Why Linux Vendors Need To Sell More Than Linux

Because it's free? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 11:00 · Score: 1

Maybe?

Re:Because it's free? by GPLHost-Thomas · 2012-01-31 15:06 · Score: 1

That's not a post as silly as it seems. Reading words like marketplace, commercial linux, or vendor makes me sick, when it comes to distributions, and which is why I will always choose Debian.
Re:Because it's free? by unixisc · 2012-01-31 22:23 · Score: 1

What exactly is your problem w/ marketplace, commercial linux or vendor? Problem w/ Linux is that no company has figured out a way to make money out of GPL software, which is why even Red Hat is struggling. Apple, otoh, made an XNU based FreeBSD which they've customized for only a few closed platforms, but which has an ecosystem adequate enough to support what their customers need. The OS is affordable, but they're not stupid enough to throw open control of it to the 'community'.
Re:Because it's free? by monkeyhybrid · 2012-02-01 00:28 · Score: 1

Problem w/ Linux is that no company has figured out a way to make money out of GPL software
Apart from that not actually being true, at least not universally, I don't think it's a problem at all. Why does a Linux distribution or any other piece of GPL software need to make money? Ok, yes, most distributions or big GPL projects do need funding of some sort, but they don't have to be a for-profit company to be of use or to be successful. The ones that do decide to go the commercial route are suddenly in the same boat as an other company - if you can't sell a service or product, you're dead. Many do well, many don't.

One of the things I love about GPL (and other FOSS) is that if the software is truly useful to enough people, it will live on, regardless of whether any parent company folds or acts like a dick (LibreOffice springs to mind).
Re:Because it's free? by vlm · 2012-02-01 00:57 · Score: 1

Problem w/ Linux is that no company has figured out a way to make money out of GPL software
LOL funniest thing I've read so far today. I've done nothing but make money off GPL software both my salary and $employer in general since '97. Ditto my coworkers and also practically every employed or previously employed IT person I've ever known, etc.
The concept of the wheel is similar enough to the GPL for this argument, therefore no company could ever make money using "wheels". LOL

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Because it's free? by unixisc · 2012-02-01 01:49 · Score: 1

It's very much a problem if a GPL project, or any project, doesn't make money, b'cos while money itself is not necessarily a motivating factor, lack of money is definitely a demotivating factor. People can do things as hobbies up to a point, and even aside from that, there are plenty of things in GPL projects that ain't exactly fun jobs, but still need to be done, such as doing usability tests, fixing bugs and broken drivers, and so on. Those are the very places where you need people who are at least paid to do these things, and if the project as a whole is in the red and they cannot be paid, guess what! They'll work on something that helps pay their rent/mortgages and grocery bills, if not drop in @ BK or Wendys every once in a while.
Your latter statement didn't completely add up - even if a software is truly useful to enough people, they're not going to pay for it if they can get it for free. And that's the crunch - if the people working on it ain't getting paid, then sooner or later, as other priorities in life that do pay them (such as a real job) take over, it easily edges out such hobbies, and as a result, the project won't live on. Here's an example - if someone decided to just write drivers for all the major distros of Linux & BSD, so that every hardware that people had was supported, they'd have to at some point get paid for such efforts. But if people are only going to download stuff that is free of cost, and not pay for it if the cost were, say, $20, then guess what: sooner or later, such a person would decide to write proprietary software, or something where his ROI would be more certain. This would be analogous to the parent company folding - if that happens, the software ain't going to get written just b'cos enough people like it, unless they were to fork it and actually fill in whatever is needed to maintain it.
Re:Because it's free? by unixisc · 2012-02-01 04:03 · Score: 1

A wheel is something that has to be physically created, and so when you buy a Goodyear, or a Michelin, or a Bridgestone, you actually pay for tangible materials, like the tires, the rims and so on. It's not something you can simply duplicate and distribute: if you gave someone the front 2 wheels of your car, you won't be able to drive. That's not the case w/ software.
You are right - anyone can sell GPL software. Particularly if you are developing something that few others are working on, such as say CAD tools, or hardware simulation engines. But if it is something as common as a Linux OS, of which there are some hundreds of distros worldwide, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to make money of it. And what makes it that is Freedom 2 of GNU - the freedom to redistribute copies 'so you can help your neighbor'. In other words, no matter what you charge for a copy, you can't stop anybody from distributing your work for free, and the result of that is that your customer is allowed to become your competitor. For some things, like CAD software, where a customer would really depend on being able to continue to freely work w/ your engineers to solve any problems, one can put in separate clauses in service agreements that would void the service if a customer exercises freedom 2 (w/o violating any GPL, including GPL3), However, as Red Hat found out, once CentOS took their Linux and just ran w/ it, sans the service agreements, people just flocked to them, instead of going to Red Hat, and one of the few Linux companies out there got endangered.
Heck, Mandrake is another good example of a great distro that failed to make it. I tried it some years ago - they were fantastic, except that they would not recognize either my Network card or WiFi, making the distro useless, and I very reluctantly uninstalled it. One would have thought that a company which focussed on creating a unique Linux experience would at least have a paid team of driver developers to ensure that such things didn't happen, but one would be wrong. And my system at the time was an off-the-shelf Dell, not some bizarre combination of hardware that I scrounged cheaply.
To make money, there needs to be some level of closure in the system - sorta like Apple. In Apple's case, they have a closed system where they test & try out their implementation of Aqua on FreeBSD on XNU on a few hardware configurations that they focus on selling, then provide the best user experience for as many things as they can, from web browsing in Safari to office apps, and then they sell that to users @ high prices that are needed to support that ecosystem. If one buys just the OS, one doesn't pay anywhere near what one does for Windows, but the OS still makes money due to that revenue stream. The reason people typically don't sink that sort of cash for Linux is not just b'cos they can, but b'cos Linux carries w/ it a far greater risk of things not working than Windows (where, if that happens, it's the hardware vendor that's most interested in getting it to work or getting the thing returned). At least, Apple reduces those risks by selling a certain closed hardware set and telling people explicitly that OS-X will run on Macs, but we don't guarantee them on anything else. But there is no one in Linux or BSD who says that, and thereby reduces the risks to the users.
Re:Because it's free? by GPLHost-Thomas · 2012-02-01 06:23 · Score: 1

What exactly is your problem w/ marketplace, commercial linux or vendor?
They only care about making money, and have their agenda which is totally different from the one of the users. The kind of result is the infamous Android market place with GPL violations all over the place, or Canonical displeasing all of their users with Unity, or RedHat destroying a once good Gnome, simply because they have money. Such thing wouldn't have happened if these projects were community driven.

Problem w/ Linux is that no company has figured out a way to make money out of GPL software
You're a funny guy. First, it's quite the opposite. The problem is that so many company does, and don't contribute back. See how many are violating the GPL and not releasing the kernel sources (for example, in the Android side...).

which is why even Red Hat is struggling
The stock exchange doesn't agree with your view, with a doubling of market value in 2 years only: http://www.google.com/finance?q=red+hat

Apple, otoh, made an XNU based FreeBSD which they've customized for only a few closed platforms, but which has an ecosystem adequate enough to support what their customers need. The OS is affordable, but they're not stupid enough to throw open control of it to the 'community'.
How much you are distorting reality is fascinating. What happened is that they used to have an open Darwin (the kernel of MacOS), but after few years, they realized that absolutely no contribution were made, and probably never would in the foreseeable future, so they decided to go back to a closed source model. And what Apple did, mind you, is quite a bit more than just "customization"...
Re:Because it's free? by Hognoxious · 2012-02-03 01:55 · Score: 1

It's not that fucking hard to type "with", is it?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Because it's free? by debiankicksass · 2012-02-05 19:43 · Score: 1

debian flat out rocks all other distros

the one and only by h2k1 · 2012-01-31 11:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

slackware!

Re:the one and only by Noryungi · 2012-01-31 11:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yup, Slackware. Still the best after all these years.

--
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Re:the one and only by WhiteK · 2012-01-31 12:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

No please. I fully understand that it may please some "I'm so good" geek, but it's not nice for people. This is the problem with Linux in general. It is fully done by people who cannot market themselves or their products. As much as geeks hate marketing, it is needed. Not only for products, but also to other people. You want to know why geeks lack with women? Because they cannot market themselves. And no, that doesn't mean only pushing yourself. Bad marketers do that. It is about making yourself more likeable and subtly noting what user gains (be that either from using Linux, or being your girlfriend). Yes, you may think it sucks. But people in general are just for thinking for themselves. Sooner you realize this the sooner you enjoy living. People are self centerous. That does not mean it's bad - it just means they're human.

So what the hell does "Slackware, still the best after all these years" tells me? Nothing at all. Why is it best? What do I gain by using Slackware? How would it be better for me than using OSX? Steve Jobs understood this. He cared about user experience and clearly told people why it is good. Even Ubuntu fails to do this. And no, people aren't going to spend time trying to research such things unless there is absolutely need. I enjoyed tinkering with these things as teen. Now I have better stuff to do. Either tell me what I gain from using Linux, or I'm not even going to try it.
Re:the one and only by quixote9 · 2012-01-31 12:14 · Score: 1

Not that your main point is wrong... but you talk as if no geeks are women. That's obnoxious. People are self-centered, y'know?
Re:the one and only by RDW · 2012-01-31 12:41 · Score: 1

So what the hell does "Slackware, still the best after all these years" tells me? Nothing at all. Why is it best? What do I gain by using Slackware?
You get Slack. Sounds like you could use some.
Re:the one and only by icebike · 2012-01-31 13:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

No please. I fully understand that it may please some "I'm so good" geek, but it's not nice for people. This is the problem with Linux in general. ... Either tell me what I gain from using Linux, or I'm not even going to try it.
Actually Slack is never intended for the entry level user.
Ubuntu is. 98% of the time anyone who has ever used Windows or Mac can install Ubuntu and have it fully functional out of the box, or bittorrent.
They do market themselves, and have done well with that over the years.
Ubuntu is the Gateway Drug for Linux. It might not be where you end up, but its where most new users start out.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of others that install and run fine out of the box or the download. But Ubuntu you have heard of. The others, maybe not.
Further, Ubuntu, SuSE, Red Hat have a business plan, a way to make money. Even the most die-hard fan gets tired of working for nothing, and gets tired
of doing everything the hard way.
As to what you are going to gain, its an easy sell for the home user who has ever even once lost his entire computer drive to malware or viruses.
If everything works the same, no learning curve and the malware risk is virtually gone, you'd be surprised how many will use it, if someone else
installs it. (Which, by the way, is exactly the same as windows. Most Windows users never install their own OS).

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:the one and only by Alan+Shutko · 2012-01-31 14:40 · Score: 1

Actually Slack is never intended for the entry level user.
Once upon a time (around slack 2.0) Slackware WAS the entry-level distribution. By far easier to setup than the other distributions.
Of course, this was before Ubuntu. And Debian. And Redhat. Come to think of it, compared to SLS, it was pretty newbie friendly.
Re:the one and only by rtb61 · 2012-01-31 15:34 · Score: 1

That's is just so wrong. Linux is about service and support, that's what you sell and promote.
The distribution is not a product unto itself, it is a promotional tool. Here is our distribution, here is it qualities and, those qualities are reflected in the service and support we provide.
I always thought the best model was a distributed franchise, more to do with ensuring quality of service provided and to minimise business administrative costs and marketing. The distribution could also be built across the franchise.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:the one and only by Fnordulicious · 2012-01-31 16:22 · Score: 1

Yes, your choices back then were TAMU, Yggdrasil, and SLS, and maybe one more. You had to buy Yggdrasil, and TAMU and SLS were pretty hard to get working. So when Slackware came along, it quickly became the distro of choice. It was a bit easier than SLS (which it was based on), and was kept up to date. There were also ‘distros’ that consisted of a handful of primitive tools and a boot floppy. Like the later Linux From Scratch, those took a *real* nerd to get working.
Re:the one and only by larys · 2012-01-31 16:45 · Score: 1

If you took the energy you spent writing that seemingly angry post above and put it into doing search for "Linux," then you'd understand what "Slackware is still the best after all these years," means and there would be nothing to be upset about. However, since you instead decided to expend your energy threatening not to use Linux unless someone presumably does that search for you then tells you the results:

Either tell me what I gain from using Linux, or I'm not even going to try it.
I can tell already that Linux is really not for you. Why? Because if you are the type who expects others to tell you something rather than seeking out an answer for yourself (which realistically would've taken all of five minutes), you wouldn't be able to handle using Linux as a desktop. This isn't meant to be an insult, it's simply a fact. Linux is (often, though not always) a very self-service platform and if you're not someone who's up to doing searches for information on your own, you'd likely find Linux to be only a headache. If perhaps this is an off-day for you or you just didn't find any worthwhile information on Linux. Here's one thing to know about it: it speaks for itself. There is no singular "Linux" -- it comes in a flavor (distro) to suit every individual and so what it offers is infinitely diverse (not kidding) and cannot be quantified in some "x is what you will gain from using Linux" sentence. In the end, it's really up to you and Linux has nothing to prove or sell you (other than perhaps customer support) so, if you're feeling adventurous and decide try Linux on an old computer, enjoy. I'd recommend DistroWatch for a hearty list of distros out there along with their popularity.
Re:the one and only by mSparks43 · 2012-01-31 19:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most female geeks I know take home 6 figure salaries..
Most Male geeks I have met struggle to make rent.
imho, the reason most male geeks don't meet female geeks is women on 6 figure salaries don't mingle with guys who struggle to make rent.
How the world has changed.
Re:the one and only by epyT-R · 2012-01-31 19:39 · Score: 2

the problem is that most people are unable or unwilling to look past the surface, and people with above average intellect are usually less tolerant of willful ignorance than the average. I don't worry when someone doesn't take my advice when I know it is correct. sooner or later these people will either learn the hard way and take my advice. or just keep looping through the causality until circumstances change and they no longer need whatever it is that needs to be fixed. I used to care, I really did. nowadays I don't, because I don't need the stress of living two lives for the sake of placating others willful ignorance and insecurity. I state a suggestion once, and only once, usually in writing. if I'm asked again by the same person as though he never read/heard me/didn't like the answer, I forward my already stated email/write up on the subject. the whole 'market yourself better' rhetoric is really just a plead to tolerate the laziness of people who cant' be bothered to learn their jobs...or the details of how to do whatever it is they want to do.
Steve jobs knew how to build a personality cult. apple is not unlike scientology in many respects, except that instead of manipulating people to give them their money and serve the cause, apple manipulates people to give them their money and....errr hmm.. lets walk through the process
1. convince people that every other vendor is 'the man' but apple is different. this captures most peoples' interests because most people are insecure children who want to be different (just like everyone else). sell them on the idea of a 'lifestyle' that they can buy into which gives them 'superior' methods for doing the techy things their friends do 'the hard way.'
2. sell them 'easy button' devices which hide rather large assumptions. these work ok for the first few attempts at advertised functions because the targeted users have never done them before.
3. user goes out into the world with his iThing and things go well until he has to interface with the masses. user assumes the problem is with them because he was told that task X is really easy and simple by the marketing. meanwhile reality is not so black and white.
4.the non-apple users grow to hate his arrogance. undaunted, he continuously reminds them of the superiority of his iThing and apple in general, unmindful of the fact he has become a real-life popup ad who everyone wishes would just go away.
as far as women go, I have found that it's expressions of power and dominance that they like the most, not over people necessarily (but that does turn some of them on) but in terms of capability. wealth generation, followed by prowess in bed, followed by unique talents, followed by looks are generally how they size up men. basically, real men dont' have to advertise anything because women will see they are capable by seeing them in action, if they are indeed capable of anything worthwhile. the ones who have to 'advertise' are just bullshit artists.
Re:the one and only by TheRealGrogan · 2012-01-31 21:23 · Score: 1

Slackware is a relatively simple distribution and for a knowledgeable user, it's one of the easiest there is. The scripts are all easy to follow (and well commented), there's build scripts that show you exactly how everything was compiled. There's a no nonsense packaging system that doesn't get in your way, and it's easy to follow as well. Your "package database" is human readable text files in a directory and your querying tools are ls and grep. The system does not work against you, like some of those so called "easy" distributions.
Because it has stayed true to its simplicity, it's also quite reliable.
So, from my perspective, saying it's not nice for people is bollocks. It's not for everyone, but those are the reasons I think it's still the best after all these years.
Re:the one and only by unixisc · 2012-02-01 00:18 · Score: 1

Do geek gals have trouble attracting guys the same way geek guys have attracting gals?
Re:the one and only by assertation · 2012-02-01 03:31 · Score: 1

All Linux distros are _mostly_ the exact same thing once they are installed and set up the way you want it.
A distro that makes the user do MORE installation and configuration is not superior, unless you are a hobbyist who likes to tweak as an end in itself or you have a need for a special customization.
Otherwise, it is like saying that a car a person has to finish putting together and painting is superior to a car anyone can just drive off the lot and being *using* to make their lives easier.
Re:the one and only by h2k1 · 2012-02-01 03:49 · Score: 1

As Linus once wrote,

I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)
If you want something like a finished car, try hurd!
Re:the one and only by unixisc · 2012-02-01 04:28 · Score: 1

Except that how many home users have you ever seen who download whatever distro they like, and then contact that distro owner and buy a service level agreement for 1, 2 or 5 years? For businesses, it's not a big deal, and presumably, not for home users either, but I've never seen or heard of any Linux home user doing that. If few of Linux users use the business model that's supposed to make Linux successful, how is Linux ever supposed to be successful?
Re:the one and only by unixisc · 2012-02-01 04:41 · Score: 1

I agree that there is something to be said for self-service, but one has to concede that it depends on the level of self-service that one has to do. If you ask me to go to the Kontrol Panel in KDE, or Settings in Gnome, and set up things like my network, sound, printer, and applications I need to have my system work as intended, it's a piece of cake. I can do that in Windows, I can do that in KDE or Gnome, I can do that in WindowMaker, and I guess I could figure out how to do that under other DEs like LXDE, XFCE and so on.
If however, I can't have the sound get automatically detected, and I have to install exactly the ALSA driver that matches my kernel and do a /.configure && make && make install, you're expecting a lot more of me, and too much from the average user - including users who are typically smart enough to figure things out on their own. Same thing if I'm expected to edit files in /etc and then do a 'service ____ restart'. And if there is no driver for the multi-function printer that I have and you tell me to take the source code and write my own drivers, then you are going beyond asking people to engage in self service, and asking them to morph into programmers. It's like the difference b/w asking someone to do a self-service @ the gas station vs doing an oil-filter change oneself vs flushing the entire transmission of the car. The first one is reasonable, the second one a bit less so, but the third expects the car owner to morph into a car mechanic.
In other words, Linux simply being 'self-service' would have been one thing, but @ its rough edges, Linux either brings out the programmer in someone, or forces that someone to give up.
Re:the one and only by unixisc · 2012-02-01 04:48 · Score: 1

Except that OS-X doesn't run on Linux. It is a FreeBSD running on the Mach 3.0 kernel, and the Aqua interface, as well as Display Postscript rides on top of that FreeBSD/DarwinOS.
Re:the one and only by dave420 · 2012-02-01 05:43 · Score: 1

Not all users. There will be some who have issues, and some of those issues can be pretty serious (just like on Windows). Let's not pretend Ubuntu is "perfect software" - it isn't. Nothing is.
Re:the one and only by TheEnigmaticToad · 2012-02-01 06:37 · Score: 1

"Ubuntu is the Gateway Drug"" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-asl9MfPT0
Re:the one and only by rtb61 · 2012-02-01 09:23 · Score: 1

That's where the franchise model comes in. Many click and mortar locations to provide the service and support that most residential users prefer, when it breaks you fix it and I pay you. This can extend to remote service and repair but not really necessary in the residential Linux market (all distributions including Android).
So a core distribution to demostrate expertise and provide a marketing tool and the service and support of all distribution and even 'shock, horror' the borg OS variants.
Start slow and expand globally, as a distributed franchise, you don't want to bleed your franchisees dry, you want to minimise their administrative, recruiting, accounting, advertising costs and ensure quality of service and maintenance of reputation. Management of the franchise would be done via the franchise members with two levels, main commercial and local residential. Limit one franchise per business entity.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:the one and only by jon_doh2.0 · 2012-02-01 17:24 · Score: 1

Isn't there an inherent irony in this business model though (selling support in this context generally), in that, the better your distro the less likely people are to need support? I suppose support for third party software would still provide revenue, though.

Coming from a very happy Linux/BSD user.

If you want the short answer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 11:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

No.

The long answer:

No. There is no viable desktop market for Linux currently, and probably never will be, and that is pretty much the ONLY market where a just OS approach may have even had a tiny amount of a possibility of succeeding.

Re:If you want the short answer by X10 · 2012-01-31 12:09 · Score: 2

No. There is no viable desktop market for Linux currently
I disagree. There is a market for a linux distro like Ubuntu 10.04. Just a bare bones linux distro with some gadgets and some UI fringes, but basically a linux that you can use for work. Ubuntu has moved away from that. I have to find another linux that gives me just a shell and apt-get and some more. I am a programmer. I don't want my linux to become windows because I want to be in control.

--
no, I don't have a sig
Re:If you want the short answer by Alex+Belits · 2012-01-31 12:13 · Score: 2

Kubuntu 11.10 is perfectly usable for development.
Unity and Gnome 3, of course, are pure horror now.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Re:If you want the short answer by stevenfuzz · 2012-01-31 12:27 · Score: 5, Informative

I am sitting at work using Ubuntu with Unity as we speak. Honestly, I like that I can do everything in 1 or 2 clicks or with the keyboard. I think it's ironic that there is this rally cry to evolve Linux into some more usable and advertise-able OS, yet when someone like Canonical decides to go for full-out evolution, those same people immediately reject it. So it goes...
Re:If you want the short answer by Shikaku · 2012-01-31 12:36 · Score: 2

I have to find another linux that gives me just a shell and apt-get and some more.
http://www.archlinux.org/
Re:If you want the short answer by cyclopropene · 2012-01-31 14:25 · Score: 1

I disagree. There is a market for a linux distro like Ubuntu 10.04. Just a bare bones linux distro with some gadgets and some UI fringes, but basically a linux that you can use for work. Ubuntu has moved away from that. I have to find another linux that gives me just a shell and apt-get and some more. I am a programmer. I don't want my linux to become windows because I want to be in control.
But, how much would you pay for said distro? Downloading for free is not a "market", and I suspect as a programmer you would not buy it.

--
Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
Re:If you want the short answer by dudpixel · 2012-01-31 14:42 · Score: 2

Whoa, there are several million linux users worldwide, and that's a conservative estimate.
When you claim there is "no" desktop market for linux, wouldn't YOU like a business with this many potential customers?
I'm not claiming it would be easy to sell a product to these people (you need to create enough value that someone would consider paying for it, rather than use free alternatives), but you need to stop looking at the linux market in percentages of the total PC market.
Yes its a small percentage of the overall market, but on its own it can be a rewarding market for some.
Even Apple's percentage share of the market is pretty small, but you would never claim that they dont have a viable desktop market.
Making money on linux would be no different to any other venture. Find something the users need, cater to that need, offer real value at a price users will pay for, profit. Difficult? yes. Impossible? no.

--
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Re:If you want the short answer by Kevin108 · 2012-01-31 15:19 · Score: 1

Is KDE 4 good? Probably, if you have the hardware for it. One of the main selling points Linux touts is that it works on older hardware but KDE 4 and Gnome 3 seem to be just as demanding as something from Redmond.

--

It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
Re:If you want the short answer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 17:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

... to go for full-out evolution, those same people immediately reject it. So it goes...
Because it's not their idea of evolution.. Some would want third hand instead of second pair of ears for example ;)
Re:If you want the short answer by Alex+Belits · 2012-01-31 18:27 · Score: 1

Intel: check.
Nvidia: check.
ATI: check.
What exactly is missing?

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Re:If you want the short answer by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-31 19:40 · Score: 1

Several million users, most of whom use a free, as in beer, version of the OS. Most of whom are actually proud they don't pay for software but use "free software", in every sense of the word, exclusively. Most of whom have a fanatical attachment to whatever they are using now and are fragmented over several different versions. Yeah, I can just see companies line up to jump into that market ! After all it worked out so well for Corel, Caldera, Linspire, Sun with their Linux version or any of the other abortive attempts to get any kind of paying business out of the Linux desktop market. Frankly I'm surprised Mandriva lasted this long.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:If you want the short answer by wild_oscar · 2012-01-31 22:18 · Score: 1

If you're going down that road, Unity is being criticised precisely because it slows users down. Yes, you can "do something in 2 clicks". But previously you could o it in one.
Examples:
1) Open a spreadsheet
Previously - Click applications, move to Office, click "Calc" = 2 clicks
Now - click the big icon, write "cal", click calc = 2 clicks and 3 keyboard presses

2) See desktop
Previously - click one of the N desktops on your bars = 1 click
Now - click the desktop icon, click one of the desktops in the menu that pop ups = 2 clicks

More user interactions means less usability and speed. That's what is annoying people.
Re:If you want the short answer by petermgreen · 2012-01-31 23:45 · Score: 1

XFCE is also worth considering, it seems to be based round much the same principles as gnome2 was though it's not as pretty.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:If you want the short answer by Kevin108 · 2012-02-01 00:23 · Score: 1

"Hardware" in this case meant specs - hardware capable of displaying KDE 4 with all its eye candy.

--

It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
Re:If you want the short answer by monkeyhybrid · 2012-02-01 00:55 · Score: 1

Main reason I find most Linux distros run better on older hardware compared to Windows, is driver support. Linux driver support is like wine, in that it generally gets better with age (apart from the occasional 'corked' bottle) and it's rare I have any issues whatsoever nowadays putting Linux on any PC made in the last several years or so. I certainly can't say the same thing about Windows - lack of drivers for older devices can rule out Win7, and if it's an older PC but does have SATA, it makes XP arkward to install too (IIRC).

I have put Linux distros on many a machine over the years though, and feel I can honestly say it gets more out of an older machine than Windows does. Even with KDE4.
Re:If you want the short answer by horza · 2012-02-01 01:49 · Score: 1

I put on Unity on to try it out, whilst installing my usual kde-desktop at the same time, and I actually like Unity quite a lot once you've gone through the forums and worked out how to turn the auto-hide off. Otherwise it's unusable, eg every time you want to click back on the browser the task bar pops up and covers the button. There is still a way to go, the disappearing scroll bars are odd and the mac-os "menu at the top" takes a while to get used to, but overall I like it. It will stay my primary desktop as long as it keeps moving forwards.
Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France
Re:If you want the short answer by unixisc · 2012-02-01 05:00 · Score: 1

Several million users, most of whom use a free, as in beer, version of the OS. Most of whom are actually proud they don't pay for software but use "free software", in every sense of the word, exclusively. Most of whom have a fanatical attachment to whatever they are using now and are fragmented over several different versions. Yeah, I can just see companies line up to jump into that market ! After all it worked out so well for Corel, Caldera, Linspire, Sun with their Linux version or any of the other abortive attempts to get any kind of paying business out of the Linux desktop market. Frankly I'm surprised Mandriva lasted this long.
Given that Linux is free of cost, it's actually a debacle that it has only a fraction of what Windows has - and I'm not even counting pirated versions of Windows here. Had Linux actually had what Windows has had for by now 16 years, it would be ruling the market. The only thing that Linux works well for is for companies where it's a mere accessory and not a prime product. Something like InternetOS on Cisco routers, Android, customized OSs for SuperComputers, or those type of things.
By now, w/ the brand reputation it has, I don't see any Linux being successful. I'd argue that the only 2 reasons that Android is successful are 1) the Google name and 2) that it hides the fact that it's Linux
Re:If you want the short answer by Alex+Belits · 2012-02-01 11:11 · Score: 1

You can run KDE without eye candy, and its requirements are pretty modest to begin with. I would prefer if it was smaller in its minimal form, but any more or less modern desktop or laptop (and KDE is definitely for desktops/laptops, not tablets and phones) should be sufficient.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Re:If you want the short answer by jon_doh2.0 · 2012-02-01 18:02 · Score: 1

Is KDE 4 good? Hell yes!!!!!!

Moved from an Openbox system, using GTK2 libraries, to a KDE 4 system, (basically i had to move on ((from GNOME2)), i tried GNOME3 and it was heinous), i could have just run without a DE, but i like a bit of nice UI rendering, and many applications require GUI toolkit anyway.

So, i have moved to KDE4 (and Arch, which is my new favourite distro) and i couldn't be happier, though admittedly i have disabled the panel and the desktop (they are a bit gauche, and i don't use a panel anyway, and there are plenty of ways to render a desktop and it's icons (if they are even desired).

But, the system tools and settings are great, so are the customisability options (KDE seem to be diverging from GNOME in this regard) and the window manager is awesome, so tweekable, like so much else in KDE4. In fact i liked th WM so much i decided to forgo Openbox in it's favour, after 2 years of OB love.

I could go on and on, but all i will say more is: i have a Pentium M and 2GB of RAM, with built in Intel GMA graphics, and KDE rippppps. This is a fairly old system. and i think we can all agree exceeded by most people's hardware, in the "Western" world. Windows 7 would probably be okay on the machine too, because Windows 7 is actually okay (took MS long enough), as far as system load is concerned, and for what it is.

My system now is generally faster than my GNOME2 one was, don't know if that is the difference between Arch and Debian though (bleeding edge vs. tried and tested).

Bottom line = KDE4 is big, people!!!
Re:If you want the short answer by jon_doh2.0 · 2012-02-01 18:07 · Score: 1

Because Pacman is better than apt-get, anyways. And i never thought any package manager would be, either.
Re:If you want the short answer by stevenfuzz · 2012-02-02 07:59 · Score: 1

Nope, press the windows key (or whatever it's called) and type in whatever you want.... I don't ever use the mouse.

No by betterunixthanunix · 2012-01-31 11:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Someone will clone the distro and everyone has the bandwidth to download it.

--
Palm trees and 8

Depends on your definition of "marketplace" by zooblethorpe · 2012-01-31 11:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is there any room in the marketplace for just a straight-up Linux distro anymore?

That depends on what you mean by "marketplace". If this includes free, then sure -- we've still got Slackware, Debian, Mint, and I don't know what all else.

But then, the question is loaded, and presumes that Mandriva's fall is solely due to the marketability of a Linux distro. But looking at the history, Mandriva was never that well run as an organization, with fits and starts and general policy confusion. For all its warts, Canonical's stewardship of Ubuntu at least has a direction. I suffered through many months with broken repo settings and no clear fixes as Mandrake/Mandriva went through a couple of its identity crises and infrastructure paroxysms, and these ultimately prompted me to leave them behind.

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."

Re:Depends on your definition of "marketplace" by Jurily · 2012-01-31 11:14 · Score: 2

But then, the question is loaded, and presumes that Mandriva's fall is solely due to the marketability of a Linux distro.

They are trying to sell something that's free, and adding nothing of value in the process. Of course they're going to fail.
Linux is marketable. I can wholeheartedly recommend Debian for data centers or Ubuntu as a non-gaming desktop. However, I have no idea what Mandriva is trying to be, much less why I should pay them for.
Re:Depends on your definition of "marketplace" by torgis · 2012-01-31 11:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not to mention market saturation. In all seriousness, how many linux distributions is "too many"?
Re:Depends on your definition of "marketplace" by NXIL · 2012-01-31 11:44 · Score: 1

Concur with Jurily; using Ubuntu with light desktop manager (Openbox) as a non-gaming desktop.
It fast, stable, no hassles, installation was easy, everything worked--easier than a Windows installation with hunting down drivers and installing them in the right order, actually.
Hmmm, Mandriva is #13 at Distrowatch: not so lucky, apparently. Was surprised to see it is on there, actually.
2012, Year of the Linux desktop? For some!
Re:Depends on your definition of "marketplace" by Richard_J_N · 2012-01-31 12:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Indeed - Mandrake made stupid decision after stupid decision. For example, when they were doing really well at the dotcom boom, they wasted all their money on a failed diversification into e-learning.
Then they asked the community for support, which many of us gave, by selling club membership and DVDs. The stupid thing was this though: I had to pay $60 for a DVD I didn't want (after downloading the release ISOs weeks earlier), and I suspect Mandrake only got about $10 of that. I would have been happy to give them $20 for every release, if I knew that the money would go to more than just production and shipping of DVDs, and the included "commercial apps" which I also didn't want.
Another problem was lack of support of the released distro. For example, if you wanted to run the latest stable release (not cooker), but happened to purchase a printer with support in upstream CUPS, you couldn't always get it to work in the stable release. Bug fixes rarely got backported either, so the stable release that everyone was supposed to run always had bugs in it that were fixed (but only in the cooker release, which was frequently broken).
It's a shame: Mandrake did some really good stuff, including excellent documentation, a good set of KDE and Gnome defaults (including a unified theme), they supported i586 while most Linuxes still optimised for i386, had a really outstanding graphical installer (back in 2001 and before), and were deservedly at the top of the list for newbies, with tools that provided help, rather than dumbing down.
Mandrake also improved several defaults, for example in Debian/Ubuntu, the Webroot is "/var/www". In Mandrake, it's "/var/www/html". When serving a simple file, this means /var/www/myfile.html (Debian) vs. /var/www/html/myfile.html (Mdk) - but it puts the webapps in a sensible place: Mdv use /var/www/mediawiki, /var/www/bugzilla etc, whereas Debian have to put it into /var/lib/ iirc. (On the other hand, Mandrake's Postgres configuration is weirdly in /var/lib/pgsql/data/postgresql.conf, whereas Debian put it in /etc/postgresql, where one would expect it. )
Hopefully Mageia can do something exciting; personally I've been running Mageia 1 for 8 months, and it's good, but not yet revolutionary.
Re:Depends on your definition of "marketplace" by greg1104 · 2012-01-31 14:08 · Score: 1

As far as I know the differences in directory layout you've mentioned flowed from RedHat's RPM packaging down to Mandrake. They did some useful innovation in addressing the desktop section of the market that RedHat abandoned; part of their problem is that they never offered a compelling server alternative to RedHat that was different enough to distinguish itself.
In the case of PostgreSQL, there definitely wasn't any conscious decision on the part of RedHat/Mandrake here. By default when compiled from source, PostgreSQL expects the database configuration file to be in the same directory as the database itself. RedHat and Mandrake don't change that; Debian goes to a lot of trouble to move those to /etc instead. And even that's not complete, one of the configuration files needed for replication setup (recovery.conf) still goes into the database directory, even on Debian.

If its not RedHat... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 11:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

then its not worthwhile in the commercial space. SuSE marketshare is dropping and when did canonical every really have marketshare? Either you're big enough to do your own, have enough skills to maintain your own, or you buy RHEL.

Peter.

Re:If its not RedHat... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 11:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why?
Forced at current job to use RH for one of our boxes (we are a Debian shop). RH is inferior in EVERY way. Few packages (a few percent of what Debian packages), upgrade hell (RH recommends a clean install + migrate config + data; WTF?!!! Debian, apt-get dist-upgrade... done.)
Really, can't see any reason to use RH other than when some commercial entity forces you to in order to have support on that 3rd party product.
RH really is shite. Hell even AIX, the bastard child of commercial UNIX can at least handle an in-place upgrade.
Re:If its not RedHat... by Junta · 2012-01-31 12:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

RedHat can (mostly) handle an in-place upgrade. Sufficient numbers of RH users *cannot* when something 'weird' happens, therefore it is simpler for them to tell everyone to clean install since RH actually has to answer the phone and handhold all the users and can't tell them to go away when they lack the resources to sort it out on their own.
Debian can (mostly) handle an in-place upgrade. When a debian user can't figure out how to make it work again after dist-upgrade breaks it, well tough. Google and forum around, and no one *has* to deal with it, even though usually someone does. If debian were forced to hold the hands of some of the users I've seen, they'd stop talking about dist-upgrade too.
AIX is extermely conservative, moreso than *any* linux distro will ever get away with. Given the scope, conservative development, the expected customer skill level, and the resources behind it, of course they can achieve *both* commercial support *and* robustness of in-place upgrades.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:If its not RedHat... by javanree · 2012-01-31 23:56 · Score: 1

Canonical making money? Last I read they were still not profitable.
And given the quality of Ubuntu as an enterprise quality OS it's no surprise... only RedHat can offer a complete enterprise solution with long term support (also on much of the software running on it's platform), clear vision on future development and direction and stability (this means testing things before pushing them, not waiting for bug reports before fixing things) Not to mention the tools to properly manage large amounts of systems : RedHat Satellite (and it's upstream project Spacewalk) So far the Debian/Ubuntu distro's have nothing that comes close to it's power and flexibility.
Re:If its not RedHat... by OFnow · 2012-02-01 05:38 · Score: 1

RedHat can (mostly) handle an in-place upgrade. ....Debian can (mostly) handle an in-place upgrade. .
You would have to be crazy to try an in-place upgrade with Fedora. From their saying don't do it, they make you feel like failure is routine. And when I used Fedora for a few years (up through Fedora 12 I think), even minor upgrades (fixes, not full releases) broke sound-production again and again (as in for one fix I would have to add a 3 line alsa script to get sound output and for the next I would have to delete it again to get sound output). So I took their warning seriously and always reinstalled. And Pulse Audio (on Fedora back then) simply never worked.
Ubuntu, on the other hand (I use Xubuntu, Unity makes no sense to me -- I could never find anything I wanted) has upgraded itself many times now without any difficulty (Now running 11.10). So to label both as 'mostly' seems oddly at odds with my experience. One caveat though: Network Manager has been a horror even on Ubuntu and sometimes reappears for no reason I can discern -- deleting Network Manager and fixing a few scripts in /etc is (for me) simpler. Or use 'Wicd' for a laptop that gets around --when you need to accomodate changing circumstances.
Re:If its not RedHat... by Junta · 2012-02-01 10:10 · Score: 1

Fedora is batshit insane on updates. Fedora is not RedHat. As much as Fedora people want to claim otherwise, Fedora really is the testing grounds for things before hitting RHEL. This is not necessarily that bad in some ways (first to get new features), but it does carry the burden of never knowing what today's updates are going to bring, even without a 'dist-upgrade' type operation.
Ubuntu has been afflicted by dist-upgrade unpleasantness, even if you go by their strongly guided one-release-at-a-time process. Most capable people get bit by it, figure it out after at most a google search, and forget about it, but they do happen.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

OS's are... by blahplusplus · 2012-01-31 11:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

... the most boring part of the computer for 90% of the population. You have to have something your end customers actually care about. I look at things like steam and I don't know why Linux devs didn't think of creating a platform around linux to begin with. While power user computing is great for the power users, the great unwashed really just want something ridiculously simple and easy. There is really no real reason to use linux. If I were trying to sell linux, I'd create a plaform like steam and sell non-drm'd software. Open source really has to start 'charging' for it's software if it hopes to be sustainable in creating apps/things people want in the future. Money is not a dirty word. You can still make money with open computing. With all the copyright bullshit linux could have a good opening if they'd just get on the ball and create a business out of it.

Linux suffers from being suffocated by geeks who really don't grasp that the user doesn't want to have to think, the user wants a magic box that adds value to their lives. This is why things like Steam took off and 'app stores'.

Re:OS's are... by jedidiah · 2012-01-31 11:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

> There is really no real reason to use linux.
apt-get install xbmc
apt-get install mythtv
No dickering around with packages with names like "shark007".

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:OS's are... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 11:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

You see that? That thing that just passed? It was the point - and you missed it. What is an apt-get? Why is it called that? Why is there a "get" and then an "install?" Where do I type that? Oh, in the console? It's not working. Why is it not working? Why does it tell me it can't "resolve the hostname" of the repository? Oh, the whitespace matters?
Ubuntu Software Center et al mitigate these issues to a degree. Too little, too late though.
Re:OS's are... by Korin43 · 2012-01-31 11:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is why things like Steam took off and 'app stores'.
This is why Linux has has "app stores" for over ten years. Users didn't like package managers until they had to pay money to use them.
Re:OS's are... by 0123456 · 2012-01-31 11:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

Wow. Sounds like you're still running a Linux distro from 1993.
I liked the Windows update thingumy recently when I booted into Windows for the first time in ages. Even though I waited over ten minutes, Windows wouldn't connect to my Wireless LAN that Linux connects to in a few seconds, but it was bugging me to install upgrades, so I said yes because I assumed it must have previously downloaded them and I might as well do something useful while I was waiting... but once I told it to install them it tried to download them and then told me it couldn't download them, which should have been obvious because there was no network connection.
What a horrible excuse for an operating system Windows is...
Re:OS's are... by nashv · 2012-01-31 11:48 · Score: 1

*facepalm*
Thank you GP, I see you your point now.

--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Re:OS's are... by Fri13 · 2012-01-31 11:48 · Score: 2

Tell me, how Linux operating system can be boring only for 90% of people? I would say it is 99.95% of people.
As you should know, Linux kernel is a monolithic operating system. 99.95% people does not even understand or know that.
Operating Systems has from the begin being boring... What is exiting (or boring) is the graphical or textual user interfaces and programs and application programs what users can use to get their wanted things done.
Only a true geek can get exited what new features operating systems (like Linux aka 'Linux kernel') offers when they get new versions. Like how many user would be exited btrfs or better process scheduler? A improved network stack or new I/O scheduler? I haven't even ever head someone would had parties with hot girls dancing around when Linus released a new version of Linux operating system. Have you?
Re:OS's are... by loufoque · 2012-01-31 11:54 · Score: 2

You do realize all Linux distributions already come with an equivalent of an "App Store" which contains tens of thousands of up-to-date high-quality software packages?
It's usually called a "software repository" or "software center"
It even has user ratings and lists of "what's hot", "what's new", "top rated" etc.
Re:OS's are... by martin-boundary · 2012-01-31 11:57 · Score: 1

Apple's App Store took off because of Apple.

And BSD. Without BSD, Apple would not have made it out of MacOS9 land or into app stores.
Re:OS's are... by blahplusplus · 2012-01-31 11:59 · Score: 1

Oh I know this but the problem is you need killer apps that draw people away from other platforms. There is no compelling reason to use linux (i.e. greater performance, etc).
Re:OS's are... by Dr_Barnowl · 2012-01-31 12:03 · Score: 2

I was especially thrilled when I installed Windows 7 for the first time recently and it spent around twenty minutes rebooting no fewer than 6 times before I could actually use it.
I find it equally pleasing when it downloads updates in the background and then spontaneously reboots 5 minutes later, particularly when it does it behind a game and I lose my online match.
Really, the only mitigating factor is that I no longer attempt to do any useful work with Windows.
Re:OS's are... by rapidreload · 2012-01-31 12:08 · Score: 1

It even has user ratings and lists of "what's hot", "what's new", "top rated" etc.
The only distro I know which actually has an app store that has these features you mention is in Ubuntu. The rest have package managers for their repositories, but nothing like the Ubuntu Software Center. And even then, the USC was only created well after Steam and the Apple App Store were created. Once again we have a situation where the Linux community acted in a reactionary way to what the commercial vendors were doing, instead of having these styled app stores well beforehand.

--
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
Re:OS's are... by loufoque · 2012-01-31 12:15 · Score: 1

It does have better performance along with many applications that are not available (or available but not in such a practical way) on other operating systems.
The problem, however, is that it has this one misfeature: choice.
Re:OS's are... by loufoque · 2012-01-31 12:17 · Score: 1

That is correct.
And I personally never use this thing, I find synaptic or command-line tools much more efficient.
But then I don't find app stores (be it os x or android ones) any good either.
Re:OS's are... by Beelzebud · 2012-01-31 12:23 · Score: 2

For a computer genius I'd think you would have figured out that you can set up the OS to update how you like, and not have it intrude on what you're doing.
Re:OS's are... by rapidreload · 2012-01-31 12:41 · Score: 1

Agreed. I prefer synaptic and particularly apt-get (once I know the exact name of the package I want) as well, but I imagine the USC has its benefits for providing a nice frontend that non-geeks or just people who don't want the information-overload of something like synpatic.

--
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
Re:OS's are... by jedidiah · 2012-01-31 12:42 · Score: 1

The GUI tools are a little harder to explain in this format. While the command line equivalents may seem "scary", they get the point across.
Stuff like that is what Apple's current success is built on. They just dress it up a little more.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:OS's are... by jedidiah · 2012-01-31 12:44 · Score: 1

Seems a bit stupid. If you are going to that much trouble then you can just use the Debian commandline tools.
That kind of snark goes both ways.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:OS's are... by jedidiah · 2012-01-31 12:50 · Score: 1

There is nothing "reactionary" about dressing up your package repository. It's simply a matter of hiding things and organizing things a little different. Although it's rather dubious if it all matters really.
Apple app stores still suck at the sort of things that Linux package managers excel at. This is primarily due to the exclusionary approach of Apple and the fact that the system is a "product" rather than a set of tools.
The Apple approach is still inferior to both Linux variants as well as 3rd parties on Apple's own platform.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:OS's are... by jedidiah · 2012-01-31 12:52 · Score: 1

They still suffer from the basic problem of search and selection. For that you still need external sources. You have to find meaningful information regarding what to install somewhere else.
This goes for "app stores" in general.
Google and the web at large still does it better.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:OS's are... by Telvin_3d · 2012-01-31 13:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Users didn't like package managers until a couple companies had the bright idea to make versions that were more than a glorified command line.
Steam and the Apple App Store are to dpkg (and similar tools) what an office suite is to notepad. Things like visual previews, robust searches and categories, and comprehensive descriptions are more than cosmetic improvements. They are the difference between a good idea and a mature implementation.
Re:OS's are... by Telvin_3d · 2012-01-31 14:06 · Score: 1

So then would you care to list the linux package managers that have an interface half as useful as Steam?
Re:OS's are... by rapidreload · 2012-01-31 14:11 · Score: 1

I'm referring to "reactionary" in the sense that no-one in the Linux community, neither users nor commercial vendors, thought about capitalizing on the power of repositories until Apple (and to some extent Valve) started making money out of the premise. It was maybe a year ago that Ubuntu finally had paid software appearing in the USC. Until then the idea of paid, closed-source software being sold without a distro was heresy, and to some it still is. But it's a crucial step towards providing the stuff that a lot of people want.

--
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
Re:OS's are... by rapidreload · 2012-01-31 14:13 · Score: 1

Eh, that's meant to say within a distro, not without.

--
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
Re:OS's are... by greg1104 · 2012-01-31 14:19 · Score: 2

To support the idea that BSD wasn't a critical component here, it's worth pointing out that Apple considered several alternatives to the BSD derived NeXT the birthed OS X from. BeOS, Solaris, and even Windows NT were all considered at some point. Had the owners of Be lowered their financial expectations, it easily could have been OS X derived from Be instead. The main benefit of basing things on NeXT instead was that it brought Jobs back into day to day operation again. He was the right guy to be heading the expansion into friendlier consumer electronics that revived Apple's financials, and that mattered quite a bit more than the origin of the kernel.
Re:OS's are... by oakgrove · 2012-01-31 14:23 · Score: 2

Apparently Google, Facebook, Amazon, and a plethora of other large internet companies have found a compelling reason to use Linux. It can't just be the price as those companies make more than enough money to buy Windows licenses yet they choose not to. Furthermore, what's wrong with people using something different than you? Do you feel threatened in some way by choice?

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:OS's are... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 14:39 · Score: 1

aptitude
Re:OS's are... by Telvin_3d · 2012-01-31 14:48 · Score: 1

If I could mod you funny I would...
Re:OS's are... by Tastecicles · 2012-01-31 15:09 · Score: 2

YaST

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Re:OS's are... by Max+Littlemore · 2012-01-31 15:17 · Score: 1

Heck, I installed Ubuntu 11.10 (clean install) on my machine a while back.
There's your problem. 11.10 is a dogs breakfast. I've been playing with a few of the newer Debian based systems of late and I can honestly say that nothing has really worked all that well for me without a lot of stuffing around. Part of that is the Unity/Gnome3 "we know how you use a computer better than you do" school of UI design, part of it driver/kernel/power management, but the overall experience is not so good. The nicest has been Linux Mint 12, but even that has had power management issues on my laptop.
Ubuntu 10.04 (LTS) on the other hand has been rock solid. My installation is heavily tweaked (out of preference, not need), but I still use standard repositories and it has been bullet proof. It's still supported on the desktop until April next year, so I'd recommend it over 11.10 which is really better for bleeding edge/tester types. The most annoying thing about installing it now would be having to download all the updates, but that's the same for Win 7 anyway.
Funnily enough, I just installed Win7 enterprise on a machine for work and found getting that working far more painful than I remember the install of Ubuntu 10.04 was.

--
I don't therefore I'm not.
Re:OS's are... by donaldm · 2012-01-31 15:25 · Score: 1

Linux suffers from being suffocated by geeks who really don't grasp that the user doesn't want to have to think, the user wants a magic box that adds value to their lives. This is why things like Steam took off and 'app stores'.
If you want to use the Linux command line (you know like the geeks do and and computer users back in the 1970/80/90's did) you could use "apt-get" (Debian and it's derivatives based) or "yum" (Redhat and it's derivatives based), however you can also use GUI tools as well and select packages to delete, install or upgrade which are so intuitive a 5 year old can use. Unfortunately over the last 30 years it appears that the so called "dumbing down of computers" has reduced most computer users knowledge to that of a 3 year old, however all is not lost you can even automate the update process so the very idea of thinking is removed :).

When you talk about Linux or even Unix you only have to look at the 100's of millions of smart phones on the market and most people seem to be quite happy with them especially with upgrading as well as application installation and removal. Even tablets (both Linux and Unix) appear to be selling well and these are more closer to the Linux/Apple PC than most people are aware. What can be done with a smart phone or tablet can also be done and is with a Linux or Apple (Unix) based PC and under a nice GUI if you want.

--
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Re:OS's are... by martin-boundary · 2012-01-31 15:53 · Score: 1

I don't quite see how that article supports your idea. What it does make clear is that Apple had no realistic alternative options.
They certainly didn't have the expertise inhouse to build a satisfactory OS, as Copland showed, and neither SunOS nor NT were realistic alternatives, as this would have made the company completely dependent on direct competitors, especially Microsoft *shudder*. Finally, they found BeOS too expensive, which is no technical indictment, but really is another way of saying it also wasn't a good business choice.
Jobs was of course the right guy (in hindsight), but he's no programmer, and the heavy lifting which produced OSX was due to BSD: It had both the right licensing and the right amount of existing working functionality which Apple's engineers could extend and make pretty for the masses.
Re:OS's are... by greg1104 · 2012-01-31 16:43 · Score: 1

Saying that the kernel level or low-level library work was the "heavy lifting" is a kernel-centric point of view. Apple's PCs are vastly more popular than any pure BSD OS. There's an alternate view that's easy to argue for, that the real "heavy" part here is the UI level work. To many end-users, that's the only part that really matters. And if making things pretty for the masses were the easy part, that would be ubiquitous while kernels are rare. Instead, it's kernel and library level code that there are multiple viable alternatives for. The continued inability of the Linux desktop to hit critical mass also suggests the kernel/library level is not the most important or most difficult to build layer to a desktop computing stack.
I feel that all Pink/Taligent/Copland proved is that throwing too many engineers at OS design leads into something too complicated to ever ship. The public info on that whole mess suggests that massive second-system design creep had a significant role in its failure. The fact that Be produced a feasible alternative here, with a smaller team and relatively short development cycle, proves the problem was tractable. It just wasn't possible to solve within a dysfunctional Apple. The point at which IBM also got involved is one of the larger examples of "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later" in software history.
Re:OS's are... by rapidreload · 2012-01-31 17:01 · Score: 1

Ah that's great. Blame the user, not the operating system. That's a common defensive measure I see a lot of fanboys take with those who are having issues with their precious little OS. It's easier than admitting bugs exists I suppose.

--
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
Re:OS's are... by rapidreload · 2012-01-31 17:10 · Score: 1

I'll freely accept that Ubuntu might be souring my opinion of Linux somewhat (as in it's possibly a bad representative of the potential stability of Linux that is possible with a quality distro). However, I generally go for it because it's the de-facto standard desktop distro when it comes to the level of software available in the repos. Also, if someone develops software for Linux (consumer software that is) they'll probably have instructions tailored for Ubuntu or at least mention it as the first option. If packages exists for a piece of software, you'll surely find one available for Ubuntu, whereas you can't guarantee the same for some others.
I don't want to go back to 10.04 because one of the reasons for upgrading distros is to get the latest versions of software. Even if you trying doing things manually you'll hit limitations with old libraries you might not have newer packages for. It's a common issue with non-rolling distros and one of the headaches for having it on the desktop (and software in the FOSS ecosystem moves waaayyy too quickly, getting stuck with old versions which don't have a PPA tends to disappoint).
I've rolled out Windows 7 Enterprise for schools in the past. It was a mostly pleasant experience mainly due to my vast experience with Windows. I imagine someone with less experience in Windows and more in Linux would sympathize with you, but it's really not that bad at all. At least at home I can run premier proprietary software as well as open source stuff in Windows 7, whereas the option might not even exist in Linux.

--
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
Re:OS's are... by Rennt · 2012-01-31 17:43 · Score: 1

"nobody thought about capitalizing on the power of repositories..." - I don't see how you can make that case. The very foundation of a distribution is it's package manager/repository system - it's power is central to system administration in a way that makes Apple's app store look like a crude bolt-on accessory. Debian have gone as far as to make the package manager more important then the very kernel the stack runs on. If that isn't real and considered capitalization I don't know what the hell you are on about.
Re:OS's are... by rapidreload · 2012-01-31 18:04 · Score: 1

Everyone's missing the point... it's all about MONEY.
Capitalization of repos = financial capitalization. Financial rewards that would benefit distro makes as well as developers.
Apple was the first to make an app store that made money. By selling things. They showed that a repository could be financially beneficial for them and other developers, hence even though there is free (as in beer) software in the App Store, a lot of it is really damn good and even the free games are often a level higher than what used to be found in your typical Linux repo.
Yes we've had repos in Linux for ages, but the commercial vendors never distributed anything on them because making money was never an option - no-one had capitalized on the repository system before to create the cash. Apple did.

--
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
Re:OS's are... by wvmarle · 2012-01-31 19:00 · Score: 1

You obviously haven't used either, recently.
App stores contains apps.
Software repositories contain all kinds of software, including underlying libraries (as if the user really cares about them - just get those dependencies installed, thank you very much). As a result they're cluttered. Until recently barely searchable - you had to know the name.
Just some example with Ubuntu 10.04's Software Centre. Search for "pdf reader" and get I a cluttered list with unrelated stuff like c++ manuals, LaTeX converters, ms word viewers, etc. The first few are pdf readers at least.
Another example, search "web browser". Epic failure here. First result: VLC Media Player (plays media, doesn't browse the web). Then: gThumb (image manager). Followed by IcedTea Java Plugin (yes I may need that for the browser but as end user shouldn't have to worry about that). The fourth result is Epiphany, the first actual web browser. A few results down is Chromium. Firefox is deeply hidden several pages down and called "safe and easy browser from Mozilla", it has no Firefox icon, just very small letters "firefox" under the title. I only managed to find that one after searching specifically for "firefox".
It's a really poor excuse for an "app store". OK this is a version from 1 1/2 years ago but still that's their current LTS offer. It's so horrible I never use it; the package manager gives better results - especially if you know the actual name of the software you're looking for.
Give me Google's App Store any time over that. And I hear Apple's app store (no first-hand experience with it) is far better than Google's offering. As much as I like Ubuntu 10.04, I hate their "Software Centre". It's useless crap to me.
Re:OS's are... by Dr_Barnowl · 2012-01-31 21:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, yes, you can configure it. But I would have thought the default settings would be something less annoying than "update automatically then show a popup-dialogue and spontaneously reboot in 5 minutes. Do not offer an option to not reboot - make the user keep deferring it in chunks of between 5 minutes and 4 hours". If the updates happen at lunchtime and you left a bunch of windows open while you stepped out for lunch, say goodbye to any work you haven't saved.
Whereas the default on my other OS is "open the update manager, present the available updates list, and wait for user input". And when it's finished updating, it colours one UI element red to let you know that a reboot would be good, but it's not going to force you. You can configure this behaviour too.
My gripe is that the default settings on Windows cause you pain - at the very least, they force you to save your work and reboot, or constantly poke at a nag-box to prevent it rebooting, whereas the default settings on my chosen working OS don't even force you to update, and when you do, you can carry on working as long as you like before you reboot - I typically just shut down at the end of the day and consider that the first half of my reboot cycle.
Re:OS's are... by xenobyte · 2012-02-01 00:49 · Score: 1

Actually most dist-upgrade's on Debian run flawlessly - except for the very broken upgrade from woody to sarge... Broke a busy webhosting box completely. Apache broken (both apache and apache2 installed at the same time, both active but both with broken configuration files). PHP no longer installed (but apache thinking that it was). MySQL broken beyond repair. All pear and cpan libraries/packages uninstalled. Dozens of configuration files overwritten. Horrible mess!
The modern 'aptitude upgrade' is nothing short of amazing. I once tried to upgrade - in one jump - from the aforementioned sarge to squeeze (skipping etch and lenny completely), which is a massive step as everything has changed significantly, and it did it in about 3 minutes plus *one* reboot.
When I first gave it the command it 'thought' about it for a few seconds before it presented an unbelievable solution with multiple screens of steps. I let it do it and it chucked away. As the kernel was upgraded significantly and some of the new stuff incompatible with the old kernel it actually scheduled a reboot a little over half way through. At the end it was now a squeeze box that worked almost flawlessly. It defaulted to keeping the locally configured configuration files so a few things needed a reconfiguration (postfix for instance) so that couldn't help to cause a few hiccups. But overall it worked like a charm. Compare this to upgrading a box from Windows 98 to Windows 7 (disregarding the fact that a box current for Windows 98 most likely can't run Windows 7)... I can't see that working as flawlessly.

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Re:OS's are... by Korin43 · 2012-02-01 03:40 · Score: 1

PackageKit works on just about any Linux distro, has a nice GNOME interface, and while it's not quite as pretty, it's just as useful as Apple's "App Store". I have very little experience with Steam so I can't comment on that.
Package managers have been Linux's killer feature for years. It's not surprising other OS's are finally starting to figure that out.
Re:OS's are... by Megane · 2012-02-01 03:51 · Score: 1

Except that Apple didn't use BSD's kernel, just the userspace stuff. So most of what goes on in OS X after the boot process has finished isn't BSD. And Apple used it because NeXT used it before them. At the time of NeXT, BSD as a whole was a lot more mature than GNU stuff. (But note that the default shell on OS X is bash, and GCC was the compiler until LLVM offered features that made it more useful.)
More accurate would be to say that without NeXT, Apple would not have made out of the 9.x era. (I like to say that NeXT bought Apple for negative 400 million dollars.)

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:OS's are... by OFnow · 2012-02-01 05:43 · Score: 1

There is really no real reason to use linux.
Windows disaster recovery isn't all that difficult. Just follow the simple instructions that come with the Linux CD. -- Anthony DeBoer
Re:OS's are... by Rennt · 2012-02-01 13:47 · Score: 1

That's a very narrow and broadly uninteresting definition of capitalization. We are talking about technology that underpins the distros that form the bulk of internet infrastructure. That kind of capitalization overshadows the success of _any_ given retail outlet.
Re:OS's are... by unixisc · 2012-02-01 19:43 · Score: 1

LLVM was built by Apple itself, and they probably realized that they'd need to go to it, particularly once GCC moved to GPL3, which it now is. As a result, even FreeBSD no longer uses GCC as the default, but offers LLVM & Clang, so that their users don't find themselves trapped by any of the GPL3 underpinnings of GCC.
Re:OS's are... by unixisc · 2012-02-01 19:47 · Score: 1

You are right, but to be honest, the IPv6 capabilities that have been improving w/ newer OSs, be it FreeBSD or derivatives, Linux, Windows 7 or OS-X, are something that users can at least superficially understand in terms of every one of their electronic devices going online w/o any hitches, if not the great potential of the IPv6 protocol itself. But other than that, I agree w/ you - whether the OS supports ZFS or Ext4 or UFS or Veritas, what sort of a process scheduler it uses, whether it is micro-kernel or not, etc just won't be interesting to most people.
Re:OS's are... by unixisc · 2012-02-01 20:11 · Score: 1

I'm not familiar w/ Android, but I am familiar w/ Apple's App store. It looks completely like an online store where you simply buy & download apps. And given the few seconds in which an app is typically downloaded & installed, you wouldn't think that it is downloading all those libraries & other dependancies that one normally associates w/ a software repo. Only time I've sometimes had trouble has been if the internet link broke during a download, but deleting the icon and doing a re-install works fine. And best of all, the App store remembers that you had purchased the app the first time, so that one needn't re-purchase it. And the best part of it - Apple lets you share things b/w all the different iPads, iPhones & iPods (touch) that one has, unlike Windows, where a software has a limited number of licenses and one can only share it b/w 2 or 3 computers typically.
Re:OS's are... by unixisc · 2012-02-01 20:14 · Score: 1

Or, more practically, just go to All Programs -> Accessories -> System Tools -> System Restore, and pick the date you recall your PC working normally. (This is under XP - am not sure about the path w/ Windows 7)
Re:OS's are... by Tim+C · 2012-02-01 22:24 · Score: 1

Sounds like you're still running a Windows version from 1993... ;)

Seriously though, while my wireless dongle works out of the box with Windows 7 I can't get it to work properly with Linux Mint 12; I manually load the drivers using ndiswrapper, the machine can see it, it can see the network, but it refuses to connect. It just sits there trying and timing out - repeat ad nauseum.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:OS's are... by Max+Littlemore · 2012-02-05 14:28 · Score: 1

Unfortunately with Ubuntu you currently have the choice of bleeding edge but unstable or very stable but getting a bit old. PPAs help when available for what you want, but really being able to compile your own software and fix minor build problems helps a lot. I tend to go for statically linked libs for newer software where I can't easily have the version of a lib I need. Either that or where possible I install static builds of software compiled by the software producer, for example Blender is a stupid thing to install from the Ubuntu repository and is much better sitting under /opt.
Of course this is not easy for everyone, but then not everyone has the need/desire to run bleeding edge software on an old and stable OS.
There is a sense I get from your comment that you are a Microsoft schill, or one of those eeeedjuts that thinks that software that costs more to license is somehow "premier". The only "premier" software I have been annoyed I can't run at home has fallen into the "games" category and games are what dual boot is for. Apart from that, there's nothing I can't do on the home system (U10.04+++) that I can on the work system(WinXP Pro) and a lot of tasks (photo processing, network diagnostics, file manipulation, web browsing) that I find easier on Linux than Windows. Having played with win7, there's little it offers over XP apart from tighter security, good support for 64bit and even more assumptions that I don't know what I'm doing so power user stuff should be buried deeper.I'll move to 7 when I absolutely have to. The only thing about Linux I don't like currently is power management.
I have more professional experience with Windows than Linux (~18 years vs. ~13) and the installation is still way easier on any modern Linux distro than Windows. The reason I say that is that Windows goes away for some unspecified or highly inaccurate amount of time and then comes back requiring user input whereas Linux distros give you accurate assessments of time required and ask all the questions they need answers to upfront. Also a windows install requires generally >=2 reboots whereas a Linux needs <=2. The reboots require user input so the more there are, the more irritating the process. Of course there are tools to automate the roll out for both systems which reduce these irritations, but they are effectively the same for both systems and an initial run through of the installation process is still required.
Nah, if you honestly think windows is an easier installation process you either don't know what you're doing or you've got lint for brain cells. But reading your sig I guess you're probably smart and getting paid well enough to appear stupid...

--
I don't therefore I'm not.
Re:OS's are... by rapidreload · 2012-02-05 15:18 · Score: 1

But reading your sig I guess you're probably smart and getting paid well enough to appear stupid...
No, my sig exists because I'm thoroughly dejected about trying to explain what problems I have with Linux (problems that I see a LOT of other people having) and getting shit from people like you, thinking I'm a "MS shill" because I'm unable to see the amazing glory that is Linux. It's like talking to a wall. The fact you also want to insult my intelligence ("lint for brain cells") is another reason for the sig - if I don't agree with you, I must be an idiot. An epidemic attitude I've found in the Linux community, and one that continues to push people away. Shit, no wonder people don't want to use Linux if the community is so hostile and toxic - what if I end up like something like you?
Linux isn't perfect. Accept the fact Windows might be quite good at a lot of things these days. If you are unable to at least open your mind to this possibility, well then at least stop the fucking insults.

--
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.

Diversification by girlintraining · 2012-01-31 11:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

Oh, you mean like how Microsoft bundles Office with it's distro? You know, the one they call Windows.

I can see an argument being made that people don't want an "operating system", they want a computer. And when most people say computer, they don't mean the box. That's what geeks say. When an average person says computer, they mean all the applications, peripherals, internet access, etc., that all gets packed into the magic box.

Linux and its supporters have never quite managed to grasp the Magic Box school of thought. Until they do, they'll never be a competitor. This is a cultural problem, not a technological one. Look at Apple. First we ignored them, then we laughed at them, then somehow, overnight, OS X became a contender and Apple became a massive corporation. How did that happen?

Hint: Apple doesn't sell 'operating systems' or 'ipads' or whatever. They are selling an experience. And if you ask the average person what the Linux experience is... they'll look at you, facepalm, and say flatly "I couldn't get the damn thing to work."

Linux vendors need to sell an experience, not a product. It needs to be well-supported, preconfigured with everything the average person wants on a computer (or whoever their target demographic is... IT managers, server lackies, whatever...), so all they do is push the button and there it is. It. Just. F*cking. Works.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:Diversification by jedidiah · 2012-01-31 11:29 · Score: 1

Apple was the original home computer vendor.
They introduced the first consumer computer with a GUI.
It was about 10 years before Microsoft and PCs offered something comparable.
The current success of Apple is mainly as a consumer electronics vendor, rather than a computer vendor.
Your "underdog story" is missing a few important elements.
Ironically enough: as far as the "mindless consumer" contingent goes, the biggest stumbling block for Linux at this point is open hostility from hardware vendors like Apple.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Diversification by viperidaenz · 2012-01-31 11:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple don't sell computers, operating systems, ipads, iphones or experiences, they sell social status.
Re:Diversification by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 11:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have never seen Office bundled with Windows, not a full version anyway. If it comes with a prebuilt computer, it's usually a trial version that the user will have to pay for, or a copy that the user ordered with the computer. If it didn't come with it, it'll typically get installed after the fact.
Contrast that with Ubuntu, Mint, or any number of distros. Most of them come with some form of OpenOffice, LibreOffice, etc. installed by default. In fact, they do come with nearly everything someone would want: office suite, web browser, email client, chat client, music player, video player, ad nauseum.
Add to that, most people I've shown Ubuntu or Mint have marvelled at how everything "just works," moreso than Windows. The biggest hurdle I've seen is that nearly everyone I've talked to hasn't even heard of Linux, or they only have a vague idea of what it is.
I agree with you on the "selling" part. People are bombarded with Apple and Windows ads everywhere they go. I can't recall the last time I saw a Linux distro ad.
Re:Diversification by stevenfuzz · 2012-01-31 11:43 · Score: 1

Explain this to IBM
Re:Diversification by msheekhah · 2012-01-31 11:55 · Score: 1

They used to sell ease of use. Now they're the GAP or Ambercrombie Finch of computers.

--
Mark Anthony Collins
Re:Diversification by loufoque · 2012-01-31 12:02 · Score: 1

The only reason Apple is successful is because they've managed to establish some kind of luxury brand.
It's 99% marketing, 1% technology.

Linux vendors need to sell an experience, not a product. It needs to be well-supported, preconfigured with everything the average person wants on a computer
That's exactly what it is. I can't say the same for OS X at all though. While with Linux you can do everything you possibly wanted in a couple of commands, on OS X you need to install third-party software to do the most basics of things, and certain things can't even be done (i.e. ethernet bridging or other low-level network things).
Re:Diversification by jedidiah · 2012-01-31 12:53 · Score: 1

What's to explain? IBM was a big iron vendor.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Diversification by Tastecicles · 2012-01-31 15:41 · Score: 1

Exactly. Plug it in and it's a fucking toaster. No more complicated than that. Microsoft are still nowhere near toaster-level ease of use OoBE, but they're closer than any Linux distribution given the undeniable fact that the vast, vast majority of new hardware ships with Windows! Apple are marginally closer with Mac OS but they're still not there either. To me, the reasons for this difference in out of the box user experience is obvious:
Microsoft: watches what Apple do with their interface, bundle as much as *they* can get away with, lets the vendor throw more junk in that will likely either be ignored completely or deleted by the user, quality control is limited to the first Tuesday every month.
Apple: releases when the whole package is *ready* - hardware, software, the whole shebang. It's almost a toaster. Thing is, it's close to toaster because Apple control what goes in the hardware and they control practically every aspect of the software load, from kernel to DVD decoder. When you have that level of control you have the ability to fine tune and debug with precision and quality assurance Gates and co. can only have wet dreams about.
Linux: Where to begin? So many different colours, will that be two slice, four slice, sixty-four slice, one continuous element or one for each slot, battery, solar or line powered... the choice for the end user is bewildering. End user might sometimes want only two slices, why would he want to buy a sixteen slice toaster?
That's the problem with Linux. In my opinion, there are quality distributions (for what I do, I use Debian, Mandriva and SuSE), and there are some absolutely shite ones (I stay right away from the pimped ones such as K/Ubuntu because I think they're clunky, bloated and ugly). Wherever you look, there are far too many distributions, far too many packages that do essentially exactly the same things as one another - some with IDENTICAL feature sets! - and far too many ways as a result to make the wrong move if you don't know what you're doing and breaking any minor or essential component which could result in anything from a minor inconvenience to a complete system breakage.
Now, for me, I have my ideal desktop. SuSE 11.4, Beryl/KDE3 custom desktop, OpenOffice, VirtualBox, Thunderbird, IceCat, xbmc, GIMP, Kino, and little else. When I want to run win32/64 native (eg games) I use the VM to run XP or 7. When I want to run OSX native (media player - I also mix a lot of music) I use the VM. It's very little different to running them on a cold boot - which option I also have. I don't have to fuck about with anything because it all works, but it has taken me several years to get to this point. I don't think Joe Average would have that kind of patience.

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Re:Diversification by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 19:23 · Score: 1

Can't afford an iPhone, can you?
Is that why you are so bitter?
u mad bro?
Have you fucking looked at the iPhone?
That's marketing, right?
Cocoa Touch is marketing.
The iPhone is so well built, that even
people that don't give a shit about technology want one.
Were it luxury they would just parade it.
Have you seen how people use thir iPhones?
They USE them for every fucking thing.
That's marketing?
I'd rather use a dumb phone that some
samsung android piece of SHIT.
Core Animation is marketing right?
That's why everybody and their fucking dog copied it.
Were I Steve Jobs, I'd fucking punch
all the CEOs that copied Apple's shit RIGHT IN
THE FUCKING BALLS. I'd get away with it
by way of my super awesome lawyers.
I'd punch you in the face too, even though you
aren't a CEO, just cause you fucking irritate me.
LLVM is markething, right?
Bonjour is marketing?
Everybody using webkit is marketing too, right?
Oh noes! THEY TOOK KHTML... which was a piece
of shit and they turned it into what it is today.
GOD DAMMIT. I FUCKING HATE YOU. DIE!
Re:Diversification by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-01-31 20:09 · Score: 1

Exactly. Plug it in and it's a fucking toaster. No more complicated than that. Microsoft are still nowhere near toaster-level ease of use OoBE, but they're closer than any Linux distribution given the undeniable fact that the vast, vast majority of new hardware ships with Windows! Apple are marginally closer with Mac OS but they're still not there either.
Apple's there: it's called the iPad. Toaster level of complexity, UNIX at the core. Everybody with eyes in their head can see it's the future. Of course some geeks don't like it and would rather stick their head in the sand but it (or a butchered version of it, like Windows was a butchered version of a GUI OS) will take over. Oh people will say "It's just a toy" and "I can't get any real work done on it." but that's what people said about the GUI too at the time.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:Diversification by Megane · 2012-02-01 03:55 · Score: 1

Sorry, I don't get it. Ever heard of the Apple II? That was one of the things that inspired that big blue titan to crap out a lame 8088 box, without realizing that they were giving Microsoft a slingshot orbital boost in the process.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Diversification by Fastfwd · 2012-02-01 04:52 · Score: 1

Linux also sells a social status but a less enviable one for most people.

An Engineer's Opinion by The+Immutable · 2012-01-31 11:15 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14

No, but... by Lord+Duran · 2012-01-31 11:16 · Score: 1

It seems to me this isn't a Linux issue. Was Microsoft ever just an OS vendor? Was Apple? Sun?

Maybe this is the key. The OS vendor has a unique advantage in positioning its own software; this, coupled with potentially the best understanding of the inner workings of its OS, hints to me that an OS will only really take off (in terms of market share) if a strong vendor invests in developing basic package - the kind of software you use every day, which shapes your opinion of the entire OS's user experience, and in a way your expectations from any piece of software running on the OS.

Lack of a business model by vakuona · 2012-01-31 11:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most Linux distros lack a sustainable business model. They expect people to pay for something they can get for free.

Re:Lack of a business model by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-01-31 11:45 · Score: 1

They expect people to pay for something they can get for free.
But they will make it up on lack of volume!
Re:Lack of a business model by elsurexiste · 2012-01-31 21:50 · Score: 1

It amazes me how this kind of post gets an instantaneous +5 Insightful in /. , but if you replace Linux distros with, say, movies or games, you get downmodded into oblivion....
Cognitive dissonance, I guess...

--
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
Re:Lack of a business model by satuon · 2012-01-31 21:51 · Score: 1

Does that mean my business to open a booth selling sea water and sand by the beach is unsustainable?
Re:Lack of a business model by vakuona · 2012-02-01 07:16 · Score: 1

How is pirating a game (yes I used the pirate word) the same as legally and freely downloading a Linux distro. There are many good reasons to buy games nowadays, not least if you want to play online. And movies, well, if your time is worth little, and you are still watching movies on the laptop, then maybe. And if you are into watching more than the average big budget blockbuster, you may find that your choices are severely limited.

Not in the business place by s.petry · 2012-01-31 11:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

RedHat and Suse are both a success because it's not just a distro. It's also a support structure for the OS, which is what businesses need.

Many times, a technical person looks at it and does not care. "Let me use my favorite distro this week.". But what happens when that person leaves the company and a new guy comes in with experience in a different distro? Sure, we can catch on as techies.. it's what we do. But it's a gap to get there in time, which can cost a whole lot of money.

I'm sure Redmond does not mind as many fragments as possible. Honestly it's hurt Linux much more than it's helped as far as business adaptation.

Lets face facts: Execs want numbers, not quirks. Show them how much money they can save by going with RedHat, response time on support issues, security information for SOX and E&Y auditors, etc.. and that's your ticket in. "My Gnome tool bar roxxors in Favlinux 6.0zers" is not something businesses want, need, or look at.

Frags are fine for the geeks that want to play. I'm sure there are some good things that come out of those and get added back in to the stream for Business Linux. I can't count any, but I'm sure someone has some. Just keep it out of the VP's office, and get them a supported version of Linux.

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

It's not the code, it's the talent by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-01-31 11:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is not about "cloning the distro". Anyone can download the tree in its current state. The value added is in the talent that maintains the codebase, makes improvements, applies the latest security updates, implements bugfixes, and helps the product evolve. In the case of Mandriva, there is Mageia, which is made up of many of the maintainers from Mandriva who have anticipated trouble and decided to break away from Mandriva. In other words, Mandriva the company can die, and Mandriva the product essentially lives on as Mageia.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun

Re:It's not the code, it's the talent by RDW · 2012-01-31 11:42 · Score: 1

Mageia is the real story here, and it was covered over a year ago:
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/09/18/1437248/developers-fork-mandriva-linux-creating-mageia
Mandriva is now in much the same position as Xfree86, OpenOffice, or Detroit. And Mageia has a cooler name.
Re:It's not the code, it's the talent by Dahamma · 2012-01-31 11:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your reply really reinforced the GP, not contradicted it.
He's right, there isn't a market for a *commercial vendor* selling a desktop Linux distro only (which was the question), because people can just copy it for free.
Your example just explains how you can not only copy the resulting distro, but the source as a new project. It's yet another reason a commercial desktop Linux vendor is doomed - any derivatives get the aggregate efforts of the original without paying for those efforts, meaning they can distribute it for less with only as much additional effort as they want to put in (down to zero in both cases if they choose). The original vendor makes no money for their "value added", and doesn't survive.
That may sound like a knock against open source projects, but it's not. It's a knock against people who naively think they can make money selling the open source software itself, rather than support, training, enterprise integration, etc that a company like Red Hat does to earn their income...
Re:It's not the code, it's the talent by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-01-31 12:21 · Score: 1

"Your reply really reinforced the GP, not contradicted it."
You missed the part where the people who "copied the resulting distro and the source as a new project" were the same people. You cannot copy people. You cannot copy experience. You cannot copy intimacy with the build system and intricacies. I cannot just copy the codebase and be Mandriva. There is a huge amount of effort in forking a substantial project.

Just because someone forks it, doesn't mean that they will come. I, for example, have been a Mandriva user for more than a decade, and I am still a Mandriva user. I know and appreciate that Mageia is there, and may make the switch someday, but as of yet have not done so. So, again, no, it is not nearly as simple as you and the OP would like to portray it.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Re:It's not the code, it's the talent by Dahamma · 2012-01-31 12:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think you are totally misunderstanding the OP and me... breaking it down, it is that simple:
1. Mandriva wants to sell a desktop version of Linux with various minor support features no one cares about.
2. People (probably you included) decide that's really not worthwhile to pay 50 euros for it, and instead download it for free.
3. Mandriva now has no revenvue to pay the developers, etc. and goes out of business.
4. As you said, developers leave to a derivative distro they work on as *volunteers* (and probably go find another, possibly unrelated job to pay the bills).
In the end, without significant value add that can't easily be copied, it's not going to work out. Net result: commercial Linux desktop venture ist kaput...
Re:It's not the code, it's the talent by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-01-31 14:48 · Score: 1

Mandriva was Mandrake before it was Mandriiva, and has been around for more than a decade. They use the same business model as most Open Source companies, to wit the offer a free as in beer version and a version with value added and bundled support that cost money, the way Red Hat has Fedora and RHEL, Oracle has Virtual Box OSE and Virtual Box Commercial version, etc. Their troubles have nothing to do with any false perception of a lack of viability of that model, and any mental masturbation on the subject is much ado about nothing.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Re:It's not the code, it's the talent by hairyfeet · 2012-01-31 15:09 · Score: 2

Actually WITH the value add its still kaput, the market is just too small. look at all those retailers that tried selling Linux, Walmart, Staples, best buy, they all bailed because it ended up being a money loser because ordinary folks don't buy support contracts, only corps do. look at Xandros which had the XMC which despite the hate the community threw at them if you had to work in a mixed office it was great, it played nice with AD and Exchange, Xandros server played nice in Windows server domains, but again the market was simply too small and now they are also kaput.
The problem is your competition has MASSIVE economies of scale on their side while you don't. the reason Linux works in servers is because MSFT charges assrape prices on Winserver and their licensing is a fricking maze so even with a support contract RHEL will more often than not be cheaper than Windows when it comes to any decently sized corp. but for the desktop you have to support the consumer and as a retailer i can tell you Linux is NOT consumer friendly, sure the GUI is nice but a good test of an OS is what happens when something goes wrong and on Linux that's when it all falls down. go from regular to regular or LTS to LTS and often drivers get totally borked, it has ZERO in the way of friendly driver help, like "find drivers" or "rollback drivers" buttons, instead it has a DIY forum system that unless you know your hardware as well as you do your social security number good luck buddy, because you have to know make/model/rev for most hardware. Is there a simple "last known good config" or other easy way if something goes wrong? nope your ass had damned well better know how to fix it or have a spare on hand for Googling buddy!
Personally I wish it weren't so, as I have maybe another 6 months I can just wipe and reinstall XP on these off leases before i'm gonna have to scramble for a source for Win 7 Starter, but I've tried every so called "user friendly" Linux there is and every single one ended up breaking and requiring a bunch of CLI mess to fix it. That simply won't cut it with home users so I either have to 1.-Tell them "too fucking bad, all sales are final" and screw my rep and any hope of repeat business, or 2.-Give away lifetime support and lose money on every machine. Neither one of those is acceptable so I simply can't carry your product. Oh and before someone brings up Dell i would point out since its Internet sales ONLY you are dealing with 1. because most won't keep paying for return shipping, and I'd point out dell will NOT tell you what the numbers are on its Ubuntu sales. I'd be willing to bet my last dollar because they are having to pay a dev team to run their own repo they are losing money on each and every Ubuntu sale. As everyone knows you can't lose money on every sale and make it up in volume, but since Dell also sells servers i think they are willing to take the hit in the hopes the one buying the Ubuntu box might look at a Dell server. That's good for Dell but consumers don't buy servers which MSFT found out with WHS.
So the simple fact is the market is too small for alternative OSes to really make any decent money on the desktop. I predict Canonical will bail on Ubuntu, giving it to the community, and focus on Ubuntu One within 2 years, why? Because they aren't making any money, at least not enough to pay expenses and Shuttleworth made it clear he isn't giving them more scratch. I bet when it comes time to sink or swim they'll admit just what I am saying now, that even with selling their searches and Amazon MP3s there simply isn't enough money in the desktop to allow them to break even, much less profit.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:It's not the code, it's the talent by Kevin108 · 2012-01-31 15:36 · Score: 1

The only people who would pay for Linux are already using it...who would also know how to get it for free.

--

It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
Re:It's not the code, it's the talent by Dahamma · 2012-01-31 15:57 · Score: 1

Red Hat has Fedora and RHEL
Red Hat doesn't sell a consumer desktop OS, they gave up on that and made Fedora a separate open source project years ago. And guess what? Red Hat is public, profitable, and in the S&P 500. It all goes back to the original point, a commercial consumer desktop Linux distro is not going to be successful...
Re:It's not the code, it's the talent by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-02-01 01:12 · Score: 1

" It all goes back to the original ridiculous point, "
FTFY

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Re:It's not the code, it's the talent by jon_doh2.0 · 2012-02-01 05:26 · Score: 1

Because, its so hard to run lcpci, or dmesg, or hwinfo and find out all the details of your machine. Or if (as it seems) you are only receptive to GUI based applications, try Hardinfo, its in all the repos. Don't slander Linux generally, because you are too inept to learn a few commands, or even what the right programs are for the right jobs. In the end, objectively, is one OS really any easier to trouble shoot than the other? Personally, i am used to working with Linux, and would prefer to troubleshoot that than the mrs's Windows box, any day. This is because i am more familiar with Linux and, all things being equal, will likely be able to solve the problem faster than on Windows. Not to mention that those online forums, which you seem to denigrate (over what, a premium phone call to MS?) are a near endless supply of free technical support.
Re:It's not the code, it's the talent by Dahamma · 2012-02-01 07:31 · Score: 1

I'm sure we're both getting tired of this debate - but one more question... if you don't agree with his statement, can you provide one example of a company that has a successful business model of selling a *desktop Linux distro* to *consumers*? And by successful I mean profitable and with significant potential for growth.
Mandriva is about to go bankrupt for the second time, Canonical is not profitable, Novell went down in flames and got acquired (and Attachmate is no friend of Linux, having sold a lot of IP to Microsoft), and Oracle really only cares about servers/enterprise. Red Hat is the closest one, but their Enterprise Desktop is not consumer (hence "Enterprise") and not significant anyway. Is there one out there I missed? Honestly I hope there is, let me know...
Re:It's not the code, it's the talent by Zero__Kelvin · 2012-02-01 12:00 · Score: 1

"Mandriva is about to go bankrupt for the second time"
Why do you keep mentioning Mandriva? They do not have the business model that you think that they do. Neither does Canonical, who offers Ubuntu, a community developed operating system for laptops, desktops, and servers; and Ubuntu Advantage that combines systems management tools, technical support, access to online resources, training, and legal assurance. Its services include custom engineering, hardware certification, support, training, and application packaging. The point is that nobody does operate on such a business model, so the question is absurd, and the claim that Mandriva's woes are some kind of indication that said model is no longer viable is equally absurd.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun

Re:Fragmentation again by jedidiah · 2012-01-31 11:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

> Theres a reason that after 20+ years Windows has won.

Yes. The market was already dominated by MS-DOS.

All of these "helpful suggestions" are just total nonsense that tend to ignore the actual facts.

The differences between the various flavors of Linux are mostly overblown. They all use the same basic core components. Although some are better at "packaging" than others, libfoo is still libfoo whether it's Ubuntu or Mandrake.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Maybe by mcavic · 2012-01-31 11:27 · Score: 1

RedHat's paid support model is a decent idea, but most people don't want to pay, because if you have an IT person who can support the thing a little bit, then s/he can support it completely. Even so, I think certain features might be worth paying for:
1) Phone support for all aspects of operation, including Sendmail and Apache config, SSL certs, etc.
2) Priority updates and custom fixes
3) Ability to perform reliable in-place upgrades forever, even across major revisions.
4) Hardware sales and support maybe?

well not exactly by Osgeld · 2012-01-31 11:29 · Score: 1

I know when I stopped using mandrivia, it was the moment that they switched names from mandrake and would only offer the new version (11?) if you bought the disc direct from them.

Which might have been worth while if it was not just a generic as hell redhat with a graphical installer (ohhh)

Re:well not exactly by jedidiah · 2012-01-31 11:31 · Score: 1

I switched from Mandrake when I wanted a package manager like apt-get and my attempt to retrofit it on to Mandrake failed miserably. At that point I just made the jump to Debian.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:well not exactly by sconeu · 2012-01-31 12:04 · Score: 2

Did you try urpmi? That's the equivalent to apt-get for Mandriva and Mageia.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:well not exactly by Osgeld · 2012-01-31 13:53 · Score: 1

at the time I had never used a debian based system, and was unaware of stuff like dpkg and apt-get, after mandrake I went to ubuntu and years later pretty much wont install something if it does not have the weight of debian's repositories behind it
Re:well not exactly by unixisc · 2012-02-01 05:38 · Score: 1

That was the other reason I gave up Mandrake for Corel Linux - rpm vs .deb. But in those days, I had problems finding any Linux where the Network card was easily detected. Thankfully, it's not a problem today.

This kills Scalix by kimvette · 2012-01-31 11:35 · Score: 1

With Mandriva dying, they will probably take Scalix down with them.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50

Stealing markets by Fri13 · 2012-01-31 11:41 · Score: 2

One big (should I say HUGE) reason what cause someone drop out from markets is that someone else enters to same market and is not depending sale income like the others already on market.

Example. Canonical would not exist if Mark Shuttleworth would not be spending his personal money to artificially maintain Canonical up.

The situation is exactly the same as someone is selling handmade product A on corner of street and every penny what is gained, is needed so the production can be maintained. Then one rich guy choose to drive that person away from the market. So he use money what his daddy has and as his daddy is millionaire, the new kid on the block can lower the street price and steal customers. No one can not compete against that one.

Same problem is with stock markets... Not all people can get enough loans to start a new company. Especially when there are bigger corporations with dominant market position or other way a constant incomes what they can spend.

Microsoft can do what ever it wants with money what it gets from Windows and Office sale... And it does not need to compete to maintain that money... WIth that money, Microsoft has maintained PC dominant market position and bought the gaming console markets for itself and even is now buying the smart phone markets for itself unless customers steps against it. Sony made same thing with PS3 on the HD DVD and Blu-ray war. They bought the market with PS3 Blu-ray drive.

Canonical has done same thing for Mandriva and other commercial Linux distributors what has been dependable of income of selling their distribution, their support, their service and maintenance tools etc.

Starting a company first by gathering funds for it, is needed when everyone are small on market and there is space for everyone. But when you are competing against big corporation, they can just wipe their asses and light their cicarettes with bills and laugh doing it while driving competitors away.

If Mark Shuttleworth would really want to support Open Source, he would have spended money directly to different Open Source projects, instead starting a own company in tax paradise (Man Island) to avoid taxes and starting a own distribution while same time stealing name of Linux operating system and promote their own Ubuntu distribution as "new Operating System". And while doing that, Mark has blessed the actions to steal income from other upstream projects like Banshee.

And the goal of the Mark was to gain enough fanatic Ubuntu followers who would support and price Canonical like it would be Apple 2.0 and that way to drive everyone out of the markets by giving the false information how Canonical is making a own OS, how they are the developing party of Open Source Projects and how they have managed to get everything up what they include in Ubuntu, leaving the upstream, original developers and communities without mentioning.

All that is legal, but it is not ethical or anyway related to Open Source honorable ethics. It is like stealing others fame and doings by presenting them as own...

Community Profit margin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 11:45 · Score: 1

This is why I am and will be a Debian GNU/Linux supporter. Cannonical's Ubuntu is only as powerful as its Debian GNU/Linux underpinings.

Selling Support and Services by xzvf · 2012-01-31 11:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

RedHat, Suse and Canonical all sell support, not Linux and other Open Source software. You pay for RedHat (the most successful FOSS vendor) to have access to RHN for package updates, someone to call for support, training and certification, and a conduit back into the FOSS community. Suse is similar. Canonical still has a way to go in the enterprise space but has a solid financial backer, and is making money using FOSS to provide services. In fact you can include Amazon, Google and a host of others as successful companies that leverage FOSS to provide services.

Canonical is a bit different... by Junta · 2012-01-31 11:52 · Score: 1

Their business plan doesn't seem to involve extracting money from the actual users of the product by and large, but rather selling the users as a product. For example, Ubunutu ships (last I checked) with the ability to buy from Amazon MP3 trivially, conveniently with Canonical's referal id. I'm not sure the details, but I believe Google pays them some to be the default search engine. Their ambitious future plans seem to revolve around having an "Ubuntu media store", as well as convincing someone to buy into their platform for set-top/embedded tv usage. My gut reaction is to be skeptical, but then I realize the TV embedded platforms are highly fragmented and seemingly immature and I don't see them as particularly disadvantaged compared to Boxee or Roku in terms of a platform to build upon, though the latter have worked more logistics with commercial content providers.

Whatever the case, they do have a lot of mindshare in the linux server market. Mostly its among those who don't want to pay (or have a mix of support/no-support scnarios to balance) and find the RHEL/CentOS/SL/Fedora landscape to be a bit suboptimal. RedHat might need to stop pretending they are selling an OS and let people easily acquire it for no cost. As it stands if you never call support you actually have a nicer experience with CentOS than RHEL aside from lagging in release cycle.

SuSE's share in Europe still seems pretty strong, so they aren't out of the game just yet.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

I've been using linux for years by stevenfuzz · 2012-01-31 11:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

And every major version update still fucks up all my video card configurations (not to mention a bunch of other stuff). Try explaining to your wife over the phone: "Sorry baby, you shouldn't have hit update while I was at work. It's simple, just open up the terminal on the desktop, SSH to the laptop and replace xorg.conf with xorg.conf-backup". Her responding being, "This computer is stupid. Why can't we use windows like normal people?".

Re:I've been using linux for years by stevenfuzz · 2012-01-31 13:03 · Score: 1

Only idiots update their kernels / other stuff on their PERSONAL Linux boxes at home right? You're an idiot if you think that "don't upgrade" is the answer to the issue's of distributions having upgrade problem--not to mention a child for sounding like such an ass.
Re:I've been using linux for years by stevenfuzz · 2012-01-31 13:10 · Score: 1

You know what, furthermore, idiot, my point was that Linux makes it difficult for the everyday computer user to complete ostensibly easy tasks / smoothly TRY OUT new features and updates without hurdles. Personally, I can fix any issues that happen to my linux box (at work or home) with relative ease. This wasn't about me. I mean, I know you can read based on your worthless drivel or a response, so I'm confused at what point you are making here....
Re:I've been using linux for years by stevenfuzz · 2012-01-31 13:28 · Score: 1

I wish I could moderate my own responses to -1! I don't usually get off on flaimbait like this. Dude said I was an idiot and lemming for applying updates to my personal computer. I'm pretty sure this is exactly the kind of thinking that creates such a hard time for linux.
Re:I've been using linux for years by donaldm · 2012-01-31 15:50 · Score: 1

And every major version update still fucks up all my video card configurations (not to mention a bunch of other stuff). Try explaining to your wife over the phone: "Sorry baby, you shouldn't have hit update while I was at work. It's simple, just open up the terminal on the desktop, SSH to the laptop and replace xorg.conf with xorg.conf-backup". Her responding being, "This computer is stupid. Why can't we use windows like normal people?".
Wow you let your non-technical wife run updates you are brave :)

--
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Re:I've been using linux for years by unixisc · 2012-02-01 05:50 · Score: 1

Wouldn't one have to run as root to do that? Solution sounds simple - don't give the wife the root password, but just tell her to work in her own account. Even on my XP system, I had my account, and my wife hers. Since then, on every system, I assign separate accouts to everybody who uses them, and never touch root unless I'm installing new software or drivers.
Re:I've been using linux for years by stevenfuzz · 2012-02-02 13:23 · Score: 1

That was an anecdote. I don't see an OS becoming commercially feasible if a computer literate person (my wife) can't handle a root password or an update. I am a huge Linux supporter (I will only dev in Linux, period), but as a whole it seams to miss the boat completely on some simple stuff. Updates shouldn't be popping up on the screen saying "Updates Ready" if they are not ready or tested. Especially since my laptop and work computer don't have any crazy hardware or anything. Also, you try to explain to my wife what a root password is and why she can't have it!
Re:I've been using linux for years by unixisc · 2012-02-02 19:57 · Score: 1

That one is simple - to prevent one from potentially screwing up the entire system. Only time I log in as root is if I'm installing new software, or if I'm trying to change ownership of some files from one user to another, and move them from one home directory to another. In the above case w/ my wife, I was describing an XP system, where any number of accounts can have admin access, but in Linux, the fact that only root has such access is a plus. Even though I own my own laptop and am the only user, while I had Linux on it, I had 4 user accounts, 2 of which were mine, as well as my wife's and a guest account. root was there, but separate, and I only went there whenever I needed to install new software, or do a global app update, like Firefox.

Education by jbolden · 2012-01-31 11:56 · Score: 2

The whole premise of this article is wrong. During the time when Mandriva was Mandrake, the Linux OS part of Mandrake was profitable. However, they diversified into Educational Products, that were going to be sold to European schools. That business lost a ton of money. They went bankrupt and reformed as Mandriva.

Ubuntu sort of took the power user desktop niche away and I don't know if Mandriva could have been successful with Ubuntu there. But Mandrake did exactly what the article suggests.

Re:Education by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-02-01 18:35 · Score: 1

I know Mandriva has its fans, but from the few machines I've had to help bail out of Mandriva I found their idea about sensible defaults for just about everything to be bass-ackwards. From that start, what's the point?
Maybe my clean-shaven counterpart in the mirror universe is a Mandriva admin and they're still doing a strong business.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Education by jbolden · 2012-02-02 00:33 · Score: 1

I was more of a Mandrake user than a Mandriva user.
Essentially the idea was that while most distributions were pretty good about getting software onto your system the initial setup was quite often too hard. Nothing worked out of the box right. Mandrake had stuff setup and had a unified system for minor reconfiguration.
For example Mandrake invented the idea of an administrative panal. They were the first distribution that tied setting across multiple apps together into a unified framework. So for example I could issue a command like "mandrake-security 3" and everything from my xwindows to my password scheme to my firewall setting would all change. This was like the linux commend line configuration or webmin except it actually worked.
And lots of stuff from the webserver to the ftp server just worked. You pressed one button it was on and setup in a way you could use it. I'll agree beyond minor reconfiguration it got difficult. Another example is they merged KDE and Gnome together, before this was easy. They understood people were going to want to use applications from both sets while still wanting a desktop that at least looked consistent.
The point was it got you a workstation Linux running quickly that pretty much did everything you wanted. It was setup well for the person who used a diverse group of software lightly, which is very different than the typical Unix which is setup for a person who uses a small subset heavily. For what I wanted: a good TeX with a minium of hassles plus other stuff Windows couldn't do when I needed it quickly and easily, it just perfect.

The obvious answer is... by stevenfuzz · 2012-01-31 12:02 · Score: 2, Funny

No. People universally distrust penguins. They are too cocky and pretentious in their little tux's. If only penguins were sweet and juicy like an apple and translucent like a window. Instead we get these little bone and blood filled over-dressed pests that you can't see through at all.

Re:ummm... who cares about commercial linux by Junta · 2012-01-31 12:06 · Score: 2

Redhat for instance only has a few percent of the packaged apps of Debian.

To be fair, the 'core' RHEL packages are a bit more thoroughly tested than Debian's universe. There are also add-on repositories, though RHEL doesn't make it quite as trivial to add. An example of it not being so rosy on the debian side, the roundcube webmail package was (still is?) completely unusable as it calls out a php configuration that will not be implemented by the current php packages. An upstream update to roundcube was available to work with the newer php situation, but debian had packaged the newer php and older roundcube, making things *not* 'just work' and indeed forcing you to leave the .dpkg versions behind if you wanted it to work.

The package manager for Redhat is inferior.

I have no qualms about rpm compared to dpkg. With yum, I also have no qualms compared to apt. I will say rpm more elegantly coped with the i386/x86_64 mix than I saw .dpkg based distros achieve.

Upgrades are a non-event with Debian, Redhat recommends a clean install and migrate data for every upgrade.

You *can* upgrade RHEL in pretty much the same way. Just like debian, however, there are some awkward scenarios when you do it that way on occasion. For example, my php install was hosed on my last dist-upgrade. Some stale config files for a formerly external module (IIRC, sqlite) brought all php scripts to a halt. It wasn't difficult for most skilled admins to identify the issue and resolve, but it represents an unknown/unexpected delay and there are many Enterprise IT shops that would actually be stopped in their tracks until someone came and bailed them out.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.

Mod Parent Up by dead_cthulhu · 2012-01-31 12:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd have done it myself if my mod points didn't vanish yesterday. I've certainly been the sort of geek who hasn't done well in communicating with others when it comes to technical matters. Despite years of bugging friends and family members to "just get a Mac" every time I had to give out free tech support, no one ever did because I didn't/couldn't articulate the reasons why this would be a good idea. I think I've learnt my lesson, and have been able to get people to at least start playing with *nix by actually *showing* how it's not so scary to use and how easy it is to run plenty of Windows software through WINE.

Re:Mod Parent Up by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-01-31 16:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd have done it myself if my mod points didn't vanish yesterday. I've certainly been the sort of geek who hasn't done well in communicating with others when it comes to technical matters. Despite years of bugging friends and family members to "just get a Mac" every time I had to give out free tech support, no one ever did because I didn't/couldn't articulate the reasons why this would be a good idea. I think I've learnt my lesson, and have been able to get people to at least start playing with *nix by actually *showing* how it's not so scary to use and how easy it is to run plenty of Windows software through WINE.
But showing users that it's (almost) as easy to use as Windows isn't good enough. You have to convince them that it's enough *better* for *their particular use case* than Windows and MacOS.
For most users, the fact that a whole bunch of stuff works right out of the box with little or no effort to bring it up is a huge selling point. The ability to buy almost any software title and have it work on Windows is a huge selling point. What's a few hours of lost work (or play) time worth to you? To the average user, it's worth more than the price of a commercial OS.
Re:Mod Parent Up by unrtst · 2012-01-31 17:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

For most users, the fact that a whole bunch of stuff works right out of the box with little or no effort to bring it up is a huge selling point.
I honestly thought that was the start of a list of things you could say in favor of a linux desktop, but, by the end of your paragraph, I'm starting to think you actually meant Windows just works right out of the box. Is that what you meant? And, if so, have you setup either Ubuntu or Windows from near scratch recently (near scratch, as in, bought a new pc even)?
Anecdotal story, but I recently setup a netbook for the girlfriend... took me weeks (prodding it here and there and letting it churn). Took me two days just to get Windows updates caught up (for the first time)... the download was plenty fast, but all the reboots and suddenly there's more to update were just crazy. Removing the bloatware... more time (and it was an asus, which supposedly doesn't ship with too much bloatware in comparison to most). Adding bog standard programs she'd need... tons more time (B&N reader; itunes; vlc; firefox; chrome; thundirbird; nero; sims3; PvZ; etc). And most of those have some silly updates that, for some reason, didn't come with it to begin with. Importing the music and video collection... holy crap that took a long time. Setting up backups... uh, WTH? why isn't there something easy to use for that shit yet? Tried tweaking Windows 7 start menu so she could find the handful of apps she'll actually end up using... near impossible (I ended up following a suggestion from MS and creating a folder/drawer thing on the start bar that listed shortcuts I put there - what a hack). Then many hours poking at the bluetooth a2dp support, and I just gave up on that one (so she could wirelessly stream to the receiver... and, fwiw, that worked plug-n-play from my linux desktop).
And, I know this isn't really MS's fault, but to top it off... I bought Sims 3 for her (she love it); It installed, updated, and ran fine (a tad slow, but fine). A week later, and every time you start it, it freezes on the "update" screen and won't let you even click cancel! Found a work-around... disable the network, and it'll start up and run. You can feel free to say that would happen on other OS's, but I can't recall any software I got from freebsd ports, gentoo portage, debian apt repos, ubuntu repos, fedora/redhat rpm repos, etc that ended up in that situation. Even proprietary stuff like Quake 3 for Linux that I bought way back in the day... community came out with patches to keep it working.
"The ability to buy almost any software title and have it work on Windows...", I totally agree that's a huge selling point.
The ability to use the software you have as long as you like an however you want... well, that seems like a pretty damn good thing too.
Being able to search/browse in one software interface (ex. synaptic), select some stuff, and click go and they'll all be installed AND UP TO DATE WHEN INSTALLED is a HUGE selling point. And debian-based distro's update - "sudo apt-get update && sudo reboot", go to sleep (or just get coffee... doesn't take that long), and it's done.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not entirely knocking Windows. There's a reason they have so much market share, and it's not entirely due to their monopoly practices. I bought the damn thing knowing what it was, and it's what I wanted for this situation. It's the first copy of windows I've bought or used in about a decade (besides a corporate copy or two for occasional use on a vm), but the experience cemented my belief that, even though Ubuntu is jacking the shit out of what I want, it's still far more appropriate for my usage than Windows, and I can always distro hop again.
Re:Mod Parent Up by timbo234 · 2012-01-31 21:52 · Score: 2

"I honestly thought that was the start of a list of things you could say in favor of a linux desktop, but, by the end of your paragraph, I'm starting to think you actually meant Windows just works right out of the box. Is that what you meant? And, if so, have you setup either Ubuntu or Windows from near scratch recently (near scratch, as in, bought a new pc even)?"
I have, just last week on a PC I assembled myself from decent quality brand-name (D-Link, Asrock, Saphire, AMD) parts. And yes the difference was amazing comparing Windows 7 to Ubuntu - all hardware, including the graphics card, worked out of the box perfectly in 64-bit Ubuntu.
With Windows 7 I had to go through inserting CDs for each bit of hardware to get it working - the motherboard driver CD even went ahead and installed a whole load of crapware that I didn't ask for! Worst of all though the nice D-Link Atheros WLAN card that worked perfectly in Ubuntu failed to work in Win 7 at all, with neither the drivers from the included driver CD nor the latest from D-Link's website. I had to send it back.

--
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
Re:Mod Parent Up by garaged · 2012-02-01 00:11 · Score: 1

It all comes down to wanting to learn something and getting the most out of it versus expending money to achieve things because you are lazy.
The average user would have to invest like 10% more time learning linux to be able to do his/her job, but prefers the commercial option along with expending much more time reinstalling because of viruses and the need for new hardware to support the latest OS version.

--
I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
Re:Mod Parent Up by naranek · 2012-02-01 04:48 · Score: 1

It gets even better than that. I have installed Kubuntu to a USB stick. I've booted about ten different computers from it and had them work perfectly. Or at least I haven't come across any problems. Even the wireless connections on laptops have worked fine. I'd like to see someone try that with windows.

--
Only dumb birds land downwind.
Re:Mod Parent Up by mcgrew · 2012-02-01 08:25 · Score: 1

I've certainly been the sort of geek who hasn't done well in communicating with others when it comes to technical matters.
That's because they don't understand the terminology. Every time I try to talk tech with a non-nerd, their eyes glaze over. Anything else I have no problem discussing.
I've gotten to the point I just tell them "Windows sucks." They can understand that. The third time someone brings me an infected machine, I just format the drive and throw kubuntu on it. I never have many problems after that.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Mod Parent Up by mcgrew · 2012-02-01 09:07 · Score: 1

I'm a Windows hater (if I ever stop getting 503s when trying to post a JE you'll see a vitriolic rant about Windows), but
Tried tweaking Windows 7 start menu so she could find the handful of apps she'll actually end up using... near impossible
That's easy. Open the app once and it's there. Then just right clik the start menu icon it just put there and select "pin to start menu." It's almost like you do it in kde.
Be glad it's not an Acer with the stupid "tap to click" bug that they call a "feature". I thought I'd never find the setting to disable it, turns out it's where you'd least expect it. Three clicks in kde.
Then many hours poking at the bluetooth a2dp support
I don't think Windows supports bluetooth at all. I bought a bluetooth dongle to get photos from the phone to the computer, had to run an install CD (which meant I had to copy it to a thumb drive on the Linux computer) and it was still flaky as hell. I was a bit concerned when I opened it, because it had software and drivers for Mac and Windows but not Linux, but when I plugged the dongle into the Linux box it just worked. No driver install, no extra software, it's part of the distro. It is what Windows claims to be.
"The ability to buy almost any software title and have it work on Windows...", I totally agree that's a huge selling point. The ability to use the software you have as long as you like an however you want... well, that seems like a pretty damn good thing too.
Maybe, but it isn't true. When I got XP several years ago, half my software no longer worked. When I got 98 before that, few DOS games worked. And try running Amarok or XMMS on Windows!
There's a reason they have so much market share
Yeah -- it comes preinstalled on every non-apple computer sold. If it were illegal to sell a PC with an OS, Microsoft would have very few customers. It is plainly inferior in almost every respect to both Linux and Macs. There isn't a single thing I can do on my Windows box I can't in Linux,but quite a bit I can do in Linux that's impossible to do in Windows. Like, say, keep it running for more than a month without rebooting. Like not needing AV. Like having my computer come up after a boot in the same condition it was before, all programs and data still open, even after a kernel update.
the experience cemented my belief that, even though Ubuntu is jacking the shit out of what I want, it's still far more appropriate for my usage than Windows, and I can always distro hop again.
I may go back to mandriva. But probably not.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Mod Parent Up by mcgrew · 2012-02-01 09:41 · Score: 1

The average user would have to invest like 10% more time learning linux to be able to do his/her job
That was true ten years ago, not today. Kubuntu is more like XP than Win 7 is. And if all PCs came naked, and Linux cost as much as Windows, Linux would be the default. Windows is a complete pain in the ass to install (see someon else's comment earlier about installing Win 7).
I think I'll upgrade my old HP's (1.7 hz chip, 750 megs of memory) OS tonight. I'm running kubuntu 10.04, 11.10 is out. It should take five clicks or less, and a half hour of watching TV while it does its thing. Then a single reboot, as opposed to Windows needing at least one reboot for every single driver and every single piece of software.
Linux just works.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Mod Parent Up by unrtst · 2012-02-01 11:15 · Score: 1

A Windows 7 setup disk you must install onto the PC (or vm) is NOT the same as a bootable and fully functional OS that runs FROM a USB key and needs no additional drivers or setup or anything to work.
Re:Mod Parent Up by unrtst · 2012-02-01 11:39 · Score: 1

Tried tweaking Windows 7 start menu so she could find the handful of apps she'll actually end up using... near impossible
That's easy. Open the app once and it's there. Then just right clik the start menu icon it just put there and select "pin to start menu." It's almost like you do it in kde.
But you can't (AFAICT) organize those into folders. And there was a maximum number of items you can have on there (though I'm sure there's a registry tweak to change that). I tried modifying the start menu itself, and broke things badly... rolled back system changes to fix it.

The ability to use the software you have as long as you like an however you want... well, that seems like a pretty damn good thing too.
Maybe, but it isn't true. When I got XP several years ago, half my software no longer worked.

That's what I meant... I meant that software would not keep working on windows, but would on Linux.

And try running Amarok or XMMS on Windows!
Yep, I also included Clementine, which is an Amarok 1.4 fork. Told her to use that as her primary music player. Put iTunes on there cause she has an iPod though, and I know she and her friends and coworkers and such would want it on there.
I'm still naively hoping a holy grail of backup solutions will appear. BackupPC + rsnapshot has been doing ok for my linux boxes, but it's still very rudimentary, and getting those to work on Windows is painful and incomplete (ex. can't backup locked system files). Apples time machine is the closest thing I've seen to what an ideal desktop solution would be. I don't know why there aren't better ones for Linux (use inotify + rsnapshot + nautilus/dolphin integration + command line tools to see history + something bootable to restore files from). And it blows me away that there aren't better ones for Windows.
Re:Mod Parent Up by jon_doh2.0 · 2012-02-01 17:09 · Score: 1

He means a live-USB. In that you insert it, and one minute later you are in a fully featured desktop environment!

I have Puppy Linux on my 1GB USB. The OS itself is on it's own partition, of around 50MB (yes fifty megabytes; how big is Windows again? And it does also come with a whole stack of peripheral hardware driver rolled in too, of course, or?). The other partition on the USB is full of ROM files for various emulators (fun fun fun). I have my pick of browsers and desktop applications, myriad system tools, software synthes, etc, etc, etc. I can boot that sucker on nearly ANY PC in seconds, completely bypassing any Windows password prompts and have full access to the host systems HD.

Do that with Windows.

So, keep dreaming Windows can do even a tenth of what Linux can.

Linux helps makes the computer world go round, Microsoft throw endless wrenches in the works: patent cases, monopolistic practices, continual contravention of software standard, etc, etc, etc.
Re:Mod Parent Up by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-02-01 17:20 · Score: 1

The average user NEVER installs an operating system at all nor should he want to or have to.
The user needs to run applications. He doesn't care what's under the hood.
But if you tell him that Linux suffers fewer virus attacks than Windows -- total yawnfest. He's not interested. That's something that should be taken care of behind the scenes without his involvement.
If you want to sell him on that advantage, you have to show him how obtrusive the virus scanning software really is and how it impedes him from getting to the tasks he wants to do with his computer. Displaying Powerpoints or sending email or browsing the web or fetching documents on the corporate server or designing airplane parts. Show him the things that he cares about work better and he's SOLD.
Don't brag about how easy it is to learn Linux. He doesn't WANT to learn Linux any more than he wants to learn Windows or MacOS.
Re:Mod Parent Up by garaged · 2012-02-02 01:44 · Score: 1

The fact that the average user DO NOT installs his OS just makes my point stand, they spend more time asking or paying for the system to be reinstalled.
Also, only on corporate envs. Users dont do any installations, most people have at least gone to the process of installing on first boot, or recovered from CDs or with the classic hidden partition.
I dont want to brag at all, Im just commenting a fact, laziness just makes people waste more time AND money, too bad for them.

--
I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
Re:Mod Parent Up by dead_cthulhu · 2012-02-02 12:33 · Score: 1

For most users, the fact that a whole bunch of stuff works right out of the box with little or no effort to bring it up is a huge selling point. The ability to buy almost any software title and have it work on Windows is a huge selling point.
I've really given up on working to get converts lest I become as annoying as the JWs. I really have come to the conclusion that there really isn't One True OS that satisfies the needs of all users. And even on the *nix side, most folk pick a distro that "just works" (which can be a rather subjective criterion).as well.
After the latest rounds of virus infections hit them (clueless family members), my sister got a Mac (which I will provide phone support for) and my folks still stick with windows because they "don't want to change" (nevermind that MS keeps overhauling the interface). They're stuck calling tech support.

FOSS, including Linux, does have a killer "app" by quixote9 · 2012-01-31 12:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's called user control and privacy. 99.95% of people don't care about that too much, but every Megaupload that happens inches people a bit closer to realizing that no control is maybe not all that free.

It's interesting that the Department of Defense in the US is using more and more open source software, even while lots of people are saying "My data? Who cares?" Once control is worth something to you, there's no real alternative, ultimately, to FOSS. Or writing your own custom software.

Re:FOSS, including Linux, does have a killer "app" by Megane · 2012-02-01 04:00 · Score: 1

Geeks want a computer that doesn't know too much about them.
Everybody else wants a computer that they don't have to know too much about it.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }

Linux adds billions in value. It doesn't get paid by quixote9 · 2012-01-31 12:45 · Score: 1, Interesting

Google, Amazon, the majority of servers, the list could go on forever, all wouldn't exist without linux. Apple strapped on the rocket engine known as BSD, but I'd be surprised if BSD is being paid by them. That doesn't seem like Apple's style.

Linux is adding unmeasurable value. All it needs is a different model of how creativity is rewarded.

We should be censusing usage and paying creators. The more your product was used or enjoyed, the more you'd get paid. In that world, linux wouldn't have a thing to worry about. (And, yeah, I know the nitty gritty of censusing and paying out is really complicated and it could never work perfectly. But it could work well enough to funnel a lot more of the rewards to the actual coders, writers, artists, musicians, than the few measly percent the current system does.)

Re:Waitwhat... by Bucky24 · 2012-01-31 12:58 · Score: 1

Are you talking about a Virtual Private Server, or hosting your own server in a colocation facility?

The company I work for has Debian VPS slices, so there's that... But if you're looking for an OS X slice... I think you'd have to use some sort of hackintosh for that.

--
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents

in another few years it wont matter by FudRucker · 2012-01-31 13:09 · Score: 1

because sooner or later the government at the behest of their bankster & corporate overlords are going to pull the rug out from under internet freedom and the internet will be reduced to online shopping at your government/bankster/corporate approved websites, forums like your beloved slashdot will be a thing of the past since these evil overlord dont want to be bothered with filtering and approving all the comments, so the internet will resemble an interactive version of the "shopping channel" much like what you have on your local cable television, I will pull the plug and cancel my ISP account when that happens.

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing

Another very poorly researched article. by thatkid_2002 · 2012-01-31 14:29 · Score: 2

Mandriva was also selling Mandriva Directory Server - which was a good product IMO. Isn't providing management/services products making them "more than just an OS vendor"?. Novell was doing exactly the same thing with eDirectory/Zenworks.

Re:Community Profit margin by iggymanz · 2012-01-31 14:41 · Score: 1

nope, Debian gets a little stale before its next release while Debian-derived distros have newer kernels and apps. That's never been a problem for me on servers (it's my favorite Linux server distro) but on a desktop or laptop that makes problems.

First thought after reading TFS... by Tastecicles · 2012-01-31 14:54 · Score: 1

Mandriva is a very good platform for headless applications such as remotely monitored CCTV systems (I speak from experience, having deployed Zoneminder several times). Perhaps the vendor ought to be considering specified hardware solutions (not just Mandriva, all of the major distributions)? I can certainly help there with a spec for a multi-source CCTV system (32 cameras!)

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.

Re:98% by icebike · 2012-01-31 15:23 · Score: 1

LOL. Point taken.

But lets just say that vast majority of people who might try to replace Windows with any current version of Ubuntu would probably succeed, because the installer is just that good.

Not a fan of Unity either.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

All about services. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 15:45 · Score: 1

Bolt on a gaming service, and actually pay Nvidia/ATi to ship binary driver support. none of the free distros do this, and they all suck for usabiltiy of games. Also hire some wine devs to fixup older game support in wine and integrate themes etc and you'd have a pretty reasonable paid distro. Make deals with humble bundle, LGP, and ID Software to get more titles on your distro. Even include demos/full games. I think a distro could actually sell well with that. Remember the Cedega/Mandriva Sims bundle? Right idea, just needed to have some more titles/aim at more core linux users. I would license a AAA RTS like starcraft 2 or something similar maybe Heart of the Swarm, and bundle it with the OS.

Re:Gaming by Tastecicles · 2012-01-31 15:54 · Score: 1

Which is Debian based, IIRC. As is Knoppix, to which Kanotix is closely related. Knoppix was there first and is by far the more mature (and way better looking/performing).

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.

Man-dribble, er, whatever... by certain+death · 2012-01-31 15:57 · Score: 1

Back in the day...Mandrake had a thing called MNF - Multi Network Firewall. I used it and it was great, but it disappeared for some reason. I think if they would have kept headed down that road, they would have done much better, but they started having lots of issues, even back then, that were insurmountable by anyone at or near the helm of the company.

--
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus

Linux will always be number three by Vandil+X · 2012-01-31 18:41 · Score: 1

-Windows for games and Active Directory-managed MSOffice-dominated corporate offices.

-Mac OS X for creative types and the content creators for the aforementioned corporate offices.

-Linux for the sysadmin to play with at home and, at work, to have running on an old box in the server room to do a task that a Windows server could probably do just fine, but not as efficiently, and is in constant danger of being replaced with a Windows system, just so the SOX manager will be happy.

--
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START

Ubuntu as "the Gateway Drug for Linux" by Herve5 · 2012-01-31 21:55 · Score: 2

Indeed I just moved from Mandriva to Ubuntu because the last Mandriva update crashed everything on my machine. And I was almost shocked to find Ubuntu *easier* than OSX on a couple of point (e. g. capable to run an external 3G modem without extra sw install, and share immediately this connection via wifi straight from a permanently visible system menu).

So probably yes I'm among those non-geek users that have been driven to Ubuntu just because of its fame. But it works.

Whenever I have some time I'll try a couple of other distros among those you advocate for here -but indeed this requires time. And Mandriva borking its upgrade didn't overmotivate me...

--
Herve S.

Ubuntu / Unity + some more default repositories by Herve5 · 2012-01-31 22:00 · Score: 1

I couldn't agree more with the post above.
If I really have to add something, for me, in order to be instantly useable by anyone for work (not development), the current Ubuntu only needs to add some extra repositories in its default list, so that the end-user finds any application he heards of is easily installable.
That's just the only thing missing for instant everyday use -and instant installation.

--
Herve S.

Too many distros by melonman · 2012-01-31 23:37 · Score: 1

Sorry for coming back to this old theme, but it seems to me that Mandriva just didn't have a niche to fill. Debian/RedHat have different parts of the server market. Suse has always had a niche market, and deals with other vendors might help. Ubuntu has pretty much cleaned up the "Just works on the desktop" market (whether or not that reputation is justified). Mandriva seemed to be aiming at something like the Ubuntu market, but there just wasn't enough room for two.

Yes, yes, yes to all the technically valid points about how distros are largely collections of files from elsewhere, about how any distro can therefore do anything if you hack it enough, etc. But, if we're talking about markets, what you get when you open the box is quite important. And what you seemed to get with Mandriva, at least at first glance, was "Like Ubuntu but with less resources behind it."

And yes to the possibility and maybe even the desirability of a thousand distros. But I can't see how more than a few of those distros can make serious money at any one time.

--
Virtually serving coffee

Is the an OS market at all? by bWareiWare.co.uk · 2012-01-31 23:56 · Score: 1

Would Microsoft or Apple survive in any recognisable shape with just OS sales?
OS's have always been lost-leaders, early on for hardware, later for other software and now for marketplaces and other services.

You are part of the problem by jabberw0k · 2012-02-01 01:17 · Score: 2

Microsoft's juggernaut rolls on your back, precisely because MS depends on geeks like you to do all the hard work that people think is free. If everyone had to pay for the $1000 of your time you gave away, they would see the advantages of Linux or even Mac. So stop insulting yourself by giving your time away for free... aren't you worth it? Let people really understand the pain of Microsoft.

Re:You are part of the problem by unrtst · 2012-02-01 11:20 · Score: 1

FWIW, I NEVER do this for anyone. This was an exception and done as a Christmas gift. I don't think gifts should be painful. Plus she has no idea what to do on a computer, and extremely little use for it (she's not on facebook even, and her mom is still on AOL dialup (on a windows box I'm 100% sure is ridden with viri)), so I wanted to make sure it'd be relatively locked down and very easy to use.

The Key To A Linux Distro Survival by assertation · 2012-02-01 01:44 · Score: 1

The key to survival for a linux distro is to do something SIGNIFICANTLY unique from other distros.

Look at any of the top distros, they either do or are living off of the "did".

Not Until Linux Quits Being Free by trongey · 2012-02-01 02:56 · Score: 1

Most people (at least in my part of the world) have grown up with the expectation that "you get what you pay for". The corollary to that is that if something is free then it's worthless - regardless of whether people conciously think that. Yes, everybody wants a free Ferrari, but only because the value of the Ferrari has already been established by it's exhorbitant price. Quit giving Linux away, and set the price at $200/seat then you will see people start to be interested.

--
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.

Re:Linux vendor's can't even sell Linux by jedidiah · 2012-02-01 03:23 · Score: 1

That is not an answer.

That's just more of the same stupid empty rhetoric.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:Linux vendor's can't even sell Linux by jedidiah · 2012-02-01 03:25 · Score: 1

Oh. So this is the best that anyone here could come up with? Really. I have to de-compile the thing before it's obvious that anything has improved what so ever? That's just stupid.

As always, one wonders how Microsoft ever stays in business with this crap.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:Waitwhat... by unixisc · 2012-02-01 05:45 · Score: 1

FreeBSD would do fine if they tried pushing PC-BSD against Linux as far as desktop OSs went. Only thing - during the first instell, one has to know to some of the pitfalls one will run into while going about it, but if any company were to pre-install them on desktops, they'd be fine. FreeBSD also does well as a firewall & router (pFsense) and has some other distros as well, but from what I understand, for the consumer desktop, none as great as PC-BSD.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-02-01 07:58 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

BeOS by unixisc · 2012-02-01 19:40 · Score: 1

It's true that Gasse wanted a ton of cash if Apple wanted to buy, but Be, despite the BeBox, was apparently not ready for the market. Or else, Motorola, Power Computing & Umax, who were building PREP boxes, once they lost their MacOS licenses, could easily have switched to Be, and started another platform, for which Be would have been both the OS, as well as the software vendor. Unfortunately, never materialized.

Re:Fragmentation again by unixisc · 2012-02-01 20:19 · Score: 1

Except that Ubuntu may put libfoo under /etc/somewhere, while Mandrake may put libfoo under /etc/somewhere_else/. That's one more problem w/ Linux - depending on the distro you are using, don't be surprised if you can't find the config file in the same directory as in another distro. Something that I've heard ain't so much of a problem under the BSDs

Re:Is Windows support free? by Barbara,+not+Barbie · 2012-02-07 19:38 · Score: 1

I think one of the things you miss is that customers *will* pay for things like wipe-and-re-install on Windows because it's worth it to them to keep being able to play their games and run their programs because those are Windows games and Windows programs.

People don't buy an operating system to run an OS - they buy it to run programs.

Linux, for most people, is *not* better. It won't run all of the programs that people use. For them, the alternatives are Windows or a Mac.

When's the last time you or anyone you know paid for linux? Or linux support? Consumer linux is never going to make money. Look at the latest feeble attempt - rebadging an obsolete $120 Zenithing C71 tablet and trying to sell it for $260 as a KDE tablet. You can tell the dev lives in Calgary - he has brain freeze. Worse, his promotional video is a fake - it was done on a 14" or 15" laptop, not a 7" tablet. And yet people "oh" and "ah" - and we wonder why we're labeled freetards???

As for updates to Windows systems, I had a series of updates trash both my opensuse systems - and I'm not alone. One of my friends (who didn't make the mistake of upgrading to 12.1) has had the same buggy updates turn his computer into a box that can only run one program at a time. If he's running Thunderbird, he has to exit it before he starts firefox, or the machine reboots. When he wants to write an email, he has to boot into Windows so he can have both a browser and libreoffice open at the same time. Why? Because open source is too often just crap.

Grab the source for the programs that make up a distro and compile it from scratch. I did that last month. The number of compiler warnings for stupid, completely avoidable problems (comparison between signed and unsigned, invalid comparisons between types, comparison always yields true, invalid type, bad pointer, conversion from blah blah blah, etc.) - it's not just eye-opening, it's shocking.

Or take programs that you think run okay, and instead of launching them by a clicky, do so from a terminal - and watch the error messages flow.

In the end it doesn't matter - there won't be a single disto left with any decent following a decade from now - everyone will just go online, pick a build service, pick the packages they want, the customizations, and download their own personal distro - or mix and match however they want. Crap like Shuttleworth betraying his user base in a desperate attempt to try to monetize his investment will be a thing of the past. Good riddance. The sooner he leaves, the better for everyone else.

Then again, this is the year Canonical officially starts dying. January was the whole UbuntuTV fiasco. The same CES show they intro a tv that they're running code they downloaded from samygo.tv on a rooted samsung, Lenovo shows up with a tv running Android 4.0, facial and voice recognition, motion detection, etc.

This week was the semi-official abandoning of both Kubuntu and Xubuntu.

What's coming for March? The answer to that one is easy - who cares? Shuttleworth will continue to make announcements like a kid with ADHD on a sugar rush, and people will continue to go "yeah, yeah, whatever ..."

--
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.

Slashdot Mirror

Why Linux Vendors Need To Sell More Than Linux

220 of 290 comments (clear)