I'm not talking about the error; the correction was prompt and quick. I'm talking about the Trolls.
We've always had trolls. But now it is just crazy.
What prompts people to behave like this on web forums? Do those of us who don't want trolls, do we need to go elsewhere?
How much fun would it be to Troll a forum no one reads?
Sorry for posting off-topic, Slashdot used to be a much nicer place to visit. I think the threshold has been breached; AC posting must go. Perhaps temporarily.
And I used to be a strong supporter for AC posting too. But the rewards no longer outweigh the problems, not when it is like this.
I think high schools need to offer a *require* computer literacy or advanced computer literacy course. The advanced course would only be offered to students who pass a proficeincy test.
But true computer literacy, in my opinion, is truly transferable knowledge that will be applicable quite a few years ago. Concepts like hardware: RAM, memory, periphreals, processort, printers, scanners; software: operating systems, OS commands, filesystems, file management, GUI concepts (menus, common dialogues), and, of course basic vocabulary.
If we had a course like the above than kids will stop wasting their time learninng software that will be obsolete in a few years.
For me, it depends on the time of day. In the daytime I prefer light backgrounds, but dark backgrounds are too dark. In the night, I prefer just the reverse. So I've settled on light backgrounds.
Perhaps people who prefer dark backgrounds use their computer a lot at night;) ?
I wonder what real difference is there in what words we use.
It doesn't matter in the abstract, except that words convey meaning.
If you use the word cracker rather than hacker, what difference does it make? If we use the word hacker to denote crackers, what word would we use to denote hacker? Or if we do as we on Slashdot often do now and denote hacker as hacker and cracker as cracker, then what word do we use to replace the old meaning cracker -- the food. Perhaps someone can open up a dictionary and find a suitable word to use for "clever programmer".
Oh well.
But remember that English would be a far different language if it was governed chiefly by common usage.
I would much rather use a browser that had support for html past version 3.2.
Is there any work on XML support for Lynx that I don't know about? I know I would offer an alterate set of stylesheets for text-only browsers on my pages as long as it doesn't make the source incompatible.
You are the victim. RIAA is also the victim. So are the artists.
Everyone's the victim *and* the antagonist(sp).
It is, of course, a question of morality. Who is wrong and who is right?
You mention the price of CD's but you are not buying CD's, you are buying music. Music that takes time and talent and money to produce and distribute.
Now I am not against Napster. I am against illegal copying (the word piracy isn't right, now is it?). Napster isn't at fault, it is simply a medium that human beings make the decision how to use. Not to you specifically, Palin, but anyone who wishes to answer: How have you decided to use Napster? Have you become the victim *and* the antagonist?
I am not someone who beleives in the law for the law's sake. But I know why we have law: to stop anarchy. You see, we don't pick and choose which laws we will follow because then we have undermined the purpose of law. If you think a law is unfair and unjust then, at least in my country, there are methods to challenge the law. This is why I am against illegal copying.
If you beleive that you are the greater victim then find the groups who beleive the same as you do. Boycott the industry seems to be the valid method of protest but that is the precise opposite of illegal copying, isn't it?
There are two methods of going about the issue: either you can formally protest or you can copy illegally and *then* justify your actions. If the later then you should at least acknowledge that no one has any God-born or natural right to gratis music. Either you want to pay fairly or you don't get the music.
The RIAA has caused nothing to happen. The only thing that has changed is that with Napster it becomes easier to copy music. Napster does a poor job of keeping honest people honest. People don't copy music illegally out of protest. Protest means boycott. No, people copy music illegaly because it is easy.
One of the worst traits of human morality is that people have hard time controlling their own actions.
(I should put this kind of disclaimer in my.sig:
The ideas in this post are my opinion only. No one said that I had to agree with you or that you had to agree with me. I will agree or disagree politely to you. I expect the same in return.
Is Corel even going to release a version of WP9 free for educational and non-commercial use in support of the community?
What community is that, I wonder? The shareware community? The WaReZ community? When did our "community" become a bunch of people who only wanted gratis software despite everything else the OS is supposed to stand for?
Quite frankly, Corel Office has nothing to do with the community. They are a company trying to sell freedom-subtracted software to desperate GNU/Linux users.
Yes, you heard me: desperate. Why do you think Corel is developing for GNU/Linux? Looking for another market? No. They know that with our new fragile user-base that they *can* cause our users to depend on their office suite. Unfortunately for them, they will have to do a lot of marketing to defeat our philosophy of Free Software*. Or am I wrong?
Remember a few years ago when we had "The Desktop Wars" ? KDE, at the time, depended on a propietary software library to function at all. Then GNU launched its own desktop project, GNOME, that depended only on Free Software. Now that Qt has relaxed its license, the desktop wars have come to an end.
What this means is that our community values freedom over conveniance. KDE costed nothing then and costs nothing now. GNOME can be purchased from Helix Code. But because of our community both are almost completely Free Software.
Corel has created an OS based of GNU/Linux to run their propietary software. There are a few obvious holes in the GNU/Linux OS. One is Netscape. It is slow, it is buggy, and it has poor support for standards. And there is nothing anyone can do about it because it is propietary. Corel is creating an Office Suite that is propietary. But fear not, it will be seen as another obvious hole in the OS. Corel Office will eventually be replaced.
Yes I am raving evangelist. But I see a thin line in the dirt that too many don't see. Cross that line and we may never find our way back. Once propietary software becomes common we have already given up our freedom. And we have then transformed our OS into something it is not.
* Free Software means Free as in Freedom, has nothing to do with price. For you newbies;)
GPL, GCC. I assume they would use something else if they could.
I thought the BSD people were pragmatic?
Unix Is Not An Operating System
on
The End of Unix?
·
· Score: 2
I don't think Unix is an operating system. It is a family of operating systems.
Look at GNU/Linux. It isn't really Unix, but is really close. Isn't it some kind legal problems with naming? And besides, GNU and Linux were actually two separate operating systems in development that eventually merged, neither really Unix but now we are all happy.
Now Apple is putting Unix inside of Mac OS X, which I would say the opposite: Apple is putting MacOS inside of Unix. Apple is known as an innovator in the software industry, who have seen far. But they have been standing upon the shoulder of a giant named UNIX.
And if you stare at DOS hard enough, it starts looking like UNIX (anyone know "TYPE FILE.TXT | MORE" ?) but I won't go there;)
My point is that you won't be able to look at a new OS and say, hey! that's not Unix (unless you are explicit like GNU). You will just kind of see it and think, hmmm, it's different but it's cool and UNIX.
Who was the guy with the quote from Henry Spencer as his.sig, "He who don't get UNIX will make one that looks like it, only worse." I know I am way off but there may be some truth to the notion that there is something very pure and natural about UNIX, and elegant OS.
But in any capatilistic society the customers protect themselves by deciding *not* to buy. That is why we have boycott's. For American's, boycotts were one of the many factors in forming our country.
Well, Arandir, it seems everyone else is answering a different question than you are asking (well, actually responding to a different comment if you want to be technical). Others and I can give you reasons that we think Helix Code exists and how *they* think they are going to make money. They probably want to stay small and leverage the free software community to keep ahead in development, this should keep costs down. They probably want to approach companies and set them up with GNOME for their business needs.
But this isn't what you are saying. Quite frankly, no one really knows much about how Free Software business works. The only real reference point is Red Hat who have been in business long enough and develop entirely free software.
You are quite right. If other companies can freely redistribute and sell Helix GNOME with its own additions (perhaps propietary) then what does Helix offer to the consumer that others don't?
Perhaps since this is free software we are talking about, that the various companies can cooperate instead of compete? That doesn't make much sense now that I think about it.
I'd like to think that as a company Helix can adapt to a very new business model (like Red Hat has been trying to do for the last billion years).
In summary I have to admit that there is plenty I don't know about business to know other ways of making money off of free software, or whether it's pointless. I don't think Miguel does either so maybe he should hire someone who does. But I think they are doing this even though the risk is so large is because the potential is so great.
Perhaps Red Hat would hire them for development?
But making money off of Free Software is something I support.
Well, Netscape 3 will render pages based on CSS just fine. It just won't get all of the fancy formatting. Which is just fine. That is what they mean when they say that CSS enabled pages degrade well. If you use the standard HTML tags, all browsers should be able to render your page. Just that the more advanced browsers will look better.
The question people should be asking is, exactly what is a desktop OS? People usually define it as either Windows or MacOS or they say it is what everyone is running on their desktop. Now, don't tell me we need a computer my mom can use because not only have we heard that statement here and in other places a billion times but my Mom stays away from computers. I am sure there are many other Moms who do the same. You should consider if your children can use it, after all they will be the people using tommorrow's operating system, and if you haven't noticed they are more competent with computers.
Well, the above definition is right. A desktop OS is what people use on their desktop computer. It doesn't have to be easier to use, it doesn't need more applications even. Looking at the history of the computer industry can prove my point. It needs the ever important killer app. A killer app has to be either new and very useful or much better than the competition. I don't see the former happening since VisiCalc and the first word processor (AppleWorks?).
Now think. Do you consider the Gimp better than Photoshop? I like the Gimp's interface better but technically Photoshop offers more functionality. The Gimp would need to be much better to be a killer app. I can see it happening.
The Gimp was just an example. I guess some group could make GNU/Linux MUCH easier to use. That pretty much means hiding UNIX. Not only will the slashdotters here be upset but it would not sell well. Users would need a very good reason to switch. The fact that it crashes less (well the kernal anyways, not sure about the rest of the OS) won't cut it. In fact, if you install only the software you need and avoid changing things too much, Windows is stable enough for productivity.
The point of this post is that GNU/Linux can't just be viable. It is viable now for most tasks. Spreadsheets, Word Processors, Printing, Internet, its all their (kinda). But still there is no reason to switch other than promises of improved stability and the Free Software ideology.
Now carefully consider what I am saying about ease of use. It really isn't that important. What did people do when they were using DOS or, even worse, Windows 3.1? They ignored it. And that's exactly what will happen if GNU/Linux becomes a Desktop OS. In fact, companies will strip GNU/Linux of all but the most important command line utilities (save hard drive).
The SuSe CEO says we need applications. Unfortunately it isn't that easy. People need a reason to switch. Why switch to GNU/Linux when Windows 95 works just as well (or better for desktop uses)? Microsoft will have the same problem when the desktop version of Windows 2000 ships. GNU/Linux doesn't just need viable applications, it needs better applications.
That is, if we really want GNU/Linux to be a desktop operating system. This should be a poll. If you think that GNU/Linux should remain in the hands of the above-average computer literates, then GNU/Linux will not become a desktop operating system. GNU/Linux is based on community developmet and if the consensus within the community is opposed to it, Desktop GNU/Linux will not happen. But if you really want GNU/Linux to be an operating system that users can operate BY THEMSELVES without reading a text-book sized introduction, then great! I think Apples original 30 minutes until uptime is a splendid goal.
Howcome the GNU/Linux interfaces are only valid once people from some-big-name-company join in and help!
Come on now! We don't need people from Apple to blow dust on GNOME to make it easy to use! They have been developing GNOME for a while now and it keeps getting easier to use. They have an interface team constantly trying to offer suggestions to make the system more usable, and their suggestions are smart from what I know.
The same problem exists with Corel. Yesterday I read a brief review of Corel Linux. They said something like "Corel made Linux more like Windows and easier to use." BS! KDE has had a great interface from the start with the option to place the menu on top and their smart window manager.
How come the Free Software community can do nothing right until some-big-name-company comes in and takes all the credit.
The Free Software community has made some of the greatest software in the world. How come the Press fails to recognize this?
You are absolutely right. But I wonder, how would someone make a word processor out of many small programs? Lets see.
Base the word processor on XML. Then you can make all your tools based on that.
Make a msword2xml program. That would make everyone happy with word importing.
Make a formatter program. This will allow to the user to try different stylesheets. This could be implemented as an interpreter linked with CORBA. When the user changes the stylesheet, it also updates the GUI display via Corba.
The editor program. This could be the largest binary of the word processor. It's job is to display the XML document with the current stylesheet. It will be linked with the formatter via CORBA to change styles immediately. The user will edit his document here. It should also update with fonts and formatting in real time. This is one of the GUI programs.
The second GUI proram would be called wpcontrol. This is the users nice GUI program to launch all the command line tools. Import and export Word docs, change the styles using the formatter, and using any other tools the user wants.
I guess there are several problems with this. Like not being able to but in images (well, can't the images be placed in a tarball with the XML file and be linked to it?), not quite as user friendly as MSWord (user needs to abstractly format thier document).
Not everyone needs to work under the hood on that part of it all.
This is why the Free Software and Open Source philosphies are so different. The Open Source philosophy, being mostly pragmatic, has the unstated opinion that just because the user probably doesn't need or want the source code, it is okay to be taken away. The Free Software philosophy beleives freedom should be granted for all its users, whether or not it is pragmatically beneficial.
Note that a philosophy is different from a community. I actually don't beleive that there are distinct Free Software and Open Source communities, per se. People who don't share in *part* of the Free Software philosophy are probably those who haven't heard of it. I mean, come on, there are no big highlines on ZDNET or CNN about the Free Software Revolution lately, are there? It seems like Linux and Open Source have stolen the hype, but that's okay. And I don't think there are any serious Free Software people who say "I actually prefer crappy software."
The free compiler from Borland represents a misunderstanding about Open Source, the other half, Free Software. I think Open Source and Free Software are two halfs of the same entity. Once they figure out that the community isn't after purely pragmatic goals, then maybe they will change the license to something more free?
Note: I am not attacking you or anyone else. Please don't be hostile in your reply.
There is no question that GIMP can do a lot, but... let's face it. It doesn't have nearly the feature set that Photoshop has. Granted, if you stick to basic bread-and-butter stuff, then you can get by with GIMP. But don't kid yourself that it can do what Photoshop can do in the hands of a professional.</i>
You have sparked my curiousiy. What does the Gimp lack?
The GNU/HURD was started before Linux, yet Linux has rocketed past it. I don't expect HURD to ever be widely used. There are few userspace advantages for the HURD over Linux. Plus Linux has reached huge critical mass. Expect Linux development to speed up, not slow down!:-) </i>
I think there are more than a few userspace advantages for the Hurd over Linux, namely, most of the kernal (Pun intended). Besides, I have read Linus saying that Linux is getting close to being complete except for new device drivers. Software isn't limited by developers but by design. Linux seems to reach out a lot less further than the Hurd. But then again, that is probably why we are using Linux and the Hurd is still trying to be usable.
And put your politics aside. Linux has nothing to prove by *always* being better. Even if the Hurd 1.0 gets released in 6 months that virtually replaces Linux as the GNU kernal for its advantages, that doesn't say anything about the compentency of the Linux team. It just means Linux's time has passed and the Hurd's has come. The original author was right, there will be a Linux killer around the bend. I would *much* rather it be GNU Hurd than some propietary software. Take it or leave it. We are all in the same boat.
<i>These are all applications. There is nothing preventing Linux from running new AI or natural language interfaces. Linux is so modular and free, expect it to <I>help</I> information appliances, not to be killed by them! Remember how much Linus has been talking about PDAs over the past year.</i>
If Linux is so modular then how come Linux users recompile their kernals so much? Even with modules there are devices that aren't supported until you recompile the kernal. And can modules be compiled separately (honest question)?
And wouldn't it make sense to design a new GPLed kernal for PDAs? It's an honest question.
Slashdot Mirror
What's happened to Slashdot?
I'm not talking about the error; the correction was prompt and quick. I'm talking about the Trolls.
We've always had trolls. But now it is just crazy.
What prompts people to behave like this on web forums? Do those of us who don't want trolls, do we need to go elsewhere?
How much fun would it be to Troll a forum no one reads?
Sorry for posting off-topic, Slashdot used to be a much nicer place to visit. I think the threshold has been breached; AC posting must go. Perhaps temporarily.
And I used to be a strong supporter for AC posting too. But the rewards no longer outweigh the problems, not when it is like this.
Whatever will we do?
I think high schools need to offer a *require* computer literacy or advanced computer literacy course. The advanced course would only be offered to students who pass a proficeincy test.
But true computer literacy, in my opinion, is truly transferable knowledge that will be applicable quite a few years ago. Concepts like hardware: RAM, memory, periphreals, processort, printers, scanners; software: operating systems, OS commands, filesystems, file management, GUI concepts (menus, common dialogues), and, of course basic vocabulary.
If we had a course like the above than kids will stop wasting their time learninng software that will be obsolete in a few years.
For me, it depends on the time of day. In the daytime I prefer light backgrounds, but dark backgrounds are too dark. In the night, I prefer just the reverse. So I've settled on light backgrounds.
;) ?
Perhaps people who prefer dark backgrounds use their computer a lot at night
Well, revolutions need a critical mass to proceed. It doesn't require a majority, like you said.
BTW, corporation haven't taken over our government (I'm assuming you are talking about the US). That's just paranioa.
But notice that many of the people who were for the American Revolution had the most to loose. That is, they were land owners and the wealthy.
I wonder what real difference is there in what words we use.
It doesn't matter in the abstract, except that words convey meaning.
If you use the word cracker rather than hacker, what difference does it make? If we use the word hacker to denote crackers, what word would we use to denote hacker? Or if we do as we on Slashdot often do now and denote hacker as hacker and cracker as cracker, then what word do we use to replace the old meaning cracker -- the food. Perhaps someone can open up a dictionary and find a suitable word to use for "clever programmer".
Oh well.
But remember that English would be a far different language if it was governed chiefly by common usage.
If the above paragragh seems
Maybe you don't as much as you think you do.
I would much rather use a browser that had support for html past version 3.2.
Is there any work on XML support for Lynx that I don't know about? I know I would offer an alterate set of stylesheets for text-only browsers on my pages as long as it doesn't make the source incompatible.
You are the victim. RIAA is also the victim. So are the artists.
.sig:
Everyone's the victim *and* the antagonist(sp).
It is, of course, a question of morality. Who is wrong and who is right?
You mention the price of CD's but you are not buying CD's, you are buying music. Music that takes time and talent and money to produce and distribute.
Now I am not against Napster. I am against illegal copying (the word piracy isn't right, now is it?). Napster isn't at fault, it is simply a medium that human beings make the decision how to use. Not to you specifically, Palin, but anyone who wishes to answer: How have you decided to use Napster? Have you become the victim *and* the antagonist?
I am not someone who beleives in the law for the law's sake. But I know why we have law: to stop anarchy. You see, we don't pick and choose which laws we will follow because then we have undermined the purpose of law. If you think a law is unfair and unjust then, at least in my country, there are methods to challenge the law. This is why I am against illegal copying.
If you beleive that you are the greater victim then find the groups who beleive the same as you do. Boycott the industry seems to be the valid method of protest but that is the precise opposite of illegal copying, isn't it?
There are two methods of going about the issue: either you can formally protest or you can copy illegally and *then* justify your actions. If the later then you should at least acknowledge that no one has any God-born or natural right to gratis music. Either you want to pay fairly or you don't get the music.
The RIAA has caused nothing to happen. The only thing that has changed is that with Napster it becomes easier to copy music. Napster does a poor job of keeping honest people honest. People don't copy music illegally out of protest. Protest means boycott. No, people copy music illegaly because it is easy.
One of the worst traits of human morality is that people have hard time controlling their own actions.
(I should put this kind of disclaimer in my
The ideas in this post are my opinion only. No one said that I had to agree with you or that you had to agree with me. I will agree or disagree politely to you. I expect the same in return.
Thank you)
Is Corel even going to release a version of WP9 free for educational and non-commercial use in support of the community?
;)
What community is that, I wonder? The shareware community? The WaReZ community? When did our "community" become a bunch of people who only wanted gratis software despite everything else the OS is supposed to stand for?
Quite frankly, Corel Office has nothing to do with the community. They are a company trying to sell freedom-subtracted software to desperate GNU/Linux users.
Yes, you heard me: desperate. Why do you think Corel is developing for GNU/Linux? Looking for another market? No. They know that with our new fragile user-base that they *can* cause our users to depend on their office suite. Unfortunately for them, they will have to do a lot of marketing to defeat our philosophy of Free Software*. Or am I wrong?
Remember a few years ago when we had "The Desktop Wars" ? KDE, at the time, depended on a propietary software library to function at all. Then GNU launched its own desktop project, GNOME, that depended only on Free Software. Now that Qt has relaxed its license, the desktop wars have come to an end.
What this means is that our community values freedom over conveniance. KDE costed nothing then and costs nothing now. GNOME can be purchased from Helix Code. But because of our community both are almost completely Free Software.
Corel has created an OS based of GNU/Linux to run their propietary software. There are a few obvious holes in the GNU/Linux OS. One is Netscape. It is slow, it is buggy, and it has poor support for standards. And there is nothing anyone can do about it because it is propietary. Corel is creating an Office Suite that is propietary. But fear not, it will be seen as another obvious hole in the OS. Corel Office will eventually be replaced.
Yes I am raving evangelist. But I see a thin line in the dirt that too many don't see. Cross that line and we may never find our way back. Once propietary software becomes common we have already given up our freedom. And we have then transformed our OS into something it is not.
* Free Software means Free as in Freedom, has nothing to do with price. For you newbies
GPL, GCC. I assume they would use something else if they could.
I thought the BSD people were pragmatic?
I don't think Unix is an operating system. It is a family of operating systems.
;)
.sig, "He who don't get UNIX will make one that looks like it, only worse." I know I am way off but there may be some truth to the notion that there is something very pure and natural about UNIX, and elegant OS.
Look at GNU/Linux. It isn't really Unix, but is really close. Isn't it some kind legal problems with naming? And besides, GNU and Linux were actually two separate operating systems in development that eventually merged, neither really Unix but now we are all happy.
Now Apple is putting Unix inside of Mac OS X, which I would say the opposite: Apple is putting MacOS inside of Unix. Apple is known as an innovator in the software industry, who have seen far. But they have been standing upon the shoulder of a giant named UNIX.
And if you stare at DOS hard enough, it starts looking like UNIX (anyone know "TYPE FILE.TXT | MORE" ?) but I won't go there
My point is that you won't be able to look at a new OS and say, hey! that's not Unix (unless you are explicit like GNU). You will just kind of see it and think, hmmm, it's different but it's cool and UNIX.
Who was the guy with the quote from Henry Spencer as his
But in any capatilistic society the customers protect themselves by deciding *not* to buy. That is why we have boycott's. For American's, boycotts were one of the many factors in forming our country.
Boycott's don't happen in communist countries.
So what are you talking about?
That *would* be cool. I wonder if there are any really big watches that are computer-like enough to install any sort of operating system.
I also wonder if anyone has been able to install an operating system on graphical calculators. Off to the NetBSD website I go!
Well, Arandir, it seems everyone else is answering a different question than you are asking (well, actually responding to a different comment if you want to be technical). Others and I can give you reasons that we think Helix Code exists and how *they* think they are going to make money. They probably want to stay small and leverage the free software community to keep ahead in development, this should keep costs down. They probably want to approach companies and set them up with GNOME for their business needs.
But this isn't what you are saying. Quite frankly, no one really knows much about how Free Software business works. The only real reference point is Red Hat who have been in business long enough and develop entirely free software.
You are quite right. If other companies can freely redistribute and sell Helix GNOME with its own additions (perhaps propietary) then what does Helix offer to the consumer that others don't?
Perhaps since this is free software we are talking about, that the various companies can cooperate instead of compete? That doesn't make much sense now that I think about it.
I'd like to think that as a company Helix can adapt to a very new business model (like Red Hat has been trying to do for the last billion years).
In summary I have to admit that there is plenty I don't know about business to know other ways of making money off of free software, or whether it's pointless. I don't think Miguel does either so maybe he should hire someone who does. But I think they are doing this even though the risk is so large is because the potential is so great.
Perhaps Red Hat would hire them for development?
But making money off of Free Software is something I support.
I don't know.
The Toys R Us has the 'R' backwards also. Coincidence? I don't think so. ;-)
I kinda wonder that also.
But what I want to know more is why the pngs they provide don't use transparency? Is it my browser?
Maybe they are waiting on a stable version of Mozilla?
Well, Netscape 3 will render pages based on CSS just fine. It just won't get all of the fancy formatting. Which is just fine. That is what they mean when they say that CSS enabled pages degrade well. If you use the standard HTML tags, all browsers should be able to render your page. Just that the more advanced browsers will look better.
The time for CSS is here (and passing).
The question people should be asking is, exactly what is a desktop OS? People usually define it as either Windows or MacOS or they say it is what everyone is running on their desktop. Now, don't tell me we need a computer my mom can use because not only have we heard that statement here and in other places a billion times but my Mom stays away from computers. I am sure there are many other Moms who do the same. You should consider if your children can use it, after all they will be the people using tommorrow's operating system, and if you haven't noticed they are more competent with computers.
Well, the above definition is right. A desktop OS is what people use on their desktop computer. It doesn't have to be easier to use, it doesn't need more applications even. Looking at the history of the computer industry can prove my point. It needs the ever important killer app. A killer app has to be either new and very useful or much better than the competition. I don't see the former happening since VisiCalc and the first word processor (AppleWorks?).
Now think. Do you consider the Gimp better than Photoshop? I like the Gimp's interface better but technically Photoshop offers more functionality. The Gimp would need to be much better to be a killer app. I can see it happening.
The Gimp was just an example. I guess some group could make GNU/Linux MUCH easier to use. That pretty much means hiding UNIX. Not only will the slashdotters here be upset but it would not sell well. Users would need a very good reason to switch. The fact that it crashes less (well the kernal anyways, not sure about the rest of the OS) won't cut it. In fact, if you install only the software you need and avoid changing things too much, Windows is stable enough for productivity.
The point of this post is that GNU/Linux can't just be viable. It is viable now for most tasks. Spreadsheets, Word Processors, Printing, Internet, its all their (kinda). But still there is no reason to switch other than promises of improved stability and the Free Software ideology.
Now carefully consider what I am saying about ease of use. It really isn't that important. What did people do when they were using DOS or, even worse, Windows 3.1? They ignored it. And that's exactly what will happen if GNU/Linux becomes a Desktop OS. In fact, companies will strip GNU/Linux of all but the most important command line utilities (save hard drive).
The SuSe CEO says we need applications. Unfortunately it isn't that easy. People need a reason to switch. Why switch to GNU/Linux when Windows 95 works just as well (or better for desktop uses)? Microsoft will have the same problem when the desktop version of Windows 2000 ships. GNU/Linux doesn't just need viable applications, it needs better applications.
That is, if we really want GNU/Linux to be a desktop operating system. This should be a poll. If you think that GNU/Linux should remain in the hands of the above-average computer literates, then GNU/Linux will not become a desktop operating system. GNU/Linux is based on community developmet and if the consensus within the community is opposed to it, Desktop GNU/Linux will not happen. But if you really want GNU/Linux to be an operating system that users can operate BY THEMSELVES without reading a text-book sized introduction, then great! I think Apples original 30 minutes until uptime is a splendid goal.
You decide.
WTF!!
Howcome the GNU/Linux interfaces are only valid once people from some-big-name-company join in and help!
Come on now! We don't need people from Apple to blow dust on GNOME to make it easy to use! They have been developing GNOME for a while now and it keeps getting easier to use. They have an interface team constantly trying to offer suggestions to make the system more usable, and their suggestions are smart from what I know.
The same problem exists with Corel. Yesterday I read a brief review of Corel Linux. They said something like "Corel made Linux more like Windows and easier to use." BS! KDE has had a great interface from the start with the option to place the menu on top and their smart window manager.
How come the Free Software community can do nothing right until some-big-name-company comes in and takes all the credit.
The Free Software community has made some of the greatest software in the world. How come the Press fails to recognize this?
You are absolutely right. But I wonder, how would someone make a word processor out of many small programs? Lets see.
Base the word processor on XML. Then you can make all your tools based on that.
Make a msword2xml program. That would make everyone happy with word importing.
Make a formatter program. This will allow to the user to try different stylesheets. This could be implemented as an interpreter linked with CORBA. When the user changes the stylesheet, it also updates the GUI display via Corba.
The editor program. This could be the largest binary of the word processor. It's job is to display the XML document with the current stylesheet. It will be linked with the formatter via CORBA to change styles immediately. The user will edit his document here. It should also update with fonts and formatting in real time. This is one of the GUI programs.
The second GUI proram would be called wpcontrol. This is the users nice GUI program to launch all the command line tools. Import and export Word docs, change the styles using the formatter, and using any other tools the user wants.
I guess there are several problems with this. Like not being able to but in images (well, can't the images be placed in a tarball with the XML file and be linked to it?), not quite as user friendly as MSWord (user needs to abstractly format thier document).
Gotta go.
Not everyone needs to work under the hood on that part of it all.
This is why the Free Software and Open Source philosphies are so different. The Open Source philosophy, being mostly pragmatic, has the unstated opinion that just because the user probably doesn't need or want the source code, it is okay to be taken away. The Free Software philosophy beleives freedom should be granted for all its users, whether or not it is pragmatically beneficial.
Note that a philosophy is different from a community. I actually don't beleive that there are distinct Free Software and Open Source communities, per se. People who don't share in *part* of the Free Software philosophy are probably those who haven't heard of it. I mean, come on, there are no big highlines on ZDNET or CNN about the Free Software Revolution lately, are there? It seems like Linux and Open Source have stolen the hype, but that's okay. And I don't think there are any serious Free Software people who say "I actually prefer crappy software."
The free compiler from Borland represents a misunderstanding about Open Source, the other half, Free Software. I think Open Source and Free Software are two halfs of the same entity. Once they figure out that the community isn't after purely pragmatic goals, then maybe they will change the license to something more free?
Note: I am not attacking you or anyone else. Please don't be hostile in your reply.
Slashdot.
Rob, look what you've done!
Re: Gimp...
There is no question that GIMP can do a lot, but... let's face it. It doesn't have nearly the feature set that Photoshop has. Granted, if you stick to basic bread-and-butter stuff, then you can get by with GIMP. But don't kid yourself that it can do what Photoshop can do in the hands of a professional.</i>
You have sparked my curiousiy. What does the Gimp lack?
The GNU/HURD was started before Linux, yet Linux has rocketed past it. I don't expect HURD to ever be widely used. There are few userspace advantages for the HURD over Linux. Plus Linux has reached huge critical mass. Expect Linux development to speed up, not slow down! :-) </i>
I think there are more than a few userspace advantages for the Hurd over Linux, namely, most of the kernal (Pun intended). Besides, I have read Linus saying that Linux is getting close to being complete except for new device drivers. Software isn't limited by developers but by design. Linux seems to reach out a lot less further than the Hurd. But then again, that is probably why we are using Linux and the Hurd is still trying to be usable.
And put your politics aside. Linux has nothing to prove by *always* being better. Even if the Hurd 1.0 gets released in 6 months that virtually replaces Linux as the GNU kernal for its advantages, that doesn't say anything about the compentency of the Linux team. It just means Linux's time has passed and the Hurd's has come. The original author was right, there will be a Linux killer around the bend. I would *much* rather it be GNU Hurd than some propietary software. Take it or leave it. We are all in the same boat.
<i>These are all applications. There is nothing preventing Linux from running new AI or natural language interfaces. Linux is so modular and free, expect it to <I>help</I> information appliances, not to be killed by them! Remember how much Linus has been talking about PDAs over the past year.</i>
If Linux is so modular then how come Linux users recompile their kernals so much? Even with modules there are devices that aren't supported until you recompile the kernal. And can modules be compiled separately (honest question)?
And wouldn't it make sense to design a new GPLed kernal for PDAs? It's an honest question.
True. Good GUI apps should have a very good keyboard interface. GUI != WIMP Interface.