Slashdot Mirror
Shuttleworth Says Ubuntu Can't Just Be Windows
ruphus13 writes "When Mark Shuttleworth was asked what role WINE will play in Ubuntu's success, he said that Ubuntu cannot simply be a better platform to run Windows apps. From the post, according to Shuttleworth, '[Windows and Linux] both play an important role but fundamentally, the free software ecosystem needs to thrive on its own rules. it is *different* to the proprietary software universe. We need to make a success of our own platform on our own terms. if Linux is just another way to run Windows
apps, we can't win. OS/2 tried that ...' The post goes on to say, 'Linux simply isn't Windows (nor is Windows Linux) and to expect fundamentally different approaches (and I'm not just thinking closed versus open) to look, feel, and operate the same way is senseless.'"
OS/2 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows applications while Windows was a $100 way of running Windows applications. It didn't matter that OS/2 was better, it wasn't (in the minds of most consumers) $400 better, especially when it needed $400 more RAM as well.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
With me...there are some windows applications I have to use (Quickbooks pro for my company I contract through), and on jobsites often there are tools they have that are only windows based.
I find when I have to use those windows boxes on site, I often really, really miss having my unix tools (sed, awk, etc...) around. If I could have my linux install, and have the hard core tools to use, and be able to also run windows apps when I needed to, I'd be happy to go.
That need, obviously isn't one Joe User needs, but, maybe it would work the other way around with JU. He has his windows apps, and over time, discovers the neat tools and functionality that Linux offers. Frankly, as long as he has his apps he needs from windows, he doesn't care what the OS is.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
So this news story is fluff spun out of two lines of IRC chat?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I like it much better.
On windows I can't set up my own dns forwarding proxy with a few simple commands, or add a powerful compiler or set of scripting language interpreters and libraries with equal ease.
Ubuntu is great for me. I don't give a crap about running windows apps.
Time to eat your own ass.
We're not going to try and base our business model on WINE.
Much better to have native apps.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
In a stunning public relations coup, Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MNPLY) has successfully overshadowed Ubuntu Linux 9.04 "Juicy Jubblies" by announcing that it is laying even more people off.
Microsoft announced new and expanded roles for remaining key executives as another several lesser, losing quitters deserted upper management. "It shows the fantastic opportunity available to everyone at Microsoft to climb seven or eight reporting levels up the org chart," said marketing marketer Steve Ballmer to pitchfork-wielding Wall Street analysts today. "If we haven't laid them off for making too much money or not kissing enough ass."
The Yahoo! deal is expected to go ahead. "We figure they'll go broke before we do. Probably." Mr Ballmer also plans to run the Yahoo! servers on Windows NT rather than FreeBSD after a similar change worked so well at Hotmail. "Some say synergy's another word for two plus two equals one, but you just have to make the value of one work for you."
Windows 7 betas have been greeted with remarkable positive press. "Of course, the betas preview the 'champagne and hookers' edition, which would be way too much for netbooks and explode users' brains. Imagine thinking those little things are computers! So we're releasing what we call Windows 7 Dumbass Edition(tm). It lets you log in and look at the shiny. Even Spider Solitaire has the ribbon toolbar! And you can buy an upgrade to the version that runs programs! It lets you do that!"
Dumbass Edition(tm) comes with pre-installed viruses to make the computer part of the Storm, Conficker and FBI botnets. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
However, Microsoft has indicated to its press corps, Microsoft Completely Enderlependent Analysts, to ixnay on the evensay and highlight the job openings for work on Windows 8, firmly penciled in for a 2012 release. Windows 8 will be optimised for low-end 32-core systems with a mere 16 gigabytes of memory -- 28 cores for the interface, 3 cores for the DRM and one core for everything else. "'Seven' is just so this year. I hear they'll get $DATABASE_FILESYSTEM done next release for sure!" said ZDNet marketing marketer Mary-Jo Enderle. "It'll be awesome(tm)!"
"I'm sure it'll be fine, fine," said Bill Gates, upping his hours at his charitable foundation and scheduling the sale of several more packages of Microsoft stock.
Larry Ellison of Oracle, who recently purchased Sun Microsystems, merely snickered, muttered "Java. OpenOffice." and let out a long and resounding laugh.
Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical, speaking from his castle on a crag high on a mountaintop in west London, was sanguine at Ubuntu's news being overshadowed. "I lost ten million dollars on Ubuntu last year. I'm losing ten million dollars on Ubuntu this year. I expect to lose ten million dollars on Ubuntu next year. At this rate, I'll be broke in ... sixty years."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I recently switched to Ubuntu (from running other versions of Linux on my main home computer since 2000) and I have to say it is quite nice. I use WIndows at work because that's what we're told to run. I honestly don't understand why people like you exist that find Linux to be so absolutely terrible. At home I have a laser printer, scanner, webcam, gps, sony ebook reader, digital camera, digital video camera and wireless. All these things work on my Linux boxes and I have no problems with them. I am very productive with Linux.
While I too wish he'd eat his own ass, every attempt I've made so far to configure ubuntu 8.10 to use a static IP rather than a DHCP IP has resulted in failure.
Now I'm probably just being a dumbass, but I'm a reasonably technical dumbass. Even reasonably non-technical dumbasses could do such a thing in windows.
I normally agree with Shuttleworth, but I don't think he's right here. He's right in the long-term, Ubuntu shouldn't just be another platform for running Windows apps, because ideally long-term all apps will be written cross-platform to hit both markets.
However, in the short term, I firmly believe that Wine is the only way to massively increase Ubuntu's market share. It's the appications that people care about, like iTunes, Photoshop or Autocad. If Wine can run your Windows apps, what do you have to lose by migrating? If Ubuntu doesn't run Windows apps, then whole crowds of people just can't dump Windows for it.
Setting: press conference room. Shuttleworth is standing behind a podium with disheveled hair and sweat stains spreading underneath his arms. Reporters sit in chairs before him. ... Ubuntu is trying to ... "be" Windows? ... so you want to be Windows? ...
Reporter A: So
Shuttleworth: Ok, for the last time, I am going to go over this very very slowly.
*Shuttleworth writes Ubuntu and Windows on the chalkboard and puts a massive "does not equal" sign in between them.*
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu cannot and will not ever "be" Windows. I've been over this for the past two hours, can we move away from Windows/Ubuntu comparisons here?
Reporter B: But you want to be a widely used operating system?
Shuttleworth: That is correct.
Reporter B: And Windows is the most widely user operating system?
Shuttleworth: Also correct.
Reporter B:
*Shuttleworth lets out a long drawn-out sigh, massages his forehead and takes a drink from his glass of water*
Shuttleworth: *holds up two pieces of fruit* In my left hand I hold an apple. In my right hand I hold an orange. Although both are round, the two taste different and have different colors and subtle shapes
Reporter C: Hold on, an "Apple"? I'm not following you, are you saying you're trying to "be" OS X?
Shuttleworth: This press conference is over!
My work here is dung.
http://www.ubuntugeek.com/how-to-set-a-static-ip-address-in-ubuntu-810-intrepid-ibex.html
Keep in mind that the 8.10 release is not designed for broad use and that most users (even now that 9.04 has been released) should still be using 8.04, the last stable LTS release.
And to have a nice, beautiful terminal window, instead of running bash in the default WinXP's terminal window, install RXVT (available in Cygwin's installer) and run bash in it.
Support fast mouse cut'n'paste, nice window resizing, acceptable scroll back buffer, etc.
If you're forced to endure windows, Cygwin's bash+rxvt help soothing part of the pain.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
For running apps in a corporate enviroment. Many current business apps (think more along the lines of ERP/CRM/indrusry specific apps rather than Word/Ecxel) aren't supported by their vendor when running under virtulization with a full version of Windows (e.g. Citrix or VMware) so it is very unlikely that they would be supported under WINE. While it is possible that the apps may run fine under WINE most companies would be unwilling to risk running their mission critical applications (I.e. The apps they make money from) in a completely unsupported environment like WINE.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
need to work together and get companies to port. All they need is a few to move over. The rest will come. Intuit's Quicken, quick books, and taxpro are BIG ONES. Autocad should have moved over eons ago. And OpenOffice should be ROCK SOLID on Mac just like the others.
The question ppl should be asking is WHY is Apple gaining desktop? because they PUSH to get the apps that are needed. Just like Safari. Jobs hit all the banks and got after them to make it work with safari. And Safari is now up and coming. If the Linux world would learn from that, and push a few of the top companies to port their app to Linux, then we would see massive surge in it. As it is, Shuttleworth has realized that having Linux INSTALLED at time of purchase is big.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Because we all know games = Good selling OS.
That's why AS400 is used in my company! Man, oh man I can't wait for Tetris for iSeries.
Ubuntu cannot simply be a better platform to run Windows apps.
Exactly right. Morphing Linux into a Windows software platform would be a major mistake. You'd still be locking users into one way of doing things. I'm sitting here looking at our developers, all working on Linux. One uses pico, one a text editor another uses Eclipse. We all work differently, even different distros, and all manage to get our work done.
In a Windows shop we were all using the same OS, the same development environment and the same tools. Everything was regimented into MSFT's way of doing things and limited by the latitude they decide you get. Their tools, their rules, their training, their way. And it seemed we were always dancing on their string over something. Licensing, product activation, version compatibility issues, so we'd get paid to rewrite working applications for new frameworks, security patches that break things, the upgrade treadmill. Hours of undocumented time pouring through knowledge base articles. It was a constant waterfall of nit-picky little things that we would have to bend our schedule, manage our time to accommodate. The bonus was you always looked stressed out and busy and it was job security. Without regular maintenance, apps would stop working. You have no idea how much time you spend digging sand in a MSFT environment until you move off it.
I think it's nice that Wine exists for those odd times you need to run a Windows app. But that should never be the OS focus. And in the bigger picture of proprietary v free, as long as MSFT dictates your application environment, you're still dancing on their string.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I've gotten several people in my family started with Ubuntu, and one weird thing I've observed is that none of them ever seem to spontaneously figure out how to install applications -- they don't even seem to realize that the open-source apps are out there, or that it might be desirable to install them.
Okay, maybe this is a good thing, because maybe it just means that a default Ubuntu does a very good job of including enough apps that the average user can do everything they need to do. Or maybe it just means that most people, unlike me, don't enjoy playing with software.
But it really does make me wonder whether the Linux community could be doing a better job of selling itself based on the availability of a huge number of free, high-quality applications. Apt-cache stats says that I have 25,000 packages installed on my desktop machine at home, all of them free. If even 1% of those cost $10 each, we'd be talking about a massive investment in order to build up a similar software library using proprietary software.
Now it might seem obvious to linux geeks that you should say, "I want to do x, therefore I search on freshmeat for an app that does x, and then I install it." But most people don't even think that way about computer software. They're in the habit of buying it in a store, or on amazon, and they expect it to cost money. Synaptic doesn't exactly advertise itself very well, either. Users seem to putter around for years in Gnome without ever noticing that there's a utility built into the menus that would allow them to download a ton of free software.
Find free books.
Ubuntu won't "just be windows" because it is free (NOT as in beer). The more I use my 360 and PS3 to try to play media from my PC the more I understand how bad the protected DRM-everything model is for consumers. That's the future of Windows, guys. People are not going to put up with their hardware refusing to do what should easily be able to do as long as there is an alternative that will do everything else too. Convenience is king, and DRM is becoming increasingly restrictive and annoying.
I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
One thing that has routinely annoyed me is when some of the Gnome devs do stuff and their reasoning consists of nothing more than "that is what Windows does". COM, the awfulness of gconf (*actually* modeled on the Windows registry), and so on.
Big problem is that if your aim is to catch up, then, by definition, you can never lead.
Anywhere I have a choice, I don't use Windows because I do not like it. I never used Photoshop or Visio or Office (I don't like word processors either). I did play a lot of games, but my dislike of Windows was great enough that I just forked over cash for a game console and I don't touch PC games anymore. So, for me, there were no insurmountable boundaries for dumping it; I recognize that there are apps which other people find essential and for which there are no acceptable alternatives in FOSS. Sucks, but again, unless something SUPERIOR appears, we'll always be in catch up mode, because somebody else is the defining example.
So it can't just be "just as easy" or even "a good bit easier". It pretty much needs to be a game changer.
You can get Vista for $100 at newegg.
To me the difference between purchasing Windows and choosing to go open source can be compared to the difference between getting a Dell desktop or going to Newegg and making your own.
Sure you can save a lot of money at newegg and make a powerful machine. You need to assemble it yourself (which for myself was much fun). Service wise its only adequate. I had a DVD burner break down, it was still under warranty I consulted my return policy, did what I had to do and had a new DVD burner back in my machine in a week.
But with Dell. You pay much more for a really good rig. You dont have to assemble it (and while assembly is fun - it can be a hassle). Service wise, as someone who works in the industry - Dell is fantastic. With the right warranty they will send a local technician straight to your office to repair anything. Peace of mind can be bought. You can have a warranty so good you can toss your insanely expensive laptop out a window for kicks and have it replaced shortly.
As long as there are people in the world who cant handle the extra hassle of servicing open source - there will be a market for Windows. But given the direction the world economy is taking that could change fairly soon (in my lifetime anyways). Right now whoever provides the best service wins. And in an environment like Open Source. Its hard (not impossible) to guarantee top notch service. Sad but true.
And this has been another installament of Captain Obvious!
Keep in mind that the 8.10 release is not designed for broad use and that most users (even now that 9.04 has been released) should still be using 8.04, the last stable LTS release.
Untrue.
While there is no long term support (LTS) for anything since 8.04, but for those of us who don't need it, that isn't a concern. There is 18 months of support for every Ubuntu release. That is plenty long enough for most uses.
If I were designing a process that required multi-year support and maintenance, then I'd certainly think about LTS, but that isn't the world I work in.
The cost is beside the point.
I am a long-time Linux (and much more recently OS X) user, and if I am presented with a piece of software that requires Windows to run it, I usually prefer to just do without.
Fortunately in my discipline (biotech) developers are beginning to realise there are alternatives - for instance, Geneious is a stupendously fine example. It's definitely not free, but it is available on multiple platforms, which is a big step away from where we were a couple of years ago.
Compare this with Endnote which is rapidly losing ground to Zotero because the developers refuse to cooperate with the *nix world.
multiple desktops
customization
multiple taskbars
fancy 3d effects / low resource uses
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
>>>"if Linux is just another way to run Windows apps, we can't win. OS/2 tried that ..."
If Linux tries to be proprietary, you can't win that way either. Atari ST and Commodore Amiga tried that approach, and they went bankrupt. People want and need to be able to run the same stuff they run at work, or in school, or wherever. If they cannot move their files back-and-forth, then they won't be choosing your proprietary OS - they'll be choosing Windows.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
And with Windows it's Right-click on 'My Network Places' -> Properties. Then pick the connection ->Properties. Pick the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) option ->Properties. All mouse-driven, all GUI, all easy. Adjust away.
That's the difference. With Ubuntu|Linux, you've got to *know* how to get to the Terminal, then you've got to type stuff, then you've got to edit config files. Then restart things. Then something else breaks, which requires not the usual 'Add/Remove' program function to fix it, but a trip into 'sudo aptitude blah-blah-blah'. Then maybe that works, maybe it doesn't. Of course, it's trivially easy to find umpteen tutorials on *how* to do this stuff. Linux-lovers get excited over that. And that's totally cool. And I'll buy the argument that it is "better" to actually learn how your O/S works. But casual users, mainstream users, money-spending users, no way. They just want it to work.
I have three notebooks; one running Vista, one running Ubuntu 9.04, and a Macbook. I use them interchangeably, depending on what I'm doing. Ubuntu 9.04 is the best release of Ubuntu yet, but it's still kludgy compared to Vista or Mac. And when things break in Ubuntu (like when my WiFi simply stopped working after a recommended update & reboot) it required quite a bit of troubleshooting and 'tinkering' to get it working again. After a half-hour, I was back in business. But it required a half-hour of work to fix. Enjoyable fun for the computer nerd. But not for Grandma. People want apps that are easily installed, easily removed, and consistent in their method of installation.
And until some Linux distro figures that out (Ubuntu 9.04 is *damn* close) they'll never capture enough market share to hit critical mass. Based on the improvements I've witnessed from Ubuntu 6.xxx through today's 9.04, they may be there by Ubuntu 10 or 11. Here's to hoping. :-)
Especially in the current financial climate, I'm surprised no one has mentioned this little fact about the fundamental difference between Linux and Windows: Windows is entirely dependent on Microsoft.
Linux will never go extinct as long as the source code exists and someone is around capable of maintaining that source code.
If Microsoft were to cease operations (chapter 7, god forbid), Windows would have no foundation to continue. The source is closed, so even if there were people willing to work on it in their spare time, they would not have access to the source.
Before you mod me as a troll, just remember all the companies that were "too big to fail" 10 years ago that aren't here today.
Linux strength is that it is a community, not a corporation, that keeps it alive and running.
Not many people will read this post, but remember all the good operating systems tied to companies that were destroyed from mergers/acquisitions: I will always remember Tandem NonStop. It was my personal favorite, I hate you for destroying them Carly. /Personally, I run FreeBSD, I've always favored Unix over Linux.
...Linux simply isn't Windows (nor is Windows Linux) and to expect fundamentally different approaches (and I'm not just thinking closed versus open) to look, feel, and operate the same way is senseless....
There are things Windows does better than Linux especially software installation.
I know apt and yum resolve dependencies well to a large extent but in some cases, there are version conflicts and lots of chaos in the Linux domain. This does not help at all.
In my opinion, software for Linux should be developed for a particular kernel period. So that one can say, This software will work with this kernel and users should expect it to work.
"Even reasonably non-technical dumbasses could do such a thing in windows."
No they can't.
But this does not solve your problem. How have you tried to do it? Perhaps we can help.
Every single person in my dorm in college in 1998 was able to figure this out on their first day with no help from the school. They were all using Windows or Mac OS Whatever Was out Then. I can't comment on the difficulty of setting up a static IP in Ubuntu, but in windows and MacOS, even 10.5 years ago it was trivial for even first time computer owners.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
No i expect a normal person to use the GUI such as network manager or just google it. However my solution is a pretty good guide that will work 99% of the time across every release of most distros and is quicker than using a GUI.
Try giving somebody instructions for setting up a static IP on windows, that will work on windows XP/vista/7. For configuration GUIs can suck my balls, i'll take a text file with a nice header over a fancy GUI, especially as you only configure something once!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
There is a proper time to push WINE compatibility with Ubuntu -- after a few major industry players, as you describe, put out an Ubuntu version of their software.
The key is to get a user's most important apps running natively, so that there's an incentive to switch. Then you add the compatibility layer for their other miscellaneous apps to take away the disincentive to switch.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Evan only there was some sort of integration of small networks on a global scale that could be searched...
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=ubuntu+8.10+to+use+a+static+IP&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=ubuntu+8.10+to+use+a+static+IP&fp=KqtEvp1-d7s
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If Ubuntu were a $0 way of running windows applications it would take over the world.
Ubuntu shouldn't be *just* windows, it should be windows and more. The problem is that the "and more" part Ubuntu already does perfectly but the "just windows" part is still not complete.
If wine could run every relevant windows applications, people could forget the applications and concentrate on what the system itself does.
Linux is so much better, so much more powerful, easier to use, secure, and stable than windows it's a shame so many people are turned off Linux because their work requires exactly this or that application.
Try giving somebody instructions for setting up a static IP on windows, that will work on windows XP/vista/7. For configuration GUIs can suck my balls, i'll take a text file with a nice header over a fancy GUI, especially as you only configure something once!
That's the problem, I do this all the time, and it's by far easier walking people calling in through a GUI interface than having them have to drop to a terminal and typing/editing commands. Not everyone in the world lives at the command prompt; most of them get intimidated when asked to pull one up. I'm not about to tout the superiority of Linux when the first and only thing that they want is to get their computers configured and online
Further, I can't drive to Orange County, CA (from Rhode Island) at 3 in the morning when I'm tech supporting a short between the keyboard and the seat. It needs to be done quickly so that Mister Short can get it plugged in, and online so that he can get to bed at some point; and I can move on to the next person that's complaining about something else not working on the network.
So you can tout "...Configuration GUIs can suck my balls..." all you want. But just remember, the people that know how to troubleshoot are in the minority; and those that are there need to drag the rest of humanity along until they're ready to learn/re-learn a foreign OS.
"The truth points to itself." - Kosh, Babylon5
So it can't just be "just as easy" or even "a good bit easier". It pretty much needs to be a game changer.
That is exactly right.
Going on with some of your other points...
Even if cutting edge game developers wanted to dev for Linux, they couldnt. A good standards API just isnt there, and graphics drivers are quite frankly pathetic. Linux has no shot to offer a better gaming machine than Windows today, and there is also no sign that that will change any time soon. Yeah I know that there are some modern games running on Linux, and yes in some cases they run 'better', but many people have serious unsolvable issues with rigs that for all intents and purposes shouldn't have issues.
As far as office suites go.. an office suite as a 'collection of office programs' is very far behind the times. Microsoft Office really is better than everybody else and the amount of focused effort which would be required to rival Office will never materialize from a rag-tag group of loosely collaborating programmers. Sun gave it a good try with Open Office, but Good is less than Great, and very far away from Game Changing.
The best quality of Linux is price. Thats not enough for a species that pays steap markups for name brand clothing.
In the FOSS world there is a great disconnect between the people who program application and those demanding them. You cannot expect artists, musicians, and writers, to contribute to the tools they want... because they arent good programmers! Even if they contributed it would end up sucking.
Consider the situation as being comprised of 3 groups: (A) The Programmers, (B) The Artists, and (C) Joe Public.
Programs like Photoshop were written by (A) for (B), while (C) benefits from (B) influencing the development direction.
Programs like Gimp were written by (A) for (A), and (B) and (C) are just bystanders who get to partake.
FOSS is what it is and it can't be what it isn't. Free is good.. but it is not enough.
The one word that best describes Photoshop in comparison to the alternatives is 'Professional.' The one word that best describes Office in comparison to the alternatives is 'Professional.' It is true that most people don't demand a Professional image editor. It is true that most people don't demand a Professional office suite. It is true that most people don't demand Professional games. But the group that demands a Professional FillInTheBank is very large, and Linux can't please any of them.
"His name was James Damore."
What does Shuttleworth mean? Linux can't be a different way to run Windows apps? Those Windows apps are out there because people need those applications. What is the alternative? Is he suggesting to completely reinvent the wheel? Is he suggesting that everything that is on Windows should stay on Windows, and Linux needs to something else entirely? Maybe Linux can be the social networking platform of choice? Maybe I should RTFA, but the entire premise seems stupid. There isn't anything that Linux can do that OSX or Windows can't. The three simply do what they do in different ways, with different quirks, strengths and weaknesses.
It was. However the GP is correct that IBM tried to protect their server market by neutering OS/2 through tying it to the 286. They also made the API gratuitously incompatible with Windows for some reason.
Nevertheless, if OS/2 had been a popular and successful operating system, Microsoft probably would have killed Windows after the 2.x line.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
There are many people who will not agree with you and that explains why the Linux market share numbers are still as low as compared to other platforms.
What I will do is to quote this very intelligent man:
Have a read.
"Until the Linux community comes together under a common vision for Linux it has virtually no chance of competing with Microsoft Windows for a place on the desktop. As long as the Linux community is split between the different Linux distros, and as long as Linux continues to be designed for power users, by power users, it will remain out of reach for the broader desktop user community. The Linux community needs to agree on one flavor of Linux. The Linux community needs to focus on that one single Linux platform, developing not to the needs of the power user but the common user. The Linux community needs to simplify Linux. Until this happens Linux will remain in the shadow of Microsoft Windows. And that's right where Steve Ballmer wants it."
He goes further:
"I love Linux. I deploy Linux in the data center all the time. Linux is a very capable, flexible, and reliable platform that can easily run major enterprise systems such as databases and web sites. But it takes someone with a higher degree of technical skill to install, support, and maintain Linux as compared to Microsoft server solutions. You find those skills more readily available in the IT world. Those skills do not exist in the world of the common desktop user."
And further more:
"Until the Linux community stops whining about the evils of Microsoft and begins to deliver a Linux-based desktop OS that is as simple and user-friendly as Microsoft Windows there will be no real deployment of Linux on the desktop. For the common desktop user Microsoft Windows is the solution to their needs. Linux may be more secure. Linux may be less prone to fault or failure. But Linux isn't worth a dime if it is too complex to use, and for the vast majority of desktop users that is exactly what it is."
These are not my words. He seems to be right. Linux has been around for a decade but its [usage] numbers are still low. Why? Read above.
With your Windows example, you demonstrated that it is easy, if you already know how to do it. There isn't anything particularly intuitive about it. Grandma wouldn't be able to do this.
I'm not trying to flame; it is just that the out of the box intuitiveness of Windows is tremendously overstated.
No, you aren't a dumb ass at all... Ubuntu switched networking configuration to a total mess with the so called network manager, and configuring a static IP with that is infamously error prone. The most common advise is to remove network manager and replace it with either WICD or gnome-network-admin, depending on your needs.
Exactly right. Morphing Linux into a Windows software platform would be a major mistake.
This is the developer speaking.
Not the user. Not the office manager. Not the kid manning the help desk.
Users like having one way of doing things.
It makes their life easier.
The astonishing thing about The Ribbon in Office 2007 is how quickly and easily this fundamental change in the Office UI took hold.
That doesn't happen unless you really, really, understand the user and the task.
The proprietary developer has to do this.
The FOSS developer can find excuses not to.
He may not have the skills or the resources. He may not even know where to begin.
... after all, MSDOS had huge popularity and it was totally useless compared the the Atari ST or MacOS or whatever - much less friendly and much harder to use.
That "wise" man is just another one of the people who don't know but have a much expressed and not very insightful opinion.
I think that people get their software from the "king of the hill" and the that being the "king of the hill" makes everything much easier for an OS. It's just self reinforcing because everyone pays respect to the king e.g. manufacturers of hardware and software make their products work on windows.
If you want linux to go your way then pay for it to happen or do some work.
This is all just my personal opinion.
That's because you shouldn't be using OpenOffice for academic writing. It's ok, but it's painful if you have to say.. typeset equations.
You should be using LaTeX. If you need a gui, then use LyX, which has, to date, the most efficient and capable equation editor I've seen so far. It's helped, of course, by including a pass-through feature for anything it doesn't understand.
LyX integrates with a few bibtex managers, or flat text files.
And of course, the big advantage is that you don't even bother writing the style file. You just use the standard one from the appropriate body (ams, for instance), or get it from the publisher. You use the markup for what it was intended for: telling the software where the sections are, and what bits of text are the titles for those sections, subsections, etc.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I genuinely don't know the answer to this: what did Mac do to allow people to run Windows programs on their machines? Did they emulate a Windows box? Did they dual-boot? What's the experience like of using programs from both operating systems?
All I know is that when I heard you could do that, I thought, "hmmm, that takes most of the risk out of switching." And maybe instead of trying to guess how to run things under WINE, it's wiser to use a solution where "in this little Window in Ubuntu, I've got XP itself running and such-and-such program running in it." Ship Linux boxes with that feature installed.
Yes, Linux needs to compete on its own strengths. But if you want average consumers to switch, they need to perceive that they won't lose anything in the process. "Keep running your Windows programs AND get all this cool stuff for free." Maybe later they'll give up the Windows programs, too.
(If my implementation ideas sound screwy or naiive, I apologize.)
XP isn't bloatware.
...
Amazing. People really can get used to anything. How an OS that needs a FULL CD when it doesn't actually CONTAIN anything can not be called bloatware I shall never understand. Don't link to linux images, those contain a full suit of software not just simple editor, a basic media player with no codec support.
I hope your defence is that you are just young.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Because Windows is the market leader, the 600 pound gorilla, the team to beat in the world of desktop computer operating systems.
OH I see what you did there. Windows has lost 200 pounds over the vista debacle?
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Pure insanity. I mean, really. I demand that an operating system cost 50 bucks, or less. I demand that my software is mostly included with the operating system. Those special things that I need should be available for ten bucks or less. I mean, I don't even spend a thousand dollars on HARDWARE (build my own) so why should I spend hundreds and thousands on OS + SOFTWARE??
I sit in front of a dual core Opteron, with everything I could possibly need installed, and it cost me a grand total of about $600, including OS, office suite, virtualization, entertainment - the works.
I refuse to pay Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, the government, or anyone else for any of this. I simply refuse.
What's more, I think it simply insane that common people DO PAY $200+ for an operating system, 200+ for their office suite, $50 a pop for numerous games, plus more music and movies than I could possibly store on a terabyte drive.
I simply see no value in any of it.
Open source enables me to do ANYTHING that the proprietary stuff can do, at little to no cost. (I contribute a little bit now and then to open source, so there is a little cost to me in the long run)
End rant.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br