Nobody's figured out how to make a truly intuitive interface yet, including Linux and Windows.
Bingo! Even the classic Macintosh interface, which is way more intuitive than Windows, still stumps the new user.
The problem isn't the user interface, but the fact that the computer is a general purpose device. Any general purpose device is hard to learn. Suppose you had a general purpose kitchen appliance that was a combo fridge/stove/toaster/blender. Give it a ten key control panel like any microwave and it would be a bitch to use. Give it a 40 key control panel and it would still be a bitch to use.
My stereo is easy to use. My friends stereo is a nightmare to use. That's because his stereo does everything.
Looking back on it, one of the contributing factors to OS/2's demise WAS it's Windows compatibility. Nobody bothered to write native OS/2 software because the Windows software ran so good under it.
So let's say Linux gets 100% Windows compatibility. Joe Blow walks into CompUSA and sees 10000 Windows titles and 5 Linux titles. What OS is he going to choose?
95% of the desktop market...is one hell of a monopoly to break.
Only if you think of it as a monopoly. When you think "monopoly" you think "there's nothing I can do about it". But there's a hell of a lot you can do about it when you shift your attention away from Microsoft and onto things that you can influence.
Microsoft got its monopoly because of a few lucky guesses combined with a rapidly expanding user base. They got to the right place at the right time, and just a tiny nudge and they were a snowball rolling downhill. A few tiny changes to history (like open standards) and the world today would be different.
What good would it have done for BeOS (as an example) to snatch 5% of the market share from Microsoft back in 1998, when the total market doubled in 1999? Until the market size stops expanding, focusing on market share is meaningless. Taking share away from Microsoft is absolutely pointless unless you're growing as fast as Microsoft.
The good news is that snow covered hill that Microsoft is rolling down has a bottom. That bottom is the halt of the ever doubling user base. Pretty soon now, if it hasn't happened already, Microsoft will no longer be able to concentrate on the new computer user, because there won't be any. They are going to have to do what they have never done before, and that's to aggressively market to their existing customer base. You won't see millions of people switching from Windows to Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OSX, or anything like that. But you WILL see millions of users simply not upgrade their systems. Microsoft's growth will slow and halt.
The article compared Microsoft to the railroad and phone monopolies of old. That is an inaccurate comparison to make. That's because the railroads and phone companies *owned* the infrastructure, namely the railways and phone lines. Microsoft doesn't own the computer infrastructure. They can't stop you from using the web. They can't stop you from using OpenOffice or Linux. They can't stop you from using AMD or PPC. They can intimidate but they can't coerce. Remember, the railroad monopoly didn't intimidate the trucks out of business. Microsoft is the railroad. Linux is a truck. If you don't want to ship your good by rail, consider shipping them by truck. Or ship, or plane, or...
The reason for this is that capitalism is capitalism
Thank goodness! Can't do away with capitalism because it's what runs everything from radical socialism to extremist anarcho-corporatism. In short, capitalism is an economic model that has nothing to do with political models. Capitalism means that capital is the dominant means of production. You don't want to do away with it, because the only alternatives to are base production on labor. I would rather purchase a car built in a factory because it's far cheaper than one built by hand from all hand-made parts.
I have zero problems with any economic system, so long as it is based on the voluntary actions of the participants. Where I have a big problem is when a bunch of whiners get together to use the power of the government to get their way. If you set up a socialist society, you won't hear any objections from me. I might even join if you run it right. But once you attempt to force that society on upon me you become my enemy. The same is true for those that set up proprietary corporate structures. It's fine by me until you attempt to make me comply with your vision.
Apropos software, I will be as much opposed to your demands that I only use Free Software as I would to your demands that I only use proprietary software. It's my choice what software I use, and if you don't like, go blow it out your ass.
A more restrictive liscence for the people denying access to selfish concerns would be a great boost
Like I said, go blow it out your ass. Whether or not I am selfish, altruistic or somewhere in between is my concern, and my concern alone.
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. Without hardware specific drivers you might as well be using a vanilla framebuffer. And if all you have is a vanilla framebuffer, then X kicks Berlin/DirectFB butt all day long. Do these projects really think that the hardware manufacturers are going to open up all their specs just because they say please? It's hard enough getting *closed* drivers for these guys for one major project, let alone getting open drivers for half a dozen pet projects.
I mean, do you realize that Berlin is the THIRD incarnation of a project that keeps dying on the vine?
Certainly you can configure OSX into a Unix-like system, but it isn't out of the box.
The same could be done with Linux. Keep the OS and environment hidden away from the user and wrap it up in a flashy GUI. A few distros actually seem to have "hide the system" as their primary goal.
If you want an OS with hidden innards, go for it. But I don't consider OS innards to be naughty bits, and it doesn't embarrass me to know how to use vi, edit a resolv.conf file, configure a kernel, or write a bash script. I like the raw power and control that the command line gives me.
I've noticed that the benefits of X are extolled suspiciously often within the context of servers and remote administration.
It also means I can sit at home, log into work, and pretend like I'm really there. Just one in a long list of X benefits that have nothing to do with sysadmining.
But dragging around baggage beneficial to only a portion of users (that seems to be getting smaller with a growing Linux user base) almost seems unfair.
Ah, the tyranny of the majority rears its ugly head, even here in the land of the free. We are more numerous so let's vote on everything. That way we get to rule while pretending to be fair. Let's dump all those old bearded Unix types who made Linux into the premier server and workstation platform. We don't want workstations or servers, we want gaming platforms. We don't want Linux to replace Win2K, we want it to replace the X Box.
I am kinda upset to hear how ppl are so willing to ditch X for faster video/games.
I agree. X is powerful, flexible and proven. It's like a 4x4 truck. What can you do with a 4x4 truck? Haul heavy loads, go offroad, pick up your date for dinner. But there's a lot of people who want to drive a sports car instead. What can you do with a sports car? Pick up your date for dinner. Period. Personally, if a date doesn't want to ride in a truck, I'll find someone who isn't so shallow.
If you can make DirectFB *identical* to XFree86 in functionality, then fine, I'll use it. But otherwise keep it away from me. Frankly, making gaming the primary goal of Linux is an incredible step backwards.
Yup, that's the problem with Mozilla. It was compiled on the command line. They should have used Kompile or GNompile and just clicked the "Build Mozilla Now!" button.
Making 20 fonts that don't suck is easier said than done. There aren't that many people who know how to make quality fonts. Unix already has some excellent *print* fonts in ghostscript and TeX, but we need quality screen fonts as well.
European programmers can no longer travel to the United States without risking being arrested for doing things which are perfectly legal where they did them
Don't blame us! When it comes to totalitarianism we always follow Europe's lead. Or are you guys pissed because the student is now the master?
4.2 in 11/2000, 4.3 in 4/2001 and 4.4 in 9/2001. And, none of these are significantly different.
This is an advantage. Some people don't want a completely redesigned OS every six months. Some just want the stable OS they've always been using plus bug fixes, new hardware support, etc. You won't see anything significantly different until 5.0. And after that you won't see anything significantly different until 6.0.
ext3 is just as robust, and doesn't require a fsck at all after a power cycle.
The fsck on a softupdates volume is blazingly fast. To be sure, ext3 is a nice file system, but that doesn't mean all the other ones are crap.
OpenOffice for Linux doesn't run, and native AbiWord in 4.4-release doesn't start. Koffice import filters for.doc don't seem to be working either.
Use the native OpenOffice. I didn't have any problems with AbiWord. And KOffice filters are identical under Linux and FreeBSD.
up2date takes care of all that for in-distro packages.
Yeah, for the in-distro packages. But that ignores the major flaw of RPM: you have to use RPM for everything or you screw up your system. With FreeBSD you can use packages, ports, or compile by hand, and nothing gets out of sync.
Except maybe just doing a half-hour upgrade and getting back to work, rather than compiling all day...
Ever heard of multitasking? Compile everything in the background while you work in the foreground. Plus, if you cvsup once a week, you're never so far behind that you need to compile "all day". Or better yet, if you're into precompiled packages, just upgrade the packages!
Nautilus, f.e., doesn't even start in 4.4's GNOME distribution.
I didnt have any problem at all with Nautilus (other than the fact that it's slower than molasses).
On the server side, you can't just install fbsd and use it as a NAT or enable quotas without recompiling the kernel.
Huh? A coworker of mine installed FreeBSD "out of the box" for his server and had it up and running in half an hour. He never had to recompile anything. I don't know much about NAT (except that my coworker got it running without recompiling), but quotas are already in the shipping kernel.
FreeBSD just takes more work.
It does require that you use more than two brain cells, and it does require you to make some sort of effort to get it installed and administered. But since when has that been a drawback in the Unix world?
Seriously, fonts look like absolute ass on X, to the point where they're difficult to read.
So go grab the M$ webfonts. The distros can't ship them, but you can still download them yourself. They are so much better than the mediocre stuff that X ships with.
One of these Linux companies that's raking in the dough (like everyone tells me they are) needs to go do what Microsoft did: pay a professional firm to create professional fonts. Then release them under an unrestrictive license.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's not the owner of the operating system YOU are using!
Nobody's figured out how to make a truly intuitive interface yet, including Linux and Windows.
Bingo! Even the classic Macintosh interface, which is way more intuitive than Windows, still stumps the new user.
The problem isn't the user interface, but the fact that the computer is a general purpose device. Any general purpose device is hard to learn. Suppose you had a general purpose kitchen appliance that was a combo fridge/stove/toaster/blender. Give it a ten key control panel like any microwave and it would be a bitch to use. Give it a 40 key control panel and it would still be a bitch to use.
My stereo is easy to use. My friends stereo is a nightmare to use. That's because his stereo does everything.
Looking back on it, one of the contributing factors to OS/2's demise WAS it's Windows compatibility. Nobody bothered to write native OS/2 software because the Windows software ran so good under it.
So let's say Linux gets 100% Windows compatibility. Joe Blow walks into CompUSA and sees 10000 Windows titles and 5 Linux titles. What OS is he going to choose?
So the actual program (let's say Joust) is on a ROM cartridge or something?
95% of the desktop market...is one hell of a monopoly to break.
...
Only if you think of it as a monopoly. When you think "monopoly" you think "there's nothing I can do about it". But there's a hell of a lot you can do about it when you shift your attention away from Microsoft and onto things that you can influence.
Microsoft got its monopoly because of a few lucky guesses combined with a rapidly expanding user base. They got to the right place at the right time, and just a tiny nudge and they were a snowball rolling downhill. A few tiny changes to history (like open standards) and the world today would be different.
What good would it have done for BeOS (as an example) to snatch 5% of the market share from Microsoft back in 1998, when the total market doubled in 1999? Until the market size stops expanding, focusing on market share is meaningless. Taking share away from Microsoft is absolutely pointless unless you're growing as fast as Microsoft.
The good news is that snow covered hill that Microsoft is rolling down has a bottom. That bottom is the halt of the ever doubling user base. Pretty soon now, if it hasn't happened already, Microsoft will no longer be able to concentrate on the new computer user, because there won't be any. They are going to have to do what they have never done before, and that's to aggressively market to their existing customer base. You won't see millions of people switching from Windows to Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OSX, or anything like that. But you WILL see millions of users simply not upgrade their systems. Microsoft's growth will slow and halt.
The article compared Microsoft to the railroad and phone monopolies of old. That is an inaccurate comparison to make. That's because the railroads and phone companies *owned* the infrastructure, namely the railways and phone lines. Microsoft doesn't own the computer infrastructure. They can't stop you from using the web. They can't stop you from using OpenOffice or Linux. They can't stop you from using AMD or PPC. They can intimidate but they can't coerce. Remember, the railroad monopoly didn't intimidate the trucks out of business. Microsoft is the railroad. Linux is a truck. If you don't want to ship your good by rail, consider shipping them by truck. Or ship, or plane, or
The reason for this is that capitalism is capitalism
Thank goodness! Can't do away with capitalism because it's what runs everything from radical socialism to extremist anarcho-corporatism. In short, capitalism is an economic model that has nothing to do with political models. Capitalism means that capital is the dominant means of production. You don't want to do away with it, because the only alternatives to are base production on labor. I would rather purchase a car built in a factory because it's far cheaper than one built by hand from all hand-made parts.
I have zero problems with any economic system, so long as it is based on the voluntary actions of the participants. Where I have a big problem is when a bunch of whiners get together to use the power of the government to get their way. If you set up a socialist society, you won't hear any objections from me. I might even join if you run it right. But once you attempt to force that society on upon me you become my enemy. The same is true for those that set up proprietary corporate structures. It's fine by me until you attempt to make me comply with your vision.
Apropos software, I will be as much opposed to your demands that I only use Free Software as I would to your demands that I only use proprietary software. It's my choice what software I use, and if you don't like, go blow it out your ass.
A more restrictive liscence for the people denying access to selfish concerns would be a great boost
Like I said, go blow it out your ass. Whether or not I am selfish, altruistic or somewhere in between is my concern, and my concern alone.
Running Joust on 128 BYTES ram? I think you and Michael are pulling our legs. By way of comparison, this post is 129 bytes long.
If you like that, get the full CD! It even has Doom on it.
Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. Without hardware specific drivers you might as well be using a vanilla framebuffer. And if all you have is a vanilla framebuffer, then X kicks Berlin/DirectFB butt all day long. Do these projects really think that the hardware manufacturers are going to open up all their specs just because they say please? It's hard enough getting *closed* drivers for these guys for one major project, let alone getting open drivers for half a dozen pet projects.
I mean, do you realize that Berlin is the THIRD incarnation of a project that keeps dying on the vine?
Certainly you can configure OSX into a Unix-like system, but it isn't out of the box.
The same could be done with Linux. Keep the OS and environment hidden away from the user and wrap it up in a flashy GUI. A few distros actually seem to have "hide the system" as their primary goal.
If you want an OS with hidden innards, go for it. But I don't consider OS innards to be naughty bits, and it doesn't embarrass me to know how to use vi, edit a resolv.conf file, configure a kernel, or write a bash script. I like the raw power and control that the command line gives me.
I've noticed that the benefits of X are extolled suspiciously often within the context of servers and remote administration.
It also means I can sit at home, log into work, and pretend like I'm really there. Just one in a long list of X benefits that have nothing to do with sysadmining.
People (most people) are not interested in CLI, not interested in boring and old-fashioned.
Then those people should stay away from Linux or anything else even remotely resembling Unix.
But dragging around baggage beneficial to only a portion of users (that seems to be getting smaller with a growing Linux user base) almost seems unfair.
Ah, the tyranny of the majority rears its ugly head, even here in the land of the free. We are more numerous so let's vote on everything. That way we get to rule while pretending to be fair. Let's dump all those old bearded Unix types who made Linux into the premier server and workstation platform. We don't want workstations or servers, we want gaming platforms. We don't want Linux to replace Win2K, we want it to replace the X Box.
I am kinda upset to hear how ppl are so willing to ditch X for faster video/games.
I agree. X is powerful, flexible and proven. It's like a 4x4 truck. What can you do with a 4x4 truck? Haul heavy loads, go offroad, pick up your date for dinner. But there's a lot of people who want to drive a sports car instead. What can you do with a sports car? Pick up your date for dinner. Period. Personally, if a date doesn't want to ride in a truck, I'll find someone who isn't so shallow.
If you can make DirectFB *identical* to XFree86 in functionality, then fine, I'll use it. But otherwise keep it away from me. Frankly, making gaming the primary goal of Linux is an incredible step backwards.
It will come out with the next stable Debian :-)
Yup, that's the problem with Mozilla. It was compiled on the command line. They should have used Kompile or GNompile and just clicked the "Build Mozilla Now!" button.
The question I always ask of people who bring this up is, what documentation did you get with the Microsoft software?
You do get documentation with Microsoft software. The problem is that it usually sucks. (VC++ docs are pretty nice though).
Making 20 fonts that don't suck is easier said than done. There aren't that many people who know how to make quality fonts. Unix already has some excellent *print* fonts in ghostscript and TeX, but we need quality screen fonts as well.
European programmers can no longer travel to the United States without risking being arrested for doing things which are perfectly legal where they did them
Don't blame us! When it comes to totalitarianism we always follow Europe's lead. Or are you guys pissed because the student is now the master?
4.2 in 11/2000, 4.3 in 4/2001 and 4.4 in 9/2001. And, none of these are significantly different.
This is an advantage. Some people don't want a completely redesigned OS every six months. Some just want the stable OS they've always been using plus bug fixes, new hardware support, etc. You won't see anything significantly different until 5.0. And after that you won't see anything significantly different until 6.0.
This is a Good Thing(tm).
May I recommend Slackware? Stay in Linux and get really slow updates.
Slackware releases every 9 to 12 months. Certainly much slower than FreeBSD, Mandrake or SuSE. But compared to Debian it's a hypersonic!
And now to rebut...
.doc don't seem to be working either.
...
ext3 is just as robust, and doesn't require a fsck at all after a power cycle.
The fsck on a softupdates volume is blazingly fast. To be sure, ext3 is a nice file system, but that doesn't mean all the other ones are crap.
OpenOffice for Linux doesn't run, and native AbiWord in 4.4-release doesn't start. Koffice import filters for
Use the native OpenOffice. I didn't have any problems with AbiWord. And KOffice filters are identical under Linux and FreeBSD.
up2date takes care of all that for in-distro packages.
Yeah, for the in-distro packages. But that ignores the major flaw of RPM: you have to use RPM for everything or you screw up your system. With FreeBSD you can use packages, ports, or compile by hand, and nothing gets out of sync.
Except maybe just doing a half-hour upgrade and getting back to work, rather than compiling all day
Ever heard of multitasking? Compile everything in the background while you work in the foreground. Plus, if you cvsup once a week, you're never so far behind that you need to compile "all day". Or better yet, if you're into precompiled packages, just upgrade the packages!
Nautilus, f.e., doesn't even start in 4.4's GNOME distribution.
I didnt have any problem at all with Nautilus (other than the fact that it's slower than molasses).
On the server side, you can't just install fbsd and use it as a NAT or enable quotas without recompiling the kernel.
Huh? A coworker of mine installed FreeBSD "out of the box" for his server and had it up and running in half an hour. He never had to recompile anything. I don't know much about NAT (except that my coworker got it running without recompiling), but quotas are already in the shipping kernel.
FreeBSD just takes more work.
It does require that you use more than two brain cells, and it does require you to make some sort of effort to get it installed and administered. But since when has that been a drawback in the Unix world?
Seriously, fonts look like absolute ass on X, to the point where they're difficult to read.
So go grab the M$ webfonts. The distros can't ship them, but you can still download them yourself. They are so much better than the mediocre stuff that X ships with.
One of these Linux companies that's raking in the dough (like everyone tells me they are) needs to go do what Microsoft did: pay a professional firm to create professional fonts. Then release them under an unrestrictive license.
Glad to hear that. Now where are the lines to pick up XP. I don't see them in my area. People are either sticking with 98 or going to 2K.
Hmmm, that one worked to my utter embarrassment. I swear this is a conspiracy by Taco Boy to slowly drive me over the brink of sanity.