Slashdot Mirror
Should Being Competitive With Windows Matter For Linux?
An anonymous reader writes "Is Linux being held back by distributions bent on competing with Microsoft Windows? This article argues that it's a real possibility. Quoting: '... what was apparent early on during my Linux adoption was my motivation for making the switch in the first place — no longer wanting to use Windows. This is where I think the confusion begins for most new Linux adopters. As we make the switch, we must fight the inherent urge to automatically begin comparing the new desktop experience to our previous experiences with Windows. It's a completely different set of circumstances, folks. ... The fact that one platform can support a specific device while the other platform cannot (and so on) doesn't really solve the problem of getting said device working. You can see where this dysfunction of thought can become a big problem, fast."
Linux has a 90% share in supercomputers, a 50% share in servers (+/- 10%), and a pretty good share of cell phones and other mobiles, if you include Android and other semi-proprietary systems. The only place to expand into it the desktop, where the market share is at most 5%. So, why not?
can be anything we want it to be. It is, after all, open source and can be modified to suit many different purposes. Should Linux compete directly with Windows? That's a stupid question. Linux should do what the user wants and if that happens to put it on a collision course with Windows then so be it.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
It isn't just the distros. It is the desktop environments and all the plumbing underneath trying to shovel in the Fail as fast as they can.
Remove manual configuration. Remove features in general. Allow people who openly hate the UNIX Way to redesign core subsystems, losing important things like network transparency and human readable/understandable settings. Microsoft is ditching the registry because in the end users hated so much they finally had to listen to them while we are still chasing those taillights.
Democrat delenda est
There is hardly a soul on this planet who's life is not touched by linux in some fashion every single day. Windows has another chunk taken out of it every day it is death by a thousand cuts. If things continue on the path they currently are nearly everyone is going to be running around with linux in their pocket and soon. I saw a guy today with a droid in one hand and a kindle in the other, now that brought a smile to my face.
Got Code?
I half agree. Linux does not have to be "like Windows" to be suitable as a Desktop OS. It does however help people make the transition, and it could certainly use the market share in order to influence driver developers and video game developers to think of Linux. There is something to be said for keeping the things that make Linux lovers love it, but this is the beauty of having hundreds of distributions.
Linux must compete with Windows if there is ever going to be a "year of Linux on the desktop."
That would force manufacturers to release more compatible products, perhaps even contributing drivers to the kernel. It would spur the release of more commercial software, and gather more interest in the open source software that already exists as well as fostering new growth there.
Computers would be cheaper, as there wouldn't be a Windows tax, and additionally there would be more form factors available. How about ARM laptops with 30-40 hour battery life? Oh, sorry, that's not really happening now because manufacturers are afraid their customers will be confused, and they are afraid of losing their partnering bribes - I mean "incentives" with Microsoft.
Linux on the desktop, from the store, for average people, with first-party support, is extremely desirable for the future of computing. One thing that would be nice is to see some Linux games. Oh sure, you can run Wine or one of the commercial variants of Wine, but most people are just going to stick with Windows.
If the objective is to be a desktop OS that everyone can use then yes you are defacto competing with Windows. That doesn't mean doing everything just like Windows does but it does mean competing.
Also if you want to compete EFFECTIVELY it does mean trying to do the things that Windows can do. That doesn't mean looking or acting precisely the same, but it means being able to handle the same kinds of tasks with the same (or better yet less) effort.
Remember that to most people computers are tools. They have various things they want to accomplish with them, and they want the tool to be easy and helpful in doing that. As such, to win them over you need to be able to accomplish their tasks, and to do so with a minimum of fuss.
Expecting people to be willing to troubleshoot and learn more about Linux is complete bullshit. It is effectively being lazy, it is saying "We can't make our shit work right or be easy to use, so we expect you to pick up the slack and learn to deal with it." That is NOT an acceptable solution, because the response from people will be "Fuck you, I'm not using it then." They don't want to become experts in computers, they just want to use them to accomplish whatever it is they are after.
It is no coincidence that as computers have gotten easier to use, more people use them. Back when computers were first invented not only were they expensive, but you practically needed an advanced degree to operate them. You had to program them in raw machine code, every program was something newly created, you had to solve electrical problems, etc, etc. There were just few people that could deal with that. As things got successively easier, more friendly, the world of computing was opened to more people.
Now it is fine to feel Linux shouldn't go the desktop route, that it should be a server/embedded OS and desktop use should be primarily incidental. However if you want it to flourish in the desktop market then that means it does have to compete with Windows and it does have to get easy to use. "Recompile your kernel," are words that must utterly vanish from any normal kind of support, source code is something a user can't be aware of needing, the command line should be for experts only, and so on.
To try and think otherwise is not only arrogant, but myopic. You only have to look at the world to realize the vast complexities of things out there, and how much we must all specialize. To decide that computers are the one special thing that everyone should want to become interested and expert in is silly.
Linux didn't kill Windows, it killed commercial unix.
Who are these mythical registry-hating end users? Nobody in my family has ever run regedit. If I asked my mom to tell me what the registry is she'd tell me that's where she renews her license.
Normal end users don't hate the registry. Half-wits who think they're power users and screw things up tweaking shit are usually the ones that hate the registry.
Competing with Windows for customers ranges somewhere between silly and stupid. If you want more Linux on the desktop, you need to court developers and software vendors.
Linux works great as an OS. It has penetrated servers well because the server software (both new and inherited from other Unixes) is great. It has penetrated the embedded market largely because new apps were written for it and the new devices. It has penetrated embedded markets because they write everything they need anyway, except the kernel and maybe the C libraries give them a head start.
What you need to break into the desktop market with established applications from established application providers is applications as good or better. If you give gamers the chance to install games from EA, Valve, Blizzard, Bioware, and id on launch day, they will come. If you get Photoshop or some absolutely full-featured replacement for it on Linux, you'll get many of those users from Windows or Mac. If you get a true replacement for Peachtree and Quickbooks, you'll get more small businesses using Linux as their accounting desktops.
People who seem to understand network effects when it comes to social networking sites, instant messengers, P2P, etc. seem to forget all about them when it comes to desktop platforms. The more classes of application in which your platform is the leading installation target for the best apps, the more valuable your platform is. Linux has this for servers, embedded devices, and to some degree mobiles. If you want it to be a major desktop player, it needs this for desktops, too.
Personally, I use Linux on the desktop far more than Windows and I have for years. I still need some Windows or Mac systems around for the applications I just can't run well on Linux. I say "Windows or Mac" because most of the applications I can't run on Linux properly have versions for both of those platforms.
Linux doesn't even need to take developers from Windows to become much bigger on the desktop. It could become a third platform for companies supporting Win and OS X. It could become a second platform for companies doing Win or Mac. It could even replace OS X as the second platform for some software companies that do windows and Mac now. Adobe comes to mind, as they are practically at war with Apple right now anyway.
If I am competing, I sure hope my opponent is running Windows.
Got Code?
"The only place to expand into it the desktop, where the market share is at most 5%. So, why not?"
Because it requires linux development to embrace the following:
- Interface design that specifically and completely bars programmers from participating
- Abandonment of 99% of the distros
- Acceptance of proprietary drivers when offered (normal people don't give a damn about open source philosophy)
- Provision of real, available, phone-based technical support
- Real, complete documentation
I have seen someone mocked for buying one package when some pinhead thought another would be more appropriate for the application. It was something like, "Well, what did you expect picking that? It's like you wanted to fail." Most people here have seen PLENTY of derision of new users.
Why not? Because a lot of the community is poison for end users. That's why not.
Consolidate, standardize, and corporatize. Staff and support. Advertise. Court developers. In other words, build a better Microsoft.
Or, remain "pure", disjointed, and niche on the desktop. Rule the world from the server. Personally I think linux should abandon the desktop. By the time they get there, technology will have made the point moot.
Very interesting discussion. For a time I used Ubuntu 10.04 and finally I think there is a version for the average person. However, there is a problem. Myself and a bunch of other people have quite a bit of money and time sunk into windows programs. I've heard all the arguments and have used openoffice myself. It is pretty good! But it doesn't have absolutely 100% compatability with office and I don't have time to play around with that unless it works right with word, excel, etc formats perfectly every single time without a hitch. That is not a realistic expectation though. Basically, until there is an easy way to run all windows programs (or nearly all of them) under linux without a lot of hassle and configuration and to where it is a one or two click install people are not going to bother with it. We can kid ourselves all night and all day for the next 20 years that people should be using linux. But if they already have windows on the computer they bought and linux won't run the software they've already invested 100's in then I don't see it happening. I know there is crossover office which is pretty good but that is not a solution for 99%+ software compatability. WINE is impressive but is even more difficult to get working with some programs. No one has the time or the energy to D*^& around with it and then still not have it work like they need to. Add to this the fact that Win 7 is now pretty good even good and there is not much motivation to change. I like Ubuntu 10.04. It is easy to use, well designed (as a consumer grade OS), easy to install programs and many comparable programs to windows. The quality of the software is pretty good. But its gotta run windows programs. Plenty of people will be offended by that. Even with compatability it would be no guarantee. Even history shows that from the OS/2 experience in the early 90's. There was a very nice OS that ran most dos and windows programs seamlessly (or nearly) but then IBM released subsequent buggy versions of the OS in a hurry and M$ stomped them with win 95 and imcompatible Win32 libraries and API's later. So, there even with compatability there is not a guarantee that people will switch. But nearly full compatability would be a huge step toward attracting more users (myself included). I am saying this from observation, from experience, and the resistance to change which is part of human nature (for most people). Windows is not perfect but Win 7 has improved stability, security, and usability to a high level (relative to all other previous versions of windows). So it makes it even harder to convince people to switch. And people are afraid of change.
Making Linux competitive with Windows? I thought that's what FVWM-95 was for! :^)
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Why do people keep thinking that Linux a a cheap, or free or open or whatever replacement of Windows. It isn't.
And you can't copy Windows. That would mean that you have to wait till Windows does something.
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
Linux should go its own way and if that takes down Windows, it is a nice plus. Competing with Windows should not be a direction, bceause that will be a fight that you can only loose.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
While I am more techy than most of the people I worky with (Hence I am sitting here reading this at work) most of the folks around me look at PCs simply as a tool. Can't teach them new tricks? Bollocks. A lot of my time is spent working with business teams who are looking to improve their way of doing business and teaching them about how different programs can be used to get the information they want.
Want to find your current sales trends in a way that you haven't been able to before? Okay, well, we have the data in this thing called Datawarehouse. Our reporting team will be able to provide you a set of reports, but they take a long time to develop and check. If you want to do some quick nasty analysis to fend off a crisis, there is a program called TOAD that will let you directly query your data. Look difficult? Lets go through how it works and how you write a SQL query.
Result: In the last Two years, I have introduced around 100 users who are NOT tech savvy at all to the wonders of SQL queries. They are now in various stages of competence, but they are using new things.
My (belated) point here is that while something like Toad (or now replace with Linux) isn't something that they can just pick up and run with, if people see a benefit to it, they WILL make the effort to learn how to use it.
In my mind, Linux really needs to advertise the benefits it has to the ordinary person so that they are enticed to make the effort to learn how to use it. Having said that, the easier it makes this learning process, the less advertising it has to do.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
The registry isn't bad because it's stored in binary form, or because it's heirarchical, or because it supports transactions, or because it has ACLs. These are good (or at least acceptable) things.
The registry is bad because it's global and forces a lot of configuration to be global as well. For example, COM components are registered globally, so only one DLL can be associatded with a class ID at a time. That's why you can only have one version of Internet Explorer installed on the same machine. Yes, users have their own registry subtress, but not every key can be configured under the user-specific heirarchy. Even a user-specific key can only have one value at a time for a given user. Unix systems, on the other hand, use environment variables to hold (or point to) configuration information, which results in a lot more flexibility.
Because registry values are global, application developers only consider the case of running one program at a time. If you want, say, two copies of Outlook, each with different settings, you'll need two separate users. A lot of programs don't even support multiple concurrent instances, which is maddening.
Another maddening side effect of the registry being global is that it's not possible to have the equivalent of NFS-mounted home directories under Windows. Say you have a domain user foo\bar on machines A and B. It's natural to want them to have the same %USERPROFILE% (read $HOME) on a fileserver somewhere, and on Unix, that works just fine. But under Windows, when the user logs into machine A, the system will lock ntuser.dat (the file containing the registry), which prevents the user logging in under machine B. Application-specific configuration files that are locked only during actual changes don't have this problem.
The global nature of the registry also makes it difficult to maintain application configuration: if you want to isolate the configuration information used by a program, you're essentially reduced to looking at procmon output and seeing what registry keys it touches. While in principle programs should limit themselves to storing information under HKLU\Software\Blah\..., in practice, they scatter stuff all over the registry, especially when they register COM stuff. You can't keep just, say, Word's configuration under version control.
When people say they hate the registry, what they mean is that they hate that Windows is not very well-modularized. Isolating one application's registry configuration is like removing one egg from an omelet.
A better model would have been to have application-specific registries, searched according to a PATH-like environment variable. In this scheme, when the system needed to, say, look up a COM class ID, it would just search each registry in sequence until it found the right one. Applications would simply store their configuration and registration information in their own registry, making management easy.
But like most Windows brain damage, this scheme wouldn't have worked on a 386SX with 4MB of RAM in 1995, which means it can't possibly be changed in 2010. As we all know, design decisions are irrevecorable and eternal (and I'm only half-joking).
> Competing with Windows for customers ranges somewhere between silly and stupid. If
> you want more Linux on the desktop, you need to court developers and software vendors.
Nope. If you want more users you need preloads. 90% of people would never survive a Windows install if it didn't come preloaded by an OEM who did all the twiddling to have the hardware mostly work out of the box. Anaconda actually does a better job compared to the Windows installer as far as leaving you a working machine when it finishes. Doesn't matter because end users can't use either one and refuse to even consider the possibility.
And that isn't a matter of techinical excellence, software availability or anything competition can address. It all about illegal monopolistic action. Microsoft signs consent decree after consent decree and over a decade after their first one you still can't buy a desktop PC without Windows proloaded except for a couple of bland Dell N series machines that are usually priced higher than the same machine preloaded with Windows.
The netbook revolution almost opened up the market but Microsoft just dumped XP into the hole until they could convince the manufactures to kill em off in favor of small notebooks running Win7. Go ahead, try to find a small flash drive based cheap netbook. All you find is three pounders with hard drives, crappy battery life and screens just a smidge smaller than a small notebook... and all running WIndows.
Democrat delenda est
When I got as far as "forcing users to go without a valuable learning experience" I began to wonder if this article is some kind of elaborate joke played on its readers.
It's hard to be more patronizing than the "Joe Sixpack", "Grandmom" or "Sh*eple" crap that pops up here, but the guy seems to be aiming to limbo under that very low bar.
Desktops are stuck in a "desktop" paradigm, and so are going to be whatever they are now until they totally disappear sometime decades from now: Windows for most everyone, Macs for some specialties particularly in audiovisual production, and Linux for the very few in either the narrowest range of specialties or the narrowest band of all: those who use the best tool for the job at hand, regardless of what everyone else is using.
But the desktop is disappearing. "Mobile" computing is computing you don't have to notice computing. Especially as input leaves behind keyboards, as all displays are networked and shareable, the GUI will detach from the hardware, to be put anywhere the users want it to be, including merged together. More and more people will do what they do helped by "computers", but they won't be Windows. They'll be Android, or some other Linux variant. Because Windows is like a desktop, and most work is better done without a desktop.
It won't be Linux, either. Linux will have a place in the majority of servers, and there'll be a lot of them. But the "Internet of Things" needs something smaller than Windows, smaller than Linux. It's why even the Mac ditched the old MacOS and is now closely related to Linux, in that it's mostly a (mostly) open Unix variant.
Android is closing in on a majority of smartphones. Around the time it's the majority, all phones that do more than just talk will be smartphones. It's the software and uses of smartphones, and their closely related tablets, that will be what most humans use "computers" for most of the time. Everyone in a developed economy will have their mobile device that's their key to accessing all the people, things and info in their world. Windows will be stuck on desktops, where the first small segment of humans started using them. The rest of the world, most of it, will be using the descendants of Android in ways that Windows can never approximate.
--
make install -not war
Firefox stores the vast majority of its configuration information in user profiles, not in the registry. It also uses its own COM system internally, not the one provided by Windows.
I've been using computers since the C64 as a kid. I'm geeky enough to use Slashdot. I've used Linux on and off since Slackware 7"ish" (w/ all the version # skipping). Dabbled with some CS classes. I've used MS Dos . through all versions of Windows and used OS X for 4 years. .... So I think I at least have some geek credentials to post this.
I mostly stopped playing games so I don't have much use for Windows. I've preferred to use OS X but didn't want to keep my Mac. OS X is genius it really "just" works. And I've spent far less time troubleshooting and resolving issues than I ever have with Windows or Linux. I've been trying REALLY hard to move over to a PC-based 'Nix based OS for a few years now but I'm finding it a bit hard.
I think I'm of the age, have the computer knowledge necessary and have the desire enough to switch that I'm a likely target user. You need some (somewhat)geeky people (like me :) ) for now to more readily adopt 'Nixes. Depending on what you do, Granny is probably ok to check e-mail with some KDE or Gnome based distro. I'm also finding it easier to automate and simplify some daily tasks with the command line (I use a lot of the reg-ex tools Sed, AWK and dabbling with Perl and Python - nothing fancy though. The Windows scripting and command line tools is an utterly and confusing mess, I won't touch it with a 10-foot pole. This *alone* has me as an easy convert.
Here's my beefs over the years which has prevented me from switching. I note over the years as I've not tried recently to install Slackware, Ubuntu, SUSE or FreeBSD (yes, I've tried a few) or such that it might be fixed now. Some of this might not be technically accurate. So at least, try to understand that this is a general overview. I'm not asking how to fix it, but rather these are probably some of the problems people have.
1) Drivers. Some things just don't work right out of the box. I haven't tried X.org in last year-or-so, but my ATI card has been a major PITA to get working. I've seen (too) many postings on "How do I get my trackpad working" or get this working. Recompiling the kernel is somewhat challenging if you have to get to that level. Choosing the wrong option or ommitting something can FOOBAR the kernel and you have to Google till you get it right. Every kernel is a walking target.
At times, never the same result or problem from 2.4.15 to 2.4.16. That what was working on .15 for example might not work on .16 with the same options selected.
2) Too many choices of distros. I fully agree choice tends to be a good thing. But the init scripts, directory structure, system management tools (SUSE, RH, Ubuntu) all different. On top of that, each app tends to work out of the box for only a few specific distros. If you want it to work with yours, you have to wait till someone puts it in the package manager. This is where Windows and OS X have a definite advantage.
3) When X crashes or there's some problem with the xinitrc or adding an extra mouse button or adding pretty font support, its meant spending some time reading about how to install it. OS X kinda self repairs itself, and with Windows all else fails reinstall it. If there's a problem with X to begin with, reinstalling just means the same thing will be there after you reinstall. There's been more then a few times when I've just said "Screw that" and went back to using Windows.
4) There's a bit too much Windows-like emulation with the apps in KDE, GNOME and such. Apple tends to think well .... this is ok but we should do this, this and this different. If some of the apps are 'cool' and do things just Neat enough it might entice people to think, Linux is cool, i should check this out.
5) Partitioning / File management / permissions difficult. This has gotten better I think over the years with the file managers with KDE, GNOME, Xfce and such. I just find when you do ls -la on / that you get a confusing directory structure.
They just don't think that much of them.
I keep seeing people saying that they're 'seasoned users' who need a 500 page manual to figure out how Linux works, but I installed Ubuntu on my netbook a couple of weeks back and.. it.. just... worked. Even on my laptop, which is a far more complex system than the netbook, the only things that didn't work out of the box are a few of the special keys (e.g. play/pause).
Has anyone who's complaining about how hard Linux is to use actually tried a distro released after 1993?
> A Mac and PC user could switch computers and withing a few minutes either person
> could get done what they were intending to get done. Not so with Linux.
Yes so with Linux. I admin a lab in a public library. We give em Linux with NFS mounted home directories and none of the locked down bullcrap Windows every other library in the State offers. They figure it out pretty quick. Hint: people who depend on the lab PCs in a public library aren't UNIX geeks. Hell, it wasn't too many years ago a fair chunk of them couldn't even hold the mouse right. But not long after they get comfortable logging in/out and using the rat they manage to figure out Mozilla/Firefox, OO.o and the usual application suite. Yea we have had our share of USB pen drive issues from time to time.... of course the other libraries in the State running the Gates Foundation's library model keep the USB ports disabled entirely. Same with CD burning, it works stable these days, didn't used to be the case especially if we bought too far down the CD burner food chain. Again, the other sites disconnect the optical drives unless they need to load new software. After all, gotta 'prevent' the spread of malware. Windows IS malware.
Democrat delenda est
That may have been the theme of the article, but I think you're vastly underselling Linux. Now obviously most people aren't as comfortable with Linux as they are with good ol' Windows, but I am sure it's just a matter of perspective.
I am fairly technically competent, so I'm perhaps biased, but I frankly don't see how the rest of the planet stands using Windows any longer. I dual boot Ubuntu and Windows XP on my laptop, and my usage consists of running Linux all day for all tasks, and switching to Windows solely when I want to play games or fill in my taxes (in Australia, we have a proprietary Windows program to do taxes ... yay).
Doing any non-trivial task in Windows sucks up my patience very quickly. I often feel like throwing my machine out the window after a few minutes. Installing software is a disgrace. It always has been with Windows and it still is. If you want to install a program, you typically google around until you find a few things that look OK, download them from untrustworthy websites, double-click the installers, running untrusted native code on your machine, click through license agreements, choose where to install them, and hope they don't own your machine. Even those that don't contain malware still typically install new icons in your system tray, run services in the background on startup, and/or install browser toolbars. Even open source code still has to be installed by this same process. You talk about a "mish-mash of spaghetti code written by unorganised contributors"... but Microsoft only supports the core OS in Windows, and every other piece of software is a complete gamble.
Contrast with Debian/Ubuntu, where there is a centralised package management system. It hasn't always been pretty, but the latest Ubuntu releases make it possible to install just about any piece of software (literally, something for every need I've ever had in the past 3 years besides professional games) with the following process: Applications -> Ubuntu Software Center. Type in some keywords to find some software to install. Click the name, then "Install". Within half a minute, the software is downloaded and installed with no questions asked, and can be removed just as easily. All software is open source and vetted by the community, so at a minimum it will not install unwanted launchers or browser plugins or malware. All programs are automatically updated every day, so there is no need for each program to install its own auto updater. Sure, it's written by different contributors, but I don't see the difference between this and Windows, except that on Windows the community is not checking that the programs aren't nasty.
And Debian has had this system for around 15 years. Microsoft is just now (in the wake of Apple's iPhone store) mumbling about making their own app store which might finally alleviate these problems. But these problems are non-existent in the Linux world, and have been for more than a decade. I just don't understand how people put up with Windows, and I can only imagine it's because they have never used a non-Windows computer.
As others have mentioned, Linux is such a configurable system it can be like windows if you so choose it to be. That's the point.
Linux/GNU is one (many as a whole, I guess) of those things that it really is a "jack-of-all-trades" if it is understood how to do so. It is used in virtually every form of technology these days.
I personally feel that today Linux is right where it needs to be.
I use Linux on the desktop. I have for years (pushing 8 years now). I currently run Gentoo Linux with XFCE4 as my GUI. It just works for everything that I need to use it for. I have it installed this way on two desktops (my wife's, mine) and my MSI Wind netbook. I also have it installed on my Media Center PC running some custom software I've written myself (pending open source release).
I gave up on Windows completely when Vista was released (by that I mean I've stopped supporting family's PC's with anything that isn't XP -- virtually all of them now).
I run an install of XP under VirtualBox from time to time when I need to do some testing under IE 6 through 8. Although I think it's been a few months since I've done that.
To me Apple is in the same boat as Windows, I just don't want it. I've found what I want on my desktop and it exists here today with very little effort.
Linux is right where it needs to be.
> Do the Linux guys WANT to step up and compete with OSX and
> Windows or not?
I have been seeing this word used all evening. I do not think it means what you think it means. I think the word you are looking for is copy.
We DO compete. At this point the Linux desktop, warts GConf and all, works at least as well as Windows and if you don't happen to agree 100% with Steve's Vision of the Way it works better than Apple's offerings.
> The world has spoken, and editing configs and CLI is a giant DO NOT WANT.
If the price for marketshare is to design a system for idiots then I don't want those users. I'm NOT an idiot and a system designed for idiots would slow me down. Seriously. Do me a favor. Get a VM up and running and install something that by virtue of what it IS must be complicated. Say Squid for example.
Now I want you to use your favorite text editor (hint, a CLI is not required if you are on the local machine) on /etc/squid.conf. See how it is almost complete in and of itself, practically making external documentation excessive. Detailed documentation right there beside the configuration items which need to be adjusted. And it is a plain text file so you can put it into a content management system to track changes, especially handy if multiple people will be making changes. And as a text file it is about as simple to edit it from ten thousand miles away as from the system console.
So tell me, how would you improve upon that method of managing Squid? Would this be the best way to manage Firefox? No. And Firefox on Linux is configured in almost exactly the same way as it us on Win/Mac because for Firefox that is the easiest way.
> They want hand holding, in short thinking should NEVER be required..
And this is the great divide. What are computers? Interractive televisions for the mindless or levers for the minds of humans? One paradigm probably can't be extended to perfectly cover both use cases.
Democrat delenda est
The problem I have with comparing Linux to Windows on the desktop is that I think Windows stinks on the desktop. I may be in the minority, but I want an operating system that is lean and mean, with no zooming windows, special effects, cute audio cues, or glassy curved "kewl" surfaces. I want an operating system to run applications.
I have become frustrated with Linux on the desktop because there is a rush to beat Windows at what it is best at: bloat . The average Windows or Linux install starts with all the features ON by default, so it takes time to first strip it down to bare bones so it is usable. This is beyond frustrating. If given the choice, I would rather have Windows 95 with a modern kernel. Just visual enough to be easy to configure, but without the freaking eyecandy that does nothing to make my apps run better, and in fact, makes them run slower. Yes, I know there are all kinds of specialized version of Linux that are designed to be simple, but they aren't supported enough for my tastes, and I shouldn't have to try 10 different versions to find one I like. Again, I want the OS so I can run apps, not the other way around.
At the very least, Microsoft should be sophisticated and intelligent enough to offer a "bare" option for installing, and let users add features if they want. Of course, in true MS fashion (and now, Linux as well) the other features will still be there, consuming space, RAM and CPU cycles even when in the OFF position. It is unnecessary, unless your goal is to force people to buy a new system every few years (and poorly implemented updates that slow the system down help with that as well).
To make an instant on computer, the system needs to be something completely different that either Windows or Linux is currently being offered as. It should be a kernel, drivers, codecs and the base API, with a singular update manager, and text configuration files. I don't want quick start applications, I want applications that start quickly. Leaving a stub of them always running is NOT the answer, and is at the very least, bad for security. I have given up all hope that any mainstream operating system will ever achieve this, as there is too much money in promoting bloatware and crapware.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
It's natural to want them to have the same %USERPROFILE% (read $HOME) on a fileserver somewhere, and on Unix, that works just fine. But under Windows, when the user logs into machine A, the system will lock ntuser.dat (the file containing the registry), which prevents the user logging in under machine B. Application-specific configuration files that are locked only during actual changes don't have this problem.
Not to derail your insightful post, but this is one of the main reasons I switched to linux. You can actually place system folders on different partitions so that 1. fragmentation of cat pictures doesn't slow down the OS, 2. the OS can be wiped while retaining user data. It used to take me a whole day to force Windows to install like that - where Documents were on one partition and Program Files were on another, pagefile was on another, etc. That was several years ago, and now I tried doing some of the same thing in Windows 7 and broke my Windows Updates because they rely on things being on the same partition /even if you create a junction point/. It's like Microsoft is just relying on drives getting bigger, faster, and more reliable than actually doing something intelligent with their OS file system layout.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
More or less true, if a bit on the cranky side. Me, I don't want to compete. I'd much prefer Average Joe stay the hell away from Linux. Mostly because I don't want Windows-think infecting overall Linux design decisions. If they want to fork and do things their windowy way, fine by me but don't screw around with stuff the proper geek distros depend on without forking.
Also because I can now say that I haven't used Windows for two versions and have no idea how to fix your computer. Yes, I know I probably still could but it's a damned fine excuse that I won't have if they move to Linux.
The long and short of it is, I'm quite content for them to stay off in their Windows/Ubuntu/OSX user-friendly world and I'll stay in my slackware/gentoo/arch admin-friendly world. It's why I quit trying to introduce most people to Linux a long time ago.
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
Obsolete? Yeah, maybe when smartphones start coming with a 19" screen. Maybe when net/notebooks get a keyboard that's not like typing on chicklets and add a side-tray for a mouse. Maybe when I can upgrade most of the parts in either rather than having to buy a new one.
Desktops may not be the only option anymore but they're a hell of a long way from obsolete.
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
On one hand, Linux should remain true to the principles that make unix so powerful in the first place, however if you're that worried about that type of thing, one of the BSDs is probably a better fit for you anyway.
However, unless Linux is user friendly enough (via available add-ons, etc) then it will never get a large enough market share for manufacturers to give a shit enough to release drivers or programming specs.
IMHO - add all the user friendly shit you like. Just ensure that it is up in user-space where those who don't care for all the windows-like crap can strip it out. Options are good. Being a good unix-like operating system and having a shiny Windows-like GUI *available* are not mutually exclusive options.
For users who never need/want network transparency in X, etc (and simply want a free operating system that "just works") it is just another vector for their machine to be compromised via unforseen security vulnerabilities in such features. If auto configuration is done right and actually works, you shouldn't NEED to fuck around configuring things manually. Sure, you may lose nerd cred points, but those of us who have been doing that sort of shit for years most likely by now have better things to be doing than rooting around manually making something work.
User/admin time spent configuring something that the computer can and should be able to do automagically is dead, wasted time that does nothing to help anyone get their job done or solve any of the world's problems. Some people (actually most who aren't in the hard core / look at me I' leet / unixnoob crowd) just want a tool to do a job, and un-necessary time spent rooting around trying to make the tool work is time that could be better spent actually doing something productive.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
> Do you want your doctor spending his time figuring out which confg
> files he needs to edit, or researching better ways to keep you alive?
I'd rather the Dr. have a skilled admin maintain a stable and secure Linux based network for his office. And not be hitting patients with the "the computers are down today" crap or "the computers got infected, your information went to Russian gangs, sorry bout that dude." You talk outta yer ass like there is an option of a foolproof computing platform that doesn't ever require professional help and hold up this strawman as the alternative to Linux. Doesn't exist. Here in the real world the alternative is Windows. Reloading from a recovery partition a couple of times per year is insane. Futzing around endlessly with anti-virus subscriptions is insane.
And no, not even the Mac meets that no maintnance spec. There is a reason Macs are unseen in corporate installs outside the Art Dept. They can actually survive fairly well as a lone wolf but they don't manage in quantity very well. For all the hyped UNIX underpinnings all that is mostly vestigial, used only as a place to hang device drivers. The lack of available software for the Mac probably contributes to the lower maintaince burden as well.
> I hate installation steps that consist of following manual
> configuration instructions in a rote manner.
Proves you haven't actually ran Linux lately. Nowadays we use package managers. RPM packages are explicitly forbidden from interaction during installation. Debian based systems aren't quite as pure in enforcing this design concept but few packages ask more than a question or two and the default is almost always sane.
Democrat delenda est
I'm vegetarian. Whenever I'm eating with others who are eating burgers, they assume I want a veggie-patty to fit in. I don't. I'm not interested in pretending to be a meat-eater, or I'd probably just be a meat-eater.*
TFA points out what is basically the same deal... I don't want GNU/Linux to be the same as Windows or I'd probably just use Windows.*
*Aside from all applicable philosophical reasons against doing so.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
There's a website listing the benefits of GNU/Linux. IMHO the main things are:
"The registry isn't bad because it's stored in binary form,"
Actually, yes, that's part of what's wrong with it. For instance, let's say I have a registry problem that's preventing a proper boot of the machine, and a Linux CD. I can boot the machine using my Linux CD, mount the logical disk containing the registry, but then what? I'm limited in my ability to fix the registry because in order to do that I need the tool that the broken registry is preventing me from accessing. By contrast, if I have an alternate system capable of booting into Windows and accessing the hard drive with a broken /etc config file, I can go in with any text editor to fix the problem.
The other major problem with the registry is that it's centralized, so if it's hosed for one thing, it can easily be hosed for everything else. Compare that to a Unix system, where if you have a problem with a config, it affects only those things that the config controls (and any dependencies on those controls). So if there's a problem, you're more likely to get a partially functioning system, enough to be able to locate what's wrong, fire up your text edit, and fix the problem.
I am officially gone from
Yeah, of course. Windows hardly works at all, and is a pain in the ass to use. Please allow me to share my own anecdote:
By fate, my wife and I were both reinstalling operating systems at the same time. She was installing Windows (Vista or 7; I can't remember) on her laptop, and I was installing Ubuntu on my netbook. Both installations took a while, and both succeeded. Then, that nite we wanted to watch a movie. Again by fate, we each had the movie on separate USB thumb drives, so we both popped them in. Yet again by fate, the codec for the movie wasn't supported by her software (Windows Media Player or whatever) nor mine (VLC or whatever). Both her media software and my media software popped up a box saying, sorry, that file is in an unknown format. I swear this all happened in parallel as we sat next to one another on the couch.
Here's where the stories diverge.
On Ubuntu, after the message saying the codec was unknown, there was an option for Go To The Internet And Find The Needed Software And Install It. I clicked Yes, and the movie was playing about 45 seconds later. For her, the message said Good Luck Finding The Codec And Installing It, You Can Start By Looking On The Internet. We watched the movie on my netbook (output to the TV) and all during the hours of movie time she was trying to find and install the right codec. She failed. It took her a few more days to find it and get it right.
Linux is user-friendly and easy to use. Windows is crap and difficult to use, if it can be used at all. My anecdote proves this beyond any doubt, and we all know that anecdotes are the standard by which these things are judged.
You think? I think about 30% of people would never install their own OS. I think if it's easy (and it is), then about two thirds or so of people would be willing to install an OS.
I heard arguments like yours about browsers, too, but here we are looking at usage for non-preloaded browsers of around 50%.
Besides, I don't think your point retorts the OP's point. If Linux had lots of developers (and, actually, it does) then its software would become "good enough" (and, actually, it pretty much is) and then there would start to be some preloads (and, actually, there is a small amount of that).