Your self-righteous masturbation all over my computer screen is as pointless in this thread as it would have been in the "new lid for Chernobyl" story.
The word "Windows" seems to be the only thing that your post has that's relevant to the current discussion. Do you have a set of pre-written soliloquies that you paste into random threads that have some tangential relation to your crap?
Now get a tissue and wipe this stuff off my screen.
Do people check their brains somewhere before posting???
Seems so. I mean, if they hadn't checked their brains in to the airport locker, they'd be able to draw a distinction between (1) stating a fact, such as "windows holes don't affect most users" and (2) claiming that "windows holes are a good thing" or something that is of no concern at all.
... I often say that the reason "normal users" don't feel comfortable with Open Source applications is because, unlike commericial makers such as Microsoft, the OSS community has no way to employ cognitive and behavioral physchologists, graphic designers, etc. - ie all the people whose job it is to ensure a completely intuitive interface.
By taking the XP interface, you're taking hundeds or thousands of hours of work that these people did and you're bringing it over to Linux, probably giving it a more intuitive intefrace than it ever had before - which isn't a bad thing.
For the same reason, I am not sure if mimicing an interface like that is legal.
You have a good, but somewhat limited, point. Old hardware can definately be useful. If you REALLY think about it, a 486/66 has an amazing amount of computing power and can STILL do the essentials. If I could play games, do email, and browse the web on a 486/66 back in 1996, then I can do it now - theoretically. And you're right about all the server things you can do...
BUT...
Let's say I am an average computer user. I don't need a home network. I don't need firewalls and sound servers. Heck, I pay rent and I'd be damned if I am going to clutter my room with computers. And yet, my 486/66 isn't cutting it anymore. I need a new computer - and I need one that will do everything I need it to do, rather than delegating the tasks to other systems. So for me, there's no chance to salvage my old system. off to the trash it goes.
I am not one of these users (I have a few PCs around) but I believe most people are. Educating people about what they can do with old hardware will neither emilinate their need for new hardware, nor (significantly) reduce the amount of hardware they trash.
For instance, I would normally not want an URL formatted as a hyperlink. Another example is when I type the string "(c)", I rarely want for it to be changed to a copyright
You can tell it not to, you know!
Just like you said, the mainstream folks won't figure out how to make URLs and insert copyright symbols. So it does it automatically. Since that's not what you need, it's a simple flick of a checkbox in the options.
You're kind of off topic here, but I'll respond. A few days ago I posted a comment similar to yours (but toned down) questioning the readyness of Linux for the Desktop.
I proposed a basic test to evaluate the maturity of the Linux desktop, and phrased it this way: if I am in Linux, will I -ever- need to boot into Windows to to anything? I proposed that the answer is "yes" and that, therefore, Linux is not a viable desktop choice.
I was faced with much criticism in response (a la: if you bothered to read the man pages and the HOWTOs, you can do anything in Linux.)
I took that as a challenge. Updated my Linux install to RedHat8.0. It actually fared pretty well. It seems that Linux can do ALMOST everything I need it to do on the desktop (though the user experience is not as pleasant as on windows.) And then, I remembered Microsoft Money. I use MS Money to keep track of my finances and invoices. I looked around for open source equivalents. GNUCash is very basic - doesn't have business features like invoicing. WINE doesn't have a shot at running MS Money.
So I sighed, rebooted into Windows, and gave up on the whole thing. If I have to reboot to Windows to do ANYTHING, even if it's one thing like using MS Money, then it's not ready.
I disagree. At this point, users have a real choice of OSs. They can get Linux for free, for example. MS knows what their selling point VS Linux is: the user experience. It's not enough for MS to develop good reliable software (if that was the only measure, everyone would be running Linux.) The tailored, professionally designed, integrated user experience IS one of the advantages MS software has over the competition (Mac is good in that area, too) and you can't blame them for giving it considerable effort.
That's my view of the Windows vs. Linux difference. Linux: software developer - centric. Excelent software. Functionality designed first, GUI thrown in as an afterthought. Windows: user-centric. The experience is primary, functionality is built around it.
"Productivity"? I thought that word meant something like doing your job. Not wasting your time rebooting, reinstalling and just fighting windows, trying to make it do what you want it to.
May be I am just lucky, but I haven't had these troubles with Win2k or XP.
yes, but more often than not, being a CS major taints these things...you can no longer look at them from the objective point of view that is that of the user.
Which is probably why applications developed by CS majors don't appeal as much to regular users, I guess. Do open source projects have teams of cognitive psychologists and professional graphic designers making sure that every control is ideally placed, every sequence of events is perfectly natural, every icon is crystal clear in its meaning? It would go a LONG way towards making Linux more popular among "average joes." As is, these projects are done mainly by computer people who knows how to write great software, but don't always have the psychological and artistic insight to make it absolutely appealing to non-computer people.
Your little comment lead me onto a really important revilation. That's EXACTLY the reason some (most?) Linux apps just lack a certain polished intuitivness to them. MS, etc has a way to attract psychologists, linguists, artists, etc. to their projects: money. How do you attract these people to open source projects? It's a problem.
i am guilty of this as much as many other/.'rs are.
Damnit. my mind has been trained to read/. as "lambda" rather than "slashdot." I have to get used to that. But anyway, that's not a problem. Linux and open source are valuable. They are software for computer people. I love Apache, PHP, etc. These are programs that are meant to be used by experienced computer people, and they don't need fancy guis or anything else. For these apps, their POWER, reliability, security are their selling points, and they beat the shit out of MS products. So I don't care that/.'s have this mentality - it lead to the creation of MANY tools I use and rely on. Unfortunately, software for non-computer-pros needs that extra level of polish, which apparently only $ can buy.
i guess i have found a way to collect foes;-)
What does that mean? I hope you don't mean me. I certainly respect and admire your statements. In fact, your comment lead me to understand what it is that's missing from open source stuff. So your comment enriched my mind. I certainly am no foe.
You can choose to ignore it, but there are tons of things you simply can't do in Windows that you can do on Linux. I'll give you another easy one: hacking the kernel. Yeah, it might not be for the guy down the block, but his precocious son or daughter might just be interested in how such a thing would work. Try letting him learn about that in windows.
I don't know why you bothered to write that, given that I posted about 15 comments saying the same things. Yes, linux is amazing. Yes you can do a lot with it. But regular people don't care about hacking the kernel and things like that.
And since we're talking about Desktop Distros, we're talking about targeting exactly those people.
I commend yours (and many many many others') conviction in your choice of OS. Because of this incredible support Linux gets better and more widely usable every year - no question about that. But it seems that having had to defend Linux against much slander, people are too eager to do so, even at the expense of actual dialogue.
The context of this story suggests that we're talking about trying to SELL (as in: you pay for it, as in beer) Linux Desktop Distros to people who don't want to recompile the kernel or read the HOWTOs. And my position is that, as great as Linux is (and I was more than eager to give Linux praise where due, in my posts in this thread) it will NOT appeal to these people.
I am not ignorant of the fact that you can do much on Linux that you can't on Windows, and I don't ignore this fact to attack Linux. What I am saying is that people to whom Desktop Distros are targeted are probably not interested in doing those things - which makes me doubt they'd be able to appreciate Linux. In fact, I have a feeling that these people will overlook stability and security and will be eager to home down on the shortcommings in the GUI and intuitivity areas. As such, I doubt they will pay money for Linux.
So to sum it up again: Linux is great. Linux is the best. But these people won't appreciate it and won't pay for it, so Desktop Distros are either doomed, or best there will be plenty of time elapsing before they actually make any money
Why can't a CS major be a user? I use e-mail, financial management tools, web design tools, graphic tools, word processing, etc. It's as important to me that these things work efficiently and entuitively as it is to an office secretary.
This used to be a subjective matter, but with the latest Mozilla based browsers it's pretty much a given that Mozilla browsers better than MS IE
What does that mean? I am currently working on a web project for a large web-based B2B seller. We had a meeting with the owners and our strategy was this: make it look amazing in MSIE, and usable in Netscape/Mozilla. When we have limited hours and dollars to spend, we aim to perfect it for MSIE.
So does every other web developer in the world, unless they have a specific reason to expect a lot of Mozilla traffic (such as this time we're on right now.)
That fact alone makes IE better for users. It can be a bloated piece of crapware people like to say it is, but it renders pages they way they were meant to look, seems to work a LOT smoother, and on another site I frequent (www.plastic.com) renders much slower on Mozilla than IE.
So indeed, "better" is a subjective term. Mozilla is "better" in many ways. IE is better in the sense that "more sites look better in it." To most non-technical users, THAT's the criteria that counts.
That's the whole thing. I totally buy your point about *nux software being BETTER SOFTWARE in many aspects. Unfortunately, Microsoft figured out that it can get away with making infirior software by focusing their efforts on aspects that average (call them ignorant if you want) people care about.
Most non-tech people will use software that's better looking and more intuative/smoother. They won't bother comparing stability and security.
Please please please don't think I am trying to shit on Linux or software for it. I am not. I understand why people like Linux and switch to it. More power to you! But chances are not many people switched to Linux w/o some prior interest in computer technology and/or hate of MS. For people who don't care about the technical aspects nor hate MS, nor aren't interested enough to investigate "under the hood" MS software looks like a better choice.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no need to translate OSS. Any user can access the source code, type in his own translation, and recompile.
YAY
If a removal tool doesn't work, she'll likely have to reformat her syste
Too bad she didn't download Linux and render her system useless from day 1.
We're just sneaky about it
So why did you just let the cat out of the bag, Mr. L33t hax0rer?
Because the CIA really cares what type of porn you jerk to?
Your self-righteous masturbation all over my computer screen is as pointless in this thread as it would have been in the "new lid for Chernobyl" story.
The word "Windows" seems to be the only thing that your post has that's relevant to the current discussion. Do you have a set of pre-written soliloquies that you paste into random threads that have some tangential relation to your crap?
Now get a tissue and wipe this stuff off my screen.
Right, and who exactly is claiming that the "wholes" shouldn't be fixed?
Do people check their brains somewhere before posting???
Seems so. I mean, if they hadn't checked their brains in to the airport locker, they'd be able to draw a distinction between (1) stating a fact, such as "windows holes don't affect most users" and (2) claiming that "windows holes are a good thing" or something that is of no concern at all.
... I often say that the reason "normal users" don't feel comfortable with Open Source applications is because, unlike commericial makers such as Microsoft, the OSS community has no way to employ cognitive and behavioral physchologists, graphic designers, etc. - ie all the people whose job it is to ensure a completely intuitive interface.
By taking the XP interface, you're taking hundeds or thousands of hours of work that these people did and you're bringing it over to Linux, probably giving it a more intuitive intefrace than it ever had before - which isn't a bad thing.
For the same reason, I am not sure if mimicing an interface like that is legal.
his is for instance why Word insists on formatting what your type
I bet Word would annoy you to hell, underlining that sentence for no reason whatsoever.
Nobody drives the legal limit.
Actually I bet you HAVE given consent every single time Gator installed itself on your system.
." OK, so why are you asking for it? And even if I trust you, if you get bought by someone else, guess what? THEY can sell my house.
Jesus, just don't download the source if it stresses you SO badly.
Idiot, only the buds contain any meaningful concentration of THC. You can smoke a whole field of hemp otherwise and not get high.
Although it sounds like a fun proposition.
You have a good, but somewhat limited, point. Old hardware can definately be useful. If you REALLY think about it, a 486/66 has an amazing amount of computing power and can STILL do the essentials. If I could play games, do email, and browse the web on a 486/66 back in 1996, then I can do it now - theoretically. And you're right about all the server things you can do...
BUT...
Let's say I am an average computer user. I don't need a home network. I don't need firewalls and sound servers. Heck, I pay rent and I'd be damned if I am going to clutter my room with computers. And yet, my 486/66 isn't cutting it anymore. I need a new computer - and I need one that will do everything I need it to do, rather than delegating the tasks to other systems. So for me, there's no chance to salvage my old system. off to the trash it goes.
I am not one of these users (I have a few PCs around) but I believe most people are. Educating people about what they can do with old hardware will neither emilinate their need for new hardware, nor (significantly) reduce the amount of hardware they trash.
For instance, I would normally not want an URL formatted as a hyperlink. Another example is when I type the string "(c)", I rarely want for it to be changed to a copyright
You can tell it not to, you know!
Just like you said, the mainstream folks won't figure out how to make URLs and insert copyright symbols. So it does it automatically. Since that's not what you need, it's a simple flick of a checkbox in the options.
You're kind of off topic here, but I'll respond. A few days ago I posted a comment similar to yours (but toned down) questioning the readyness of Linux for the Desktop.
I proposed a basic test to evaluate the maturity of the Linux desktop, and phrased it this way: if I am in Linux, will I -ever- need to boot into Windows to to anything? I proposed that the answer is "yes" and that, therefore, Linux is not a viable desktop choice.
I was faced with much criticism in response (a la: if you bothered to read the man pages and the HOWTOs, you can do anything in Linux.)
I took that as a challenge. Updated my Linux install to RedHat8.0. It actually fared pretty well. It seems that Linux can do ALMOST everything I need it to do on the desktop (though the user experience is not as pleasant as on windows.) And then, I remembered Microsoft Money. I use MS Money to keep track of my finances and invoices. I looked around for open source equivalents. GNUCash is very basic - doesn't have business features like invoicing. WINE doesn't have a shot at running MS Money.
So I sighed, rebooted into Windows, and gave up on the whole thing. If I have to reboot to Windows to do ANYTHING, even if it's one thing like using MS Money, then it's not ready.
I disagree. At this point, users have a real choice of OSs. They can get Linux for free, for example. MS knows what their selling point VS Linux is: the user experience. It's not enough for MS to develop good reliable software (if that was the only measure, everyone would be running Linux.) The tailored, professionally designed, integrated user experience IS one of the advantages MS software has over the competition (Mac is good in that area, too) and you can't blame them for giving it considerable effort.
That's my view of the Windows vs. Linux difference. Linux: software developer - centric. Excelent software. Functionality designed first, GUI thrown in as an afterthought. Windows: user-centric. The experience is primary, functionality is built around it.
"Productivity"? I thought that word meant something like doing your job. Not wasting your time rebooting, reinstalling and just fighting windows, trying to make it do what you want it to.
May be I am just lucky, but I haven't had these troubles with Win2k or XP.
Well I guess its a good thing Linux and most of the GPL apps are free then.
Am I an idiot? Somehow I read the story to mean that we're talking about Desktop Linux Distros which are intended to be SOLD to the users.
Please let me know if I am wrong!
yes, but more often than not, being a CS major taints these things...you can no longer look at them from the objective point of view that is that of the user.
/.'rs are.
/. as "lambda" rather than "slashdot." I have to get used to that. But anyway, that's not a problem. Linux and open source are valuable. They are software for computer people. I love Apache, PHP, etc. These are programs that are meant to be used by experienced computer people, and they don't need fancy guis or anything else. For these apps, their POWER, reliability, security are their selling points, and they beat the shit out of MS products. So I don't care that /.'s have this mentality - it lead to the creation of MANY tools I use and rely on. Unfortunately, software for non-computer-pros needs that extra level of polish, which apparently only $ can buy.
;-)
Which is probably why applications developed by CS majors don't appeal as much to regular users, I guess. Do open source projects have teams of cognitive psychologists and professional graphic designers making sure that every control is ideally placed, every sequence of events is perfectly natural, every icon is crystal clear in its meaning? It would go a LONG way towards making Linux more popular among "average joes." As is, these projects are done mainly by computer people who knows how to write great software, but don't always have the psychological and artistic insight to make it absolutely appealing to non-computer people.
Your little comment lead me onto a really important revilation. That's EXACTLY the reason some (most?) Linux apps just lack a certain polished intuitivness to them. MS, etc has a way to attract psychologists, linguists, artists, etc. to their projects: money. How do you attract these people to open source projects? It's a problem.
i am guilty of this as much as many other
Damnit. my mind has been trained to read
i guess i have found a way to collect foes
What does that mean? I hope you don't mean me. I certainly respect and admire your statements. In fact, your comment lead me to understand what it is that's missing from open source stuff. So your comment enriched my mind. I certainly am no foe.
You can choose to ignore it, but there are tons of things you simply can't do in Windows that you can do on Linux. I'll give you another easy one: hacking the kernel. Yeah, it might not be for the guy down the block, but his precocious son or daughter might just be interested in how such a thing would work. Try letting him learn about that in windows.
I don't know why you bothered to write that, given that I posted about 15 comments saying the same things. Yes, linux is amazing. Yes you can do a lot with it. But regular people don't care about hacking the kernel and things like that.
And since we're talking about Desktop Distros, we're talking about targeting exactly those people.
I commend yours (and many many many others') conviction in your choice of OS. Because of this incredible support Linux gets better and more widely usable every year - no question about that. But it seems that having had to defend Linux against much slander, people are too eager to do so, even at the expense of actual dialogue.
The context of this story suggests that we're talking about trying to SELL (as in: you pay for it, as in beer) Linux Desktop Distros to people who don't want to recompile the kernel or read the HOWTOs. And my position is that, as great as Linux is (and I was more than eager to give Linux praise where due, in my posts in this thread) it will NOT appeal to these people.
I am not ignorant of the fact that you can do much on Linux that you can't on Windows, and I don't ignore this fact to attack Linux. What I am saying is that people to whom Desktop Distros are targeted are probably not interested in doing those things - which makes me doubt they'd be able to appreciate Linux. In fact, I have a feeling that these people will overlook stability and security and will be eager to home down on the shortcommings in the GUI and intuitivity areas. As such, I doubt they will pay money for Linux.
So to sum it up again: Linux is great. Linux is the best. But these people won't appreciate it and won't pay for it, so Desktop Distros are either doomed, or best there will be plenty of time elapsing before they actually make any money
Why can't a CS major be a user? I use e-mail, financial management tools, web design tools, graphic tools, word processing, etc. It's as important to me that these things work efficiently and entuitively as it is to an office secretary.
being CS doesn't make me a masochist.
The list goes on. I only boot to Windows now when I absolutely have to
Such a long post, but this line is the weak point. Sometimes you REALLY DO HAVE TO!
This used to be a subjective matter, but with the latest Mozilla based browsers it's pretty much a given that Mozilla browsers better than MS IE
What does that mean? I am currently working on a web project for a large web-based B2B seller. We had a meeting with the owners and our strategy was this: make it look amazing in MSIE, and usable in Netscape/Mozilla. When we have limited hours and dollars to spend, we aim to perfect it for MSIE.
So does every other web developer in the world, unless they have a specific reason to expect a lot of Mozilla traffic (such as this time we're on right now.)
That fact alone makes IE better for users. It can be a bloated piece of crapware people like to say it is, but it renders pages they way they were meant to look, seems to work a LOT smoother, and on another site I frequent (www.plastic.com) renders much slower on Mozilla than IE.
So indeed, "better" is a subjective term. Mozilla is "better" in many ways. IE is better in the sense that "more sites look better in it." To most non-technical users, THAT's the criteria that counts.
That's the whole thing. I totally buy your point about *nux software being BETTER SOFTWARE in many aspects. Unfortunately, Microsoft figured out that it can get away with making infirior software by focusing their efforts on aspects that average (call them ignorant if you want) people care about.
Most non-tech people will use software that's better looking and more intuative/smoother. They won't bother comparing stability and security.
Please please please don't think I am trying to shit on Linux or software for it. I am not. I understand why people like Linux and switch to it. More power to you! But chances are not many people switched to Linux w/o some prior interest in computer technology and/or hate of MS. For people who don't care about the technical aspects nor hate MS, nor aren't interested enough to investigate "under the hood" MS software looks like a better choice.
Isn't the whole point of this story that Desktop Distros intend to charge?