Slashdot Mirror
Linux and the New Computing Order
Chris Siegler writes "An Op-Ed over at Dr. Dobb's, on whether Linux can change to meet the needs of the mainstream user, and the consequences if we don't.
" Interesting piece-talks about the potential for fragmentation, and that all of the big name companies coming to play are probably the greatest potential cause of that. I'm not incredibly worried about fragmentation, but more about how things change can alter the community. What do you folks think?
These types of things will need to be changed at the core level (I don't mean core as in Kernel, just deep-core). No GUI program can stick a input box for LP switches. That's silly. I love printing in Windows. There is nothing to it! These types of things need to be changed completely. But like I said, all control STILL remains because of the openness. :)
Corndog
Why does the Linux community need to organize? Haven't the computer industry and computer business interests yet learned that Linux users and the Linux 'movement' don't necessarily work like 'conventional,' or 'traditional' business models or even share the same interests? I'm getting tired of reading pontifications by editors and journalists who don't seem to understand what Linux really means: freedom from software tyranny! a rebirth of the magic of computing and sharing of ideas! viable software alternatives in the face of bloatware, expensive upgrade treadmills, and usurious (sp?) licensing. Besides, what will happen if we don't organize? Will Linux go away? Do we all want to see Linux take over the software industry? Do we really care about Microsoft?
I've noticed that Caldera and MacMillin(sorry probably misspelled) dist of mandrake are forceing the user to install and use Boot Magic (proprietary closed source software), even if you want a 100% linux box. This essentially prevents one from legally installing it on more than one PC. Seems kind of sneaky, and seems to violate what Linux is all about.
With boot magic and the custom install that Caldera uses, how would that affect changing over to RedHat or some other version if you didn't want to go through the process of completely wiping out your harddrive and starting from scratch?
Not wanting to get flamed, but hope someone can answer this with a reasonable explanation. No Trolls please.
where is linux going? where are OSes in general going? what is the sequel to linux? subscribe to mailing list. send mail os-edge-subscribe@egroups.com
Well, the rate of kernel release isn't as egregious as you make it out to be. Kernels x.n where n in {1,3,5,7,9} are development kernels, and aren't designed to be released for general consumption. Kernels where n in {2,4,6,8,0} are the release kernels, who are usually based on development kernel n-1.
As usual, someone smack me down if I'm wrong.
pooptruck
This would be a good method. Remember how MSFT killed off other DOS versions by that sneaky "error" message if you didn't use their DOS?
I strongly encourage this, should MSFT try to pollute\\\\\\\extend Linux.
Will in Seattle
Where are all the applications? In nearly all cases, same place you find Linux applications. FreeBSD has excellent Linux emulation. As for source-based applications, as long as the developer hasn't been sucked into writing Linux-specific trash (the ever popular 'linux' include directory, or /proc) it should compile just fine. Why do rabid Linux users insist on bringing this up all the time?
You're absolutley right. Problem is we don't like to think about that, luckily however neither does MS. For MS to do that sucessfully they would need to drop windows soon so the mainstream would move to linux, which is taking an awfully big risk. If they wait till the mainstream is already moving to linux then people will remember how shafted they were with previous MS products and stay with something else.
Non gratis rodentus anus
Linux apps can be run as a binary within FreeBSD. no recompile needed.
Ask anyone who uses Windows why they can't use XYZ alternative operating system. You'll get two answers: (1) Because some vital software they use doesn't run on XYZ. (2) Because they have hundreds or thousands of important documents in some proprietary format supported only on a Windows application.
In other words: lock in.
Bill Gates and the app vendors have very successfully locked users in to a single platform and set of applications (in fact, Billy's been more successful than most of the app vendors at this too).
Solve this problem --- help develop Wine or whatever is required --- and you solve the lock in problem. You'll have 90% of the market in no time (assuming your compatible OS is cheaper in beer terms than Windows).
Rich.
So XFree86 version 4 will allow cards such as the ATI Rage Pro cards that don't have open GL drivers render Open GL in games like QuakeII/III without ATI support?
Why do rabid Linux users insist on bringing this up all the time?
cuz they're morons.
Except for hackers and tinkerers, hardly anyone spends any great percentage of their computer time installing operating systems, applications, or new hardware. Usability and stability are what count for most users.
:)
Example: my wife and I recently had a 7-year-old grandaughter staying with us, and to Kionna the only *usability* difference between Windows and Linux was that when she was looking at Java-intensive "kiddie" Web sites and they crashed Netscape on my wife's Windows computer, it took several minutes to reboot, but when Netscape crashed on one of my Linux PCs, it only took a second to restart Netscape.
Within a week, given a choice, Kionna headed for one of the Linux boxes and ignored our one remaining Windows computer.
This is not a scientifically valid survey, but if "our" little girl is any indication, Linux is now at least as easy to *use* as Windows for someone who has no prior experience with either OS.
BTW, Kionna likes Gnome better than KDE. While I use KDE as my default desktop, it was no big deal to set Kionna up with her own Gnome-as-default user account. Try *that* in Windows. Not only that, but she had played hell with some settings on my wife's Windows PC by pushing random keys, and had to be told what and what not to touch, while on the Linux PCs she could do anything she wanted without doing any harm.
New Linux slogan: "Best OS for grandchildren!"
This is sort of random and not quite on topic but here we go:
:)
Why does everybody follow Microsoft's ideology when it comes to the upgrade cycle? For some reason, people seem to think that if a new kernel comes out, they MUST upgrade, and if a new Red Hat comes out, they MUST upgrade, and if a new Debian comes out, they MUST upgrade... but this is not at all true!
MS likes to push the idea that if the upgrade their OS, everybody should upgrade to that version because it is "necessary". People are taking this thinking and saying with regards to Linux things like "what if the C libraries are upgraded and it breaks something? when I upgrade, I'll be screwed!" or "what if a new kernel version doesn't work with my hardware that the previous version worked with? when I upgrade, I'll be screwed!". The thing is... YOU DON'T HAVE TO UPGRADE. If you have a server running firewalling and file sharing and mail and web servers, and it works fine, DON'T UPGRADE IT. EVER. There is NO NEED TO.
Sorry this has turned into such a rant, but it gets really annoying when people talk about a new version of a piece of software or an OS as if it is mandatory to upgrade to it the moment it is released. If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT!! Just because MS wants you to buy another $200 version of their OS, or Adobe wants you to buy another $800 version of Photoshop, doesn't mean you need to do it. If you don't need the features of the 2.2 kernels, and you're running 2.0.37, stick with 2.0.37. You have no need to upgrade.
Well... end rant for now. Sorry about that!
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
Personally, all of my hardware is hand picked to run Linux, but what about the new user who buys a PC, then hears about how much better this "Linux" OS is over Windows, goes out and pays $50 for Red Hat, and finds that he can't get his USB mouse to work, his PNP sound card etc? Should Red Hat put a message on the screen that says:
"Screw you buddy! You bought hardware to run Windows? So run your Windows and shut up!"?
Among all criticism directed toward Solaris I never heard anything about its inability to run on HP-PA -- if you want HP-PA, you buy HP-UX, and if you want Solaris, you buy Sparc.That's a totally different argument. Solaris doesn't claim to run on HP-PA, but Linux DOES claim to run on Intel PCs
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
One distro.
With sysinstall as the installer.
Sane release schedule.
With random version numbers, and -STABLE and -CURRENT also known as -STALE and -BROKEN.
Rock solid.
Especially -RELEASE versions.
Unpredictable dependencies between everything and everything -- you don't upgrade applications and libraries, you upgrade the system.
Wild claims about network performance being significantly better than one of Linux (last tested against version 1.2.13)
A lot of noise about pain of Linux changes while FreeBSD just went through extermely painful, not usable with standard upgrade procedure (simultaneous conversion to ELF, OpenBoot, CAM, etc.), change between versions at the rate, known by Linux users only in 1994.
No efforts to develop anything desktop-user-oriented that will install out of the box.
The solution to your problems is right under your nose.
Don't get me wrong, I use FreeBSD and like it, but most of FreeBSD "advocacy" is as much arrogant as most of Linux "advocacy" is immature.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
KDE, GNOME and GNUstep/WindowMaker are all projects trying to bring Linux into the 'point-and-click' realm.
The kernel is being worked to support all of the new standards for computer peripherals.
And distros such as Caldera are trying to eliminate the hassles of installing Linux.
/. post so far :)
At some point there will of course be a cutting of corners (I'm afraid that GNUstep will have a hard time making it through to the mainstream, which really is a shame) to make things fit together, but as far as I know, most hackers are smart enough to make this work pretty smoothly.
And if M$ would release a Linux distro, so fscking what? They would probably make a really good job giving it a good UI and making it user friendly for people coming from a windows environment. But I'd say that they would have a pretty damn hard time switching to Linux, not to mention actually developing their own proprietary version at the same speed as the current kernel. I just don't see that happen.
Wow, my longest
Anders.
____
ZZ
FreeBSD has also moved away from this 'BSDish' way of doing things - as a system administrator I find it makes it a lot easier to customise the startup procedure on a machine, and move startup scripts between multiple machines for common packages.
I know it's been in FreeBSD release versions for at least 6 months, though I think it's quite a bit longer.
Felius
--
make clean; make love --without-war
..and I'll form the head!!
Well, I for one don't miss having to modify my /etc/rc.d files myself and worry about breaking things. Granted, Debian packages tend to be much better-behaved, and I only use official packages (which AFAIK have to fit *all* of the packaging standards, as well as come from a trusted, signed source) so I've yet to be burned by a rogue package inserting a bad startup script. Ahh, peer review...
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
I think you're absolutely right about what the average computer user wants. I don't know if Linux CAN deliver the experience that they desire, though I see no reason why not - it's really just a matter of packaging and pretty (software) wrappers.
:-) products. For instance, my wife does just about all here work on her computer at home. She is a pure user, without a trace of geek (though maybe a little wanabe). Mostly she uses Filmaker Pro to keep track a her client's business for him, but she also does some web page creation/editting using FrontPage. Before her recent upgrade to FP 2000, she experience continual flakey behaviour, forcing her to repeatedly reload FP. Just before the upgrade the only way she could open a page to edit was by first opening a page she hadn't touched in several months and then opening the one she wanted to edit. Things were looking grim, as she was running out of old, untouched pages. Even now, when she alters a gif, she has to go through a ritual dance of saving the gif, reloading and refreshing pages, closing and re-opening applications to see whether a simple change has had the desired effect.
Where I really can't agree with you is the suggestion that low (computer)knowledge users get the experience that they desire from MS (gee, I've never noticed before that their initials suggest a nasty disease
I assure you she does not enjoy the windows "experience" and totally fails to understand why software companies think they can release non-working programs then charge a fortune for "upgrades" with "features" that she has no use for and that rarely work any better than the program that she wants to use, if only it would work.
Microsoft knows what the average user wants and slickly promises him/her just that, but they *don't* deliver, which is why the chairman of GM can make pointed jokes about MS software reliability. Lack of performance, whether speed or reliable behaviour, is also a significant nuisance to an ordinary user and if they don't wise up soon, this is what will really collapse the MS house of cards.
I think you may have simplified things too much. I've been told that in teaching large college freshman classes in computing that have PC (Windows) and Mac sections, that the students in the PC sections come out understanding the inner mechanics of the OS, while the students in the Mac sections tend not to. (This data is about three years old).
I take this to mean that PC's still suffer from the "command"ism that you are accusing Unixes of, and that the two are more similar than what you are indicating.
Since Windows labors more under the burden of "backward compatibility" than the numerous Unix windows systems, it seems reasonable to wonder if one of those latter systems will both pass up Windows in functionality for non-experts AND win the global popularity lottery.
On the whole, I liked this article. I just have a few things to comment on.
Now, I don't consider myself an elite hacker or anything, (I do write and compile a lot of software though) but I haven't noticed any compatibility problems on either of my machines. But maybe that's because, like most of the world, I don't try to be bleeding edge. Neither will the mainstream. Companies like Red Hat are terribly concerned with compatibility issues, and because their money is on the line, they make sure that compatibility will be a matter of upgrading x number of packages. The cooperative and open nature of the open source community makes the turnaround time on fixing broken stuff much shorter, we all know that. But why? Because if someone with a large stake in Linux needs compatibility with new libraries or compilers, they can easily
- fix it themselves
- use their resources to aid the developers in charge of the project(s) in bringing it up to date
History seems to show that Linux companies usually choose the second option, since that is the fastest and most efficient way to go.This is the new Coke dilemma. Sorry, I just had to say that. Seriously though, this does happen. It's the problem best exemplified by EGCS. EGCS was a split from the main development track of GCC, but eventually it proved to be more promising than its predecessor and it was brought back into the fold. Our community is better for it.
To a point. The Linux community, through projects like GNOME and KDE, has made the important changes that the mainstream will want. But as a partisan, I have to say this: Let's not forget our Free Software roots. It's terribly important that we focus on the ideals that got us this far, like unabashed source availability and respect for the owners of open source projects (go here if any of this is new to you). These are the ideas that have protected and nurtured the movement this far, and they will continue to do so in the future.
-k
Having the source code available pretty much ensures that anyone can do anything they want to the system. Some people will want to slow everything down because they can't keep up with the rate of change to the system. However, they will be unable to remain competitive with the fast moving systems over time. Some others will try to add in non-libre components to the free systems in order to control them, but most of us know better and will route around that kind of damage.
By far the worst threats are software patents and other forms of legal monopoly that artificially prevent free systems from competing. However, even those can be routed around given enough time and effort (and hacking of the legal system). bladeenc and the MP3 patents are a good example of how we might go around such measures.
It's also important to keep in mind that we have the source code. For the same reasons that the linux apocalypse could happen, we could one day find ourselves all switching to the HURD, or one of the BSD deviates, or some competitive new kernel that runs well on hardware that doesn't even exist yet. The only pieces of the free systems that won't survive the transition are the ones without source code and the hardware-dependent pieces.
Hi Mom!
This is where someone like MS could make a killing in the Linux market. Sell their GUI and their Apps and whatever with a Linux kernel. Even though they would not have to release source for their software, the fact would remain that they are not the ones controlling the kernel so essentially the Microsoft monopoly is rendered useless. Anyone could download or buy a copy of Linux from anyone they want to. For the first time in many years MS products would have to stand on their own merits, as even MS Linux would run other people's apps.
Alot of people think the success of Linux means the doom of Microsoft. Not Likley. It just means they'll have to play fair again.
-Rich
Interesting article. I'm sure none of Linux's current 'kindly uncles' would carry out the kind of 'embrace and extend' operation being anticipated, since they are mostly firms that are either obliged to act in their customers interests because they are very small (Corel), or firms that have comitted relationships with a customer base they really don't want to annoy (IBM). Most radical changes made within the community are in users' better interests, and that forms a basis on which companies and the developers of a project could handle them. What is more, most companies involved are trying to leaverage Linux's momentum to restore or add to their own. That means they have no interest in encouraging or supporting fragmentation.
The thing the article raises that is interesting is the question of what would happen is an actively hostile company, one whose operating systems are competing with Linux, were to produce an incompatible version and try to get people to use that. That could be quite destructive, but I think it could be dealt with. The GPL forces anyone deriving their software from a version of Linux to publish their source-code. That published source code would form a basis for the Linux community to work to restore compatibility.
I fundamentally agree with you.
Linux is an OS for people who want an open source platform that is fully customizeable. Microsoft, on the other hand, supports a crowd that cares more about ease of use than the internals of the OS. I want complete control over what I install and how my system is organized. I've paid 2K for my system I deserve that much.
I have no problem with novices using Linux, I think it is a great learning experience. As long as those novices become experts sooner or later.
Linux IMHO is an expert system and should be treated as such.
Inherently there are more novices than there are experts, but the Linux community should not have to bend over backwards for novices. That is Microsoft's job.
---------------------------
^_^ smile death approaches.
... I'm afraid.
As more and more organizations come to depend upon the platform they will be less and less willing to accept churn such as the libc cutover.
Someone will have to concentrate upon bugfixing, consolidation, standards compliance, documentation, automated regression testing, etc, etc. This isn't glamorous but there's a market need and it must happen.
So the fragmentation will be in versioning: people who rely upon the platform to support mission critical services and commercial software will be running two or three year old distributions, while the hackers will be running bleeding-edge stuff on their desktops.
This intertia will upset the kernel developers and kernel development will become less glamorous. The focus of innovation will move even further toward end-user applications.
This is all good.
And HOW, pray tell, are you going to do this, when you distribute the source code? You can't prevent people from modifying your GPL'd source code. Haven't you ever read the GPL?
I'm sure I'll get flamed to hell on this. But this is what I think.
.02.
I don't think that Linux CAN meet the needs of the mainstream users. Most end users when they get their PC don't want to have to have to learn commands, figure out short cuts. Then want to take it out of the box, plug it in and have it run. This is why windows has become the high focus OS that it is today, you don't have to learn commands. You just point, click, and the application runs, you don't have to compile applications and then compile it. I use UNIX in my daily life, on my home computers and at my place of work. But my use of UNIX didn't come in one day, with windows you can use it from day one no extra commands to learn, nothing to do really. UNIX is clearly the more stable OS, and for a server nothing is better. But you actually have to work to learn UNIX, its really not hard but you have to learn multiple commands and figure out HOW to use things at first if you don't know. Sure there is man pages and HOWTO's but end users with a new PC don't want to read all that, they want it to work right then with no waiting on how to figure out how to use it.
I'm sure you script kiddies out there will be all over me for this, but I hope the users of Slashdot with a brain can figure out where I'm coming from. I will probably get stuff like "WINDOWS SUCKS!! USE LINUX!! YOUR OS SUCKS!!". But come on guys, read what I had to say, and think about it for a minute.
Thats just my
To change the Linux system would require loss of the tight control and configurability we expect from Linux. Just as Windows uses arrays of Dialog Boxes to configure everything, Linux would need the same. This is not to say that is a bad thing though!
Linux still has better task handeling, a much sweeter file system, and most of all is open so that that lost level of control is actually still there. It's just a bit harder to get to.
Corndog
In Linux, we have a user-friendly front end, but we don't require it.
Linux needs two front ends. One is the simplistic interface for someone who just wants to check their email and write memos. The other one is the current X-based "experts only" mode.
So long as the OS under the hood is rock-solid, the end user doesn't care. Having that second interface gives you more control (thus more power) at the cost of needing more mental effort. Drop that complex interface, and you lose the hackers. But here, you can have your cake and eat it, too.
--The basis of all love is respect
Using Microsoft software is like having unprotect sex.
Bite the hand.
You are absolutely correct. Being Unix clone it will never capture majority of mainstream users. It is Unix, designed and optimized for programers not the users.
Just a thought that has been rolling around in my mind . . .
Let's say Linux has kicked the stuffings out of Microsoft, & it's now sold preinstalled everywhere -- over the Internet, by phone, & at Sears & CompUSA -- & to anyone.
And you are a phone support tech who has to support people who start calls with, ``I just bought my first computer, & I can't get it to work."
If that thought does not strike fear into you, then you have never done phone support. We are talking about the truly clueless here: the folks genetically unable to tell their forward slash from their backslash, who can't be bothered to turn their cap lock key when they type in their passwords, people who have to be led by the hand to find icons on their desktop -- in short the folks who shouldn't have root on their very own systems. People too dumb to figure out how to use a Macintosh.
``But computers ought to be easy to use!" they always whine. ``Why do I need to read a book to use my computer? All I want to do is [ email XXX | write my term paper | play solitaire | look at the pictures on the Internet ]."
Unfortunately we are going to have to support these morons if we want Linux to make it into the mainstream. Unless we can convince them that if you have to be trained & licensed to drive a car, you should at least read a book or two before you boot up a computer & proceed to trash their system.
Yes, I did my time in Tech Support. Almost two years. Why do you ask?
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Have you tried any recent distributions? Have you tried KDE or GNOME? KDE is at the point where it is as easy to use as Windows - and GNOME is getting there. With KDE, everything is point, click, and drool - couldn't be simpler.
When KDE 2.0 with KOffice comes out, that may very well be a killer app - KOffice already looks pretty good, and it's still in the alpha stage.
It's not as tough to use as you think - my brother, who doesn't want to learn ANYTHING, is getting along just fine with WindowMaker, GIMP, and AbiWord.
So unless you've actually had a newbie to linux TRY KDE or GNOME, don't knock 'em.
The point is that we, as a community, don't need more users; we need more developers. Linux users should aspire to become developers, and existing developers should aspire to use their skills on Linux. If we slowly give that up and let corporations handle it for us, then we're also giving up control of Linux, GPL notwithstanding.
Linux developers won't give up. Developers are also users who would probably want to use the free/Open Source apps that fellow developers use. And as long as Free/Open Source developers develop an excellent product at no or little cost, then corprations contributing to that market would have to make a knockout app to compete, or GPL it.
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
If NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD all used the same kernel, this statement would make sense. But they don't. Each of the BSD's has their own goal, and most development is done towards the furtherance of those goals. NetBSD has portability, OpenBSD has security, and FreeBSD has stability/performance (at the expense of portability).
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
You left out WinCE :)
I've written a lot of code for Windows, though, and I think you make a good point with regard to fragmentation. Generally, the APIs are the same and 9 times out of 10, you can just call the Win32 function without worrying about it.
The bite comes on that 10th time. For example, the Windows Remote Authentication Server API (RAS) has significant differences between:
Windows 95
Windows 98 (and Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2)
Windows NT
It's a little tense when you have to explain to a executive why your nifty RAS program does stuff on your NT workstation that it can't do on your customers' Win95 machines. "It's all Windows, isn't it?" No, it's not.
FWIW, I also recall one case where I used some Microsoft example code that obtained a handle to a device context. The example declared the value as an int and everything ran fine on the Win95 machines. It crashed horribly on WinNT, though. A little debugging revealed that the value on WinNT was greater than an int could hold. I declared it long and everything worked ok. What peeved me was that this little quirk was not mentioned anywhere in the documentation. As far as the documentation was concerned, the function calls were the same between Win95 and WinNT.
Other people who program Windows will justifiably call me a wimp for whining about having to get the OS version sometimes. That's fair. I also shouldn't be too hard on MS for errors in documentation that is, most of the time, pretty helpful. Finally, a couple of bad experiences from one developer is not grounds for condemning an entire operating system.
But I think it's also important to point out that the Win32 API is not the same everywhere. If having to check my OS version before a function call is not "fragmentation", then what is?
(Sorry for the length of this post)
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Right on!
---------------------------
^_^ smile death approaches.
...will not come to pass until it is conventional wisdom that Linux will inevitably win. For MS to release their own version of Linux would be perceived as their conceding the ultimate victory of Linux over Windows. They will not participate in the destruction of Windows -- until there is nothing left to save.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
I think you are incorrect. The Linux community is not a homogeneous mass of script kiddies; the young and excitable just tend to be more vocal. The issues of point and click installation and UI are being addressed (as we dicker;) by some people with a very good handle on the problem,,, KDE, GNOME, for the UI are both making great strides and X* is infinately more flexable than the WINwhatevers. Initial install, Hardware, installation and drivers, are the real cancker that gnaws - and this too seems to be a major focus by most major distributions. I believe that Linux can be a very viable home desktop especially if we address,life as an imbedded OS in a non tradional device (set tops and integrated net appliances) over high speed access media (ADSL, cable, et al.) now and not later. Still the best market for Linux right now is as a server OS where its' advantages are legion and its' short commings should be short lived.
morturii
Pnp was "being addressed" for four years now.
Parallel port scanners - I believe some are supported; if yours isn't, write a driver.Oooh I was waiting for this! I work full time and have a family-- I don't have the time to write and maintain a driver. My wife gets upset when I spend too much time using the computer as it is.
Anyway is that the answer we want to give the newbie who barely knows how to install Linux, and has probably never coded? Write a driver?
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I deal with mainstream computer users every day as a network administrator. Many of them have a fear of their computer, anything outside their limited experience is, to them, impossible. To get them to learn a new program is extremely difficult. Some "experts" say that trying to get users like them to use Linux will be next to impossible. Linux is too complicated for the average user. Is Windows 95/98/NT any less complicated I ask? Even Windows, which is pretty dumbed down to the average user, still mystifies a novice. It randomly stops working, a program stops responding, this happens far too often for the novice user. More advanced users know enough to reboot the machine when it locks, but a novice user doesn't understand why it stopped functioning, and this just increases the users fear of computer technology. To them, it shouldn't break! A 1969 Jaguar E-type is more reliable then windows! It amazes me that so many people use windows, after all the frustration of inconvenient malfunctions every user experiences. This is because of three main reasons, they aren't aware of the alternatives, they *think* the alternatives are too complicated or lastly, everyone else they know uses Windows so they *think* they have to too.
Our entry into the mainstream market will be begun by someone (like Corel) providing a distribution that shields a user from the command line, yet still provides the bulk of Linux's power with GUI tools, and allows advanced users to access all of what makes Linux great. This is much sooner then you think. Hopefully before Windows 2000 hits the shelf. Next in the battle is mainstream apps, not just games like Quake. We need an app like Quicken (I would like this too, so I don't have to reboot too winblows), educational software, etc. Also, a unified installer would be nice. A lot of windows apps use install shield, a graphical version of a Makefile would be great. Anyway just thought I'd throw out some ideas.
Spyky
This will keep people from modifying their system.
As a joke I occasionally threaten to make a system called "Gnulix" which in my mind should be implemented with a Linux kernel, the TCL libraries, and a TCL intepreter.
All of the system utilities will be written in pure TCL, and the shell will be tclsh.
If I have such a perverted system I don't want some application installer bitching about it.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
One distribution? Well, yes, the same way Debian is the only Debian distribution around? :-)
--
Matthew
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
I can see Micro$oft releasing a set of libraries and drivers such as to accomodate a "Windows on Linux" arrangement which they would sell, thus making Linux a "friendly" and sanctioned environment (but slower, of course) for their apps. Remember the genesis of Windows? -- a GUI on top of DOS. I'm quite sure they can detach both GUI and browser from the actual OS given sufficient fear and/or greed, despite the hype to the contrary.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Aurther C. Clarke
There seems to be an assumption in the computer business that there has to be one winner. It just isn't so. Despite that some people (typically the PHB types) think it is desireable to not have any choice (because they fear making decisions), it is not. Choice is good. Markets can't be viable in the long run without competition. Any time that one vendor controls more than about 40% of a market, the whole market suffers.
For me, Linux has already won. It works, it works well. I can work happily without going to something else. I don't begrudge *BSD, MacOS or BeOS or for that matter anything other than Microsoft from some market share. I'd be happy if the *BSD's saw increased popularity, MacOS was resurgeant and BeOS carved out a viable niche for itself. I don't even know if it is desireable for Microsoft to be completely wiped out (although occasionally that desire pops into my head). I'd be happy if they were beat down under 50% of the market so there were mainstream viable choices.
Sure there's nothing keeping a company like Microsoft from doing a linux dist with proprietary libraries,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought microsoft had signed an agreement with SCO or someone, that they would no longer produce an x86 unix. Of course Linux is not unix (technically), so maybe this wouldn't apply. Hmmm, of course we could always sponsor Linux for Unix compliance testing, I guess we would basically have to front the money. And when Linux passed it would MS-proof. Of course this assumes MS won't find some way to weasel out of the old agreement. Just my $0.02.
A weak Windows is our friend, do you think Linux would have gotten as far as it has if Windows worked as well as advertised?
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Here is a linux history lesson for ya.
:-) Linux now and is a power users and techies OS for people who just have a minimal unix background and want a powerfull OS full of applications.
:-)
1991- An advacned minix which would later turn into linux was invented by Linus for those who wanted to make a powerfull learning OS for classrom settings and for those who want to hack only for the fun of it. This is what Linus's only intentions of linux were. Linux or minix pro was so hard to use that only linux and a few other people knew how to use it. It latter became more usable but you needed to have minux and mount the diskette drive and load linux itself just to use it. It was very hard and at this time most hackers barely knew how to use it and it was a niche advacned hackers OS.
1994- Linux is now born after all of the old minix code is scraped and its totally considered a seperate OS then minix. Its still a hacker OS but most people who know unix could also program for linux because of things like bash and gcc, etc. So now linux is a hackers and a advacned unix programmers OS.
1995- Linux with the help of unix programers accelerates at a breakneck speed and shocks everyone including Linus himself. With the help of unix programmers who miss features of solaris, Aix and other unix's. All these programers added all the standard software features in other unixes in linux. Linux now has tape backup software, all the windows managers, utilities such as top, all the standard unix daemons like apache and so on. Linux is now a hackers and advanced unix programmers OS.
1996- Only 2 years since 1994 when Linux finally became its own OS breaking the minix dependancy did linux become a low end unix like sco. Only 2 years ago, linux was so hard to use that only cs students knew how to use it and now anyone who knew c programing and bash could use it. Not only this but in 1996 Alot of code like the startup daemons that mounted the hard drives were rewritten to be fast as possible after porgramers experimented with it more and more. Linux got alot faster and the result of all the these code improvemnts went into the 2.0 kernels. SMP buzz was flying around an OS that only a few years ago the user had to configure the hard disks to mount manually was now outperforming sco and NT with disk reads. Linux in 1996 was a unix programmers, as well as a unix user's os, as well as a hackers one.
1997- After linux won in the unix crowd. It was decided that linux's next target be something outside unix all together. Linux's next target was power NT users and ordinary users further down the road. One of the programers (I forgot the name) started something called kde and a few rebels who didn't like the toolkits that kde was using formed gnome. The other window managers were also getting easier to use. Linux is a general programers, unix user, and hackers OS still.
1998-After NT failed expectations as a 24x7 unix killer people began looking back at unix for some higher end applications and servers and linus was spotted on the cover of wired magazine. After this, computer users first heard of the penguin. Zdnet saw the demand fir linux and ran articles about it. Linux was out of the just hackers arena and into the bussiness and power users arena. Alot of techies installed linux then just to see what it was out of curiousity and were impressed by what they were missing with NT. KDE and GNome accerlated at a repaid pace as alot of programmers from the os/2 and NT arena contributed code because they wanted an easy to use linux and still have the power of unix as well. Linux is now a programers, unix user, hackers, and now a corporate OS.
1999- Gnome becomes pretty advanced and KDE becomes pretty advanced as well and is very stable. After kde 1.2 comes out this fall with ODBC and java support, NT users will began to get more interested in linux and kde will be intergrating with OLE. Ole for kde is beig written right now and is expected to be supproted in kde 2.0. Caldera and Redhat create new distros that boot into x automatically at bootup with kde or gnome so that users dont need to know bash form ost things.
200-2005: (estimation of course) KDE and GNOME will include api's for package isntallation installers so ordinary users can install packages just like windows and use wizards for installation. All distro's will boot into x automatically by then. Kdevelop and other tools like code warrior will include wizards to create installation setup packages with hardly any programming know for this setup (not he code itself). Voice will be in by then and kvoice and IBM via coice will be there as well. Linux will have those annoying annimated charaters like MS word, the old timer hackers will be pissed off by the simplicity and join the hurd team or create another OS.
By this time linux will be used by ordinary people such as mac and windows users. Bussinesses will wake up and discover that NT is not the cheapest to won just because ms says tco buzzwords in every other sentence and will switch to staroffice and kde for some desktops for lower tco. Linux will be mainstream of programmers want it to be mainstream. This never happened with other unixes because it was corporate men in suits and not hackers who made the discions about the OS. Since linux is opensource it will grow out of what users and programers want.
Linux might not even come close to windows thanks to exclusive win32 api calls that are hard to port to linux but linux will be an alternative for ordinary users like the mac OS is now.
Most of that is simply because Linux isn't mainstream...yet. Not even the Open Source community can bother to write drivers for every piece of hardware out there(well i suppose we could, but who'd want to?). Anyone who's going to take the time to write a stable driver is going to do for a good device that they really love. That's why we have support for Voodoo 1,2, & 3 and TNT 1 & 2. Because it's good hardware. If your S3 Virge chipset isn't supported it's cause nobody liked it enough to put out a driver for it. Drivers for sub par hardware will always have to be written by the manufacturer, and they'll only do it when the OS is mainstream.
*Except in rare circumstances that i'm sure someone will bring up.*
Non gratis rodentus anus
Money will keep Microsoft from coming out with MS Linux. Operating systems have been Microsoft's cash cow for nearly two decades. Microsoft is used to having that incredibly rich stream of income. They won't do anything to hurt that cash
flow.
Linux has already hurt Microsoft in the pocketbook - to the tune of millions, perhaps billions of dollars (remember the decision the Mexican educational system made to go with Linux instead of MS products)?
If Microsoft introduced MS-Linux they would be supporting the competition. Every ten free downloads of MSLinux would represent a loss of X sales of Microsoft 98/2K/whatever. MSLinux would have to be very cheap to sell in any significant numbers. A purchase of a $50 copy of MSLinux might lose Microsoft a sale of a $10000 copy (with Cals, etc...) of WIN2000.
MSLinux would also help "legit" Linux in a big way. Big businesses who fear to buy non-Microsoft-blessed software would rush to MSLinux (and away from Windows) in droves.
Linux would finally have that penetration into
the fortune 500 market! B-)
Now wouldn't that be ironic?
To add insult to injury MSLinux might mean Microsoft would probably have to contribute source code, which would (arguably...)
make Linux more competitive with Windows.
There's also the expert factor. Expert Linux users are likely to be ABMer's. When an expert Linux user makes a recommendation to a business customer, will s/he recommend MSLinux unless it was dramatically superior to all the alternatives?
Microsoft *BSD is marginally more likely. *BSD hasn't taken off like Linux and will therefore be much easier to co-opt. However, there is still the money issue - every sale of Microsoft BSD will probably represent a lost sale of a much more expensive Windows product.
I'm an ABM'er and I'm proud.
1.) I think most of the Linux community is completely missing the point here. Linux is part of the tip of the iceberg of a SECOND computer revolution. It's not the direct competition with Linux on the desktop that will bring the downfall of Microsoft, it will be the HARDWARE moving right out from under their feet. Stop thinking only about your current desktops, servers, and laptops. That is all the old computer industry. Start thinking about web/cell phones, audio/video equipment, appliances, vehicles, inexpensive and fully integrative computer terminals in every room of the house and business. Think about quantum / nano tech, complex AI systems, "soft" processors, etc. The industry is about to go through another MAJOR change just as it did with the invention of the microprocessor. The days of the Personal Computer will soon be over. MS and the others who have pioneered it will have nowhere to go with their proprietary, un-portable code. In fact, it's not even as much Linux as it is the philosophy behind it. In the future, proprietary solutions will no longer be POSSIBLE.
2.) For NOW... As long as the source stays free, none of the "problems" in the article will happen. You can always go back and re-compile when the major libs change, etc. On a side note... it's really a matter of Open Source or bust, right?
You people have to stop bickering and move out of your parents basement.
Like I said my mom installed Win95. And the printer. The network connection someone helped her with (its her work computer). No she couldn't do everything from day 1. She still can't. But she knows to hit f1 for help. My mo can't remember the "del" command from dos. She does remember to hit the del key in file manager to delete file.
As for the computer crashing - it happens extremely rarely. Once a year maybe. When it happens its usually something I can say "Well yeah hitting ctrl-alt-del does reboot the computer" to. Occasionaly there is a serious problem. But she knows to save often. So she's never lost more than 15 min of work.
As for reinstalling everything - ummmmm. I think that happened when she got the new computer. About 3 years ago. Since then.... No reinstalls. And she would've had to install Linux and everything with the new computer too.
-cpd
I disagree that this behavior is a fault. This behavior provides solid tools designed with the user in mind. This is opposed to the phrase "we develop with the customer in mind" meaning "marketing came up with some neat ideas they think will enable us to sell more product."
Too often the commercial development world is being pushed by marketing rather than sound technical design. Granted, this implys that a company is listening to its customers. But often this actually leads to shoddy development. Even Microsoft insiders have complained that bug tracking and design have been sacrificed by last-minute implementations requested by the progect's Marketing department.
Furthermore, it all depends on who is the one with the "itch". If it is someone wanting a "cooler" MP3 player (or front end to mpeg123) then that's what gets coded. But if it is a corporate interest that has a specific goal, THAT is what will also get developed. Word Perfect being ported to Linux is obviously an attempt to gain marketshare that has been savaged by Microsoft Word. Likewise, RedHat is not funding development for GNOME because the dart hit "GNOME" by random; RedHat needs a solid desktop environment to expand their market.
But this is all software. Many of the issues you listed were hardware related. And there we run into a completely different animal.
Microsoft does not develop drivers for specific hardware. If I'm wrong on that, please feel free to educate me. However, the understanding I have is that if XYZ Hardware wants their newest product offering to be profitable, they develop the driver for Microsoft Windows and offer it to Microsoft to be included in their distribution of the OS. Updates to the driver are published on media and offered for download.
How those devices work is often a highly guarded secret. They are proprietary to say the least. And so if anyone is going to write drivers for an OS, its more than likely going to be the manufactorer and nobody else. Kudos to those who manage to black-box closed devices and get them to work under Linux.
Developers willing to code for hardware devices will not solve this. Its the manufactorer's attitudes that will have to change. They're going to have to see economic incentive to support additional OS' (like Linux). For my part, I only buy devices that will work with Linux (and consequently tend to advise less-technical friends to buy those devices I know and like). I've even gone so far as to email a company saying "I like your product, but since I couldn't find it on any Linux compatability listing I will be buying your competitor's offering, which is listed, instead."
The whole issue depends on economy of scale. As more parties become interested in Linux, the OS will do more. That's why I want to see it become popular. If Linux fails to acheive that popularity, I doubt it will be at the hands of its developers.
if i hear the words "linux fragmenting" once more i'm gonna scream! people miss the _very_ important point that unix fragmentation was as much, if not more, HARDware fragmentation as SOFTware. the software fragmentation followed because the unix players wanted to differentiate their products to help sell more hardware and protect their markets.
sure, linux dists differ in flavour somewhat, but they are all binary compatible within a given arch which is an important distinction. heck, most other x86 unices can run linux binaries as well. with widespread binary compatibility like that, i just don't see how linux could fragment that deeply.
and problems with things breaking between releases is hardly specific to linux. pretty much every OS i've ever used has caused headaches when upgrading to new releases. or, in the case of NT, even between service packs.
i think it'll help having something like the LSB which will state in writing what "linux" is and what it includes, but even without it there's enough of a base and momentum that code forking of the level of the old unices or even the various *BSD species on x86 is very unlikely. and if M$ ever came out with a linux dist, that would be a clear sign that they're admitting defeat to linux's world domination.
tim
hiding in shadows / i hear you coming closer / you will explode soon -- a quake haiku
I don't think the situation WRT Linux and mainstream users is as hopeless as you make it out to be. Here's why:
True, to a point. However, I think you've bought excessively into the myth of Positive Windows(tm) OOBE (Out-Of-Box-Experience). Linux installation is not that much harder than Windows installation -- it's just that 99.44% of computer users get Windows pre-installed. A pre-installed (or friend-installed) Linux would avoid that same pain. And have you actually watched somebody with no computing experience (or even no WIMP-GUI experience) sit down in front of a Windows computer for the first time? People have to actually (gasp!) read the "Getting Started" documentation, or else have personal handholding, or it just doesn't make sense the first time staring at the Start button.
Also, in my experience, after initial familiarity is gained, many people start to graduate into the "power user" category. At which point, they end up delving into topics such as the Windows Registry, DLL incompatibilities, and the various "power user" tips and tricks of Windows. All of which constitute a formidible body of arcana, which is not made magically easier by the fact that it comes from Redmond, WA. Yet normal end-users tackle it anyway.
Funny, I just point, click, and the application runs, once it's been installed, under Linux as well. Just like in Windows. Except without the BSOD. :^) Surely you're familiar with the existance of GNOME, KDE, AfterStep, Window Maker, CDE, etc.?
As for compiling, end users don't have to do that with Linux either. That's the whole point of Caldera, Red Hat, the Debian project, etc. Of course, if you want to, you can, but it's hardly required, unless you want to live at the bleeding edge of progress.
"One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is Microsoft-bashing." -- Vinod Valloppillil (Microsoft), Halloween Document I
>[...] but Linux DOES claim to run on Intel PCs
And supports them rather well. As to some of the peripheral hardware that exists, that can be another ball game.
I have a SC that won't work under Linux. I'm not complaining...I really didn't expect it to. After all, since no Linux drivers were available and the thing never did work right under Windows... Maybe I should have been happy that I could play the first 1/2 second of any wave file I wanted and nothing more (no, I'm not kidding, that's exactly what it would do.)
As Linux becomes more popular, a number of these peoblems will vanish. Why? Realizing the lucrative market, hardware vendors will write Linux drivers and/or open their "propritary standard" or, best case, dump the propritary bits (assuming building a capable product is possible w/o their propritary bits.) Let's be real, most hardware makers don't make money of their software driver efforts. Generally, the drivers are free but only function with the device in question.
Can't Slashdot get some *real* content? Every week there is another stupid article about "What if MS made a linux distrib" and "What about fragmentation".
First, can people stop being paranoid little idiots. If MS wants to make a distrib, I'm all for that. If it's better, I'll use it on new machines I get my hands on (I don't believe in reinstalling, it's a religious issue really).
Can people get this through their thick skulls:
Linux is not fragmented. It has never been fragmented. It is perhaps the least fragmented system on Earth. Every package ever made for linux, source and binary, can still be run on linux. You may need to go get or compile a library or build your kernel a bit differently, but that's not exactly difficult. Those moves from different C and C++ libraries aren't exactly big deals, and I build them from source, if you use something like rpms (which I don't because I don't like them) it's a trivial walk in the park.
The author said he was a linux advocate. I'll believe him. However, if that's the case he's a very poor linux advocate.
When linux advocates act paranoid they just look irrational. When linux advocates, in their paranoia, spread FUD like this article did, they severely hurt the cause of linux adoptation.
Does the end user need to learn commands etc in order to use Linux (or other *nix)? At one time, in the days when end users had terminals not computers on their desk, when they switched/logged on they were either presented with the application which they used or a menu to select one of a small number of applications. Similarly when end users first got "personal" (not necessarily IBM PC) computers, they were configured by the system administrators and (where I worked) the end users were again given a simple menu to select which application (eg Wordstar, Supercalc or dBase) to run. Should not the same thing apply to end users using a *nix system now, that the system will be configured for them (ie they don't need to know the shell commands) and all they do is run the applications?
Over the years linux developers tryed to make linux more and more mainstream and frienlier to the avarage user. I'm wandering why.
Avarage users allready have an OS they are happy with, they don't care about which os they are using and they don't care much about freedom and "philosophy".
On the other hand - until linux - programmers, hacker, and geeks didn't have a decent operating system to use (unices were expansive and non-pc)
So we went out and built ourselves a great OS - only to watch it become yet another mainstream OS.
Why do we need that? Why can't there be 2 OS's so each can choose the one that fits his need.
I believe Linux should remain geeks oriented and free. It worked great so far. why not continue?
I'm not saying we shouldn't make it friendly - most geeks appreciat a friendly system as well, it makes our lives easier and let us concentrate on our important goals. But lets keep in mind what makes linux unique
Ballerinas have fins that you'll never find
This will certainly happen. Creative has released Soundblaster Live drivers, for instance
But wait till you see the community scream when these vendors don't release source code, in truth many won't be able to, even if they wanted to because of patent problems and what not.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Personally, I don't care if Linux becomes as popular as Windows on the desktop. I use Linux because I am a programmer and I enjoy the power, stability, and technology.
I would not mind Linux being the most popular server platform.
I say let the power users use Linux as servers and desktops and everyone else can either learn more or use something simple like Mac/Win/Be.
I think we're missing something here in how the computer market will develop. Up until farily recently, we were in the "pyramid stage"--the newbie user (bottom of pyramid) learns an OS over time until they become an expert (top of pyramid).
However, I think we're entering the beginning of an inverted pyramid model. Mainstream users want instand-on, blissfully simple to use, and the limited set of apps they run. There are already initiatives to make this happen to Wintel machines. As high bandwidth connections become prevalent, the mainstreamers will prefer to use more of a network computer-type box. It'll be plenty powerful to run their apps and have high speed Net access to allow them to run other apps on remote server or, if they're daring, download software. So, if newbies start in the model of the inverted pyramids, they'll tend toward the bottom of the lower pyramid if they go for the NC-type machine because it's easy, fast enough, and versatile enough for their needs or they'll tend toward the upper pyramid where they'll use a traditional computer for which they can upgrade hardware, they'll have a couple OSes installed, etc.
Then one day, a friend would offer to install some wicked free app that didn't come from MS, and it wouldn't work. And the MS Person(tm) would blame the developer of the program, not Microsoft.
Not one application -- thousands of them will stop working. People have to from time to time download applications from developers' sites even if they are in distributions because distributions lag behind development, and if everything will stop working, distribution will lose its credibility instantly.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I would like to thank you for enlightening me on my examples. Obviously making 'world' on an NFS filesystem would be a better idea than reinventing the wheel on each machine.
Still, though I may have had flaws in my example, I still believe my original point has merit. There are benefits to installation procedures other than source updates/installs. Rpm or other binary installs would be much faster on large programs. Honestly, who will argue that rpm -Uvh on something like gimp would take more time than a complete source install/update? What if your time was extremely valuable?
To be broken down even further, my point wasn't to argue over installation methods. My point was that arguing with opinion is never a good idea especially if you are belligerent. That makes people want to refute you, even if you may be right.
-Clump
Personally I can't see how Linux could fragment like unix. The source IS open after all.
However, I do think we might see a fragmentation of the linux community over the next few years if Linux actually makes it to the desktop (or at least to the computer game desktops). I remember quite clearly a sense of 'community' from the days of gaming on the wintel platform. Always hunting tips and bizare tricks to make work the latest illegal copy of some game beta. There certainly IS a community based on dealing warez, cracks et.c even though it is hardly comparable to Linux community a.w.k.i -- it creates nothing, it knows nothing for sure and it's quite secretive and even sinister. The kind of geek bent on this kind of living will surely make it's own stand in the Linux community, effectively splitting it in a... light and dark 'side' if you want. I think this is inevitable if Linux really makes it (and I think it will). A new era is on the doorstep so we should also be prepared to make out the distinctions to the public or "Linux community" might become (partly) known as *the* festering crowd of warez couriers et.c et.c.
take care / klasa
The difference is that if Mom wants me to figure out how to stop the spam from her mailbox, I have a prayer in Linux. I don't have one in Windows.
I think Linux has some work to do in pacing the market, not simply following it. To a certain extent we have to teach them to want different things than they do now.
In other words, show mom how to read her email, and promise that you'll be around to help her maintain it (remotely, even). And she won't have to search the MS knowledgebase or pay $95 for an incident report. If you're smart, though, you might want to charge a slice of apple pie per support call.
In other words, Linux can already meet the needs of the mainstream, but in a different way that MS does.
You were a moderator with 5 points. You should have read the moderator guidelines before you did any moderating
About the driver issue:
No, that's not the answer. But let's look at it this way: you're talking about the symptom, not the problem. The problem is idiot hardware manufacturers don't provide specs to their hardware, and they don't provide linux drivers. I don't really care about them not providing their own linux drivers, but I really mind about them not providing specs. That is the problem. We need to apply pressure there.
-k
Sun Tzu wrote:
Thank you. I don't know how many times I've said this before to everyone who says "But you can't expect the average user to use Linux--they couldn't even install it."Most "average" users couldn't even install windows. Really. I've seen them try.
-k
This is a real bitch with using FreeBSD. There is such an ugly spider web of dependencies, everything is cross-coupled in mysterious ways. It violates one of basic axioms of engineering complex systems: loose coupling, decoupling.
Even though I use FreeBSD, I think one of Linux's strengths is its modular nature. It is much easier to drop a software package into Linux and make it work. Under FreeBSD, software tends to break when moved between release versions. The only way to guarantee a consistent FreeBSD system is to rebuild everything (make world).
UNIX is a brand name, someone owns the trademark/whatever. Linux is not UNIX. Evidently there is some sort of hoops we have to go through to actually be declared 'UNIX'. POSIX is more like an API. It's just a standardization. Just because you're POSIX doesn't mean you're UNIX. NT is (supposedly) at least partially posix compliant. Bwahahahaha. sorry. FWIW.
The main reason why Micro$oft has such an "easy" to use interface is because of one thing: Research & Development.
Big companies that make the bucks can spend tons of money on R&D. They gather focus groups, send out comment cards, talk to people at conventions.
There is some of this happening in the linux community, but it is distributed. If Redhat users complain to Redhat about missing or hard to use features, will it get in the kernel? Only if Redhat codes and submits the change and it is accepted (by people who are not hearing the complaints). If it's not a kernel change then will anyone see the change in distro other then Redhat? Of course not.
Big companies get the opinions of the mainstream user and cater to that. Unforunatly, we are not mainstream users, so we have to deal with that fluff. That is why we use linux and mainstream users use Windows.
Linux will not become mainstream until it listens and develops to the whims of the everyday joe. That will require the cooperation of all the linux distros. Which will never happen because linux is becoming a profitable venture where the distro with the best gadet wins.
Take a set of people who have never used a computer before and have them perform a few tasks. Have them install Windows 95/98, Linux and MacOS, given nothing but the documentation. See which one they think was easiest to install. Lets not even get into multiple OSes on one system -- we want to keep it simple, right?
After they've got it installed. Have them install a few apps, get on the internet, send some E-mail, etc. All this given nothing but the documentation that comes with the system. Again, see which one they think was the easiest to use.
Neither Linux nor Windows will win that competition.
For the record, I use Linux at home and at work and only rarely use Windows or MacOS (When a friend or Co-worker needs help with their computer.)
I think another point of my last post could be the fact of updateing the kernel. Assumeing that Linux does make it mainstream and some company makes it their standard..Okay great, but lets say the linux distro they include on their systems is 2.2.5, well a lot of new users to Linux don't know how to upgrade their kernel, yes reading material is avaiable to use this. But most people I know don't read such materials. They figure "I can do this on my own with no ones help or I can't do it at all" so then someone else comes along and shows them how to do it. So I think we will see [if linux gets mainstream] users with older kernels, that don't know how to upgrade them. Also with the way kernels are coming out these days some users might find themselves with developmental kernels which to a new user could cause them some data loss. Also look at the way kernels are coming these days, 2.0,2.1,2.2,2.3 and now theres talks of 2.4, I really think that kernels are coming out to soon now. So I think that one thing that in the end might hold linux back is kernels (also lib compatability).
.02
Now I'm sure that comments will be made about what I just said with users with older kernels. The reason I see this as being a problem is that, like microsoft there is always someone out there finding problems and explioting those problems. So if a kernel say 2.2.4(just making something up) has a bug in it, well someone will expliot that user some time or another. That user might not know how to update to 2.2.10 (assumeing that has a bug fix). So we'll see that he becomes mad at Linux. Then is forced to either A) read and update or B) Buy a new version and reinstall
or C) I know some people who would just get fed up and go get another OS completely.
Another bit of my
I think that you may not quite understand, or that you're deliberately distorting things to force an issue.
Those people with unsupported hardware either need to write their own drivers or ask others to help out. In this community people frequently try to fix their own personal problems, expecting that their work can be passed on to a silent majority of people with the same problem but no means of correcting it.
I'm sorry that you don't have time to work on the drivers you need, but it looks like you've got better things to do, and that's okay.
What's not okay is for you to bitch at other people, telling them that they need to scratch your itch before their own.
If the community spent all of its time satisfying the needs of newbies, nothing significant would ever get done.
The answer we ought to give to newbies is that they can rely on the kindness of strangers. But that that path is a bumpy one, since strangers don't have to be kind. It's better then for a newbie to actually learn something, shed their newbie status and solve their own problems. Who really likes to be helpless? Is it not better to become more self-reliant?
There are a lot of newbies nowadays, and I think that we'd be better off if we made it easier to start down the road towards becoming an experienced hand, rather than to cater to their needs. After all, most newbies are helpless; they'll always have the same needs, and we'll all be bogged down in them. To constantly let newbies remain newbies is analagous to not teaching your kids to read, just because they don't want to.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I mean, look at why people use windows for the most part: they percieve that it provides them with easily used services such as email and word processing. The point of the article is that we need to stop inventing the wheel once a month and provide a unified direction for at least the core of the OS to prevent commercial mutations from tarnishing the end-user view with poorly written or defective code. All it takes is one step in the wrong direction to send all but the hardiest Windows users screaming back to Microsoft, begging for forgiveness (here's my $89 uncle Bill, pleeeeze can I have my WIn98 bugfixes now).
If they follow their usual tactics, a Microsoft Linux might exclude key things, but I think it would be more likely that it would just contain a bunch of proprietary stuff that you couldn't get on other platforms. Then, of course, they could include IE and the office stuff and all their other goodies but make them dependent on the proprietary stuff. If you want all their goodies, you have to use their version. That's the way vendors in the Unix market have tried to compete when they started falling behind.
That's really what they did with Java. Having to install RMI was a pain, and the lack of JNI was only a hassle with a few JDBC drivers (at least that has been my experience). Many people don't realize that if you stick with the standard Java API's, you can compile stuff with J++ and run it on a Sun. The big reason people still choose J++ is that they can have a GUI that is crisp and responsive.
From a Linux standpoint, I think things are so spread out that it would be much tougher to exclude some key piece, although Samba comes to mind. They would probably do better to support everything that is supported now, but add a ton of proprietary stuff that would attract people. They could advertise that it runs everything that the others do, and more.
That could be pretty dangerous.
before their own.
To clarify my post, All of my own hardware works under Linux, but that's because I built my own PC and only chose components that are known to work with Linux. I am not whining for drivers for my own needs
Most people would rather buy a PC off the shelf of a Superstore, and are often stuck with whatever hardware their PC came with. If they want to run Linux they may be out of luck.
I know that the Open Source community scratches their own itches first, this is understandable, it's human nature. However, there are people out there, notably ESR, who make Open Source out to be something that will solve any problem.
If the community spent all of its time satisfying the needs of newbies, nothing significant would ever get done.
Agreed, but then we need to stop pretending that Free Software/Open Source has all the answers. The reality is, if the Linux/OS community doesn't care enough provide something, companies may see the need and provide proprietary solutions, which will make the end user happy, but infuriate the Linux/OS community.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Ooooo, perfect opportunity for my story! My roommate decided to install Linux. This made Windows uphappy. So he moved everything over to that partition and tried to reinstall Windows. He therefore had the opportunity to install both within 24 hours of each other. The Windows install is easy because it makes too many assumptions. For instance, it assumes you want one partition (duh, we all knew that). Then it assumes you have a standard VGA video card, no sound card, and don't want to dual-boot. Practically, it makes sense to say that Linux should not assume all these things, since it's usually not installed on its own, but idealistically it should be equal with Windows. My friend was astounded that it didn't even bother to ask about his video card, so he went to the control panel, clicked on display, and then it had a kernel error and crashed! With nothing installed at all. It crashed. What kind of an installation is that?
If I have such a perverted system I don't want some application installer bitching about it.
Installer should bitch about _particular_ modifications that are considered harmful (say, having major system utilities depend on COM support).
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
If FreeBSD were in the position Linux is right now, it would be much more easily subverted due to the non-viral licensing. If FreeBSD is as good as its small but very vocal minority says it is, then why isn't it in the position Linux is in today? All my friends who have tried it have despised it and come back to Linux within weeks.
If the Windows hegemony can be attributed solely to the ease of use of Windows, then how do you explain the DOS monopoly that preceded it?
For example, why was the functionally equilvalent DR-DOS crushed? Were its commands any more difficult to use than those of MS-DOS?
Yer clueless, and you are recycling the same old FUD about how UNIX systems have no graphical interface. Your $0.02 is worth about $0.0002 where I'm sitting.
Yes it will take awhile to write the drivers. But USB looks like it will be a big part of the future of PCs and Macs, so if Linux is serious about these platforms, it cannot be ignored.
USB has been around a couple of years, yet Linux support is just starting to materialize. NetBSD has had USB support for a year or more.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
I have started using NetBSD, and have hopes of migrating all my Unix needs over to it, and away from Linux. The channels for communications about use of the system are just too clogged up in the Linux community.
I've noticed more and more clueless posts appearing in the FreeBSD Usenet discussions, and am glad that I elected for NetBSD instead. It seems to be a more diverse platform (on tons of hardware types,) and a community that concentrates on the core value of a Unix system, which is NOT (IMHO) making it a general purpose platform for the masses.
I am not saying this to pit communities against one another, these are just my observations.
"What if someone decides to do something you hate with your program, such as make changes that preserve compatibility with prior versions and break compatibility with your latest release, and then spend millions of dollars to promote their version? As long as they're in compliance with your program's license, you couldn't stop them. If a "corporate Linux" can guarantee better release-to-release compatibility, easier installations, and most of all, better usability, then the mainstream users will choose it over the "real Linux" by an overwhelming ratio."
I said something very similar on Slashdot, a few weeks ago.
If redhat^H^H^H^H^H^Hany distribution were to become a "standard", they could exist comfortably, due to the nature of the GPL. Sure, release your code, freely distribute your software -- but strike deals with companies to only guarantee compliance/compatibility with your software. You're still adhering to the GPL, but this still comes at the cost of the linux community as a whole.
Consider this. M$ could easily package a linux distro, distribute it (even packaged) for free. They could port over all the MS-Office apps, etc, and a windows look-and-feel GUI. Before you know it, you would have many companies flocking to M$ to port their apps to MSL, the contract of which would include some sort of exclusivity, while still staying open. At this point MS would again have become some sort of standard, while adhering to the parameters of the GPL. The end question the linux community must ask itself then, is "what has been gained"?
This isn't anti-MS talk, it's the realisation that any "standard" must exist within the linux community itself, and not with a corporation which has the power to srike exclusivity deals. This said (again), the whole Redhat situation will continue to concern me for some time...
Why is it the press must focus on overthrowing Microsoft in the mainstream market? Why does everybody insist that Microsoft is the evil empire and that Linux is their tool to defeat it?
I use Linux because if I don't like it, I can change it. That ability will never go away. The whole concept of copyleft has changed all of the rules.
Microsoft is NOT the enemy and it never has been. Linux will only die if the developers lose their love for it and leave. It might lose market share or gain it. It really doesn't matter to anybody except the marketroids. Linux will always be there and most of use don't give a damn what percentage of computers run it.
--- A Jesus Fish eating a Darwin Fish only proves Darwin's point.
And HOW, pray tell, are you going to do this, when you distribute the source code? You can't prevent people from modifying your GPL'd source code. Haven't you ever read the GPL?
I will just keep code with warnings on my site -- if everyone will do that, upgrades from developers' sites will make even the dumbest PHB think that there is something very wrong with that version if everyone calls it sabotaged.
Alternative for offrnding company is to make their closed world, "port" large percentage of software and keep users from using developers' sites for upgrades, but at the scale of Open Source development it's impossible, and people can get very suspicious.
Large-scale boycott however is very easy.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
No, it is easy. Most people who get that error message will assume it was something they did.
You or I might find the code, but noone said GPL had to be "good" code. It just has to warn that "bad versions of the kernel are in use" and offer to recompile with "good versions". I.E.: kill the MSFT "extensions" and replace them with good code.
If they want they can comment out the code and rerun the make. But 90+% won't.
Will in Seattle
There are a few things worth pointing out about this article:
[1] Technology. Linux has its advantages, but it also has areas where it is inferior. It's more stable than NT, but it lacks NT speed in several areas, and is further behind in scalability.
[2] Compatibility. The author mentions that recent compiler and lib changes broke compatibility. Part of that was because the earlier compilers were incompatible with the standards in the first place--should we be locking users into proprietary Linux C++ the way MS does with Visual C++? I don't think so. Further, some of the changes were to improve performance. It pains me to say it, but Microsoft's optimization technology is superior to gcc by a large margin. Yes, the kernel broke briefly, but so what?
[3] Separate projects. Another compiler-related issue is that gcc is not a Linux-specific compiler. Many users would have been forced to drop it if it didn't follow standards.
"Where are all the applications? In nearly all cases, same place you find Linux applications. FreeBSD has excellent Linux emulation."
You see that as acceptable? You call emulating Linux an excuse for there being few applications. If such is the case, why make things difficult? Why not run a real Linux?
"As for source-based applications, as long as the developer hasn't been sucked into writing Linux-specific trash..."
Here is a big problem. Both camps like to accuse each other and bicker over licenses. Your above statement is the perfect thing not to say. Why not make informed and anti-inflammatory remarks?
-Clump
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
What we need is a GUI that is scalable in complexity. To some extent that already exists due to the ability to use different window managers, but since they are mostly all designed for the same audience they aren't different enough.
Picture something like ICQ's Simple and Advanced modes, perhaps with a slider-bar somewhere on the desktop or even an agent that watches the user and tries to guess how literate they've become. When you're in the simpler modes, a lot of the features of the GUI are turned off (eg: you can't resize windows, there are no virtual desktops, etc.); the applications can read the level of complexity and use it to customise their own interfaces, particularily online help (eg: some of us can get what we need from man pages, some need wizards).
In particular this would assist in the installation of new programs (which inexperienced users don't do that much, anyway), eg: the package manager doesn't ask people in simple modes where to install things, it just puts them in the default. Even when installing the OS there should be different levels of hand-holding.
The way to prevent fragmentation for the sake of user-friendliness is to let companies like Corel and Caldera work on the Simple side and organisations like Debain work on the Advanced side. To this end a single distribution could have modes for different kinds of users, eg: Apple could provide short-cut keys, look & feel, etc. that would be friendly to a Mac refugee.
I actually don't think Linux needs more developers. I think Linux needs more good developers.
Some time ago, while discussing about open-source development, someone told me it's better not to have some program if the alternative is having something that is not well implemented. And I have to say that he has a point there.
It's not uncommon to see people that are pretty much about open-source on the Be Developers' List. This is something that always made me wonder, but I've come to realize that most people think (and in some ways are right) that most open-source software is not well done. But, because it's free, it'll take customers away from them. Is this fair?
I think that before people should start coding they should think a lot about what they want to do. They should consider a lot of variables like UI, quality of code, documentation, ease of use, etc. Not just code, code, code. These are often overlooked in open-source software. I use Linux, but I'm finding myself more and more drawn to the BeOS because of its ellegant API, its speed (the actual speed and the perceived speed), and its good looks (even though Enlightenment has the potential to make things look better).
Now, I'm not against power and configurability, but why must things often be done at the expense of usability? There are a lot of things that could make our lives easier. Who wants to be tweaking their OS to death? Well, I guess a lot of people, but I think a whole lot more prefer just to use it. And if we, developers, can, in the meantime, build tools that will make our lives easier, too, great!
I think a lot needs to be re-thought about the ways open-source people work. We have the power to make things excellent! Why do we so often choose to make them average?
So, I would dare say that we need less code. Given a choice, I would rather have an OS with its apps being slowly, but carefully, developed, than having half-implemented solutions that end up not serving anyone. I would rather have a good, say, text editor, than 5 average ones.
Am I wrong in here?
Just as with those that would use Windows, the average user will always be a bit behind the cutting edge...I really dont think that Linux development is going to suffer because of it...those that would use the bleeding edge are already, those that wouldnt arent...no big deal...
I think if Linux can make absolutely everything point and click and really get up to speed with the latest hardware, so the average user can really plug and play with the penguin, then the future will be bright....if not, well then I guess it will continue to be just those of us that have been ENLIGHTENED...
Agreed on the debate tactic comment there. Just, when making examples about technical issues, remember that UNIX-style OS's often have 1,001 ways to do the same thing. Heck, customizability and flexibility are the things I love about this side of the OS fence.
/usr/src up to date. And when
The main reason that FreeBSD is so source-centric is that the source is constantly being updated. This isn't to say that it's necessary to actually track -STABLE or -CURRENT regularly. I know many people with boxes still running off of 2.1. Not because they couldn't update them, but it's stable on their setup, and why fix what isn't broken? And for those of us who like to play with the new toys and features, the CVSup servers make it a breeze to keep our
there's a bugfix, you'll get it as soon as you cvsup.
As far as non-OS stuff like gimp, it would be simple enough to write a script to check ftp.freebsd.org's package repository, check the version number of the specified program against that which is listed in the installed package database, and if it's newer download and pkg_add it. In fact, it's probably been done already. All binary, no time for compiling.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
I disagree. There is something that prevents MS from writing insanely great software: motivation. The programmers who write for open source projects do it out of a love for what they are doing. They control what they produce and won't work on anything they are not personally proud to be associated with. Does this argument imply that the more mundane tasks of programming will then not happen in open source projects? Not at all! When I flipped hamburgers to get spending money in high school, I was proud of those burgers. I made sure the bread was toasted perfectly and that the burger was delivered exactly as requested on any special order. I now do other things because I've learned how. Open source contirbutors exist at all levels of experience and ability. As the movement widens, the resources will appear to accomplish the required tasks.
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
I don't believe any of these Dooms Day articles about how a fragmented linux will be it's downfall. But I do know several people who hated the hype of Linux and went BSD. I think that as more corperate involvement come to linux, each corperation will try to make linux a little bit more closed, and incompatable. Then Either Red Hat/Caldera/Suse will have to choose between corperate support and an open linux. And if they make the wrong choice, BSD will win
You sound like you think that end users should not use PCs. Windows is crap and *nix is not even supposed to be for end users.
Are you for Apple, PDAs or maybe abacus?
Therefore, the quality and utility of an open-source package is likely to grow exponentially, up to some maximum. (Presumably, each package has some inherent maximum utility, beyond which extending it is just silly. If somebody wants to patch a new option into "ls", I don't want to know about it.)
With proprietary software, there is a brake on this exponential growth, as follows:
The owner of a proprietary package has to pay programmers (sorry for that alliteration) to maintain, debug, and extend it. For some packages, if a third party wants to make an extension, the package's owner can demand extra money for the appropriate software toolkit, APIs, or source-code license.
The money to pay these programmers and license fees can come from: (1) current assets; (2) sales of other products; (3) lenders who loan money at interest; (4) investors who expect a certain annual return on their investment.
Getting capital up front allows proprietary software companies to introduce new products more quickly, since they don't have to wait for a project to attract developers' interest. But then, when (if) money starts rolling in from sales, it can't all be spent on improving and maintaining the product. Some has to be skimmed off for interest on loans, dividends (or stock buybacks) to investors, and development of other projects -- not to mention marketing, taxes, legal fees, rent, and all the other standard expenses that a modern corporation has to deal with.
Meanwhile, if a proprietary system has an open-source competitor, even if the competitor is not as good, it will build up more and more users and developers over time, and so the product will improve exponentially. To remain competitive with the free system, the proprietary system's owners, after paying back loans and so on, must have enough resources to keep up exponential quality improvements, with a growth constant greater than or equal to the open-source competitor's growth constant. If the proprietary system doesn't maintain that, it loses, just as Scribe lost to TeX. (What's Scribe, you ask? I rest my case.)
Some day, I want to learn enough economic theory to translate the above analysis into a set of equations. I would love to have a more complete and robust theory regarding when a free package has the advantage over its proprietary competitor, and when the reverse is true. (If the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank hike interest rates, would that be good for Linux? :-) If anyone out there wants to beat me to such an analysis, please let me know.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
"Because if someone with a large stake in Linux needs compatibility with new libraries"...
Tsk tsk... You're thinking in terms of Windows "Can only have on version at a time" shared libraries. Linux, like other *NIXes, actually takes a rational, mature approach to shared libraries that makes it *much* more tolerant of changes to shared libraries than that other OS... There can still arise issues, as with glibc vs. libc - but these are minor compared to the problems provided by, for example the MDAC 2.1 DLLs vs. older versions on Windows.
"... Seriously though, this does happen. It's the problem best exemplified by EGCS. EGCS was a split from the main development track of GCC... Our community is better for it."
This is a great summary of the largest benefit of the GPL. The unfortunate reality that was pointed out in the article is, however, that the mass market does not choose products based on quality or standardization as you or I might.
One of the main reasons that the Open Source model works to select quality now is that most in the market now have the knowledge to judge quality. Without the ability and knowledge to judge quality objectively, a competitive economic system reverts to selecting products on the _perception_ of quality, rather than actual quality. We see this now in the self-feeding mass popularity of Windows.
The suggestion is that a substandard and severely flawed product, standard or distribution could be released. If that product is hyped enough, it could become the new mainstream choice. We would have the advantage (if the company cares about licenses) of having an _open_source_ substandard, flawed product, but the choice of the mainstream could still be a mediocre product if the mainstream is unequipped to make appropriate judgements.
"Let's not forget our Free Software roots. It's terribly important that we focus on the ideals that got us this far, like unabashed source availability and respect for the owners of open source projects"
Hear hear. This is the most important thing to remember. Regardless of what happens with the mainstream in the next few months, if we continue to support free source, free source will be there for those of us not in the mainstream. Free source gives you the power to judge quality. You must give yourself the knowledge to make that judgement.
If you are in linux because you enjoy the sort of hackery and fun of playing around with it then all this success / failure in the marketplace is so much foo
Use the system, have fun, play with it, don't get to caught up in its "worth for business", while its impressive that it has worth, and its a ludicrous state of computing that it can easily match and better the commercial organizations, that isn't the only, or even in the top 5 important issues that affect linux
the most important thing for the success of linux, is more code, and far far less talk
C.
I sometimes write stuff
I agree with this one. Linux most definitely CAN reach the ease of use that Windows advertises. There are a huge number of WinX users that are savvy enough to use and abuse linux that haven't taken the plunge yet. Install is not that difficult, actually I had a recent install Tuesday where I formatted a drive and then started from scratch with both OSes (win95->98, RH5.2). /. over my DSL line.
After RTFM, I had very little trouble with the Linux install although I had to restart on a bad 95 install. The test officially ended when I could load
End result linux was as easy or easier to install from scratch as windows IMHO.
The problem (for me) came afterwards and I needed to get stuff done, back to more reading. I learned windows the same way, but that was back when I was 15-17 and had lots of afternoons and evenings to spend learning.
Anyway, the final point comes down to pre-installation. If you sell a box that is pre-configured with web access, e-mail, word proc, a getting started manual, it would be as easy to use as windows. Act as the pre-configured ISP. charge a bit for tech support, and you've got a business plan.
Of course all of this is useless in the actual developers don't feel the need to cater to the masses (read: make things simple), but then again we now have commercial vendors who can *gasp* pay open source programmers to build all those widgets and wizards we all love so much.
Wrap-up:
I think Linux will take over the desktop, developers/resellers willing.
+&x
While USB has been around for a while, its important to note that even Windows didn't support it until '97, and there were extremely few USB devices until well after Win98/iMac releases made it the 'next big thing'.
Well, this is the funniest damn thing I've read in a while. That is an incredible understatement. What Windows has is pretty much the same problem that people are talking about here. It is just that there are a lot of GUI tools to help straighten it out. Still, I'm a Windows developer (who has written DLLs), yet I can't figure out why my &#$# Win95 machine starts complaining about a missing MPR.DLL at random times. (And then there is the "minor" change that Microsoft recently made to one of the MFC DLLs that broke our application in certain cases. Not so fun given Microsoft's penchant for upgrading DLLs under the covers at every opportunity.)
The longer I work in this industry, the more I agree with another Dr. Dobbs editorial. DLLs, dynamic linking, whatever you call it, causes more problems then it fixes, especially in these days of $200 20 gig disks and $70 64 meg SIMMs.
At the moment, I work for a Windows developer, and our particulary product uses DLLs in order to support multiple types of configurations. The amount of work keeping multiple versions of DLLs and calling executables straight is immense, and it is too damn easy to make a "trivial" change that kills backwards compatibility.
As a relative Linux newbie, I used to think the situation there was better, especially with the Red Hat RPM system. Hah! After one novice attempt at installing egcs, I somehow managed to screw up my system entirely to the point where "hello world" wouldn't compile. It was a month of off and on work to get to the point where I could compile a program again. (Hell, the streamio library segfaults still, but I don't have the energy to figure out if this is a configuration issue.) (And all this because I just wanted to play with bitset.)
Versioning is a huge problem that seems to effect both Windows and Linux equally. Current attempts to fix it (Windows COM+, for one) don't seem to really work. I say, scrap the whole thing and static link everything. If you include the libraries you need in your binary, it won't break when someone else screws up the system.
The cake is a pie
theres a reason why one version is considered -STABLE and one is considered -CURRENT. if you want stuff to work, you use -STABLE. if you feel the need to run bleeding-edge-probably-wont-work stuff, you run -CURRENT. it's not BROKEN it's UNDER HEAVY DEVELOPMENT. Before 3.0 was "RELEASED" i ran a beta snap that worked fantastically. as for "unpredictable dependencies", i have no idea what you're talking about as when i want to upgrade a library like GTK+, or an application like gvim, i simply use the ports system. if i want to upgrade libc, i recompile the entire operating system against that new libc. i'm not sure where you're from, but where i come from thats the way upgrading your base C library _should_ be done. not via rpms and whatever other nonsense passes for "upgrading" in the linux world. as for freebsd's switch from 2.2.x to 3.x, if you're going to break it, why not break everything at once instead of doing it little by little? i for one am perfectly happy with the way the _major upgrades_ were handled.
-luqin
When SCO bought Microsoft's Unix (XENIX I think it was called), Microsoft agreed not to release another Unix.
So could Microsoft release a Linux even if they wanted to?
Urm, Open Source will solve everything? I don't recall the 'community' claiming this.
There will always be a need for proprietary, commercial software, because there are too many niche markets (many scientific apps, government stuff--anywhere software is needed that coders have no interest in) where proprietary is the way to go. Those companies don't have in interest in making software to do X task--they have an interest in making software that makes them money.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall ESR ever claiming that Open Source software would abolish the need for proprietary software, end world hunger, or take your dog for a walk.
That sounds like it would only be a problem for people who install binaries.
The only reason it would disturb me would be if I couldn't find the source tarball.
Agreed, but then we need to stop pretending that Free Software/Open Source has all the answers. The reality is, if the Linux/OS community doesn't care enough provide something, companies may see the need and provide proprietary solutions, which will make the end user happy, but infuriate the Linux/OS community.
Well, like I had said, I think that the best thing to do is to encourage people to want to learn about things, including the details on their hardware, and how to support it if it isn't already. I don't think that OS is necessarily going to provide all of the solutions, although certainly the more people that really use it, the better it'll work.
As for commercial software providing solutions, I don't really think that this is as likely as you do. Most companies are impatient. Rather than go for steady, modest profits, they frequently go after big markets and big profits. Think of the difference between a small software house and Microsoft. Any niche big enough to support a generic, impatient company is likely to have a group of OS developers already. The tricky bit, we agree, is getting in between the cracks, and not very many companies are going to want to do that.
Too many people want to Make Money Fast, and since a lot of them are in management, they can frequently give orders to programmers to ignore the vital cracks and go for the high profile stuff.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
To put the finest possible point on the matter, what would happen if the company that did this was not any of Linux's new, kindly rich uncles, but Microsoft? What if it tried to do to Linux what it did to Java: introduce a free version that was missing some important components, and had some other, custom parts, added?
If thousands packages will have in their Makefiles and RPMs something that will detect sabotaged version of system and refuse to compile or install, that version will be dead in a week -- as opposed to Windows, users rely on software, downloaded from authors' sites, and with or without distribution companies, it isn't going to change, unless someone at offending company will "fix" every piece of open source software.
With all controversy around distributors' preferences developers tolerate it and make their programs compatible with new versions because they realize that there is a reason behind system changes. But any definitely hostile move by distributor will immediately cause "retaliation" in independently distributed software, and no one likes to see something like:
"Warning: the system that you are running is modified by <offender> against the will of its developers. This program refuses to work on sabotaged system, get the fix kit at <URL>".
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The article raises some good points. Some Linux developers get all up in arms with the mention of things like "binary-only kernel module". Yet the Linux community has so far not delivered on many of the things it needs.
Some examples:
USB? If you're lucky your mouse will work.
PNP? Linux makes this more difficult than non-PNP
Parallel Port Scanners? Forget about it..
3D? 3D works great... IF you have the right card
But if you need an MP3 player, you're in luck! Freshmeat lists 77 entries under Mp3.
That illustrates what tends to be the problem with the Open Source community, they'll produce the stuff that they personally want, but other things tend to be ignored.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux, and use it for almost everything. I do get frustrated at times because I need to reboot into that other OS to accomplish something.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Take away "In the perception of the mainstream" and this would be the best of all possible outcomes; Linux becomes a big enough threat that Microsoft has to actually start releasing quality operating systems in order to compete. It won't happen, of course, since they focus on marketing first and code second. The most frustrating thing for me is that MS has the resources, both financial and smarts, to write insanely great software if they want to, but they don't.
Read a good book lately?
Read a good book lately?
Sure there's nothing keeping a company like Microsoft from doing a linux dist with proprietary libraries, but they can't subvert the kernel or most of the apps that come with it. If they wanted to do everything from scratch, they'd have to spend thousands of man hours and would be better off just doing their own UNIX dist (which would hopefully suck less than their last UNIX dist which is now SCO UNIX.)
Things like the a.out->elf and the libc5->libc6 transition are very rare. Sure they're a pain in the ass, but I don't forsee any major problems arising from the rare major change that has to be made to keep the system current. If a company doesn't like it, they can always do their own dist with the old stuff intact, and let the users use it if they want the features of the software that company distributes.
AMIGA 4._
The OS you can turn on and off without asking.
None of the 'rich uncles' will even consider fragmenting linux, it's not nice.
And these uncles want to be precieved as being nice.
That may even be the main motivation for the latest bandwagon jumpers.
Because if you are nice people will buy from you (have you even bought something from someone you thought was not being nice to you?).
How do we keep these uncles in check? Publicity, my dear Watson, publicity is what these uncles fear and love most.
No uncle will want to be known as the one that fragmented linux not even our friends in redmont. Why? because linux is sympathetic, killing something that is sympathetic is the ultimate PR nightmare.
thats all folks
Your Kidding "easy to use"
Your about to get blind sided if you think that !
Windoze is a cluster-fuck of advertizing and circular logic (explorer blows).
Apparently youv'e never used and open OS like the Amiga.
Fragmentation is to get Linus to support the LSB or a similar effort. Then, announce that no company o organization that produces a distro would have to comply with the LSB (or other) in order to used the name "Linux" (which he owns the trademark for.) Then everyone would comply, because they need the name to get the buzzword status.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
I don't want to defend windows, but windows does let you chose a video card during install.
Surely one of the main points about linux' being open source is that it is very difficult to fork the tree? Let's say that M$ does decide to do its own distribution and does manage to create some half-way decent code to improve the usability of the system. If that code is derived from the original code-base they have to put it out under the GPL, in which case it's not a problem. Otherwise, they can put it out under a proprietory licence, sure, but look what happened with KDE & Qt: harmony and GNOME.
They're not going to rewrite the system from scratch; most of the components are Free: how could they marginalise the community? Furthermore, what does it matter who develops the code, so long as it remains Free? That surely is the point: it doesn't matter who is developing the kernel or the libs, nor what they're called, as long as the code is Free.
One distro. Sane release schedule. Rock solid. The solution to your problems is right under your nose.
Why does everyone care so much?
It is not that I care SO much, but here is why I care or what I would like to happen.
I have a fair number of customers that have been with me over the years and I am tired of working on their windows systems.
Joe home user that bought his machine to play games can do what he wants. Fortune 500 Inc. should be able to afford what they desire.
The segment I am concerned with is Bob's Home Business and Pam's Small Business. Many of whom do not have tech support on staff. I (and many like me) get called in for that. I want to move them all to Linux and make things better for them and myself at the same time.
Perhaps I would make more money supporting them with windows, but more and more, it feels like dirty money.
I feel like I could go on and on, but I will end with this. I want to move my friends and customers to Free Software. Freedom is starting to mean more and more to me in this area.
A Nony Mouse.
That means there won't be any more good old fashioned digital darwinism among the libc distributions.
That means!!! - a lame libc can usurp the rest because of who's backing it.
Or: DirectX and its attempt to roll over OpenGL.
At that point the computer will become like a VCR. You push a button, and watch it do stuff. No input required. Reading the manual? Forget it.
When we reach that point, the kernel will cease to matter. Could be Linux, could be an NT kernel, could be anything, really. From the user's point of view, it will all look pretty much the same, just as the "Play" button looks the same in most VCRs regardless of how the internal electronics work.
It's user-centric vision of the future, focused on the needs and wants of today's user (italics to point out an inherent contradiction, which I'm not going to address just yet.) The vision is: a featureful point-and-click desktop interface, with a stable kernel running underneath.
Currently Linux has the stable kernel and Microsoft has the full-blown complement of user features. Linux will (probably) catch up with Microsoft in the latter area, but who's to say that MS won't eventually come up with a stable kernel? At least stable enough for most users, this will become a reality very soon if it hasn't happened already. So Linux and Microsoft will converge, and everything else (BeOS, MacOS) will too, if they haven't done so already. Cosmetic differences notwithstanding ("KDE Rocks!" "Loser, GNOME is boss!" "Pah! BeOS is king!") it will all be pretty much the same.
Is this sensible? I don't think so, but leaving aside the desirability of such a turn of events, I think that people who argue for more user-convenience (or, more stridently, for "world domination") should clearly see what exactly it is they want. Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it.
To repeat the question, is this sensible? Here's one reason why it might be:
...and here are a couple reasons why it might not (be sensible):
It's a grim vision of the future (for one thing, programmers as we know them today will cease to exist, if you think about it for a second). Down the road towards World Domination(TM) lies madness and mediocrity. And that's exactly where we appear to be headed.
And afterwards, what happens? That's the really interesting question. Beyond the battle for control of the desktop, beyond the GUI wars, beyond the browser wars; lies --hopefully-- a new world where none of that stuff matters. Twenty years from now the whole desktop environment will be, I believe, a backwards and primitive thing; and the real action will be elsewhere. I just wish I was smart enough to figure out exactly where it will be. Probably can't be anticipated; but the GUI will run its course and will be knocked out of the way by something different. That's where bright people's energies should be focusing (but of course there's no immediate payoff, and it's impossible to figure out in advance.)
Meantime, it will be interesting to watch Linux's march towards boredom. My hope is that it will only be a temporary detour; because I sure will hate it if Linux becomes just like Windows, only better.
At that point the computer will become like a VCR. You push a button, and watch it do stuff. No input required. Reading the manual? Forget it.
When we reach that point, the kernel will cease to matter. Could be Linux, could be an NT kernel, could be anything, really. From the user's point of view, it will all look pretty much the same, just as the "Play" button looks the same in most VCRs regardless of how the internal electronics work.
It's user-centric vision of the future, focused on the needs and wants of today's user (italics to point out an inherent contradiction, which I'm not going to address just yet.) The vision is: a featureful point-and-click desktop interface, with a stable kernel running underneath.
Currently Linux has the stable kernel and Microsoft has the full-blown complement of user features. Linux will (probably) catch up with Microsoft in the latter area, but who's to say that MS won't eventually come up with a stable kernel? At least stable enough for most users, this will become a reality very soon if it hasn't happened already. So Linux and Microsoft will converge, and everything else (BeOS, MacOS) will too, if they haven't done so already. Cosmetic differences notwithstanding ("KDE Rocks!" "Loser, GNOME is boss!" "Pah! BeOS is king!") it will all be pretty much the same.
Is this sensible? I don't think so, but leaving aside the desirability of such a turn of events, I think that people who argue for more user-convenience (or, more stridently, for "world domination") should clearly see what exactly it is they want. Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it.
To repeat the question, is this sensible? Here's one reason why it might be:
...and here are a couple reasons why it might not (be sensible):
It's a grim vision of the future (for one thing, programmers as we know them today will cease to exist, if you think about it for a second). Down the road towards World Domination(TM) lies madness and mediocrity. And that's exactly where we appear to be headed.
And afterwards, what happens? That's the really interesting question. Beyond the battle for control of the desktop, beyond the GUI wars, beyond the browser wars; lies --hopefully-- a new world where none of that stuff matters. Twenty years from now the whole desktop environment will be, I believe, a backwards and primitive thing; and the real action will be elsewhere. I just wish I was smart enough to figure out exactly where it will be. Probably can't be anticipated; but the GUI will run its course and will be knocked out of the way by something different. That's where bright people's energies should be focusing (but of course there's no immediate payoff, and it's impossible to figure out in advance.)
Meantime, it will be interesting to watch Linux's march towards boredom. My hope is that it will only be a temporary detour; because I sure will hate it if Linux becomes just like Windows, only better.
You wrote that "the Linux community has not delivered", but then go on to cite the example of parallel port scanners. That's not entirely fair; the thing that's holding up the development of scanner back-ends for SANE is that arrogant companies like UMAX won't release the details of their proprietary parallel port interface ASIC chips. If the information were available, I would write a SANE driver for my Astra scanner as soon as I could. So don't be too harsh on the Linux community - it's not all our fault!
The danger isn't that Linux will win, or that Linux will lose. The danger is that one day, we will be faced with ftp directories like:
cool-mp-player-ms-linux.2.2.1.bzip requires alib
cool-mp-player-ibm-linux.2.2.1.bzip requires blib
cool-mp-player-gnu-linux.2.2.1.bzip
bzip-torvalds-linux.0.99-2.tar requires clib
blib-3.4.1.bzip doesn't support ms-linux
blib-3.4.2.bzip ms-linux support added
alib-2.2.42-11.bzip requires gnu linux.
alib-2.2.42-12.bzip added torvalds linux supprt
clib-ms-linux-31.2.bzip requies alib
Now multiply that by 500 applications.
Now add different hardware with different drivers (or no drivers) on particular versions of software.
Personally, I don't want to deal with that. It is bad enough already with different versions of the c library
The cake is a pie
Typically, novice users don't set up their own Windows either. Infact, installing your own Windows has inspired more than a few people to seek other alternatives.
Furthermore, you're overstating the ease and novice user reliability of Windows. It is no less prone to giving the user fits. This is even true fairly mundane PCI cards, without even having to get into psuedo-pnp ISA.
Otherwise, some of us would never have bothered, many of us unix users being lazy sorts.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The ones who talk more are the ones who develop less. The ones who develop more have less time in their hands to talk a lot. EOT.
If I am not mistaken, that is exactly what Apple is doing for the next version of MacOS. (Not Linux, but some other *nix.)
The cake is a pie
Fragmentation is simply the result of many different coders writing their own solutions to a problem. This is innovation at its best! If the problem becomes that there are too many solutions, someone out there can and will work on merging the best of both worlds. This is what open source gives us, as opposed to the proprietary world where fragmentation becomes a problem that is very hard to be addressed. But the underlying issue is without a choice there can be only limited innovation...
Where are all the desktop applications?
Where are any applications?
Don't get me wrong. I think all the "bad blood" between the Linux and all the various BSD camps is hurting the Open Source movement in general. Seems like they should be helping each other, not going for each other's throats.
However, arrogant, inflamatory posts like this certainly don't help matters any... :-/
Your Servant, B. Baggins
I have to agree to a lot of what Zack have written, but stilhave some comments:
:^) Surely you're familiar with the existance of GNOME, KDE, AfterStep, Window Maker, CDE, etc.?"
... is individual. And of course Windows is know by many millions - why you are cometing on "home-front".
.....: I don't know to laugh or cry... .. read the fine words about the OS, etc - and still.... - I can't see ANY reason to do what they do. I simply find it a bad design in general - and solely done for business (and historic reasons ?).
Zack write:
"Linux installation is not that much harder than Windows installation -- it's just that 99.44% of computer users get Windows pre-installed"
To be true, I simply can't see any difference in easiness/difficultiness in Windows or Linux. I have not tried to install ALL windows and ALL Linux'es. But I have tried many - and the average get to the same - or is in Linux faviour.
Zack:
"Also, in my experience, after initial familiarity is gained, many people start to graduate into the "power user" category. At which point, they end up delving into topics such as the Windows Registry, DLL incompatibilities, and the various "power user" tips and tricks of Windows. All of which constitute a formidible body of arcana, which is not made magically easier by the fact that it comes from Redmond, WA. Yet normal end-users tackle it anyway."
I will agree that the power user will eventually look into the depths of the OS. Ad here I find Linux to have plusses.
Zack:
"Funny, I just point, click, and the application runs, once it's been installed, under Linux as well. Just like in Windows. Except without the BSOD.
Yes, they run. What frontend is best
Still.....
What make Linux (Unix) (in my oppion) far much better and potentional winner - is that Liux have a true OS - not integrated with the graphics. It is modular and easy to work with (develop, enchance, etc).
It make it possible for people like Linus to work on the OS for performance, multi processer, etc, while others make graphics/X-window, etc - and more that can do applicaion, etc (to both OS and/or graphics).
Windows
I have been studying for MCSE
One is tempted to ask: "Why did MicroSoft make Windows loaded with graphics when Bill had told that noone would need more than 640 KB in a PC" ?
But who set it all up?
Yes, Chumley, this is the key. Windows9x is 97%
configured (albeit very poorly) out of the
box. Who set up yer moms printer? Dial-up
connection? Thats all that typically needs to be
done after a default win9x install.
If you have some funky hardware that win9x doesn't
have a driver for (As in "Insert disk from
manufacturer") add another step.
It's true for the most part with win9x you don't need
to know jack about your hardware, but the vast
majority of systems come hot-loaded and include
any drivers not included in the stock win9x distro.
When I hear this argument it always sounds to me like
whoever is making it is putting forth that a day 1
win9x user can do everything except code and never
has to press F1. Anybody who has a minor rep
as a computer person will tell you this is a crock.
You are right that many people will avoid
learning if at all possible but what you fail to acknowledge
is that people _do_ have the capacity to learn,
and even if learning is not their thing
they still do get a sense of acheivement out of it.
Cuz it's more stable? - nah. Mom's computer
rarely goes down and then its an
exscuse for coffee.
So what you are saying?
1)Your moms computer _does_ crash
or
2)Your mom rarely drinks coffee
or
3)She's not doing any thing of consequence,
so when it is time for a "coffee break" she's not
losing any productivity.
All I know is I gave my 11 yo nephew a box with
Linux installed and he's doing fine with it.
FWIW this kid is about as far from self reliant
as you can get. I had a sum total of
2 phonecalls the week I gave it to him.
His mom, a Mac user, has no problems either.
BTW They are using KDE...
Now what are they gonna do when its time to reinstall everything?
Oh, yeah, I forgot, that doesn't happen with Linux
#ifdef MS_LINUX
Foobar = 3
#else
#ifdef GNU_LINUX
Foobar = 5
#endif
#ifdef TORVALDS_LINUX
int Linus_Is_A_Stud(int foo)
#else
#ifdef GNU_LINUX
int Stallman_Is_A_Stud(int foo)
#endif
#endif
The cake is a pie
You have made a good point but you have overlooked a couple of things. Windows users will gradually grow more sophisticated over time. The strategy of pretending that administrative issues don't exist so that you need only be a "user" of your machine will grow weaker over time as Windows users gain experience. Windows only appears to be easy to use and administration free because of several factors including this naivete and, of course, pre-installation. As users become more knowlegable and as other systems are offered preinstalled that boot straight to GUI's Windows will lose this advantage.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
This begs the question: what is it to win, and should linux strive to win at it?
The implicit assumption is that linux will become a mainstream, Joe Lunchbox operating system, to the detriment of Microsoft (Apple, Be, etc).
I really don't see the advantage in that. It'll certainly up the demand for commercial applications, and corporations will move to fill that demand. Is that what we really want?
So many linux users (both way back when and now) couldn't give a rat's ass for free software; they want applications. I'm afraid that if we court the commercial market too strongly, we'll lose, not gain, developers - that great mass of developers who create free software.
What linux should strive to gain is more developers and especially more free software developers. Commercial ventures seeking to distribute non-free software for linux should be given a run for their money; they should be pressed to advance the state of the art as fast as they can. The point is that we, as a community, don't need more users; we need more developers. Linux users should aspire to become developers, and existing developers should aspire to use their skills on Linux. If we slowly give that up and let corporations handle it for us, then we're also giving up control of Linux, GPL notwithstanding.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
While multiple groups package and distribute Linux, the software in each distibution are varying versions of the same programs. The latest distributions from each distributor might be hard to distinguish to the untrained eye. (Although I doubt there are any untrained eyes reading this. :)
Microsoft's most recent batch of operating system offerings, however, is horribly fragmented. Windows 98, Windows NT, and Windows 2000 (beta) (which a number of people already use.) There's (I believe) a separate source tree for WinNT for DEC Alphas. Soon we will have 64 and 32 bit versions of some of these on the streets at the same time. There are big incompatabilites between these systems, as I'm sure some gamers learned the hard way when using NT.
(To be fair, I'm leaving out the heavily-in-use Win 3.1 and Win 95, and only looking at current versions.)
With Linux, one pile of source gets you 32 or 64 bits, workstation and server, on PowerPC, Alpha, Pentium, and more.
I doubt we have any real fragmentation worries. I cannot comprehend why Microsoft's Ed Muth continually tries to foist this as an argument against Linux... he should step up an look at his own operating system, for a moment.
>>>>>True, to a point. However, I think you've bought excessively into the myth of Positive /.'r would install GNU/Linux on one machine for someone in return for that person doing the same within one year.I am getting ready to look at one machine that a 50 year old woman bought for her church and the pastor who was using it left. I am also helping a woman who is using a DOS app in a bussiness that is written in a DB languange and was given no user info for. I was thinking ...yea, I know what would work better here..except I told her to call the company and ask them everytime she had a question until they gave her some documentation. In a few months I should have a good grasp on what new users need for various apps.
Windows(tm) OOBE (Out-Of-Box-Experience). Linux installation is not that much harder than
Windows installation -- it's just that 99.44% of computer users get Windows pre-installed. A
pre-installed (or friend-installed) Linux would avoid that same pain. >>>>>>>>>>
Read my user info and you will see I am starting to do just that on old DOS and windows machines. Installing and supporting Linux for a few people to see what the main problems are for people who don't have any computer experience or very limited. We could add thousands of new Linux users overnight if every
--- Join my team at www.dcypher.net $10,000 to the winning computer #147 "Homebuilt Computer Users"
The question is ``why doesn't *BSD have native applications support?'' Inquiring minds want to know why *BSD is such a barren applications desert. It is a question of why there is so little initiative and so much slothfullness in the *BSD realms. Just think of all the ``must have'' applications which originate in the Linux wonderland. And then ponder the emptiness of the *BSD wasteland. *BSD tries to talk the talk, but they can't walk the walk, as it is a fact that the BSD community is alarmingly sterile in the production of applications software.
I agree with your statement that there is little danger of the Linux kernel becoming fragmented, but remember that what we commonly referr to as "Linux" (GNU/Linux if you want to be pedantic) is really a combination of the kernel, libraries, installation packages, tools, directory heirarchies, and the almost infinite dependencies that exist between all these variables!
What happens is that an application, especially if it is distributed in a binary form, must be able to handle all these variables if it's going to function properly. In reality, vendors are starting to certify their applications against only a small subset of the current distributions - typically RH or Caldera - due to limited testing resources. An application that works under one distribution will not necessarily work under another distribution, or even on an updated release of the same distribution. For example, I had to download the new release of StarOffice when I upgraded to RH6.0. I haven't even tried my WordPerfect yet.
Am I hopeful that the Linux community will be able to overcome this hurdle? Yes. Do I think it will be an easy or painless task? Definitely NOT!
Your Servant, B. Baggins
[ side-note: the Linus Torvalds interview along with followup comments were once available on Slashdot. However, shortly after their appearance, Rob Malda erased the article and comments because they were too forthright and honest for a timid audience.]
Using the typical is-linux-read-for-the-masses example, would my Grandmother be
able to straighten out that mess? Hell no!
And she could straighten out a dll problem? BS
I'm still a lot more comfortable doing things on the Windows side. I'm still not a very capable Linux user. In point of fact -- and I'll be the first to admit it -- I'm very close to to being a complete fscking moron on the Linux side of things. I dual-boot because I am, alas, still largely dependent on Windows to get my work done. But I do have a working Linux installation. And I can do a few interesting and occasionally useful things with it. I can even do some of those things from the command line.
If a relatively clueless type such as myself can do a Linux install and have it work on the first try, then either (a) I'm actually a genius of godlike proportions and don't know it or (b) at least one Linux distro has reached the point where a clueless moron can install it. Much as I'd love to flatter myself by thinking that the former is true, the fact of the matter is that I'm probably not anything close to being a "genius".
Just something for the naysayers to think about...
Zontar The Mindless,
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
...people are absolutely correct when they say installs have gotten very easy. In fact, they've been pretty easy; most of the changes in installation programs I've seen over the last couple years have been more cosmetic than functional.
The usability issue is configuration after the install. It's things like being able to use a control panel to change your resolution, color depth and refresh rate to anything your card is capable of on the fly and have it stick (sorry, XFree86's hot keys just don't cut it in that regard). Like being able to install a new font by dropping it in a directory and having all the programs on your system be able to use it for both screen and print.
This extends to applications, too. KDE and Gnome are making strides in the right direction, but people shouldn't underestimate how nice it is for all but the most diehard CLI-or-death types to be able to do something (seemingly) simple like select font and font size for applications while they're running with a few mouse clicks, or creating symbolic links with drag-and-drop. Linux developers should not disdain the UIs of MacOS and BeOS, they should start learning from them.
They both said they had no idea if Intuit had any plans to make a Linux version. One said that "Intuit does not release any pre-sales information"; the other said I should call their tech support.
Bah. Has no one tried to educate Intuit yet?
Or at least it's what the 2.2.0 kernel said first time I booted it.
So it's Unix. EOT.
I strongly believe that linux can meet the needs of the mainstream user. But just as the PC itself didn't become a consumer commodity until the advent of windows, neither will linux take off in any significant way until it also becomes an OS that isolates the user from the command line.
If Joe Sixpac can't even program his vcr, how can we expect him to be able to set up a printer under unix? "Lessee, what are we calling the printer this week?"
Please don't misunderstand me: in a lot of respects I was much more productive from the DOS command line than I can ever hope to be in Windows. Windows just doesn't have the power of a combination of command-line arguments (can you say "shell script"?)
Let's face it: Grandma will never convert to linux as it is today, especially when she calls tech support to ask "Do I need a computer to get on the internet?"
Robin
No hacker would willingly use a Microsoft corrupted distribution, so the people who would use it are the glassy-eyed Windows converts who don't know what the word 'compile' means.
They would install their MS Linux and expect it to work. Then they would install Office for MS Linux and expect that to work. The distribution wouldn't come with source code, it would come with a card you send in along with $20 for 'processing' so you could order the source, but no one would bother.
Then one day, a friend would offer to install some wicked free app that didn't come from MS, and it wouldn't work. And the MS Person(tm) would blame the developer of the program, not Microsoft.
In a few rare cases their hacker friend might be able to convince them to switch to an uncorrupted distribution, but for the most part it's like talking to a Catholic about the Tao. The same arguments that currently don't convince Windows users to switch to Linux won't convince MS Linux users to switch distributions. Why? Because it runs out of the box, with no hassles, as long as you don't poke it too hard. That's all they want, and that's what they'll use.
Using Microsoft software is like having unprotect sex.
Bite the hand.
Ever try to create a boot floppy that includes CD-ROM drivers so you can "bootstrap" the install off the Windows CD?
I've got one system I built from various spare parts (classic Linux situation ;-). RH5.2 installs on it without a hitch. No problem. Windows95 will not install! I can sort of cobble it on and get it to boot, but I have a NIC, video and sound card. Pick any two... Even turning off the sound card, I have to boot the stupid machine three times after a power-up in order for the PnP cards to configure right, and even then, the NIC uses the same IRQ as the serial (mouse) port, so the mouse works like s--t.
My point is - once people start buying systems designed for Linux, with the OS and basic applications pre-installed a LOT of the perceived difficulty of Linux for the masses will simply fade away...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
... by a sweet file system.
Corndog
But who set it all up? I have seen my mother install win95. And M$Office. Yeah she just hit the typical install thing. But it was simple.
I installed RH5.2 about 6 mos ago. I had no problem. I installed KDE and Gnome. Fairly easy. Thing is I know basic unix stuff. My mother could not have done it.
With linux you still need to know commands. With Windows you don't. Although you should. I'm sure my mother would be uncomfortable in linux, and therefore would not use it. Yes KDE and Gnome are easy to use. But you still have to know stuff. Most people already know Windows.
Why would they learn something else?
Cuz it's more stable? - nah. Mom's computer rarely goes down and then its an exscuse for coffee.
Freedom(speech) of Code? - nah. she could care less.
Free($$$) of code? - That she might bite at. But she'll probably pay for something familiar. How much will you pay for home cooking like mom's?
Cuz she can run a server? - Mom's response - Whats that?
I still argue that linux's main place is in the server arena, in the hands of computer people, and used by people willing to learn. The masses tend not to want to learn.
-cpd
I must disagree. KDE is *not* to the point where it's as easy for the end user to use as Windows. I say this having recently installed the latest version of Mandrake Linux... as I was setting it up, I was thinking "this is no big deal, but a normal end user couldn't do this". When Linux gets to the point where almost any piece of hardware can be added to the machine, and all the user has to do to install it is stick in the included floppy disk when the computer tells them to, *then* it will be as easy as Windows.
Sure, it may be "just as easy to use" for the end users once someone like us sets it up for them... but if they can't install new software/hardware easily -- easily for THEM, not US! -- then Linux won't be ready for the masses.
I agree with your points, but not your conclusion. (just realized I was replying to the reply, this actually goes to the original post).
Never say never.
The points you bring up are certainly going to make it much harder for Linux, or any *nix-like OS, to become a 0-skill, entry-level, first day OS. Look at DOS and Windows. Same old DOS still sits under W95 and is still just as ugly as ever. The new user is shielded from that.
To do the same to Linux is probably not impossible, though not very desirable. My opinion is that Lunix is moving in the right direction to make it more accessible for the novice enthusiast, but will/should probably stop short of the "mainstream" user who has no computer skills and does not want/need them to do their job.
I'm a big fan of choice. I'm not eager to see Mickeysoft wiped out completely, just put in their place. I can see a world where Linux is a powerful, well entrenched, well supported platform for whoever wants to use it for whatever use provided they have the knowledge to put it to work. And then alternate, less powerful, less entrenched equally well supported platforms are available for those whose skill sets are outside of computing who want to have an easy to use tool to make their work easier.
My $.0199967352
Fragmentation IS a concern, and it may already be happening. In the article on here yesterday or Monday about SGI's new Linux servers, I pointed out that they specifically mentioned two specific changes to the kernel -- a replacement TCP/IP stack and more efficient NFS code.
I asked if anyone had seen a mention of these on the kernel mailing list. There was no replies suggesting that there has been any contribution by SGI to the stock kernel of those technologies.
So there's a bit of fragmentation there. What happens if software starts needing a particular NFS implementation, or a particular TCP/IP implementation. Already you see packages coming out for RedHat that are a bitch to install on non RedHat systems. Hell, IBM's viavoice stuff they released a while back bombed out on non-RedHat 6.0 systems.
As time progresses this is only going to get worse. The work being done to define a standard base of libraries doesn't enforce application vendors to build against only those libraries -- particularly since (AFAIK) the compilers usually link against the most recent ones on the system, and most if not all distributions will have more than just those base libraries on them.
Under Windows you occasionally see that problem too, with differing versions of DLL's getting mixed up, overwritten, or lost and the general instability that results. What happens when more applications start coming out requiring versions of the system libraries that aren't necessarily compatible with each other? Are we going to end up with 100 meg of differing libc/glibc libraries on a Linux system? Even with a system like RPM, that's a real pain to keep track of, particularly when you're building new software.
Has this been addressed by anyone? It'd seem its an issue for things like Gnome and KDE. If its March 2000, and I've recently upgraded by Gnome and now have GTK 2.0 on my system, will the binary of Communicator 5.0 I'm running still work? Switching to GTK 1.2 broke most of the older apps I had.
Using the typical is-linux-read-for-the-masses example, would my Grandmother be able to straighten out that mess? Hell no!
Don't treat this as flamebait. It's not. I just don't understand why everyone CARES whether or not linux makes it big in the commercial/enduser/desktop market. The only reason that I care in the least is hardware support. Other than that, whay would you give a crap? It works great for me. I could care less if joe user down the street doesn't like it because it isn't as "user friendly" as his mac. That's his problem. So what if this kind of issue does cause the "community" to fragment? Will that stop people from improving the environment? No. Will it slow down development. Maybe, but so what. Nobody is paying for it, and the best stuff is just written for fun anyway. my $0.02
OK enough rambling, I suppose I should go hack on some firmware or something.
/dev
"There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich