Oh, I see. I was hoping for an iCab (mac browser) type solution, where you can choose to block all images of a certain size. Killing 468x60 pixels, for example, wipes out most banner ads. It is surprising to me that no Windows or Linux browsers have picked up this feature.
Try control-alternate-plus to change desktop resolution. If you want ``better'', you have to accept SOME changes!
This is not a troll. How is an obscure keystroke better than right clicking the desktop? There is no way a new user will "guess" the keystroke - they'll have to look it up in a reference. By simply adding a "desktop properties" item in the right-click menu, even a new user can find what they need through experimentation.
Giving the user multiple options and allowing them to choose the best way to complete their task is what interface design is all about.
Linux is difficult to configure, but that's why companies like SuSE [suse.com] and Mandrake [linux-mandrake.com] produce distributions that are bundled with special graphical widgets to do all that configuration for you. At least with Linux you get the choice.
One thing that drives me crazy about those graphical configuration widgets - why aren't they named properly? For example, on a RedHat 7.2 system, typing "ntsysv" (or something like that) launches a GUI tool for turning services on and off at boot time. Why isn't that tool called "Service Configuration"?
A similar problem occurs in the KDE menus - for example, in many distros you will see "KPPP" in the menu. You and I know what that is, but why not make the menu item say "internet dialer" (Red Hat has fixed this recently, but still there are many other examples like this). Another example would be "top". Instead of saying "top" in the menu, it should say "process management" or something. Things need to be made so that newbies can figure out what they do just by reading. Instead of "PAN" say "PAN - Usenet reader"... etc.
Playing unlicensed software (out of region dvds and import games) is not "legitimate," if by legitimate what you mean is "legal."
Uh, no. Modifying your hardware to get around region coding isn't illegal, just inconvenient. In fact, selling region LOCKED hardware may soon be declared illegal in some parts of the world, with manufacturers forced to sell only region-free hardware.
You shouldn't feel guilty or worried that you're doing something illegal by modifying your own hardware. Stealing games is another thing - play copied games you don't own, and you're a dirtbag. Modifying your stuff to play imported Japanese or Euro games is fine - just pay for them.
re: Konqueror, frankly, the fonts look like shit there too on my system. It must be dependent on the font specified in the HTML, because sometimes it looks great (Arial?) and sometimes horrible. Slashdot, for example, looks nice. Salon.com is horrible.
I think that one thing that really hampers Linux is the lack of developer focus. When I finally got RedHat 7.2 working for dialup, the first thing I went looking for was a Yahoo Messenger client.
I found about 5, (including Yahoo's 'official' client) and tried them all. None of them has all the features of the Windows client. Some were ok, some were downright sucky. Ironically, if the five guys that wrote those apps would have worked together, they might have created something the Windows people would have envied. Instead, we've got 5 incomplete clients, none of which works as good as the closed source Yahoo-brand one.
No one can force developers to work on specific things, of course, but everyone would benefit if people would think twice before embarking on authoring yet another text editor/audio player/messenging client/etc when what really is needed is one KILLER app in each category.
If you think you want to write an HTML editor, maybe pick a nice existing one and contribute to that instead. (Please note I'm not disparaging the work of the Y! client authors, I just think developers in general need better judgement.
A perfect example would be fonts. Install RedHat 7.2 (very recent, presumably containing the most up to date widgets). Start it up, fire up Netscape. See how shitty the fonts look?
I've seen people ask how to fix that. I'm sure there's an answer, too. But the fact is that it's fucking RIDICULOUS to have fonts that look like that in the year 2001.
If you give them some complicated instructions for fixing it, 95% of new users will just say "screw that" and either: 1) abandon Linux, thinking it sucks, or 2) keep using Linux with crummy fonts, and think it sucks, or 3) keep using Linux and waste a bunch of time fiddling until the fonts are right.
All three of these situations are horrible, yet it doesn't seem to bother any of the developers that RedHat still ships this way.
This type of situation is common and it infuriates me that not only are you assumed to be stupid if you can't make it work, but everyone is amazed that you'd complain about it in the first place, because fixing it is supposed some sign of your computing prowess.
Your point is well taken. But have you used StarOffice or the GIMP? These applications are about as close to a feature-for-feature clone of the original as they can legally be.
My main frustration with Linux is not only that it's hard, but that you can't even convince anyone that it's hard! There is a big "can't see the forest for the trees" problem.
Example: "How do I use a USB hard drive under Linux?" Answer: "modprobe usb-mass storage, and use the mount command (man mount)"
And no one sees why there is a problem with such a statement.
I countered that the lousiest new iMac would cost $999 and the reason why "all the other artists" use them is because of brand loyalty.
This is probably the funniest, most ignorant thing I've ever read on Slashdot. I've got news for you - people use the MacOS because they WANT to. If you can see past your "my OS is better than yours" bigotry for a moment, you might see that all those artists have all chosen Macs for a REASON. Jeez.
Let me ask you a serious question. As a new user, how does knowing that "Devfs supports automatic device registration" help me at all?
Maybe you just don't know what's out there, because you're so convinced that it doesn't exist, you don't bother to look.
That's exactly my point! The user will NEVER look. For a new user, it either works out of the box or it doesn't. It's not reasonable to expect them to download, compile, and install components just to give the computer basic functionality.
Not being a coder, I find that it is next to impossible to contribute to Linux. When you point out usability problems:
1) I find that coders generally aren't interested, it it works for them it's "good enough".
2) The coders generally want to work on what they want to work on, not what you want them to work on.
3) Writing documentation doesn't help - the point of 'usability' is that you shouldn't NEED to read man pages to get it working.
Let's say I wrote out specs for some widget to be used on desktop Linux systems that scanned the system for new partitions/drives everytime KDE starts. (Can't believe this doesn't exist already). For each new one, it throws up a dialog with a suggested mount point and an "OK" "cancel" "don't ask again" button. Seems like a great idea, right? You can't convince anyone to build it.
i am not trying to create flamebait, but linux, with its current UIs, will not be successful in the desktop market.
it is clunky, inelegant and unsophisticated. secretaries will like it even less than windows.
Ximian Gnome is a nicer GUI than Windows. The problem isn't with the GUIs, however, the problem is with the rest of the OS - loading and unloading drivers, compiling things, etc.
As an example, please briefly explain how to add an external USB hard drive to a Linux system. Your answer will likely involve some command line work to load and unload modules, then an explanation of the 'mount' command. You'll also need to do some digging to find out where the USB device 'lives'. (dev/sda1 or whatever). Under Windows, you would simply say "plug it in and watch for a drive letter". Those kinds of problems are much more serious than an ugly gui.
That's what Linux, Macintosh, and any other Operating System vendors need to do.
Unfortunately, very, very few people involved in the development of the Linux operating system care much about usability. They are much more interested in adding the latest whiz-bang feature, but it doesn't seem to bother them that their app must be installed on a command line that is unintelligible to 99% of the computing population.
The few folks that DO care about usability (Ximian) are doing great things - unfortunately, it just isn't enough. They are working on the GUI, an email client, etc. but there are so many more usability problems with the OS than just that.
Windows is only esay to use because people don't know any thing else exists. I been using linux for 2 years, and now even my mom and my little sister use Linux(Gnome) with no problems at all
It only works for them because you're there to administrate it for them. Have they every tried to add a printer? An external hard drive? A sound card?
If it's all setup for you ahead of time, Linux is about the same as Windows for a user that just wants to surf or word process. But you're assuming that someone 'manages' that computer for them - 95% of people DON'T have a sysadmin to take care of Linux hardware and software installs for them, they have to do it themselves!
Can you imagine mom reading the man pages and recompiling the kernel to get her USB external hard drive working? I can't. I can, however, imagine her following the Windows instructions: "plug it in, and a drive letter will appear". See? Linux COULD be that easy, but certain people have acted to make sure that it ISN'T.
You would have selected wether or not you wanted them mounted during the installer (by assigning them a mountpoint) if you didnt tell it you wanted them mounted, then it`s NORMAL for the computer to do as it`s told and not mount them.
Exactly. I didn't know I needed to assing mount points at install time, so now I'm hosed, wandering in a world of command line mumbo jumbo. Why can't the installer say "hey, you have some fat32 partitions here. Would you like to be able to access them while using Linux?"
AFAIK Redhat 7.x comes with hotplug tools for just this sort of thing
Where? I'm using 7.2. I have Fat32 partitions on my internal drive that don't automount as well as 2 external USB devices that don't do anything when I plug them in.
AmigaOS was very good at automounting btw, any inserted disk got it`s icon displayed on your desktop aswell as any files on the disk configured to display onto your desktop
Just like Macintosh and Windows? Guess what? EVERY OS that even remotely considers the end users' needs does the same thing. With Linux, however, you can't even convince anyone that the user needs this! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
It does? In command-line only mode, maybe. But the software (Gnome and/or KDE) that is needed to make the computer usable for the 99% of the computing population that aren't geeks consumes resources similar to those needed by MS operating systems.
I find that KDE on RedHat runs at a speed similar to Windows 2000 on my 600mhz laptop.
theres thousands of fancy redhat programs for adding your harddrives to auto mount, and theres billions of ways to make a shell script mount your drives.
I'm sure that there are! My point is that, as just a computer 'user', rather than a computer 'wizard', I don't know any of them! If the capability to automount already exists, why not take the tiny next step and make it run when a drive is plugged in?
This is the straight truth - I'm a new user trying to switch to Linux from Windows 2000. It took me about 4 hours of reading to figure out how to mount the partitions of one of my internal drives in RedHat 7.2. I cannot justify that kind of time investment each time I plug something new into my computer, and dealing with similar issues everytime I need to change something makes it very difficult to switch platforms.
Your tale of woe could just as easily apply to Windows despite all of the bells and whistles.
It is unbelievable that you can even start to claim that Windows "doesn't do it quite right either". How much RIGHTER can it be than 'plug it in, get a drive letter'? I really want to know. All I've seen so far is a bunch of BULLSHIT excuses.
While you might think hunting through a bunch of obscure menus is somehow magically easier than typing some obscure commands, "mom" wont.
What 'obscure menus'?!? You PLUG IT IN, AND A DRIVE LETTER APPEARS IN "MY COMPUTER". There is no menu navigation needed.
Windows doesn't quite do it right either.
I am truly interested in what Linux people think is wrong with the way Windows does it.
PS I hate Windows. I use RedHat on my laptop. But even I can see that it could be BETTER!
It should be easy enough for say, a Linux distributor to make a standard mount point such as/usbmnt and have it automount upon attachment.
The way you describe it would be ideal. However, like most things in Linux, the way it should work and the way it does work are two entirely different things.
In order for a Linux distributor to implement this, they'd have to first realize that it's a problem - they don't, and you can't convince them.
"OH SHIT I FORGOT I HAD TO WAIT FOR THE PROMPT OR ELSE MY COMPUTER WON'T BOOT"
No, I'm talking about a dialog that comes up when you plug such a device into a machine that is ALREADY running. Clearly such devices should be mounted without intervention at boot time - why would I have plugged it in if I didn't want it?
It amazes me the lengths that people will go to in order to defend Linux - even in a case such as this, where the existing interface is clearly user-unfriendly, if not openly hostile!
Slashdot Mirror
Their website says it's VPN.
Oh, I see. I was hoping for an iCab (mac browser) type solution, where you can choose to block all images of a certain size. Killing 468x60 pixels, for example, wipes out most banner ads. It is surprising to me that no Windows or Linux browsers have picked up this feature.
This is not a troll. How is an obscure keystroke better than right clicking the desktop? There is no way a new user will "guess" the keystroke - they'll have to look it up in a reference. By simply adding a "desktop properties" item in the right-click menu, even a new user can find what they need through experimentation.
Giving the user multiple options and allowing them to choose the best way to complete their task is what interface design is all about.
One thing that drives me crazy about those graphical configuration widgets - why aren't they named properly? For example, on a RedHat 7.2 system, typing "ntsysv" (or something like that) launches a GUI tool for turning services on and off at boot time. Why isn't that tool called "Service Configuration"?
A similar problem occurs in the KDE menus - for example, in many distros you will see "KPPP" in the menu. You and I know what that is, but why not make the menu item say "internet dialer" (Red Hat has fixed this recently, but still there are many other examples like this). Another example would be "top". Instead of saying "top" in the menu, it should say "process management" or something. Things need to be made so that newbies can figure out what they do just by reading. Instead of "PAN" say "PAN - Usenet reader"... etc.
Uh, no. Modifying your hardware to get around region coding isn't illegal, just inconvenient. In fact, selling region LOCKED hardware may soon be declared illegal in some parts of the world, with manufacturers forced to sell only region-free hardware.
You shouldn't feel guilty or worried that you're doing something illegal by modifying your own hardware. Stealing games is another thing - play copied games you don't own, and you're a dirtbag. Modifying your stuff to play imported Japanese or Euro games is fine - just pay for them.
Where is the 'ad blocking' feature?
re: Konqueror, frankly, the fonts look like shit there too on my system. It must be dependent on the font specified in the HTML, because sometimes it looks great (Arial?) and sometimes horrible. Slashdot, for example, looks nice. Salon.com is horrible.
I found about 5, (including Yahoo's 'official' client) and tried them all. None of them has all the features of the Windows client. Some were ok, some were downright sucky. Ironically, if the five guys that wrote those apps would have worked together, they might have created something the Windows people would have envied. Instead, we've got 5 incomplete clients, none of which works as good as the closed source Yahoo-brand one.
No one can force developers to work on specific things, of course, but everyone would benefit if people would think twice before embarking on authoring yet another text editor/audio player/messenging client/etc when what really is needed is one KILLER app in each category.
If you think you want to write an HTML editor, maybe pick a nice existing one and contribute to that instead. (Please note I'm not disparaging the work of the Y! client authors, I just think developers in general need better judgement.
I've seen people ask how to fix that. I'm sure there's an answer, too. But the fact is that it's fucking RIDICULOUS to have fonts that look like that in the year 2001.
If you give them some complicated instructions for fixing it, 95% of new users will just say "screw that" and either: 1) abandon Linux, thinking it sucks, or 2) keep using Linux with crummy fonts, and think it sucks, or 3) keep using Linux and waste a bunch of time fiddling until the fonts are right.
All three of these situations are horrible, yet it doesn't seem to bother any of the developers that RedHat still ships this way.
This type of situation is common and it infuriates me that not only are you assumed to be stupid if you can't make it work, but everyone is amazed that you'd complain about it in the first place, because fixing it is supposed some sign of your computing prowess.
You've clearly never used Photoshop.
Example: "How do I use a USB hard drive under Linux?" Answer: "modprobe usb-mass storage, and use the mount command (man mount)"
And no one sees why there is a problem with such a statement.
This is probably the funniest, most ignorant thing I've ever read on Slashdot. I've got news for you - people use the MacOS because they WANT to. If you can see past your "my OS is better than yours" bigotry for a moment, you might see that all those artists have all chosen Macs for a REASON. Jeez.
Let me ask you a serious question. As a new user, how does knowing that "Devfs supports automatic device registration" help me at all?
Maybe you just don't know what's out there, because you're so convinced that it doesn't exist, you don't bother to look.
That's exactly my point! The user will NEVER look. For a new user, it either works out of the box or it doesn't. It's not reasonable to expect them to download, compile, and install components just to give the computer basic functionality.
The power is in your hands.
Not being a coder, I find that it is next to impossible to contribute to Linux. When you point out usability problems:
1) I find that coders generally aren't interested, it it works for them it's "good enough".
2) The coders generally want to work on what they want to work on, not what you want them to work on.
3) Writing documentation doesn't help - the point of 'usability' is that you shouldn't NEED to read man pages to get it working.
Let's say I wrote out specs for some widget to be used on desktop Linux systems that scanned the system for new partitions/drives everytime KDE starts. (Can't believe this doesn't exist already). For each new one, it throws up a dialog with a suggested mount point and an "OK" "cancel" "don't ask again" button. Seems like a great idea, right? You can't convince anyone to build it.
it is clunky, inelegant and unsophisticated. secretaries will like it even less than windows.
Ximian Gnome is a nicer GUI than Windows. The problem isn't with the GUIs, however, the problem is with the rest of the OS - loading and unloading drivers, compiling things, etc.
As an example, please briefly explain how to add an external USB hard drive to a Linux system. Your answer will likely involve some command line work to load and unload modules, then an explanation of the 'mount' command. You'll also need to do some digging to find out where the USB device 'lives'. (dev/sda1 or whatever). Under Windows, you would simply say "plug it in and watch for a drive letter". Those kinds of problems are much more serious than an ugly gui.
Unfortunately, very, very few people involved in the development of the Linux operating system care much about usability. They are much more interested in adding the latest whiz-bang feature, but it doesn't seem to bother them that their app must be installed on a command line that is unintelligible to 99% of the computing population.
The few folks that DO care about usability (Ximian) are doing great things - unfortunately, it just isn't enough. They are working on the GUI, an email client, etc. but there are so many more usability problems with the OS than just that.
It only works for them because you're there to administrate it for them. Have they every tried to add a printer? An external hard drive? A sound card?
If it's all setup for you ahead of time, Linux is about the same as Windows for a user that just wants to surf or word process. But you're assuming that someone 'manages' that computer for them - 95% of people DON'T have a sysadmin to take care of Linux hardware and software installs for them, they have to do it themselves!
Can you imagine mom reading the man pages and recompiling the kernel to get her USB external hard drive working? I can't. I can, however, imagine her following the Windows instructions: "plug it in, and a drive letter will appear". See? Linux COULD be that easy, but certain people have acted to make sure that it ISN'T.
For $50, I'm interested. Can anyone recommend a good ice hockey game? (is there EA Sports series?)
Exactly. I didn't know I needed to assing mount points at install time, so now I'm hosed, wandering in a world of command line mumbo jumbo. Why can't the installer say "hey, you have some fat32 partitions here. Would you like to be able to access them while using Linux?"
Where? I'm using 7.2. I have Fat32 partitions on my internal drive that don't automount as well as 2 external USB devices that don't do anything when I plug them in.
AmigaOS was very good at automounting btw, any inserted disk got it`s icon displayed on your desktop aswell as any files on the disk configured to display onto your desktop
Just like Macintosh and Windows? Guess what? EVERY OS that even remotely considers the end users' needs does the same thing. With Linux, however, you can't even convince anyone that the user needs this! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
It does? In command-line only mode, maybe. But the software (Gnome and/or KDE) that is needed to make the computer usable for the 99% of the computing population that aren't geeks consumes resources similar to those needed by MS operating systems.
I find that KDE on RedHat runs at a speed similar to Windows 2000 on my 600mhz laptop.
I'm sure that there are! My point is that, as just a computer 'user', rather than a computer 'wizard', I don't know any of them! If the capability to automount already exists, why not take the tiny next step and make it run when a drive is plugged in?
This is the straight truth - I'm a new user trying to switch to Linux from Windows 2000. It took me about 4 hours of reading to figure out how to mount the partitions of one of my internal drives in RedHat 7.2. I cannot justify that kind of time investment each time I plug something new into my computer, and dealing with similar issues everytime I need to change something makes it very difficult to switch platforms.
It is unbelievable that you can even start to claim that Windows "doesn't do it quite right either". How much RIGHTER can it be than 'plug it in, get a drive letter'? I really want to know. All I've seen so far is a bunch of BULLSHIT excuses.
While you might think hunting through a bunch of obscure menus is somehow magically easier than typing some obscure commands, "mom" wont.
What 'obscure menus'?!? You PLUG IT IN, AND A DRIVE LETTER APPEARS IN "MY COMPUTER". There is no menu navigation needed.
Windows doesn't quite do it right either.
I am truly interested in what Linux people think is wrong with the way Windows does it.
PS I hate Windows. I use RedHat on my laptop. But even I can see that it could be BETTER!
The way you describe it would be ideal. However, like most things in Linux, the way it should work and the way it does work are two entirely different things.
In order for a Linux distributor to implement this, they'd have to first realize that it's a problem - they don't, and you can't convince them.
No, I'm talking about a dialog that comes up when you plug such a device into a machine that is ALREADY running. Clearly such devices should be mounted without intervention at boot time - why would I have plugged it in if I didn't want it?
It amazes me the lengths that people will go to in order to defend Linux - even in a case such as this, where the existing interface is clearly user-unfriendly, if not openly hostile!