Maybe. If you put a decent theme on it, and only use KDE apps. While Windows is not the best desktop environment around it has one feature which X lacks:
Consistency
Oh, sure. That's why Winamp is soo consistent. Oh wait, what about WMP? Not really consistent. And ICQ? Also not consistent.
No, with Windows you don't get consistency any more than with KDE.
The same is (i believe) true of the apps included in the KDE core distribution, but beyond that it can be a real mess.
So then don't use anything not in the KDE core distribution, goddamn. The ability to use GNOME and classical X-applications gives you MORE choice, you don't have to use those apps.
Gnome came up later not as a KDE killer, but as a higher-level UI API to design applications on top of gtk+. The K desktop environment is an environment, Gnome was supposed to be a toolkit (and in many aspects still is).
Come on, I still remember when GNOME was started. The main reason was that Qt was proprietary and GNOME wanted to replace the "evil" KDE. And in computing replace is equivalent to kill.
What they did is try to "innovate" in a "corporate" way by producing UI guidelines and following them. This may have been a political decision indeed, but the real problem here is that the UI specs just get in the way. Gnome is trying to be an environment, but, as a toolkit, it has to coexist nicely with former versions of itself. Having gnome1 and gnome2 apps running simultaneously (often you can't avoid it, e.g. everything you run is gnome2 except evolution which is still gnome1) brings chaos to your desktop. The preferences have to be defined twice, once for gnome then gnome2, and some overlap and mess things up.
I don't see why this should lead to reduced configuration options.
SHOW ME A SINGLE PROGRAM THAT IS SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE IT HAS A RIDICULOUS NUMBER OF CONFIGURATION OPTIONS
Didn't you read my post? I already provided several examples: MS Office, Winamp, ICQ - and also KDE is more successful than GNOME.
So it's YOUR turn now.
That said, the fundamental flaw in your arguments is that Windows, MS Office, ICQ, etc, are somehow the pinnacle of usability.
Usability is impossible to measure.
Since we were both talking about popularity and popularity can be measured, I used popular examples.
Perhaps the reason the average user never changes preferences is because it's fucking hard for them.
Perhaps, perhaps. We shall cripple the successful KDE to copy the unsuccessful GNOME just because of "perhaps"?
You better come up with some proof. Or at least one example. Don't you realize how out-of-touch of reality you sound? You want KDE to throw over their whole philosophy, copy the much less successful GNOME and ignore their userbase - all just for some unconfirmed hypothesis that reduced configuration options will help some hypotetical average user.
In my experience, computerphobes don't mess around with configuration options because they are afraid of changing something they don't like and don't know how to change it back. - That's why the "restore defaults" options are so popular. They are also not interested in changing anything.
That doesn't make them idiots, either. It makes them non-geeks.
No, they are not idiots.
However when the self-proclaimed usability experts talk about "average users" they mean idiots. In my opinion, idiots are clearly sub-average, not average.
Furthermore, in order to make headway in the desktop market, Linux can't be on par with Windows - it has to be much better.
Well, in desktop usability, KDE/Linux is already much better than Windows.
The problem is that a) compatibility is more important than usability and b) people don't know about the greater usability.
Ad a) - If you need application x and it runs only on Windows, you use Windows, period. Usability does not matter at all in that decision. We need more applications, Wine could fuel that process. I'm in the lucky situation of being able to do all my work under KDE/Linux, but if I would have to use some Windows program, I would have no other choice, or would I? Compatibility beats Usability.
Ad b) - Most people use what is preinstalled and don't even look at alternatives.
Anyway, SuSE/KDE has reached about 10-20% Linux usenet postings in Germany (where SuSE dominates the Linux market), while RedHat/GNOME has reached only about 2-6% in US-groups. (Yes, it's simplified, but check the usenet statistics yourself. Yes, I only looked at non-technical OS-neutral newsgroups.)
And now you argue that KDE should make the same mistake that GNOME made and take out configuration options?
KDE is much more successful than GNOME. I don't see that as a reason for KDE to copy GNOME.
Getting people to leave what they know is hard, so you have to provide them the incentive somehow.
True. But trowing out configuration options is no incentive at all.
You also state that people only ever set preferences once - this is also untrue. Many preferences are like this, sure, but some may need frequent adjustments.
Which are?
For non-geeks (since you're allergic to the term "average user"), this is daunting, and understandably so.
Sorry, but I don't think the average user has a problem with kcontrol.
Sub-average drooling morons may have a problem, but I doubt they can configure anything else either.
Anyone who doesn't care to change the defaults is a drooling Moron ? How so ?
If you would understand plain English, you would notice that I said that "drooling morons don't change defaults" and not vice versa. No, it's not the same, the sentence gets a very different meaning when you switch that around.
Why should I have to fiddle with all sorts of settings to make a program work ?
You shouldn't. And I'm all for discussing how the defaults should be. But no configurability shall be taken out simply because you can't make the defaults perfect for all people. Different people have different needs, the defaults should try to be the best setting for many, but only configurability can make ALL users happy.
For example, he thinks that KDE being "more feature rich" is a good thing. Sorry, but that's not true.
OK, show me the app that is successful because it's not feature-rich.
MS Office? Nope, probably more configuration options than full KDE and full GNOME combined.
Winamp? Nope, the plugins are all configurable, plus Winamp itself. On top there are skins.
ICQ? Nope, configuration options are crawling everywhere and more are added with each version.
And finally KDE: KDE is more successful than GNOME. That's a fact. The Gentoo statistics and numerous web polls confirm that. To argue that KDE has to become like GNOME to be more successful is quite retarded.
KDE is great, better than the Windows GUI and MacOSX (yes, I tried both of them). I don't want to see make KDE the same mistake GNOME did and sacrifice usability and features for some mysterious "average user" that doesn't exist anyway.
I am very tired of reading flame wars between Gnome and KDE.
my desktop looks cluttered and Kalling Keverything Kfoo.Kbar Ketc Kgives Kme Kthe Kshits...
You don't seem so tired of flame wars at all...
Re:Why do some many prefer Gnome then ?
on
Has GNOME Become LAME?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Perhaps this indicates that Red Hat users are more objective then, since Linux isn't yet ready for the desktop.
Because you say so?
KDE is a complete mess of feature and preference overload, with little apparent thought given to design. GNOME has the design part down a lot better, and has a far more sane attitude towards preferences, but is lacking in some features, a few of them major. (No, I don't mean stupid sh*t like edge-flipping - I'm talking about stuff like a lock-down system for administrators, a must-have in office environments!)
There cannot be such a thing as "preference overload" because you only set preferences once, but use features daily. The maybe 10 seconds that it takes longer to find your preference in a preference-rich control-panel is irrelevant compared to the features you gain.
The drooling morons just use the defaults anyway and never use the control panel, so they are the least affected user group
Neither desktop is quite ready for Joe Consumer use - but I predict that one or both will get damn close this year, either by GNOME filling in a few feature gaps, or KDE getting serious about consumer-level usability.* We're not there yet, but we are damn close.
Nonsense. KDE and even GNOME (yes, I'm a KDE fan, but while GNOME isn't that great anymore for power users, it's still good enough for basic users) is technically ready for Joe Consumer.
All problems have nothing to do with KDE or GNOME itself:
We need Win32 application support. Hopefully Wine will get good enough this year to run most Win32 apps flawlessly, some Win32 apps with no equivalent on Linux are keeping a lot of people on Windows.
We need PC-makers to preinstall Linux. The best desktop in the world (which is IMO KDE) won't make an impression when it's not preinstalled. The Win32-compatibility will be of great help convincing PC-makers, too.
We need better marketing. At first the "Linux is too complicated" FUD has to stop (yes, I'm also talking about you), simply because it's no longer true. kcontrol may be complicated, but it's far easier to find something in it than it is to find the right tool in the Windows control panel. (kcontrol is organized in a tree, the Windows control panel is just a folder with tools thrown in) So if KDE isn't ready, neither is Windows. In reality both are good enough anyway.
* side note to Mosfet-worshippers: "organization" will not save you - kontrol center is drowning in useless preferences. Some of them simply have to go
Gooddamn, that's nonsense. You only need to set preferences *once*, so any time-gains are negletible and the so-called mysterious "average user" doesn't change the preferences at all, so using the "average user" as a reason to reduce kcontrol functionality is pretty moronic.
OK, now in all-tabs, otherwise you won't get it:
SHOW ME A SINGLE PROGRAM THAT IS SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE IT HAS REDUCED CONFIGURATION FUNCTIONALITY
Name one. Everyone *I* know, ICQ, Winamp, Photoshop, MS Office, etc. is loaded with configuration options, and every version more are added. MS Office alone probably has more configuration options than KDE in it's full glory.
Name a single program that has become successful because it has removed configuration options. Just a single one.
So according to you, MS Office can't be used by "Joe average", right?
You are dead wrong, sorry. I'm a Wordprocessing-newbie (well actually not really a newbie, I use them for several years, but only about once every 2 months, so I'm at the same skill level as a newbie, but I disgress) and I can get my work done using the defaults in OpenOffice. If I would use it more often, I would dig around and customize it to fit my needs - and I would be very happy to find the options I need.
It was created in a political effort (to replace (=kill) KDE.) and politics is still very involved in GNOME. I really acknowledge what GNU has done in the 80's and early 90's, but lately they have become a bunch of buerocrats and politicians. KDE vs GNOME is pretty similar to Linux vs. the Hurd. - Pragmatism versus Politics. It has improved lately, at least GNOME's primary goal doesn't seem to be killing off KDE anymore and they seem to even cooperate.
GNOME made the big mistake in listening to bashers. The bashers (= non GNOME users) said GNOME was too complicated so the politicians (see above) decided that many configuration options must go in Gnome2. That pissed off many real users but attracted not a single new user. (The drooling moron that was targetted by this decision doesn't use anything else other than what is preinstalled anyway. And even if he does (or it is preinstalled), he doesn't dig around config options anyway and uses the defaults, so any "complexity" doesn't hurt him.)
C. KDE/Qt/C++ programming is faster and more elegant. Again, this was a rather political decision. (Almost all GNU software is C-based, therefore GNOME has to be C-based, too) Yes, in theory many non-C language bindings exist, but in the real world none of them are used for any non-trivial project.
Re:Why do some many prefer Gnome then ?
on
Has GNOME Become LAME?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Why?
Because it's backed by RedHat and Sun.
And it's no coincidence that RedHat users usually say that Linux isn't ready for the desktop yet while SuSE, Mandrake or Gentoo users say it is...
At least that's my observation, and it's also confirmed by statistics (in Germany (= SuSE territory) Linux marketshare is about 3-4 times higher than in the USA (=RedHat territory))
There are tremendous differences between the Linux kernel and the Solaris kernel. Same with any BSD kernel vs. Linux vs. Solaris.
Sure, but none of those differences will make Linux a non-Unix. Even you yourself say that there are differences between Solaris and BSD kernels, yet both are usually refererred to as Unix. Why not Linux, too?
Yes a Ford isn't a GM, just like Solaris isn't SuSE. But both Ford and GMs are cars, just like both Solaris and SuSE are Unix in every way that matters.
Well, that's what I really don't get. Why is nobody able to distinguish long-term and short-term effects?
In the short term, of course changing systems never makes sense. Never. Doesn't matter what you are running, if you think i "couple of weeks" time periods and always come up with "but we are used to it" excuses, stay with whatever you are running now.
However, in the long term, that all is irrelevant. It may take a month (if you have a very inflexible staff) to get used to the new system, but in 2 years, the "we are used to xy" argument is pretty worthless.
In the long term you get something from Linux that is very hard to understand for Windows-fans:
Freedom
From a business point of view, freedom means first of all, freedom to choose your supplier. Less than a year ago, Microsoft changed the license scheme which doubled costs for most business customers. What makes you think that that doesn't happen again? What will you do against it? Bitch around a bit, but in the end you will swallow whatever Microsoft wants. The same is with crazy anti-piracy schemes. WPA is just the beginning and not-so-important companies will probably soon have to accept WPA or even some "improved" new version, too. - Not with Linux, if your distributor makes you unhappy, just switch to another.
Microsoft introduces a single point of failure. Linux on the other hand is a very safe investment that nobody can take away from you.
This is much more important than some short-term license savings.
But writing "*nix" makes you look like a retarded buerocrat.
In the real world, Linux behaves like Unix, looks like Unix (X Window system), runs the same programs as Unix (KDE, Apache, mysql, bash, etc.), is used by the same people as Unix and is even mostly source-compatible to Unix. Hell, the newer Unix-versions are even binary compatible to Linux (like FreeBSD and AFAIK AIX-L).
So Linux is Unix.
Why should it not be?
Does a Ford stop being a car just because Daimler-Benz made the first implementation of a car?
What's this *nix business anyway? Do you have the urge to use wildcards in words? Do you think that "*nix" includes Linux but "Unix" doesn't? Are you afraid of getting sued by however-is-holding-the-Unix-trademark-right-now?
Goddamn, it's U-N-I-X, not *nix, Un*x or *nux. And in all practical purposes, Linux is also a Unix-flavour, even if the hairsplitters will disagree.
Patents (at least in sane countries) require a certain amount of innovation. Yes, that's subjective, however patenting "discussing things that are for sale" would not get patented in any normal country.
Also, just joining 2 technologies is not innovation. People were discussing about things that are for sale for over 1000 years, just because they do now on the Internet doesn't make it innovative.
if you need to atract gamers, a playstation emulator sounds much better.
Playstation emulator = illegal = not included in distro = awkard to use = not suitable for masses.
But linux does not need to attract gamers. They can stick to windows, nobody cares. I have played so many games i can't count them, i never gave a shit what OS i was using. But i need linux to get my WORK done.
I can't get PDF files on my treo (PalmOS) because the PDF-preparation program from Adobe only runs on Windows.
ONLY WIDESPREAD DESKTOP USE can make those vendors make Linux versions. And games are a prerequesite.
So, you are completely wrong that nobody cares. I do care and everybody else who uses Linux seriously cares.
Wine is good for nothing propably but it's a really nice project from an educational point of view.
Yeah and Samba is also "good for nothing probably".
Heck, Samba is already beating Windows in speed and stability. Why shouldn't Wine be able to do the same?
Linux is already the most popular webserver, second most popular general purpose server, most popular cluster, most popular embedded system and soon most popular 3d-modelling desktop.
a) windows is, and will always be further along than wine. chasing an API puts you in second place, from the moment you start.
Wrong. An API is by definition a fixed implementation that does not change at a later time. Of course there are additions, but those are not used until most of the userbase supports that extensions (which gives Wine a lot of time to incorporate those extensions).
Almost all Win32 software runs on Windows 98 (5 years old), most runs even on Windows95 (8 years).
b) vmware can run windows fine. it's not expensive, and it'll run most things better than wine ever will, if you want to actually get some work done (i used it for almost a year to do PCB design and circuit design using protel for uni, and this was on a celeron 366!)
Well, it *is* expensive. More expensive than Windows. And you still need Windows, too. And I did not even start to talk about the speed problems.
Also, it can't be incorporated with distributions, therefore distributions can't run Win32-apps "out of the box", but with a good Wine, they can.
c) killing games is stupid. you're just going to make linux less attractive to developers (who won't give too hoots that we need to bend over backwards to use wine, let alone attempt to get a proper port), and what with added cheat detection, wine will probably get marked as a "cheat" more and more often.
We have to build a userbase before expecting any native games. Without Wine, there will not be a gaming userbase, period. So Wine is the only way to make Linux a gaming platform.
It's excellent handling of Windoze apps is part of what killed OS/2.
Nonsense, OS/2 was killed because PC-makers didn't want to use an OS from a competitor.
"Why port it when it can run the windoze version?"
Great, so you would rather have them ask "Why port it at all when 100% of our customers use Windows?"
Not exactly the same, but it would be much better to have native apps,
Sure, but we have to get a significant amount of users first, then can we expect native apps.
Wine helps building that userbase.
Instead of developers asking "Why port it when it can run the windoze version?" we have to have users asking "Why use Windows when Linux can run Windows and Linux apps?".
Slashdot Mirror
While there are sure a few niche-apps not available for KDE3, almost everything has been ported (or in case of former KDE2 apps recompiled).
This doesn't make the KDE application base spread out and you know it.
Consistency
Oh, sure. That's why Winamp is soo consistent. Oh wait, what about WMP? Not really consistent. And ICQ? Also not consistent.
No, with Windows you don't get consistency any more than with KDE.
The same is (i believe) true of the apps included in the KDE core distribution, but beyond that it can be a real mess.
So then don't use anything not in the KDE core distribution, goddamn. The ability to use GNOME and classical X-applications gives you MORE choice, you don't have to use those apps.
Come on, I still remember when GNOME was started. The main reason was that Qt was proprietary and GNOME wanted to replace the "evil" KDE. And in computing replace is equivalent to kill.
What they did is try to "innovate" in a "corporate" way by producing UI guidelines and following them. This may have been a political decision indeed, but the real problem here is that the UI specs just get in the way. Gnome is trying to be an environment, but, as a toolkit, it has to coexist nicely with former versions of itself. Having gnome1 and gnome2 apps running simultaneously (often you can't avoid it, e.g. everything you run is gnome2 except evolution which is still gnome1) brings chaos to your desktop. The preferences have to be defined twice, once for gnome then gnome2, and some overlap and mess things up.
I don't see why this should lead to reduced configuration options.
Anyway, you should try KDE 3.1, which fixed a lot of bugs and also includes a couple of speed improvements.
Didn't you read my post? I already provided several examples: MS Office, Winamp, ICQ - and also KDE is more successful than GNOME.
So it's YOUR turn now.
That said, the fundamental flaw in your arguments is that Windows, MS Office, ICQ, etc, are somehow the pinnacle of usability.
Usability is impossible to measure.
Since we were both talking about popularity and popularity can be measured, I used popular examples.
Perhaps the reason the average user never changes preferences is because it's fucking hard for them.
Perhaps, perhaps. We shall cripple the successful KDE to copy the unsuccessful GNOME just because of "perhaps"?
You better come up with some proof. Or at least one example. Don't you realize how out-of-touch of reality you sound? You want KDE to throw over their whole philosophy, copy the much less successful GNOME and ignore their userbase - all just for some unconfirmed hypothesis that reduced configuration options will help some hypotetical average user.
In my experience, computerphobes don't mess around with configuration options because they are afraid of changing something they don't like and don't know how to change it back. - That's why the "restore defaults" options are so popular. They are also not interested in changing anything.
That doesn't make them idiots, either. It makes them non-geeks.
No, they are not idiots.
However when the self-proclaimed usability experts talk about "average users" they mean idiots. In my opinion, idiots are clearly sub-average, not average.
Furthermore, in order to make headway in the desktop market, Linux can't be on par with Windows - it has to be much better.
Well, in desktop usability, KDE/Linux is already much better than Windows.
The problem is that a) compatibility is more important than usability and b) people don't know about the greater usability.
Ad a) - If you need application x and it runs only on Windows, you use Windows, period. Usability does not matter at all in that decision. We need more applications, Wine could fuel that process. I'm in the lucky situation of being able to do all my work under KDE/Linux, but if I would have to use some Windows program, I would have no other choice, or would I? Compatibility beats Usability.
Ad b) - Most people use what is preinstalled and don't even look at alternatives.
Anyway, SuSE/KDE has reached about 10-20% Linux usenet postings in Germany (where SuSE dominates the Linux market), while RedHat/GNOME has reached only about 2-6% in US-groups. (Yes, it's simplified, but check the usenet statistics yourself. Yes, I only looked at non-technical OS-neutral newsgroups.)
And now you argue that KDE should make the same mistake that GNOME made and take out configuration options?
KDE is much more successful than GNOME. I don't see that as a reason for KDE to copy GNOME.
Getting people to leave what they know is hard, so you have to provide them the incentive somehow.
True. But trowing out configuration options is no incentive at all.
You also state that people only ever set preferences once - this is also untrue. Many preferences are like this, sure, but some may need frequent adjustments.
Which are?
For non-geeks (since you're allergic to the term "average user"), this is daunting, and understandably so.
Sorry, but I don't think the average user has a problem with kcontrol.
Sub-average drooling morons may have a problem, but I doubt they can configure anything else either.
If you would understand plain English, you would notice that I said that "drooling morons don't change defaults" and not vice versa. No, it's not the same, the sentence gets a very different meaning when you switch that around.
Why should I have to fiddle with all sorts of settings to make a program work ?
You shouldn't. And I'm all for discussing how the defaults should be. But no configurability shall be taken out simply because you can't make the defaults perfect for all people. Different people have different needs, the defaults should try to be the best setting for many, but only configurability can make ALL users happy.
OK, show me the app that is successful because it's not feature-rich.
MS Office? Nope, probably more configuration options than full KDE and full GNOME combined.
Winamp? Nope, the plugins are all configurable, plus Winamp itself. On top there are skins.
ICQ? Nope, configuration options are crawling everywhere and more are added with each version.
And finally KDE: KDE is more successful than GNOME. That's a fact. The Gentoo statistics and numerous web polls confirm that. To argue that KDE has to become like GNOME to be more successful is quite retarded.
KDE is great, better than the Windows GUI and MacOSX (yes, I tried both of them). I don't want to see make KDE the same mistake GNOME did and sacrifice usability and features for some mysterious "average user" that doesn't exist anyway.
my desktop looks cluttered and Kalling Keverything Kfoo.Kbar Ketc Kgives Kme Kthe Kshits...
You don't seem so tired of flame wars at all...
Because you say so?
KDE is a complete mess of feature and preference overload, with little apparent thought given to design. GNOME has the design part down a lot better, and has a far more sane attitude towards preferences, but is lacking in some features, a few of them major. (No, I don't mean stupid sh*t like edge-flipping - I'm talking about stuff like a lock-down system for administrators, a must-have in office environments!)
There cannot be such a thing as "preference overload" because you only set preferences once, but use features daily. The maybe 10 seconds that it takes longer to find your preference in a preference-rich control-panel is irrelevant compared to the features you gain.
The drooling morons just use the defaults anyway and never use the control panel, so they are the least affected user group
Neither desktop is quite ready for Joe Consumer use - but I predict that one or both will get damn close this year, either by GNOME filling in a few feature gaps, or KDE getting serious about consumer-level usability.* We're not there yet, but we are damn close.
Nonsense. KDE and even GNOME (yes, I'm a KDE fan, but while GNOME isn't that great anymore for power users, it's still good enough for basic users) is technically ready for Joe Consumer.
All problems have nothing to do with KDE or GNOME itself:
* side note to Mosfet-worshippers: "organization" will not save you - kontrol center is drowning in useless preferences. Some of them simply have to go
Gooddamn, that's nonsense. You only need to set preferences *once*, so any time-gains are negletible and the so-called mysterious "average user" doesn't change the preferences at all, so using the "average user" as a reason to reduce kcontrol functionality is pretty moronic.
OK, now in all-tabs, otherwise you won't get it:
SHOW ME A SINGLE PROGRAM THAT IS SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE IT HAS REDUCED CONFIGURATION FUNCTIONALITY
Name one. Everyone *I* know, ICQ, Winamp, Photoshop, MS Office, etc. is loaded with configuration options, and every version more are added. MS Office alone probably has more configuration options than KDE in it's full glory.
Name a single program that has become successful because it has removed configuration options. Just a single one.
So according to you, MS Office can't be used by "Joe average", right?
You are dead wrong, sorry. I'm a Wordprocessing-newbie (well actually not really a newbie, I use them for several years, but only about once every 2 months, so I'm at the same skill level as a newbie, but I disgress) and I can get my work done using the defaults in OpenOffice. If I would use it more often, I would dig around and customize it to fit my needs - and I would be very happy to find the options I need.
Because it's backed by RedHat and Sun.
And it's no coincidence that RedHat users usually say that Linux isn't ready for the desktop yet while SuSE, Mandrake or Gentoo users say it is...
At least that's my observation, and it's also confirmed by statistics (in Germany (= SuSE territory) Linux marketshare is about 3-4 times higher than in the USA (=RedHat territory))
Sure, but none of those differences will make Linux a non-Unix. Even you yourself say that there are differences between Solaris and BSD kernels, yet both are usually refererred to as Unix. Why not Linux, too?
Yes a Ford isn't a GM, just like Solaris isn't SuSE. But both Ford and GMs are cars, just like both Solaris and SuSE are Unix in every way that matters.
In the short term, of course changing systems never makes sense. Never. Doesn't matter what you are running, if you think i "couple of weeks" time periods and always come up with "but we are used to it" excuses, stay with whatever you are running now.
However, in the long term, that all is irrelevant. It may take a month (if you have a very inflexible staff) to get used to the new system, but in 2 years, the "we are used to xy" argument is pretty worthless.
In the long term you get something from Linux that is very hard to understand for Windows-fans:
Freedom
From a business point of view, freedom means first of all, freedom to choose your supplier. Less than a year ago, Microsoft changed the license scheme which doubled costs for most business customers. What makes you think that that doesn't happen again? What will you do against it? Bitch around a bit, but in the end you will swallow whatever Microsoft wants. The same is with crazy anti-piracy schemes. WPA is just the beginning and not-so-important companies will probably soon have to accept WPA or even some "improved" new version, too. - Not with Linux, if your distributor makes you unhappy, just switch to another.
Microsoft introduces a single point of failure. Linux on the other hand is a very safe investment that nobody can take away from you.
This is much more important than some short-term license savings.
RTFA.
In the real world, Linux behaves like Unix, looks like Unix (X Window system), runs the same programs as Unix (KDE, Apache, mysql, bash, etc.), is used by the same people as Unix and is even mostly source-compatible to Unix. Hell, the newer Unix-versions are even binary compatible to Linux (like FreeBSD and AFAIK AIX-L).
So Linux is Unix.
Why should it not be?
Does a Ford stop being a car just because Daimler-Benz made the first implementation of a car?
What's this *nix business anyway? Do you have the urge to use wildcards in words? Do you think that "*nix" includes Linux but "Unix" doesn't? Are you afraid of getting sued by however-is-holding-the-Unix-trademark-right-now?
Goddamn, it's U-N-I-X, not *nix, Un*x or *nux. And in all practical purposes, Linux is also a Unix-flavour, even if the hairsplitters will disagree.
Becomes it somehow more "innovative" just because it's "electronic"?
People were using mathematics for ages, how is for example applying for a patent to "electronically add 1 and 1" even remotely innovative?
Also, just joining 2 technologies is not innovation. People were discussing about things that are for sale for over 1000 years, just because they do now on the Internet doesn't make it innovative.
Playstation emulator = illegal = not included in distro = awkard to use = not suitable for masses.
But linux does not need to attract gamers. They can stick to windows, nobody cares. I have played so many games i can't count them, i never gave a shit what OS i was using. But i need linux to get my WORK done.
I can't get PDF files on my treo (PalmOS) because the PDF-preparation program from Adobe only runs on Windows.
ONLY WIDESPREAD DESKTOP USE can make those vendors make Linux versions. And games are a prerequesite.
So, you are completely wrong that nobody cares. I do care and everybody else who uses Linux seriously cares.
Wine is good for nothing propably but it's a really nice project from an educational point of view.
Yeah and Samba is also "good for nothing probably".
Heck, Samba is already beating Windows in speed and stability. Why shouldn't Wine be able to do the same?
Stop the FUD.
Linux is already the most popular webserver, second most popular general purpose server, most popular cluster, most popular embedded system and soon most popular 3d-modelling desktop.
This is not insightful, that's nonsense.
Currently, there is no real need for native Linux games, simply because there are not many Linux gamers.
Wine is the ONLY realistic way to attract gamers (and create - not kill - the need for native apps).
Wrong. An API is by definition a fixed implementation that does not change at a later time. Of course there are additions, but those are not used until most of the userbase supports that extensions (which gives Wine a lot of time to incorporate those extensions).
Almost all Win32 software runs on Windows 98 (5 years old), most runs even on Windows95 (8 years).
b) vmware can run windows fine. it's not expensive, and it'll run most things better than wine ever will, if you want to actually get some work done (i used it for almost a year to do PCB design and circuit design using protel for uni, and this was on a celeron 366!)
Well, it *is* expensive. More expensive than Windows. And you still need Windows, too. And I did not even start to talk about the speed problems.
Also, it can't be incorporated with distributions, therefore distributions can't run Win32-apps "out of the box", but with a good Wine, they can.
c) killing games is stupid. you're just going to make linux less attractive to developers (who won't give too hoots that we need to bend over backwards to use wine, let alone attempt to get a proper port), and what with added cheat detection, wine will probably get marked as a "cheat" more and more often.
We have to build a userbase before expecting any native games. Without Wine, there will not be a gaming userbase, period. So Wine is the only way to make Linux a gaming platform.
Nonsense, OS/2 was killed because PC-makers didn't want to use an OS from a competitor.
"Why port it when it can run the windoze version?"
Great, so you would rather have them ask "Why port it at all when 100% of our customers use Windows?"
Not exactly the same, but it would be much better to have native apps,
Sure, but we have to get a significant amount of users first, then can we expect native apps.
Wine helps building that userbase.
Instead of developers asking "Why port it when it can run the windoze version?" we have to have users asking "Why use Windows when Linux can run Windows and Linux apps?".