The cynic in me thinks the term "Open Source" is used more as a bargaining tool than anything that gets implemented.
Yeah, right. That's probably why over 2/3rds of Webservers run on it. Also almost all leading Internet companies use OpenSource: Google, Amazon.com, Geocities, etc. etc.
I don't know why Winlots keep pretending to forget those huge and easily proofable successes of OpenSource software.
I'm not sure I like that idea.
Afraid Microsoft might lose some millions in profits?
Why is it good that these Microsoft people are noticing Linux?
Because Microsoft will give Linux lots and lots of free advertisments like their "facts" website. If Microsoft tries to badmouth Linux, it can't be so bad, now can it?
The point is that Linux comes with a compiler&tools which enables everybody to join the project, which is often a prerequesite for a free-of-charge project to become really good.
So on the Win32 platform, this project would have remained a one-man-project, it would have never been made better by others and after a couple of years (when this one man would have moved on to something else or a replacement would appear or whatever) it would rot away and finally disapear.
We need to set up some kind of open source org for generating and funding silly patent applications. With some sympathetic venture capital, we may be able to clog the patent system for the next 50 years!
So essentially, you want to destroy the system by feeding them with money?
In 1994, the desktop was not a GUI desktop, the
desktop was mostly a command-line universe both
on DOS-based systems and Linux systems.
Linux did have an advantage: multiple virtual
consoles, real multi-tasking, tcp/ip stack
bundled, nfs, file serving capabilities, and
DOSemu with compatibility with the past.
If DOSemu were preinstalled with all distros and would have worked on all DOS-programs, you would be right, but at that time even installing a Linux distribution was a monumental task.
But the main point is that for some strange reason you have forgotten Windows 3.11, which was released in 1991 IIRC. Then there was Amiga and of course Apple, so yes, of course almost everybody had a GUI already, even Microsoft.
Of course DOS was still widespread, especially in the gaming market, but the market was going to GUIs and by 1994 everybody should have realized that.
In my opinion, the first viable Linux-desktop was KDE 2.0, which was released IIRC in 1999 or 2000.
Just for the record, Microsoft did not grow big because of ripping off good ideas, but because IBM made the PC the MS-platform and Asian manufacturers made cheap hardware for the PC.
Linux is becoming the standard interface
on
Linux Spreads its Wings
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
...between hardware and software.
It runs on (almost) all hardware architectures and supports a huge open-source application library which can be recompiled for all hardware architectures.
Mindshare, application library and number of users will continue to increase in all computing, yes even on the desktop.
Some guy sais that some anonymous sound card doesn't work with Linux. Even after being asked in the discussion forum numerous times, he refuses to reveal the card type.
Another fact: Even if that problem really exists (which I kinda doubt), without knowing what card he is talking about it can't be fixed.
1. Never say what part is supposed to have a problem. Just say "my sound card" or "my video card". If people bug you, tell them the vendor but not the model. If they continue to bug you, dissapear.
2. Never say what distribution you are using. Say "XYZ" instead. If people bug you, tell them which distribution but not the version. If they continue to bug you, well see above.
3. Just make the assumtion that any supposed shortcomings of "XYZ" apply to all Linux distributions.
BTW, I couldn't get "my harddrive" to work with Windows XY.
P.S.: Actually I really had a Western Digital 40GB harddrive that crashed the BIOS in both an Athlon and P2 and therefore wasn's usable in Windows98, since Linux ignores the BIOS the harddrive worked fine (of course booting off it was impossible).
Gimp uses Ctrl+X/C/V, sounds very strange that CinePaint would use something else. Also CinePaint is a specialized niche-application, not anything an average user would ever see. xv is pretty much like Netscape4: Old and obsolete. Never heard of Brahams and USGS metadata stack. Since CinePaint was specially made for a small group of users there might be some reason why they changed that keys from Gimp. But since CinePaint is based on Gimp I have my doubts about your claim being even true...
To imply that no cut/copy/paste usability problem exists because you have not found any thus far is silly.
I just asked. If you claim that there are "3 or more" different shortcut-keys to cut/copy/paste and don't come up with any good examples, that's silly.
And I stand by it: Even if you install a crappy desktop-distribution, there aren't any different shortcut keys for cut/copy/paste in any application that is in the default install.
Even though I realize that RedHat and debian are no desktop distributions and some FUD-swingers constantly use them to discredit "the Linux desktop", that particular problem (different shorcut keys for cut/copy/paste) isn't a problem even on those distributions. The problems which indeed exist on RedHat and debian (like inconsistency, no or bad GUI-tools for hardware configuration, the need to use text editors) are completely different problems than shortcut keys and, more importantly don't exist on desktop centric distributions like SuSE or Mandrake.
You pretty much describe Suse - except the useful bookmarks, IIRC after a fresh install they only have a bookmark to their homepage.
But in the installation, it proposes a partitioning (if Windows is installed it is assumed you want to keep it), no questions about desktops (KDE default), Openoffice is preinstalled and it discourages users to run as root.
If you would actually try a distribution targetted at the desktop, like Suse, you would have no problems, there is a graphical tool for all desktop-stuff (X11-config, input, firewall, everything) and for most server-things, too.
With all due respect to diversity of code, freedom, etc, having three or more different sets of commands to copy/cut/paste text makes me think too much about what app has focus. Seriously.
If you are so serious, I'm sure you can tell me just one reasonably popular GUI-application in Linux that doesn't work with Ctrl+X/C/V, because even after years of using Linux I couldn't find any except the old Netscape4 (which used Alt+X/C/V), which is extinct by now.
Re:Mono-Culture?
on
A Taste of Qt 4
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Is there even one single non-trivial software project made with/on Mono?
I'm getting tired of all those predictions, promises and vaporware coming from Gnome/Mono. Why does anybody still take them seriously?
So far, nothing useful has come from Mono while Qt runs REAL software (you know, the kind that actually runs and can be useful) ranging from a whole desktop environment to word-processors.
Trolls never take a closer look and never notice for example multiple desktops.
So for the Trolls it doesn't matter wether there is innovation on the Linux platform (there is) because all they will look for is Windows-features and all they will notice are Windows-features or the lack of them.
How, exactly, does one *create* a market? there's zero demand.
In Thailand, Linux is now preinstalled on 60% of computers. The market was created by the government (Yeah, I know, those evil communist bastards) building a cheap computing platform.
Of course a Linux market can be created, but just with any other product you will need to invest something first.
If the combination of ideas was so obvious, why didn't the last of the submitted prior art patent it...
How can a workaround/extension of a filesystem to implement a feature that was in other filesystems for decades be not obvious? Despite what this AC might think, long filenames weren't invented by Microsoft.
Playing catch-up with the competition and implementing their features is the most obvious thing you can do.
This blind Microsoft loyality is really amazing. I don't say that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to get ideas from others, everybody does it - but getting a patent for an extension for a feature the competition had decades before? That's just ridiculous.
I just looked at your site and for my distribution (SuSE) the only REMOTE vulnerability in the LAST YEAR was gaim which I don't even use (I use LICQ).
All the others where denial of service vulnerabilities or elevation of privileges problems, which in case of the kernel are of course a bad thing and which have been reported on Slashdot several times.
So in the last year, I had exactly ZERO vulnerabilities that would represent an immedieate danger to my Linux boxes (elevation of privileges is bad, but not an immediate danger for me because I don't run any mass-user hosts) and in the meantime the Windows-world had MS-Slammer, MS-Blaster and many, many other problems.
If you want to stick your head into the sand, do so, but please don't think that you are smart doing so or that anybody else has got a "party line".
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, right. That's probably why over 2/3rds of Webservers run on it. Also almost all leading Internet companies use OpenSource: Google, Amazon.com, Geocities, etc. etc.
I don't know why Winlots keep pretending to forget those huge and easily proofable successes of OpenSource software.
I'm not sure I like that idea.
Afraid Microsoft might lose some millions in profits?
That depends on where you are looking. In Thailand for example about 60% of desktops are preinstalled with Linux already.
Also OpenSource Apache runs an over 65% (and still increasing) share of webservers.
Because Microsoft will give Linux lots and lots of free advertisments like their "facts" website. If Microsoft tries to badmouth Linux, it can't be so bad, now can it?
The point is that Linux comes with a compiler&tools which enables everybody to join the project, which is often a prerequesite for a free-of-charge project to become really good.
So on the Win32 platform, this project would have remained a one-man-project, it would have never been made better by others and after a couple of years (when this one man would have moved on to something else or a replacement would appear or whatever) it would rot away and finally disapear.
So essentially, you want to destroy the system by feeding them with money?
If DOSemu were preinstalled with all distros and would have worked on all DOS-programs, you would be right, but at that time even installing a Linux distribution was a monumental task.
But the main point is that for some strange reason you have forgotten Windows 3.11, which was released in 1991 IIRC. Then there was Amiga and of course Apple, so yes, of course almost everybody had a GUI already, even Microsoft.
Of course DOS was still widespread, especially in the gaming market, but the market was going to GUIs and by 1994 everybody should have realized that.
In my opinion, the first viable Linux-desktop was KDE 2.0, which was released IIRC in 1999 or 2000.
Yeah, but that's irrelevant. The only thing that counts is that IBM chose MS for the PC and that the PC became an open hardware platform.
It runs on (almost) all hardware architectures and supports a huge open-source application library which can be recompiled for all hardware architectures.
Mindshare, application library and number of users will continue to increase in all computing, yes even on the desktop.
How can anyone be helpful when the complainer refuses to reveal what hardware causes the problem?
Fred Langa's story probably never happened.
The facts:
Some guy sais that some anonymous sound card doesn't work with Linux. Even after being asked in the discussion forum numerous times, he refuses to reveal the card type.
Another fact: Even if that problem really exists (which I kinda doubt), without knowing what card he is talking about it can't be fixed.
I couldn't get XYZ to work with my sound card
Small FUD-HOWTO:
BTW, I couldn't get "my harddrive" to work with Windows XY.
P.S.: Actually I really had a Western Digital 40GB harddrive that crashed the BIOS in both an Athlon and P2 and therefore wasn's usable in Windows98, since Linux ignores the BIOS the harddrive worked fine (of course booting off it was impossible).
To imply that no cut/copy/paste usability problem exists because you have not found any thus far is silly.
I just asked. If you claim that there are "3 or more" different shortcut-keys to cut/copy/paste and don't come up with any good examples, that's silly.
And I stand by it: Even if you install a crappy desktop-distribution, there aren't any different shortcut keys for cut/copy/paste in any application that is in the default install.
Even though I realize that RedHat and debian are no desktop distributions and some FUD-swingers constantly use them to discredit "the Linux desktop", that particular problem (different shorcut keys for cut/copy/paste) isn't a problem even on those distributions. The problems which indeed exist on RedHat and debian (like inconsistency, no or bad GUI-tools for hardware configuration, the need to use text editors) are completely different problems than shortcut keys and, more importantly don't exist on desktop centric distributions like SuSE or Mandrake.
So please keep your FUD to yourself.
But in the installation, it proposes a partitioning (if Windows is installed it is assumed you want to keep it), no questions about desktops (KDE default), Openoffice is preinstalled and it discourages users to run as root.
If you are so serious, I'm sure you can tell me just one reasonably popular GUI-application in Linux that doesn't work with Ctrl+X/C/V, because even after years of using Linux I couldn't find any except the old Netscape4 (which used Alt+X/C/V), which is extinct by now.
I'm getting tired of all those predictions, promises and vaporware coming from Gnome/Mono. Why does anybody still take them seriously?
So far, nothing useful has come from Mono while Qt runs REAL software (you know, the kind that actually runs and can be useful) ranging from a whole desktop environment to word-processors.
So for the Trolls it doesn't matter wether there is innovation on the Linux platform (there is) because all they will look for is Windows-features and all they will notice are Windows-features or the lack of them.
In Thailand, Linux is now preinstalled on 60% of computers. The market was created by the government (Yeah, I know, those evil communist bastards) building a cheap computing platform.
Of course a Linux market can be created, but just with any other product you will need to invest something first.
The ONLY thing that really matters is applications.
If the apps are there, KDE/Linux is perfectly viable and usable right now.
If they aren't, it isn't.
People ran DOS for years when Amiga and Apple offered much better UIs - only because of the applications (and because of cheap hardware).
I personally expect Linux to take one desktop niche after another. The 3d-modelling niche is already taken, it seems the government desktops are next.
The home desktop, especially if games are needed, will be the last niche conquered by Linux and it will take a very long time.
How can a workaround/extension of a filesystem to implement a feature that was in other filesystems for decades be not obvious? Despite what this AC might think, long filenames weren't invented by Microsoft.
Playing catch-up with the competition and implementing their features is the most obvious thing you can do.
This blind Microsoft loyality is really amazing. I don't say that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to get ideas from others, everybody does it - but getting a patent for an extension for a feature the competition had decades before? That's just ridiculous.
Of course this should be counted because running anti-virus software is part of the total cost of ownership of running Windows.
Just add up all revenue of all anti-virus companies.
Of course that doesn't include the time to install all that stuff and the time needed to clean up in case a virus/worm hits.
All the others where denial of service vulnerabilities or elevation of privileges problems, which in case of the kernel are of course a bad thing and which have been reported on Slashdot several times.
So in the last year, I had exactly ZERO vulnerabilities that would represent an immedieate danger to my Linux boxes (elevation of privileges is bad, but not an immediate danger for me because I don't run any mass-user hosts) and in the meantime the Windows-world had MS-Slammer, MS-Blaster and many, many other problems.
If you want to stick your head into the sand, do so, but please don't think that you are smart doing so or that anybody else has got a "party line".