I've realized something about Linux that I hadn't before. I can express it in the following prediction -
The first Linux distibution which makes significant inroads to the desktop market will be universally hated by today's Linux community.
Put another way, the present Linux community prizes "options" and "power-user friendliness" and "control" over things like "simple" and "easy." No, these things aren't always mutually exclusive, but I think the two are at odds often enough to make my prediction valid.
Consider the following quote from the article.
"The packages have been separated into even more categories now in hopes of simplifying the task. I don't think it helps much; but I really like the freedom of choice. That is, after all, one of the chief virtues of Linux."
Yep, Linux has got virtues. Freedom of choice may in fact be one of them. I'll give it that. I seriously doubt, though, that when all is said and done "freedom of choice" is going to mean much to most novice computer users. "Easy to use" will. Can't we at least have one distro that is willing to provide this even if it means making a distro without some of the traditional Linux virtues like freedom of choice? When someone does make this distro it will be trashed endlessly in these forums. And it will get a good contract with a hardware OEM and make serious inroads to the desktop OS market.
And another thing. When the Linux community is asked about ease of use, etc., they usually give answers amounting to "we need just a little more engineering time." In other words, "each new distro is getting closer to this goal than the last and in the next one or two we'll really have it to the extent commercial desktop OSs do." I think the "we need a little more engineering time" response is somewhat inaccurate. The other thing that is needed is a shift in priorities - the willingness to create the truly easy to use (and geek-hated) Linux distro.
I would love to have more details about this process, maybe pictures even. I have a ti-book with an Apple card and a Linksys 4-port switch/ wireless ap > cable modem setup here at home. I find I can get service in my back porch, front porch and most of the inside of the house but I would still love to extend the range.
Dude email me. let me ask some stupid questions. Like what that first link was supposed to go to:)
Apple didn't force the (clone) OEMs into doing anything in particular. They just ceased licensing to them. Nothing was required in return. There was no "pressure" or "blackmail" type of deal going on.
The latest "value" added by a record company really turned me off. I had heard that the I Am Sam sountrack (the one with all the Beatles covers by today's artists) was copy protected. At least I'm pretty sure I heard that.
No matter. The coffee shop where I hang out was playing it yesterday and I went up to the counter and asked to see it. Popped it into my Titanium and ripped it no problemo. Wonder if the copy protection is Windows only?
Incidentally the Sarah McLachlan rendition of Blackbird is pretty darned good.
Perhaps it's because Apple is making more "geek news" these days. Just a guess.
Actually it's funny you mention this. I often fume at how Linux-centric these forums are. it's Linux this and Linux that. I see front page articles dealing with the announcement (or mere spec-bumping) of some piece of handheld electronics that nobody has ever heard of simply because it - can you guess? - happens to have the ability to run Linux. The Linux kernel gets a x.x.x.x.x version number rev. The headline with have multiple exclamation points and shameless affection for it whether the individual has ever used it or not.
Mac news? It's gotten somewhat better over the last few months but it still has a way to go. Apple-related news is still too often posted with undeserved snide remarks. I'm thinking back to the day the iPod was announced. it was instantly pronounced "Lame" before the discussion even began. Oh, that and the fact that sometimes a story involving Apple will suddenly be made into a Linux article. I'm serious! Did you catch the one about Apple suing Sorenson over a deal with Macromdia? In spite of the fact that neither of these three are Linux comanies and none of them make Linux products, Pudge just has to make it Linux-related. Then half the resulting discussion ends up being about that.
Sorry for going off on you man, but you have no idea what it's like being a Mac-using slashdotter. No idea.
This point has fascinated me for a while. How is Microsoft's monopoly different than the one Apple seems to have?
One thing that does occur to me is that Microsoft's monopoly OS gives them the ability to pressure and control harware OEMs into doing thier bidding. Who does Apple get to pressure in that scenario? Themselves?
You're quite right about the average persons ability / inclination to "find out for themselves" whether scientific theory X is really true. We have been told that the evidence is there but we don't have time / knowledge / money, etc to verify it personally.
This isn't a real problem for me. No matter how obscure the branch of science is, there is alwyas more than one researcher looking into it. There are ideas. The ideas get tested by observation. The observation either supports / doesn't support the idea. Others (there are always others) verify the finding.
The idea here is that not everybody needs to verify the finding. The idea is that anyone could, at least theoretically. That is to say, IF we were determined, IF we had the resources, time, etc.. we could verify.
Just to underscore this point contrast it with, say...religious ideas. "God spoke to me and said to..." Does anyone get to verify? Nope. It's not publically verifiable. Doesn't make it false, mind you...it's just not scientifically provable. Not fit material for scientific inquiry.
The fact that a half a dozen scientists were "taken in" by someone's cold fusion claim for a brief period of time really doesn't even compare to a bejillion people who have been "taken in" by religious claims which have never been - and never can be - verified by any one of us, no matter how determined, how resourceful, etc. And actually, the fact that these same scientists eventually had to admit that they were wrong just goes to show how science is self-correcting. Religion isn't like that.
I'm really not sure what your point is. But if it's to suggest that belief in the big bang theory is "a matter of theology," or rather "faith," then I'd say you're dead wrong.
The neatly forgotten fact about science is that it's ideas require actual evidence to be taken seriously. The more evidence, the more seriously they are taken. Got a different idea? Also got evidence? Then we'll pit the two competing ideas together and find out which one has the more convincing evidence.
The big bang theory has actual evidence- publicly observable and verifiable evidence- that supports it. Whatever it is that "some religeous leaders" believe, I can assure you it can't stand up to that kind of inquiry.
I'm certain that a majority of Americans also believe in life after death... that the world will end a la the new testament book of revelation... that there are angels...that satan and hell are real...that if they hold certain beliefs they will be spared eternal torture after they die...that the bible contains the unerring words of the one and only omnicient god of the universe...
Why doesn't anyone write an article about how ridiculous that is?
I'm not equating "ready for consumers" with "easy installer" although the former does imply the latter. Remember, I also said "But the main thing I discovered is that Linux hasn't really gotten usable enough for novices." By this I meant to imply that I discovered a great number of common activities beyond installation that required beyond-novice-level skills to do.
You ask, "Have you tried a Windows installer lately?" To which I reply, yes - I have tried them all. Repeatedly. I didn't explicity say so earlier but I do work in IT. And I must take exception to your inclusion of Solaris in this mix. Solaris isn't a consumer desktop operating system.
Anyway, we could nit-pick forever about specifics. I'd like to propose the following hypothetical experiment. We buy 100 PCs. Store-bought, brand name PCs. We wipe the drives bare. Then we give 50 of them to novices and include a Windows XP CD. We give the other 50 to novices equipped with, say, Red Hat 7.2. No outside help allowed. No calls to "uncle Ed the computer nerd." Just for kicks let's buy 50 Macintoshes, wipe those drives and give them to 50 more novices, including an OS X install CD.
At the end of three days which group with have more fully functional machines? By fully functional I mean OS installed correctly, internet connection working, email set up, web browsing, installed a couple of 3rd party applications, maybe.
Obviously the Macintosh group will come in first, but this is almost cheating since Apple controls the hardware and the OS. Enough said. But what of the other two groups? Who will take that second place? If you think even for a moment that it will be the Red Hat group then I think you are seriously deluded about the state of Linux's usability.
Interesting. Time will tell if you're right. I guess maybe it depends on how you look at it. I mean, since Gimp (for example) can now run on OS X it's user base might jump dramatically. OTOH, this probably translates into a negligeable perecentage of Mac users as a whole. Believe me, I don't think Adobe is afraid of Gimp. No professional Photoshop-using shops are even considering switching, I can assure you.
I actually think that within a couple of years it will be the UNIX community that benefits most from the association with the Macintosh, rather than the other way around. Think about it. Tons of commercial applications running on OS X mean that porting some of them to other *NIX platforms might be on the black side of the cost/benefit analysis sheet for the first time ever. Bingo, you suddenly have Photoshop for Linux. You get the idea.
I guess my main point is that it's would mean a lot more to the *NIX community to get Photoshop than getting Gimp means to the Macintosh community. Whether it'll actually happen that way, who knows.
"...eventually bring them over to a completely free system on their own time."
That implies running a "free" operating system, probably Linux.
"...your parents/friends..."
In my world this group would include people who aren't computer professionals and who's machines aren't otherwise professionally managed.
Having established all that... You're kidding me, right?
The last time I had run linux was...gosh, had to be at least 3 years ago. I installed it...went "hmm" for a few weeks.. and then wiped it. A couple of weeks ago I thought it was high time to give it another look. Why not? I had listened to Linux users in these forums proclaiming how good this-or-that distribution has gotten that I kind of assumed that the operating system really was ready for prime time.
Uh...no.
I managed to get Yellow Dog 2.2 installed on my Titanium PowerBook, sure. But after having done it I was stunned at how...well, rudimentary the installer was. In spite of endless "the installer really has gotten good now" comments. Well, if by "good" you mean "nowhere near the usability of commercial desktop operating systems" then yeah I'll agree with that.
I managed to get my wireless networking going. I found out how to do a few other things. But the main thing I discovered is that Linux hasn't really gotten usable enough for novices. Somehow I expected more.
Frankly I don't care if some Linux zealot mods me down or lables my comment "troll" or "flamebait." While you're doing it, bear this in mind - I'm doing this for you. The Linux community really needs to take seriously the idea that a novice needs to be able to install, configure, troubleshoot, and maintain the thing without endless arcane documentation or professional help. If your fellow Linux users/developers won't tell you, I will.
Linux will never be more than a server OS and a geek toy until / unless the usability radically changes.
Apple is sometimes labled a "boutique" computer maker. I take this to mean, in part at least, that they are largely selling to folks with the money for something better than average. It just sounds to me like you're uncomfortable with this fact. Some people really are. Sometimes they will pronouce that Apple is doomed unless they have a sub-$800 computer on the market by * insert date here *. These folks truly don't understand Apple's market. It's fun to point out to these folks that the cheapest iMacs were never, ever the best sellers. The top priced ones often were.
What makes sense is that Apple has realized that their marketing decisions (LCDs only) have priced them above the price the educational market is willing to spend.
Actually Apple has always been selling CRT iMacs to education. This isn't a new thing. Perhaps you didn't know that. When the G4 iMac came out, education users still had the option to purchase CRT-based ones. So I think they've known all along that for reasons of price, durability, etc, education markets needed this option. It is not, as you suggest, Apple "suddenly realizing" that they have blundered. They know exactly what they are doing.
What does apple give users for the price premium you pay for thier computers?
Do you not own one? Apple is selling a number of things here. Things like ergonomics and style. Things like the unmatched user experience that one can only get when one company makes the hardware and the OS (and the iApps). Things like quality. Top-notch engineering. Innovation. And yes, things like taste. The world seems largely to be made up of two kinds of people - those who get it and those who don't. Those who do, own Macs, those who don't, well...don't.
Don't get me wrong. I got nothing against people who aren't willing to pay for these things. I'm not trying to imply that they are uncouth clods. It's just that they are making a more..utilitarian choice. Fine. I choose otherwise. I think I'm getting my money's worth.
Anyhow, it never ceases to amuse me when I read armchair CEOs who are so gosh darned quick to point out Apple's serious "blunders." I'll be the frist to admit that Apple doesn't always get things right. When I first saw the cube I didn't believe it would sell. When I saw other makers including CD-RW drives and Apple doing DVD-R, I cringed. Mistakes. Blunders. Apple's got 'em, no doubt about it. I'm inclined to forgive them a few though. Apple innovates. They go out on the edge to do something different. I expect it of them. Hell, it's what makes Apple what they are. If they didn't do this they would be Dell. it's inevitable that when you're out front making bold innovations you're gonna get some stuff wrong.
Even with the mistakes and blunders, the real ones and the imagined ones - and I take your complaints to be among the latter category - isn't it funny to see how Apple has been doing? They're one of only two companies in this industry who has made a freaking dime during this recession. Given that fact, I think they know what they are doing in spite of it all.
Several anti-Apple cronies have voiced similar sentiments here. Do you guys really not get it? It's not hard. Jesus, Apple doesn't always get it right...not even close to "always"... but listening to some of you guys you'd think they were the worst managed company with the worst products in the entire history of commerce. Listen up guys - clue phone ringing for y'all:
Education institutions don't want flat panels in labs with 3rd graders. And they don't want CD-RW drives. And they're short on cash, too.
Everyday consumers, however, do want flat panel displays, do want CD-RW/DVD drives, and usually do have more money to invest than a grade school - after all they're only buying one machine, not thirty.
If you at all understand the above, then Apple's "new" product makes sense.
Plus, as someone pointed out earlier, this neatly takes some demand off of them for the flat panels. If some of the education market is ordering eMacs, then they won't have to come up with quite the number of flat panel displays that they might have had to.
As for the fool who was blathering on thusly..."oh great this will really prepare me for the real world - they're not even available in the real world..." PLEASE. You're kidding me, right? So if Dell decided to sell a particular configuration of a low end box specifically to the education market...a configuration that contained nothing new...you just hadn't ever gotten this particular CPU, monitor, optical drive config in one box before... that it would be a disaster because it's "not available in the real world?"
I think someone needs to cut the little pills in half tomorrow, mkay?
I didn't have any problems with doing a quick: rpm -e `rpm -qa |egrep ^kde` --force --nodeps and then from the kde3 download dir: rpm -Uvh --force --nodeps *rpm
ROTFL!
Good grief! I seriously mean no disrespect to you or to the good people at Yellow Dog or KDE...but the above quote truly exemplifies why Linux doesn't have any desktop presence to speak of. I myself installed YDL on my TiBook last weekend and was seriously shocked at how...rudimentary..the installation, configuration and UI (KDE and Gnome) was. My hat is off to the hardworking Linux developers. I believe in what they're doing. But I am desperatlely hoping that they grab the holy grail of consumer usability sometime soon. I can tell you they're not there yet.
We're perhaps talking past each other due to the fact that we're each thinking of different Blizzard games. I myself have had Diablo II in mind and I suspect that you have been in the Starcraft mindset.
Sorry for the confusion. My fault. Your point is maybe more understandable from the Starcraft point of view.
where you can invite all your friends but not the trolls, cheats, and lamers that infest battlenet
In that circumstance I would play a TCP/IP game. It's not exactly the same, sure, but c'mon. For the purposes of inviting "all your friends"? It'll do.
It's an interesting point you raise, nonetheless. Could it be that the creators of Bnetd just intended to play on a server with fewer "issues"? I wonder. I mean if you want to play privately with a small number of people there are other options. If you want a larger, public arena, well... in that case I'd bet good money that Blizzard can accomodate you better than your friend "Dan" running an after hours public Bnetd server from his Dell at work.
But hey, who the hell knows. I don't. I'm just trying to understand that's all.
There are a lot of interesting and semi-compellling arguments posted here going both ways. Most here seem to side with Bnetd. But one thing I haven't heard anything about is why would Bnetd do what they did? What is the purpose of setting up alternate Bnet services? Perhaps in a legal sense this doesn't matter in the slightest, but as you all know, legalities don't always give a clear compass of right and wrong.
Could it be that Bnetd intends to make money off of stolen code? It seems likely that they will try to make money at some point if what they are doing is popular. But we don't know the code was stolen. maybe it wasn't. In either case they haven't tried to make money yet so it's moot.
Could it be that the original goal, the purpose of Bnetd was to allow people to play pirated games? I rather think it was. The only reason I can think of to play on Bnetd rather than genuine Bnet is the ol' "I don't have a valid CD key" reason. (Complaining that you want to play and that Bnet is down at the moment doesn't cut it with me.) Or maybe you just want to cheat in the game and it's easier to do at Bnetd - or that there are no consequences for doing it.
Anyway, I have a hard time seeing any reasoning behind Bnetd that I'd be willing to really "get behind" and defend. Perhaps I am missing something. No doubt two dozen impolite people will attempt to enlighten me as soon as I click the "Submit" button.
I do understand Blizzards position. They don't want people to steal thier games. They want to maintain some level of control over their creation.
I leave the legalities to the lawyers, I guess. But legalities asside I'm having a hard time faulting Blizzard and a hard time siding with Bnetd.
Maybe the "information wants to be free!", pseudo-libertarian, "bring down The Man" ethos that one finds in may/. posts (usually accompanied by half a dozen exclamation points and no real content) hasn't fully rubbed off on me yet.
I'm not sure why you're thinking that Linux users need a CLI to wordprocess, email or web browse
I'm not thinking that at all. I'm just listing stuff that a CLI shouldn't be needed for.
Anyhow, I don't think we're in disagreement really. One thing I'd like to try is putting a dozen Linux machines in front of a dozen of my users. Then I'd really know what was working for them and what wasn't. An even better test would be to send them home with them.
Come to think of it I think I'm going to bring home a machine from work and install Linux on it. Give it to my kids maybe. See what they think of it. Unfortunately I don't think I can come up with suitable PC hardware...It may have to be a 120 MHz Macintosh 7200. I could put the new release of Yellow Dog on it.
Read the article. Some Linux distro developer did:)
I did read the article. And they say they have done it...time will tell.
People should learn the CLI on Linux, Windows, or Mac OS X, exactly because it's there!
I really can't argue with that. It seems very reasonable indeed. I do believe that Linux has an over-reliance on the CLI, however. One shouldn't have to use it in order to wordprocess, email, Web browse, etc. One shouldn't have to use it to install or remove software. One shouldn't have to use it to do regular maintenance or disaster recovery either.
Using the CLI should be something you could learn to make you a more powerful user, not somthing you must learn in order to do the things listed above. My own two cents.
You're assuming that all linux users think that way
I don't assume that. If I gave that impression it was unintentional. But one does begin to think that "most" do, especially after hanging out at slashdot for a while. In any case, however many do think that way it appears to be enough to slow the OS's penetration to the consumer desktop.
The really tiring thing is that nobody has done it yet. The only thing that makes me sadder is the fact that a sizeable portion of the Linux community doesn't want it to happen. Witness the "everyone should use the command line" crowd. The ones who refer to sensible GUIs with disdain. You know the type. It is they who are preventing Linux from making serious inroads into the desktop market.
You can't make everyone learn the CLI like they should. *sigh*
This sentiment is the exact reason why Linux isn't more widely used as a desktop operating system. Linux at present is a geek toy and a server OS. It will never be more until/unless Linux developers start re-evaluating the validity of the quoted statement above.
Slashdot Mirror
I've realized something about Linux that I hadn't before. I can express it in the following prediction -
The first Linux distibution which makes significant inroads to the desktop market will be universally hated by today's Linux community.
Put another way, the present Linux community prizes "options" and "power-user friendliness" and "control" over things like "simple" and "easy." No, these things aren't always mutually exclusive, but I think the two are at odds often enough to make my prediction valid.
Consider the following quote from the article.
"The packages have been separated into even more categories now in hopes of simplifying the task. I don't think it helps much; but I really like the freedom of choice. That is, after all, one of the chief virtues of Linux."
Yep, Linux has got virtues. Freedom of choice may in fact be one of them. I'll give it that. I seriously doubt, though, that when all is said and done "freedom of choice" is going to mean much to most novice computer users. "Easy to use" will. Can't we at least have one distro that is willing to provide this even if it means making a distro without some of the traditional Linux virtues like freedom of choice? When someone does make this distro it will be trashed endlessly in these forums. And it will get a good contract with a hardware OEM and make serious inroads to the desktop OS market.
And another thing. When the Linux community is asked about ease of use, etc., they usually give answers amounting to "we need just a little more engineering time." In other words, "each new distro is getting closer to this goal than the last and in the next one or two we'll really have it to the extent commercial desktop OSs do." I think the "we need a little more engineering time" response is somewhat inaccurate. The other thing that is needed is a shift in priorities - the willingness to create the truly easy to use (and geek-hated) Linux distro.
I would love to have more details about this process, maybe pictures even. I have a ti-book with an Apple card and a Linksys 4-port switch/ wireless ap > cable modem setup here at home. I find I can get service in my back porch, front porch and most of the inside of the house but I would still love to extend the range.
:)
Dude email me. let me ask some stupid questions. Like what that first link was supposed to go to
Apple didn't force the (clone) OEMs into doing anything in particular. They just ceased licensing to them. Nothing was required in return. There was no "pressure" or "blackmail" type of deal going on.
The latest "value" added by a record company really turned me off. I had heard that the I Am Sam sountrack (the one with all the Beatles covers by today's artists) was copy protected. At least I'm pretty sure I heard that.
No matter. The coffee shop where I hang out was playing it yesterday and I went up to the counter and asked to see it. Popped it into my Titanium and ripped it no problemo. Wonder if the copy protection is Windows only?
Incidentally the Sarah McLachlan rendition of Blackbird is pretty darned good.
Perhaps it's because Apple is making more "geek news" these days. Just a guess.
Actually it's funny you mention this. I often fume at how Linux-centric these forums are. it's Linux this and Linux that. I see front page articles dealing with the announcement (or mere spec-bumping) of some piece of handheld electronics that nobody has ever heard of simply because it - can you guess? - happens to have the ability to run Linux. The Linux kernel gets a x.x.x.x.x version number rev. The headline with have multiple exclamation points and shameless affection for it whether the individual has ever used it or not.
Mac news? It's gotten somewhat better over the last few months but it still has a way to go. Apple-related news is still too often posted with undeserved snide remarks. I'm thinking back to the day the iPod was announced. it was instantly pronounced "Lame" before the discussion even began. Oh, that and the fact that sometimes a story involving Apple will suddenly be made into a Linux article. I'm serious! Did you catch the one about Apple suing Sorenson over a deal with Macromdia? In spite of the fact that neither of these three are Linux comanies and none of them make Linux products, Pudge just has to make it Linux-related. Then half the resulting discussion ends up being about that.
Sorry for going off on you man, but you have no idea what it's like being a Mac-using slashdotter. No idea.
This point has fascinated me for a while. How is Microsoft's monopoly different than the one Apple seems to have?
One thing that does occur to me is that Microsoft's monopoly OS gives them the ability to pressure and control harware OEMs into doing thier bidding. Who does Apple get to pressure in that scenario? Themselves?
You're quite right about the average persons ability / inclination to "find out for themselves" whether scientific theory X is really true. We have been told that the evidence is there but we don't have time / knowledge / money, etc to verify it personally.
This isn't a real problem for me. No matter how obscure the branch of science is, there is alwyas more than one researcher looking into it. There are ideas. The ideas get tested by observation. The observation either supports / doesn't support the idea. Others (there are always others) verify the finding.
The idea here is that not everybody needs to verify the finding. The idea is that anyone could, at least theoretically. That is to say, IF we were determined, IF we had the resources, time, etc.. we could verify.
Just to underscore this point contrast it with, say...religious ideas. "God spoke to me and said to..." Does anyone get to verify? Nope. It's not publically verifiable. Doesn't make it false, mind you...it's just not scientifically provable. Not fit material for scientific inquiry.
The fact that a half a dozen scientists were "taken in" by someone's cold fusion claim for a brief period of time really doesn't even compare to a bejillion people who have been "taken in" by religious claims which have never been - and never can be - verified by any one of us, no matter how determined, how resourceful, etc. And actually, the fact that these same scientists eventually had to admit that they were wrong just goes to show how science is self-correcting. Religion isn't like that.
I'm really not sure what your point is. But if it's to suggest that belief in the big bang theory is "a matter of theology," or rather "faith," then I'd say you're dead wrong.
The neatly forgotten fact about science is that it's ideas require actual evidence to be taken seriously. The more evidence, the more seriously they are taken. Got a different idea? Also got evidence? Then we'll pit the two competing ideas together and find out which one has the more convincing evidence.
The big bang theory has actual evidence- publicly observable and verifiable evidence- that supports it. Whatever it is that "some religeous leaders" believe, I can assure you it can't stand up to that kind of inquiry.
I'm certain that a majority of Americans also believe in life after death... that the world will end a la the new testament book of revelation... that there are angels...that satan and hell are real...that if they hold certain beliefs they will be spared eternal torture after they die...that the bible contains the unerring words of the one and only omnicient god of the universe...
Why doesn't anyone write an article about how ridiculous that is?
A well thought out response. I'm unconvinced but you nevertheless make me think. Thanks.
I'm not equating "ready for consumers" with "easy installer" although the former does imply the latter. Remember, I also said "But the main thing I discovered is that Linux hasn't really gotten usable enough for novices." By this I meant to imply that I discovered a great number of common activities beyond installation that required beyond-novice-level skills to do.
You ask, "Have you tried a Windows installer lately?" To which I reply, yes - I have tried them all. Repeatedly. I didn't explicity say so earlier but I do work in IT. And I must take exception to your inclusion of Solaris in this mix. Solaris isn't a consumer desktop operating system.
Anyway, we could nit-pick forever about specifics. I'd like to propose the following hypothetical experiment. We buy 100 PCs. Store-bought, brand name PCs. We wipe the drives bare. Then we give 50 of them to novices and include a Windows XP CD. We give the other 50 to novices equipped with, say, Red Hat 7.2. No outside help allowed. No calls to "uncle Ed the computer nerd." Just for kicks let's buy 50 Macintoshes, wipe those drives and give them to 50 more novices, including an OS X install CD.
At the end of three days which group with have more fully functional machines? By fully functional I mean OS installed correctly, internet connection working, email set up, web browsing, installed a couple of 3rd party applications, maybe.
Obviously the Macintosh group will come in first, but this is almost cheating since Apple controls the hardware and the OS. Enough said. But what of the other two groups? Who will take that second place? If you think even for a moment that it will be the Red Hat group then I think you are seriously deluded about the state of Linux's usability.
Interesting. Time will tell if you're right. I guess maybe it depends on how you look at it. I mean, since Gimp (for example) can now run on OS X it's user base might jump dramatically. OTOH, this probably translates into a negligeable perecentage of Mac users as a whole. Believe me, I don't think Adobe is afraid of Gimp. No professional Photoshop-using shops are even considering switching, I can assure you.
I actually think that within a couple of years it will be the UNIX community that benefits most from the association with the Macintosh, rather than the other way around. Think about it. Tons of commercial applications running on OS X mean that porting some of them to other *NIX platforms might be on the black side of the cost/benefit analysis sheet for the first time ever. Bingo, you suddenly have Photoshop for Linux. You get the idea.
I guess my main point is that it's would mean a lot more to the *NIX community to get Photoshop than getting Gimp means to the Macintosh community. Whether it'll actually happen that way, who knows.
"...eventually bring them over to a completely free system on their own time."
...gosh, had to be at least 3 years ago. I installed it...went "hmm" for a few weeks.. and then wiped it. A couple of weeks ago I thought it was high time to give it another look. Why not? I had listened to Linux users in these forums proclaiming how good this-or-that distribution has gotten that I kind of assumed that the operating system really was ready for prime time.
That implies running a "free" operating system, probably Linux.
"...your parents/friends..."
In my world this group would include people who aren't computer professionals and who's machines aren't otherwise professionally managed.
Having established all that... You're kidding me, right?
The last time I had run linux was
Uh...no.
I managed to get Yellow Dog 2.2 installed on my Titanium PowerBook, sure. But after having done it I was stunned at how...well, rudimentary the installer was. In spite of endless "the installer really has gotten good now" comments. Well, if by "good" you mean "nowhere near the usability of commercial desktop operating systems" then yeah I'll agree with that.
I managed to get my wireless networking going. I found out how to do a few other things. But the main thing I discovered is that Linux hasn't really gotten usable enough for novices. Somehow I expected more.
Frankly I don't care if some Linux zealot mods me down or lables my comment "troll" or "flamebait." While you're doing it, bear this in mind - I'm doing this for you. The Linux community really needs to take seriously the idea that a novice needs to be able to install, configure, troubleshoot, and maintain the thing without endless arcane documentation or professional help. If your fellow Linux users/developers won't tell you, I will.
Linux will never be more than a server OS and a geek toy until / unless the usability radically changes.
Apple is sometimes labled a "boutique" computer maker. I take this to mean, in part at least, that they are largely selling to folks with the money for something better than average. It just sounds to me like you're uncomfortable with this fact. Some people really are. Sometimes they will pronouce that Apple is doomed unless they have a sub-$800 computer on the market by * insert date here *. These folks truly don't understand Apple's market. It's fun to point out to these folks that the cheapest iMacs were never, ever the best sellers. The top priced ones often were.
What makes sense is that Apple has realized that their marketing decisions (LCDs only) have priced them above the price the educational market is willing to spend.
Actually Apple has always been selling CRT iMacs to education. This isn't a new thing. Perhaps you didn't know that. When the G4 iMac came out, education users still had the option to purchase CRT-based ones. So I think they've known all along that for reasons of price, durability, etc, education markets needed this option. It is not, as you suggest, Apple "suddenly realizing" that they have blundered. They know exactly what they are doing.
What does apple give users for the price premium you pay for thier computers?
Do you not own one? Apple is selling a number of things here. Things like ergonomics and style. Things like the unmatched user experience that one can only get when one company makes the hardware and the OS (and the iApps). Things like quality. Top-notch engineering. Innovation. And yes, things like taste. The world seems largely to be made up of two kinds of people - those who get it and those who don't. Those who do, own Macs, those who don't, well...don't.
Don't get me wrong. I got nothing against people who aren't willing to pay for these things. I'm not trying to imply that they are uncouth clods. It's just that they are making a more..utilitarian choice. Fine. I choose otherwise. I think I'm getting my money's worth.
Anyhow, it never ceases to amuse me when I read armchair CEOs who are so gosh darned quick to point out Apple's serious "blunders." I'll be the frist to admit that Apple doesn't always get things right. When I first saw the cube I didn't believe it would sell. When I saw other makers including CD-RW drives and Apple doing DVD-R, I cringed. Mistakes. Blunders. Apple's got 'em, no doubt about it. I'm inclined to forgive them a few though. Apple innovates. They go out on the edge to do something different. I expect it of them. Hell, it's what makes Apple what they are. If they didn't do this they would be Dell. it's inevitable that when you're out front making bold innovations you're gonna get some stuff wrong.
Even with the mistakes and blunders, the real ones and the imagined ones - and I take your complaints to be among the latter category - isn't it funny to see how Apple has been doing? They're one of only two companies in this industry who has made a freaking dime during this recession. Given that fact, I think they know what they are doing in spite of it all.
Several anti-Apple cronies have voiced similar sentiments here. Do you guys really not get it? It's not hard. Jesus, Apple doesn't always get it right...not even close to "always"... but listening to some of you guys you'd think they were the worst managed company with the worst products in the entire history of commerce. Listen up guys - clue phone ringing for y'all:
Education institutions don't want flat panels in labs with 3rd graders. And they don't want CD-RW drives. And they're short on cash, too.
Everyday consumers, however, do want flat panel displays, do want CD-RW/DVD drives, and usually do have more money to invest than a grade school - after all they're only buying one machine, not thirty.
If you at all understand the above, then Apple's "new" product makes sense.
Plus, as someone pointed out earlier, this neatly takes some demand off of them for the flat panels. If some of the education market is ordering eMacs, then they won't have to come up with quite the number of flat panel displays that they might have had to.
As for the fool who was blathering on thusly..."oh great this will really prepare me for the real world - they're not even available in the real world..." PLEASE. You're kidding me, right? So if Dell decided to sell a particular configuration of a low end box specifically to the education market...a configuration that contained nothing new...you just hadn't ever gotten this particular CPU, monitor, optical drive config in one box before... that it would be a disaster because it's "not available in the real world?"
I think someone needs to cut the little pills in half tomorrow, mkay?
I didn't have any problems with doing a quick:
...rudimentary..the installation, configuration and UI (KDE and Gnome) was. My hat is off to the hardworking Linux developers. I believe in what they're doing. But I am desperatlely hoping that they grab the holy grail of consumer usability sometime soon. I can tell you they're not there yet.
rpm -e `rpm -qa |egrep ^kde` --force --nodeps
and then from the kde3 download dir:
rpm -Uvh --force --nodeps *rpm
ROTFL!
Good grief! I seriously mean no disrespect to you or to the good people at Yellow Dog or KDE...but the above quote truly exemplifies why Linux doesn't have any desktop presence to speak of. I myself installed YDL on my TiBook last weekend and was seriously shocked at how
We're perhaps talking past each other due to the fact that we're each thinking of different Blizzard games. I myself have had Diablo II in mind and I suspect that you have been in the Starcraft mindset.
Sorry for the confusion. My fault. Your point is maybe more understandable from the Starcraft point of view.
where you can invite all your friends but not the trolls, cheats, and lamers that infest battlenet
In that circumstance I would play a TCP/IP game. It's not exactly the same, sure, but c'mon. For the purposes of inviting "all your friends"? It'll do.
It's an interesting point you raise, nonetheless. Could it be that the creators of Bnetd just intended to play on a server with fewer "issues"? I wonder. I mean if you want to play privately with a small number of people there are other options. If you want a larger, public arena, well... in that case I'd bet good money that Blizzard can accomodate you better than your friend "Dan" running an after hours public Bnetd server from his Dell at work.
But hey, who the hell knows. I don't. I'm just trying to understand that's all.
There are a lot of interesting and semi-compellling arguments posted here going both ways. Most here seem to side with Bnetd. But one thing I haven't heard anything about is why would Bnetd do what they did? What is the purpose of setting up alternate Bnet services? Perhaps in a legal sense this doesn't matter in the slightest, but as you all know, legalities don't always give a clear compass of right and wrong.
/. posts (usually accompanied by half a dozen exclamation points and no real content) hasn't fully rubbed off on me yet.
Could it be that Bnetd intends to make money off of stolen code? It seems likely that they will try to make money at some point if what they are doing is popular. But we don't know the code was stolen. maybe it wasn't. In either case they haven't tried to make money yet so it's moot.
Could it be that the original goal, the purpose of Bnetd was to allow people to play pirated games? I rather think it was. The only reason I can think of to play on Bnetd rather than genuine Bnet is the ol' "I don't have a valid CD key" reason. (Complaining that you want to play and that Bnet is down at the moment doesn't cut it with me.) Or maybe you just want to cheat in the game and it's easier to do at Bnetd - or that there are no consequences for doing it.
Anyway, I have a hard time seeing any reasoning behind Bnetd that I'd be willing to really "get behind" and defend. Perhaps I am missing something. No doubt two dozen impolite people will attempt to enlighten me as soon as I click the "Submit" button.
I do understand Blizzards position. They don't want people to steal thier games. They want to maintain some level of control over their creation.
I leave the legalities to the lawyers, I guess. But legalities asside I'm having a hard time faulting Blizzard and a hard time siding with Bnetd.
Maybe the "information wants to be free!", pseudo-libertarian, "bring down The Man" ethos that one finds in may
I myself am loving my titanium powerbook. At the moment it is tri-booting Mac OS 9, Mac OS X and Yellowdog Linux 2.2.
JOY
I'm not sure why you're thinking that Linux users need a CLI to wordprocess, email or web browse
I'm not thinking that at all. I'm just listing stuff that a CLI shouldn't be needed for.
Anyhow, I don't think we're in disagreement really. One thing I'd like to try is putting a dozen Linux machines in front of a dozen of my users. Then I'd really know what was working for them and what wasn't. An even better test would be to send them home with them.
Come to think of it I think I'm going to bring home a machine from work and install Linux on it. Give it to my kids maybe. See what they think of it. Unfortunately I don't think I can come up with suitable PC hardware...It may have to be a 120 MHz Macintosh 7200. I could put the new release of Yellow Dog on it.
Read the article. Some Linux distro developer did :)
I did read the article. And they say they have done it...time will tell.
People should learn the CLI on Linux, Windows, or Mac OS X, exactly because it's there!
I really can't argue with that. It seems very reasonable indeed. I do believe that Linux has an over-reliance on the CLI, however. One shouldn't have to use it in order to wordprocess, email, Web browse, etc. One shouldn't have to use it to install or remove software. One shouldn't have to use it to do regular maintenance or disaster recovery either.
Using the CLI should be something you could learn to make you a more powerful user, not somthing you must learn in order to do the things listed above. My own two cents.
You're assuming that all linux users think that way
I don't assume that. If I gave that impression it was unintentional. But one does begin to think that "most" do, especially after hanging out at slashdot for a while. In any case, however many do think that way it appears to be enough to slow the OS's penetration to the consumer desktop.
The really tiring thing is that nobody has done it yet. The only thing that makes me sadder is the fact that a sizeable portion of the Linux community doesn't want it to happen. Witness the "everyone should use the command line" crowd. The ones who refer to sensible GUIs with disdain. You know the type. It is they who are preventing Linux from making serious inroads into the desktop market.
You can't make everyone learn the CLI like they should. *sigh*
This sentiment is the exact reason why Linux isn't more widely used as a desktop operating system. Linux at present is a geek toy and a server OS. It will never be more until/unless Linux developers start re-evaluating the validity of the quoted statement above.