Sorry to be so cynical, but whatever China does with their software doesn't really affect me.
The Windows domination however does affect me personally (I have to "buy" sofware I don't need, I have to deal with peripheral makers not including Linux drivers on their CDs and of course more games for Linux would also be nice.) and if China is helping ending it, I'm all for it.
Because Microsoft does in fact not donate a "pile of software" and instead will send just a few CDs and allows the UN just to use it on many computers, even 1 million seems a bit high.
Wrong, you can get Linux from many different sources (from scratch, from SuSE, from Mandrake, from debian, etc.) and in many different variations (even on a single distro the packages you install can vary greatly) and on many different platforms (x86, PPC, ARM, etc.)
Linux domination is not dangerous at all, actually it is great because it enables competition on a lot of other levels.
For example now it's pretty hard or even downright impossible to make an ARM-based desktop because of Window's lock on the desktop and because it runs only on x86. As soon as Linux dominates the desktop this problem goes away and we will finally see free competition between CPU-makers and CPU-architectures.
I also think the "GNU" prefix is pretty stupid, but for a different reason.
We have names to tell things apart. Since Linux is (almost) always a system with GNU-libraries, it's pointless to add it everytime.
The crusade to add the "GNU" prefix is doomed to fail because the natural thing to do with redundant prefixes is to drop them.
Besides, GNU isn't really running that much on my system anyway. KDE is much bigger in terms of lines of code and I don't use much GNU-programs anyway (no emacs).
The truth is, however, that McDonalds served their coffee at a temperature unfit for human consumption (185F or 85C) and the woman in question had third degree burns and required skin grafts.
Actually McDonalds also servers their burgers unfit for human consumption (styrofoam is bad for your stomach) so you better put big warning signs "please remove styrofoam box before consumption" in big fat letters on them, just to make sure that nobody gets hurt.
The analogy is actually pretty good. Both high temperature and the burger boxes make sure that you can actually consume your meal 10 minutes after purchase.
A computer scientist studies (and at least supposedly understands) the science behind computers.
A computer scientist should also have some basic knowledge about computers in real life.
Knowing that beta-releases aren't for grandma is basic knowledge.
Knowing that end-users are using Linux distributions and do not download their DE themselves is also basic knowledge.
Somebody claiming to be a computer scientist who doesn't know that is either lying or has been at a real bad university.
I repeat: I was NOT talking about being able/willing to download and install every beta-release of KDE. I was ONLY talking about the knowledge of beta-releases in general and distributions.
I just finished my BS in CS, and guess what?
Guess what, if you complain that "grandma" can't install test-releases of software which is also meant to be preinstalled by the distribution, I will still call you a moron.
KDE has solved the environment issue but is facing an application issue. People will compare Konq to Mozilla (which has in a way become a de facto GNOME browser), but I will call Mozilla a leader here.
Half a year ago, I would have agreed, but now with Mozilla removing features while Konqueror is adding SVG (in the default build, not in some seperate project), Konq is overtaking Mozilla about now.
I'd still say Mozilla has the better rendering engine, but Konqueror has better integration (an example is the file selector, another is being able to open all files in a useful manner, from.pdf to.doc), more features and SVG (it's a real shame that Mozilla let their pretty good SVG implementation rot away as a seperate project).
Right now, I'd say both are about equal, but Konqueror moving much faster and will soon be ahead of Mozilla, I think.
Wow, so now all the Divx rippers will have to chop a few frames off of each divx they rip so each hash is different.
Well since every ripper uses a different bitrate, different cropping, different codec and other differences, (almost) each rip is different in the first place.
The pure amount of "forbidden" hashes that have to be stored would be prohibitive and it also is impossible to automate the process (somebody has to watch each file and tell the program which are illegal and which are legal. There is absolutely no way a computer can figure out wether some file is copyrighted or not) so it's not even remotely realistic.
Multiple desktops are a very elegant, fast and efficient way to use several apps simultaneously or switch between apps.
Expose does the very same thing. Only with more animations and less efficiency. (good for the demo, bad for day-to-day work)
I also was blown away by the beauty and nifty-ness of MacOSX the first half hour I used it. But after half a day this wears off but the awkard workarounds remain.
Virtual desktops require a much more complex mental model be developed and maintained by the user and for most, there is simply no benefit to be gained.
No benefit? Yeah, if you use less than 10 windows/apps at a time, yeah. But multiple desktops allows you to essentially keep all your apps open all the time. IM, mp3-player, mailer, many browser windows, etc. etc.
Multiple desktops allow you to create fine-tuned environments optimized for your needs. For example I have a "communications"-desktop where I have my mailer and IM-program open. If I want to contact somebody I just go to that desktop and I have everything right there. No starting of apps needed, no resizing of windows needed. Similarily I have a non-work browsing desktop littered with many browser windows (like slashdot) - which don't disturb me when working. For work I have a editor-desktop, a documentation desktop, a CLI-desktop and a legal desktop (for bills, online banking etc.).
I keep everything open at all times and whenever I want to do a specific task I just go to the appropriate desktop. All needed apps are already open and in case of browser windows are also already pointed at the correct locations.
It's a whole new way to work and much superior to the MacOSX or Windows one-desktop paradigm. Of course the benefits aren't obvious after a half-hour demo, it takes weeks if not months to really take advantage of them.
The problem with 3rd party additions for Windows and MacOSX is that they are buggy, tend to get broken in future versions and are not integrated. For example does the dock in MacOSX show only the apps on the current desktop or *all* apps? If the latter (and since MacOSX is unaware of desktops I'm afraid so) then it indeed is useless because all that open apps are littering your dock.
Can you even come up with a single example of a major usability problem with KDE?
I can with MacOSX:
Animations slow me down. MacOSX (10.2) offered me 2 choices between minimize-animations, but no possibility to turn them off.
Yeah, it's old, but one mouse button just isn't enough. At least they support the RMB since MacOSX, but the whole interface is loaded problems caused by this. An example is the horrible inconsistency between single-click and double-click. Only with much experience you can know that you have to double-click some icons and single-click others. This is a workaround for the lack of mouse buttons (which was copied by Microsoft). On a clean GUI like KDE, it's always single-clicking - very consistent. (Of course you can still configure it the moronic MacOS-way)
One desktop just isn't enough. Again Apple introduced an awkard workaround (Expose) because they are too proud to implement the obvious
Can you come up with some major design deficiency in KDE?
Certainly not, but at least Windows' interface isn't designed by techies, and instead GUI specialists.
KDE's interface is much better. Multiple desktops, MMB-pasting, single/doubleclick consistency and tabbed browsing are just a few of many examples of it's superiority.
Yes, as usual, I put forward real examples while the Wintrolls make claims like "being designed by GUI specialists" without even an hint of proof.
Can you put up an example of what is so terrible about KDE/Linux? Of course you can't because there simply are no major shortcomings compared to Windows.
I had no driver issues, but when they occur it is an issue for Linux on the desktop. Poeple expect it to work right off the bat. They're gonna say "fuck this, I give up" if it doesn't - mos people don't get a thrill out of programming their own drivers like Slashbots would suggest.
It's exactly what I said. Essentially Linux is missing 3rd party support. 3rd party means hardware vendors including easily installable and well tested drivers on the driver disc. 3rd party support means software vendors offering Linux versions. 3rd party support means computer vendors preinstalling it.
However, 3rd party support doesn't have anything to do with Linux itself.
I usually don't get personal, but are you really too dumb to realize the difference between problems caused by programming mistakes/missing features (like MS Blaster) and problems caused by ignorant 3rd parties (like that USB-camera that doesn't work on Linux)?
Nope, merely pointing out that Linux isn't ready for the desktop for the average user. In case you missed it, Linus Fucking Torvalds agrees.
Linus Torvalds has realized that it takes years so that Linux can pick up the 3rd party support to become usable for the masses.
As I said, that's no technical problem at all. It's a matter of getting Linux entrenched and established - and that takes some time.
For your average non-techie, it's not. Hell, even I had issues with Mandrake 8.0 - and I'm doing PHP coding for a living at the moment.
Are you claiming that there are no Windows-issues? The lack of mass-infections a la Blaster alone is a big plus on Linux. What kind of "issues" are you talking about anyway? Like that-or-that-driver doesn't exist? Yeah, exactly what I said, but that's not a shortcoming of Linux. What was your point anyway? Or were you trolling?
The 3d-modeling niche is a very good example of Linux running not on the desktop but as a processing cluster (in this case, rendering graphics).
Wrong, they run Linux on their desktops by now, too.
Technically, KDE/Linux has been good enough for the desktop for 1 or 2 years already.
What is missing is applications (especially games) and to a lesser extent drivers.
The 3d-modelling niche is a very good example on how fast Linux can take over a market when the apps are there.
In the next years, expect other niches to go to Linux, the next being non-US government desktops. When Munich migrates and ports their apps, it gets easier, cheaper and faster for other cities with similar application-needs to follow.
The only problem is that such migrations take a lot of time, that's why it is taking a decade (and it already started).
Re:Whats wrong with Proprietary Everything
on
Oracle Embraces Mozilla
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you look at the real world:
The GNU project was founded when MS was still a small and pretty insignificant player. Also in the beginning GNU didn't even try to be a competition to MS
Linux was created because of the shortcomings of Minix, MS had nothing to do with it
Apache was created before IIS. D'oh!
Microsoft has nothing to do with motivating open source.
I still use Mozilla 1.2 - simply because I use Mozilla only on the (few) sites that don't work with Konqueror and I have spent some time on my Mozilla 1.2 installation (installed plugins, optimized preferences) and there is no real incentive to upgrade as the newer versions (which I've tried on other computers) don't really come with anything new.
Unfortunately, Mozilla developers live under the strange delusion that users want less features and everything as plugins. They removed MNG support and refuse to include SVG-support in the default build. (I don't care wether it's not complete. The fastest way to make it complete is to get users and developers. The fastest way to get users is to include what is working in the default build)
To sum up, I've already given up on Mozilla in the long term. The rendering engine is still a bit better than Konqueror's, but with Konqueror getting better with each release and Mozilla stagnating (or even getting worse - see MNG support) it's just a matter of time till Konqueror overtakes Mozilla on the rendering engine, too.
If Mozilla would include SVG in the default build, it would be a great incentive to upgrade, it would give the SVG-format a big push and SVG-development would also get a big boost.
The problem is that Mozilla-leaders tend to follow the Mozilla-haters (who in general parrot some anti-Mozilla phrases like "too bloated") and ignore the real users.
Users hate to download plugins, users want a browser that can read as many formats as possible in the default-build.
The perfect Mozilla would be a Mozilla that:
Comes with a Java-plugin preinstalled
Comes with SVG-support, no matter how incomplete
Comes with MNG-support
Comes with Flash-plugin
Except for the Flash-plugin which might not be possible for legal reasons, everything else could be done today.
As Konqueror is getting SVG-support out of the box, I still have hope that Mozilla also includes the SVG-support it has. However I've given up on Mozilla being a leader in browser-technology. They refuse to be pioneers (see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18574)
and want to be followers. Unfortunately, Mozilla will only include SVG-support after other browsers (like Konqueror) already have it. This is really sad, because Mozilla would have the possilities to be a leader.
The only problem is that nobody runs Windows XP because of any of it's "features" or the "beautiful" GUI. Actually, from a usability standpoint, KDE is far ahead of any version of Windows.
What makes Windows often the better choice and sometimes the only choice isn't any technical reason, it's the huge software library, being preinstalled and in general being known/established among current users/admins.
But actually, it might be interesting to see wether ogg is able to topple mp3 in the long term. Not because of any licensing issues, but simply because at the same quality you can fit over twice as much music onto the same space. Once most hardware players pick it up (and the twice as many songs argument is actually a pretty good sales argument) it can start to make inroads. Of course it will take a long time and we will have mp3 for at least 2 decades, but in the long run there isn't really any reason for preferring mp3 over ogg.
Slashdot Mirror
The Windows domination however does affect me personally (I have to "buy" sofware I don't need, I have to deal with peripheral makers not including Linux drivers on their CDs and of course more games for Linux would also be nice.) and if China is helping ending it, I'm all for it.
I have the strong feeling that it's mostly the latter...
Not really. When MS donates 100 000 licenses it really donates a piece of paper and a few CDs, those can be easily stored in Bill Gate's desk.
Shipping the product costs money.
See above.
Development costs money.
Development has cost the same no matter if MS donates licenses or not.
Because Microsoft does in fact not donate a "pile of software" and instead will send just a few CDs and allows the UN just to use it on many computers, even 1 million seems a bit high.
Linux domination is not dangerous at all, actually it is great because it enables competition on a lot of other levels.
For example now it's pretty hard or even downright impossible to make an ARM-based desktop because of Window's lock on the desktop and because it runs only on x86. As soon as Linux dominates the desktop this problem goes away and we will finally see free competition between CPU-makers and CPU-architectures.
We have names to tell things apart. Since Linux is (almost) always a system with GNU-libraries, it's pointless to add it everytime.
The crusade to add the "GNU" prefix is doomed to fail because the natural thing to do with redundant prefixes is to drop them.
Besides, GNU isn't really running that much on my system anyway. KDE is much bigger in terms of lines of code and I don't use much GNU-programs anyway (no emacs).
You forgot SCO which also uses OpenSource software every day...
Actually McDonalds also servers their burgers unfit for human consumption (styrofoam is bad for your stomach) so you better put big warning signs "please remove styrofoam box before consumption" in big fat letters on them, just to make sure that nobody gets hurt.
The analogy is actually pretty good. Both high temperature and the burger boxes make sure that you can actually consume your meal 10 minutes after purchase.
And if Gnome development faster why is it lagging behind KDE despite of having much more ressources and company-backing (Sun, RedHat)?
A computer scientist should also have some basic knowledge about computers in real life.
Knowing that beta-releases aren't for grandma is basic knowledge.
Knowing that end-users are using Linux distributions and do not download their DE themselves is also basic knowledge.
Somebody claiming to be a computer scientist who doesn't know that is either lying or has been at a real bad university.
I repeat: I was NOT talking about being able/willing to download and install every beta-release of KDE. I was ONLY talking about the knowledge of beta-releases in general and distributions.
I just finished my BS in CS, and guess what?
Guess what, if you complain that "grandma" can't install test-releases of software which is also meant to be preinstalled by the distribution, I will still call you a moron.
Starting from scratch is actually more the Linux-philosophy than the Windows-philosophy which is more like be-backwards-compatible-at-all-costs.
Half a year ago, I would have agreed, but now with Mozilla removing features while Konqueror is adding SVG (in the default build, not in some seperate project), Konq is overtaking Mozilla about now.
I'd still say Mozilla has the better rendering engine, but Konqueror has better integration (an example is the file selector, another is being able to open all files in a useful manner, from .pdf to .doc), more features and SVG (it's a real shame that Mozilla let their pretty good SVG implementation rot away as a seperate project).
Right now, I'd say both are about equal, but Konqueror moving much faster and will soon be ahead of Mozilla, I think.
Oh and beta-versions isn't for your granny in the first place.
They focus on the software, not on licensing and politics.
Well since every ripper uses a different bitrate, different cropping, different codec and other differences, (almost) each rip is different in the first place.
The pure amount of "forbidden" hashes that have to be stored would be prohibitive and it also is impossible to automate the process (somebody has to watch each file and tell the program which are illegal and which are legal. There is absolutely no way a computer can figure out wether some file is copyrighted or not) so it's not even remotely realistic.
Expose does the very same thing. Only with more animations and less efficiency. (good for the demo, bad for day-to-day work)
I also was blown away by the beauty and nifty-ness of MacOSX the first half hour I used it. But after half a day this wears off but the awkard workarounds remain.
Virtual desktops require a much more complex mental model be developed and maintained by the user and for most, there is simply no benefit to be gained.
No benefit? Yeah, if you use less than 10 windows/apps at a time, yeah. But multiple desktops allows you to essentially keep all your apps open all the time. IM, mp3-player, mailer, many browser windows, etc. etc.
Multiple desktops allow you to create fine-tuned environments optimized for your needs. For example I have a "communications"-desktop where I have my mailer and IM-program open. If I want to contact somebody I just go to that desktop and I have everything right there. No starting of apps needed, no resizing of windows needed. Similarily I have a non-work browsing desktop littered with many browser windows (like slashdot) - which don't disturb me when working. For work I have a editor-desktop, a documentation desktop, a CLI-desktop and a legal desktop (for bills, online banking etc.).
I keep everything open at all times and whenever I want to do a specific task I just go to the appropriate desktop. All needed apps are already open and in case of browser windows are also already pointed at the correct locations.
It's a whole new way to work and much superior to the MacOSX or Windows one-desktop paradigm. Of course the benefits aren't obvious after a half-hour demo, it takes weeks if not months to really take advantage of them.
The problem with 3rd party additions for Windows and MacOSX is that they are buggy, tend to get broken in future versions and are not integrated. For example does the dock in MacOSX show only the apps on the current desktop or *all* apps? If the latter (and since MacOSX is unaware of desktops I'm afraid so) then it indeed is useless because all that open apps are littering your dock.
I can with MacOSX:
Can you come up with some major design deficiency in KDE?
KDE's interface is much better. Multiple desktops, MMB-pasting, single/doubleclick consistency and tabbed browsing are just a few of many examples of it's superiority.
Yes, as usual, I put forward real examples while the Wintrolls make claims like "being designed by GUI specialists" without even an hint of proof.
Can you put up an example of what is so terrible about KDE/Linux? Of course you can't because there simply are no major shortcomings compared to Windows.
I had no driver issues, but when they occur it is an issue for Linux on the desktop. Poeple expect it to work right off the bat. They're gonna say "fuck this, I give up" if it doesn't - mos people don't get a thrill out of programming their own drivers like Slashbots would suggest.
It's exactly what I said. Essentially Linux is missing 3rd party support. 3rd party means hardware vendors including easily installable and well tested drivers on the driver disc. 3rd party support means software vendors offering Linux versions. 3rd party support means computer vendors preinstalling it.
However, 3rd party support doesn't have anything to do with Linux itself.
I usually don't get personal, but are you really too dumb to realize the difference between problems caused by programming mistakes/missing features (like MS Blaster) and problems caused by ignorant 3rd parties (like that USB-camera that doesn't work on Linux)?
Nope, merely pointing out that Linux isn't ready for the desktop for the average user. In case you missed it, Linus Fucking Torvalds agrees.
Linus Torvalds has realized that it takes years so that Linux can pick up the 3rd party support to become usable for the masses.
As I said, that's no technical problem at all. It's a matter of getting Linux entrenched and established - and that takes some time.
Are you claiming that there are no Windows-issues? The lack of mass-infections a la Blaster alone is a big plus on Linux. What kind of "issues" are you talking about anyway? Like that-or-that-driver doesn't exist? Yeah, exactly what I said, but that's not a shortcoming of Linux. What was your point anyway? Or were you trolling?
The 3d-modeling niche is a very good example of Linux running not on the desktop but as a processing cluster (in this case, rendering graphics).
Wrong, they run Linux on their desktops by now, too.
What is missing is applications (especially games) and to a lesser extent drivers.
The 3d-modelling niche is a very good example on how fast Linux can take over a market when the apps are there.
In the next years, expect other niches to go to Linux, the next being non-US government desktops. When Munich migrates and ports their apps, it gets easier, cheaper and faster for other cities with similar application-needs to follow.
The only problem is that such migrations take a lot of time, that's why it is taking a decade (and it already started).
Microsoft has nothing to do with motivating open source.
Unfortunately, Mozilla developers live under the strange delusion that users want less features and everything as plugins. They removed MNG support and refuse to include SVG-support in the default build. (I don't care wether it's not complete. The fastest way to make it complete is to get users and developers. The fastest way to get users is to include what is working in the default build)
To sum up, I've already given up on Mozilla in the long term. The rendering engine is still a bit better than Konqueror's, but with Konqueror getting better with each release and Mozilla stagnating (or even getting worse - see MNG support) it's just a matter of time till Konqueror overtakes Mozilla on the rendering engine, too.
If Mozilla would include SVG in the default build, it would be a great incentive to upgrade, it would give the SVG-format a big push and SVG-development would also get a big boost.
The problem is that Mozilla-leaders tend to follow the Mozilla-haters (who in general parrot some anti-Mozilla phrases like "too bloated") and ignore the real users.
Users hate to download plugins, users want a browser that can read as many formats as possible in the default-build.
The perfect Mozilla would be a Mozilla that:
Except for the Flash-plugin which might not be possible for legal reasons, everything else could be done today.
As Konqueror is getting SVG-support out of the box, I still have hope that Mozilla also includes the SVG-support it has. However I've given up on Mozilla being a leader in browser-technology. They refuse to be pioneers (see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18574)
and want to be followers. Unfortunately, Mozilla will only include SVG-support after other browsers (like Konqueror) already have it. This is really sad, because Mozilla would have the possilities to be a leader.
What makes Windows often the better choice and sometimes the only choice isn't any technical reason, it's the huge software library, being preinstalled and in general being known/established among current users/admins.
But actually, it might be interesting to see wether ogg is able to topple mp3 in the long term. Not because of any licensing issues, but simply because at the same quality you can fit over twice as much music onto the same space. Once most hardware players pick it up (and the twice as many songs argument is actually a pretty good sales argument) it can start to make inroads. Of course it will take a long time and we will have mp3 for at least 2 decades, but in the long run there isn't really any reason for preferring mp3 over ogg.
Ogg compresses still better than wma, btw.