Slashdot Mirror


Ubuntu To Pay for Upgrades To the Free Software User Experience

jcatcw writes "Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols reports that Mark Shuttleworth, CEO of Canonical, is using his millions to improve the Linux user experience, hiring people to work on X, OpenGL, Gtk, Qt, GNOME and KDE. He had doubted that desktop Linux could ever equal the smooth, graceful integration of the Mac OS. Now, between the driving pace of open-source development, and Shuttleworth's millions, it might be happening. Why not? After all, Mac OS itself is based on FreeBSD. Desktop Linux's future is starting to look brighter."

546 comments

  1. Interesting. by DoctorDyna · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since the summary mentioned it first, I've always been curious as to the logistics behind having OS X released as a desktop environment. *shrug* who knows, might be interesting.

    --
    Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
    1. Re:Interesting. by IANAAC · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I have a friend who is a die hard Mac fan. I don't really know that much about Macs, other than what people who use them (all fans) tell me.

      The other day though, he needed to chop up an audio file and didn't know what to do on his Mac. I didn't know either, but I do know how to do it with Audacity on Linux. So he sent me the file and then sat down with me as I did what he wanted. His only comment was "Wow, that's so easy on Linux". Granted, what he was seeing that was easy was in fact Audacity, not Linux, and I'm sure there is an easy to use app under Mac, but it's nice to see that, although Desktop Linux is constantly getting railed on, once someone not exposed to it actually sits down and sees what can be done, they're not intimidated by it.

    2. Re:Interesting. by am+2k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe somebody should point out that Audiacity works fine on Mac OS X, too (even without X11). I'm using it all the time for minor cropping/ogg-encoding work.

    3. Re:Interesting. by dunng808 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Audacity runs find on OS X. If you really wanted to help your friend you could have helped her install it.

      --

      Gary Dunn
      Open Slate Project

    4. Re:Interesting. by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I had to do that same thing the other day. I'm a Mac user, and I just used Audacity because I know it can do the job and it's free.

      What's the official Mac way? Probably QuickTime Pro (which you have to pay for, which has always annoyed me). Or a third party piece of software. Actually I think you can cut bits out with QT (non-pro) but it's a bit unintuitive. I considered using Garage Band (which I'm sure could do it) but that would be overkill.

      I've got to say, it was the first time I'd used Audacity in maybe two years. It was just as ugly as ever, unfortunately. It looks almost EXACTLY like the program that came with my SB16 in the Windows 3.1 days. It works, but could really use a little interface TLC, especially on the Mac (where the Linux/Windows style interface just looks even more out of place).

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    5. Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      helped him install it.

    6. Re:Interesting. by BPPG · · Score: 3, Informative

      In fact, it uses wXwidgets for it's GUI, which aims to be cross platform between windows and the *nixes. Really, more of a testament to FLOSS, if not Linux.

      --
      What's the value of information that you don't know?
    7. Re:Interesting. by MissVenatrix · · Score: 2, Informative

      I use Audiacity on my Mac too, works fine. Links for anyone interested. http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/mac http://opensourcemac.com/

    8. Re:Interesting. by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Audacity runs on macs. I tried it when I needed to extract the audio from a quicktime movie [Quicktime pro can do that, but I didn't want to pay the money]. Total failure. Garage Band was able to do it, though. Back on topic, I suspect Garage Band would have worked for splitting up the file.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    9. Re:Interesting. by N3Roaster · · Score: 1

      In fact, he could use Audacity on a Mac (the download page is the first hit when using Google to search for Audacity Mac) and it would be just as easy.

      Though my day to day work is mainly on Macs these days, Linux desktop development has come a long way over the past decade and there is still a lot of interest in making it better. It's great to see funding to keep these improvements coming and look forward to making the switch back to a new, improved Linux desktop at some time in the future.

      --
      Remember RFC 873!
    10. Re:Interesting. by am+2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the UI does suck, but when I have the choice between a sucky UI and not being able to do the task at all...

    11. Re:Interesting. by CautionaryX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Geeks don't know girls, I'm sure it was a him but the OP's fantasizing. (Note to mods: laugh a little).

    12. Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember many years ago when I tried using a Mac, I ran into this problem: In order to play a video file in fullscreen using Quicktime (the default video player), you had to buy Quicktime Pro. That always pissed me off so bad, it turned me off to Apple immediately. Still haven't gotten over it to this day. I hate Macs.

    13. Re:Interesting. by MBCook · · Score: 1

      They got over that. It runs fullscreen now without paying. But back then it wasn't a problem. I found a free little AppleScript that told it to play things fullscreen. Or you could just use another player.

      I really like Apple, but as I said I never understood the QT Pro thing. I just dropped a few grand on their computer and they wanted me to pay $30 for this little piece of software. It's not like I bought a low end iBook either, I bought a tricked out PowerBook.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    14. Re:Interesting. by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I have checked archive.org , at one point in history (1996 or 1997) half of Web embedded videos were Quicktime and other half was MPEG.

      I wonder what would happen if that idiot suit (sure it is not SJobs) didn't decide to ask for $30 to play fullscreen or make cut/paste editing. Just imagine it.

    15. Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1- audacity runs on Mac OS.

      2- GarageBand comes with every Mac and is much easier to use than Audacity.

    16. Re:Interesting. by Damek · · Score: 1

      Audacity. Lovely software. The thing is, and, it may be because I'm relatively poor and have never used any so-called "better" apps, but, I can't quite imagine anything doing basic audio editing too much better. Maybe advanced audio editing, but not basic, intuitive audio-editing. I mean, for me, it's basically a free & intuitive reinterpretation of the old Windows Cool Edit software, which was more than adequate, pirated haha.

    17. Re:Interesting. by calmofthestorm · · Score: 3, Funny

      I actually really like wx GUIs. But I'm a programmer, which makes any opinions I hold on GUIs automatically flawed.

      Anyone who has more than once contemplated if maybe he should forget X and just switch to a VT and screen doesn't get a vote.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    18. Re:Interesting. by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      And his Mac doesn't have Garageband installed? That works fine for general audio editing.

    19. Re:Interesting. by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      Or if MS didn't decide to make their own player and bundle it with every copy of Windows. Or if Flash video didn't become so popular due to everyone already having Flash. Quicktime was popular then because it was either that or MPEG. There really weren't many viable alternatives. And how does cut/paste editing come into play? Why is that important for web videos? And why does it matter when iMovie and Windows Movie Maker (yes, it sucks, but it could do it) could do the editing and were freely available?

    20. Re:Interesting. by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      The lack of fullscreen playback without paying made Quicktime player the last choice while it could play almost anything. Remember if one has quicktime, he has plugin too. If it could play fullscreen without paying, lots of people would be using it and thanks to the framework logic, lots of companies would extend it.

      Companies ship FLV videos because they know it is installed on every machine. Now imagine if Quicktime, a full feature dedicated plugin was there instead. It would be the natural choice.

      Sadly, even Apple doesn't use Quicktime features. So the poor thing becomes blamed as "bulky".

    21. Re:Interesting. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      You seem to be forgetting the player of the beast,also known as REAL. IIRC at that point in time it was almost a 3 way race,with REAL and QT neck and neck and MPG taking up the rear. Say what you want about Flash,but I'll take it anyday over REAL!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    22. Re:Interesting. by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      People have chosen Real because they invented the "streaming" part. Real was switching bandwidth, using UDP, allowing stuff for media guys to embed things even those times.

      The "install 3rd party junk" came way later and FYI, abandoned by Real (along with people deciding) years ago.

      With Flash, unless Adobe Media Server gets adopted, we went back like a decade. Embedding a FLV file and acting like streaming while downloading it over HTTP is not "Streaming".

      If Apple guys weren't lazy, I would give example of a good streaming solution but for them, these days, quicktime is completely wasted. Putting a 10mbit h264 file to qtl file and telling Quicktime to "play" is not really what Quicktime framework is built for. (Qt trailers!)

      What makes me particularly sad is, most of great inventions on Quicktime were done before Steve Jobs, while people argue whether Apple go Chapter 11 or taken over by MS... They became successful in such a bad time and couple of basic UI tweaks would make it de-facto standard for web video. Starting with "Play in fullscreen" inside Plugin right click menu. Well, opportunity is gone...

    23. Re:Interesting. by Almahtar · · Score: 2, Informative

      I get that a lot, actually. Depending on the theme I'm using and whether I'm using KDE or Gnome (both with Compiz fusion), I get people saying either "So that's what Vista looks like... I really like it!" or "Wow. I've never used OSX before, but that looks cool".

      None of them know what a "Linux" is, so I don't bother clarifying :-)

      Equally often people will ask what the hell that is, of course.

    24. Re:Interesting. by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wait... are you implying that Screen isn't a top of the line desktop environment? I hope not, because that would be false, wrong, and dumb.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    25. Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wren, chilled. Me, you.

    26. Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac OS X comes with SoundStudio out of the box. It's not as well featured as Audacity, but it is somewhat easier to use. And, of course, Audacity works fine on Mac OS too.

    27. Re:Interesting. by PsyberS · · Score: 1

      but it's nice to see that, although Windows Vista is constantly getting railed on, once someone not exposed to it actually sits down and sees what can be done, they're not intimidated by it.

      Perhaps it's time for a commercial about Linux Sahara?

    28. Re:Interesting. by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      If it's just cutting stuff up, GarageBand does fine. Better than sndrec32.exe, anyway :D

      And as others have mentioned, you have other options.

    29. Re:Interesting. by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      WMV is only recently becoming a big deal. For a long time, Windows Media Player was that little gray thing you told to go away while you installed Winamp. I think he's right: Quicktime could have been bigger than it is now. Even in the Windows world, the fact that vanilla QT was neutered was a big impediment. But hey, that was before the bubble. Now there's value in giving away software. Back then the value was in boxing it.

    30. Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't know why people keep calling all mac users "fanboi's". At home, the only computer access I have at the moment is via my girlfriends Macbook (we just moved country and our shipping hasn't turned up yet). I hate it. It feels clunky, and seems to miss some basic functionality like keyboard switching between windows (you can alt-tab between apps though). There is no DELETE key (and for that matter backspace does not delete a file, you have to either drag to the trash or right click the file - assuming you don't use the craptastic "Mightymouse"). The dock takes up valuable screen realestate, even when reduced to a miniscule scale. Finder is a piece of absolute crap after using Windows Explorer for so many years - it can't even manage a decent sort order when viewing folders and files (i.e., folders alphabetical, then files alphabetical). Don't get me started on how iTunes manages music files - or indeed, doesn't, lacking support for wma's and more (I only mention this because the Windows version seems to have more file support built in). I also don't understand why Apple insist on carrying on with their single button mouse idea when their whole interface utilises right-click functionality. I am sure that I will be called up on many of my gripes about OSX, with users explaining to me that I am a noob and all the above functionality is in place. But that is also something to complain about. The mac experiance is touted as being intuitive, the best new user experiance, and "just working". I argue that if I cannot figure out some of this functionality without resorting to manuals or google searching, they fail at what they are trying to achieve. Sincerely, A mac user who hates using a mac.

    31. Re:Interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac OS X comes with SoundStudio out of the box.

      Err, that would be a $79.99 box from Freeverse, would it?

    32. Re:Interesting. by leedsj · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who is a die hard Mac fan... I'm sure there is an easy to use app under Mac...

      yeah, it's called GarageBand and it's bundled free and an 8 year old could master it in 15mins. Your friend really is a graphic designer, isn't he?

    33. Re:Interesting. by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there is. It's called Audacity ;-)

      (I bought a USB turntable and it came with a software CD - Win98 USB drivers, and Audacity for Windows, Mac and Linux! Plus source of course ;-) )

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    34. Re:Interesting. by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      You think so? I've always found Audacity stupidly easy to use. I had a sound file I wanted to piece together, started up Audacity and was done two hours later without ever looking at the manual.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    35. Re:Interesting. by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      VLC is my favourite player software on a Mac.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    36. Re:Interesting. by am+2k · · Score: 1

      It's not so much that you can't use it, but it looks extremely ugly and inelegant. Mac-users actually look at this kind of thing.

    37. Re:Interesting. by David+Gerard · · Score: 1

      There is that. And the Mac port is desperately in need of a maintainer.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    38. Re:Interesting. by DerCed · · Score: 1

      Sure, I'll step into the breach.
      Audacity works fine on Mac OS X, too (even without X11). I've read that people are using it all the time for minor cropping/OGG-encoding work.

    39. Re:Interesting. by Netdmin · · Score: 1

      Maybe somebody should point out that Audiacity works fine on Windows. Good programs work well anywhere.

    40. Re:Interesting. by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      When I was preparing to switch to Linux, I spent months prepping myself by seeking out and using open source software on Windows, playing OpenArena and Wesnoth, using OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird, etc. The switch was easy after having accustomed myself to using these programs.

      If he wants to increase market penetration, it might be a wise idea for Shuttleworth to put together a comprehensive Application Pack for Windows and Mac made exclusively of open source software that is available on Ubuntu.

      Speaking for myself, our whole household has been running Ubuntu pretty painlessly for the better part of a year. We have a two servers (LAMP, Shorewall), 3 workstations and a Mythbuntu box, all of which were easy to set up. My girlfriend and my 7 year old daughter both find it extremely easy to use, and everyone who visits finds Mythbuntu impressive. My girlfriend particularly likes Synaptic, which she's referred to as "like a free ebay for software". The only thing that ever gave us difficulties was enabling multiple monitors in X using multiple video cards from different vendors. Personally, I doubt we'll ever use a proprietary OS ever again.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    41. Re:Interesting. by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Switch between apps - âOE+TAB

      Switch between windows - âOE+~

      Delete file via keyboard âOE+backspace (usually named delete)

      auto hide dock and/or move it to the left side of screen (left or right)

      don't use itunes if you don't like it, I personally love it.

      My apple came with a two button mouse. I simply had to tell osx to use it.

      Seems like you simply do not know how to use the OS. No different then a linux user bitch about how microsoft does something, or a debian guy bitching about how solaris does something.

    42. Re:Interesting. by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Apparently I typed in the icon for the command key wrong.

      âOE = command key

    43. Re:Interesting. by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      It was just as ugly as ever, unfortunately. It looks almost EXACTLY like the program that came with my SB16 in the Windows 3.1 days.

      I'm sorry to be trollish, but were you trying to edit a sound file or masturbate? I've got a skill saw. Butt ugly, it is, but it cuts plywood just fine. I've seen some pretty saws with multicolor plastic at the BigBox hardware store, but I wouldn't trust them to cut cardboard reliably. Why would I care what it looks like if it gets the job done with the least amount of effort from me?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    44. Re:Interesting. by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, I use both. I have a hefty System 76 Pangolin laptop for my home office, and a Macbook Air for the road. I keep thinking that I wish I could switch to a Gnome desk-top on my Macbook Air. Although, I'm sure somebody will tell me that I can by doing something or the other, I really don't feel too inclined towards adventure for such an expensive and otherwise well behaved asset like my Macbook Air...Adventure is for Linux, not Mac.

    45. Re:Interesting. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      So you can either a) Whine about how it looks
                                    or b) Get things done.

      Is it any big surprise that Mac users choose Option A and Unix users choose Option B.

      Personally, I think if some big patron is throwing money around
      then he should concentrate on Option B first and then work on
      Option A after the basics are covered.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    46. Re:Interesting. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      This is kind of like telling a Windows user to use Cubase for "general audio editing".

      While certainly possible it is also certainly far from optimal.

      The UI should not only be "pretty" and "consistent", it should
      be scaled up or down for the task. Forcing your end users to
      take a Ferrari to the corner store is just stupid.

      If Shuttleworth feels like throwing money around then how about
      sponsoring a version of GIMP with a scaled down UI optimized
      for simple photo editing. Slight improvements on other light
      viewers/editors would also work.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    47. Re:Interesting. by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Or that Audacity has had a cocoa native version since at least 2004.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    48. Re:Interesting. by dharanpdeepak · · Score: 0

      Hey suggest http://nextdoornerd.blogspot.com/' to those newbie Ubuntu users .. the site has a lot of simple how-tos that can help them get started..

  2. Flash content by Javi0084 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about paying someone to fix Flash? It's what made me go back to Windows.

    1. Re:Flash content by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you can get Adobe to open source Flash, I'm sure that can be arranged.

      In the mean time, the best you can do is to tell web developers to not use Flash, but open alternatives.

    2. Re:Flash content by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you serious?

      Flash is one of the first things I DISABLE on a browser. I have it installed, only as a last resort kind of stuff.

      If some casual site wants flash, I leave the site. And those flash ads just dont work. That's a plus in my book.

      --
    3. Re:Flash content by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      How about paying someone to fix Flash? It's what made me go back to Windows.

      killall -9 pulseaudio

      then install the flash10 beta for Linux.

      It's pretty nice in comparison to what we've been dealing with in the past. Still not open source, but a lot better than before!

    4. Re:Flash content by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A lot of us watch YouTube and other flash video. Heck, some of us even play the odd flash game until a download is finished. If Adobe open sourced Flash, you could make decent cross-platform web applications in a matter of minutes all the while blocking Flash ads.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:Flash content by JackieBrown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think Adobe already gets paid

    6. Re:Flash content by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Flash has always been annoying esp. on Lunix. I was rather pleased to find my EeePC 901 plays YouTube videos just dandy (and rfmon works on the WiFi ;)

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    7. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flash games. Youtube.

    8. Re:Flash content by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      There is still that terrible wmode bug that's been fixed in the firefox upstream but hasn't made it to the ubuntu repository. I've been following the bug in the tracker, and nobody thinks it's a high priority thing that flash will segfault firefox when using wmode.

      --

      -Bucky
    9. Re:Flash content by Curtman · · Score: 1

      then install the flash10 beta for Linux.

      Link for 64 bit version please?

      I use swfdec currently. It works some of the time, and I'm grateful when it does.

    10. Re:Flash content by arth1 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If Adobe open sourced Flash, you could make decent cross-platform web applications in a matter of minutes all the while blocking Flash ads.

      And if Natalie Portman threw herself at you and begged to be your slave, you'd be a happy man.
      Your point, again?

    11. Re:Flash content by kiddygrinder · · Score: 5, Funny

      Link for 64 bit version please?

      Adobe don't believe in 64 bit. In fact i think their programmers get confused if you ask them to count to 33

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    12. Re:Flash content by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      VLC/mplayer/etc can play most flash video and youtube is moving to h264 for most of their new stuff, in fact if you google around you can find a hundred different ways to extract the video from google in either .flv or .mp4 format.

      Games, on the other hand, probably a lot more difficult to handle in a purely open source environment.

    13. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious?

      Flash is one of the first things I DISABLE on a browser. I have it installed, only as a last resort kind of stuff.

      If some casual site wants flash, I leave the site. And those flash ads just dont work. That's a plus in my book.

      Well, YOU are a geek. If you tell geeks about flash, most of them will say "flash is only for porn or ads". Why is flash on linux so crippled? Because this is what we deserve. You don't like it - fine. Just don't spam everybody about it. Normal *non geek* people like flash.

    14. Re:Flash content by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A life without entertainment isn't worth living.

    15. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or give us shockwave... http://www.isketch.net/ keeps me holding on.

    16. Re:Flash content by spazdor · · Score: 1

      That noise you just heard was the entire /. userbase reading your comment and shooting themselves in unison.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    17. Re:Flash content by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 1

      How about paying someone to fix Flash? It's what made me go back to Windows.

      And by "fix", I assume you mean completely scour the web of? You might need to pay more than a single person to get that done.

    18. Re:Flash content by chubs730 · · Score: 2

      Cause we all get lots of work done posting to Slashdot, eh?

    19. Re:Flash content by oatworm · · Score: 0

      At the risk of stepping on toes, why, precisely, does your browser need more than 4 GB of RAM? Why, while we're at it, does Flash need more than 4 GB of RAM? With that in mind, why, exactly, do we need native 64-bit versions of either app?

    20. Re:Flash content by Curtman · · Score: 1

      It isn't a question of the browser requiring 4GB of RAM. There are other factors that provoke the decision to run a 64 bit OS. Running a 32bit browser and associated libraries is a pain in the ass. Sites that don't work with swfdec, I close and never come back.

    21. Re:Flash content by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but those methods are a whole lot less easy then the simple "Click on the link and the video plays".

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    22. Re:Flash content by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunately, there are a great many things Flash does for which there are no alternatives, open or otherwise.

      Let me give you a recent, stupid example: We want to let users upload a bunch of things at once. We have three options:

      1: Build something using multiple file upload fields. (This could be done elegantly -- by hiding one as soon as it's set, and generating a new one.) In other words, we force the user to select each file individually, and click browse again -- and the files can't start uploading until they've all been selected.

      2: Accept zipfiles. Extra work for us (admittedly not much), and extra work for them.

      3: Use Flash. Not only can they select more than one file in the open dialog (ctrl+click, shift+click, ctrl+a, etc), but as soon as they select one, we can start uploading it.

      I want to use open alternatives. I hate Flash more than... I'm not a very hateful person, but Flash makes me homicidal. But even something as simple as that, there's an advantage to using Flash.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    23. Re:Flash content by rufus+t+firefly · · Score: 1

      A lot of us watch YouTube and other flash video. Heck, some of us even play the odd flash game until a download is finished. If Adobe open sourced Flash, you could make decent cross-platform web applications in a matter of minutes all the while blocking Flash ads.

      As with most other browser-based problems, Firefox has a plugin for that, so you can leave out the bits you like, but not be assed out by required Flash functionality in certain sites.

      --
      "He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
    24. Re:Flash content by oatworm · · Score: 1

      I have no beef with 64 bit operating systems - you're absolutely right, there are some applications where being able to address serious quantities of RAM can really come in handy. That said, I do find it a little strange that most 64 bit distros don't just come pre-packaged with 32-bit libraries for little things like web browsers and the like that don't actually need full 64-bit support.

    25. Re:Flash content by Curtman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because when you run 32 bit apps in a 64 bit OS, many of the libraries which those apps link with need to be 32 bit. Firefox links with GTK+ for example, so you end up with 32 bit Gtk+ libraries, and all of its dependancies as well as their 64 bit libraries for your desktop loaded at the same time. It's wasteful. And when I load my 32 bit browser, the theming doesn't work. It's a pain in the ass like I said.

    26. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A life without Slashdot is... a life.

      Never mind.

    27. Re:Flash content by ThePhilips · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Try bugging Mozilla/FireFox people. Many proposals (patches included) were thrown on table - none accepted. To make things worse, Mozilla remade the code in Fx3 making all previous patches obsolete and the method used before by the extensions isn't supported anymore. Security reasons were cited.

      I was always under impression that the people behind many projects do not really understand what kind of things normal end users are doing with computers. FireFox is not exception. Whole Ubuntu/GNOME is build around concept that user is an idiot who doesn't know why he has just forked $$$ for the PC.

      I'm for example literally every month is called by some new Linux user who asks how to exchange files effectively between Linux boxes. In Windows there is "Windows Network." But in Linux - in most advanced desktop distro Ubuntu - the easiest method ... right - e-mail. Sending from one PC to another, hooked over LAN, through some servers thousands miles away. Why not? [/sarcasm] Setting up (not installed by default) FTPd/OpenSSH/Avahi - is not something I can advise to end users to install setup by default. And the [censored] over there in Ubuntu really have no clue, writing off everything on "security via obscurity". As if sending confidential data over 3rd party is safer than sending them over LAN...

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    28. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if Natalie Portman threw herself at you and begged to be your slave, you'd be a happy man.

      No I wouldn't, because slavery is bad. Remember?

    29. Re:Flash content by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Funny

      Whole Ubuntu/GNOME is build around concept that user is an idiot who doesn't know why he has just forked $$$ for the PC.

      Are you implying they are anything but? (I kid! I kid!)

      Disclosure: I am running Ubuntu/Gnome.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    30. Re:Flash content by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gnash actually does a pretty good job with youtube most of the time. And I've been able to play some of the older flash games as well.

      It sucks in the sense that it's not completed, but they did manage to replicate the original crashing randomly on flash pages.

      At present, it's the only way of getting flash on FreeBSD for amd64. I believe that flash still hasn't been ported to Linux on amd64 either. But not really using Linux, I'm far less sure of that.

    31. Re:Flash content by ppanon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gnash your teeth. Gnash doesn't work for web sites that test for and require the absolute latest Flash release, but it seems to work well enough for YouTube. It's what I'm using at home with Firefox on Ubuntu Hardy.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    32. Re:Flash content by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Funny, I always imagined the payments being required to keep people from doing that.

      Personally, I'd rather have java take over the games portion of flash's use and for something like ogg theora take over the video portion of its use.

      I know java kind of sucks for that purpose, but at least there's a version available for most OSes out there. Certainly more than have access to flash or shockwave.

    33. Re:Flash content by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      and the method used before by the extensions isn't supported anymore.

      So, was there once an extension for multi-file upload?

      But in Linux - in most advanced desktop distro Ubuntu - the easiest method ... right - e-mail.

      Mostly because you already know how. Arguably, there are many alternatives, some quite easy.

      Setting up (not installed by default) FTPd/OpenSSH/Avahi - is not something I can advise to end users to install setup by default.

      FTP would be a poor choice, anyway, for many reasons.

      writing off everything on "security via obscurity". As if sending confidential data over 3rd party is safer than sending them over LAN...

      Well, if you're on a wireless network, and the 3rd party at least uses SSL, then yes, it is more secure.

      And yes, it should be easy -- however, kludging together something like FTP/Avahi isn't really a great idea.

      Avahi, by the way, comes installed out of the box, doesn't it? And setting up openssh is pretty much just "sudo apt-get install openssh-server", and you're done -- the hardest part would be finding the current IP.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    34. Re:Flash content by mhall119 · · Score: 1

      A lot of us watch YouTube

      A lot of us use Totem for that.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    35. Re:Flash content by retchdog · · Score: 1

      No, but we don't enjoy posting to slashdot.

      Dennis Miller had a joke once, that his doctor didn't think his frequent masturbation was a compulsive disorder, because he actually enjoyed it.

      slashdot is still masturbating, but it's like the opposite of that.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    36. Re:Flash content by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking 64-bit applications that transfer a lot of data through registers will run faster than 32-bit applications because they're transferring 64 bits at a time instead of 32.

    37. Re:Flash content by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um, Ubuntu has the exact same kind of networking that Windows has. You can right click on a folder, and select "Share Folder". It pops up a box asking if you want SMB or NSF. SMB IS windows networking. Select it, and one of two things will happen. If you already have Samba installed, it you will have a "Windows" share. If you don't have it installed, Ubuntu will install it, and THEN you will have a "Windows" share. For the client, all you have to do is go to the "Places" pulldown that is always on your task bar, and select "Network". You will see the "Windows" shares, just like on an actual Windows machine.

      Seriously, the process to share files under Ubuntu is almost exactly the same as in Windows. You clearly just don't WANT to be able to share files under it.

    38. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if Natalie Portman threw herself at you and begged to be your slave, you'd be a happy man. Your point, again?

      Yes, yes I would.

      Sorry, what were we discussing?

    39. Re:Flash content by Hucko · · Score: 1

      I don't have a problem with slavery. I have a problem with hereditary slavery but not slavery per say. Make it a default for criminals... no problem. They can have their union etc for humane treatment...

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    40. Re:Flash content by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      What exactly is one of the best "flash alternatives" currently? Still can't fathom why vector graphics manipulation isn't part of HTML "1.0" since flash was around back then. :P

      (Yes, I know how to worship the googly, but asking is more fun.)

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    41. Re:Flash content by Almahtar · · Score: 1

      A common workaround is to use a 32-bit chroot for Firefox and Flash. It's complicated, but if you're using 64-bit *nix you're expecting complications for things like flash or wine.

    42. Re:Flash content by Almahtar · · Score: 1

      Well there are benefits to running 64-bit other than addressable memory space.

      One is that floating point operations can be a lot faster, and another is that a few opcodes that protect against stack smashing (disallowing negative array indexing, for example) are only available in the 64-bit opcodes. The latter is perfectly possible in 32-bit, it just never made it in there.

      So 64-bit has a few advantages, but there are also some big disadvantages (code segments taking up 2x the memory space, for example).

      This is not an exhaustive list of the ups and downs, but just mentioning a few.

    43. Re:Flash content by Almahtar · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that. Flash 9 runs on the JVM. So they're pretty much the same thing at this point. As of Flash 9(may have been sooner, but I've only worked with 9), Flash is Java plus a few extensions, once compiled.

      Actionscript3 compiles to Java bytecode, and runs on the JVM. Not sure about AS2 and below.

    44. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      3: Use Flash. Not only can they select more than one file in the open dialog (ctrl+click, shift+click, ctrl+a, etc), but as soon as they select one, we can start uploading it.

      Are you developing malware? Why would a file start to download simply due to a user highlighting it (aka Select)? Until the confirmation button is pressed, you should take no action on the selection. THanks for giving another reason why Flash is a buggy, insecure POS.

    45. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I personally think the future lies in the advancement of Javascript compilation. Sure right now things are slow but when browsers catch up and likewise their javascript engines (which google is trying to push) we will see more things previously done with Flash will be able to utilize nice open ECMAscript. I am not so sure about video however but I do hope there will be a better non-flash way to view videos efficiently on the web. The problem with closed source doesn't have to do with anyone being an open source zealot (not all the time anyway) but it is the "take it or leave it" mentality of adobe. Gnash is probably always going to be 27 years behind but it would be nice to have an adobe independent Flash player at the very least that could focus on improving things without having to depend on Adobe to care. This is most prevalent in Linux Flash but there are many times Windows flash does suck as well.

      If Javascript could ever be fast enough to render low grade video, it would be great to mass adoption.

    46. Re:Flash content by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      I'm using Adobe's flash plugin and it works fine or at least no worse than in Windows. Perhaps I don't visit enough Flash content to run into stuff that hasn't been coded as well or whatever but all the major site work fine.

    47. Re:Flash content by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Why would a file start to download simply due to a user highlighting it (aka Select)?

      Not quite. Workflow is:
        - User hits "browse"
        - User selects file (or more than one)
        - User clicks "Select", or "OK", or whatever the "confirm this dialog" button is
        - We start uploading the file.

      So, if by "confirmation button" you mean some arbitrary Submit button, you're right, we don't wait for that. But it's not as though we can immediately grab the file just because you're looking at it in your browse window. You can always cancel that window, and we'll never know what you clicked.

      The point is, these are large-ish files, and a lot of them (5-10) -- so especially over slower links, we want to make it as quick as possible to select which ones, and we want the upload to start as early as possible -- not before.

      THanks for giving another reason why Flash is a buggy, insecure POS.

      No more so, in this case, than the browser itself. Consider: Any data you type into an input field, whether you submit or not, could easily be intercepted by a script and sent back via AJAX. Before XHR, it could have been done with a hidden iframe.

      The browser has quite a lot more potential control over uploads -- Konqueror prompts me directly immediately before any file is sent. But what is stopping a page from intercepting a file upload field's onChange event, and submitting the form? (I haven't checked -- maybe this has been addressed.)

      But this isn't a point against Flash, it's a point against Flash being closed-source. See, most users would much rather have the behavior we've got now. If you'd rather have the uploads be more explicit, an open source flash would let you write that capability.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    48. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fix it yourself. Takes five minutes.

      http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=789578

    49. Re:Flash content by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Actually you have to create a samba account to login with remotely...

      Typing \\computername on windows will promt you for a username and password... Such username and password must be created using "sudo smbpasswd -a " in terminal... At least it's been that way all the time I've used Ubuntu... I don't get it why samba isn't configured to let you login with you normal username/password... it's just a matter of altering smb config...

    50. Re:Flash content by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Firefox has priorities, just like everybody else.

      What are we talking about? Multi-file uploads. How many people *really* need that, and how often? Given that Internet Explorer doesn't support it, photo sites usually provide a Java or Flash applet or a client application for batch uploads. This doesn't exactly make the issue high-priority, does it?

      For some reason you are blaming all this on "user interface design incompetence" instead of just a matter of having priorities. And you blame it on open source - somehow commercial software has become better in every way. I will tell you now that Firefox is in fact commercial software. Commercial open source software to be exact, developed by Mozilla Corporation. They even have professional user interface designers.

      See? Being commercial doesn't mean the software will be 100% to your liking, and being open source doesn't mean it will always suck. Stop it with the generalizations.

    51. Re:Flash content by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      Caveat: I am an Ubuntu (and Linux) neophyte, so if I made a mistake here feel free to correct me.

      SSH/SFTP is the easiest way I've found. First you have to install SSH, which is as easy as:

      sudo apt-get install ssh

      Or, you can do it through Synaptic if you want the GUI method. The ssh metapackage installs and configures SSH and its dependencies.

      Then, while at the desktop, hit Ctrl-L to bring up the Open Location box and enter:

      sftp://computername or ip/

      You'll be prompted to login and then a Nautilus window will appear with the remote system's filesystem. You can drag and drop files to your heart's content.

      You could even enter the address in the location bar of an existing Nautilus window instead, if you want to avoid using a keyboard shortcut.

      I think this is the easiest way. If end-users can't handle this then they probably can't dress or feed themselves either.

      Now, if what you meant was there's no _completely intuitive_ way to do it (i.e. one whereby a user could fumble around in the menus and generally figure out what to do) then perhaps you're right. But this method took about 1 minute of Googling to find.

      As another user pointed out, there's also the Windows-like share method that sets up Samba and shares for you. I prefer this way though, especially for sharing between Linux machines.

    52. Re:Flash content by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it, I think you only need to install SSH on the machine you actually want to allow access to. AFAIK, you can use the sftp:// or ssh:// method from a default Ubuntu install.

      Again, I'm no Linux/Ubuntu expert. I may be completely wrong.

    53. Re:Flash content by Alioth · · Score: 1

      But SSH *is* installed by default in Ubuntu. And you can even mount a volume over sftp as if it was just any other filesystem with a couple of clicks of the mouse. On the default install. Places -> Network, and a network browser shows up and double click on the icon of the computer you want to conenct with SSH.

    54. Re:Flash content by timbo234 · · Score: 1

      At present, it's the only way of getting flash on FreeBSD for amd64. I believe that flash still hasn't been ported to Linux on amd64 either.

      I've used nspluginwrapper successfuly on 64-bit Mandriva for Flash (comes setup and installed by default with the Flash plugin so no messy fiddling around) and it's website says it's compatable with FreeBSD (although haven't used FreeBSD so can't confirm it).

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    55. Re:Flash content by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      But SSH *is* installed by default in Ubuntu. And you can even mount a volume over sftp as if it was just any other filesystem with a couple of clicks of the mouse. On the default install. Places -> Network, and a network browser shows up and double click on the icon of the computer you want to conenct with SSH.

      I'm using Ubuntu Hardy right now in a site with a mix of Windows and Linux boxes. If I do as you say, it'll attempt to find and connect to SMB shares.

      You can connect to ssh/sftp servers using the method I described above (or through the terminal) but you'd have to install SSH on those machines first to be able to access them, just like you'd have to install Samba to allow other machines to see your SMB shares under Places - Network.

    56. Re:Flash content by bgarcia · · Score: 3, Informative

      1: Build something using multiple file upload fields. (This could be done elegantly -- by hiding one as soon as it's set, and generating a new one.) In other words, we force the user to select each file individually, and click browse again -- and the files can't start uploading until they've all been selected.

      You can do this now with Gears. For those of you not familiar with Gears, it's a browser add-on available for Firefox, IE, Safari, and Google Chrome. It adds extra functionality to browsers which will hopefully turn into standards in the future.

      The latest version of the YouTube multi-file uploader uses Gears to do this. You can also look at an example implementation of a multi-file uploader on the Gears Sample Applications page.

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    57. Re:Flash content by Peaker · · Score: 1

      ssh is a meta-package that depends on openssh-server and openssh-client.

      By default, only openssh-client is installed.

      By installing ssh, you're installing openssh-server, which lets people access your host via ssh.

    58. Re:Flash content by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      parent, grandparent posts - thank for info. I'll try that next time.

      P.S.

      I don't get it why samba isn't configured to let you login with you normal username/password... it's just a matter of altering smb config...

      More than once thought crossed my mind: M$ paid Canonical (and others) to ensure that Linux would remain as unusable to end users as it is right now. Security nazis who cannot imagine firewalled home LAN are ruling.

      BTW, same goes to FTPD default configuration (all of them - I tries all of them in Ubuntu: proftpd, vsftpd, wuftpd, etc). Only worse: valid logins are forbidden, SSL disabled/not available, anonymous can connect and read whole file system.

      Point is that despite bunch of problems, FTP is probably fastest protocol for LANs and hey it supports Unix logins out of box - no mess with smbpasswd required. And even with SSL it is also faster than SSH's SFTP. SMB isn't much better than FTP because they still send in many situations passwords in plain text.

      The main difference between SMB/NBIOS/WINS discovery (Windows Network) and FTP/SFTP/ZeroConf discovery (what I call Linux Network) is that later works reliably while former works depending on weather in a town 50 miles away (actually depending on configuration of nearby Windows server what is very very bad on my book; but I have to test that again anyway).

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    59. Re:Flash content by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      so what configuration should you put in smb.conf? Cool, now email your reply to Canonical and see if someone will add it to the 'add smb networking' code.

      I think Canonical has 'blueprints' for such additions (ie 'lightweight feature requests)

    60. Re:Flash content by thepotoo · · Score: 1

      I just tried it on my newish Ubuntu laptop.

      It's pretty easy, but someone should change it so that when Ubuntu says "SMB and NFS servers are not installed. Please install them before configuring file sharing" there is a button you can click on to install them (rather than opening Add/Remove Programs, searching SMB, realizing that SMB only shows GUIs, not the core SMB engine (wtf?), searching Samba, and installing it.

      This process would not exactly be easy for the home user.

      P.S. I'm using KDE, not sure if it's easier on Gnome. All that really needs to happen is add a yes no dialog button that installs the Samba core. I would do it myself if I knew how to code.

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    61. Re:Flash content by sorak · · Score: 1

      I am not a Linux fanboy (I do not have Linux installed on any machine that I own), but I have to say the Samba handles windows networking better than Windows does. Every time I try to share a drive under windows, it takes a great deal of hassle to get the other Windows machine to see it. Usually, I end up having to make sure that both machines are in the same workgroup (since MS is inconsistent with default workgroups), fiddle with security settings for a half hour or an hour, and reboot both machines, at least once, in hopes of maybe getting the two to talk to each other. Samba on a Linux distribution does not require all this rebooting, because you don't have to be in the same workgroup, and it just seems to work the first time.

    62. Re:Flash content by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Firefox has priorities, just like everybody else.

      What are we talking about? Multi-file uploads. How many people *really* need that, and how often? Given that Internet Explorer doesn't support it, photo sites usually provide a Java or Flash applet or a client application for batch uploads. This doesn't exactly make the issue high-priority, does it?


      You must have missed the part where he was venting his frustration at being forced to use flash to allow people to complete common tasks.

      Are you unaware that Facebook and Myspace were some of the most popular websites in the world? If my friends are any indication, even the most technologically challenged people are using multi-file uploads to post their pictures on a weekly basis.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    63. Re:Flash content by Stevecrox · · Score: 1

      How has this been modded up?

      Reading the GP it appears the post wants to be able to give the ability to upload several files to his users (for whatever reason.) The users are uploading files not downloading them.

    64. Re:Flash content by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It is this way because the site admin is trying to make it this way.

      Flash is just an obfuscation mechanism.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    65. Re:Flash content by jopsen · · Score: 1

      so what configuration should you put in smb.conf? Cool, now email your reply to Canonical and see if someone will add it to the 'add smb networking' code.

      I think it's in the comments of the smb.conf...

      I think Canonical has 'blueprints' for such additions (ie 'lightweight feature requests)

      I think I saw the blueprints once, but I think they've existed for quite a while...

    66. Re:Flash content by amn108 · · Score: 1

      Adobe has donated the Flash player code to Mozilla, did you know that?

    67. Re:Flash content by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Same. I run it for the package manager and archives, and leave the hand-holding in the box.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    68. Re:Flash content by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      But in Linux - in most advanced desktop distro Ubuntu - the easiest method ... right - e-mail. Sending from one PC to another, hooked over LAN, through some servers thousands miles away. Why not? [/sarcasm] Setting up (not installed by default) FTPd/OpenSSH/Avahi - is not something I can advise to end users to install setup by default. And the [censored] over there in Ubuntu really have no clue, writing off everything on "security via obscurity". As if sending confidential data over 3rd party is safer than sending them over LAN...

      Good God, man, NFS has been around for 23 friggin' years!

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    69. Re:Flash content by arth1 · · Score: 1

      SVG is a nice open vector format.
      For links and similar, use HTML.

      The two main reasons I invariably choose a competitor's site over a flash site when there is an alternative are:

      1. If you follow a "link" and the whole page changes, you expect the back button to work. When you hit it, and have to start from scratch again, you get quite upset. Especially if you have navigated several levels deep.
      2. Fonts. There's a reason why I use larger fonts. My eyesight isn't perfect, and I have a very high resolution monitor. Flash almost invariably means bitmapped fonts which I can't scale. Oh, and no subpixel hinting either, which makes them ugly too, if I by a miracle manage to read the flyspeck.

      If you use flash, you lose me and many others as customers, unless you cornered the market, in which case I will just loathe you for your incompetence. It's as simple as that.
      I've changed banks because of Flash. A few decades of me alone using a competitor's bank probably cost them far more than hiring a competent web designer.

    70. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about designing the desktop UI in flash? Believe it or not, some end-users would probably like designing their own icons that dance around an what-not.

    71. Re:Flash content by makeajazznoisehere · · Score: 1

      But, you'd get hot grits all over you... (I know, I know...)

    72. Re:Flash content by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Good God, man, NFS has been around for 23 friggin' years!

      What I don't get are all the people who set up Linux boxes and have them share file systems between them using Samba. Even when there's no Windows machine around. The mind boggles.

      I kind of like having a sharing mechanism that understands Unix permissions, extended attributes, file locking, and can even be automounted on demand. And is a heck of a lot easier to set up than Samba too. smb.conf and smbusers is a nightmare compared to exports and fstab. It's even worse with the new version of Samba, which has adopted a "registry"-like approach, making hand edits all but impossible.

    73. Re:Flash content by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It's pretty easy, but someone should change it so that when Ubuntu says "SMB and NFS servers are not installed. Please install them before configuring file sharing" there is a button you can click on to install them (rather than opening Add/Remove Programs, searching SMB, realizing that SMB only shows GUIs, not the core SMB engine (wtf?), searching Samba, and installing it.

      This process would not exactly be easy for the home user.

      Please be fair. Try to do the opposite -- access a Unix NFS share from Windows.
      You'll see that Linux goes a long way towards compatibility with Windows, where Windows won't even take the first step.

      And compare the ease of e.g. sharing a printer from your Linux box to Windows users compared to sharing a printer from your Windows box to your Linux users. Sure, Windows has a simple LPR spooler. No, it isn't installed by default, and no button pops up to ask you whether you want it installed. You have to install it through the "Additional Windows Components" from a subtree. And then you have to (undocumented, of course) change the settings for the "TCP/IP Print Server" service in the service manager to make it start when Windows starts, or it'll stop working after a reboot.

    74. Re:Flash content by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      Oh geez sure, Flash-only sites are horrible for normal navigation, though I'm sure they'll work to get browsing navigation buttons working with flash-only sites, just a matter of time. Same with the default font size, I'll bet Flash will find a way to communicate with the browser or desktop for the default font sizes, though IMO full-page zooming is much better than changing default font sizes for a web browser. No clue why Firefox doesn't have a changeable default zoom level for websites, instead it only remembers any changes to specific website zoom levels, which is just half of the solution.

      Any way, that wasn't what I was asking. I know SVG, and it's not an animation format. I'm asking for a web animation rendering format. While I agree that SVG static rendering should also be a part of basic HTML standards, what was needed was SVG animation control standards. IMO, you should be able to make a website and say create circle in this area and move it to this location over this period of time, or whatever, so that shape/SVG manipulation is easily possible through basic web standards. This is so basic and simple that I just don't understand why no one has done anything like that, why in the hell does it seem like Flash is the only implementation of SVG animation? Just seems crazy to me.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    75. Re:Flash content by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Or, you could treat it the way simple file sharing under windows works, and just allow login with no passwords. Just do like you would in Windows, and set the acess to allow delete and remove files. Yes, Linux is a bit more secure in that it defaults to no access while Windows defaults to read only access, but is it really that much harder to select "Create and Delete" than it is to select "Allow network users to change my files"? I know that I don't have accounts on my server for my X-Boxes that read music from it.

    76. Re:Flash content by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about KDE, but Gnome, the default version of Ubuntu, and the most likely version that a newbie will use, does in fact just give you a dialog with a yes or no for the install. At the point that someone is skilled enough to start changing the default desktop, they are skilled enough to install samba. No doubt, that the Kubuntu group should follow the example of the Ubuntu group, but certainly, what you ask for IS there in Ubuntu.

    77. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, thanks for the reply. Your workflow is exactly as I had envisioned it. I.e., you are downloading files prior to the user technically submitting them as OK for download. A selection of a file or group of files is not typically actionable until a subsequent command (copy, delete, move, properties, et cetera). This breaks typical UI practice. You argue there are other ways of doing this - which I don't necessarily doubt. Most are not readily available on my Linux machine as configured (no flash, noscript). But anyway, it is definetly a reason to be more wary of Flash (as other browser languages).

      But this isn't a point against Flash, it's a point against Flash being closed-source. See, most users would much rather have the behavior we've got now. If you'd rather have the uploads be more explicit, an open source flash would let you write that capability.

      How do you know most users want the behavior you have now? Further, the alternative you provide for explicit uploads (THE ONLY TYPE THERE SHOULD BE - see Kaaza by way of example) ought not be 'open source flash' but find another supplier.

    78. Re:Flash content by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I have a Debian/KDE box (actually, it has several distros to boot from, but whatever), and a Ubuntu/Gnome box with an XP install I can boot to as well. I mostly use Ubuntu, because it does most of what I want with a minimum of effort and complication.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    79. Re:Flash content by Molochi · · Score: 1

      I'm running hardy 8.10A4-amd64 right now and flash is working. I just watched that bioshock on ps3 video.

       

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    80. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading the GP it appears the post wants to be able to give the ability to upload several files to his users (for whatever reason.) The users are uploading files not downloading them.

      It was mod'd up to 1 by someone who saw the point. Your comment starts at 2 and will die there without any upmods because it is not insightful. As I state in my reply, they are breaking common user interface behavior. Uploading files without permission is WORSE, IMO, than downloading a file. There could be tax and other private data in those files. Why they want the liability of uploading files without permission is a mystery. And, no, you do not give permission to upload the whole of /home/userA by using a website.

    81. Re:Flash content by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      A selection of a file or group of files is not typically actionable until a subsequent command (copy, delete, move, properties, et cetera). This breaks typical UI practice.

      Does it?

      When I want to open a file, in most cases, I click File -> Open, which provides that browse dialog -- I select the file -- and then I click "Open", in the same dialog, and it opens.

      It doesn't even break Web UI practice. When I want to open a file in Gmail, I click "browse", select a file, and click "OK", or whatever the button is to close that dialog with an affirmative. At which point, it adds that file to the list of attachments. Technically, the file isn't actually uploaded until I press "send", but this is an implementation detail most users aren't aware of, and I can't imagine that they care.

      How do you know most users want the behavior you have now?

      Most of our users? Well, considering the alternative -- among them, the lack of ability to select multiple files in that single dialog -- I would say most of them would rather do it this way.

      Further, the alternative you provide for explicit uploads...

      In what way are these not explicit?

      A web page gives you a "browse", or "add files" button. You click it, and it opens a standard UI dialog for browsing files. You start selecting. When you close that dialog, just where were you intending your files to go?

      It sounds like you're asking for yet another "are you sure?" message. Are you sure you want to upload these files you've just chosen to upload?

      I suppose if a majority of users complain, we'll change it -- but I can't imagine most users would want it to be less convenient, and take more time, so that they'll have a chance to back out after they've hit "OK".

      ought not be 'open source flash' but find another supplier.

      Again, you're welcome to find such a supplier for us. The closest mentioned so far was Google Gears, which doesn't have a fraction of the market penetration of Flash.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    82. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A web page gives you a "browse", or "add files" button. You click it, and it opens a standard UI dialog for browsing files. You start selecting. When you close that dialog, just where were you intending your files to go?

      The key is the phrase, "when you close that dialog". I.e., when you confirm your selection via some action.

      It sounds like you're asking for yet another "are you sure?" message. Are you sure you want to upload these files you've just chosen to upload?

      No. FUCK no. That is nowhere close to what I said. You developed an app that uploads a file upon *highlighting* of a file. That is not typcially actionable. You're liable - publicly admiting this design flaw - if they highlight 'backup.iso' and your app uploads 4 Gigabytes through a metered ISP after they stepped away due to a phone interuption. Or you upload 'privatecustomer.dat' - they had no reason to expect it to upload to your servers. Whether you delete it or not, they now have to inform thousands of customers. Waiting for the "ok", "upload" or whatever button is not an 'are you sure' confirmation. This is no more of confirmation than the the "Enter" key after entering a command. There is no 'are you sure' moment.

      I suppose if a majority of users complain, we'll change it -- but I can't imagine most users would want it to be less convenient, and take more time, so that they'll have a chance to back out after they've hit "OK".

      You can't take piss out of a pool. If you upload a file you shouldn't have, that is your liability. The majority of your users are not going to have opinions on software design, that ought to be your job to get it right. That said, the problem does appear to be more with running Flash as you suggest. Any application so fundamentally open to exploitation should not be used. After all, had you written your application to be malicious, you can upload whatever you want within the open file scope with or without a selection or confirmation of any kind. Not a star I'd hitch my wagon to.

      Sorry as I shouldn't be busting your chops about it but holy fuck that is some insecure stop out on the web. I'm still a no flash installed and NoScript user so my perspective might be overly paranoid.

    83. Re:Flash content by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      The key is the phrase, "when you close that dialog". I.e., when you confirm your selection via some action.

      And that's when the upload takes place.

      No. FUCK no. That is nowhere close to what I said. You developed an app that uploads a file upon *highlighting* of a file.

      In other words, for the third time, I'm talking about what happens when the window is closed. I am not talking about merely highlighting the file -- that is not what was meant by "select".

      And that's why I wrote out that workflow explicitly.

      If you upload a file you shouldn't have, that is your liability.

      Given the above, we're not uploading it -- the user is.

      After all, had you written your application to be malicious, you can upload whatever you want within the open file scope with or without a selection or confirmation of any kind.

      Nope. As far as I know, Flash doesn't allow this.

      Again, the only difference here is:

        - Multi-file selection, rather than having to keep hitting "browse" for another file
        - Upload starts as soon as you hit "ok", without having to submit a form as a third step.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    84. Re:Flash content by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      MS isn't open sourcing Silverlight, but they're sponsoring an OSS implementation, and have released the specs and a test suite specifically to ensure compatibility, and prepared a codec pack. We know how warm the reception of that was in the FOSS crowd.

    85. Re:Flash content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adobe don't believe in 64 bit. In fact i think their programmers get confused if you ask them to count to 33

      Err... They only go up to 31.

  3. Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Speaking as a FreeBSD user I don't appreciate it.

    Mac OS uses a modified Mach kernel and some of FreeBSD's userland stuff, but that's it.

    1. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by DoctorDyna · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe you should point people here when making that statement.

      --
      Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
    2. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um...HELLO? Your link backs up what the OP said. It's not FreeBSD.

      Kernel

      Darwin is built around XNU, a hybrid kernel that combines the Mach 3 microkernel, various elements of BSD (including the process model, network stack, and virtual file system), and an object-oriented device driver API called I/O Kit.

      Some of the benefits of this choice of kernel are the Mach-O binary format, which allows a single executable file (including the kernel itself) to support multiple CPU architectures, and the mature support for symmetric multiprocessing in Mach. The hybrid kernel design compromises between the flexibility of a microkernel and the performance of a monolithic kernel.

      It contains BSD code --but so did the NT networking stack at one point. You gonna say that XP is based off FreeBSD next?

    3. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by Gewalt · · Score: 0, Troll

      Speaking as a FreeBSD user I don't appreciate it.

      Mac OS uses a modified Mach kernel and some of FreeBSD's userland stuff, but that's it.

      Noone cares if you like it or not, but it IS based on FreeBSD, like you just freakin said, right here. If you find that disrespectful, then you need to check the damn license. Now if you try to say that the Mach kernel was not FreeBSD, you are only partially correct, as it was developed solely as the replacement for the BSD kernel, and much of its codebase was integrated into FreeBSD, not the least of which was 100% of memory management.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    4. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by DoctorDyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, I know :) It wasn't an argument.

      --
      Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
    5. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not all comments are an argument, ya know. Sometimes people are agreeing, or even giving more information to back up the OP. Shocking, that people on the internet can sometimes have a cordial conversation, no?

    6. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by exley · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      STFU noob

    7. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by bursch-X · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you ever even read any posts? Rliegh stated clearly that the kernel is XNU which is... fuck it read it yourself.

      There ain't no FreeBSD kernel in OS X. Got it? It's the userland, process model, the networks stack and the virtual file system that was taken from BSD, but the kernel and drivers are heavily influenced by Mach.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    8. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by bursch-X · · Score: 3, Informative

      In that line of argument, the Linux kernel is GNU HURD, because it ended up being a replacement for the then never delivered GNU HURD kernel, for the GNU OS.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    9. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by MrHanky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, the only difference is that it has a radically different architecture. Apart from that, and most of the code, it's the same.

    10. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as another FreeBSD user, I can't figure out why you care.

    11. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Not just BSD code, but the damn BSD kernel. That's a tad more significant, yes?

      From what I've read it's more complex than that.

      OS X is a bit like Windows NT. There's a microkernel and a bunch of subsystems on top. Essentially BSD is a subsystem running on the Mach microkernel, it's not the kernel.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by m50d · · Score: 1

      Not GNU HURD, that's the name for the kernel specifically, but GNU. And you'll find some support for that; while I won't argue with what people call it, it's hard to deny that on a technical level the system is at this point GNU, and Linux has become part of GNU.

      --
      I am trolling
    13. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      I suggest you read Amit Singh's book. The XNU kernel is a single-server Mach instance. The server is a BSD kernel, which (among other things) handles all of the system calls. The Mach component is a thin hardware abstraction layer, just as it was in MKLinux. The original BSD server came from BSD before it forked. This was updated to contain a lot of NetBSD code for the Rhapsody Developer Previews, and this was later replaced by FreeBSD code. One clear example of this can be found by comparing /usr/include/sys/syscall.h on FreeBSD and OS X. The system call numbers match right up to the ones added after around FreeBSD 5. Other subsystems, such as asynchronous I/O are direct ports. It's not just running the FreeBSD kernel, but it is running a fork of the FreeBSD 4 kernel with a load of stuff imported from later versions as a Mach task in the kernel's address space. When you issue a system call from userspace, it is being handled by the BSD code.

      The drivers are not influenced by Mach at all. They are written using IOKit, which is a rough port from Objective-C to Embedded C++ of NeXT's DriverKit.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Stop saying that Mac OS is based on FreeBSD. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Not most of the code. If you discount drivers, the vast majority of the ring-0 code in XNU is the BSD subsystem, most of which comes directly from FreeBSD (with a few bits from NetBSD and 4BSD).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Where's the BSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    As anyone with half a brain knows, Mac OS X is based on the Xnu kernel, not the FreeBSD one. Xnu is a combination of Mach combined with various bits lifted from FreeBSD 5.x (but is not itself the FreeBSD kernel). OS X is an updated NeXT, not a GUI-fied FreeBSD.

    I can't believe the editors let such a blatant slip-up onto the front page. Wait, it's slashdot --practically speaking, we have no editors. ;_;

    1. Re:Where's the BSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aaaand.. anyone with half a brain also knows that XNU is spelled with capital letters, as it's an acronym: XNU is Not Unix. /pedant

    2. Re:Where's the BSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't be an article by Timothy, if it didn't contain some ignorant drivel like that.

      Or some reference to the two degrees he has.

      Or. ...

      Look at the bright side, on a bad day, he can supply the humor.

    3. Re:Where's the BSD? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      As anyone with half a brain knows, Mac OS X is based on the Xnu kernel, not the FreeBSD one. Xnu is a combination of Mach combined with various bits lifted from FreeBSD 5.x (but is not itself the FreeBSD kernel). OS X is an updated NeXT, not a GUI-fied FreeBSD.

      As I've always said, OS X is not an operating system, it's a toolkit for accessing an operating system.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Where's the BSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, i completely agree

      astound by this sentence
      "Linux could ever equal the smooth, graceful integration of the Mac OS"

      Mac OS X is not even as open as MS windows, what's the "integration" about?

    5. Re:Where's the BSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the part of my brain dealing with obscure bits of OS X kernel knowledge damaged in a freak car/sharks-with-lasers accident, you insensitive clod!

    6. Re:Where's the BSD? by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      Not even as open as Windows? What the hell did you put into that crack pipe?

    7. Re:Where's the BSD? by m0llusk · · Score: 1

      Anyone with half a brain?

      Look again and you will see that FreeBSD is a whole system distribution with the kernel as only a small part. OS X is also a whole system distribution and is derived from FreeBSD. The idea that the kernel is the most important element and can be meaningfully separated from the rest of the system components is a Linux concept not shared by the rest of the FOSS community.

      Swipes at editors don't make so much sense when your own post is just wrong.

    8. Re:Where's the BSD? by oudzeeman · · Score: 1

      the XNU kernel is open source. where can I get the source for the windows kernel?

  5. Something great, but not new by pwnies · · Score: 4, Informative

    Shuttleworth paying out of pocket to help the ubuntu experience is nothing new. He's always done this. The printed CD's of ubuntu have always been free to whomever requested them. That's cost out of pocket for canonical. Don't get me wrong, this is great; but it's something they've always been doing.

    1. Re:Something great, but not new by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's just playing the role of venture capitalist to his own venture.

    2. Re:Something great, but not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, although I'd take it a step further and say this is an extension of what they've always done, and a pretty significant one at that. Given time, Desktop Linux will always catch up to its proprietary brethren, but by then it'll usually be behind current generation in some important areas (to regular users, that is). The only thing capable of changing that is throwing more people at the problem, and being able to pay these skilled projectiles certainly widens the talent pool considerably.

    3. Re:Something great, but not new by whyloginwhysubscribe · · Score: 1

      I would say that he's more of a hobbyist. A bit like owning a sports club. Venture Capitalists tend to want to make money very quickly on their investments - but Shuttleworth must know that this isn't going to happen for a while - if ever - with Canonical.

    4. Re:Something great, but not new by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      I don't have time to dig up a cite, but he sure seems to expect to make money in the long run.

  6. Quite a broad range of things to improve by Captain+Spam · · Score: 5, Interesting

    X, OpenGL, Gtk, Qt, GNOME and KDE

    Frankly, that's a considerable amount of work he's planning on hiring up for. This intrigues me greatly, to be honest. And, with any luck, this all comes back to the community so that not-Ubuntu users can get in on it, too.

    Though I give it five minutes before we hear complaints that they're not helping out some obscure toolkit or DE. :-)

    --
    Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    1. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by codemachine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, we could complain that XFCE and Xubuntu isn't getting any help, but since it is based on GTK as well, they'll get some benefits to that work. And obviously anything that goes into X and GL drivers can't hurt any desktop environment.

    2. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by jd · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sorry, but even Bill Gates doesn't have the money to get Enlightenment even to the next full release.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know, I've been working on this DE, called jerkoff, for about an hour every weekend. I've been working on it since Gutsy Gibbon, and I'm already at version 0.0001. Why the hell can't I get any Shuttleworth money for it?!?

    4. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I demand more attention for GNUstep!

    5. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Mark suggested himself that maybe Gnome could/should run on QT. With the Gnome crowd wanting to move away from GTK 2 and break compatibility anyways, I say now or never.

      People should be seriously looking at the merits of such a move.

      Why rewrite a new GTK 3 from the ground up, especially given one of the goals of a new GTK would be QT-like theming engine that is easier to deal with, when it already exists?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    6. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by wzzzzrd · · Score: 1

      GKT+ is a C api, QT is not. If GTK+ would vanish in favour of some new toolkit based on QT, it won't be possible anymore to write GUI applications for mainstream linux in C, you HAVE to use the abomination called C++. While "abomination" is cleary expressing just my opinion, not having a major GUI toolkit around based on pure C is madness. Except there is someone left who likes the look of TK. As a side note...I love git, and it really is the most advanced SCM today, but if git gui wouldn't be a ugly TK app, maybe more ppl would jump on that wagon.

      --
      On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
    7. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That isn't entirely true. Both GTK and QT have various language bindings which allow you write in a variety of languages.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    8. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Why rewrite a new GTK 3 from the ground up, especially given one of the goals of a new GTK would be QT-like theming engine that is easier to deal with, when it already exists?"

      A) Gtk+ 3 is *NOT* a rewrite. It's the removal of a bunch of hold-over shit from Gtk+ 1.x that hasn't been relevant in 10 years, along with the addition of a canvas/scene graph and the sealing of object structures (to allow for forward maintainability for many years to come).

      B) Gtk+ is written in C for a reason. C Libraries are compatible with pretty much every language through a series of bindings. And Gtk+ 3 will only make this easier with GObject-Introspection and real properties for all of the available struct elements. This will bring Gtk+ up to the dynamic capabilities of C#/Java, beyond that of what's possible with C++.

      C) One of the new goals is NOT to make theming anything like QT's. That's a side-project and can completely be done without a change in ABI. A new theme API is under discussion, but will not require 3.x to make it happen, even if it coincides with it (or Gtk+ 2.16, whichever happens first).

      All-in-all, do your research.

    9. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I normally don't bother responding to ACs because either they are trolls, or they don't know what they're talking about.

      A). Many devs and companies are calling for largely a completely rewrite of GTK. GTK+ 3.0 will be largely removing old code and cruft. From there, compatibility will be broken, and the major rewrite begins, but they hope to make the rewrite more management in chunks rather than a KDE 4-style overnight major rewrite.

      B). QT and KDE have C# bindings as well, not that everyone wants to start moving into Mono-world.

      C). Many people have listed a CSS-based theming engine more like QT as one of the primary reasons to break compatibility and make a new GTK.

      Seriously, do some research yourself.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    10. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Merusdraconis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And thank Christ, to be honest. Linux is notorious for having terrible, clunky UI, and programmers doing it for the love of it aren't really inclined to improve the UI for people who don't love their computers and simply aren't experts. This is exactly the sort of thing Linux needs to be a truly professional alternative to the focus-tested to buggery OS X and Windows.

    11. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Why rewrite a new GTK 3 from the ground up, especially given one of the goals of a new GTK would be QT-like theming engine that is easier to deal with, when it already exists?

      I can think of a very good reason.

      GTK+ - LGPL
      QT - GPL

    12. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Except there is someone left who likes the look of TK.

      The look of Tk has improved drastically in its successor, tile. It can use Windows, MacOS, Gtk and Qt native themes, although the Gtk is still in an early version and I do not knpw if it is usable yet.

    13. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by joib · · Score: 1

      I love git, and it really is the most advanced SCM today, but if git gui wouldn't be a ugly TK app, maybe more ppl would jump on that wagon.

      qgit?

    14. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is also the licensing issue, if you want to develop a propietry (or even opensource but not GPL compatible) application then you can't use QT unless you pay trolltech a load of money.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    15. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen many more commercial apps written in Qt than in GTK+. Some examples of commercial/closed gtk+ based software would be nice.

    16. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      why coudn't they dump ubuntu and continue with kubuntu instead then? Wouldn't it save everyone a heap of work?

    17. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Some people (not me) prefer Gnome's simplicity and design. The Gnome team can still design a Gnome desktop on QT. Heck, QT 4 ships with a Clearlooks theme designed to look like Clearlooks on GTK+.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    18. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also the licensing issue, if you want to develop a propietry (or even opensource but not GPL compatible) application then you can't use QT unless you pay trolltech a load of money.

      Yeah, but that seems more than fair to compensate them for the work they put into developing the toolkit.

    19. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because QT is under a draconian oss license by trolltech that says you have to pay them for certain rights?

    20. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      mmm, tbh I haven't seen much propietry software for linux full stop (which is IMO a bad thing since I belive there are certain categories of software that are unlikely to be filled by open source) but lets take a look through some of the stuff i'm aware of that is still active.

      flash: gtk
      opera: qt
      acrobat reader: gtk
      matlab: not sure but I belive it uses java awt which can be built to use either a motif variant or use X directly.
      google earth: not sure, I thought it was wine but it doesn't appear to be using that anymore, neither does it appear to be using either of qt or gtk.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    21. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nokia owns QT. Do you want to trust the future of Linux to them?

    22. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Qt GTK split can't be resolved so long as Qt is "GPL unless paid for". A lot of people want their libraries to be usable as LGPL.

    23. Re:Quite a broad range of things to improve by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Qt bindings usually suck, because C++ roots still show (last I checked, PyQt and Ruby/Qt, you still had to use C++ signatures to identify signals when connecting slots - WTF?).

  7. Why Not? by jav1231 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Why not? After all, Mac OS itself is based on FreeBSD. Desktop Linux's future is starting to look brighter."

    As long as you have people literally in stand-offs against each other based on QT vs. GTK, Gnome vs. KDE, and the merits of this distro over that, then no. It won't become as seemless. Why? Because a lot of good programmers are tied up in projects that simply don't move the ship forward. They only decorate a room on the ship. Hey, I love Linux. Adore it! Maybe the problem is until Linux geeks get laid more, they simply won't bother to take time to smell the flowers: i.e. pay any attention to the end-user's experience.

    1. Re:Why Not? by jav1231 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe the problem is until Linux geeks get laid more, they simply won't bother to take time to smell the flowers: i.e. pay any attention to the end-user's experience.

      I have a thought! Maybe Mark should be paying hookers!? BRILLIANT!

    2. Re:Why Not? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      As long as you have people literally in stand-offs against each other based on QT vs. GTK, Gnome vs. KDE, and the merits of this distro over that, then no.

      Literally? You mean they're actually pointing at each other with guns?

    3. Re:Why Not? by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, they were technically guns. See the story Slashdot ran on the Emacs vs. Vi paintball game.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Why Not? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Well, verbally!....wait...Textually! :p

    5. Re:Why Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the apposite word is "figuratively".

    6. Re:Why Not? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 4, Funny

      <BENDER>
      In fact, forget the development!
      </BENDER>

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    7. Re:Why Not? by Curtman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because a lot of good programmers are tied up in projects that simply don't move the ship forward. They only decorate a room on the ship.

      That kind of stuff has almost always been done at the distro level. Sun, Redhat, Novell, Ubuntu, etc. Independant developers tend to stick to their projects at least in the Gnome universe.

      I wish Sun, or someone else would do more usability studies like this one. That is exactly the kind of feedback we need. I find it nearly impossible to imagine the noob experience after having used Linux for the past 10 years.

    8. Re:Why Not? by JackassJedi · · Score: 1

      This is very true, and sad, because a lot of efforts are just wasted energy in the style of "ok then, since we can't get our heads out of our butts [sorry i'm being too sarcastic here] and getting unified semantics for both of our toolkits, then let's at least try to make them LOOK the same just so people get confused why same-looking apps behave differently"....

      Freedesktop should spec an abstract widget set, defining mostly semantics, and looks only where it really matters, and both Gtk+ and Qt should try to adhere to this standard within their own.

      We really REALLY need coherent usage semantics of UIs under Linux; while this situation is never perfect, certainly not under Windows, but also not always on OS X, it is to a big degree better than on Linux because there are many, many standard components available under Windows and under OS X, in any case many more than available through Gtk+, maybe also Qt, even though Qt has a pretty big library.

      We Linux zealots are simply used to all the apps and quirks of apps so we don't notice, but real people will feel well only if everything behaves consistently ;)

      It's just like with people, it's about trust; people need to trust the UI, and you can only gain trust if you stop being inconsistent. (Yes i know, awesome roundup, but in essence it's true. ;)

      --
      Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many.
    9. Re:Why Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer occupies one byte: X. And it's not the X at the end of MacOS X.

    10. Re:Why Not? by JackassJedi · · Score: 1

      Oh and yes i forgot, neither Windows nor OS X have really multiple toolkits; yes there are different libraries to choose from but they've been carefully designed so by Apple or Microsoft so the usage semantics are inherited from their predecessor. It's very true that what will kill Linux Desktop adoption is undecisiveness, but i prognosticate it will not be because KDE vs. GNOME, but because Qt vs. Gtk+ (that and, Gtk+ should get their ass moving so the toolkit doesn't look like one from 2000).

      --
      Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many.
    11. Re:Why Not? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      We really REALLY need coherent usage semantics of UIs under Linux; while this situation is never perfect, certainly not under Windows, but also not always on OS X, it is to a big degree better than on Linux because there are many, many standard components available under Windows and under OS X, in any case many more than available through Gtk+, maybe also Qt, even though Qt has a pretty big library.

      Well, that's part of it, certainly. That said, I'd like to think that a bigger reason for greater consistency in Mac OS X is that Apple has provided human interface guidelines giving guidance about how to design good user interfaces. The HIG has been around almost as long as Linux has. (The first printing was in 1992 according to the inside jacket of my copy.)

      Documentation and standards are two things the Linux community has always been sorely lacking. Now since there's no one single Linux Human Interface Consortium, it's a lot harder to create standards like that in the Linux world, but that's really what is needed, IMHO---a single unifying HI document that tells developers how things should ideally behave so that everybody can work towards unification with that standard.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    12. Re:Why Not? by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      You forgot Vi vs. Emacs (personally, I use butterflies, but that's another story...)

    13. Re:Why Not? by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      There might just be a single Win32 api, BUT most applications are not using the gui widgets from that api. Microsoft office are not using it. Apple software is not using it. Adobe are not using it. Firefox are no using it.

      Hell, windows don't even include a widget to make a split pane(You know, the thing where you have to widgets, and a thing between them you can drag, to set their size).

      And a nice question: Does a popup menu in windows show when you press the right mouse, or when you release it? (Hint: It depend on the application, because well there is no uniform windows gui toolkit).

      The day linux only have 2 toolkits, its userinterface wil be much better. But now we have gtk, qt3,qt4,tcl,motif/lesstif) and that wierd thing that emacs is using. (And all the applications that insist of including their own special designed toolkit.

    14. Re:Why Not? by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      I remember that. Richard Stallman came in with a katana and slaughtered all the Vi users, and Eric Raymond got his guns and joined in.

    15. Re:Why Not? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      MacOS itself is NOT based on FreeBSD, hell in 10.2.x ages, BSD layer was even optional. Utility vendors were saying "Install BSD layer" in system requirements.

      MacOS X is based on NeXT, it is naturally multiplatform, Apple could release "OS X and/or iLife for Windows" right tomorrow if they wanted to and if they have another "secret project in closet".

      NeXT lives as OpenStep/GNUStep and already available for Windows
      http://www.gnustep.org/images/full-screenshot1.png

      OS X is not just that simple, it is almost a schizoid mix of BSD Lite, FreeBSD, Mach, Cocoa and Carbon. The OS and Developer tools itself forces developer to code "OS X friendly" code. The closest thing to OS X is WindowMaker/GNUStep (which I have no clue why doesn't get support) or in sense of integration and application discipline, KDE.

      Also how will Ubuntu boss force developers to do things in the recommended ways? OS X really, really bugs developers to "move on", it is usual to get messages like "The functionality this application uses is depreciated, in current versions it will generate this warning once, in the future, it will segfault" on OS X. Try saying a similar thing on Linux, see amount of forks overnight :)

      What makes me sad is the lack of funding/support GNUSTep gets. They already have a full function framework which only suggests you to start your project on their stuff first (without Cocoa) and its child's toy to port it to OS X. You would say "Yes, everyone claims that". No, it is not an empty promise. GNUMail.app is already living proof that it can be easily done with single developer.
      http://www.collaboration-world.com/gnumail

    16. Re:Why Not? by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      At least GNOME is heading in the right direction for this:

      http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/stable/

      But guidelines do not an easy to use desktop make. Just look at Windows it's a friggin' mess and they, too, have a nice set of guidelines.

      It's really also about the fact that there are many designer types in the OS X community and those people are noisy and most Mac users despise ugly or messy applications.

      That forces developers to make their apps easy to use with a clear interface. Or better that forces developers to hire a designer/typographer or information architect to help them organise the workflow of their application to the users' needs, and have them design the GUI.

      After all you don't want designers to write your code, why should programmers design GUIs? In the end people need to learn that unless you put as much effort in usability and designing the user interface as you'd put into programming, your apps have a dim chance of being even usable.

      And this also means testing, testing, testing. Even with decades of design experiences, in every test we make we find out something surprising we weren't aware of before. It's not even about losing power or compromising on functionality, it's just about putting some effort in making a GUI and not just slapping something together that barely works.

      With software "good enough", as a matter of fact, is seldomly good enough.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    17. Re:Why Not? by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that Stallman hid the katana in his massive beard (along with a claymore, just in case) but was quickly winded.

    18. Re:Why Not? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      No, he means virtually. Literally in stand-offs against each other means virtually in stand-offs against each other.

      I really wish you people would learn the definition of the word literally if you're going to spend time whining about it's use. Using it as a stand in for virtually is a perfectly acceptable practice.

    19. Re:Why Not? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Mine was attempt at humor...a failed attempt, mind you.

    20. Re:Why Not? by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      I think most developers are interested in usability but some don't know how to best go about it. For instance one thing that bugs me that you mention is QT vs. GTK. What is needed is a system that is more modular so that developers don't need to split their effort between the two, slowing down progress. What's needed is a standardized API for GUI programs which can then be used by either of these libraries, so any program will look like a native, or close to native, KDE or Gnome program depending on which one you have loaded, or on user preferences, etc.

      Whatever it takes to unify Linux more to streamline it more and get things moving forward faster will be a major help. It's those kinds of things that few talk about but which can really make a difference. Of course there are already several great examples where this has happened but there is certainly room for improvement.

      While I'm on a rant I'll mention my usual bitching about Linux packaging urgently needing attention, too, so developers can finally make a package that can be used on any distro, and the Linux user base can really expand when some of them aren't forced to use the command line to compile to get certain programs, not to mention pick distros (software bundles) regardless of the particular size of their repos.

      I'm looking forward to the day when which distro is installed on a system isn't really important, all that is important is that it's Linux, because any and all Linux software will still be easily available. That's true freedom. (Don't let anyone tell you it's impossible, either, as modularity is always possible.)

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    21. Re:Why Not? by MK_CSGuy · · Score: 1

      Actually in In Search of the Valley (a documentary on silicon valley) one interviewee mentions a tech company in the late 90's which regularly rented hookers for its programmers.

      Anyone here knows the name of the company?

    22. Re:Why Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      <BENDER>
      In fact, forget the development!
      </BENDER>

      [BENDER] "and the blackjack."

    23. Re:Why Not? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      If I was getting laid more, it wouldn't be flowers that I'd be smelling.

      Hmmmm! Elizabeth!!!

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    24. Re:Why Not? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      You forgot Vi vs. Emacs (personally, I use butterflies, but that's another story...)

      There's an Emacs command to do that, just use good ol C-x M-C M-Butterfly...

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    25. Re:Why Not? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Contrary to what you think, literally is a synonym of factually, and an antonym to virtually and figuratively. Go look it up.

      If something is literally true, it is actually true, and not just in a metaphorical way.
      If you say you were "literally wearing rags", you point out that you really wore rags, and not just shabby clothing. Its use points out that you're neither exaggerating nor using a metaphor, but mean exactly what you say. Literally.

      Just because many people use literally when they mean figuratively or virtually doesn't make it correct usage. As Bill Bryson succinctly puts it, "if you don't wish to be taken literally, don't use literally."

      Even worse is, of course, the phrase "literally speaking". Its use implies that you usually either speak without using words or utter bullshit. Which, come to think of it, may be true for many of those using this lexical abomination.

  8. The Year of the Linux Desktop . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is 2008!

    1. Re:The Year of the Linux Desktop . . . by bursch-X · · Score: 2, Funny

      They better hurry up they have just three months left to make it happen :-P

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
  9. Ironic That Link Renders Incorrectly in Konqueror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's ironic that the first link http://blogs.computerworld.com/ubuntu_to_work_more_with_larger_linux_community renders incorrectly in Konqueror -- no scrollbars. They aren't invisible. They really are not present.

  10. MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    for all that it mattered. BSD was free and worked, in 1986. That's why Jobs - when he solicited his engineer's choice - was told to use BSD 4.

    MacOS is "based" on NeXT - which was derived from extending the Smalltalk-like model of Objective C to a whole series of desktop and application frameworks.

    You see, Jobs and his guys were SO blown away by the GUI at PARC, that they missed the object revolution, used to create it. They were all determined to do this again, the 'right' way, without saddling Mac/Lisa compatibility to the horse.

    That got engineered on later ;-)

    You want further illustration of this argument? Try managing an OSX workgroup from the network with existing BSD and opensource. You effectively manage the POSIXy parts of the system, while having almost no policy or configuration management of the Finder/Application experienc through which much of the Mac user interacts. You could - in theory, with the sources available, swap a modern Linux distro under there instead of the hybrid BSD. Almost no one would notice.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Informative

      HA! Almost forgot about Mach! BSD was just a subsystem on a Mach kernel, too. More 80's-isms. Now we call Microskernels "Hypervisors" and isolated I/O subsystems "Virtual instances".

      'Cos maybe they'll work this time!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by dgatwood · · Score: 1, Informative

      You could - in theory, with the sources available, swap a modern Linux distro under there instead of the hybrid BSD. Almost no one would notice.

      People would notice when all the Mach messaging stopped working. It would break a lot of things. You would also have to find a way to emulate the I/O Kit Framework for interacting with devices, and then there's all the little additional features like volfs that provide access to information that the higher level bits use in file handling. Far from nobody noticing, IMHO, it would be a royal pain in the backside to make any other OS kernel even marginally usable (unless that kernel provides at minimum some sort of Mach messaging emulation like the NetBSD folks were working on). It would, however, be an interesting experiment.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jeremiah Cornelius (137) *

      People with user numbers like that always make me think of early generation vampires or very old wine.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    4. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      HA! Almost forgot about Mach! BSD was just a subsystem on a Mach kernel, too. More 80's-isms. Now we call Microskernels "Hypervisors" and isolated I/O subsystems "Virtual instances". 'Cos maybe they'll work this time!

      Well, my vague recollection is that what killed microkernel performance in the 80's was the overhead of constant/multiple context switches (i.e. reloading MMU TLB's and blowing caches). There's been a lot of progress on the hardware side in the last 20 years. That's 10+ cycles of doubling transistor density. So what you have now that you didn't have in the 80's is the capability to use a small percentage of the CPU transistors for lowering the context switch overhead (which would have blown the much smaller transistor budget in the 80's) and (relatively) massive 2nd and 3rd level caches that carry across context switches. In the 80's you could do virtualization in VM on IBM mainframe because they had a much bigger transistor budget than contemporary microprocessors like the 80386, 68K, or early RISC. Now that kind of VN support that required multiple chips is available integrated into AMD64, and Intel's VT equivalent.

    5. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I didn't say "simple" :-)

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah the ironic thing was that Apple already had an MKLinux port for their Macintosh systems, and all they really needed to do was integrate the Mac OS GUI with MKLinux and then just use the OpenStep enhancements because they too are open sourced like MKLinux and could have saved the money they used to buy out Next and bring Steve Jobs back and just do it all better by themselves.

      Instead they got Steve Jobs and Next and a much more bigger and bloated operating system than they expected to get.

      The other option, besides buying up Be Inc. was to license AROS and then build Carbon and Mac OS systems on top of that as it is already object oriented and based on the AmigaOS that IBM licensed from Commodore to give OS/2 2.0 an object oriented WPS system as Commodore got there already in 1985 before anyone else did, and Apple was basically doing the same thing with OSX that Commodore did with AmigaDOS/Workbench in 1985.

      The Amiga was already object oriented even going back to its 1970's roots as the Atari Lorianne project that was basically an Atari 2600 mod to turn the Atari 2600 into an object oriented GUI computer, but the Atari 400/800 projects put Lorianne on the back burner until Commodore bought out the team in the 1980's. The Amiga project predated the Apple Lisa project, and the Lorianne/Amiga team offered Apple to buy them out first, but gave Steve Jobs his idea for the Lisa computer (and later the Macintosh) and he told them no, and visited Xerox's PARC to get some more good ideas.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    7. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by ThePhilips · · Score: 0, Troll

      Your point is moot. Microkernels are dead for sometime already. For simple reason that they fit no niche. And if they fit - it is so narrow niche which falls out of general market.

      On the point, Mac OS X uses microkernel. But only for simple reason to sync two kernels: NeXT kernel (heavily hacked IIRC BSD4.3lite) and FreeBSD (further development branch of BSD386/BSD4.2).

      Mac OS GUI is essentially port of NeXT Step. All the fancy stuff you see on screen is based on improved specifically for Mac OS X NeXT frameworks. All APIs have "NS" prefix for the reason.

      Now FreeBSD appeared for sole reason to ease new platform adoption and provide developers with familiar environment and tools. Apple didn't wanted to go the way of M$ and reinvent everything (and they had no money for that at the time) so they simply took existing OS and integrated that into Mac OS X. Brilliant idea IMNSHO (especially if compared to all possible alternatives).

      Mac OS X has two kernels. And they are glued together by simple microkernel, which IMHO (never really bothered to check) would never classify as microkernel on book of real microkernel developers. It is micro only by its size and number of functions it performs. I can say for sure that drivers are not separate processes - as well as OS services - all that makes the Mac OS X not a microkernel OS.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    8. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right. MkLinux + OpenStep! == Fun.

      A lot of NeXT source just built on this.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    9. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually MkLinux + OpenStep = GNUStep on your favorite Linux distro. It is fun to try out and develop for.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    10. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by eggnoglatte · · Score: 1

      What moron marked this whole subthread "Troll"? You may not agree with any particular posting, but none of them are trolls!

    11. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by alc6379 · · Score: 1
      But how far did MkLinux get? I just checked that site, and it's still the same as it was nearly 8 years ago. Sure, the updated dates are the same, but they never did even come out with a 1.0 release.

      Seems like maybe NeXT may have had a more stable platform than what Apple was working on in the form of MkLinux?

      --
      I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
    12. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 2, Informative

      But how far did MkLinux get? I just checked that site, and it's still the same as it was nearly 8 years ago. Sure, the updated dates are the same, but they never did even come out with a 1.0 release.

      I actually ran MkLinux on some old Apple computers about 10 years ago, and it worked pretty well. (About 100x more reliably than Mac OS 9 of the same vintage which just crashed all the time on the same machines). However it has to be said that MkLinux was slow, something I attributed at the time to the overhead of Linux having to do everything on top of the Mach "not-very-micro"-kernel.

      Rich.

    13. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also given how much my Ubuntu 8.04 Linux system crashes and burns (I'm sure it's the NVIDIA graphics drivers and not the kernel, but the end effect is the same), whereas FreeBSD has been rock solid for years ... why would they change to Linux? It makes no sense. FreeBSD is better.

    14. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      No, the AC who responded after you is a troll.... :-D

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reported history of the Amiga is straight out of fantasy land. If you want an accurate history, go buy the deluxe version of Amiga Forever and watch the DVDs that are included, as Orion Blastar has no clue what they are talking about.

      Billsey

    16. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by dirtyhippie · · Score: 1

      Yeah the ironic thing was that Apple already had an MKLinux port for their Macintosh systems, and all they really needed to do was integrate the Mac OS GUI with MKLinux...

      Right. The company who's business model is paying extra for the same/slightly overaverage hardware would risk GPL lawsuits at a time when the "binary blob" issue was very much unfinished?

    17. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, with the exception of the WEIRD version of the origins of the Amiga, this post is almost entirely without entertainment value. It is entirely without information value.

      For a more accurate version of Amiga's history, check out Jeremy Reimer's articles on the subject on Ars Technica. (Short version: Amiga's origins are independent of Atari, except in having former Atari employees on staff. Steve Jobs got the idea for Lisa from Xerox; one could say he copied from them.)

    18. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Ars Technica? Might as well ask the Weekly World News about the origins of the Amiga? They'll tell you Batboy, UFO Aliens, and Bigfoot helped create the Amiga in the 1950's as part of Area 51, and it will be more accurate than anything posted on Ars Technica ever has or will be.

      I guess next you'll be telling me that Wikipedia is factual and not liberal biased at all?

      If it is on the Internet it must be true!

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    19. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      How did I become a "they" instead of a "he"?

      Amiga Forever is an emulator, not as good as Amithlon, but based on Fellows and UAE. Those DVDs are not that accurate and you cannot get a good feel for how an Amiga works by simply using an emulator. Those DVDs are marketing hype for Amiga Forever and selling you more Amiga disk images and ROMs for later.

      You want the true history of the Amiga, you talk to Atari, Commodore, and Amiga employees like I have. The history of the Amiga was written before the world wide web was invented, but the history of the Amiga over the Internet is a complete and total fabrication by Microsoft and Apple to downplay the Amiga into a failed gaming system and those Amiga Forever DVDs play on the Microsoft and Apple version of history that was posted on the Internet, but later found to be false and part of a propaganda effort to downplay the Amiga.

      If it is on the Internet, it must be true! is your thinking and you are wrong.

      I got my info from the Amiga by reading books on the Amiga and Commodore, talking to Atari, Amiga, Commodore employees, going to Amiga conventions to meet them, plus I have over 20 years of Amiga use and programming experience.

      All you have is someone who posted as anonymous coward, who doesn't have jack squat to back up his/her research except for propoganda marketing DVDs and Ars Technicia bullsh*t written 20+ years after the Amiga history had already been written with little to no research except biased opinions by Microsoft and Apple and their users who totally hate the Amiga and anyone who dares to use it or speak about it.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    20. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      This Ars Technicia article in which he claims the only books on the Amiga he could find where technical manuals?

      After that he started to make up stuff based on biased PBS shows like "Triumph of the Nerds" that was basically Steve Jobs and Bill Gates bragging about how awesome they are and how they invented everything first except for Xerox, and the Amiga is just a footnote in that story. In fact Steve Jobs admits to stealing ideas to make the Macintosh "Ultimately it comes down to taste. It comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best things that humans have done and then try to bring those things in to what you're doing. I mean Picasso had a saying he said good artists copy great artists steal. And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas ehm and I think part of what made the Macintosh great was that the people working on it were musicians and poets and artists and zoologists and historians who also happened to be the best computer scientists in the world."

      He admits that Apple has always been shameless in stealing ideas. That proves my version of history about Commodore and the Amiga and Steve Jobs and Apple stealing ideas from them.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    21. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the truth being liberally biased and all. Truthiness is much better than truth, because it can be conservatively biased, or as it's popularly labeled, "balanced."

    22. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so then the other Coward was right when he said you don't know what you're talking about. Okay.

    23. Re:MacOS could be based on RiscOS by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      So basically Steve Jobs bragging about stealing ideas to make the Macintosh, means I don't know what I am talking about?

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  11. Gnome + KDE by InlawBiker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I keep wondering when Gnome and KDE will ever join forces and do some real damage. But every time I wonder that out loud somebody smacks me down, as though I'm asking the English and German to join forces against tooth decay. I guess it's smack-down time again.

    1. Re:Gnome + KDE by pugdk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I disagree. I seriously hate Gnome.

      Gnome is dysfunctional, limits my options, looks like shit (well, that can be themed, but...) and just generally sucks.

      If KDE had been chosen instead and as much time had been spent on polishing KDE as Ubuntu has spent on polishing Gnome, we would not have this discussion.... Ubuntu (i.e. Kubuntu) would already rule the desktop.

      Sadly, I see more and more development time wasted on supporting / trying to polish Gnome into something functional instead of just throwing the towel into the ring and going with KDE.

    2. Re:Gnome + KDE by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Specifically, I thought they were going to unite their libs so that gnome and kde would be cosmetic changes of the overall GUI subsystem sitting atop X.

      Some things like DCOM have already been united and shared.. It just takes a few dedicated individuals to do so.

      I personally would love united libs that any gui can use while knowing that every "frozen" feature will be as such for any major versions. Let everybody use it, from GNOME, KDE, Xfce, and any other manager.

      --
    3. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep wondering when Gnome and KDE will ever join forces and do some real damage. But every time I wonder that out loud somebody smacks me down, as though I'm asking the English and German to join forces against tooth decay. I guess it's smack-down time again.

      Yes, it is smackdown time again. Two brilliant teams of programmers can not combine to make one uber-brilliant team of programmers.

      When people bring up this idea I'm reminded of a story a friend of mine once told me about her childhood. She had just gotten a brand-new set of crayons that had all kinds of new colors, so she decided she was going to make her own color that was prettier than all the rest, so she grabbed a bunch of her favorite colors and tried to mix them together. The result, of course, was somewhere between diarrhea and vomit.

      She cried.

    4. Re:Gnome + KDE by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Funny

      What a wonderfully balanced opinion you have.

      I can't imagine why there's such bad blood.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree.

    6. Re:Gnome + KDE by numbware · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. In my mind, the perfect desktop environment would be initially simple for beginning users (ala GNOME), but still have extra settings accessible in a dialog filled with sliders and check boxes for advanced "power users" (ala KDE). Case in point, Firefox. Initially, it's very basic and just about anyone can pick up how to use it. But for power users, there is about:config and a whole slew of extensions to customize the experience. This is the type of "best of both worlds" scenario a man can dream for.

      --
      I'm going to go create my own technology news site, with blackjack and hookers. You know what? Forget the news site.
    7. Re:Gnome + KDE by TeacherOfHeroes · · Score: 5, Funny

      I disagree. I seriously hate KDE.

      KDE is dysfunctional, overwhelms me with options, looks like shit (well, that can be themed, but...) and just generally sucks.

      If Gnome had been chosen instead and as much time had been spent on polishing Gnome as Mandrake/Mandriva has spent on polishing KDE, we would not have this discussion.... Mandriva (i.e. Gmandriva) would already rule the desktop.

      Sadly, I see more and more development time wasted on supporting / trying to polish KDE into something usable instead of just throwing the towel into the ring and going with Gnome.

      ====

      Sorry if this offends your sensabilities, but I just couldn't resist, and I think that is pretty much sums up the silly debate between KDE and Gnome users who are both happy with their own choices.

    8. Re:Gnome + KDE by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree enormously. I think what they have in gnome is so perfect for Ubuntu it's almost scary. They're trying to make it so that the end user isn't overwhelmed with options and customizations, and that it just works. They've succeeded phenomenally. My only beef with it right now is that upgrading to the next release is awful, breaks my desktop about half the time, and that flash doesn't work very well. If those two things were fixed, I would never use anything else for a desktop ever again.

    9. Re:Gnome + KDE by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the rotten thing about debating something as subjective as the preferred UI experience. Frankly I find KDE goes out of its way to emulate everything that's bad about the Windows GUI, even more so. Gnome is minimalist, which I like. The nice about Linux is that I actually have a choice. Heck, if I want to, I can install them both.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think if Gnome and KDE got together that they would make something better then what they are making now. I am sick of this myth of two competing projects coming together and making something even better.

    11. Re:Gnome + KDE by martinw89 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It will probably never happen. Plus, the competition probably does both teams a lot of good. But let's look at the specific reasons:

      • Different toolkits. If the projects joined, they would have to consolidate (ie, rewrite) TONS of code. That is, if they wanted to unify the applications look and feel. I suppose they wouldn't have to, but that sort of defeats the purpose.
      • Different design philosophies. KDE is all about choice, Gnome is all about making the choices for you. Obviously these are big oversimplifications of each (KDE makes some good choices by default, Gnome usually gives the power users a place to change things), but the different design philosophies would be hard to combine.
      • They're just different: The two projects have grown a lot over the last 10 years, and they both have great systems in place inside their desktop environments. Tons of this work would have to be heavily rewritten or scrapped altogether to make a new unified desktop environment. As an example, Gnome stores a lot of settings in the GConf repository, KDE doesn't.

      And one could go on for a while regarding why these projects can't just magically join together. It's sort of like the cries of Webkit in Firefox. Read the Ars article on that subject to get a feel for trying to combine projects with similar goals but completely different designs. They just don't mesh.

    12. Re:Gnome + KDE by daffmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is exactly why it's good that there are two major desktops. You get to use KDE. I get to use Gnome. For me Gnome is superior because it aligns better with the way I work. I don't care that it doesn't have a gazillion options because I'm not going to be twiddling them anyway.

      You can twiddle to your hearts content on KDE.

      Isn't choice wonderful?

    13. Re:Gnome + KDE by idonthack · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The two environments take entirely opposite approaches to design:

      • Gnome assumes the user is confused and tries to help them.
      • KDE assumes the user is capable and lets them do whatever they want.

      They are both an equally valid approach, but the target demographics are incompatible. It would be stupid to try and combine them.

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    14. Re:Gnome + KDE by pugdk · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I've used windows since 3.1 (and even tried Vista heh) and used OS X for some time as well.

      I've also been using Linux for more than 10 years, trying all kind of different window managers.

      The one that was the most unusable, the most annoying, the most illogical one I ever tried, was Gnome (and believe me, I've tried... I've really tried to like Gnome, tried it multiple times, both in Debian and in several releases of Ubuntu. After several weeks, sometimes a few months, I just get fed up and install KDE instead).

      Yes, I feel annoyed when the best bet on bringing Linux to the desktop in my eyes are wasting their time and development funding on crap.

      I say this as a *USER* of said software, *NOT* as a developer.

      I really WANT to like Gnome, but no matter what I do I end up hating it after a while.

      The fact that *I* believe this means Ubuntu will fail on the desktop aggravates me to no end.

    15. Re:Gnome + KDE by commodoresloat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow, your post did a wonderful job of proving the grandparent's point!

    16. Re:Gnome + KDE by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Your personal opinion is worthless. Millions of people disagree with you, and millions of others disagree with them.

      There doesn't need to be consent. It's up to you what you use.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    17. Re:Gnome + KDE by pugdk · · Score: 1

      Its perfectly fine, I never expected everyone to have my opinion (it is after all *my* opinion :-).

      You on the other hand is wrong when you insert KDE instead of Gnome.

      The Ubuntu foundation has poured WAY more man hours and development time and polishing into Gnome than it has ever poured into KDE.

      That you choose to enter Mandriva instead of Ubuntu is... well, your choice, but the present discussion is about Ubuntu, and frankly I don't see Mandriva as a contender for the Linux desktop at the moment.

    18. Re:Gnome + KDE by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Back in KDE2, I loved it. Used it all the time. I couldnt stand GTK1 apps, like Gnome.

      Fast forward to 2 weeks ago. I downloaded Kubuntu and tried it on a desktop that uses 100% linux-happy hardware. It felt worse than Vista in terms of bloat and yuck. I cant precisely describe it, but that feeling of "waaaay overboard" came to mind.

      Gnome is clean and crisp, and doesnt get in the way. Ubuntu "approved apps" just work with no fiddling and gunk. That's they they're approved.. for the user experience. One can always download QT and other lib based programs. They just dont have the same feel.

      Ubuntu with Gnome feels like a Mac, without the "We dont allow you to do what we dont want you to do" stuffy mac experience. I can get work done and be happy.

      --
    19. Re:Gnome + KDE by pugdk · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You forgot the millions of people agreeing with me. My gripe is with the wasted amount of money/time going into something I think will fail in the end.

      That means Microsoft and Apple will win and that bothers me a lot.

    20. Re:Gnome + KDE by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Specifically, I thought they were going to unite their libs so that gnome and kde would be cosmetic changes of the overall GUI subsystem sitting atop X.

      Would be nice except:
      GTK is C, Qt is C++. C imports into C++, not the other way around.
      GTK is LGPL, Qt is GPL+commercial. Anything incompatible means Trolltech would lose their licensing revenue, GTK would lose most of their business support.
      Core functionality like the SIGNAL/SLOT mechanism in Qt would have to be in the common part for Qt to do almost anything, all widgets and pretty much everything else inherits from QObject providing it. I'm sure it's the same with GTK.

      "A few dedicated individuals" my ass. It's be a huge job, there's huge interests that won't support it on either or both sides, would require a LGPL/Qt exception license or a BSD license and for them on a common way of doing a LOT of fundamental functions in their respective libraries. Yes, if you come up with a nice BSD-licensed C auxillary library they'll both be happy to take it, but they are very, very, very far from uniting.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    21. Re:Gnome + KDE by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yawn. What don't you get? There's choice and everyone has their own opinion on what is best. What makes you any more right than them? And, frankly, what makes you think we give a shit about your two-bit opinion anyway? If Shuttleworth wants to blow his money on GNOME as well as KDE, who are you to criticize?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    22. Re:Gnome + KDE by christurkel · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem with KDE is that even if you install kde-base or kde-core, you still get loads of apps. Look at Gnome's: clean, uncluttered and ready for you to add your own. That's why I wont install kde; it wont let me choose what I want or don't want.

      --

      CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
    23. Re:Gnome + KDE by fabs64 · · Score: 1

      You forgot the millions of people agreeing with me.

      No he didn't...

    24. Re:Gnome + KDE by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      One size fits all, does not fit all.

      KDE has ability and Gnome has usability. The end result of Gnome VS KDE has been that the user of Linux win out because we are not suck with one solution.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    25. Re:Gnome + KDE by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with the parent... a polished turd is still a turd. That said KDE was getting bloated as well, hence the reason for a ground-up rewrite of QT/KDE when they released KDE4... which, despite it's bugs is architecturally brilliant and once the kinks get ironed out it would be interesting to see if more distros would look at making the switch.

      --
      -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
    26. Re:Gnome + KDE by pugdk · · Score: 1

      I talk in past tense, as in what would have been if KDE had been chosen and not Gnome, but nevermind :-).

      Choice is fine, but choice will most likely never make linux "win" the desktop "war" - or make it even become a contender. Which is my opinion, yours may differ.

    27. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You sound like a religious fundie, like most raving fanboys in arguments like this. You're stating your zealous opinion on a topic as incontrovertible fact with no supporting evidence or studies. You're spouting off extreme views with obvious heavy doses of emotion and vitriol, and displaying obvious contempt for any reasoning human being that could possibly disagree with you.

      Wait, you've gotta be a troll. There's no way in hell you couldn't look at what you're spouting and not realize that it's the ENTIRE FUCKING REASON arguments like Gnome vs. KDE never get solved. Uncompromising, egotistical, arrogant jackasses never get anything useful and collaborative done when they're fighting each other in ridiculous pork sword fights.

    28. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it's smack-down time again.

      Wow man, first response! You're good at predicting things, what you think of the LHC?

    29. Re:Gnome + KDE by BizarreDC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I also have to disagree. Have you used OSX and Gnome ? There are some startling similarities between the two which leads me to think, as so many people love OSX including Linux and Windows users (the opposite is not so common) maybe there is a place for Gnome. I also have to add I've been using Linux for servers for around 10 years now and I've tried running KDE (including the latest incarnations) and enlightenment (wish it was a cool as I always perceived it to be) many times and always to my shame resorted back to windows. It was not until Ubuntu came to the scene with Gnome that I finally managed to make the switch on all my desktops.

    30. Re:Gnome + KDE by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 1

      I keep wondering when Gnome and KDE will ever join forces and do some real damage. But every time I wonder that out loud somebody smacks me down, as though I'm asking the English and German to join forces against tooth decay. I guess it's smack-down time again.

      The only damage they'd do is to eachother.

      Picture it this way: KDE and Gnome are two trains travelling at high speed, but in opposite directions, and you get the brilliant idea of tying the two trains together ("working together"). Well, guess what happens? Nothing good.

    31. Re:Gnome + KDE by pugdk · · Score: 1

      Exactly - and I agree on the KDE3 bloat.

      KDE4 looks really really promising, perhaps Ubuntu will switch its default distribution to KDE4 making gnome the secondary choice (well, one can always dream :-).

    32. Re:Gnome + KDE by LinuxDon · · Score: 1

      Please note that you're not *required* to use the options and customizations KDE offers. But it just really sucks if you need them but they aren't there. I've seen plenty of people totally inexperienced with Linux just start off with KDE as if they've been using it all their life.

      However, Gnome is so fragmented (has so many dependencies) that it's almost impossible to compile by hand. Furthermore it's just not intuitive and lacks a lot of options.
      If it were a car, it would only have a steering wheel, gas and brake. And no climate control, poke or radio etc because it might confuse the driver.

    33. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No Gnome assumes the user has a job to get done and stays out of their way while KDE gives people with nothing better to do options to play with and eyecandy.

    34. Re:Gnome + KDE by DiegoBravo · · Score: 1

      I'm not too sure about the "wasted effort" or "duplicated work" idea. I believe both desktops represent two UI concepts and also two different development environment/philosofy. For example, if KDE disappeared, then current KDE developers would be doing anything else and not developing Gnome apps - they will not like it anyway -, and the same the other way arround.

      Of course more have to be done in order to avoid annoying new users with this thing: most never had a so complex dilemma... what criteria may apply a former Win-user to select his "Desktop environment"? he never had to choice it before.

    35. Re:Gnome + KDE by pugdk · · Score: 1

      Please note that you're not *required* to use the options and customizations KDE offers. But it just really sucks if you need them but they aren't there. I've seen plenty of people totally inexperienced with Linux just start off with KDE as if they've been using it all their life.

      However, Gnome is so fragmented (has so many dependencies) that it's almost impossible to compile by hand. Furthermore it's just not intuitive and lacks a lot of options.
      If it were a car, it would only have a steering wheel, gas and brake. And no climate control, poke or radio etc because it might confuse the driver.

      I couldn't agree more. I fail to see why it should be necessary with two different GUIs for inexperienced / new users and power users. Just setup the default for the new users, but keep power users happy by giving them the option of having things "their way".

      In my opinion, choice is lacking in Gnome. Yes, I could get work done using Gnome, but it would annoy me all the time, worst thing being my inability to change most of the annoyances (just like windows or OS X) whereas KDE makes it possible for me to change things as I see fit... (well, most of them anyway :-).

    36. Re:Gnome + KDE by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      My only beef with it right now

      I'm vegetarian, you insensitive clod!

    37. Re:Gnome + KDE by drix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ubuntu (i.e. Kubuntu) would already rule the desktop.

      I assume you mean the Linux part of the desktop. Because nothing I have seen in the FOSS world approaches even OS X Puma in terms of usability, aesthetics or intuitiveness. There's something fundamental missing from the equation in Gnome and KDE, and that something is artists. I'm not just talking about making pretty desktops with lots of gradients and plasticky buttons. Use any Apple product for five minutes and you instantly realize that some seriously right-brained shit goes into developing these things. There's very little of that going on in the Gnome or KDE camps, and what little there is seems is mostly derivative of something Mac or, worse, Windows, already did. Please understand that I'm not trying to belittle anyone or, in particular, the tens of thousands of hours of donated hard work that has gone into these projects, both of which I use and am impressed with. But it's time we stopped clicking our heels waiting for Linux to "finally" overtake OS X. Why? Because the open source culture of giving away your hard work, so prevalent in the software world, simply has no equivalent in the artistic world. Apropos the post, it appears someone finally realized this and is throwing down some cash to address things like UI design and documentation, but I remain extremely skeptical how worthwhile this will be given Apple's decade-long lead.

      Actually, a great example of what I'm talking about will be comparing Android, which I'm guessing was designed by a bunch of CS grads, with the iPhone. If the Gnome or KDE guys had to build a cell phone, they could have built Android. No one except Apple could have made the iPhone.

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    38. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KDE? Gnome? People still use those?

    39. Re:Gnome + KDE by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      I wish both KDE and GNOME would consolidate on some low level services and libraries that are shared. The top layers can be whatever and experiment with different environments. That would be a good thing.

      The first step to improve GNOME is to make webkit the default library for the tons of HTML rendering needed in that UI. If you look at the dependancies, a lot of GNOME depends on browser code which I disagree with. At least with KDE, it's their code instead of Mozilla. If you don't see why this is a problem, support it on a non linux platform that isn't blessed yet by Mozilla.

      Many people have complaints about KDE 4, and mine is trying to get QT4 to compile. Both environments have problems. Documentation and UI improvements are badly needed in the open source space. My own project has real problems in that area too so I take responsibility as much as the next guy (should).

    40. Re:Gnome + KDE by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      let me take a wild stab based on your balanced assessment and guess that you prefer KDE.

    41. Re:Gnome + KDE by Kjella · · Score: 1

      They are both an equally valid approach, but the target demographics are incompatible. It would be stupid to try and combine them.

      Gnome and KDE, yes probably but you're talking about something completely different. You could have "Gnomish"/Qt or "KDEish"/GTK in terms of UI design choices, I thought the parent was talking about joining the libraries from a developers point of view. Writing two toolkits that look and act the same in every way sounds like an exercise in frustration.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    42. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, Just thought I'd point out that someone has posted an EXTREMELY similar post in reply to the full article on computerworld.
      what is this - a troll with multiple personalities??

      ... but I seriously hate Gnome. Gnome is dysfunctional, limits my options, looks like shit (well, that can be themed, but...) and just generally sucks.

      If KDE had been chosen instead and as much time had been spent on polishing KDE as Ubuntu has spent on polishing Gnome, we would not have this discussion.... Ubuntu (i.e. Kubuntu) would already rule the desktop.

      Sadly, I see more and more development time wasted on supporting / trying to polish Gnome into something functional instead of just throwing the towel into the ring and going with KDE 4.

    43. Re:Gnome + KDE by bursch-X · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No you don't really have that choice, unless you could run all your apps using just either (not both) of the two environments.

      But if you e.g. are a GNOME user, there comes a much needed application that happens to be made for KDE written in Qt and of which there happens to be no GNOME equivalent, so you have to install the KDE underpinnings and the app stands out like a sore thumb and your whole consistent desktop experience goes down the drain.

      That's why fragmentation is not a good thing on the Desktop. If you could make all applications look and behave more or less the same, this inconsistency in visual interfaces, could be dealt with. I think it could be done.

      Just look at Java applications on Mac OS X. Yes, they are somewhat fugly, but they look and behave enough like Cocoa apps that you can at least bear using them. Copy & paste works, drag and drop works, the keyboard shortcuts and the rest is rather consistent, too.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    44. Re:Gnome + KDE by demachina · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Millions of people disagree with you"

      I'm a little skeptical there are actually millions of people even using Linux on their desktops and I imagine the number is shrinking in the face of the fact that OSX is so well done. If you split those in half between Gnome and KDE I imagine you would be down to hundreds of thousands of people who agree or disagree with him. Then further trim the number by the hundreds of thousands of Linux desktop users who probably have no strong opinion on the religious wars between Gnome and KDE. You will probably be left with maybe a hundred thousand fanatics who will wage an endless religious war on the subject while OSX wins the desktop war for discriminating users, and Windows will continue to win with people who aren't very discriminating or play games on their PC. About the only hope Linux has on the desktop is in countries like China and Brazil which hate the U.S. and its corporations enough that they don't want their PC's owned by Microsoft or Apple.

      Just to prove I'm one of those doomed religious fanatics I'd have to agree with the guy that started this thread, that while GNOME has some nice work in it in places, for the most part GTK is really poor foundation to build a GUI on and GNOME ends up being a pretty poor GUI due to its weak foundation. Its really sad Qt wasn't put under a license similar to Freetype way back when, because if it had Linux would be light years ahead of where it is today on the desktop. Though as another thread here hit the nail on the head, ALSA is such a horrible audio API it is also driving a bunch of nails in the coffin.

      I've always had a strong suspicion Miguel is a Microsoft mole who has been doing a really awesome job of insuring Linux will never be any good on the desktop by poisoning it from within. If I was Bill Gates I'd sure be paying Miguel a small fortune under the table to do all the damage he's done to the Linux desktop over the years.

      --
      @de_machina
    45. Re:Gnome + KDE by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      If Ubuntu will default to KDE, then Kubuntu will vanish, so we'll have GNUbuntu for the GNOME version?

      Getting confused...

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    46. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gnome underwhelms me, has no options, and looks...well it looks ok. But seriously, I find Gnome a real pain to work in, KDE just does MORE, much more. Sorry if you havent discovered that yet, the power is there. KDE also happens to have the better applications, the better file management, the better pipes (slaves). I dont care if they leave Gnome unusable, but dont drag KDE down to that level.

    47. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry. I like Gnome. My brother loves KDE. So STFU about one being superior to the other. Seriously. How old are you? Time to grow up.

    48. Re:Gnome + KDE by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Shh. Don't tell anyone but there's

      defaults write com.apple.*name-your-app* [lots of options]

      On OS X which let's you activate tons of hidden options and stuff, but you know OS X is _not_ tweakable, so keep it a secret.

      But yes you're right, having that geek option is a good thing, but as you state the geek options should be well hidden (as they are in Firefox or OS X) to the "normal" user, because I don't want them to clutter the UI. Options are good if they don't mess up the ease and clarity of applications.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    49. Re:Gnome + KDE by FelixGordon · · Score: 1

      I find Gnome makes the type of computing that requires a desktop environment very straight forward. Likewise for Fluxbox and a handful of other window managers I've used in the past.

      When I need to do something else with my system I can just drop to bash and get things done the efficient way. I mean, I'm using Linux, where system configuration is all done through plain text config files.

      Tightly coupling the desktop environment with the entire operating system just seems like a slightly broken approach under Linux. Your power user doesn't need a GUI, most every day users don't need their environment cluttered with power tools.

    50. Re:Gnome + KDE by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Exactly, GNOME (as OS X) is for adults who have penises who rather use them with their girl friends than sitting in front of a computer and tweak it all day.

      KDE is for students who have to prove the length of their penises by using "manly" and messy UIs, it's the only way for them to prove their manhood, they wouldn't get laid anyway ;-P

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    51. Re:Gnome + KDE by uhlume · · Score: 1

      They are both an equally valid approach, but the target demographics are incompatible. It would be stupid to try and combine them.

      Well, you could, but then you'd have Windows.

      --
      SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
    52. Re:Gnome + KDE by Lank · · Score: 1

      You can put lipstick on a pig - it's still a pig!

      --
      Gotta get me one of these!
    53. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trouble is that Gnome has already decided what your job is, and if it's not correct then you have to start trawling forums or manually searching gconf for the option you need.

      IF it even exists.

    54. Re:Gnome + KDE by carlmenezes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      +1

      I think what Mark Shuttleworth is doing is EXACTLY what is needed. GNOME and KDE are both evolving, each in their own way. I've been a long time KDE user, but I now find myself able to use GNOME too and appreciate its approach. I also love the fact that I can switch between these two widely different approaches and still feel at home - they're both doing something right.

      I would like to think/hope that Shuttleworth is accelarating this process by funding these projects. They are both beautiful and what we really need is for both of them to be completely usable to a newbie that chooses either.

      I guess I'm just hoping that Shuttleworth is able to do for both these desktops what Nintendo did for console gaming with the Wii - make newbies feel at home. That's what we need now - more newbies using Linux. We need input from the non-techies to give us a straight opinion about what they like and what they don't. We need newbies who like it enough to want to contribute in ways that other newbies will appreciate.

      We already have solid teams working on these projects. We now need a nice welcome mat for the disgruntled/curious Windows user.

      Mark, if you're reading this, THANK YOU.

      --
      Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
    55. Re:Gnome + KDE by swillden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I keep wondering when Gnome and KDE will ever join forces

      Never.

      KDE developers aren't interested on working on something like GNOME. If they were, they would. If KDE didn't exist, they'd create it or do something entirely different.

      Ditto GNOME developers. I mentioned KDE developers first, because I'm in their camp. I like C++, I like OO and I like the elaborate, ultra-flexible coolness you can build with them, and the simplicity inherent in the complexity. GNOME developers read that last phrase and say "Huh? WTF is he smoking?". To KDE developers GNOME is tedious and boring. To GNOME developers, KDE is arcane and weird.

      The environments are written in different languages, with radically different design philosophies, both internally and externally. They just attract different sorts of folks.

      Having both doesn't mean that the community's efforts are divided, it means that the community's efforts are DOUBLED, because twice as many developers find something they'd like to work on. And they don't fight one another at all -- quite the contrary, they work together quite well on defining common desktop standards so that they can interoperate smoothly. Not only that, but they pick up each others' good ideas and incorporate them, making them better.

      Having both KDE and GNOME is good for open source. Enjoy it.

      (I'm generally a KDE user as well as a sometime KDE developer, but at the moment I'm using GNOME on Ubuntu and quite enjoying its polished simplicity. In a week or two I'll get tired of its limitations and switch back to KDE. This happens every year or so. When I go back, I always end up finding a few GNOMEisms that I try to see if I can get in KDE. It's all good.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    56. Re:Gnome + KDE by mhall119 · · Score: 1

      They have, and they are. Join the freedesktop.org mailing list and you will see quite a bit of cooperation and "joining of forces" between Gnome and KDE developers.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    57. Re:Gnome + KDE by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Gnome assumes the user is confused and tries to help them.

      IIRC, that was a conscious change of direction for Gnome. They made the decision to reduce the options and use sensible defaults (everything still available via gconf though) around 2.0 was it? Something to do with usability... and yes, there was a bit of noise about the UI being dumbed-down.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    58. Re:Gnome + KDE by smaddox · · Score: 1

      I dont see what your complaining about. I never could figure out linux until I used a Gnome based distro (Ubuntu). Theres something about all the applications starting with k that threw me off.

      Maybe it's just an Ubuntu thing and not Gnome specifically (mandrake was the last distro i tried), but in ubuntu the apps are named what the are. Calculator is called Calculator. Music player is called Rythmbox Music Player. Movie Player is called Movie Player.

      KDE just had all sorts of crap all over the place. I'm sure its great if you know what your doing, but I had been using windows for so long that it was intimidating.

    59. Re:Gnome + KDE by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the real reason. If you need help remembering, go ask a republican.

      "Because we're right, and they're wrong!" (Of course it's not any better on the "That's not change, that's more of the same!" side of the aisle either...)

      Seriously, I think if the plan is world domination and overtaking Windows market share, we have to pick one DE, one toolkit, one file system, etc.

      Good thing we here at slashdot don't have any unhealthy obsession with toppling Goliath...

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    60. Re:Gnome + KDE by the_womble · · Score: 1

      If Gnome had been chosen instead and as much time had been spent on polishing Gnome as Mandrake/Mandriva has spent on polishing KDE, we would not have this discussion.... Mandriva (i.e. Gmandriva) would already rule the desktop.

      Mandriva has always been "desktop-neutral" and have put as much effort into polishing Gnome as KDE. That the KDE version looks more polished tells you something about KDE.

      I agree with you about letting users be happy with their choices, but it makes it impossible to know what it is best to recommend to a new user.

    61. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, distribution upgrades work perfectly here.

    62. Re:Gnome + KDE by the_womble · · Score: 1

      I downloaded Kubuntu and tried it on a desktop that uses 100% linux-happy hardware.

      Kubuntu sucks. Try KDE on a distro that actually puts does KDE properly instead of as an afterthought: Mandriva or SuSe for mainstream ditros, some people like Mepis, Arch is more geeky but has KDE mod as well as standard KDE.

    63. Re:Gnome + KDE by jambarama · · Score: 1

      Options are great. I used kde for a while, then I found ratpoison. Once it is setup a way you're comfortable with, you'll never want any other gui - they're all too bloated and inefficient. For the feint hearted, fluxbox is a close approximation. But I'd never want my wife to be forced to learn my ratpoison setup - so I'm glad we have options.

    64. Re:Gnome + KDE by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      That's why I wont install kde; it wont let me choose what I want or don't want.

      Someone complaining about a lack of options in KDE? I think this is the first I've seen this in the Gnome/KDE argument.

      As for your complaint, it must be distribution dependent. Gentoo allows me to completely pick-and-choose which KDE applications are installed. I can even install everything except kwin (window manager) if I choose.

      Gnome, under Gentoo, doesn't allow me that flexibility. If I want to install glchess, I also have to install several unrelated games that I don't want.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    65. Re:Gnome + KDE by pugdk · · Score: 1

      I actually believe plenty of artists/right-brained people share their work using for example creative commons or the like.

      I have to disagree on the iPhone - it may be aesthetically pleasing, but it could have used some CS grads love..... who the hell puts a mobile phone on the market in 2008 that lacks basic functionality like MMS (pictures/videos/sound) messages or just the capability to record video?

      The lack of MMS is a total bust for me and means I'll never get an iPhone - yes I'm aware you can get 3rd party apps that will do it for you, but it should just be built in! Its a total standard thing in all other phones, EXCEPT iPhone.

      I'm pretty sure Android will have MMS capability :-)

    66. Re:Gnome + KDE by Yfrwlf · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ubuntu Linux tops 8 million users.

      That's just Ubuntu. Not that it matters, I just want the number of Linux users to go higher regardless of what the actual number is right now.

      I imagine the number is shrinking in the face of the fact that OSX is so well done.

      You think an OS with a pre-loaded dock which is still tied to overpriced hardware should be outdoing a completely free OS which can have a dock as well as a hundred number of other ways of starting programs? I agree that certain things need better streamlining on Linux believe me, but I don't agree with your statement if only Linux had actual consumer choice behind it and visibility. Even though it may sound cliche that doesn't mean it's not true, I largely blame Microsoft's business practices for this. I think many consumers would choose the much cheaper Linux option, if they had the choice presented. I just disagree on that one point, but appreciate your criticism.

      About ALSA though, I still don't understand why it's getting so much hate when Pulseaudio has been adopted by many of the "biggest" distros and is available of course for anyone to install. From Wikipedia: In a typical installation scenario under Linux, the user configures ALSA to use a virtual device provided by PulseAudio. Thus, applications using ALSA will output sound to PulseAudio, which then uses ALSA itself to access the real sound card. PulseAudio also provides its own native interface to applications that want to support PulseAudio directly, as well as a legacy interface for ESD applications, making it suitable as a drop-in replacement for ESD. So, perhaps you should take a look at PA's API then. ^^ Would be nice to have a few standardized audio APIs though which could be used with any sound server, but for now the sound servers are the ones being flexible and modular by being able to communicate with all these different APIs, like PA can, so that's better than nothing.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    67. Re:Gnome + KDE by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "No you don't really have that choice, unless you could run all your apps using just either (not both) of the two environments."

      What are you talking about? I'm using KTorrent inside GNOME as we speak.

      Wait, do you want to say that I don't have a choice until I can run KTorrent without having KDElibs installed? What kind of reasoning is that? That's like saying that I don't have a choice between eating bread or sushi until I don't have to pay for the sushi.

      Systems come with at least 1 GB of RAM these days. I have 2 GB. The additional initial memory overhead of KDElibs of 20 MB doesn't even make a dent in my system's memory usage.

    68. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you get the brilliant idea of tying the two trains together ("working together"). Well, guess what happens?

      The rope snaps, decapitating a yokel and surprising two cows in a nearby field; the trains carry on regardless?

      NB Would you believe it - the captcha for this post is 'railway'.

    69. Re:Gnome + KDE by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The best approach would be to assume the user is incapable - but capable of becoming capable.

      For those who don't understand Rumsfeldian, what I mean is: make it default to something simple, but let (or better, guide) the user modify it as they learn and discover needs for new bells & whistles.

      As someone who's never developed on linux, hwo do you handle the differents between Gnome and KDE? Is there some kind of abstarction layer? if so, is it good or is it whack?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    70. Re:Gnome + KDE by wrook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've always had a strong suspicion Miguel is a Microsoft mole who has been doing a really awesome job of insuring Linux will never be any good on the desktop by poisoning it from within.

      This really does Miguel a disservice. I certainly don't agree with everything he does (possibly not even many things that he does). But before Miguel the best spreadsheet application we had was Oleo. When Miguel wrote Gnumeric it made *huge* strides for free software on the desktop.

      At the time I remember people saying, "Free software can never work on the desktop because writing a good spreadsheet application is just too boring". Miguel showed that there *were* people interested in writing decent office applications for free software.

      Sometimes it's hard to remember the contribution that people made so long ago. But we need to remember our history and respect those people who brought us here.

    71. Re:Gnome + KDE by BlackCreek · · Score: 1
      My own problem is that I rather like to use applications from KDE and Gnome together. Some from KDE are better than Gnome's, some from Gnome are better than KDE's.

      The problem is this huge NIH attitude that pervades both projects.

      Why can't these people unify a minimal amount of API so that at least the programs are able to colaborate instead of sabotage each other? I want to use programs, not desktops environments.

      That and the fact that KDE people are still so lost as to think that adding a retarded "K" before each program name is a good idea (KAlarm, KNetworkManager, KSysGuard, Kmix, KArm, KXML Editor etc)

      I do use KDE these days FWIW but it is most due to Katapult, Konsole and Yakuake than anything else.

    72. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      theyre both shite. if they got together they would be a bigger pile of shite. enlightenment for hte WIN!!

    73. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about humans that don't have penises? What operating system should they use?

    74. Re:Gnome + KDE by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's hard to remember the contribution that people made so long ago. But we need to remember our history and respect those people who brought us here.

      true. But it is our responsibility not to let things they did years ago to cloud our judgement of what they do today. You'd think Robert Mugabe was a hero otherwise, and ignore the politically-inspired violence of late.

      Don't think I'm comparing Miguel with Mugabe, but the world would be better if he created similarly great advances in F/OSS software than just parroting Microsoft's latest moving target.

    75. Re:Gnome + KDE by holy_calamity · · Score: 1

      KDE developers aren't interested on working on something like GNOME. If they were, they would. If KDE didn't exist, they'd create it or do something entirely different. Ditto Gnome developers.

      Really, have they discovered those genes yet? Maybe Shuttleworth should fund a hybrid breeding project for KDE and Gnome developers.

      Seriously, though, KDE and Gnome have not emerged as reflections of the two basic types of person in the world.

      Sure, they're two well-established projects that earn loyalty from developers and users. But they have more in common than people realise. Merging some or all of what they do might be a challenge, but it's not impossible.

    76. Re:Gnome + KDE by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't Gnome allow configuration of everything, but it into config files, and leave them out of the GUI?

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    77. Re:Gnome + KDE by demachina · · Score: 1

      "When Miguel wrote Gnumeric it made *huge* strides for free software on the desktop."

      I don't give him any credit for it because I've never used it. I've had to use GTK more than I care to remember, and I hate it with a passion, thanks Miguel for making it a Linux standard. Only spread sheet I've ever used on Linux is in Open Office. Spreadsheets aren't ground breaking software, which is why they were one of the first apps on the original PC and DOS. I remember there was a free spread sheet with source that shipped with TurboC like 15 years ago. So.... yawn.

      --
      @de_machina
    78. Re:Gnome + KDE by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Dude, you rock.

      Microsoft doesn't have this competition for the most part, and look where that got them.

      The last time they really advanced their interface, Win95, I remember PC Magazine printing this poem about it:

      Something old,
      Something new,
      Like a lot from Apple,
      and OS/2

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    79. Re:Gnome + KDE by demachina · · Score: 1

      "You think an OS with a pre-loaded dock which is still tied to overpriced hardware should...."

      The thing about OSX is everything works out of the box, there are strong usability guidelines in every application, every application has a consistent UI so a user can count on every application to be consistent and easy to use. It also has a bunch of killer apps.

      Its unfortunate Apple hardware is so expensive because it does restrict it to the affluent and really shuts out the poor parts of the world. Its also unfortunate its not more open than it is. But..... you simply can't argue with the fact that it is is a VERY well done desktop operating system with a bunch of very well done applications... and Apple does usability very well. Give them their due and stop being petty. I am no Mac fan boy, I still use a Linux desktop all the time, but every time Linux pokes me in the eye with a sharp stick, which it does ALL THE TIME, I waiver. There is a lot to be said for an OS where there are grown ups who make sure that the GUI and multimedia work consistently, as opposed to Linux where no one is in charge, and it shows in every way on the desktop, and people do things based on their religion and with no regard for the end user.

      I simply don't think open source CAN develop a first class desktop experience. The simple fact everyone CAN do their own thing, creates complete chaos in a GUI and has caused such horrible fragmentation that Linux is defeating itself on the desktop at this point.

      "Ubuntu Linux tops 8 million users."

      Yay for marketing spin. I doubt anyone even knows how many people actually run Linux on the desktop, I'm sure not taking Ubuntu's word for it.

      "I still don't understand why it's getting so much hate when Pulseaudio"

      I don't understand how you can defend ALSA by admitting its such a bad audio API that it had to be brushed under the rug by hiding it under a bastardized API like Pulse. ALSA is so bad that people have developed about a dozen API's on top of it to try to hide it and make it go away. Unfortunately all this has done has proliferated a bunch more half baked API's that application developers have to try to support and Pulse Audio isn't any better than the rest. It is for all practical purposes ESD doing the same thing ESD did which was to try to hide the fact OSS sucked. The ALSA emulation in Pulse is terrible, though thats more ALSA's fault since its such an overdone and complex API its nearly impossible for anything to emulate it.

      Another key point is PulseAudio isn't on ALL distro's so an application developer still can't count on it being there and just code to it.

      Another issue with ALSA is its such a convoluted, over done API it makes life living hell for people who have to write drivers to support it. Especially when you get in to embedded CPU's you can count on the ALSA driver to be the last part of the kernel to be implemented by a silicon company, and its always one of the buggiest drivers.

      The fact PulseAudio even exists and everyone is switching to it is the ultimate admission by the Linux community that ALSA is a complete failure.

      As an application developer I just want a simple, standard API, that I KNOW will be on every Linux box, and it will always work and work the same on every box. I just want to set basic things like rate, number of channels and format, and then just write buffers and have it just work. I don't want to know about period size or threshholds or the other 20 knobs that are in the user facing API that most application developers should never see.

      --
      @de_machina
    80. Re:Gnome + KDE by __aaxwdb6741 · · Score: 1

      Yah, and you know what? Bringing Linux to the desktop is correctly done using Gnome. The average user (This is the part of "bringing" linux) doesn't care about tuning every single fucking aspect of every single fucking app he'd ever use. Neither do I.

      Gnome is good because I can edit it's behaviour if I really want to, and not because I'm required to, to make it even work.

    81. Re:Gnome + KDE by radio4fan · · Score: 1

      ...as though I'm asking the English and German to join forces against tooth decay.

      At the risk of a 'whoosh', I aver that the UK and Germany have lower rates of tooth decay than the US.

      Average decayed, missing & filled teeth for 12 year olds (latest available data):

      Germany: 0.7
      UK: 0.7
      US: 1.19

      Source: World Health Organisation.

    82. Re:Gnome + KDE by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      "I simply don't think open source CAN develop a first class desktop experience."

      While I agree that certain things like GTK vs. QT could use some streamlining so that, for instance, the user was in almost total control over the way their programs look and feel, just because some developers choose not to develop for desktop standards doesn't mean the end of the world. Users do have the choice on the programs they use, so if there's some program like Blender which doesn't use, nor do I think it has the option to use (but could be wrong, someone might have made something by now) a more standard GUI interface which they can control the theme on doesn't mean the whole Linux desktop experience is destroyed. They can simply not use that program. That's one of the differences between OSX/Windows and the free desktops is developers have the option to make their own interface. So, I agree that users should be in charge of their GUIs and developers need to give that control over to their users as to whether they want to use the developer's interface which they think is better, or their own one, though in any case it should be at least color theme-able! So, basically, more Linux modularity goodness, please, not "standardization" in the sense of removing choice, but modularity in the sense of giving more freedom to everyone, and that's the way things are heading. More developers are realizing that users + more freedom = bigger user base, while other developers just don't care, but that's OK because no one has to use their program.

      So, I think it's definitely moving in that direction but certainly needs improvement and more modularity/planning on the behalf of developers, and I think more constructive criticism is definitely good and needed, but it's definitely not impossible for Linux to get a thousand programs under it's belt which are seemless, because it's happening and will continue to happen, thanks in part to efforts like freedesktop.org and the Linux Foundation, though I keep wondering if the latter's methods for unifying is the correct path (trying to push standardization more than modularity and simply smart programming).

      I don't understand how you can defend ALSA by admitting its such a bad audio API that it had to be brushed under the rug by hiding it under a bastardized API like Pulse.

      Oh I'm definitely not defending it, I'm merely suggesting another API to you and was wondering why the attack when PA exists, which happens to be becoming more common it seems like, so perhaps it's worth taking a look at. I fully agree there should be a/some APIs which are completely separate from the sound servers so that we can get some more modularity there for situations like you mentioned if they don't have Pulse Audio installed (though it should then be a dependency and the user should be able to easily install and run it of course). If we can get a good Linux audio API in there, that will free up the programming nightmare and allow that freedom to swap out and drop in any sound server you want, creating more competition between the sound servers because there will actually be choice. Like you said, you won't be forced to develop for or not develop for a particular sound API based on it's popularity. Again for the love of all things that are awesome, more modularity please. More developers need to realize the importance of design modularity. If I were making a program that used sound, and was told that I needed to pick one of the sound servers and develop for it specifically and there was no cross-server API I could use to quickly and easily let the user decide the sound server they thought was best aside from programming for every one that I thought might be common, I'd work on making the fucking thing, not whining about how it didn't exist. It hopefully shouldn't be too hard to do, because APIs are or should be quite small, being a simple "wrapper" or universal interface to whatever backend. Sure, I'd have to then program for all of the most common s

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    83. Re:Gnome + KDE by crazybilly · · Score: 1
      sweet! a real honest-to-God KDE vs. Gnome flame war! everybody's been so nice about the two recently, I started to think people were just joking about the flaming.

      good to know reality is back in style ;)

    84. Re:Gnome + KDE by swillden · · Score: 1

      Seriously, though, KDE and Gnome have not emerged as reflections of the two basic types of person in the world.

      Whoooooossshhh!

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    85. Re:Gnome + KDE by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      What about humans that don't have penises? What operating system should they use?

      If they are men without penises, I'd say Unix.

      (It would make more sense if I could say it out loud.)

    86. Re:Gnome + KDE by samwichse · · Score: 1

      He's complaining about his distro's packages... not KDE itself. Most distros all the kde apps into 5-6 big packages. Not really KDE's fault, is it?

      Sam

    87. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You think an OS with a pre-loaded dock which is still tied to overpriced hardware should...."

      The thing about OSX is everything works out of the box, there are strong usability guidelines in every application, every application has a consistent UI so a user can count on every application to be consistent and easy to use. It also has a bunch of killer apps.

      "The thing about X when everything is controlled by Y to make X work smoothly is that X runs smoothly, WOW."
      buy an intel laptop (all intel down to the wireless drivers) run a gnome (all gnome) or kde (all kde) operating system and wow it all works.
      buy an EEEpc and leave the default OS on it and WOW, it all works.
      This all works argument is getting old, if you buy compatible hardware and only use compatible software, stuff works, this is not unique to mac, hell if you install windows and only use MS software chances are it will work!

      Its unfortunate Apple hardware is so expensive because it does restrict it to the affluent and really shuts out the poor parts of the world. Its also unfortunate its not more open than it is. But..... you simply can't argue with the fact that it is is a VERY well done desktop operating system with a bunch of very well done applications... and Apple does usability very well. Give them their due and stop being petty.

      Ahh the classic everything fits in because of the usability guidelines, only to get shot down by the next muppet that says "i can install all linux software in mac os x anyway", again if you stick to one DE/toolkit stuff will fit in (certain DE enforce their policy more strickly (e.g amaroK is a shitty example of a KDE aplication, but it still plays audio and manages your media collection very well).

      rant about choice

      the entire argument assumes that if you put strick guidelines on usability everybody would stick to them instead of either ignore them or simply not develop for you platform. Ever wonderd why there are so few native os x third party products?

      "Ubuntu Linux tops 8 million users."

      Yay for marketing spin. I doubt anyone even knows how many people actually run Linux on the desktop, I'm sure not taking Ubuntu's word for it.

      Its not hard, count the number of unique IPs that update via your mirrors (ofc people will use multiple IPs for one desktop but some offices will only show as one IP for multiple desktops) so its not that hard to get a ballpark figure, same can be said for the number of users of any software.

      rant about audio API

      the thing is, when you have to support a multitude of hardware that evolves over time that is what you end up with. eventually your API will be so messed up you need to start again, but leave backwards compatibility, this is what happend with vista and whats happening with pulseaudio and KDE4. OFC you could just ignore the users needs and not bother allowing individual aplication volumes to be controlled from one place and stick with a single audio driver and remove the need for this altogether, but then your OS would sort of suck

    88. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you about letting users be happy with their choices, but it makes it impossible to know what it is best to recommend to a new user.

      Whichever you use, i recently re-introduces a friend to linux and as ill be his primary tech support i suggested KDE, when he pushed for an answer as to why KDE instead of gnome, i simply explained KDE and gnome have different design goals and i find i prefer the choice that KDE offers and as im gunna be his tech support it'll be easier for me to help him. I hope this has left him informed enough that he neither thinks KDE/gnome are all there is to linux.

    89. Re:Gnome + KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any examples please?
      while my current desktop is fairly minimalistic (1 row for taskbar + window titles) and ocationally (when in gtk apps) 1 row for the menubar, the rest being content.
      yesterday i was playing on a friends kde install that would beat the shit out of any mac look ive ever seen.
      translucent menubar
      top and bottom of the cube coloured to seamlessly blend with the desktop wallpaper
      a pretty cool skydome

      oh right os x has some bouncy icons on the taskbar (kde had them since 3.0)
      and place (X had them since circa 1990)

      sorry what was your point? that we should put fancy graphics above users security and privacy? your right only apple could have made the iPhone

  12. An omen! by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 5, Funny

    This must be proof that 2009 will be the year of the Linux desktop!

    1. Re:An omen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2008 turned out to be the year of the Linux micro laptop though.

      Not dissing Ubuntu, but I think ASUS and Acer will do more for Linux popularity than any particular distro.

    2. Re:An omen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /me starts holding breath.

    3. Re:An omen! by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Yes and it will come preinstalled with Duke Nukem forever!

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    4. Re:An omen! by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      The year of Linux in the desktop has already passed, did you expect firefox or some notarized affidavit from all users in the world that they are switching? It doesn't work like that...

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    5. Re:An omen! by Nuffsaid · · Score: 1

      In case you didn't notice, 2008 already was the year of Linux on your lap. Rethinking about all the noise we made about a few Dell laptop models coming with Linux preinstalled, what should we say about the impact that millions of Linux netbooks have had with ordinary people who now use it because it "just works" very well for their purposes?

      --
      Nuffsaid
      ________

      Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
  13. ALSA Drivers Please!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As an audio software developer, I have tried several times to make and port programs to Linux.

    Basically, you never dare to request anything other than the default config from an alsa driver. Trying different sample rates, formats or channel configs can cause anything from an unhelpful error code to a segfault (I kid you not).

    So it's hard to take Linux seriously in this context.
    ALSA is a roadblock, due to being "good enough", but it's nowhere near good.

    1. Re:ALSA Drivers Please!! by jd · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd love it if there was a facility somewhere with a small army of software engineers whose jobs were to formally verify (where possible) or unit-test (in all other cases) every function of every major project in Linux, and to fix those functions to operate within specification. It wouldn't fix all problems, integration creates as many bugs as the individual units, but if you could halve the number of bugs, the primary developers could focus on architectural defects rather than implementational defects.

      What would it take to do this? For just the Linux kernel, GCC and GLibc suites and X11, you'd need about 20,000 full-time mathematically-oriented software engineers, to be able to get the code as clean as possible and keep it that way, within a year. If you rolled them over onto other software, you could have Gnome, KDE and ROX pretty much sewn up the following year, maybe two.

      So, we can get Linux reasonably (not perfectly, just reasonably) bug-free, for about 6 billion dollars. Personally, I would regard that as an extremely worthwhile investment. The DoD has done studies that have shown troops have illicitly spent about that on women of ill repute using Government credit cards, in the past 15 years. (That has resulted in some going to military prison, but I doubt that got any of the money back.) A national bug-hunt might not be as much "fun", but a lot more people will enjoy the results.

      This, however, is somewhat unlikely. Equally unlikely, however, is the ALSA module ever getting many problems ironed out. The range of hardware is too great, the information available is too limited, the number of developers is too small, the complexity of ALSA is too vast and the spaghetti monster of a configuration module is too convoluted.

      ALSA is probably unmaintainable in the long-term and does not appear sustainable in the short-term. It's good, but it's just not providing the resources people need. If it was, you'd not need heavy-weight pluggable supercharged V10 engines just to run the mixing desks.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:ALSA Drivers Please!! by gmf · · Score: 1

      I agree that ALSA sucks (for many reasons, the hideous API probably being the most important one).

      But, as an application developer, you simply shouldn't use ALSA directly, it's not worth the hassle. If your app does any "serious" audio work, use JACK. Period.
      If you're aiming at the average desktop user, use another high-level audio API. PulseAudio appears to be a good choice.

    3. Re:ALSA Drivers Please!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jack sits on top of ALSA, so it doesn't really help with driver level stuff.

      What it can do, at best is do the kludging for you.

      And sure why not. But at the end of the day, all this means is that there will be even less reason to actually fix ALSA.

    4. Re:ALSA Drivers Please!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't use ALSA - use Jack. It takes the ALSA piece of the puzzle out of the picture. This of ALSA as the low-level interface, Jack as the real audio layer.

    5. Re:ALSA Drivers Please!! by smaddox · · Score: 1

      I would have to agree that sound is a problem. I don't do developing to any large extent (scripting and small gui stuff), but audio on linux is lacking. Just the fact that I can't run Guild Wars through wine and play music through rythmbox at the same time irritates me. Having to do all sorts of weird stuff to get sound working in flash was very irritating as well.

      I have no idea what the solution is, but the it is clear to me that audio in linux is lacking.

    6. Re:ALSA Drivers Please!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may want to check out OSS v4. Now that it's open source again, there's potential for a linux sound system with sane design that already has support. It's currently responsible for making my creative labs x-fi make noises.

    7. Re:ALSA Drivers Please!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an audio software developer, I have tried several times to make and port programs to Linux.

      -1 Troll

      I can't even remember C syntax unless I'm looking at a book and I've managed to cobble together ALSA audio apps for my little studio here at home.

      Any way, you should be writing for Jack (for pro-audio) or something like Port Audio (for non-critical stuff). The hard work has already been done for you.

    8. Re:ALSA Drivers Please!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many different setups did you test on? See just because something worked on your system does not mean it's a viable platform.
      The inconsistencies in the driver layer does not become a problem until you need to support all of them.

      And no, Jack is not a solution, it's a black plastic bag wrapped around the problem.

    9. Re:ALSA Drivers Please!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your wish has already been granted, most distros switched to pulseaudio 6-12 months ago.

      It's not quite as simple as the straight file i/o of olde times, but it tries to address all shortcomings of ALSA.

  14. As long as it's not ubuntu-ify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    if KDE and gnome join together it'll be a big huge fight considering that gnoem was a GNU project and KDE views are different.

    but as long as Mark doesn't make these projects more "ubuntu" I'm all happy

  15. Wrong. Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OS X is not "based" on BSD.

    That having been said, I wouldn't leave FreeBSD for anything; even with the poor flash support. It's the cat's pajamas.

  16. Straight from Shaney's mouth by DrSkwid · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Macs were interesting because 1) they weren't Intel and 2) they weren't Unix, now they're both. Oh well."

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:Straight from Shaney's mouth by bursch-X · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well if you just want to be interesting, why don't you become gay and start using an Amiga?

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    2. Re:Straight from Shaney's mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change that to "Macs Sucked because" and you're on to something.

  17. Are his millions enough? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Red Hat has invested a lot of money to improve the Linux desktop experience as well. They've made great strides, but still - they still have a ways to go, at least in the opinion of this user of both OSes. So spending more money does not guarantee they'll reach the goal.

    I think, in order for Linux to really break through here, they probably need to have teams of actual designers rather than have the coders do most of the design themselves. They also probably need to "think different" and come up with their own usability/interface ideas, rather than keep mimicking Apple's (which Gnome seems to frequently do, if discussions on the developer email lists are any indication).

    In any case this is a good thing, and I hope Linux continues to push forward thanks to this new investment.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Are his millions enough? by Aetuneo · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the article itself: "... We are hiring designers, user experience champions and interaction design visionaries and challenging them to lead not only Canonical's distinctive projects but also to participate in GNOME, KDE and other upstream efforts to improve FLOSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) usability."

      --
      Everything is subjective.
    2. Re:Are his millions enough? by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 1

      Red Hat has been far more focused on improving server side services, stuff that they get paid support fees for, they do invest some time into the desktop experience, but not nearly on the magnitude that Shuttleworth/Canonical are doing.

      --
      -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
    3. Re:Are his millions enough? by LinuxDon · · Score: 1

      The look and feel of the interface (KDE/Gnome) is not the issue here, KDE3 is good enough.

      The actual problem with the "Linux Desktop Experience" consists of two things:
      1. A lot of technical tasks can't be accomplished at all using the GUI;
      2. It doesn't run Windows software.

      Examples:
      1. I've never succeeded connecting to a wireless network through the GUI configuration tool offered by Linux.

      2. Using Wine to run an application is still a pain.

      3. Often when using the GUI to configure something, an error occurs and you'll have to use the commandline to fix it.

      While these things aren't a problem for me, I can very well imagine people getting stuck at one of these things.

      They can polish the interface up all they want but if they don't fix the actual problems they won't attract a lot of new users.

    4. Re:Are his millions enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with RedHat is that they are working off a broken foundation. RPM and all sorts of crap came from RedHat. Poor design, no programming skill, etc. It's a dead end.

    5. Re:Are his millions enough? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      I have never had any problems with any of those. In KDE or Gnome.

      Strangely, a year and a half after switching to Linux for good, I find myself in a base install of Debian running Blackbox because the Ubuntu and Kubuntu were so convenient that I realized I wasn't learning anything. I didn't want to be dependent on the GUI.

  18. If I had millions... by DotDotSlasher · · Score: 2, Informative

    while this is useful admirable-- if I had millions, I would consider setting up a program to pay a limited number of folks $100 for installing Linux on a desktop machine used 8+ hours a week and using it for a few months. A weekly (at least) intelligent posting to the forums would be required. You would have to apply for the program - show some of your writing on the internet (slashdot posts) as someone who really exists and can actually communicate.
    Meanwhile, paid staff would facilitate a way to solve problems (watching forums, suggesting fixes, adding to a wiki) -- perhaps the organization could also offer bounties for FOSS developers to improve certain areas which are most annoying.
    This guy is way ahead of me, I'm still waiting for the millions.

    1. Re:If I had millions... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      So... paid beta testers?

  19. BSD is growing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sorry, I couldn't help it:

    It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is growing

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Windows community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has risen yet again, now up to more than 30 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has gained more market share , this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is sending other OSes into complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by topping the charts in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Daemon to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a long and prosperous future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Windows Server because *BSD is growing. Things are looking very good for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to gain market share. Red ink flows from Redmond like a river of blood.

    FreeBSD is the most loved of them all, having gained 93% more core developers. The sudden and pleasant release of the long developed 5.0 only serves to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is growing.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 70000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 70000/5 = 14000 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 7000 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (70000+14000+7000)*4 = 364000 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

    Due to the release of OSX, cool new technologies and so on, FreeBSD is expanding into more desktops than ever. FreeBSD has become more than the sum of its parts.

    All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily gained in market share. *BSD is very powerful and its long term survival prospects are very bright. If Windows is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to improve. The progress achieved is nothing short of a miracle. For all practical purposes, *BSD is alive and kicking.

    Fact: *BSD will kick your ass

    1. Re:BSD is growing by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      If OS X counts as FreeBSD then Windows should count as BSD, too. After all they've been using the BSD network stack for quite a while.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    2. Re:BSD is growing by Narnie · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or did that read like Nigerian phishing spam?

      --
      greed@All_Evils:~#
  20. Much Cheaper Solution! by crhylove · · Score: 0

    Though his money is undoubtedly helping, I think Ubuntu would become much more popular, much faster, if it would lose the hideous orange and brown color scheme.

    http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/12326/

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    1. Re:Much Cheaper Solution! by pizzach · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu's use of brown being hideous is much more of an opinion than a fact. It's about the same as the differing opinions between ClearType and Quartz rendering. You use it for a bit, there is a good chance it may grow on you. When you return, what you were used to may appear "ugly". Quartz fonts suddenly appear blurry. ClearType fonts look pixelated and distorted. Blue suddenly becomes a cold depressing color.

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
  21. Simple start by loconet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    X? OpenGL? really? Will some of the simpler more annoying stuff that is broken right now be addressed as well? How about we start with some simple stuff like getting Flash with audio not crash Firefox 98% of the time. I don't care that you can fix that by installing Flash 10 beta, or some extra library, the fact is that it does not work out of the box. Not only that, the fix (as explained by the hundreds of other users who had the problem) involves jumping to the command line and apt-get'ing a new version of flash after installing a new unsupported apt source. For me, it's fine, I can deal with it but the general public will not want to jump through those hoops. It is very hard to spread Linux adoption when this is one of the very first things users experience. They will not care that the problem might be on Adobe's end or Mozilla's or some obscure repo. The fact is, the browser shipped with the OS crashes. This makes it all look unpolished, unfinished. A house with squeaky floors. I hope that money is also being used to eliminate these basic problems at whatever the root cause may be. .. and yes bugs have been filed!

    --
    [alk]
    1. Re:Simple start by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thats right.
      Ubuntu works fine.
      Firefox works fine.
      Gnome/X works fine.
      Compiz works fine.
      Pretty much every app works fine.
      Bugs are addressed quickly on ubuntu's website.
      ADOBE makes a crap version of Flash for Linux.

      It's Ubuntu's fault Flash crashes. Nuh-huh

      Try: The proprietary software dealer.

      --
    2. Re:Simple start by bendodge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does this Flash problem everyone gripes about exist in only in GNOME or something? I am using Kubuntu 8.04 KDE 4.1 and Flash seems to work just as well as in XP.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    3. Re:Simple start by MooseMuffin · · Score: 1

      I'm using Ubunutu 8.04 gnome and flash also seems to work just as well as in XP.

    4. Re:Simple start by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      For me flash apps eventually just start displaying grey boxes, instead of the app. But I've never seen Firefox 3 crash (Kubuntu-kde4, 8.04, hardy-backports and launchpad kde4 repos enabled., AMD64) and when Flash does work it works fine. Restarting Firefox fixes it, and Session Manager addon makes that simple. Still a bug, but not a 98% crash.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    5. Re:Simple start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look, get off the blame game. We don't give a shit who's at fault. The deal is, there is a bug that users experience out-of-the-box with Ubuntu. Either fix it or remove it but leaving bugs for users to deal with is not how you make a successful OS. I really don't give a shit who's fault it is. Shifting the blame to someone else DOES NOT FIX THE PROBLEM.

    6. Re:Simple start by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

      Flash with audio doesn't crash Firefox here. At all. What flash version are you using, 10 alpha or something?

    7. Re:Simple start by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We can fix the open source stuff if it was at fault.

      We could even fix Flash if it was Open Source.

      But the cold hard truth is Flash is closed source and proprietary means ONLY the creator can make changes that would increase stability. That's also the same reason why kernel debuggers wont touch a listing from a tainted kernel.

      --
    8. Re:Simple start by floydian · · Score: 1

      someone please mod parent up

    9. Re:Simple start by loconet · · Score: 1, Troll

      It might not be Ubuntu's fault that Flash crashes but it definitely is Ubuntu's fault that it is being released with very common software that crashes, similarly, it is Ubuntu's fault that it isn't trivial for some people to fix the issue.

      --
      [alk]
    10. Re:Simple start by chromatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [Similarly], it is Ubuntu's fault that it isn't trivial for some people to fix the issue.

      There are, what, a few thousand programmers who understand Linux systems programming well enough to debug GUI programs and post patches? It's not trivial for those programmers to fix Flash because Adobe won't let them see the source code. How is that Ubuntu's fault?

    11. Re:Simple start by loconet · · Score: 1

      [quote]How is that Ubuntu's fault?[/quote]

      How is it not? They are shipping software core dumps.

      Regardless, the point that we don't have access to the source is moot because, as I said in my original post, a fix already exists. Again, it's relatively trivial to fix the issue for you and I as well as most /.ers, however, as soon as you tell a regular user to go and add an unsupported depo or jump on the command line to install the fix, you have already lost half of those users.

      It is Ubuntu's fault.

      --
      [alk]
    12. Re:Simple start by loconet · · Score: 1

      s/They are shipping software core dumps/Software that core dumps/.

      --
      [alk]
    13. Re:Simple start by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I don't care that you can fix that by installing Flash 10 beta, or some extra library, the fact is that it does not work out of the box.

      How do you propose they fix anything without requiring the user to update their software? Magic?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    14. Re:Simple start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's Ubuntu's fault Flash crashes. Nuh-huh

      Try: The proprietary software dealer.

      And while you're bitching, everyone trying Ubuntu will have moved back to Windows.

      Get this, people who think GNU/Linux is the second coming: it doesn't matter who's fault it is, if something works under Windows or MacOS, but crashes under GNU/Linux the user experience is better on the former OS'.

      So, Flash is buggy and is holding GNU/Linux back: 1) Run it in a seperate process, ensure that when Flash crashes it doesn't bring the whole browser down with it. 2) Automatically restart the plugin when it fails; preferably with a discrete status message to the effect of 'Adobe Flash has crashed, restarting it now.'

      I am sure there are lots of other things that could be done to ease the pain. Naturally this is moot if you don't care about GNU/Linux adoption, but experience proves there are loads of people who do.

      Harsh truth: we need to stop the circular --blame the vendor -- masturbation sessions and concentrate on writing good software. No matter what the challenges!

    15. Re:Simple start by loconet · · Score: 1

      hmm.. the way they usually fix other things, "automatically" through the distro's updater manager? (ie. having to add an unsupported repo and/or jump on the command line shouldn't be the main way to fix this)

      --
      [alk]
    16. Re:Simple start by chromatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Again, it's relatively trivial to fix the issue for you and I as well as most /.ers....

      Does Ubuntu really install Adobe's Flash player by default? I certainly don't remember seeing it in any Ubuntu I've installed.

      Even so, it's not relatively trivial for me to fix the problem, and I have some experience writing C code on Linux. (I did it most recently not more than ten minutes ago.) Adobe's binary blob crashes. Unless you have magic powers, you can't reliably "fix" that without the source code.

    17. Re:Simple start by bakedpatato · · Score: 0

      Hence once of the reasons why Flash is not installed by default even though its a de facto "standard"(of course, the main reason why would be that its not OSS)

    18. Re:Simple start by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Flash came with my system, so I'm pretty sure that's the way it will be updated when Adobe officially releases it.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    19. Re:Simple start by loconet · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm not sure what system you are using but in Ubuntu, the flash plugin is not included out of the box. Firefox will prompt you the first time you try to play a flash movie. Additionally, there is another fix (installing libflashsupport) that does not require to wait for Adobe. There are fixes, there are work-arounds, however, it seems Ubuntu prefers to leave it broken. I'm sure there is a political/legal reason involved somewhere. My original point is that I wish part of that money was spent in addressing whatever that root cause is.

      --
      [alk]
    20. Re:Simple start by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      I'm on an X86-64 version of Ubuntu, and Flash "just works" for me, and always has done so.

      If there's any configuration that should be difficult to get working, this is it.

      (PPC on the other hand, simply doesn't have a flash player. Gnash and swfdec are nice in concept, but rarely, if ever work on actual .SWF files in the wild)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    21. Re:Simple start by loconet · · Score: 1

      By "fixing" I meant, you uninstall the flashplugin supported by Ubuntu, add an unsupported depo and install Flash 10 or apt-get for libflashsupport. One of these options usually fixes the problem, I didn't mean that you could patch Adobe's binary but then again, I'm thinking you already knew what I meant..

      --
      [alk]
    22. Re:Simple start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, I have that same problem. Flash works just as poorly as on XP.

    23. Re:Simple start by Vexorian · · Score: 1
      I have actually not had a flash crash in my whole Linux experience that started when I installed breeze on 2006...

      I mean, really... Is this whole stuff about flash crashing just plain hysteria? Or is it someone that happened to some guy and Linux basher everywhere just repeat like parrots?

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    24. Re:Simple start by eggnoglatte · · Score: 1

      I am not using Ubuntu, but on the various versions of SuSE that I work on, flash is working fine. That does suggest that Ubuntu included a bad version without testing, no? Sure, Adobe screwed up that version of flash, but then Ubuntu should have fallen back to an older, stable version for their distro.

    25. Re:Simple start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why all desktop PCs use teh Leenux. It is because it uses Open Sores. Open Sores is good software and has nothing wrong with it. I could give a baby Open Sores and it would say 'Thank You'. M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$M$ is teh suck!!!1!

    26. Re:Simple start by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Either fix it or remove it but leaving bugs for users to deal with is not how you make a successful OS.

      It worked for Windows and OS X.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    27. Re:Simple start by linuxpyro · · Score: 1

      Ugh, that problem pissed me off to no end, and I agree that it looks horrible right out of the box. The problem stems from the libflashsupport library, which lets Flash work wtih Pulseaudio. I was able to solve it by upgrading a bunch of Pulseaudio packages to the ones in testing for Intrepid, and this fixed it for me.

      So yeah, it's too bad that right now people have to resort to the command line, but at least the way it looks things will be better in Intrepid in that respect.

      --
      Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
    28. Re:Simple start by smaddox · · Score: 1

      after finallying getting it installed, and patching it to get the sound working, it works great..

      That is, until I try too many times and it crashes firefox (which happens all too often).

    29. Re:Simple start by 427_ci_505 · · Score: 1

      I've used Fedora 8 (2.6.23, i686 kernel) and every 3rd youtube visit brought down the browser (firefox) or brought down the wrapper used for displaying flash (konqueror).

      I've since used Ubuntu Heron (2.6.24, amd64 kernel) on an older desktop and a new laptop. Every so often (though not as often) flash crashes, but doesn't take down firefox (probably due to the fance wrapping for 64bit). Also, the combination of Nvidia drivers + flash = t3h slow. (the open source driver lacks 3d accel but plays flash at an acceptable speed)

    30. Re:Simple start by chromatic · · Score: 1

      That does suggest that Ubuntu included a bad version without testing, no?

      If no one using Flash on SuSE had problems and if everyone using Flash on Ubuntu had problems, that would suggest that Ubuntu included a bad version without testing. Your anecdote suggests that Flash works with your hardware and software combination.

  22. "Might" is right by jmerlin · · Score: 0

    Don't forget that OSX is developed for a small subset of all available hardware. End users installing linux will likely have wildly varying hardware configurations making the process of providing an equal experience to all users incredibly more complex than such a task would be in Apple's situation.

  23. +10 internets... by kuzb · · Score: 1

    ...for not calling this the year of the linux desktop.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  24. Please tell me... by 427_ci_505 · · Score: 1

    Where does Mark Shuttleworth get all his money from, and why is he trying so hard?

    I'm genuinely curious, since this is making my 'trust no one' sense tingle.

    1. Re:Please tell me... by knewter · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is easy to answer - he sold Thawte for $575 million.

      Do you not have the internets where you are? Wikipedia, geezus.

      --
      -knewter
  25. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

    Kudos to Cannonical for this move. Serious kudos indeed. That being said, I really hate reading Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols's blog posts.

    I also disagree with Shuttleworth saying that OS X hands down provides the best experience. I haven't used it recently, but I have never been blown away by OS X. It does things well, but I don't see a massive usability revolution.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong. Point to specific things the interface does well. Maybe the FOSS world will pay attention. But I'm just not seeing it.

    The KDE interface is the best I've seen (though it certainly isn't perfect either).

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      I also disagree with Shuttleworth saying that OS X hands down provides the best experience. I haven't used it recently, but I have never been blown away by OS X. It does things well, but I don't see a massive usability revolution.

      It's quite good, but as you say, it's not revolutionary. It is, however, smooth, convenient, efficient, and attractive. The one wart I've seen in Finder is mounting of network shares -- the whole finder seems to hang while accessing CIFS. If they did the Apple thing and seamlessly used kioslaves behind the scenes for that functionality, though, it would really improve the user experience.

      In that regard, I'd really like to see him put his money towards more of the underlying layers. You see a lot of contributors putting work towards the UI, but being able to pay people to work on items such as

      • groveling through the register documentation for ATI to provide all its polygon and texture features to the X server to accelerate 2-d things such as expose' and thumbnails
      • fixing some long-time problems in Unix -- e.g., the option to select() on a child for a exception/termination condition instead of having to wait() for it
      • the ALSA problems mentioned earlier
      • software suspend
      • multi-monitor support as straightforward and dynamically configurable as under MacOS/Windows

      It seems like those kinds of things are not particularly glamorous or profitable in and of themselves, but could improve things for lots of developers and users. Money can be the motivator to fill in those cracks where fame isn't.

    2. Re:Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I think X windows needs a major kick in the ass, but as important as it is to a Linux desktop, it seems to get very little developer interest.

      xorg.conf needs to go away.

      Xorg is modular and easier to examine as bits now, but many of those bits could be trimmed down. Frankly, I don't need to be able to connect remotely to my xorg server, and most people don't need to either. A real basic X windowing environment would benefit most users.

      Xorg should auto-failback to a VGA/VESA mode like Windows. Xorg needs to step into the 21st century when it comes to multi-monitors and multi-GPUs.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    3. Re:Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      xorg.conf needs to go away

      I personally find xorg.conf easier to configure. However, it is being replaced by HAL.

      Frankly, I don't need to be able to connect remotely to my xorg server, and most people don't need to either

      So you want to remove the server from the server? I wonder how much code you would lose by telling X to ignore the network. Personally, I use this functionality all the time. However, if you only have a single computer that you never need to access remotely, at least at the GUI level, I can see the desire to remove the feature.

      Xorg should auto-failback to a VGA/VESA mode like Windows.

      I found this approach interesting: http://archives.seul.org/or/cvs/Sep-2007/msg00180.html If X fails on the first server layout, have it fall back to the second.

      Xorg needs to step into the 21st century when it comes to multi-monitors and multi-GPUs

      I admit that I haven't used X in a multi-GPU setup. However, xrandr seems to work fine with multiple monitors. I use KDE's KRandRTray all the time with dual-monitor setups, projectors, and televisions.

      A real basic X windowing environment would benefit most users

      Have you considered KDrive or XDirectFB?

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    4. Re:Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. OS X is certainly not revolutionary. It's clinging tightly to the Desktop/WIMP metaphor. It's not the 70's any more, and we are not at Xerox PARC. All of the Mac's great "usability" features are nothing but workarounds and bandages for inefficient and archaic metaphors. It's time to move towards something more humane. No more annoying overlapping windows. Hell, no more windows. No more stupid icons that only stand for documents. No more forced hierarchies and directories. No more applications. And no more Save button. I want to see tags, real direct manipulation, infinite undo, commands, content, and zoomable interfaces.

      For those who don't know quite what I'm talking about, read The Humane Interface . It'll blow your mind. Jef Raskin has passed on. His son works for Mozilla. And someone needs to bring these revolutionary concepts to the GNU/Linux world. We should leapfrog the Mac's usability with a truly humane interface. Apple sure isn't going to do it!

    5. Re:Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Have you considered KDrive [wikipedia.org] or XDirectFB [directfb.org]?

      I have not looked at those. Thanks for the links.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  26. Lunix??? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 4, Funny

    WTF is Lunix???? Doesn't exist, according to distrowatch.

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    1. Re:Lunix??? by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      It's a UNIX-like operating system for the Commodore 64. I think it's dead now, though.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    2. Re:Lunix??? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah. Forgot about that. I suspect, however, that that's not what the OP was talking about.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    3. Re:Lunix??? by DrSkwid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Linux / Unix

      Sorry, it's common parlance in Plan 9 world. However, I didn't know it was so insular until your post.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    4. Re:Lunix??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ofc its GNU/Linux

    5. Re:Lunix??? by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      A mate of mine is a total Mac fanboi, calls my OS "Lunix".
      Always thought he was calling us "loonies".

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    6. Re:Lunix??? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      no it isn't because Lunix includes: FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Unix, Minix, OSX, NetBSD &c.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  27. Mark Shuttleworth is... by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the uberGeek. We should all aspire to be like that guy, he's worth millions but he chooses to give back to the community by paying for FOSS development out of his own pocket. Sure, Canonical is a business and I'm sure the publicity and improvements he's paying for will help get some more license fees, but the geek points he's scoring are worth so much more

    **Geek points not redeemable for any cash value.

    --
    -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
    1. Re:Mark Shuttleworth is... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      the uberGeek. We should all aspire to be like that guy, he's worth millions but he chooses to give back to the community by paying for FOSS development out of his own pocket.

      If there's one multimillionaire I'd want to be, it'd be him. The stuff he's doing with his money is pretty much exactly what I would have done. Only he's probably doing it better. He's a truly genuine Good Guy.

  28. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by Yosho · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's slow, crashy and overcomplicated.

    Your first two arguments are unprovable flamebait, and the last is a matter of opinion. There are lots of people who think it's fast, stable, and just complicated enough.

    It's got an ugly, messy desktop environment and it doesn't come with any decent usable software.

    Again, the first is a matter of opinion, and I would think you could at least realize that you're in the minority. Lots of people think the desktop is pretty and well-organized. The last is, again, flamebait. It may not come with as much as your typical Linux distribution, but Safari, Pages, Mail, iTunes, Xcode, DVD Player, and the various iLife apps, among others, are far from unusuable or indecent. And, despite the fact that it doesn't come with as much as your typical Linux distribution, there are many thousands of free and open source programs that you can install.

    It's got this weird browser that doesn't render stuff, doesn't have AdBlock and which usually gets replaced with Firefox.

    "Doesn't render stuff" is, again, unproveable flamebait. Safari does just fine in rendering tests. You're also showing off your ignorance, as it does have AdBlock. Come on, that's the first link in Google.

    It can't play back most videos or music files without expensive shareware.

    This is just wrong and uninformed. Those are just examples off the top of my head that I like, there are plenty of other free and open source players out there.

    It doesn't even have a usable text editor!

    What about TextEdit and Pages is not usable?

    If those are too flashy for you, just install vim or emacs. They work fine.

    It's utter crap. Ubuntu is already better than Mac OSX. Please don't try to make another crappy OSX Aqua-looky-likey clone thing.

    You clearly do not even know what you're talking about. Please spend some time using OS X or at least do a bit of research before you try to troll again.

    --
    Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  29. It's not broken, but you might be Re:Flash content by rubies · · Score: 1

    Hardy Heron with firefox 3 and flash straight from the repositories.

    No crashes, no problems and so much "Charlie bit my finger, again" it'll make you cry.

    I *wish* it was broken. That way, the kids wouldn't keep replaying that stuff.

  30. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Never had a crash here in several years of use.. On similar hardware its as snappy as KDE.

    Ever hear of VLC? Plays every media file ive ever tossed at it, and its not 'expensive shareware'.

    Care to try again?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  31. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by strabes · · Score: 1

    Expensive shareware like VLC or Perian?

    --
    Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
  32. Please, ALSA, GO AWAY!!!!! by mangu · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've done a lot of work on audio on Linux, not for the audio itself, but because I work with satellite telemetry that's frequency-modulated in the audio band. I hate ALSA. It broke completely with the Unix philosophy.

    Before ALSA, one would open audio devices just like files, acquire audio data just like reading files, play audio just like writing files. ALSA went the Redmond way, one different API for each different type of data.

    1. Re:Please, ALSA, GO AWAY!!!!! by Kent+Recal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amen to everyone who bashes alsa here, I agree wholeheartly.
      I think it's high time for a rewrite, maybe they get it right the third time...

      It's really amazing how thoroughly they managed to screw up something so relatively simple (when compared to other areas of the kernel).

      Every time my box decides to re-shuffle the order of my soundcards (re-promoting the onboard sound to default), or decides to remain silent for the rest of the session after I plugged/unplugged my USB headset, or requires me to play trial&error with barely documented and obscure config files (asoundrc/openalrc) to *maybe* get sound in a game working it reminds me of why 2008 is probably still not the year of linux on the desktop...

      To be fair, yes ALSA "works" most of the time and even out of the box. The distro-hackers managed to beat the hardware-detection into submission so that pretty much any liveCD will give you sound (at least on one of your cards...) right away. Just never try to get fancy, like going beyond adjusting the Master-volume. You're in for a world of pain.

    2. Re:Please, ALSA, GO AWAY!!!!! by jensend · · Score: 1

      One contributing factor to the continued awfulness which is Linux audio is that ALSA and PortAudio are very much not designed with compatibility with other unices in mind. For something to really get traction it would help if it were a standard.

    3. Re:Please, ALSA, GO AWAY!!!!! by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      I also agree entirely that ALSA is a load of shite. I would much prefer something like an improved OSS (as in capabale of the rt performance on Linux) to alsa any day. But I thought I would point out that there is no reason for your sound cards to shuffle themselves. Mine never do.

      You need to force alsa to load particular drivers and particular indices and everything is sweet. I have some onboard shite card which acts as default playback, an MAudio thing for doing realtime jack stuff and a USB MIDI thing. They always load into the same places everytime I boot.

      Unfortunately I'm posting this from an XP machine away from home and I can't remember the details of how it's set up off the top of my head. If I remember when I get home, I'll post something.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    4. Re:Please, ALSA, GO AWAY!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before ALSA, one would open audio devices just like files, acquire audio data just like reading files, play audio just like writing files. ALSA went the Redmond way, one different API for each different type of data.

      You must be talking about OSS. I agree that a file-based open/close/read/write API is usually elegant and intuitive. Unfortunately, it breaks down a little when you try to apply it to audio programming, among other things, and you end up with something like this.

    5. Re:Please, ALSA, GO AWAY!!!!! by Anonymous+Conrad · · Score: 1

      Before ALSA, one would open audio devices just like files, acquire audio data just like reading files, play audio just like writing files. ALSA went the Redmond way, one different API for each different type of data.

      You mean it's a higher level abstraction. It's not just Microsoft who do that :-p

      And isn't that more appropriate for audio? Who wants to implement their own mixer, link in format decoders to every app, etc? Sound is a resource shared across the whole desktop - don't you need something more complex to manage it than a simple pipe to the hardware? Do you have technical issues with the API or just philosophical ones?

    6. Re:Please, ALSA, GO AWAY!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not the same AC as above.

      What you want is two separate APIs. One that does mixing and supports any number of clients, and thus inflicts a buffering latency.
      And another that is a low latency callback interface for high performance applications.

      The problem with ALSA is that it tries to be both, and is supposed to be adjusted to your situation with configuration files.

      It's funny because on windows you have WDM/KS as well as ASIO for low latency, and a set of more conventional interfaces for regular audio, and all of it works just fine!

      The linux audio situation could be fixed by making a new ASIO-imitation thing for low latency, and then bring back OSS for regular audio.

    7. Re:Please, ALSA, GO AWAY!!!!! by the_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Bring back OSS perhaps? It's open again, isn't it?

      --
      grey wolf
      LET FORTRAN DIE!
    8. Re:Please, ALSA, GO AWAY!!!!! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      That's what FreeBSD uses - a nice backend to the OSS API. I set a sysctl to my system to always use the second sound card by default, and another to allow up to 8 processes to play sounds simultaneously (I picked 8 arbitrarily. It seemed sufficient). Everything writes to /dev/dsp to make noise and it always works.

      Seriously, it's miles better than ALSA ever was on my Linux desktop.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    9. Re:Please, ALSA, GO AWAY!!!!! by celem · · Score: 1

      "ALSA "works" most of the time and even out of the box." isn't my recent experience. Based upon what I have read, ALSA apparently supports the Realtek ALC888S chipset "if" the support chipset is not nVidia. I purchased a very new motherboard with an nVidia support chipset and on-board ALC888S sound. It does makes sound, along with horrible scratching, distortion and reverberation. Others have reported the same experience. I suspect that the problem is deep in the device recognition as DMESG reports "unknown nVidia device" when it reports the audio chipset. I have had similar problems with newer video boards. Of course these all worked perfectly with Windows XP. Having to choose older parts in order to avoid the guess factor on whether a new peripheral or motherboard will work is, to me, a major problem.

  33. Re:Ironic That Link Renders Incorrectly in Konquer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, Konqueror is so outdated. I mean, the last version was released, like, eight days ago! What kind of dinosaur is still using that?

  34. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by Microlith · · Score: 1

    It is that great. In about 20 minutes from a clean install I can have it on par with an Ubuntu install in terms of functionality.

    The desktop environment isn't nearly as ugly and messy as Gnome and KDE are. They can reac OS X's level with a fair amount of work though.

    it doesn't come with any decent usable software.

    It comes with what's necessary to get started, and has damn near every open source app available to it. It's also got a lot of stuff that it's unlikely Linux will ever have.

    It's got this weird browser that doesn't render stuff

    You mean Safari, which uses Webkit, which is used by Konqueror now, right?

    which usually gets replaced with Firefox.

    I do the same thing on every OS. OS X or not.

    It can't play back most videos or music files without expensive shareware.

    Nice bald-faced lie. It played all but my OGGs out of the box, and I've been meaning to replace those with AAC rips (for a couple years now, suffice it to say they aren't that important.) And video is almost entirely accounted for by VLC, Perian, and the free version of Flip4Mac.

    It's utter crap. Ubuntu is already better than Mac OSX.

    No it's not. Just because it was too hard for you to figure out and make intelligent comments regarding what you encountered does not make it crap.

  35. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's *not* that great. It's slow, crashy and overcomplicated. It's got an ugly, messy desktop environment and it doesn't come with any decent usable software. It's got this weird browser that doesn't render stuff, doesn't have AdBlock and which usually gets replaced with Firefox. It can't play back most videos or music files without expensive shareware. It doesn't even have a usable text editor!

    It's utter crap. Ubuntu is already better than Mac OSX. Please don't try to make another crappy OSX Aqua-looky-likey clone thing.

    Sigh.

    A desktop environment is often what you make of it. I can make Ubuntu look just as messy as I can make OSX look.
    Decent usable software? Its true that OSX doesn't come with an office suite, but the default software for OSX is quite a bit more than you will get with Windows. Their software is simple which is good for the basic users, but not so good for a power user.
    Lots of users replace their default browser, whether its safari, IE, or firefox.
    It can and does play back most videos, and does an excellent job at playing back DVDs and any Divx compatible file(with the free (as in beer) plugin.)
    TextEdit writes in plain text if you configure it to do so, but it also has vim, so I'm not sure what the complaint is there.

    I mean, at least try to know what you're posting about. I don't care for one operating system more than the next, but I do know they all have their strengths and weaknesses, and I try to know a bit about as many as I can remember. I don't usually post, but that made me just shudder over the fact that people still think that way. We live in a multiple OS world. Get over it.

  36. Hey, Gatesy, take notice! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, Bill Gates, take notice. Maybe you could spend some of your BILLIONS to make Windows have a better user experience?

    Maybe just make it work a little better?

    Maybe just work?

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    1. Re:Hey, Gatesy, take notice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't hear you over the pile of money I'm swimming in.

    2. Re:Hey, Gatesy, take notice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the reason for the pile of money is that he mooches off of everyone from suburban families to pizza delivery boys molded in his own image.

  37. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by vux984 · · Score: 2

    You clearly do not even know what you're talking about. Please spend some time using OS X or at least do a bit of research before you try to troll again.

    He probably would if he didn't have to commit 100% and buy a bloody mac to spend some time using it.

    That is -my- only complaint about OSX, I don't like the hardware. I'm not talking about the 'value' or the price, I just straight up don't like it. I want a Core 2 Quad in a mini tower that will take a couple hard drives, video card upgrades, and some PCI/PCI-express cards as needed.

    I don't want an overkill Xeon or two. I don't want an all-in-one imac.

    On the laptop front, I want a tablet, or maybe an ultraportable like the macbook air. The modbook is too much money (given that you have to buy a macbook and then frankenstein it) and its not functional enough. I'm also interested in GPS and cellular data support as optional built-ins which apple doesn't offer, and definitely more usb ports than the air sports (ie more than ONE).

    On the pricing front, apple's store is ridiculous for the 'upgrade' pricing, ridiculous to the point of obscene. Sure I buy the base model upgrade it myself, and sell off the spare parts, but I shouldn't have to.

    Bottom line, I'd be a potential OSX customer, but their hardware just doesn't line up with my requirements. I'd consider a hackintosh... or a psystar... but I'm just not that desperate to run OSX. I had an old G4 tower that I quite liked, and G3's before that in beige tower and desktop boxes that I was very happy with, and I had an original ibook when I was in university... but now I don't have a single mac, not that I don't want OSX, but just just don't want their hardware.

  38. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by jrothwell97 · · Score: 1

    It's *not* that great. It's slow, crashy and overcomplicated. It's got an ugly, messy desktop environment and it doesn't come with any decent usable software. It's got this weird browser that doesn't render stuff, doesn't have AdBlock and which usually gets replaced with Firefox. It can't play back most videos or music files without expensive shareware. It doesn't even have a usable text editor!

    Yes it does, it's called TextEdit. If you're one of those Unix zealots, it also has a pretty close clone of the original vi in there as well.

    The browser is fine. It uses Webkit which is based on... hmm... let me think... Mosaic? No. KHTML. Which is FLOSS. Webkit is FLOSS. Darwin is FLOSS. The desktop environment is wonderfully efficient, I find (although by no means perfect).

    Please don't try to make another crappy OSX Aqua-looky-likey clone thing.

    I do agree with you there. It just makes it look cheap and nasty - surely it's better to create a good Ubuntu theme than to clone OS X?

    --
    Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
  39. It not how much money but where to spend it. by jellomizer · · Score: 0

    Linux needs serious PHB to QA the products, who are willing to tare it appart, who can stand up to the developers and go, This SUCKS!, YOU ARE A WORTHLESS HACK!, redo it!. Not developers who already love Linux and this it is the greatest thing ever, so they just go about doing thing the way they always have. Thinking Eyecandy is what a good interface makes, or Eyecandy is against a good interface and just a wast of CPU. So they produce more of the same. More apps that you need to edit a config file and yell at you because the answer is on page 10 of a Google Search. After trying hundred other methods that don't work. And when faced with a defency or a bug they twist and turn it to make the person asking for it seem stupid.

    Here is one I found recently. Someone was looking for a NTFS Defrag program for Linux. Most of the posts were bashing NTFS and either telling to reformat his drive to ext2 or FAT32. There was one lonely kinda un moderated post in the middle of the fray that gave a link to an app but warned that is really isn't working well yet and you probably shouldn't use it.

    If he is going to put money for Linux for the desktop and the average joe. Developers are not the key you need a strong QA staff who is willing to look at the minuses of Linux and get them fixed.

    If you go to Mac Fan Boy sites you will see they are also the harshest critics of the Mac Platform. For Pro Linux sites, any talk of problems is dismissed modded down as flamebait or trolls. I like linux I really do, but it has problems that needs to be addressed. Many of them are not necessarily big ones but a lot of little ones that can move the system to a hassle to a charm to use.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:It not how much money but where to spend it. by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      ---Here is one I found recently. Someone was looking for a NTFS Defrag program for Linux. Most of the posts were bashing NTFS and either telling to reformat his drive to ext2 or FAT32. There was one lonely kinda un moderated post in the middle of the fray that gave a link to an app but warned that is really isn't working well yet and you probably shouldn't use it.

      That's because since forever, MS has been changing the NTFS format to keep the Open sourcers away.

      We finally developed a read-only driver that can then use the ntfs-windows driver to make read/write.

      If you need defrag on NTFS, use a windows tool. And if you dont have windows, convert to fat32 or Ext3. Both can be read by Windows anyways.

      --
    2. Re:It not how much money but where to spend it. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Then explain why I can access and work with NTFS the same with Windows 2000 and XP and Vista.... I can even run the defrag for all of them. 8 years is not really considered always changing. The truth is you don't have the specs and you don't know how to do it. And say Linux doesn't support it. Going around making accusations doesn't get it done faster. Realizing there is a problem and spending time to fix it, or say I can't be fixed. Puts a cap on the question. Going on a Rant about What MS Does and Doesn't do will not help me in my quest to defrag a NTFS drive (and the system files).

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:It not how much money but where to spend it. by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      I wanna defrag a AIX partition in Linux!!

      I wanna defrag a Solaris partition in Linux!!

      I wanna "do X system behavior in a non-linux OS" in Linux!!

      Go run the system you need to do maintenance in that system. If there's a tool to do it in Linux, all the better. Instead, go bug the software manufacturer about no tools to do X behavior in Linux.

      Do you get the drift?

      --
    4. Re:It not how much money but where to spend it. by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I can even run the defrag for all of them.

      I screwed up security descriptors when defragging a win2k3 NTFS partition under Win2k and had to very manually fix them.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:It not how much money but where to spend it. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      the trouble is that there is NOT a tool or system available for reasonable costs. If you want a repair disk quick, you get a Linux disk! Somebody brings you a random hard drive a bootable linux disk like Knoppix is the first tool out of the bag and it's free... equivalent tools would cost thousands of dollars. Linux is what's left to clean up the mess when you deal with dusty, unsupported hardware. Or when the real hardware you are using is broken.

    6. Re:It not how much money but where to spend it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We finally developed a read-only driver that can then use the ntfs-windows driver to make read/write.

      The fact that you don't seem to know about ntfs-3g which gives full stable read/write support from Linux with using the windows driver shows that you are a long way behind the curve.

    7. Re:It not how much money but where to spend it. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Things have progressed somewhat further than the GP suggests, there is now a read/write driver (not using the windows driver code) and a resize tool which are considered pretty safe (nothing is completely safe, especially with desktop hard drives that often have unsafe cache implementations).

      If the tech is there to do a resize tool the tech is there to do a defrag tool both are essentially moving stuff arround on the disk and updating the structures pointing to it (with resizing you also at the end change the volume size information and partition table).

      I suspect the real reason you don't see them is risk perceptions. Users irrationally perceive defragmenting to be low risk and partition resizing to be high risk (the reality is that both are very similar operations with much the same risks).

      Given those risk perceptions I would not want to ship a defragmenting tool that had been developed using information derived from reverse engineering the filesystem.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  40. No MS Exchange integration? by Jjeff1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As far as I can tell, the killer app preventing linux from taking over the corporate world is the lack of an outlook replacement. More and more of our work is web based. Evolution has a beta mapi extension for exchange 2007, and exchange 2003 support (via screenscraping OWA). My attempts to get it working with exchange 2007 so far have failed. I'm really perplexed that no one seems to have nailed this down yet.

    1. Re:No MS Exchange integration? by Danzigism · · Score: 1

      i have to agree with you there.. being a huge linux fan, I've really been hoping that mapi would be something that is supported by now.. i think i've successfully connected to my exchange server 2 or 3 times.. but Evolution would eventually lock up and crash.. sometimes it would just keep asking me for my password over and over again.. so close.. if little handheld devices can do it, linux should be able to as well damnit.. here's hoping!

      --
      *plays the Apogee theme song music*
    2. Re:No MS Exchange integration? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, the killer app preventing linux from taking over the corporate world is the lack of an outlook replacement.

      Google hosted mail is providing a drop-in solution for at least some companies. It might start gaining ground quietly until a tipping point as it starts providing more for less, and since it uses IMAP, you have your choice of clients to pick as a corporate standard. From a corporate perspective, if you could throw $50/employee yearly at a mail/calendar/document sharing solution and have that be pretty much the total cost, wouldn't you at least seriously consider that as an option, especially as a small company?

    3. Re:No MS Exchange integration? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, the killer app preventing linux from taking over the corporate world is the lack of an outlook replacement.

      I am aware of three different practically well known solutions for "outlook replacement" on Linux (Novell, Open-Xchange and IBM provide various solutions), please stop spreading this non-sense.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    4. Re:No MS Exchange integration? by rossz · · Score: 1

      First off, I dislike Microsoft Exchange with a passion (when an employer said they wanted to use it, I told them they would need to hire a full time admin for it because I wouldn't touch it). HOWEVER, the meeting planner of Exchange+Outlook has no equal. I've seen many of the Linux packages touted as replacements. They are crap.

      Do any of the commercial packages do as well? So what! You want a business to swap out a tried and (kind of) true commercial package from the biggest software company in the world with an unknown commercial package? Ain't. gonna. happen. Now if it's something I can just download, there is a tiny chance I can get management to take a look and consider it. Very tiny.

      At work we use Lotus Notes. I hate that even more than Exchange+Outlook. I have a windoze box on my desk just to use lotus notes.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    5. Re:No MS Exchange integration? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      First off, I dislike Microsoft Exchange with a passion (when an employer said they wanted to use it, I told them they would need to hire a full time admin for it because I wouldn't touch it). HOWEVER, the meeting planner of Exchange+Outlook has no equal. I've seen many of the Linux packages touted as replacements. They are crap.

      That's exactly why my Open Source Software developing employer uses Outlook. (Together with WinXP and IE (to test whether websites work in it), it's the only MS software we use.) There's plenty of perfectly decent replacements for email (I'd be surprised if most weren't a lot better, because Outlook sucks), but apparently there's no decent substitute for the calender.

      And I don't understand why. A good calender program isn't that hard to write, is it? Why is Outlook so superior in this department?

    6. Re:No MS Exchange integration? by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      Kind of the other way around, however, have you looked at: Insight Connector? It allows Outlook to connect to a IMAP/iCal/Groupware server while providing all of the services that Exchange offers.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    7. Re:No MS Exchange integration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.citadel.org/doku.php

    8. Re:No MS Exchange integration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just force MS to reveal protocol specs and "bang!", you'll have workable Exchg07 clients and server withing probably a few weeks.

    9. Re:No MS Exchange integration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an IT Admin in the corporate world, I can tell you that the one app keeping Linux from taking over in my industry is one that will likely never change: AutoCAD

    10. Re:No MS Exchange integration? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same reason why setting up wireless or widescreen monitors in Linux is still epic fail occasionally.

    11. Re:No MS Exchange integration? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      you have your choice of clients to pick as a corporate standard.

      I don't think you quite grasp the concept of "corporate standard".

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  41. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

    It is that great. In about 20 minutes from a clean install I can have it on par with an Ubuntu install in terms of functionality.

    The desktop environment isn't nearly as ugly and messy as Gnome and KDE are. They can reach OS X's level with a fair amount of work though.

    I have a mirror of the repository that Ubuntu uses. I can netboot any machine, install, and get any program I can imagine. I doubt that Apple runs a repository in the same scope. I also have freedom to do what I want with my repository, including sharing mirrors with friends.

    Apple is suing a company for buying licenses on Amazon and re-selling them under first-sale doctrine. Can you say "No Rights"?

    It comes with what's necessary to get started, and has damn near every open source app available to it. It's also got a lot of stuff that it's unlikely Linux will ever have.

    If one wants a true open-source experience, one needs an open source desktop on the Linux kernel. That's where most of the work is being done, and the most current. Also, what important thing does OSX have that Linux does not? I have Expose, CubeDesktop, and plenty others via compiz. I've also got darn near every server I'll ever need.

    And Apple didnt have a usable SMB server, so they use Samba. Same with print services, so they use CUPS. Frankly, I'm glad they like using OSS. It's just the rest of the code looks like glue.

    Nice bald-faced lie. It played all but my OGGs out of the box, and I've been meaning to replace those with AAC rips (for a couple years now, suffice it to say they aren't that important.) And video is almost entirely accounted for by VLC, Perian, and the free version of Flip4Mac.

    It's annoying that most file formats will not play under default system. Even Ubuntu Gnome searches the repo's for acceptable codecs and offers to install them. I'd figure the price one pays for Apple hardware and each software version they would at least offer install of VLC or ffmpeg with a player. It just seems kind of unfinished.

    No it's not. Just because it was too hard for you to figure out and make intelligent comments regarding what you encountered does not make it crap.

    Linux already can use more hardware than OSX. Both run a similar kernel and have a similar underbelly. Both can run X and ssh. The difference is in the GUI. Ubuntu is a WiP that runs better in certain places and worse in certain places. OSX (aqua?) has major slowdowns on big file xfers, and has no simple ways to change settings they want. Although the 1 button mouse is the Apple thing, X was meant to be used with 3 buttons.

    OSX is quality, but Ubuntu gets out of the way for me and offers insightful suggestions what would help me do stuff (get X package for X feature) rather than the Apple way of just not doing it. And that wifi driver costing more money shows Apple's mentality.

    --
  42. FreeBSD? Hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saying OSX is based on FreeBSD is like saying Linux is based on Windows.

  43. Shuttleworth talks; Redhat delivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all his grand talk Shuttleworth hasn't contributed squat to Linux except yet another tired windows-wannabe act like Caldera (later renamed SCO). His company already employs a lot of developers, but all of them are busy developing proprietary software and integrating proprietary enhancements into Ubuntu. Not a single one contributes code upstream. Ubuntu is little more than a tool for commandeering all of Linux under Shuttleworth's control.

    Meanwhile, RedHat has learned the lesson of not working with the upstream developers and now funds enormous amounts of free software development. But Redhat isn't trendy, so they don't get the reignition for their contributions that they deserve.

    1. Re:Shuttleworth talks; Redhat delivers by Linegod · · Score: 1

      Sure, today, no mod points....

      --
      -- I care not for your foolish signatures.
  44. What a load of tosh. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Competition is what keeps things moving. What we need is more desktop alternatives, not less.

    Let the distros managers decide which ones they use.

    Chearleading for a windows-like ecology can only be advocated by somebody that is not paying attention to computing history.

    As for getting laid, poor sod, talk for yourself.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:What a load of tosh. by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Yes, we need more projects that try to do exactly the same and more programmers having flame wars about it and waste years of precious time, just by starting 30 projects trying to do the same of which one or two survive and the rest of the code just ends as a dead end because nobody bothers to develop it any further.

      Open Source doesn't automatically make applications gain new developers once the main developer(s) abandoned the app. And the code and time lost on the dead ends is gone and wasted most of the time.

      I think people in the OSS community should try to think twice about reinventing the wheel, or rather trying to invent the square wheel 45 times in parallel every one using a different type of wood, just because.

      There's so much energy lost in those projects, it's a shame. Just try to think once what Linux could achieve if you could combine the best people from Mono, GNOME, Fedora, KDE, Enlightenment, you name it into one team (with a good leader) and make a truly innovative Destkop environment, and not the 234th copy of Windows.

      Trying to create a good desktop environment by mimicking Windows is, to start with, just like trying to make the best cake in the world by imitating horse manure.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    2. Re:What a load of tosh. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Except that it never comes to a conclusion. No matter which side you're on, there's always that one application which is far better than anything on the other side resulting in you having to install both sets of dev kits.

      Having alternatives is great, but when you have to double up on most of the libraries because there's no consensus that just hurts the effort. Increases the resources necessary to keep things working properly.

    3. Re:What a load of tosh. by Splab · · Score: 1

      Having multiple people developing the exact same functionality will lead to natural selection - this should be encouraged, this way we get the best of the best - yes it takes longer but rather that than some monolith like MS taking over making a crap out of everything.

    4. Re:What a load of tosh. by warsql · · Score: 1

      OSS is like democracy. It's terribly inefficient and by no measure perfect. It is, however, the best system available.

      --
      878659 - yep its prime.
  45. You again! by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

    Dont you understand you jinx it when you say like that?

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  46. No Reason Why Not by reallocate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's no reason Shuttleworth can't deliver something on par with OS X. All he needs to do is concentrate on functionaliy, usability, and marketability, and not worry that much about ideology. I.e., the same things Apple worries about.

    The market does not care how software is writen, it just cares about what it does and how it looks.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:No Reason Why Not by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      There's no reason Shuttleworth can't deliver something on par with OS X. All he needs to do is concentrate on less functionaliy, broken usability guidelines, big icons, a phone and marketability, and not worry that much about ideology. I.e., the same things Apple worries about.

      There, fixed it for you.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  47. Year of the Linux Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2008 must really be the year of the Linux desktop!

  48. I have no problems with flash in Ubuntu. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    None whatsoever, so perhaps there is not much need as you thing they may be?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  49. Not needed. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Have a central Windows server and display back to your Linux workstations.

    The day a solution comes you use it, in the meantime you don't really need anymore a Windows license for each desktop.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Not needed. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      no but you need a terminal server client access license for each machine and of course a terminal server license for the terminal server itself. Will that really work out much cheaper than having a windows license (which you often get thrown in with the hardware whether you want it or not anyway) for each machine.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  50. Good for him. by jcr · · Score: 1

    Competition improves products, and Apple's sure not getting any competition in the design arena from Microsoft.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  51. It's the Free Market at Work by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

    3. The whole thing about capitalism and the free market is that it's an optimization algorithm. It's really a genetic algorithm, based on semi-uninformed trial and error. The "genes" (processes, ideas, products) which are closer to optimal survive and are copied by others, and the process repeats, moving it all closer to the optimum. The genes which lost, and the companies which bet on them, die. Sometimes spectacularly, leaving a bunch of people temporarily unemployed.

    That's how it's supposed to work. Bit wasteful, no doubt, and stressful for those who end up looking for a new job. Scott Adams of Dilbert fame (who, I might add, is actually trained as an economist, so he might understand these things) claimed in a blog post that it's "harnessing the power of stupidity" and that at any given moment, 80% of society's resources are pushed off a cliff by idiots. But somehow it seems to work better than anything else we've tried. Trying to prevent that optimization cycle from happening, deviates from optimum very quickly, and produces even worse results.

    -- by Moraelin (679338) on Wednesday September 10, @12:56PM

    --
    Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  52. Not so fast ... by Neuropol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This last weekend, I had the biggest scare in the last 3 years of using Ubuntu. After downloading and installing the latest XML update for some thing, I rebooted (because I felt like it), and Gnome, my usual windowmanager, absolutely would not boot up. I couldn't even get safe-mode to boot so may uninstall the update, if that were even an option if I did get it to boot. Being that I have about 20 other options for window managers, I began logging in to see which other ones had fried in the process. Luckily, none of the other ones had bzzzt'd.

    Because I've used linux for the last 9 years, 3 years of full-time-no-windows-any-more, I have come to acknowledge the unexpected, irreversible errors that have plagued me and my choices of software in Linux.

    I've noticed a move towards lack of backwards compatibility for many apps along the way in the last two years. Luckily, I have only had to rebuild a Ubuntu install once, the rest of the additions have been welcomely handled by fairly painless updates (except when Ubuntu blew up xorg on every one and one couldn't boot back to an actual functioning video screen) [...]

    This move away from backwards app compatibility and support was a common trend when RedHat was growing out of its diapers and moving towards being a popular, viable Open Source option. This is some thing that eventually drove me away from using RedHat, due to essentially, cutting their core users off at the most crucial time in order to expand in to a more wide reaching market in enterprise Linux.

    To understand what took place on my gnome issue, I know that I trick out the desktop in such a way that any good programmer would look at me, take my machine, and say, 'nope, you are not supposed to do that, mine now'. BUT, it works, and always has ... until an xml update blew stuff up.

    If Ubuntu plans to keep its core supporters, stuff like this just can't happen. It's a pain to have to rebuild an entire usable desktop option so I can go back to editing Astrophotography Images in DS9. For me, it's a few curse words and a lot of time.

    On the other hand, consider a fresh-off-the-windows-boat user, had this happened to them, Ubuntu would lose those customers left and right, no questions asked - back to windows - because that just doesn't happen in windows. In the 10 plus years I've actually seriously been messing with computers - again, 9 of which have been Linux (the 80s & 90s don't count), I've never seen this happen with either Windows or Mac - and it better never again, or Ubuntu will be losing a long-time dedicated user because I just can't spend my days rebuilding what some "update" broke due to lack of backwards compatibility - and no subsequent follow-up bug fix has been released ...

    I like Ubuntu due to its simplicity on the front end, yet it comes with every thing that makes Linux good under the hood. Just don't kill it for the those who have supported your efforts.

    1. Re:Not so fast ... by wintermute000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I take it then you've never had a WinXP SP2, SP3 or WGA inflicted meltdown.
      Or a windows driver borking everything.
      Or spyware/viruses causing random issues everywhere.

      All OSs are susceptible to breaking with updates. If you tinker under the hood of your linux system then of course it makes it likelier.
      If you stuck completely to pre built packages and never edited any config files by hand (see windows) its rare that stuff breaks as completely as you described, and if so its a big bug thats usually quickly resolved.

    2. Re:Not so fast ... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      This last weekend, I had the biggest scare in the last 3 years of using Ubuntu. After downloading and installing the latest XML update for some thing, I rebooted (because I felt like it), and Gnome, my usual windowmanager, absolutely would not boot up.

      I did not see a single user on #Ubuntu report this problem at all. Must of been one of those one in a billion chances.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    3. Re:Not so fast ... by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      Uhm, sorry? I update my Ubuntu system weekly and I've never, ever, *ever* encountered this problem.

      While it sucks for you, it's frankly impossible to have 100.000% success rate. Once every while things will go wrong, either because you did something to your system (or not), or because a monkey infiltrated your house and pressed the self-destruct button, or because some cosmic ray hit your RAM and flipped a bit causing filesystem corruption, or because the update is damaged by a network problem.

    4. Re:Not so fast ... by DeanFox · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, consider a fresh-off-the-windows-boat user, had this happened to them, Ubuntu would lose those customers left and right, no questions asked - back to windows...

      Had this been a Windows user they would not have had the freedom to explore changes to their system. Welcome to a world where you control your own system and continue having fun tweaking your system. Even if you do trash it every now and again at least you're free to do so. A standard Ubuntu install works 100% including the updates.

  53. Getting a Flash that don't crash by jeevesbond · · Score: 1

    Well, if you don't mind running bleeding edge software (there may be some bugs), you can enable the backports software repository:

    1. System -> Administration -> Synaptic Package Manager
    2. *enter password*
    3. Settings -> Repositories
    4. select the Updates tab
    5. check the Unsupported updates check box
    6. Close
    7. click past the Repositories changed message
    8. Reload
    9. Mark All Upgrades
    10. Apply

    OR there's the easy way, using the terminal:

    echo 'deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu hardy-backports main universe multiverse restricted' | sudo tee -a /etc/apt/sources.list
    sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade

    This will download the new beta of Flash for Linux (among other things). It's a big improvement over the previous version. Here's the documentation for the Back ports repository.

    --
    I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
  54. Re:FreeBSD? Hardly by laffer1 · · Score: 1

    The statement was wrong overall, but there are large parts of FreeBSD 5.x code in the userland and to a lesser degree the kernel. Look at a manpage if you don't believe me. You can also look at code releases on apple's open source site.

  55. This is good news by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    I'm looking to switch to Ubuntu to get this new support to make it more user friendly. I used to use Red Hat Fedora and Open SUSE, but I think this news will help me switch to Ubuntu. That and Linspire contributes to Ubuntu from their Linspire and Freespire projects that tried to make Linux more like Windows (originally it was called Lindows until Microsoft sued them over the name being too much like Windows).

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  56. Nice sense of humor there, mods by exley · · Score: 1

    Offtopic? Sure. Unfunny? Arguable. Troll? C'mon now.

  57. WPF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would really love to see a technology such as WPF supported on Linux.
    I think it would really end up in a lot of eye candies improvements, easier to develop apps, very nice programming model and good portability (as this toolkit isn't built on top of a bogus old UI system as WinForms was).

    Sadly, I don't see a lot of activity in the Mono project on it.

  58. Where's the gratitude? by noric · · Score: 1

    I have no idea if Shuttleworth stands to make a profit indirectly, but certainly there seems to be a distinct lack of gratitude for a rich guy who isn't spending his time on a beach like most other rich guys.

    1. Re:Where's the gratitude? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      He does the work on his own private island! That's sort of like a beach.

    2. Re:Where's the gratitude? by grikdog · · Score: 1

      Linus Torvalds' kernels, yeah. I haven't figured out whatsisname's angle yet. Yes, altruism is real and even practiced on occasion. But an OS that actually competes in the look-and-feel, flawless performance, beautifully integrated category? That's sex, not Ubuntu.

      --
      ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  59. Re:Ironic That Link Renders Incorrectly in Konquer by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    What kind of dinosaur is still using that?

    A magical liopleurodon ...Chaaarlie

  60. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

    Holy shit, please stop using a computer. Now.

  61. Give the author some tinsel and whistles by Slotty · · Score: 1

    Today's Mac OS X 10.5, Leopard, is a work of the user-interface designer art. My wife recently bought a MacBook Pro, and as I've been migrating her data and applications from her elderly XP-powered ThinkPad, I've been reminded of just how smoothly integrated everything really is on a Mac. It's like driving a top-of-the-line Mercedes sports sedan.

    No you've been reminded how flashy and pretty has magically become synonymous with smooth and integration.

    The actual workhorse is the BSD Unix variant hidden away where graphic designers and school children can't type sudo rm / -rf and then wonder why the prettiness stopped

  62. I hope we can do better than OS X by speedtux · · Score: 1

    The OS X user experience is anything but "smooth": between spinning beach balls, a bloated and slow window server, lack of software uninstallers, crashes, and inconsistent interfaces, OS X is basically just another desktop.

  63. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by mabinogi · · Score: 1

    snappy

    and that's how we can tell you really are a Mac user ;)

    --
    Advanced users are users too!
  64. Which Flash? by Almahtar · · Score: 1

    The plugin or the "IDE"? I haven't had any problems with the Flash plugin since Flash 9 was released on Linux (2 years ago?).

    As far as the IDE, I can get CS2 to work in Wine, but not CS3. But this is what virtual machines are for.

  65. With devs like MPT, hopefully this will be good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm hoping Mark is referring to something like Matthew Paul Thomas' examination Empathy vs. Pidgin as the default IM client in Ubuntu. MPT did a very thorough examination of the users' experience and filed many bugs where appropriate. Projects like this could enormously help upstream, especially if patches are submitted as well. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EmpathyVsPidginUsability

  66. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is not a troll.

    It's *not* that great. It's slow, crashy and overcomplicated. It's got an ugly, messy desktop environment and it doesn't come with any decent usable software. It's got this weird browser that doesn't render stuff, doesn't have AdBlock and which usually gets replaced with Firefox. It can't play back most videos or music files without expensive shareware. It doesn't even have a usable text editor!

    It's utter crap. Ubuntu is already better than Mac OSX. Please don't try to make another crappy OSX Aqua-looky-likey clone thing.

    Yes. 100% agree. Almost. I also find it slow, crashy and overcomplicated.

    The DVD player crashes on bad DVDs easily, often locking up the GUI. Worse if you put a DVD in from the wrong region.

    The GUI is horrible at arranging large numbers of windows. It works (ish) for macos style, but really badly if you work in X11 a lot. A proper window manager (ed fvwm2) does a much better job. I hear the latest version finally got virtual desktops...

    And yes, the text editor stinks. Pretty much any modern Linux comes with vim of some sort installed by default.

    Media files are a right pain. On linux, it's just an "mplayer" away from working. On OSX, not so. Unless you use mplayer. Except it doesn't sync video right and you get tearing.

    I agree that ubuntu is already better than OSX. I would take an ubuntu install any day over an OSX install. Not that ubuntu isn't collecting brokenness in interesting ways, but I agree. Don't make anothe macos clone. I know how and where to get the original one and I don't want it.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  67. Fonts: just work on the font system by lsolano · · Score: 1

    OpenGL, Gtk, Qt, GNOME, KDE, bla, bla, bla: FONTS.

    Put some money on developing a font system with sharp good looking fonts.

    I've been using linux for years, and I can not understand why fonts appearance have not improved.

    In every linux forum we all can see a "show your desktop" topic, and in most of them, regardless wallpapers, and color settings, fonts don't look good.

    That's it. Let's wait for those who will replay "fonts look great on my computer, I don't know why your fonts don't look good in yours".

    1. Re:Fonts: just work on the font system by moro_666 · · Score: 1

      while i can't disagree for the font issue ...
      my biggest problem with linux is hw support, still ...

      hardware, hardware, hardware, drivers.

      i have been a big fan of linux since 99 (was using sco unix beore that, sorry). the visual side of linux is advancing pretty well and i don't actually see a point here that needs extra money. kde 3.5 already was sleek enough to compete with commercial desktops. underneath the xorg did a pretty fine job, opengl games worked, browsers were pretty fancy (couldn't care less for the crashing flash).

      my issue with linux is hardware support, still. do you have a box with ipw3945 on board ? if you do and have tried to keep yourself up to date, you know what i'm talking about. do you switch stuff often , like usb headsets etc ? have you tried to install ubuntu on a machine that has ati's late graphic cards ? you'd be amazed that the freakin installer won't even show up (since x crashes beneath due to hw issues and lack of proper drivers from ati).

      on my job i just switched, to mac. while it's not free as in beer and occasionally annoying with the gui, the thing works. i have a unix that allows me to do my work, all the command line goodies, compilers and whatever i need for my job.
        i just don't have the time to run around forums and figure out why this latest update on the kernel here or there broke half of the freaking universe and what kind of super-duper patches do i need to apply to make it all work again. yes stuff can be made to work, but i have job to do, a real job, that fills my wallet. and linux as a desktop is getting in my way.

      still running gentoo at home, but only because my laptop is 2 years old and now the box is pretty stable (still using ndiswrapper for the wifi, and running my own driver for the builtin camera).

      still running linux on servers, although i have also tried running bsd-s (and behold, bsd actually _is_ fancy, with jails etc.)

      i have been using unix or unix-alike systems for roughly 13 years, i have been working and hacking around linux for 9 years (of which 7 years have been linux-only, nothing else) and i'm losing the appetite for linux, at least on the desktop. for the desktop use it's still stuck in 'beta', but not because of kde/opengl/xorg.

      people in my age are growing out of the cool hacking phase, they want stuff that primarily works, the fancy-schmancy gui is a secondary issue. we get new hardware each year, and the way linux is done hinders us often from using the new and cool hardware. open source is nice, however the ability to simply use wpa wifi and accelerated 3d graphics is nicer, as well just switching around your usb audio too.

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    2. Re:Fonts: just work on the font system by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Put some money on developing a font system with sharp good looking fonts.

      I find the terminal fonts like Terminus tend to be quite sharp and wonderful (which is why I set my desktop environment to use them). Liberation fonts that replace Microsoft's fonts are also quite decent, but they don't have a wonderful sharp look that terminal fonts do.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  68. Screen's new motto: by debatem1 · · Score: 1

    top of the /n.

  69. Some people have had troubles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have actually not had a flash crash in my whole Linux experience that started when I installed breeze on 2006...

    I mean, really... Is this whole stuff about flash crashing just plain hysteria? Or is it someone that happened to some guy and Linux basher everywhere just repeat like parrots?

    Yeah. You might have heard of him... check out Linus Torvalds' Fedora 9 flash issue on Red Hats bugtracker, titled "youtube no workee":

    Description From Linus Torvalds 2008-03-31 15:37:13 EDT

    Description of problem:
    youtube no workee - fedora 9 not usable for wife

    Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
    swfdec.x86_64 0.6.2-1.fc9
    swfdec-gtk.x86_64 0.6.2-1.fc9
    swfdec-mozilla.x86_64 0.6.0-1.fc9

    How reproducible:
    I didn't try a lot of videos, but I couldn't find a single one that actually worked. And what's the internet without the rick-roll?
    Some just show a light gray background, some give the play buttons etc, but show only a black screen even when the red ball at the bottom moves along..

    Steps to Reproduce:
    1. Install current Fedora 9
    2. Rick-roll!
    3. No profit!

    Actual results:
    Some videos just show a light gray background, some give the play buttons etc, but in the latter case show only a black screen even when the red ball at the bottom seems to moves along..

    Expected results:
    Rick Astley in all his glory! People have reported that youtube videos are supposed to work with swfdec, so I presume they have worked at some point and have been broken recently.
    Just to test that this isn't just a anti-rick-roll security feature, I also tested some other videos, but let's face it - we do need Rick for the "Full Internet Experience".

    Additional info:
    This is "high" priority because the wife will kill me if she doesn't have her videos. And the adobe player won't install on current rawhide due to some library issues.

    "Obi-wan Kenobi, you're our only hope"

    Posting AC because I already modded in this thread, but thought that this should be pointed out.

  70. Apple's "hate relationship" with Unix and older ha by rhyre · · Score: 1

    My (older) Mac has 256M or 512M of RAM. Garageband likes more RAM, and not all hardware is equal in Apple's eyes, especially since they have a profit motive to see new hardware AND software every few years.

    The bigger issue is Apple's constant forced obsolescence of older OS X compatible hardware platforms.

    You can get fink or other Unixy package managers and veriants of *BSD ports systems, but you'll quicly find you need certain bits or header files that you only get by installing Xcode/developer tool releases in succession.

    I tried looking for Apple's X (windows) server recently, and found that the more recent installers seemed to insist on me first finding an OS X 10.1 or 10.2 installer disk, which had the original binary distribution. From there, you could download updates, but you were SOL if you wanted to use Apple's binaries and you couldn't find that 7-year old CD to start with.
    There's no excuse for this kind of customer abuse, especially since X is an Open Source product.

    Would that kind of behavior be tolerated in the GNU/Linux community? No.

    I was working with an old dual-USB iBook with a 10G drive to start with, Mac OS X was evicted, and Yellow Dog Linux for PPC moved in
    (since Ubuntu stopped doing PPC installers)

    No more X worries, and the wireless worked fine.

    I suspect that the next thing is I'll be forced to abandon my pre-G4 PPC hardware completely if I want to run iTunes 8 on my newer hardware. Because once you run a major version increment of iTunes on one of your authorized boxes, ALL boxes have to be upgraded to that latest major version.
     

  71. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey zealot.

  72. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

    Though tearing also plagues Linux, I haven't seen a video card/driver setup yet which doesn't have tearing unless some of the latest Intel or ATI drivers have fixed it. I'm glad that the Intel, X, and other devs/users have brought it up, hopefully soon it'll be a thing of the past.

    --
    Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
  73. KDE3 + Compiz-Fusion + Emerald by janwedekind · · Score: 1

    I'm now using KDE3 with Compiz Fusion and Emerald Window Decorator. IMHO it surpasses Vista and Apple already in terms of look and feel. Once I went into an Apple store, I opened Safari on one of those things and I plaid a Youtube video showing Compiz Fusion on it. Customers where crowding behind me and even the staff had a hard time pretending they're not interested! Ok, maybe the average user would have a hard time trying to install it. But then again why should we make ourselves redundant? The article forgets to mention, that Mark Shuttleworth also said that it is about making software which gets it's users laid.

  74. bah, showoffs by Trepidity · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I could've had a lower user number, but I didn't actually realize Slashdot had introduced user accounts until a day or two later when I noticed you couldn't just type in any name as the "by" field anymore.

  75. Credit where credit is due by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is obvious that Linux is catching up on the desktop. The article claims this is due to Free Software and Mark's millions. Sorry, but talk to those actually doing the work, Mark's millions are not only doing good. I certainly don't think he deserves this level of credit.

  76. have you tried asking jeff k by Trepidity · · Score: 1
    1. Re:have you tried asking jeff k by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Jeff K. is the shit, loved him long time.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  77. Re:Apple's "hate relationship" with Unix and older by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >My (older) Mac has 256M or 512M of RAM

    Does it just randomly decide the amount?

    One of the the things that pisses me off about Slashdot in the 21st century (besides the RIAA/MPAA/NYCL troll/flamebait articles) is the lack of technical rigor here now, especially on the part of the Apple fans here: "I don't really know how much memory my computer has, but it's cool".

  78. Facts please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many developpers? When?

    Shuttleworth is keen on paying us with intents which take years to be delivered.
    He said for years he had the intent to free launchpad, and he knows says he has the intent to free it in one year.

    So, how many developpers does he intend to hire on each project?

    Who are those developpers?
    (if they are developpers already working on those projects it won't bring much improvments, it will just focus the work they were going to do anyway in area of interrest to canonical).

    How long before anything is delivered?

    Will there be a true and clear roadmap or just intents and communication buzz?

  79. Precisely why it needs to export look and feel by linhares · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An implementation of export look and feel could dramatically change things: Most Linux people spend a lot of time configuring their desktops, changing wallpapers, appearance settings, icons, metacity themes, compiz settings, skydomes, and god knows what else. Some people make their systems look like a mac, some make it look like vista, some make it look unique. I think it would be a significant leap if we could make a SINGLE (large) file container, with everything involved in the desktop settings, and send it to other users. The community could share beautifully tuned desktops, and we all could experiment with numerous desktops really rapidly. If we improve productivity in this arena, then everyone on windows would see amazing desktops, all changeable, and that's an important step towards solving bug#1. A large file could have all associated settings, parameters, needed files, and command sequences to configure the desktop in ONE click. Most newbies don't have the know how or the patience to learn how to really transform a desktop... we could give them a little instant gratification, as this is something that no mac or windows user can do.

    1. Re:Precisely why it needs to export look and feel by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      now that's a good idea - after all, the user interface is the computer to most people (ask my boss why I don't do prototypes anymore ;) ). This would probably have the biggest impact to Linux takeup of all the code changes suggested so far.

    2. Re:Precisely why it needs to export look and feel by __aaxwdb6741 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
      A lot of customization requires the usage of super-user privileges to install software (Like AWN). And how do you suppose malicious use of this will be prevented?
      Supply the user with a popup asking for permission? How will you inform the clueless user that the lookandfeel.laf file is trying to 'apt-get install software; make backdoor"?

      No, sure, everything will be fine.

  80. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mac is really a religion. Lets pray Jobs-in-jeans
    On another note, Last time I updated Amarok under Gnome, it did not add Konqueror! http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9070558

  81. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, exactly, does your comment have to do with anything else in this thread? Are you just trying to take a completely random stab at Mac users? If so, your trolling is even worse than the original poster's.

  82. Step 1: by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

    Make your dialogue boxes usable on my 800x480 screen.

  83. EGO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GTK fanboys will never allow that

  84. Which Department? by somegeekynick · · Score: 1

    That's the first time I have seen a post on /. not belonging to any department. This must be a serious one then.

  85. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's only right about one thing - Mac OSX is for big blubbering vaginas.

  86. Who knows? by donak · · Score: 1

    I work in an office, that sells "end of life" PCs with the HD wiped (non-transferable licence).
    Every time there's a "sale" I'm approached by someone asking for a "Windows disc I can use".

    After I finish explaining that Windows these days is pretty tough on licencing, and it's not possible/practical
    to use one disc on multiple computers, they wander off to find someone who can help them ... ignoring my offer
    of a Linux install disc.

    I admire Ubuntu (using it right now on this PC) and Mark Shuttleworth's willingness to put his money into it.
    But Linux on the Desktop is only going to happen when Joe or Jane Average knows it exists , and can be used successfully.

    --
    Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post ...
  87. My dad is working on his 3rd million by Dareth · · Score: 1

    ...unfortunately, he gave up on the first two!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  88. Blasphemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, Mac OS itself is based on FreeBSD.

    I am a die-hard Mac fan and I find this offensive.

  89. What will happen to Mark Shuttleworth's wealth? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one here who's worried about Shuttleworth's wealth? How is Canonical making money? Is it making a profit? What if Shuttleworth runs out of money, then what would happen to him and to FOSS? Is Shuttleworth getting a reward back, as he rightfully deserves?

    Furthermore, why is he the one who's injecting money into FOSS? Why don't Slashdot readers donate some money to their favorite FOSS project? Is everybody so used to leeching off free work?

  90. Heck, Bub, just get iTunes working! by grikdog · · Score: 1

    My daughter needs her music.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  91. Brighter, according to who? by Toll_Free · · Score: 1

    "Desktop Linux's future is starting to look brighter."

    Oh gee, have I heard this anywhere before?

    --Toll_Free

  92. Why love Mac OSX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since you asked, the Mac has such a great user experience for 3 fundamental reasons: great UI design, a single, unified vision and single point of control. You might add some of the best minds in the creativity business, but many companies have those folks: it just is not rewarded or even desired.
    Jobs may get a lot of bad press here, but remember that most of OUR lives have been nowhere near as influential (in good ways) or financially successful.
    Regardless their faults -- and, remember, we are ALL human -- Jobs and Gates should be our heroes, not the target of unearned ire.

  93. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Though tearing also plagues Linux, I haven't seen a video card/driver setup yet which doesn't have tearing unless some of the latest Intel or ATI drivers have fixed it. I'm glad that the Intel, X, and other devs/users have brought it up, hopefully soon it'll be a thing of the past.

    You are unfortunate. I have no TV, but I watch a lot of DVDs instead, on laptops.

    I use (mix of work and home machines) an ancient FreeBSD 4.7 machine, with some ATI card (OSS 2D), a Dell 830 with an intel card, a D6?? with an ATi card (I've tried both OSS and proprietary drivers) and (in the past) a PIII with an Nvidia card. MPlayer works flawlessly, with no tearing.

    There is always the issue of jerkiess on slow panning, since the framerate of the monitor does not match the framerate of the DVD, but the applies to any computer based system which uses an arbitrary monitor.

    Seriously, I think you are unlycky or badly se tup, since I've had prefect DVD playback with MPlayer on several operating systems and over a range of hardware.

    Which output driver are you using on MPlayer? Try xv (xvideo), and enable a boat-load of cache.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  94. nothing new by zenulator · · Score: 1

    Red Hat and Suse have been doing this for years. Ubuntu will never be the windows killer and neither will OSX. It doesn't mean that they won't gain market share or be better than windows. Its just the nature of the market. People will stick with what they are used to which is windows. The only way linux would take over the market is if the foss community put all their effort into one single distro, standardized packages, stood by one gui tool kit, one default set of applications per task, easy to use gui system settings and guided setup tools, used a rolling release cycle where you would never have to reinstall, change the gpl to allow proprietary drivers to link to the kernel, get the whole computer industry to switch to open source codecs, pay adobe and others to port their software or created real alternatives that people want to use and then have the OEMs preinstall it on their systems. After all that you advertise the hell out of it. Give it away on the net or ship boxed versions to retail outlets to sell. One ring to rule them all. It's not going to happen anytime soon if at all. The foss community is too divided for this to ever happen. Too many cooks spoil the soup. There are so many projects that do basically the same things just in slightly different ways. Choice is good in specialized markets. Devices designed for single tasks where the os and gui is crafted around that device. Thin clients where a only hand full of apps need to be running in a office environment or point of sale terminal. Internet kiosks. Linux is already taking over in these reguards. Maybe in ten years when Microsoft finally destroys itself, Steve Jobs clones himself and Ubuntu 28.10 Silly Sheeple gets released we can finally say that "This is the year of the Linux desktop!"

  95. Doomed from the start - flawed kernel by gooneybird · · Score: 1

    The Ubuntu (or any Linux-based kernel) distro will never, ever match the "smoothness" of either MAC or Solaris until Linus allows the changes necessary in the linux kernel for more real-time performance. Period. (He is just being stubborn, at this point) I have used Solaris (previously SunOS) since 1990 and always end up going back to it because I have never experienced anything close to how smooth the GUI (and the rest of the system) runs. I suspect mostly due to the pre-emptable kernel in Solaris. So he (Canonical) is doomed from the start. A ugly GUI with lipstick on it is still an ugly GUI... If you haven't tried Solaris 10 (free for non-commercial use) try it, you might like it, Mikey...

  96. oh the Linux bit by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    We know GNU does the userland - that's covered in the loon part.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  97. Re:Why do people go on about how great Mac OSX is? by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

    It may be the player, it may be the driver, not sure, but of course now I can't find tearing on one thing I try so... :P

    Compiz is something that I don't think I've never not seen tearing on. Try moving a window around with wobbly windows on and you should see tearing. Obviously this will be a little harder to spot on higher end cards.

    --
    Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
  98. FOSS has finally failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was, obviously, the only logical way to go, since FOSS has clearly lost. When you compete on the basis of price, and STILL can't gain market share... the only way to go is to PAY people to use your software.

    I'm guessing the 90's "dot-bomb" era is about to call Ubuntu and tell them they want their economic model back. It's a whole new New Economy! Dot-Bomb 2.0, baby!

  99. Really Cool for ubuntu by charlesding · · Score: 1

    That's really cool. I have been always wanting to get the mac os expirence in Linux. It's not too far now. God bless ubuntu