you cast a class to it's base class and then call a method on it that's defined in both." ... I stopped reading.

The author is referring to the way polymorphism works in C# ... and of course naming a facility by its proper name is not important in engineering.

But besides that ... C# introduced explicit virtual methods just because of speed concerns. If a method is not a virtual one, there is no need for the runtime to do dynamic dispatch.
The problem is ... it is a facility introduced only for the sake of speed optimizations, and its just making the language harder to use.

The flaw here of course is that there are always new optimizations introduced in newer virtual machines, and the good old Smalltalk, one of the most dynamic languages in existence, can give both Java and .NET a run for their money.
In the end such optimizations become bottlenecks, and for example multi-core processors prove that garbage collectors are superior to manual memory management.

If that's the case, shouldn't Apple be in the lead

[jimstapleton]

I thought Apple had fewer software options for most tasks than Windows, at least it has always seemed that way to me.

Likewise, BSD has fewer software options for most tasks than Linux since it has less development, so why does Linux take the OSS business market instead of BSD?

Note: I don't intend this as a flame at all, I like one of the OSes that this says should do good based on the logic, and I don't like the other. I like one of the OSes that looks like it should be bad in this comparison, and I don't like the other. I'm just saying the arguments logic doesn't seem to add up to me.

Re:If that's the case, shouldn't Apple be in the l

[night_flyer]

yes and no... the IBM compatible PC won out over Apple... you could have your choice of "X" machines that all run windows, or an apple.

Standard interface with more "other" options wins out over standard interface with few "other" options...

kinda like the old Henry Ford quote... you can have any color you want as long as its black

Exasperation indeed

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Is it me, or should this post be modded "troll"?

It's not just you.

That is unfortunate, because people like you and posts like the one you just wrote are exactly the reason Linux is not catching on as fast as might otherwise be expected. You are the modern equivalent of the "RTFM, n00b!" morons on IRC. You are marginally more polite, but your immediate assumption is that the GP post is trolling, and not simply the real life experience of a somewhat technical but non-expert user who is considering moving from the tried-and-tested ground of Windows to the brave new world of Linux, and who isn't going to bow down and worship at the altar of Ubuntu before he's seen his miracles.

Instead of providing constructive advice about Python, for example, you mock the poster for his lack of knowledge, and make a flippant reference to Google. Of course people like the GP poster know how to search using Google. The point is that on familiar ground (Windows in this case), he doesn't have to. Thus expecting him to search on Google every five minutes for the first several weeks of setting up his new system is unrealistic. He won't waste his time doing that for long, he will simply switch back to using Windows, where the stuff he wants to do can be done easily in a way he already understands.

This is the challenge facing the Linux community, and smugly, arrogantly, pretentiously denying it isn't going to convince anyone about the merits of Linux as a platform — quite the opposite, most likely.

Re:Exasperation indeed

[Cro Magnon]

Bingo! The last time I tried to install Linux, it was a royal PITA. I managed, with time, effort, and googling, to get things mostly working, but if it was that hard for me, 90+% of the people wouldn't have bothered.

Linux was fine when I was young and had nothing better to do than tinker. But now, I'm old, I have bills to pay, and I have a social life. Maybe I'd have the brains to figure out how to get Linux working on my hardware, but I doubt that I have the time.

Ease of learning vs. Ease of use

[Nurgled]

The difference between a GUI-based configuration and a file-based configuration is that the former is easy to learn but the latter is easier to use once learned. If all you're doing is tinkering, then I'll grant you that having a GUI setup can get you up and running faster, but I work with both IIS ans Apache servers every day and the IIS ones are far harder for me to maintain because I can't quickly remove chunks of the configuration, or search inside the configuration to find a particular setting, or use search and replace to change a particular setting throughout the entire configuration.

A GUI also makes it far harder to automate administration tasks. On one of our servers the Apache configuration is generated dynamically from a database, because all of the sites hosted there are configured very similarly. I can deploy a new site just by adding a new entry to the database and restarting Apache. I'm guessing that there is a way to do such a thing with IIS, since IIS's admin interface uses some sort of RPC to communicate with the service, but I can't reuse my skills learned doing manual configuration when setting up my automated configuration; with Apache, I already knew what the virtualhost directives needed to look like so writing the script to generate them took only half an hour or so.

Re:Ease of learning vs. Ease of use

[Allador]

Thats one of the nice things about how Microsoft does pretty much every single server product they have.

There's the GUI for light-weight admin, or entry-level folks, or one-off admin.

There's the command line clients for batch style automation when you need.

There's the WMI/ADSI/COM interfaces for real programmability when you really need to get down and dirty.

Pretty much every single product in the MS stable exposes all three of those interfaces. So if you want to start editing the metabase.xml directly for IIS, and therefore your first learnings arent wasted, then just do that! Dont use the GUI at all.

Open monoculture ?

[Valtor]

...But there is too much fractured choice in the OSS community... I agree with you. I hope one day we will see an OSS platform that enforces some kind of "open monoculture", if of course such a thing is not a paradox. Otherwise, I don't see how OSS will take the crown away from the other monocultures like M$.

A platform such as GNU/Linux fulfills the needs of a minority. Don't get me wrong, I've used and love Linux since 1995, but it does not fulfills the need of the majority of computer users who needs well defined rules on how things must be implemented to integrate well.

I thought we had a winner with BeOS! I'm so sad it did not fly. I think we can pretty much put the blame on the lack of device drivers. And I think any platforms that wants to dethrone Windows will need to implement a very good "Windows drivers" compatibilty layer. It's sad but might very well be inevitable.

Valtor

Grails vs Rails

[HardWoodWorker]

The author mentioned

Do we really need Ruby on Rails AND Groovy on Grails? Rails and Grails address different market segments. Ruby only has a hope for adoption in new development projects. Grails can be crept in gently into Java projects. Groovy and Grails compile to Java classes and are indistinguishable from ordinary classes written in Java. Ruby is a relatively unique language whereas Groovy is more like reformed, dynamic Java. We mix Groovy and Java in our projects now and are very happy to have new tools to accomplish our tasks. I don't want to go out and learn a new language, like Ruby, but I sure as hell don't mind making the tiny leap to learn Groovy.

I realize this is only a minor point in his argument, but makes me seriously doubt his credibility. Just because Grails and Rails sound alike doesn't mean they're interchangeable and that one or the other in pointless as he implied. Also, most intelligent people aren't bothered by the having too many choices, but more by having too many bad choices. Sure, we have Solaris, Linux, and BSD kernels all competing to run our server apps. Most don't mind since all 3 are solid choices. The problems come about when you have 12 different Java MVC frameworks, all of which are severely lacking in at least one area, presenting you with no clear choice. You can use struts and it'll be fast, but kludgy and lacking any good view-related features. You can use JSF and get great view features, but a noticeable performance decline in most circumstances and a very strange controller model.

Re:It may be interesting to some that a lot of fol

[Nurgled]

Your comment covers my two main bugbears about IDEs. The first is the assumption that I want the entire project available to me at all times. I'm generally only interested in a tiny subset of the system at any particular moment. It's true that I could set up separate IDE projects for each sub-component, but it's far easier to simply only load into my text editor only the files I'm interested in. I cringe when I watch my IDE-using coworkers clicking frantically around the deep tree of files in the project trying to find the one they want to edit, when I just use the filesystem browser integrated into the shell -- which is designed for quickly navigating to files -- to locate the file and drag it into my text editor.

The second is the integration between the editing, build and deployment. Most of the time I'm writing web apps or other server-side code. Therefore the machine I'm running the IDE on (my workstation) is not where the project needs to be built to (my development server). I gave up trying to figure out how to get Visual Studio.NET to build and deploy my ASP.NET Webservices assembly to the server when I press the "build" button, so I just wrote a simple Perl script to parse the .csproj file and run csc directly. In other situations I've needed to actually build the project on another machine, perhaps because it has libraries available that I don't have on my workstation. At this point, the "build" function in my IDE becomes pointless and I might as well just use a good text editor.

Microsoft's tools are getting better, though. The above situation with ASP.NET Webservices was a while back, before MSBuild existed. More recent versions of Visual Studio.NET actually generate MSBuild scripts for their project files, so my Perl script can now be replaced almost entirely by running msbuild.exe. I still have a wrapper around it that lobs the binary on to the server, though.

Visual Studio just plain makes life easy.

[Dan_Bercell]

for people who develop for Windows, the Internet and smart devices using the Visual Studio IDE simply makes life easier.

Re:Visual Studio just plain makes life easy.

[ficken]

What about Eclipse? I started out developing C# on Windows and have since moved to concentrate on Java and Python. To me, Eclipse is a far superior IDE. Most programmers that I know don't say "I think I will write this app for Windows because VS .Net is easy to use". Instead, most say "I think I will write this app for Windows because that is what I will make the most money on." Open source must walk a fine line to stay competitive in capitalist economies.

Re:Visual Studio just plain makes life easy.

[Dan_Bercell]

I am not saying VS is the best IDE out there, however Microsoft promotes programming on it's platforms and they really push hard to use Visual Studio to do it with. I find that visual Studio 'just works' which is a really strong selling point in this world.

I come froma different view, I started out on different languages (I was a big fan of Java) and have since moved onto C#.

and the facts don't follow, either

[patiodragon]

The argument seems to imply that *nixes have "lost". Stick a fork in their butts and turn them over because they are finished.

I'm no veteran, but for 7 or 8 years now I keep reading these stories about why linux / free software is so bad, but my expereince has been that its popularity and ease of use has only increased exponentially over the same time period. Major corporations are integrating free software in their businesses. People are getting an operating system AND just about every app they could ever need for free and they are writing complaints about how their mouse isn't wireless! This is great news, not bad. The article is trying to spread FUD.

Choices for Opening a Window on the Win32 Platform

[Nurgled]

• The CreateWindowEx C API?
• The MFC wrappers?
• WTL?
• System.Windows.Forms .NET API?
• System.Windows.Controls (and friends) .NET API? (WPF)

Of these, I can rely on the first being present because it's roughly equivalent to using the raw X API: it's as close as you can realistically get to talking directly to the windowing system in Windows. MFC and WTL can at least be built in a way that doesn't create extra dependencies for the user; in MFC's case, we can statically link it. But I can statically link Qt/Gtk to my app too, if I like. The System.Windows.Forms .NET API requires the end-user to have the .NET Framework installed, and I have to be careful about my use of new features in the 2.0 release if I'm aiming for people who only have Framework 1.1 installed. WPF is only available since .NET 3.0, so therefore only available for people keeping their Windows XP machines up to date (it does, at least, install through Windows Update) or people running Windows Vista.

Running an app that targets a .NET Framework version you don't have installed is roughly as annoying as installing a Gtk+ app when you've got a wholly KDE-based desktop. At least in the latter case I usually have a package manager to worry about it for me!

Like Windows is better

[bonefry]

I forget what the exact problem was, but in order to change a *BASIC* system setting, the instructions required that I directly edit a system file. Excuse me?

Like in Windows when you have no other choice but to edit the registry is better ?
A quick example ... to fine tune the Cleartype settings in Windows Vista you have the option to:
a) tweak it by modifying the registry
b) installing a little utility designed for Windows XP ... and doing it with administrator privileges and with a big warning saying that you're doomed because that little utility was not designed for Vista ;)

Also ... this is a mindset of UNIX system administrators which find it way easier to modify a text file then to use a point and click interface.
I am in that category too ... and I find Apache a lot easier to configure and customize than IIS ... but YMMV.

Linux has lots of monocultures

[massysett]

Linux has lots of monocultures--pieces of software that have become mostly standard:

* the Linux kernel (rather than, say, the Hurd)
* X.org (rather than XFree86, which is now dead)
* bash (rather than ksh, csh, tcsh, or my favorite, fish)
* Apache (I had to look at Wikipedia to see if alternatives even exist)
* MythTV (any other Linux PVRs?)
* GCC, and for that matter, most GNU tools

Perhaps usage standardizes on one piece of software when that benefits people, but usage fragments when there are benefits to choice. Doesn't seem like a problem.

Re:Linux has lots of monocultures

[ficken]

* the Linux kernel (rather than, say, the Hurd)

I think you are unintentionally reverting to the point you are trying to make. Of course the Linux kernel is in the 'monoculture'. Thats the point.

* X.org (rather than XFree86, which is now dead)

True.

* bash (rather than ksh, csh, tcsh, or my favorite, fish)

I prefer tcsh when I do some things, bash on others. There are many shells available.

* Apache (I had to look at Wikipedia to see if alternatives even exist)

lighthttpd, any web based RPC service (twisted, perl rcp, etc)

* MythTV (any other Linux PVRs?)

true

* GCC, and for that matter, most GNU tools

Sun and BSD both use GCC. It is not limited to Linux.

Re:Linux has lots of monocultures

[harriv]

* MythTV (any other Linux PVRs?) VDR.

Re:Linux has lots of monocultures

[colinrichardday]

But the very replacement of XFree86 by Xorg shows that Linux monocultures lack the permanence of their MS Windows counterparts.

I don't really care what others think

[raddan]

Seriously, who cares if the guy down the street doesn't use Linux because there are "too many choices"? Linux and its ecosystem of tools were written by people who needed to get things done. If the guy down the street just wants to play computer games, or write Word docs, and he doesn't want to bother with "too many choices", then good for him, he'll use Windows. And that will be fine for him. For me, at work, and in my personal life, Windows is a major fucking impediment to getting things done, and so I prefer Linux. The only thing that Linux is not suited for, in my opinion, is managing Windows (like maintaining your AD), and thank God for Parallels. But seriously, too many choices? Why should I bend over backward because some dolt (who doesn't seem to understand that in life, there is more than one way to solve a problem) can't grok Linux? Fuck that.

I'm happy with my tools. Sure, it's a psychological tenet that people are overwhelmed by too many choices. My personal tenet says that most people are dumbasses.

Re:I don't really care what others think

[DaveV1.0]

90% of business is getting done on Windows, not Linux. If Linux is for "people who needed to get things done", then Linux would be the platform of choice.

Re:I don't really care what others think

[raddan]

Your "90%" figure reeks of "90% of statistics are made up on the spot", but OK, I'll buy your number. 90% of the workforce uses Windows because most of the workforce is computer-illiterate. I am not. Windows is techinically capable of doing a lot of things with great effort and large sums of money that are trivial to do with Linux. My only point above was-- Linux is the right tool for the job, for me. Windows is not. Therefore, I will expend zero effort removing features that I need just to accomodate people who barely need to solve computational tasks to begin with.

I second what you say

[Latent Heat]

You can't get modded up beyond 5, so I will simply comment to endorse what you are saying.

The only thing I would add concerns the trepidation about developing for Linux GUIs. As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with Qt+ or GTK. My question is that if I am leaving a platform GUI such as Windows, why do I want to embrace another platform GUI such as Qt+ or GTK?

True, Qt+ is a somewhat portable GUI is that there is a Windows version, but then you have the famous developer seat-license fees, and there is some version of GTK under Windows of some controversial level of capability. I am betting on Java Swing. Of all of the non-Windows window managers, widget collections, and graphics libraries, it seems to be farthest along in offering everything GDI can do in terms of hardware-accelerated graphics, and it has FOSS support (check out the FreeHEP VectorGraphics package for generating publication-ready EPS output from Java Swing plots -- simply awesome)

I really think the GUI should be an independent layer on top of the OS because while I will get "locked in" to that GUI layer, I won't get locked in to the underlying OS, and I don't care if that OS is Windows, OS-X, Linux, Solaris, whatever. There are other independent GUI layers (Python-wxWindows, Python-TK, GTK and Qt+ to a degree), but Java Swing is the most capable of them all.

insert free advert for dotNET here ..

[rs232]

It looks like your trying to cast a class to it's base class without first defining a method.

http://www.faculty.english.ttu.edu/barker/4367/ima ges/ClippySuicide.jpg

Reason for choice

[JoeCommodore]

Because the current OS/apps 'everyone' uses (Windows)
has some serious problems
that in spite of all that support out there
have still yet to be fixed.

It sounds to me like it is pretty well broken
and I should look for something better.

Re:Reason for choice

[DaveV1.0]

If Linux is better, why isn't everyone using it?

Could it be that Linux has some serious deficiencies that are not being addressed?

Re:Reason for choice

[JoeCommodore]

So in your analogy McDonalds food is better because more people tend to buy it than something healthier.

Many people don't know/care what is good fo them in the long term. Those that do make informed decisions like I did.

Re:Reason for choice

[DaveV1.0]

Nice of you to put words in my mouth and misconstrue what I said.

To use your own words against you: People eat McDonald's food because it is better than eating a turd sandwich.

Re:Reason for choice

[JoeCommodore]

The main reasons Microsoft is like McDonalds is not particiularly because it is good but it is:
- convinent (theres one on just about every corner) so when people are hungry they can do a shopping cooking or just eat.
- inexpensive, it doesn't cost much, nor does it offer much beyond filling your belly.
- well marketed: kids are bombarded with advertising, drivers are constantly seeing the signs or billboards, etc.
- and in part for some, a treadition (you can always get a big mac at mcdonalds.)
- caters to the buy it now, eat it quick market (not really suited for the long term diet)
- an employer of a lot of young people

Microsoft plays on the same things, fast easy, convinent, though many experts will say it may be bad for you (security, monoculture, non-adherance to popular standards, etc.) it's all a natter of preference.

I guess I'm not a 'fast tech' computerist.

Re:Reason for choice

[colinrichardday]

The most serious "deficiency" of Linux is that is doesn't come preinstalled on ~90% of the computers sold on this planet. I don't know what Linus is doing about that.

Re:Reason for choice

[DaveV1.0]

I beg to differ. The most serious deficiency in Linux is that it's target audience is geeks. Because it is "for geeks, by geeks", things that would bother Joe Home User never get addressed.

Re:Reason for choice

[colinrichardday]

Does that mean that Microsoft Windows' greatest deficiency is that it doesn't target geeks, and is therefore susceptible to attack?

Re:Reason for choice

[DaveV1.0]

In a way, yes. But, I don't think the two are related. I think that Windows would be better if it targeted geeks more, allowing for more customization and control.

But, that is not why it is more susceptible to attack. That is because of the way they integrated IE into the Windows base code. And, that the code is so complex.

I'll shake my fist, thank you

[stuntpope]

I have nothing but distaste for the Microsoft monoculture and the blinders that result in people who know nothing except the Microsoft way. This was driven home to me recently when I had to take a .Net class from Learning Tree, and the teacher, who seemed very knowledgeable about the topic and had years of professional programming experience, asked "what's LDAP?" with a genuinely puzzled look on her face when I asked about using it for authentication. Oh, but she knew about Active Directory! This is just one anecdote among many that I witness that display the abject ignorance of computer professionals who think the entire computing universe is Microsoft or Apple, and perhaps that oddity Linux.

Dude, what are you talking about?

[Ayanami Rei]

1) Your software still looks like a 16-bit Windows application. I imagine the code isn't very portable to begin with. Hence your difficulty in porting.
2) GTK is your GUI target. If you need a C++-based library, then target wxWindows or QT (added bonus, you get Windows compatibility for free with those two).
There aren't any other choices. It really isn't as complicated as you make it out to be.

Re:If that's the case, shouldn't Apple be in the l

[DaveV1.0]

Apple lost out on hardware cost. Because Microsoft doesn't make and sell the computers on which Windows run, competition has driven down the cost of hardware.

I recently needed to purchase a new laptop. I looked at Apple/Mac and I looked at current Windows laptops. I ended up buying an HP for less than US$900 because the comparable Apple product was more than twice the cost.

Strategic Incompetence

[mkcmkc]

In my experience, nothing makes a monoculturist IT manager happier than being able to reply to some big ugly request for services with a simple

Sorry, but Microsoft doesn't do that.

And in many bureaucratic environments, that's the end of the story.

Re:Strategic Incompetence

[pipingguy]

Reposting one of my previous comments.

One slightly tinfoilish concept is that there is plausible deniability (and we thought that was only for US presidents and stuff) when using commercial software. In other words, since it was paid-for, blame can be placed elsewhere so that everyone "gets off the hook". Given most users'/executives' level of knowledge about software and hardware, this is maybe an effective "out" for problems whose origins are probably elsewhere.

I don't get it.

[Ant P.]

Which part of Linux has too much choice?

The GUI? GTK+ and Qt. Just about every system has GTK installed. If you want to complain about that, first show me three mainstream multimedia apps in Windows that use the same toolkit. There's a reason you don't see dozens of nonstandard bitmap-based apps on Linux. They look like shit.
The system binaries are glibc, gcc, ncurses, bash, etc. DLL Hell doesn't exist because the distros handle all the dependencies for you. The kernel setup is only a problem if you're writing drivers or have severe NIH syndrome.
For graphics you have opengl. For sound and input you have SDL, and optionally OpenAL if you want hardware accelerated sound. DX10 doesn't give you the option of hardware accelerated sound. How is that "better"?

Re:I don't get it.

[zzo38]

I tell you, too many distrubutions is some of the too much choice that confuses people. (Although I read a book about UNIX, and a year later the first time I used the UNIX command-shell I used it perfectly. Not everyone is like this!)

good strategy

[nightsweat]

Blame the user and tell him he's lazy for not understanding crap that just gets in the way of getting work done.

It's easier and more efficient to ask "paper or plastic" than to follow that up with "paper made from wood pulp or grasses?" "recycled wood pulp or all-new?" "paper from hardwood or from softwood?" "Made from trees from the Northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere?" "Bleached or natural?" "Logo printed on or blank?"

Sure, some people will want all these decisions, but they shouldn't be a requirement of the OS. Solve the Gnome/KDE nonsense and you'll see Linux propagate much more than it already is.

Furiously Spending as we speak

[twitter]

With that attitude you might actually start making money.

Oh sure, I'm not up to IBM standards so I'll never make money (five billion dollars a year) like they do. I'm a flunky that needs insane licensing, hard to maintain and featureless code that is somehow "easy to use." I'm tempted to say something snide about how rich I'd get shopping at outrageously expensive department stores, but many of them actually provide a service for their money so the comparison would not be fair.

Re:Furiously Spending as we speak

[dedazo]

Actually twitter, IBM doesn't so much make money as it just saves it by the truckload.

Unlike Microsoft, which has never engaged in massive layoffs.

You sure have great role models.

Re:Furiously Spending as we speak

[AJWM]

Unlike Microsoft, which has never engaged in massive layoffs

Sure. When you've hired thousands of "permatemps", you don't lay them off, you just expire their contracts.

Re:Furiously Spending as we speak

[dedazo]

IBM employs almost fifty thousand of these "permatemps" from India and China on L1 visas. When they get the shaft you rarely read about it on InfoWorld. So if your theory about Microsoft is true, then I guess that balances out nicely.

3. Hardware drivers

[walterbyrd]

There is also a lot of hardware that will only work with windows: combination print/fax/scan machines, wireless NICs, WinModems, specialized devices such as barcode printers, POS equipment, and so on.

Those who don't like Vista will stick with XP

[walterbyrd]

or W2K or whatever.

I don't know where this bizare idea that people will switch to linux, instead of staying with what they already have.

Variety, too spicy?

[CopaceticOpus]

The problem is not the existence of too many choices. The choices should be out there for those who need them, but they should also be transparent for those who don't need them. This is one reason Ubuntu has proven to be so user-friendly. It makes many choices for you by default, which are good choices for most users. It doesn't force users to think about choices that they don't really care about anyway.

On the other hand, I think that open source development often wastes much of its potential by creating too many varieties of products. I have a dozen video players installed on my system, and I'm still searching for a good one. There might be a good one available if the development work hadn't been repeated across so many similar products.

Re:If that's the case, shouldn't Apple be in the l

[jimstapleton]

Reasonable, though with my current experience, HP is one of the few companies where given the choice, I'd still pay the Apple premium (and then replace the OS).

Re:If that's the case, shouldn't Apple be in the l

[EEBaum]

Windows is in the sweet spot of how much it does without asking you, and in how many options it has. Linux does absolutely nothing without explicitly being told. Apple does a whole lot without consulting you for your opinion on the matter. Windows is in the middle, offering what many find an acceptable compromise of configurability and functionality.

gtk+ is also multi-platform

[joe_plastic]

gtk+ runs on win32 and Mac OS X quartz.
so it's really as simple as: QT, or gtk+ . If you like c++ then gtkmm or qt. There are also java and c# bindings.

Re:Choices for Opening a Window on the Win32 Platf

[NekoXP]

Indeed but pick a toolkit and take.. say.. Windows Vista. All of the APIs you wanted are there in the base OS install. Whether you use .NET or unmanaged code, the .NET stuff basically is a special language interface; it's no different to using a Python binding for GTK under Linux. The effect is, that you get to compile code in for the CLI, using managed code framework, rather than poke at the OS as low as you can go.

Sure, there are variants and wrappers but we are talking about the whole Windows windowing system basically layering substantial improvements in usability on top of the same basic Windows UI. Windows provides - since a long, long time ago - little utility functions so that if you DO want to draw a pretty looking button that matches system style, it is in fact a simple call away.

What if you want GTK and Qt apps to look the same? Well, there is no underlying standard X GUI toolkit, most applications have zero concept of what window manager is running around their window canvas, and when they draw a button border, they do it on their own special little GUI toolkit.

From a usability standpoint I think it's awful. Any OS that purposefully lets people install themes like a Denon HiFi (all black, with tiny charcoal-grey lettering, tiny blue lights and no contrast) means the system is basically totally unusable. I applauded Microsoft when they said they were code-signing themes and only allowing the two basic ones in XP; I love the way Apple apps pretty much all have to look the same way (even if they do change their mind every 5 minutes between candy and brushed aluminum). You get a button that looks like everyone else's buttons, so everyone can see a button and know it is a button.

FreeDesktop should, I think, define a standard "Window System Look" API and library somewhere which allows these things to be plugged together. A single and simple theming API which arbitrarily enforces certain usability points (standard window toolbar icons for example) maybe based around Cairo or something. Then, GTK and Qt and whatever else on the planet can just USE it. Want to draw a button? Yeah sure, do it in your own GUI toolkit API, after all there are some advantages of using either. But let's make them look the same and act the same without having to meticulously recreate theming on every toolkit known to man..

Re:It may be interesting to some that a lot of fol

[RightSaidFred99]

Nonsense. "A lot" is more like a very very few. You can break a project up into multiple solutions and use msbuild to tie them together, but edit them in VS2005. No sane person would develop in C# of VB in anything but VS2005.

The advantage that a good IDE gives you isn't something that "folks talk about" anymore than gravity is something "folks talk about".

Listen to me. I've got one week's experience.

[ballmerfud]

This has got to be the most backward-ass, half-baked, clueless assessment of why to use a product that I've ever seen --- "Please give me just one thing, because I am incapable of choosing from many other great alternatives. I'm incapable of developing my product so that it will work. I must be shown the way."

Let me give you a good reason why one and only one choice sucks -- when your one and only choice sucks. Visual Studio 2005 was, and in large part still is, a complete disaster. Don't believe me? Google 'Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 sucks'. Follow the first link, and read with horror how even the most ardent MS dev fan boys had their asses set ablaze by their wonderful lack of choice:

http://www.microsoftweblog.com/2005/11/05/problems -with-visual-studio-2005/

I've worked with Visual Studio for years (not weeks), starting with Visual C++ 1.52. I've seen it rise and fall, and let me tell you, it's falling now. Many experienced developers are still clinging to VS 6 circa 98 because everything since just plain sucks. That's what you get when have no choice -- no choice. Ask the ISV's that developed with Visual J++ how they felt when MS and Sun got into it and MS, throwing a hissy fit, just *drops* the product. Ask people who have developed millions of lines of code in Visual Basic how they felt when MS abandoned them and EOL'd Visual Basic. There's lack of choice for you.

This guy has one week working with a MS product, and now he's telling the rest of us the error in our ways. Why is this clueless drivel even on slashdot? I understand the right to post whatever your like on your blog, but you call this slashdot worthy?

Too much choice. You've got to be joking. Is that the best argument for using MS products?

Umm, choices..

[cheros]

"If one browser worked the way I wanted, all the time, then the other two would get deleted."

I have found only one single reason to hang on to IE, I have the displeasure to sometimes need ActiveX. If it wasn't for that I would have stopped using IE long ago. However, here again it's a choice for best fit. In a Win only world you would just be stuck with IE..

As for choice on word processors, I like OpenOffice better than Word, but that's because its word prediction feature is something I use almost daily. And my spreadsheet needs do not exceed Calc :-).

If you look at the overall picture there's almost no reason why I should stick with Windows either, and I don't - my desktop is running more and more time in Ubuntu :-).

Does that make me a Linux fanboy? Umm, yes, probably. I simply like things that work, and for me (as in 'for me PERSONALLY') Ubuntu does the job better than Windows. May not apply to everyone (nor would I say that), but it works best for me..

Yes I do

[melted]

I know about all sorts of other build environments. They're at a disadvantage now, because the only one that Visual Studio actually supports is MSBuild. Embrace and extend.

No lie

[melted]

Then Microsoft must be full of insane persons. Even folks who use Visual Studio use it as a glorified Notepad most of the time, without even attempting to use its project management.

How to fix this problem?

[zzo38]

I know Vista is no good. I have XP, but eventually I will also put another computer on the other side of my desk with Linux. Also many people find Windows easy so they use it (but there are also people that find Windows still difficult). And with viruses and spyware and other stuff it will make problems and slow down and nobody will know what wrong with this.

I have read these messages. The new game-console system that I am creating is designed to fix this problem (because it is more than just a game-console system). If you want something, get the DVD for it if you don't know how to do it yourself! But you still can do it by yourself if you want (unless the DVD is commercial and closed-source). Or, you could get a program written in BASIC and this new system will run it directly from the source-code without needing to do anything else. You can also edit it if you connect a (optional) keyboard.

I know there are many different Linux distributions, but I will make a new one that will work with your TV and/or VCR. (It might not be fully compatible with a DRM TV, I haven't tested it, but if you set the aspect ratio and just don't use the HDMI, then it should work OK.) I may fix the kernel (and even the BIOS) to provide compatibility. Most people can do it by just inserting the DVD and push START button (on the game controller or IR remote control), you don't even need to log in or anything like that. But, if you want, you can do nearly anything more complicated than this if you prefer.

Zoom out...

[JacksBrokenCode]

Nop. Most of them just want good software to use, some to support. None of them want software to sell. Notice how your favorite example, IBM, has almost all of its revenue coming from hardware and services. The same applies to Sun.

Just because the actual sale isn't occuring on the software doesn't mean the software isn't part of the sales-pitch. Having good software available for the hardware platform they are pitching is very much in their interest and impacts the ultimate sale.

Re:Blurb paraphrased: public = sheep

[davmoo]

Okay, that's where we disagree then...the definition of "viable". My definition is tighter than "can make the ballot"...I define "viable" as "could have a realistic chance of being elected". Ralph Nader was not viable, by my definition, because they will be serving ice water in Hell before he could get elected to national office.

Same old, same old

[Master of Transhuman]

Choice is bad - obeying is good.

Linux bad, Windows good.

I don't care if he's talking development environments, that's what he's saying.

Windows shill.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Carpeting choices

[Krishnoid]

I don't get it. When you have that many choices, can't you flip the problem around by visualizing a few choices of how you would like your house to look, then picking the closest matching carpet/style? That's what I do when considering a laptop purchase.

Oh, and re: making a decision; I'd start with Consumer Reports for the 'functional' parts (durability, stain resistance, etc) and maybe find some home visualization software, if such exists, and try out the various carpet types. Or, like I said, just close your eyes and imagine the possibilities first. Or go to a real carpet store and ask for suggestions on picking out a style. I figure people who work at dedicated carpet places would have some ideas.

Re:Blurb paraphrased: public = sheep

[plasmacutter]

and that outlook is the reason why "they will be serving ice water in hell before he could get elected".

if people voted based on what they want rather than how they think other people will vote those candidates would actually have a shot.

that kind of outlook is a self fulfilling prophecy.

I remember there being stories about this at the turn of the first millennium:
people were absolutely convinced the rapture would occur at the end of the first millennium, so they slacked off and didnt tend their fields properly, and loe and behold famine struck and killed them off.

It's a question for hobbyists, if that....

[Kazoo the Clown]

"Why does Microsoft win the development environment war so often, when we all know it's a lifetime lock-in to Windows?"

This question only makes sense when addressed to the hobbyist, not the professional. Though even in that context, I'm not sure it's even true for the hobbyist.

I mean, do you really think that any non-Microsoft IDE could ever do very well against a Microsoft IDE when developing for a Microsoft OS, whether or not it's open source, or even regardless of how good it is, when the non-Microsoft solutions will always be playing catch-up when new OS features are released? And of course, when Microsoft makes an active effort to induce new incompatibilities, often just to make it harder for the competition?

Serious developers will choose Microsoft development tools because they're developing for a Microsoft OS. Period. You might better ask why people choose to develop for a Microsoft OS, but once that choice has been made, the choice of Microsoft development tools quickly becomes a no-brainer. Unless you're on a very tight budget, that is (i.e., you're a hobbyist). No professional chooses a platform because of the development tools, they choose development tools because of the platform.

When and How

[stefaanh]

Software is made in layers, mostly. It is not always written with layers, but it 'is' layers. The stack is sometimes reordered, but it's layers all the same. Domain + Rules, Presentation + Manipulation, Implementation + Persistence. The layers that change the most often are technical layers like presentation + manipulation + implementation. All the rest is relatively stable. When you go for open source, you decide when to change the technical layers. You decide how loose the coupling is between the changing/non-changing layers. When you go monopolist, they decide when to change the technical layer. And mostly they decide how loosely coupled the layers are. Now which choice is best?

Non-sequitor

[einhverfr]

I'm leaving my company now, and I'm writing up some documentation on the systems I've left behind.

They're all similar. They are web apps which did similar things, so I wrote the applications in similar ways using similar technologies. The build similarly, they install similarly. I would choose new technologies as I went, if they were clearly better but I tried to fit them into my existing assumptions.

That is all fine as far as it goes. In fact that shows more discipline on your part and something you should be commended for.

Choice is great if you are a rogue cowboy developer. Lot's of stuff all over the place, bits and pieces thrown together. I remember a project we had here, it'd been outsourced to some third party. It came back with just about every piece of free open source software you can imagine. The data entry screens were Java running on Apache, the reporting screens were Python, the admin screens were running Perl scripts. The data entry stuff used Oracle, the reporting used postgres. The whole thing was tied together with some other bits of glue and tape. Thank God the morons who wrote it were horrible architects and the thing couldn't scale, otherwise this piece of unmaintable crap might have ended up in production.

This, however, does not follow. Your argument seems to be that, because you can make bad choices, that choice is bad. That perhaps we need to be protected from ourselves. Perhaps even that all software development should be done on training wheels.

The fact is, if you have any engineering skills at all, you are going avoid the problems you mentioned above. In short, blame the engineer, not the fact that the choice was available.

Platform lock-in, risk, lack of control

[j.leidner]

Like with political systems, market choices are difficult to handle and need *education* as a
prerequisite.

Platform lock-in is NOT the only problem: consider the fact that using proprietary technology
means that you give up control and thus create a risk, namely if your supplier has a bug in
their code, only they can fix it. Now if they are too busy (or you too unimportant to them),
this may totally screw your project in the absence of open sources.

In an open source project, however, you could hire a technical consultant specialised in your
product/API in order to fix a bug/add a feature, and feed it back in the community. You'd help
yourself and improve the world at the same time.

This is not Microsoft bashing, but a criticism valid for all kinds of black box technologies.

> Now, least you think I've been turned to the Dark Side, there is one BIG problem with a monoculture,
> which is that you've essentially sold your soul for the stability of a clearcut set of choices.
> You go down the .NET path, you're pretty much stuck there forever, Mono not withstanding.

Re:That's silly.

[Sancho]

Do you know someone who's actually done Linux support to verify these unfounded fears? Yes. I've known plenty of people who supported a number of Linux users in a non-homogeneous environment. Part of the problem was that the people who were familiar with Debian knew apt like the back of their hand, but had problems with RPM. Reverse that for people using a Redhat-based distro. Gentoo baffled many of these people, until someone took the plunge and started messing with it. Now you've got Ubuntu, which prettifies a mostly Debian-back end, but if you go in and change something the old-fashioned way, the GUI stuff sometimes ceases to work.

The one good thing I can say about most pre-Ubuntu Linux users was that they had slightly more knowledge. They knew that they were using an alternate OS, and they typically knew the name of the distro they used, so you didn't waste any time trying to figure out which of the multitude of initialization scripts, package managers, and even (in some cases) default window managers were around. People who switched FROM the norm (both within Linux, in the case of the window manager, and in general, in the case of using Linux at all) tended to know what they were using. That didn't mean that support was easy.

Your buddies complain about 3 versions of Windoze because they don't work together - each has it's own arbitrary and insane limitations of a sort not found in the free software world. Simply untrue. One example is Network-Manager, which can't handle certain wireless NICs because they don't talk to the kernel the using the same interface (and we're not even getting into NDIS stuff, here, which is a completely different issue.) Furthermore:

free software all works together Be careful with this. Linux kernel versions may expose or modify APIs causing breakage. Some open source software targeted at Linux simply does not run on other free and open operating systems, such as FreeBSD or OpenBSD. ABI changes in libraries can cause conflicts--installing both libraries can be difficult (if not impossible), meaning that software which relies on a specific version may be incompatible with software relying on a different version (I've seen software which required me to downgrade my version of libc, for example).

Free does not mean that it will work together. A worst case scenario is that you can make it work by rewriting it or fixing the code, but when we're defining success by comparing the user base, you have to take into account that most people won't be able to manage this sort of thing.

Note that this doesn't make it worse than the Windows issues. The fact is that software changes, and sometimes those changes cause incompatibilities. With the Windows monoculture, however, there's only ever one moving target. With Linux, there can be many.

I've been hearing this FUD about "confusion of choice" for a while. As usual, it's designed for people who've never taken so much as a peak outside their favorite non free OS. Anyone who's run free software for more than six months knows it's nonsense. I've been using Linux as my primary desktop OS for about 5 years now. FreeBSD is my server OS of choice. I haven't had Windows installed on a computer I own in probably 3 years, unless you count through emulation (which I use exclusively for support issues with family and friends). I hold to my opinion that confusion of choice is a legitimate issue. It may not be the fact that there are too many choices so much as the underlying reason that there are so many choices--FOSS developers target multiple platforms, interfaces, kernel/libc versions, etc. Spending the time and effort to actually make one distribution good (i.e. coding with that platform in mind, working on usability issues with that platform, etc) could have a good effect on Linux as a whole. Then again, it's also possible that it would become a "too many cooks" issue.

Sorry for repost, let me try this again

[colinrichardday]

Clickable link

Assumption is the mother of... well, you know.

[fyngyrz]

Your software still looks like a 16-bit Windows application. I imagine the code isn't very portable to begin with. Hence your difficulty in porting.

We use the most basic GUI API possible as a matter of policy. That is why you see the low color icons and so forth. It isn't an accident, or the result of "old code". Though it is a policy we've been following since 1985, when we released our first GUI program, PCLO, a printed circuit board layout CAD system.

However, your speculation on "difficulty in porting" is entirely off the mark. Our stuff is easy to port because the amount of dependencies on the OS, including GUI requirements, is minimal. The applications themselves are straight C code through and through. Our main apps were ported to Windows from the Amiga, a completely different system with a completely different GUI layer, in about two days. The application controls and signal catching are highly modular internally, and we have no problem whatsoever porting them. They were never "spaghettied" through the code, so it is not all that much work to replace them wholesale. The only potentially daunting task is bitmap conversion; there are hundreds of icon bitmaps buried inside Visual Studio, and getting them out is annoying to the tune of several hours of make-work.

Further, that same minimalist approach has meant that our software continues to work without changes on each successive release of Windows, and it also allowed us to port to the PowerPC, Alpha and MIPS versions of windows in very short order. Maintaining the RISC versions was a bit of a bitch because Microsoft kept doing things like invert the Y axis on font rotation and just generally foul up their RISC code. Our linux port was done in less than a week (and some of that was just fooling with different widget sets.) You presume we had "difficulty in porting", but that isn't what I said. I said we weren't going to release a port.

With regard to Windows, the same version still runs on 95, 98, NT, 2000, Me, XP and Vista. All releases and all service pack levels for all versions. The same system calls. The same code. It has to be recompiled for RISC targets, but that's only a minor problem; there's no difference in the GUI layer there, either. The lack of RISC machines is the real problem. Microsoft really screwed those people hard. But that's a different discussion.

The code for the application core is 32-bit and always has been (the Amiga offering / demanding a flat memory model long before Windows ever went there.) But even so, the current release version is anything but "16-bit." We're currently working on a 64-bit version that is broadly multiple CPU/core aware, and that is going to finally break our long chain of compatibility. I have to admit, way back in the 80's, 32-bit did seem like enough. Not that the tools really would have let us build a 64-bit app at the time. Still, although 32-bits is enough for a lot of things, 64-bit does some really nice things for deep pixel manipulation, and the new stuff is fun to fool with. We're still using the minimum calls to the OS, though. You never know what is around the corner.

GTK is your GUI target. If you need a C++-based library, then target wxWindows or QT

GTK is LGPL. So we can't use it. wxWindows uses GTK, which is LGPL, so we can't use it. QT is costly for a proprietary application, and again, that's not going to fly with a free product.

There aren't any other choices.

Yes. I know. That's the whole point.

Re:Assumption is the mother of... well, you know.

[Ayanami Rei]

Well, your app sounds nice under the hood.

But notwithstanding: LGPL means you most definitely can use it. LGPL does not require releasing the source of apps that link to them; that's the whole point. Five minutes of google would have told you that. So that's no excuse.

Re:I'm not sure...

[fyngyrz]

Hmm, I am not sure I would use any, non-strategic, software product again unless it was completely, openly GPLd, and could potentially live forever.

There's no particular reason to presume that WinImages will stop working, unless MS drops compatibility with its basic OS resources - there's no sign of that. And of course you can always run old versions of windows, sandboxed. In fact, that's pretty much the only way I run Windows these days, snuggled inside Parallels, networking turned off, happily inside an OSX window.

I see WinImages only supports through XP - you say Vista won't happen?

We're not going to make any changes for Vista; that's not to say that it won't work there. If Vista gets weird to the point where WinImages won't work, so will most everything else. We hardly use any system calls at all compared to most applications, the ones we do use are really basic (memory allocation... dialogs... widgets... windows.... menus... mouse... fread / fwrite / fopen / fclose) and the only DLLs we really depend upon are MS's own Visual Studio DLLs that define the system interface (which again, aren't about to go away) and DLLs that we supply that are entirely under our own control. Having said all that, we've done absolutely zero testing in/for Vista on the one hand, and on the other, we've had zero problem reports for Vista, and it's been quite some time now. So I think it's pretty safe to say that for the same reasons WinImages worked without changes through 98, NT, Me, 2000, and XP... it'll work with Vista, too. But no - I won't promise that, and we aren't advertising that. I keep meaning to run downtown and pester the local computer guy who has Vista running and run a basic test install, but you know, I really don't care that much. Vista is like XP; it is DRM'd out of the box with "activation" and I just think it isn't worthy of support.

What has happened to your past Amiga customers, now Windows.

Our Amiga customers were left with fully functional programs that worked 100% on the very latest OS Commodore shipped with the machines; we ran on every one from the lowliest 500 or A1000 to the last gasp towers. The Amiga market then completely lost coherence with CBM's demise, and has only gotten worse to this day. Nothing we can do about it. Windows is another ball of wax entirely. Activation DRM is everyone's concern, and as things stand today, we're not encouraging anyone to buy Vista because it is no better than XP in that regard.

When wither OS/X?

I can't answer that. I don't like to make promises we may not be able to keep. A couple of things, though; it isn't a port. It's a 64-bit app, brand new from the ground up, including new UI ideas. WinImages is the source for the technology, sure enough, but no code is being moved. So it'll be a while. You'll have lots of time to get used to Leopard, of that I can assure you. Once it is done and we're comfortable with the stability, we'll consider porting back to Windows. But that isn't a promise that we will do so. Right now, Windows kind of sucks. Microsoft has some things to do yet if we are to continue supporting new versions of the platform. And my feeling is that Microsoft doesn't really give a flying fig. However, my impression is also that most of he world doesn't give a flying fig about Vista, for a wonder.

Re:1995 Wants it's Non Free PR Back.

[Toby_Tyke]

If you're trying to do anything that doesn't have a GUI tool on both these OS's, you still need the command line. 2 concrete examples:

FWIW, I think the point he was making is that you are far more likely to have to "resort" to the CL in Linux than you are in windows, much like you're far more likely to have to "resort" to editing config files in Linux than you are in Windows. Sure, some tasks in windows are going to be better achieved using the command line, but in linux I have to use the command line, and edit a config file, to get my laptops TV out working. Most users never want to put Safari in debug mode, but they might well want to hook their laptop up to the TV for big screen WOW.

Now the reason I put resort in quotation marks is that I like using the command line (for some tasks), so thats not a show stopper for me, but it is for a lot of people.

Open Source is Driven By Interesting Factors

[podperson]

>> What commercial coding adds is discipline.
> Where in the world have you worked?

Commercial coding adds a "need to ship now" discipline that doesn't necessarily lead to good code. I doubt that Donald Knuth was driven by commercial pressures when developing TeX and Metafont. In many cases, good code is a result of the right person becoming interested in the right problem set.

It seems to me that the Open Source movement is driven in part by "commercial pressure" (programs people use are intrinsically more interesting than programs people don't use) but also things like "sexiness" (e.g. 3d animation tools or games are sexier than, say, spreadsheets -- which is why we have far more open source 3d toolkits, libraries, etc. than spreadsheets) and some kind of Je ne sais quoi I'll call "charisma" (e.g. FireFox for various reasons was far more charismatic than Mozilla).

One of the "sexiest" things for computer programmers is writing their own computer language. This is why the Open Source community is blessed and plagued by so many languages. For a programmer, how "fundamental" what you're doing is to the world of computers is a badge of honor, which is why designing languages and operating systems is cooler than writing compilers and editors is cooler than writing word processors and spreadsheets. It's also why anyone coding in an interpreted language secretly or not so secretly feels inferior to folks using compiled languages.

These are all natural phenomena. I think that the only solution would be for a bunch of very smart and egotistical people to swallow their own pride and decide, say, not to fork their own Python variant and instead just help make Python better.

Re:What Exactly Works?

[mishagam]

Microsoft's tools are limited. Very limited. That you have a problem with complexity outside Microsoft's use cases is very narrow-minded. There are so many use cases that fall outside Microsoft's development range, you simply haven't had any experience with them. And what exactly (besides compiling kernel) you can do in Linux which you cannot do in Windows? I mean if you want to compile your compiler or look on the code of you driver, I agree Linux is better. But if you want OS (and compilers) as tools - I didn't see any real Linux advantages. Java is better under Windows. Apache is easier to deal with on Windows. MySQL works on Windows just fine. Editors are mostly better under windows, and for maniacs there are good (as far as I see) emacs ports. May be SBCL Common Lisp compiler not ported to windows - but who needs Lisp anyway.
May be I don't understand pleasure of Shell programming, AWK and command line?

Instead of being content in Microsoft's walled garden, check out a Linux distro and see what it's like. It will be like going from AOL to a real ISP. Here's a good link to get you started on Debian. Save such advices displaying only your Linux inferiority complex for your children.

Re:1995 Wants it's Non Free PR Back.

[J0nne]

I personally prefer the command line and/or editing a .conf file for some tasks too (It sure beats navigating huge preference dialogs. Imagine how a preference dialog for Apache would look like if it were to include all possible options Apache has).

But the average user (browses the web, checks e-mail, gets pictures off his camera, ...) won't need the command line on any of those OS's, while the advanced user will have to resort to using the command line/editing .conf files/editing the registry once in a while. (Yes, I count the Windows registry as a huge .conf file, as that's what it basicly is, except that there's no comments with an explanation for *any* of the options).

Re:If that's the case, shouldn't Apple be in the l

[jimstapleton]

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

Although, I will say this - Linux does a lot without being told, depending on the distro (Gentoo is the only distro I've tried that does less without being told than FreeBSD), but the distros that do a lot without being told, don't always do the *right things* without being told, is another problem.

Re:1995 Wants it's Non Free PR Back.

[Toby_Tyke]

But the average user (browses the web, checks e-mail, gets pictures off his camera, ...) won't need the command line on any of those OS's, while the advanced user will have to resort to using the command line/editing .conf files/editing the registry once in a while.

Funny you should say that, because I just installed Ubuntu 7.04 on this laptop, and I had to use the command line to get the wireless card working so I could browse the web and check e-mails.

If I want to add another hard drive to my desktop, or set a network share to be mounted at boot, then I'm going to have to edit a config file. That's fine by me, I like the command line, but the point is that if I liked GUIs instead, then I would still be forced to use the command line.

I've used both Linux and Windows for years, and despite the leaps and bounds Linux has made over the last three or four years, you still find yourself on the command line or editing a conf file far more often in Linux.

Oh yeah, just for the record, in all the years I've been using windows, developing for windows, supporting windows, I have never, ever, edited the registry, or any other config file.

Re: Regarding Microsoft Development

[Douglas Goodall]

I remember back to the Microprocessor revolution, and there were a number of factors that were actually considered when chosing a platform for application development.

System power and capacity (speed and amount of memory available and required)

Connectivity (type and speed required)

User interface (type and resolution required)

Small applications could be embedded. Larger ones could be hosted on a microprocessor. Huge ones would end up on mainframes or super-minis.

After a certain level of complexity, applications broke the 640K limit and ended up in alternative operating systems such as Unix. Having to make platform decisions such as BSD/SYSV and OpenLook/X were serious committments. The fragmentation of the Unix community made it difficult to specify a particular vendor and platform because of unknow lock-in implications.

I do remember at that time we wished for a standard platform for general development with plenty of headroom and versatility. GNU compiler tools were not quite there yet and vendor language tools were expensive and often a lock-in. Unix was ominous, and NetWare was unstable/touchy. The Mac and Windows 3.0 had memory management difficulties.

When Windows 3.1 in enhanced mode arrived, memory management became easier. People writing non-trivial Apps used Windows if only for the memory model and later to use the GUI. There was a time I used to own a variety of compilers for the Dos//Windows platform and would use whatever was best for any particular application. With the advent of Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC), the vendor lock-in (Microsoft) began because the MSC usually came with their latest MFC version and competitive compilers usually had down level versions of the MFC. This was the beginning of the end in my mind. Visual Basic only made things worse.

Hard core applications such as Autocad were ported to "workstation" class machines and vendors bit the bullet when it came to porting costs.

In my mind, the arrival of the code wizards that would generate 28000 lines of code in a few seconds only made things worse.

Re:It's QWERTY look at the f'ing keyboard!

[Yogs]

To all the ACs.
Homophone based mis-spellings are common.

This one's pretty funny, but I'm not an idiot, just sloppy.
You sound like you're about to have a fit over it.
Now you tell me THAT is not pathetic.

Re:The Importance of one-click

[longdistancepaddler]

Linux is not an OS. Neither are any of the variations on Windows. The reason that I say this is that in neither case does the so called "OS" run the application. The application calls the required code in the os kernel when it wants to use it. The distinction may be subtle but is important nonetheless. Getting back to the original point, which is why hasn't Linux taken off? Apart from the obvious point of its lack of intuitiveness there is the apparently less obvious point of its price. Being free makes it worthless in the eyes of most software buyers. I am stunned that it has done so well. A measurable share of the OS market is far more than it should be entitled to hope for. I am not a big fan of windows but I like linux/unix even less.