It introduces all the basics of the kernel, including what it contains, and how to start playing around with modules. At the bottom there are some links to tutorials on compiling your kernel, and then setting up your bootloader.
In all, they should get you through all except odd problems.
One thing troubles me about ESR's rants on this subject. Although he seems quite correct about CUPS, almost all other distributions I know of provide better UIs to configure it, and KDE ships an absolutely fantastic set of printing tools that rival those found in Windows and MacOS.
So his rant is in a sense accurate but misleading. And your post does more or less the same, for although it is true that there are far too many elitists out there, there are in my experience more good people willing to help, and plenty of good documentation written with newbies in mind. Moreover, how many non-geeks would go to USENET or Slashdot for advice?
So while ESR is correct in putting usability up there, he ought to at least make more of an effort to research the amazing work done by the likes of KDE and GNOME, and to highlight those efforts as examples. It'd be more constructive than implying that nobody takes usability seriously enough.
X is not just a Linux thing. A major free version of X should be designed to work on BSD as well. BSD users do not want to have to put their codebase closer to the GPL than it already is.
On the other hand, GNU/Linux users and supporters of the GPL might be happy to see X move from a BSD-like license to the LGPL, and for more or less the same reason.
Since RedHat is a GNU/Linux vendor, it'd almost make more sense for them to go for an LGPL solution.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Hopefully xserver, XOrg, xouvert and any other forks and branches we see will all share code, stay healthy and compatible, so you can have your BSD licensed server whether or not Fedora adopts an LGPLed server.
Furthermore, should we care any more? With XOrg, xserver and xouvert all at different and useful stages of maturity, and apparently enough developers now working on each to guarantee that they won't stagnate too soon, XF86 is looking increasingly irrelevant.
What is wrong with being fanatically committed to the GPL and its principles? Seriously, it is all too easy to suggest that somebody who makes a stand is an extremist, when you yourself declare no standards and bend with the wind.
Maximum applicability is pretty vague. I'm guessing you mean that individuals, groups or for-profit organisations ought to use whatever licensing terms are most applicable... but to what end? Do you value the quantity of software, the technical quality, the economic/technical/social accessibility of software, the freedom of the user in relation to software, or perhaps something else?
You see, I'm what you might call a GPL zealot, and I'm of the opinion that as a technical tool with important social and political dimensions, the applicability of software stands in relation to its benefits to society. The GPL is a matter of pragmatism in that sense, but you're sticking to the narrow conception of value that I'm guessing is native to your culture, and labelling anyone who disagrees as a zealot. Isn't that just being irrationally and fanatically committed to a set of values without justification?
You know, I hope you're right. But there's something else about the trailer, besides the focus on inane "Will Smith-takes-on-the-killer-robots" action: Will Smith seems to be the focus, cracking innocent jokes and playing the same fool he's been since Fresh Prince.
To me, Asimov's Robot stories were about exploring the concept of unbreakable laws, and how humans who depend upon the reliability of apparently such infallible laws react and adapt to situations when they fail. They're a wonderful blend of "what if" stories supported by an interesting range of (perhaps somewhat flat) human-robot counterpart relationships.
Not only was that not reflected in the trailer, but I got the distinct impression that it was an entirely different concept.
At least in the Matrix trailers they made a few references to the glib pop-philosophy.
Actually, Epic did recently say that GNU/Linux sales account for fewer than 1% of client sales, so they don't produce cross-platform clients for commercial reasons.
Rather, according to Epic's Mark Rein, "Sometimes you've just got to do the right thing... even if it doesn't make you money." And "our feeling is we can't give them a Linux server and not give them a Linux client... that wouldn't be fair."
If I ever bother to learn to drive, I'd need to learn those things because otherwise I would be an unsafe driver, and because no technology exists today that would safely remove that responsibility. As soon as we get automatically chauferring cars, people who use cars will need to learn to drive.
On the other hand, it is possible for people to "safely" and happily use a computer without needing to learn concepts like hardware components. The task of software developers who are producing code for non-specialised uses is to try to get the software to soften the learning curve by hiding these concepts.
That said, there's truth in saying that at the moment many basic concepts need to be taught, and especially to sysadmins. A lot of Microsofties in particular are jumping the gun in making/encouraging people to use software without the necessary concepts in hand.
In the first paragraph he suggests that worms, viruses and popups are somehow the fault of and only restricted to Windows, and using Linux will solve all those problems.
This is not the reason to switch operating systems, it is a reason to use better software, patch your system, have better security practices etc. Articles that start with this proclamation don't warrant reading any further.
Given that this article was written for the average computer user, I'd say you're dead wrong. My housemates all run Windows (98/XP) and they have constant problems with viruses and spyware. I help them where I can, but even with me around, they, as your average users, get screwed by it.
I moved my girlfriend and my family over to GNU/Linux, and they've not had any problems. All of a sudden they don't suffer from worms, viruses, popups and adware.
Average users simply do not protect themselves from crap like worms, viruses, popups and spyware, for whatever reasons. So you see, it's a perfectly valid reason to switch for many people. If Windows can't protect average users from that crap, average users should be looking elsewhere.
But the GNOME bugsquad, as its name suggests, only tackles bugs.
Where there are examples of projects reaching out to people who don't or can't code, they are always seen as initiatives to attract people to a specific task, whereas the Quality Teams Project is an initiative that seeks to create a new community and in doing so redefine the modes of participation in the project as a whole. To my knowledge, no other project has launched anything of the same kind.
With your degree in political science, and being heavily involved in GNOME, you will appreciate and understand the role of social contracts and elections in many projects (perhaps most notable in Debian and GNOME). But KDE doesn't have a social contract, nor does it have an elected board (more's the pity IMO), and in fact most of the core developers resist these ideas, preferring a meritocracy on technical grounds.
The Quality Teams Project is trying to facilitate more sane, transparent and (in a sense) democratic power arrangements without recourse to these traditional frameworks. Hopefully, if it takes off, the project will begin to change the shape of the existing power arrangements from the grassroots.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what, to take your example, GNOME has done so far and what KDE is doing now are quite radically different. I think you're simplifying things too much, to the point where everything that seeks to raise levels of non-coder participation is homogenous, if not identical.
What you say makes sense, but if you read my article that I wrote to explain the effects of the project in more depth, you'll see that (hopefully) you're wrong.
The point of the project is not only to bring in this heretofore unused resource, and then train it, so that you get a growing number of people with little or no technical background becoming competent with things like Bugzilla, CVS, translation tools, promotion work, etc. These people can then act as a gateway between the developers and the users, to try to improve the quality of communication between these two groups.
Your idea of LUG-based QAs is a great one, but it's not something the KDE Project can enforce, whereas the Quality Teams project is viable and will hopefully make a big difference.
I think if they want to make this message strongly they should keep it simple. Making the distinction between "free software" and "open source" will just confuse most members of the public. Isn't "open source" also about free speech? The same general principals apply don't they? Why do they have to confuse the issue?
But they are defining the issue by contrasting those two terms. In a sense, "open source" advocates are doing as much to defend and reclaim our civil liberties as proprietary vendors.
Free Software is about making software work for communities, whereas Open Source is about development methodologies. By confusing the two you're sending people conflicting messages... we're about better development methodologies, and, oh, you get certain freedoms too.
In the light of Microsoft, SCO, the DMCA, the EUCD, software patents, the EUIPD and all the other recent examples of the abuse of technology I'd say that Eben Moglen and the Free Software Foundation are spot on in their approach.
The "problem" is that The GIMP began as a program for X, not Windows. With multiple virtual desktops (a feature Windows and Macs lack), I can have one bit of The GIMP on one desktop, and other dialogues on another. This means, for instance, that I can keep informative dialogues open and switch over to them when I need them.
I suppose an MDI solution might help Windows users with cluttered taskbars though.
Really, the fact that all tools are under a single window hasn't seemed to hurt the Adobe family of products from being wildass popular. So what, other than being different for the sake of being different, is the point?
With multiple virtual desktops (a feature Windows and Macs lack), I can have one bit of The GIMP on one desktop, and other dialogues on another. This means, for instance, that I can keep informative dialogues open and switch over to them when I need them.
I'm sure serious graphic-heads find uses for it too, but there's one. And really, unless you have a very busy background, it doesn't make much difference.
imo the KDE people should take a step back and see what they're doing. all those pretty menus and shiny lights and a multitude of buttons and applets. neat, but useless. instead of new features (which KDE has enough already) they should focus more on the interface and how to make it more efficient.
If you were to read the article, and read the press announcements that came with KDE 3.2, and indeed try KDE 3.2, you'd find that they have done just that, as well as provide interesting new features. For example:
- KWallet, a new feature but one that makes using passwords and secure form data anywhere in the system much more efficient
- Cleaning up of lots of right click menus
- Cleaning up and improving kmenu
- Improving tabs in Konqueror
- A new universal side bar, which apparently is a lot more efficient for some people
- Even better integration of existing KDE technologies like klipper and kio_slaves into many KDE applications
The list goes on and on, but mostly they are small changes so you either have to use it to notice, or read through CVS changelogs. Next time I suggest you check before making loud statements like that:-)
Hmm, I'd say Kopete is a pretty clear competitor to Gaim now.
I'd also say that KMail is by far and away the best mail application available.
Konqueror is also the best file manager. The astonishing flexibility and power offered by the kio_slaves system puts it light years ahead of any competitor.
I also use KOffice more simply because OpenOffice is so slow, and KOffice satisfies my needs.
But of course all KDE apps can be improved:) Thanfully, in the run up to KDE 4.0 one of the main areas of focus will be the applications, getting rid of the excessive number of apps that duplicate functionality, and streamlining and improving those that are left, so that KDE not only offers the best desktop architecture but also a very functional suite of basic apps. I can't wait... then again, when it comes out I'll be salivating over 4.1;-)
I just don't see how the open source movement will ever be motivated to work on usability issues related to Linux.... How many times have you heard the terms "usability" and "open source" in the same sentence.
Many times. Anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to the development of KDE, GNOME and almost all good Qt/Gtk applications will see those terms put together a lot. KDE and GNOME both have dedicated usability teams, and have commissioned or made use of usability studies on their work.
Look, I like Linux too, but as a server. It's just not ready for the desktop.
That statement is completely meaningless. It's ready for my desktop, it's ready for my girlfriend's desktop once I installed it, and according to my art-teacher tech-hating parents it's ready for their desktop with a little tweaking of default configurations.
Ask the same of Windows and MacOS, and I think you'll find that the situation is more or less the same, except for the need to tweak configurations in KDE and GNOME for my parents.
Just anecdotal evidence, of course, but enough to show how meaningless your statements were.
If Linux get Desktop world domination then this raises the question which desktop will rule them all. It's relatively unlikely that two desktops will be supported to the same extend by the OSS community.
I don't think either KDE or GNOME will dominate in the way you suggest. It seems perfectly clear to me that each is better suited for certain purposes at the moment, and that in their history each has seen good and bad times so far as corporate backing is concerned.
At the moment GNOME has had some big names coming on board, whilst KDE hasn't had much huge corporate news of that kind for a while. Then again, KDE has been deployed in some big seels by vendors like SuSE and Lindows of late, whilst GNOME hasn't. It seems to ebb and flow, and I'm sure that trend will continue for the forseeable future.
As the various desktop markets develop, and KDE and GNOME find their way in through big backers like Novell, big vendors like Lindows, evangelism, small shops and so on, I think we'll see both competing nicely, hopefully with Xfce showing more promise as well. Isn't that what we should hope for, anyway? A healthy competitive market with interoperable products?
Slashdot Mirror
You might find this document useful:
n el .shtml
http://www.newtolinux.org.uk/tutorials/linuxker
It introduces all the basics of the kernel, including what it contains, and how to start playing around with modules. At the bottom there are some links to tutorials on compiling your kernel, and then setting up your bootloader.
In all, they should get you through all except odd problems.
I thought it was time to reformat Windows again.
It's always a good time to reformat Windows.
One thing troubles me about ESR's rants on this subject. Although he seems quite correct about CUPS, almost all other distributions I know of provide better UIs to configure it, and KDE ships an absolutely fantastic set of printing tools that rival those found in Windows and MacOS.
So his rant is in a sense accurate but misleading. And your post does more or less the same, for although it is true that there are far too many elitists out there, there are in my experience more good people willing to help, and plenty of good documentation written with newbies in mind. Moreover, how many non-geeks would go to USENET or Slashdot for advice?
So while ESR is correct in putting usability up there, he ought to at least make more of an effort to research the amazing work done by the likes of KDE and GNOME, and to highlight those efforts as examples. It'd be more constructive than implying that nobody takes usability seriously enough.
Yikes, first a "non-geek" espousing the merits of management, and then a geek dismissing the merits of the liberal arts.
I'm all trolled out!
X is not just a Linux thing. A major free version of X should be designed to work on BSD as well. BSD users do not want to have to put their codebase closer to the GPL than it already is.
On the other hand, GNU/Linux users and supporters of the GPL might be happy to see X move from a BSD-like license to the LGPL, and for more or less the same reason.
Since RedHat is a GNU/Linux vendor, it'd almost make more sense for them to go for an LGPL solution.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Hopefully xserver, XOrg, xouvert and any other forks and branches we see will all share code, stay healthy and compatible, so you can have your BSD licensed server whether or not Fedora adopts an LGPLed server.
What WILL it take to wake them up?
Furthermore, should we care any more? With XOrg, xserver and xouvert all at different and useful stages of maturity, and apparently enough developers now working on each to guarantee that they won't stagnate too soon, XF86 is looking increasingly irrelevant.
but I'm sure some GPL zealots might.
What is wrong with being fanatically committed to the GPL and its principles? Seriously, it is all too easy to suggest that somebody who makes a stand is an extremist, when you yourself declare no standards and bend with the wind.
Maximum applicability is pretty vague. I'm guessing you mean that individuals, groups or for-profit organisations ought to use whatever licensing terms are most applicable... but to what end? Do you value the quantity of software, the technical quality, the economic/technical/social accessibility of software, the freedom of the user in relation to software, or perhaps something else?
You see, I'm what you might call a GPL zealot, and I'm of the opinion that as a technical tool with important social and political dimensions, the applicability of software stands in relation to its benefits to society. The GPL is a matter of pragmatism in that sense, but you're sticking to the narrow conception of value that I'm guessing is native to your culture, and labelling anyone who disagrees as a zealot. Isn't that just being irrationally and fanatically committed to a set of values without justification?
You know, I hope you're right. But there's something else about the trailer, besides the focus on inane "Will Smith-takes-on-the-killer-robots" action: Will Smith seems to be the focus, cracking innocent jokes and playing the same fool he's been since Fresh Prince.
To me, Asimov's Robot stories were about exploring the concept of unbreakable laws, and how humans who depend upon the reliability of apparently such infallible laws react and adapt to situations when they fail. They're a wonderful blend of "what if" stories supported by an interesting range of (perhaps somewhat flat) human-robot counterpart relationships.
Not only was that not reflected in the trailer, but I got the distinct impression that it was an entirely different concept.
At least in the Matrix trailers they made a few references to the glib pop-philosophy.
Actually, Epic did recently say that GNU/Linux sales account for fewer than 1% of client sales, so they don't produce cross-platform clients for commercial reasons.
... even if it doesn't make you money." And "our feeling is we can't give them a Linux server and not give them a Linux client... that wouldn't be fair."
Rather, according to Epic's Mark Rein, "Sometimes you've just got to do the right thing
If I ever bother to learn to drive, I'd need to learn those things because otherwise I would be an unsafe driver, and because no technology exists today that would safely remove that responsibility. As soon as we get automatically chauferring cars, people who use cars will need to learn to drive.
On the other hand, it is possible for people to "safely" and happily use a computer without needing to learn concepts like hardware components. The task of software developers who are producing code for non-specialised uses is to try to get the software to soften the learning curve by hiding these concepts.
That said, there's truth in saying that at the moment many basic concepts need to be taught, and especially to sysadmins. A lot of Microsofties in particular are jumping the gun in making/encouraging people to use software without the necessary concepts in hand.
In the first paragraph he suggests that worms, viruses and popups are somehow the fault of and only restricted to Windows, and using Linux will solve all those problems.
This is not the reason to switch operating systems, it is a reason to use better software, patch your system, have better security practices etc. Articles that start with this proclamation don't warrant reading any further.
Given that this article was written for the average computer user, I'd say you're dead wrong. My housemates all run Windows (98/XP) and they have constant problems with viruses and spyware. I help them where I can, but even with me around, they, as your average users, get screwed by it.
I moved my girlfriend and my family over to GNU/Linux, and they've not had any problems. All of a sudden they don't suffer from worms, viruses, popups and adware.
Average users simply do not protect themselves from crap like worms, viruses, popups and spyware, for whatever reasons. So you see, it's a perfectly valid reason to switch for many people. If Windows can't protect average users from that crap, average users should be looking elsewhere.
But the GNOME bugsquad, as its name suggests, only tackles bugs.
Where there are examples of projects reaching out to people who don't or can't code, they are always seen as initiatives to attract people to a specific task, whereas the Quality Teams Project is an initiative that seeks to create a new community and in doing so redefine the modes of participation in the project as a whole. To my knowledge, no other project has launched anything of the same kind.
With your degree in political science, and being heavily involved in GNOME, you will appreciate and understand the role of social contracts and elections in many projects (perhaps most notable in Debian and GNOME). But KDE doesn't have a social contract, nor does it have an elected board (more's the pity IMO), and in fact most of the core developers resist these ideas, preferring a meritocracy on technical grounds.
The Quality Teams Project is trying to facilitate more sane, transparent and (in a sense) democratic power arrangements without recourse to these traditional frameworks. Hopefully, if it takes off, the project will begin to change the shape of the existing power arrangements from the grassroots.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what, to take your example, GNOME has done so far and what KDE is doing now are quite radically different. I think you're simplifying things too much, to the point where everything that seeks to raise levels of non-coder participation is homogenous, if not identical.
Rather than make wild accusations about the quality of my work and my level of competence, why not make substantive criticisms of my article?
If you disagree with my reasons for thinking the Quality Teams project is new, perhaps even "radical", then state your refutation properly.
What you say makes sense, but if you read my article that I wrote to explain the effects of the project in more depth, you'll see that (hopefully) you're wrong.
The point of the project is not only to bring in this heretofore unused resource, and then train it, so that you get a growing number of people with little or no technical background becoming competent with things like Bugzilla, CVS, translation tools, promotion work, etc. These people can then act as a gateway between the developers and the users, to try to improve the quality of communication between these two groups.
Your idea of LUG-based QAs is a great one, but it's not something the KDE Project can enforce, whereas the Quality Teams project is viable and will hopefully make a big difference.
I wrote this article for Newsforge, looking at the productive, social, political and spiritual aspects of the Quality Teams Project.
:-)
Some people might find it interesting...
I think if they want to make this message strongly they should keep it simple. Making the distinction between "free software" and "open source" will just confuse most members of the public. Isn't "open source" also about free speech? The same general principals apply don't they? Why do they have to confuse the issue?
But they are defining the issue by contrasting those two terms. In a sense, "open source" advocates are doing as much to defend and reclaim our civil liberties as proprietary vendors.
Free Software is about making software work for communities, whereas Open Source is about development methodologies. By confusing the two you're sending people conflicting messages... we're about better development methodologies, and, oh, you get certain freedoms too.
In the light of Microsoft, SCO, the DMCA, the EUCD, software patents, the EUIPD and all the other recent examples of the abuse of technology I'd say that Eben Moglen and the Free Software Foundation are spot on in their approach.
Not multiple monitors, but multiple virtual desktops on one monitor.
The "problem" is that The GIMP began as a program for X, not Windows. With multiple virtual desktops (a feature Windows and Macs lack), I can have one bit of The GIMP on one desktop, and other dialogues on another. This means, for instance, that I can keep informative dialogues open and switch over to them when I need them.
I suppose an MDI solution might help Windows users with cluttered taskbars though.
Really, the fact that all tools are under a single window hasn't seemed to hurt the Adobe family of products from being wildass popular. So what, other than being different for the sake of being different, is the point?
With multiple virtual desktops (a feature Windows and Macs lack), I can have one bit of The GIMP on one desktop, and other dialogues on another. This means, for instance, that I can keep informative dialogues open and switch over to them when I need them.
I'm sure serious graphic-heads find uses for it too, but there's one. And really, unless you have a very busy background, it doesn't make much difference.
imo the KDE people should take a step back and see what they're doing. all those pretty menus and shiny lights and a multitude of buttons and applets. neat, but useless. instead of new features (which KDE has enough already) they should focus more on the interface and how to make it more efficient.
:-)
If you were to read the article, and read the press announcements that came with KDE 3.2, and indeed try KDE 3.2, you'd find that they have done just that, as well as provide interesting new features. For example:
- KWallet, a new feature but one that makes using passwords and secure form data anywhere in the system much more efficient
- Cleaning up of lots of right click menus
- Cleaning up and improving kmenu
- Improving tabs in Konqueror
- A new universal side bar, which apparently is a lot more efficient for some people
- Even better integration of existing KDE technologies like klipper and kio_slaves into many KDE applications
The list goes on and on, but mostly they are small changes so you either have to use it to notice, or read through CVS changelogs. Next time I suggest you check before making loud statements like that
Bugger, corrected :) Slashdot mangled the admittedly bad URL phpWiki created...
This series of articles I wrote with a friend might also be of interest.
:-)
It outlines some practical nicities that are a result of the technologies like KIO slaves mentioned in the Ars Technica piece, including:
Managing web sites (handling content without an FTP application, web gallery creation)
Extending Konqueror with view profiles (replace FTP/Samba applications with Konq, and browse Google easily)
Using KPrinter in any app
Enjoy
Hmm, I'd say Kopete is a pretty clear competitor to Gaim now.
:) Thanfully, in the run up to KDE 4.0 one of the main areas of focus will be the applications, getting rid of the excessive number of apps that duplicate functionality, and streamlining and improving those that are left, so that KDE not only offers the best desktop architecture but also a very functional suite of basic apps. I can't wait... then again, when it comes out I'll be salivating over 4.1 ;-)
I'd also say that KMail is by far and away the best mail application available.
Konqueror is also the best file manager. The astonishing flexibility and power offered by the kio_slaves system puts it light years ahead of any competitor.
I also use KOffice more simply because OpenOffice is so slow, and KOffice satisfies my needs.
But of course all KDE apps can be improved
I just don't see how the open source movement will ever be motivated to work on usability issues related to Linux. ...
How many times have you heard the terms "usability" and "open source" in the same sentence.
Many times. Anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to the development of KDE, GNOME and almost all good Qt/Gtk applications will see those terms put together a lot. KDE and GNOME both have dedicated usability teams, and have commissioned or made use of usability studies on their work.
Look, I like Linux too, but as a server. It's just not ready for the desktop.
That statement is completely meaningless. It's ready for my desktop, it's ready for my girlfriend's desktop once I installed it, and according to my art-teacher tech-hating parents it's ready for their desktop with a little tweaking of default configurations.
Ask the same of Windows and MacOS, and I think you'll find that the situation is more or less the same, except for the need to tweak configurations in KDE and GNOME for my parents.
Just anecdotal evidence, of course, but enough to show how meaningless your statements were.
If Linux get Desktop world domination then this raises the question which desktop will rule them all. It's relatively unlikely that two desktops will be supported to the same extend by the OSS community.
I don't think either KDE or GNOME will dominate in the way you suggest. It seems perfectly clear to me that each is better suited for certain purposes at the moment, and that in their history each has seen good and bad times so far as corporate backing is concerned.
At the moment GNOME has had some big names coming on board, whilst KDE hasn't had much huge corporate news of that kind for a while. Then again, KDE has been deployed in some big seels by vendors like SuSE and Lindows of late, whilst GNOME hasn't. It seems to ebb and flow, and I'm sure that trend will continue for the forseeable future.
As the various desktop markets develop, and KDE and GNOME find their way in through big backers like Novell, big vendors like Lindows, evangelism, small shops and so on, I think we'll see both competing nicely, hopefully with Xfce showing more promise as well. Isn't that what we should hope for, anyway? A healthy competitive market with interoperable products?