Actually, that's exactly my feeling, too. There is no other explanation why there are localized service packs, etc.
Yes, that's correct. Because Microsoft couldn't design a working translation scheme, you have to wait for them getting their act together until you can apply your service pack - which can take over a week.
That's probably why Microsoft doesn't want to do so many translations. If you have a good translation system, it's easy. Even one person or a small group of people can easily translate big software packages: look here but when you have to maintain 10 year old code which was written by people who either left or were assigned to other tasks or management, you have to translate every service pack and fixpack all over.
I wonder how much this Nynorsk translation will cost Microsoft;-)
Well if your mother hangs around with IBM-people and helps you get the one single contract your whole product palette is built on, I would call that "tremendous stroke of luck".
Without IBM licensing DOS, Microsoft would be just another software company.
That's a legitimate crticism of Linux. (or more specifically, KDE) The main reason Windows is a success is that people can use it. People are willing to forgive instablility when at least their computer is useful to them.
So Macs are unusable because of iTunes, iPhoto and iWhatever? So Windows is unusable because of Winzip, Winword, WinWhatever?
But if Windows loaded with confusing buttons (i.e. applications on the task bar that all begin with K), then it'd be a hinderance to using the computer.
That's bullshit.
An app that starts with a "K" is a KDE-app. That's very useful because you know before you try it. Just like you know that a "Win*" app is a Windows app.
I have no incentive to switch to Linux. My computer works, it's quite stable [..]
and
At some point Linux is going to have to stop playing catch-up to MS and start being better if they want me to jump ship.
So when Linux starts being better - will your computer stop working? Will it cease to be "quite stable"?
In my very subjective opinion, KDE/Linux is already a lot better than any version of the Windows-GUI. Multiple desktops, real 3-button support, Unix-style copy-paste, etc. etc.
But of course you will never know because "computer works, it's quite stable" and the 30 minutes you maybe tried some outdated, server-centric distro are not long enough to get to know of the advanced features.
You will use and love Linux when it comes preinstalled and not a day sooner, no matter how great Linux is.
However, Microsoft is taking a bigger and bigger percentage of PC-revenues each year (lower hardware prices, higher license costs) and it's really just a matter of time until computer will come preinstalled with Linux.
Solve the interface issues
What interface issues? If you think you have to memorize text commands you are wrong. EVERYTHING can be done with the GUI - and better than in Windows. In Windows the control center is just a folder with helper apps randomly thrown in. In KDE/Linux, the control center is structured tree-like and for example SuSE also incorporates *ALL* non-KDE settings, so you have a control center where you can do everything graphically. Having to edit text files is like messing with the registry: It may be necessary when something breaks or you want to do something very unusual, but in the normal run of things it just isn't necessary. (Oh and did I mention that editing text is much easier and straightforward than figuring out registry keys?)
And I'm sure Adobe will port their apps to Linux within the next 2 years - if they plan to sell to Asia or film-studios.
Primitive 1½ mouse mouse button support (at least the wheel works now without 3rd party software and some apps use 2 buttons)
Single-vendor hardware? (Apple has killed all clones, remember?)
No parts available. (Where can I get a new motherboard or CPU? Shall I buy a whole computer when something breaks?)
Sure, MacOSX looks great in a demo and feels great the first 2 hours you use it. But after that time all the nifty animations just get in your way and slow you down. But that of course is just my opinion. Yes I did try Jaguar.
Let me ask you a question to clarify. When you were talking about the process you go through to install software, does clicking on the CD provide, for instance, a popup hierarchical menu system that allows the user to select software to install from what is available on the CD, or does the system provide that hierarchical menu of software compiled from what is available on the CDs and DVDs that came with the distro. If the latter, what is the procedure to install packages that did not come with the distro?
No, it's just the contents of the CD in the file manager.
Windows.Forms:(
You really want to tell me that just one measly group of classes is as hard to implement as the whole Win32 API? This just illustrates my point: Mono is much easier at succeeding than Wine.
Also, as I said the projects are in right from the beginning. If some.NET application gains wide acceptance (which I don't really see happening BTW,.NET is moving much slower than MS would like) Mono et al will make sure it will work on Linux very soon. They can concentrate on one app at a time.
-Users will be even more at the mercy of MS, to the point where MS could charge them for access to their own files.
Which hits a nerve. Users will not accept that. Users want their pirated mp3, porn and videos and be left alone. They don't want MS knowing what they do on their own computer. People are not as dumb as you think they are.
-It's unclear as to whether or not hardware that boots non-MS OSs will continue to be manufactured.
Well all concepts I have seen are backwards-compatible, that means while Linux may not run in TCPA-mode, it will run in non-TCPA-mode.
But actually, there is a huge anti-TCPA movement and guaranteed TCPA-free hardware will stay very popular and will be sold because the demand is there. Intel and AMD will not sacrifice themselves for the RIAA. TCPA-hardware will be more expensive and less popular. Sorry, but I just don't know how TCPA should ever be able to get a foothold in the market, even with backwards-compatibility.
The average consumer might not know right now what TCPA or Palladium is, but the average consumer has at least 20 Gigs of mp3s, porn and/or videos on his harddrive (or on CDs) he doesn't want to lose. Just look at how big Napster, Kazaa etc. are/were, we are talking about millions of people here - the majority of home users.
You know how a radio ad were for a DSL-vendor around here? I'll tell you:
male voice: I'd like to show you my big music collection.
female voice: You have a music collection?
male voice: Well, I could just download one anytime...
narrator: Download music and videos in real time - company name
That's right: The main selling point for DSL is piracy. This is not a niche application for geeks, it's the killer app. Something interfering with that won't be accepted in the market.
Also did you know the absence of TCPA in future CPUs? TCPA will not get into AMD's Hammer. The way I see it, TCPA will stay the "technology that will get into all chips not now but in a couple of years" forever - No chip maker dares to actually do it. The outrage and absymnal sales would be terrible.
Only few people need to upgrade. If a system is twice as fast but cannot play pirated mp3/videos/software, it is worth less than the old system for the majority of people - People just won't upgrade.
TCPA will not happen - unfortunately, because as I said, it would be the best thing that could happen to Linux.
Other than that, presenting different "groups of free space" as different icons or "drives"
KDE does exactly that.
Yes, but I don't think my response was clear enough. From a high-level point of view, the user should indicate that he wants to install new software by bringing that software to the computer, not by instructing the computer to absorb software which will be brought to it when prompted.
Well, OK so instead of an Autorun, the user has to click on the "CD-ROM" icon in KDE and select the install-script. While I agree that some Autorun mechanism would be nice, it's certainly not a prerequesite, even for home users. Clicking on a CD-ROM is not really rocket science.
You shouldn't because you can't. That's my point. Different, incompatible package management systems and filesystem layouts force the "packaging" stage of distribution to be done an unnecessary and wasteful number of times. Yes, you can use custom installers like many commercial packages do, but that defeats the purpose of having a package management system.
A few posts ago you claimed that Installshild was the best since sliced bread, now it defeats the purpose?
A simple upgrade to DX8 lets DX8 games work while keeping compatibility with DX6 apps.
This is not true for all games. Enough games break when using a different version.
Not all gnu/linux important packages are backwards compatible (e.g. libc5/libc6).
So? You can have both installed. Also the big changes should be over by now and we shouldn't see any binary incompatible upgrades for quite some time (knock on wood)
*shrug* Dunno. I don't have a strong preference for one environment over the other - they both have their strong and weak points. My point was that 1 desktop environment is better than 2 from the point of view of linux adoption (see previous post re: OSS competition).
You are overestimating that. While it is sure good to standardize within an organization, it's not really a big issue because KDE-apps run in Gnome and vice versa. (Yes I do know that I don't follow the herd-view here)
Microsoft could not sell any version of Windows and expect it to become widespread quickly if that version of windows were not backwards compatible with older versions of windows. (Yes, I know 2K had problems with this. They were few and far between. After SP3 they are virtually nil, barring some very old dos games.) The idea is that if backwards compatibility were as bad between XP and previous versions of windows as backwards compatibility is with linux on a comparable timescale, XP wouldn't have had nearly the level of success it did.
So we finally agree that the major selling point of Windows is Win32-compatibility.
Yes, MS does have a stranglehold on the market. That means nothing if new products don't work. What do you do with a blender that doesn't blend? Take it back to the store.
The majority still runs Win98 (4 years old) which is really just Win95 (7 years old)with more drivers and a couple of bugfixes - and it's good enough for them, it seems. Anything that can run the apps is good enough and most users just use what is preinstalled.
Too many little things add up to become a "showstopper". What would you change about CD mounting?
CD mounting is IMO one of the few things MS got right, that should be like in Windows. - Can't think of anything else right now...
I agree totally. Perfect win32 compatibility would put linux on every desktop in a heartbeat -- computer manufacturers don't like paying the microsoft tax any more than consumers do. Perfect win32 compatibility is not an attainable goal. Even running supposedly "portable".Net apps targetted at windows under linux would require a working wine implementaion; MS can "innovate" contorted new API additions faster than they can be reverse-engineered and reimplemented perfectly.
Actually, I think perfect.NET compatibility is far easier than perfect Win32 compatibility, first because the Mono and other projects are in the game right from the start and second because.NET's bytecode structure should make it easier.
Depending on win32 compatibility to make gnu/linux mainstream is not going to get anyone anywhere. Instead, UI issues need to be fixed, a standard packge management system must be deployed across all distros, very minor distros much be feature-merged into significant ones or eliminated entirely, and other changes must be made.
What UI-issues? Why merging distros? What's the point of that?
Wrong, we need apps, apps, apps. Nobody cares about package management. Some users may curse (if it were so bad which it isn't) at install-time, but in day to-day work, only the apps count. No Photoshop on Linux = no Linux for many people. So we need apps, either through ports or through Win32 compatibility.
I don't agree. I seriously doubt that if SuSE were really the jewel of usability that you say it is that it would be such a well-kept secret. Of course, that's not proof, it's an educated guess so I'll have to try out SuSE for myself before I can comment on it directly. I also gather from what you said about usability that while you may consider SuSE to be a wonderful, perfect distro that just needs marketing and preinstallation, I would probably disagree. But again, the only way to be sure is to try it.
All your technical requests what needs to be done are met by SuSE. You formed that requests, not me.
But now we have a deadline: palladium. Linux is no good if nobody's making hardware that will boot it.
Actually, I think Palladium is the best thing that can happen to Linux.
You really want to tell me that users are supposed to stop pirating mp3s and Videos? You got to be kidding me. Most home users would go back to DOS with all the IRQ conflicts if they could avoid copy protection.
Actually, TCPA is already so unpopular that the members no longer publicly admit that they are members in TCPA (the member list got removed from the website).
I would be surprised if it would actually be implemented and I would be surprised if it would last longer than 1 month if implemented.
Also, TCPA is designed very stupidly, for example if you have a TCPA-enabled computer, you just have to run *one single* non-TCPA approved app and the computer will shut down all TCPA-contents and apps. There goes your backwards compatibility.
About half the servers run Linux/BSD, in Europe about 2/3. More than half of all new embedded systems projects are using Linux. There is a market for Linux-hardware and companies will sell it.
1. Hide system packages by default. Joe average doesn't know or care about glibc. When he wants to remove a program, he wants to see entries for the seven or eight big app packs that he uses, not hundreds of entries for things he doesn't care about.
Most package managers are able to manage hundreds of packages well because they are organized hierarchically, why make them as crippled as Windows' with it's linear list of installed software?
That would be a step backwards. While I agree that you could have an option to hide system packages for morons, it's certainly no showstopper.
You have the major delusion that Windows is perfect and that if something is like Windows, it will be a success. That is both wrong. Windows is not perfect, it is not intuitive, it is not user-friendly (for example newbies have big trouble with single vs. double click. It's just not consistent, while KDE (at default settings) is. Newbies will have much less problems picking up KDE than picking up Windows. You also have drive letters and a lot of other cruft you don't notice because you are used to it.) - but it is preinstalled.
Joe Average will use what is preinstalled.
2. Make software installation work by selecting the software, not the software installer.
Did you even read what I wrote?
Install an apache rpm on a debian system, startup scripts and all. No tweaking.
Why should I do that? Every distro supplies the appropriate packages. Commercial packages (like Loki's games or VMWare) can be made to run on all distros easily and without any problems.
Run a binary from a distro that's still using last year's libwhatever on a distro that uses the incompatible this year's libwhatever.
Run a game that requires DirectX8 on a system with only DirectX6.
Newbie overall (but intermediate KDE) users cannot jump into GNOME and do everything exactly the same way. The opposite is also true. Config files are important.
Why should anybody want to jump into Gnome?
how could XP have become so widespread so quickly?
Again: - BECAUSE IT IS PREINSTALLED ON COMPUTERS - BECAUSE IT IS PREINSTALLED ON COMPUTERS - BECAUSE IT IS PREINSTALLED ON COMPUTERS -
Microsoft could sell any version of Windows, everything would become widespread quickly. The only thing it has to do is run most Win32 programs and it will be widespread quickly. They could sell Win95 again and most people would buy it because the computer maker don't give them another choice of software that will run Win32 apps. (And the computer maker wouldn't get any other version of Windows)
That's the hard reality.
The average computer buyer thinks windows comes "free" with his computer and only really needs raw performance when it comes to games, which is not one of GNU/Linux's strong points.
Exactly.
Linux is ready, although it's not absolutely perfect in every way. GNU/Linux distros are not quite ready yet.
Yes, of course it's not perfect in every way. For example I think the whole CD mounting is a bit awkard.
But those are little things, not showstoppers. The problems are Win32-compatibility (perceived and real) and being preinstalled. Both problems don't touch the any core of a Linux distribution technically.
I know two people who use Windows NT at home and they're both old, male computer geeks with degrees in tech fields. The rest use 98SE, 2000, or XP -- the ones that are less stable but with good UIs.
Exactly, NT started as a business and geek OS, then became a home OS for non-gamers (Win2000), then became a home OS for everybody (XP).
Linux will go a similar path.
GNU/Linux distros need to improve to be widely accepted desktop OSs.
While I sure like improvements, this is just plain wrong.
Most of your wanted improvements are readily available in SuSE, is SuSE a widely accepted desktop OS in the US? No. Because everybody thinks RedHat is Linux, tries RedHat and is scared away. Those are no technical problems, these are marketing problems. RedHat has the worst distribution, but one of the best at marketing of all Linux distros. Even you seem to fail to accept that most of your eagerly wanted improvements are already available. You keep repeating the mantra GNU/Linux distros need to improve but at the same time ignore the fact that these improvements already exist and are readily available. You know what that tells me? First, you are a victim of RedHat's marketing, second those improvements are not even half as important as you pretend. Otherwise you would just order a SuSE-box. So even one of the crappier distros (RedHat) seems to be already good enough for you.
But even that makes RedHat merely the one-eyed among the blind, marketing-wise. Linux needs marketing. Marketing. Marketing. Why did you try RedHat before SuSE? Because RedHat has successfully marketed itself as "the standard" distro. (Actually I think Lindows may pull it off: They probably have an even worse distro than RedHat (didn't try it, but what I heard doesn't look too great) but great marketing: They get preinstalled at Walmart! At the moment it's a bit early to tell what Lindows will turn out to be, but I think they are the only one who really understand the market.)
No matter how great Linux is, Joe Average will not notice when it's not preinstalled.
No matter how great Linux is, if you need Win32-only software you are often out of luck (Wine is great but needs much more compatibility and easier set-up and handling)
So, no, for wide acceptance, further technical improvements except for Wine are not necessary (although they won't hurt)
Look at 3d-modellers again: More and more graphics apps are ported to Linux and Photoshop will be ported when the market is big enough. When photoshop is ported, Linux is viable for many 2D-artists in addition to 3d-artists, the market gets bigger, more apps are ported, etc, etc.
Similar in mainstream office computing: Whole communities in Europe are switching to Linux, software makers will have no other choice than offer Linux versions. For example both major German tax software products are already available for Linux (one since last year, the other became available this month). Then accounting software will follow (SAP is already available for quite some time already), then other office-related software and finally games.
Of course this doesn't happen overnight, but it happens. With PCs becoming cheaper and cheaper, Windows and MS Office is taking a larger and larger part out of total system costs. So the incentive to switch to Linux becomes bigger and bigger every year (Especially under the new licensing regime) and with more and more software available, the hurdles in switching become lower and lower.
It's really just a matter of time.
Only marketing and getting software makers to port their software to Linux will accelerate or slow down this process. Further technical abilities of Linux distros (except for Wine) will not have any major inpact of when it will be used by the masses.
When confronted with a computer lacking a particular piece of software and a software installation CD, most users are at home inserting the CD and clicking next a few times until the software is there. Combining a thinner distro with a software installation system that is a serious competitor to installshield or MSI in terms of user interface would be, in my opinion, a great improvement.
It's better when it was already installed with the distro - and in (I must really sound like a employee by now, but I'm not) SuSE you do just that:
1) Open config-menu (right beside K-menu): 1 click
2) select for example install software -> games -> arcade -> penguin command: 2nd click
3) insert root password
4) insert DVD/CD if needed (I actually copy the DVD to the harddrive) and wait ~30 seconds
Wow that was hard. The whole procedure included only 2 clicks and inserting the root password. Sorry, but I don't know how it can become any easier and more comfortable than that.
Alternatively you can of course use a packet manager to install more than just one package at a time.
[..]gnu/linux needs to be easier[..]
RedHat is not Linux, please acknowledge that already.
We have too many distros.
No we don't. First, all distros are compatible. Win9x and WinNT never were fully compatible for example. Then people have no problems choosing computers from many different vendors and also don't have problems choosing from many different vendors for thousands of other markets, why should the operation systems market be any different? Just because Microsoft sais so?
On the other hand, competition among multiple distros (once they number more than, say, 2 or 3) is a terrible thing. They all try to "innovate" or play to a particular ideology, but all they end up changing is the stuff that should be the same everywhere.
All commercial distros except RedHat install KDE by default so they look quite similar. The only differences are config stuff, but that's different between Windows versions, too.
GNU/Linux needs to be better than windows if it's to be accepted as a mainstream desktop OS.
It is already better and it isn't accepted. (I already outlined several GUI-features, you can add apt-get)
This "Linux must change to be accepted" is bullshit. Complete nonsense.
Linux needs not change at all. There are just 2 things:
Linux needs more apps or near-perfect Win32 compatibility
Linux needs better marketing (especially be preinstalled more often
Those have nothing to do with the product Linux itself (well maybe Win32-compatibility). Linux itself is already able to do everything needed. We need more PC-vendors preinstalling Linux and more apps for Linux.
Just look at 3D-modelling: These machines are operated by artists, not computer geeks, yet Linux (even the mediocre RedHat) made big inroads in this market and can already be called the standard - every new movie is created on Linux workstations.
Why? Because the apps were available.
As more and more businesses and governments switch, more and more business apps will be ported to Linux and Linux will reach critical mass there.
*After that* it will go after the home market and games will appear more frequently.
Linux itself is ready for the home market. The Linux software library (too few games to summarize it) is not.
In the business market, things are different. While not every niche market has Linux software, the mainstream (office/browser/etc.) software is available.
And that's why we already see businesses and governments switching. I think Linux will go a similar route as WindowsNT, which also was used in businesses long before it was used at home. In countries where RedHat doesn't scare away users, Linux desktop market share is already somewhere between 5% and 15%, at least in newsgroups. (In US-newsgroups, Linux is nonexistant, usually below 2% - thank you, RedHat) If you don't believe me, just do some statistics for a few newsgroups, this is what I did. (non-technical newsgroups only, of course)
GNU/Linux distros have improved a great deal but I maintain they're still not a satisfactory windows replacement in many important areas.
Correct, but that's because of the software library, not because of Linux itself.
While you can configure Linux to look similar to Windows (and when you don't use advanced features like multiple desktops, scrollbar-jumping, etc. it also feels like Windows), but you don't have to.
You can have a demo-desktop with hundreds of animations like MacOSX or you can have a fully customized desktop or you can have something completely different.
I'm sick of the Gates-lover crying "Linux is too much like Windows" from one side and "Linux is not enough like Windows" from the other.
The reality is that Linux can be both: Like Windows (except for complete Win32 compatibility) and completely different.
KDE is not a copy of Windows and not crappy at all. Even when you make it look like Windows, it supports a shitload of features like multiple desktops (more than just 4), Unix-style copy/paste, menubar applets, scrollbar-jumping (with MMB, the GTK-implementation of that is rather broken, BTW), scp-support in filemanager, quickbrowsers in menubar, knotes (simple but effective, haven't seen anything comparable in Windows) and so much more.
Everytime somebody sais: I'm still a gnome and window maker user I know he's not really using Linux, he just wants to be l33t.
If you were a Linux user, you would use KDE or GNOME or Windowmaker. Using more than one desktop environment is redundant.
SuSE doesn't offer the newest version as ISO, but there is a ftp install option which uses SuSE's servers AFAIK.
You should also be able to download it (legally) from P2P sharing networks.
But I never really bothered, I just bought the box (I administer about a dozen machines, so the cost is neglegtible, even when I buy every version)
Anyway:
I'm sorry, but if it doesn't come with a GUI, it's not going to be accepted by the mainstream public.
I'm sorry, but the mainstream public doesn't care about the install taking less than a Gig. Sorry, but on one hand you talk about newbie-friendlyness, then you require ultra-l33t and useless features.
Yes, I've tried the other bigger distros (debian, slack, etc...).
... which happen to be the only distros less advisible for newbies than RedHat... (but with debian you get apt-get, which has it's uses) If you don't like SuSE, try Mandrake.
Well, nobody expected newbies being able to install WinNT4, so what's the point?
We have several distros just as we have several computer makers. Just like people can choose what computer they will buy they can also choose what distro they use.
Why this double standard?
My point of view is that making several simple changes to common distros could save a lot of hassle, greatly increase gnu/linux adoption among people who are fed up with MS BS, and even make the lives of technical people more productive and fun. I like solving problems, but at a certain point I prefer a system that just functions "like it should" so that I can get real work done.
Exactly my point of view. I switched to Linux because Windows kept crashing and now I'm so used to multiple desktops, Unix-style copy paste and real 3-mouse button support that the Windows GUI appears to me as the archaic, primitive GUI it is. I'm twice as productive on Linux than on Windows. Hell, I always have about 50 windows open, Window's GUI just can't handle that, even with their measly 4-desktop extension.
3 years ago, it was exactly as you described. But today, no. Even RedHat is only worse than Windows if you have a double standard (as you have) and good desktop distros like SuSE or Mandrake beat it right away or Debian and Gentoo beat it on different merits (harder to install but easier to maintain).
The only thing Windows really is better than Linux is at running Win32 software.
You get cheaper support. While Microsoft's support prices are insane, Linux support costs are adequate and much already comes with a 50$-100$ boxed distribution. Competition drives down your costs.
You get better support. For example SuSE offers a support contract that includes changing code in Linux and other open-source software. For example they ported Linux to S/390 for IBM. You just can't get such support for Windows.
No vendor lock-in. With Windows you constantly have to be afraid that Microsoft raises prices for licenses (again) or for support (again). With Linux you can switch to somebody else if you distributior becomes to greedy.
No corp bullshit. No Product Activation, no license audits, no fines, no budget approval procedures, etc. It's just a lot easier.
Lower maintaindance costs. In my experience, any Unix will require fewer admins - and this was confirmed by recent studies.
The funny thing is that SuSE does most of what you are complaining about (make Windows partitions smaller, automatically partition available space, boot from harddisk when CD is in drive, support mouse-wheels out of the box, no registration for security updates, preinstall OpenOffice) and probably Mandrake, too (haven't tried it for quite some time).
It's also quite funny that you *expect* Linux to be able to handle partitions from another OS, to come with a full blown office-suite and use less than 1GB, while Windows does none of those. (And if Windows would include MS Office it would take even more space)
Seems we got quite a double standard here...
But SuSE can even handle your double standard: If you select minimum install without X, it takes somewhere between 200 and 500 Megs AFAIK. Yes that means no office suite, but you can't have everything.
Using RedHat as a desktop is like using a rackmounted computer as a desktop.
Sure it can be done, but it's (needlessly, desktop computers are just as readily available as Linux desktop distributions) complicated and awkard.
Saying Linux sucks for the desktop because of RedHat is like saying x86 sucks for the desktop because you had to install a graphics card in your rackmounted computer for desktop use.
Patents are not about damages. If InterTrust's patents are confirmed, they have the monopoly to use the technology described in the patents.
If they don't allow Microsoft (or any other company) to use it, then Microsoft will have no other choice than to remove all this technology from their products.
Of course that's now what InterTrust wants, they just want one or 2 billion bucks from MS;-)
There is this T-1000 which can run as fast as a small motorbike with only one objective: Kill John Connor. Then John Connor stands before him, just 3 meters away, yet he doesn't just catch him, he continues to cry for help, why?
Then after Sarah runs out of ammo he's waving his index finger. What was that for? Does he have an ego?
No, I'll stick to my opinion: T1 was great, T2 was crap.
Oh, come on, T2 was just like T1, only with better effects, a much, much worse story and Arnie switching sides.
It's the very same scheme:
1) Evil terminator is sent back to kill Connor.
2) Good guy is sent back to protect her/him.
3) Evil terminator and good guy die.
The end.
T1 was great because of the man-against-machine paradigm and because the Terminator was intimidating, but still not invulnerable (he got quite messed up after that carwreck) while the T-1000 is pretty much undestructible by conventional means and is still 100% operational 15 minutes before the end of the movie.
Wow, I was amazed when some morons thought that just because binary-only drivers no longer have full access to the whole kernel (yes, there will be Linux 2.6 binary only kernel modules) but you seem to top them all by thinking that commercial *applications* are affected by all this.
I wonder if the parent is a professional Linux-hater spreading FUD or just plain ignorant.
...and as we all know, everybody implements fully-specced APIs perfectly and nobody EVER needs to work around implementation bugs and undocumented features.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's correct. Because Microsoft couldn't design a working translation scheme, you have to wait for them getting their act together until you can apply your service pack - which can take over a week.
That's probably why Microsoft doesn't want to do so many translations. If you have a good translation system, it's easy. Even one person or a small group of people can easily translate big software packages: look here but when you have to maintain 10 year old code which was written by people who either left or were assigned to other tasks or management, you have to translate every service pack and fixpack all over.
I wonder how much this Nynorsk translation will cost Microsoft ;-)
Maybe he should try KDE on Mandrake or SuSE:
http://i18n.kde.org/stats/gui/HEAD/nl/index.php
http://i18n.kde.org/stats/gui/HEAD/nn/koffice/inde x.php
Without IBM licensing DOS, Microsoft would be just another software company.
SuSE comes with a graphical firewall/routing tool. - Even that is graphical, (it's not even desktop centric)
So Macs are unusable because of iTunes, iPhoto and iWhatever? So Windows is unusable because of Winzip, Winword, WinWhatever?
But if Windows loaded with confusing buttons (i.e. applications on the task bar that all begin with K), then it'd be a hinderance to using the computer.
That's bullshit.
An app that starts with a "K" is a KDE-app. That's very useful because you know before you try it. Just like you know that a "Win*" app is a Windows app.
and
At some point Linux is going to have to stop playing catch-up to MS and start being better if they want me to jump ship.
So when Linux starts being better - will your computer stop working? Will it cease to be "quite stable"?
In my very subjective opinion, KDE/Linux is already a lot better than any version of the Windows-GUI. Multiple desktops, real 3-button support, Unix-style copy-paste, etc. etc.
But of course you will never know because "computer works, it's quite stable" and the 30 minutes you maybe tried some outdated, server-centric distro are not long enough to get to know of the advanced features.
You will use and love Linux when it comes preinstalled and not a day sooner, no matter how great Linux is.
However, Microsoft is taking a bigger and bigger percentage of PC-revenues each year (lower hardware prices, higher license costs) and it's really just a matter of time until computer will come preinstalled with Linux.
Solve the interface issues
What interface issues? If you think you have to memorize text commands you are wrong. EVERYTHING can be done with the GUI - and better than in Windows. In Windows the control center is just a folder with helper apps randomly thrown in. In KDE/Linux, the control center is structured tree-like and for example SuSE also incorporates *ALL* non-KDE settings, so you have a control center where you can do everything graphically. Having to edit text files is like messing with the registry: It may be necessary when something breaks or you want to do something very unusual, but in the normal run of things it just isn't necessary. (Oh and did I mention that editing text is much easier and straightforward than figuring out registry keys?)
And I'm sure Adobe will port their apps to Linux within the next 2 years - if they plan to sell to Asia or film-studios.
Because software and hardware vendors will support Linux if they want to sell anything to the 1 billion people down there.
Which translates to more drivers and more software for Linux - for everybody.
Sure, MacOSX looks great in a demo and feels great the first 2 hours you use it. But after that time all the nifty animations just get in your way and slow you down. But that of course is just my opinion. Yes I did try Jaguar.
No, it's just the contents of the CD in the file manager.
Windows.Forms :(
You really want to tell me that just one measly group of classes is as hard to implement as the whole Win32 API? This just illustrates my point: Mono is much easier at succeeding than Wine.
Also, as I said the projects are in right from the beginning. If some .NET application gains wide acceptance (which I don't really see happening BTW, .NET is moving much slower than MS would like) Mono et al will make sure it will work on Linux very soon. They can concentrate on one app at a time.
-Users will be even more at the mercy of MS, to the point where MS could charge them for access to their own files.
Which hits a nerve. Users will not accept that. Users want their pirated mp3, porn and videos and be left alone. They don't want MS knowing what they do on their own computer. People are not as dumb as you think they are.
-It's unclear as to whether or not hardware that boots non-MS OSs will continue to be manufactured.
Well all concepts I have seen are backwards-compatible, that means while Linux may not run in TCPA-mode, it will run in non-TCPA-mode.
But actually, there is a huge anti-TCPA movement and guaranteed TCPA-free hardware will stay very popular and will be sold because the demand is there. Intel and AMD will not sacrifice themselves for the RIAA. TCPA-hardware will be more expensive and less popular. Sorry, but I just don't know how TCPA should ever be able to get a foothold in the market, even with backwards-compatibility.
The average consumer might not know right now what TCPA or Palladium is, but the average consumer has at least 20 Gigs of mp3s, porn and/or videos on his harddrive (or on CDs) he doesn't want to lose. Just look at how big Napster, Kazaa etc. are/were, we are talking about millions of people here - the majority of home users.
You know how a radio ad were for a DSL-vendor around here? I'll tell you:
male voice: I'd like to show you my big music collection.
female voice: You have a music collection?
male voice: Well, I could just download one anytime...
narrator: Download music and videos in real time - company name
That's right: The main selling point for DSL is piracy. This is not a niche application for geeks, it's the killer app. Something interfering with that won't be accepted in the market.
Also did you know the absence of TCPA in future CPUs? TCPA will not get into AMD's Hammer. The way I see it, TCPA will stay the "technology that will get into all chips not now but in a couple of years" forever - No chip maker dares to actually do it. The outrage and absymnal sales would be terrible.
Only few people need to upgrade. If a system is twice as fast but cannot play pirated mp3/videos/software, it is worth less than the old system for the majority of people - People just won't upgrade.
TCPA will not happen - unfortunately, because as I said, it would be the best thing that could happen to Linux.
Anyway, a merry christmas for you!
KDE does exactly that.
Yes, but I don't think my response was clear enough. From a high-level point of view, the user should indicate that he wants to install new software by bringing that software to the computer, not by instructing the computer to absorb software which will be brought to it when prompted.
Well, OK so instead of an Autorun, the user has to click on the "CD-ROM" icon in KDE and select the install-script. While I agree that some Autorun mechanism would be nice, it's certainly not a prerequesite, even for home users. Clicking on a CD-ROM is not really rocket science.
You shouldn't because you can't. That's my point. Different, incompatible package management systems and filesystem layouts force the "packaging" stage of distribution to be done an unnecessary and wasteful number of times. Yes, you can use custom installers like many commercial packages do, but that defeats the purpose of having a package management system.
A few posts ago you claimed that Installshild was the best since sliced bread, now it defeats the purpose?
A simple upgrade to DX8 lets DX8 games work while keeping compatibility with DX6 apps.
This is not true for all games. Enough games break when using a different version.
Not all gnu/linux important packages are backwards compatible (e.g. libc5/libc6).
So? You can have both installed. Also the big changes should be over by now and we shouldn't see any binary incompatible upgrades for quite some time (knock on wood)
*shrug* Dunno. I don't have a strong preference for one environment over the other - they both have their strong and weak points. My point was that 1 desktop environment is better than 2 from the point of view of linux adoption (see previous post re: OSS competition).
You are overestimating that. While it is sure good to standardize within an organization, it's not really a big issue because KDE-apps run in Gnome and vice versa. (Yes I do know that I don't follow the herd-view here)
Microsoft could not sell any version of Windows and expect it to become widespread quickly if that version of windows were not backwards compatible with older versions of windows. (Yes, I know 2K had problems with this. They were few and far between. After SP3 they are virtually nil, barring some very old dos games.) The idea is that if backwards compatibility were as bad between XP and previous versions of windows as backwards compatibility is with linux on a comparable timescale, XP wouldn't have had nearly the level of success it did.
So we finally agree that the major selling point of Windows is Win32-compatibility.
Yes, MS does have a stranglehold on the market. That means nothing if new products don't work. What do you do with a blender that doesn't blend? Take it back to the store.
The majority still runs Win98 (4 years old) which is really just Win95 (7 years old)with more drivers and a couple of bugfixes - and it's good enough for them, it seems. Anything that can run the apps is good enough and most users just use what is preinstalled.
Too many little things add up to become a "showstopper". What would you change about CD mounting?
CD mounting is IMO one of the few things MS got right, that should be like in Windows. - Can't think of anything else right now...
I agree totally. Perfect win32 compatibility would put linux on every desktop in a heartbeat -- computer manufacturers don't like paying the microsoft tax any more than consumers do. Perfect win32 compatibility is not an attainable goal. Even running supposedly "portable" .Net apps targetted at windows under linux would require a working wine implementaion; MS can "innovate" contorted new API additions faster than they can be reverse-engineered and reimplemented perfectly.
Actually, I think perfect .NET compatibility is far easier than perfect Win32 compatibility, first because the Mono and other projects are in the game right from the start and second because .NET's bytecode structure should make it easier.
Depending on win32 compatibility to make gnu/linux mainstream is not going to get anyone anywhere. Instead, UI issues need to be fixed, a standard packge management system must be deployed across all distros, very minor distros much be feature-merged into significant ones or eliminated entirely, and other changes must be made.
What UI-issues? Why merging distros? What's the point of that?
Wrong, we need apps, apps, apps. Nobody cares about package management. Some users may curse (if it were so bad which it isn't) at install-time, but in day to-day work, only the apps count. No Photoshop on Linux = no Linux for many people. So we need apps, either through ports or through Win32 compatibility.
I don't agree. I seriously doubt that if SuSE were really the jewel of usability that you say it is that it would be such a well-kept secret. Of course, that's not proof, it's an educated guess so I'll have to try out SuSE for myself before I can comment on it directly. I also gather from what you said about usability that while you may consider SuSE to be a wonderful, perfect distro that just needs marketing and preinstallation, I would probably disagree. But again, the only way to be sure is to try it.
All your technical requests what needs to be done are met by SuSE. You formed that requests, not me.
But now we have a deadline: palladium. Linux is no good if nobody's making hardware that will boot it.
Actually, I think Palladium is the best thing that can happen to Linux.
You really want to tell me that users are supposed to stop pirating mp3s and Videos? You got to be kidding me. Most home users would go back to DOS with all the IRQ conflicts if they could avoid copy protection.
Actually, TCPA is already so unpopular that the members no longer publicly admit that they are members in TCPA (the member list got removed from the website).
I would be surprised if it would actually be implemented and I would be surprised if it would last longer than 1 month if implemented.
Also, TCPA is designed very stupidly, for example if you have a TCPA-enabled computer, you just have to run *one single* non-TCPA approved app and the computer will shut down all TCPA-contents and apps. There goes your backwards compatibility.
About half the servers run Linux/BSD, in Europe about 2/3. More than half of all new embedded systems projects are using Linux. There is a market for Linux-hardware and companies will sell it.
Most package managers are able to manage hundreds of packages well because they are organized hierarchically, why make them as crippled as Windows' with it's linear list of installed software?
That would be a step backwards. While I agree that you could have an option to hide system packages for morons, it's certainly no showstopper.
You have the major delusion that Windows is perfect and that if something is like Windows, it will be a success. That is both wrong. Windows is not perfect, it is not intuitive, it is not user-friendly (for example newbies have big trouble with single vs. double click. It's just not consistent, while KDE (at default settings) is. Newbies will have much less problems picking up KDE than picking up Windows. You also have drive letters and a lot of other cruft you don't notice because you are used to it.) - but it is preinstalled.
Joe Average will use what is preinstalled.
2. Make software installation work by selecting the software, not the software installer.
Did you even read what I wrote?
Install an apache rpm on a debian system, startup scripts and all. No tweaking.
Why should I do that? Every distro supplies the appropriate packages. Commercial packages (like Loki's games or VMWare) can be made to run on all distros easily and without any problems.
Run a binary from a distro that's still using last year's libwhatever on a distro that uses the incompatible this year's libwhatever.
Run a game that requires DirectX8 on a system with only DirectX6.
Newbie overall (but intermediate KDE) users cannot jump into GNOME and do everything exactly the same way. The opposite is also true. Config files are important.
Why should anybody want to jump into Gnome?
how could XP have become so widespread so quickly?
Again: - BECAUSE IT IS PREINSTALLED ON COMPUTERS - BECAUSE IT IS PREINSTALLED ON COMPUTERS - BECAUSE IT IS PREINSTALLED ON COMPUTERS -
Microsoft could sell any version of Windows, everything would become widespread quickly. The only thing it has to do is run most Win32 programs and it will be widespread quickly. They could sell Win95 again and most people would buy it because the computer maker don't give them another choice of software that will run Win32 apps. (And the computer maker wouldn't get any other version of Windows)
That's the hard reality.
The average computer buyer thinks windows comes "free" with his computer and only really needs raw performance when it comes to games, which is not one of GNU/Linux's strong points.
Exactly.
Linux is ready, although it's not absolutely perfect in every way. GNU/Linux distros are not quite ready yet.
Yes, of course it's not perfect in every way. For example I think the whole CD mounting is a bit awkard.
But those are little things, not showstoppers. The problems are Win32-compatibility (perceived and real) and being preinstalled. Both problems don't touch the any core of a Linux distribution technically.
I know two people who use Windows NT at home and they're both old, male computer geeks with degrees in tech fields. The rest use 98SE, 2000, or XP -- the ones that are less stable but with good UIs.
Exactly, NT started as a business and geek OS, then became a home OS for non-gamers (Win2000), then became a home OS for everybody (XP).
Linux will go a similar path.
GNU/Linux distros need to improve to be widely accepted desktop OSs.
While I sure like improvements, this is just plain wrong.
Most of your wanted improvements are readily available in SuSE, is SuSE a widely accepted desktop OS in the US? No. Because everybody thinks RedHat is Linux, tries RedHat and is scared away. Those are no technical problems, these are marketing problems. RedHat has the worst distribution, but one of the best at marketing of all Linux distros. Even you seem to fail to accept that most of your eagerly wanted improvements are already available. You keep repeating the mantra GNU/Linux distros need to improve but at the same time ignore the fact that these improvements already exist and are readily available. You know what that tells me? First, you are a victim of RedHat's marketing, second those improvements are not even half as important as you pretend. Otherwise you would just order a SuSE-box. So even one of the crappier distros (RedHat) seems to be already good enough for you.
But even that makes RedHat merely the one-eyed among the blind, marketing-wise. Linux needs marketing. Marketing. Marketing. Why did you try RedHat before SuSE? Because RedHat has successfully marketed itself as "the standard" distro. (Actually I think Lindows may pull it off: They probably have an even worse distro than RedHat (didn't try it, but what I heard doesn't look too great) but great marketing: They get preinstalled at Walmart! At the moment it's a bit early to tell what Lindows will turn out to be, but I think they are the only one who really understand the market.)
No matter how great Linux is, Joe Average will not notice when it's not preinstalled.
No matter how great Linux is, if you need Win32-only software you are often out of luck (Wine is great but needs much more compatibility and easier set-up and handling)
So, no, for wide acceptance, further technical improvements except for Wine are not necessary (although they won't hurt)
Look at 3d-modellers again: More and more graphics apps are ported to Linux and Photoshop will be ported when the market is big enough. When photoshop is ported, Linux is viable for many 2D-artists in addition to 3d-artists, the market gets bigger, more apps are ported, etc, etc.
Similar in mainstream office computing: Whole communities in Europe are switching to Linux, software makers will have no other choice than offer Linux versions. For example both major German tax software products are already available for Linux (one since last year, the other became available this month). Then accounting software will follow (SAP is already available for quite some time already), then other office-related software and finally games.
Of course this doesn't happen overnight, but it happens. With PCs becoming cheaper and cheaper, Windows and MS Office is taking a larger and larger part out of total system costs. So the incentive to switch to Linux becomes bigger and bigger every year (Especially under the new licensing regime) and with more and more software available, the hurdles in switching become lower and lower.
It's really just a matter of time.
Only marketing and getting software makers to port their software to Linux will accelerate or slow down this process. Further technical abilities of Linux distros (except for Wine) will not have any major inpact of when it will be used by the masses.
It's better when it was already installed with the distro - and in (I must really sound like a employee by now, but I'm not) SuSE you do just that:
1) Open config-menu (right beside K-menu): 1 click
2) select for example install software -> games -> arcade -> penguin command: 2nd click
3) insert root password
4) insert DVD/CD if needed (I actually copy the DVD to the harddrive) and wait ~30 seconds
Wow that was hard. The whole procedure included only 2 clicks and inserting the root password. Sorry, but I don't know how it can become any easier and more comfortable than that.
Alternatively you can of course use a packet manager to install more than just one package at a time.
[..]gnu/linux needs to be easier[..]
RedHat is not Linux, please acknowledge that already.
We have too many distros.
No we don't. First, all distros are compatible. Win9x and WinNT never were fully compatible for example. Then people have no problems choosing computers from many different vendors and also don't have problems choosing from many different vendors for thousands of other markets, why should the operation systems market be any different? Just because Microsoft sais so?
On the other hand, competition among multiple distros (once they number more than, say, 2 or 3) is a terrible thing. They all try to "innovate" or play to a particular ideology, but all they end up changing is the stuff that should be the same everywhere.
All commercial distros except RedHat install KDE by default so they look quite similar. The only differences are config stuff, but that's different between Windows versions, too.
GNU/Linux needs to be better than windows if it's to be accepted as a mainstream desktop OS.
It is already better and it isn't accepted. (I already outlined several GUI-features, you can add apt-get)
This "Linux must change to be accepted" is bullshit. Complete nonsense.
Linux needs not change at all. There are just 2 things:
Those have nothing to do with the product Linux itself (well maybe Win32-compatibility). Linux itself is already able to do everything needed. We need more PC-vendors preinstalling Linux and more apps for Linux.
Just look at 3D-modelling: These machines are operated by artists, not computer geeks, yet Linux (even the mediocre RedHat) made big inroads in this market and can already be called the standard - every new movie is created on Linux workstations.
Why? Because the apps were available.
As more and more businesses and governments switch, more and more business apps will be ported to Linux and Linux will reach critical mass there.
*After that* it will go after the home market and games will appear more frequently.
Linux itself is ready for the home market. The Linux software library (too few games to summarize it) is not.
In the business market, things are different. While not every niche market has Linux software, the mainstream (office/browser/etc.) software is available.
And that's why we already see businesses and governments switching. I think Linux will go a similar route as WindowsNT, which also was used in businesses long before it was used at home. In countries where RedHat doesn't scare away users, Linux desktop market share is already somewhere between 5% and 15%, at least in newsgroups. (In US-newsgroups, Linux is nonexistant, usually below 2% - thank you, RedHat) If you don't believe me, just do some statistics for a few newsgroups, this is what I did. (non-technical newsgroups only, of course)
GNU/Linux distros have improved a great deal but I maintain they're still not a satisfactory windows replacement in many important areas.
Correct, but that's because of the software library, not because of Linux itself.
If WinCE devices would run longer than half a day, it would be quite useful, but a phone that doesn't even run a day is pretty useless.
While you can configure Linux to look similar to Windows (and when you don't use advanced features like multiple desktops, scrollbar-jumping, etc. it also feels like Windows), but you don't have to.
You can have a demo-desktop with hundreds of animations like MacOSX or you can have a fully customized desktop or you can have something completely different.
I'm sick of the Gates-lover crying "Linux is too much like Windows" from one side and "Linux is not enough like Windows" from the other.
The reality is that Linux can be both: Like Windows (except for complete Win32 compatibility) and completely different.
Everytime somebody sais: I'm still a gnome and window maker user I know he's not really using Linux, he just wants to be l33t.
If you were a Linux user, you would use KDE or GNOME or Windowmaker. Using more than one desktop environment is redundant.
You should also be able to download it (legally) from P2P sharing networks.
But I never really bothered, I just bought the box (I administer about a dozen machines, so the cost is neglegtible, even when I buy every version)
Anyway:
I'm sorry, but if it doesn't come with a GUI, it's not going to be accepted by the mainstream public.
I'm sorry, but the mainstream public doesn't care about the install taking less than a Gig. Sorry, but on one hand you talk about newbie-friendlyness, then you require ultra-l33t and useless features.
Yes, I've tried the other bigger distros (debian, slack, etc...).
[..] basic newbie-friendliness [..] blah-blah-blah
Well, nobody expected newbies being able to install WinNT4, so what's the point?
We have several distros just as we have several computer makers. Just like people can choose what computer they will buy they can also choose what distro they use.
Why this double standard?
My point of view is that making several simple changes to common distros could save a lot of hassle, greatly increase gnu/linux adoption among people who are fed up with MS BS, and even make the lives of technical people more productive and fun. I like solving problems, but at a certain point I prefer a system that just functions "like it should" so that I can get real work done.
Exactly my point of view. I switched to Linux because Windows kept crashing and now I'm so used to multiple desktops, Unix-style copy paste and real 3-mouse button support that the Windows GUI appears to me as the archaic, primitive GUI it is. I'm twice as productive on Linux than on Windows. Hell, I always have about 50 windows open, Window's GUI just can't handle that, even with their measly 4-desktop extension.
3 years ago, it was exactly as you described. But today, no. Even RedHat is only worse than Windows if you have a double standard (as you have) and good desktop distros like SuSE or Mandrake beat it right away or Debian and Gentoo beat it on different merits (harder to install but easier to maintain).
The only thing Windows really is better than Linux is at running Win32 software.
It's also quite funny that you *expect* Linux to be able to handle partitions from another OS, to come with a full blown office-suite and use less than 1GB, while Windows does none of those. (And if Windows would include MS Office it would take even more space)
Seems we got quite a double standard here...
But SuSE can even handle your double standard: If you select minimum install without X, it takes somewhere between 200 and 500 Megs AFAIK. Yes that means no office suite, but you can't have everything.
Using RedHat as a desktop is like using a rackmounted computer as a desktop.
Sure it can be done, but it's (needlessly, desktop computers are just as readily available as Linux desktop distributions) complicated and awkard.
Saying Linux sucks for the desktop because of RedHat is like saying x86 sucks for the desktop because you had to install a graphics card in your rackmounted computer for desktop use.
If not, please send me a copy, thanks!
Patents are not about damages. If InterTrust's patents are confirmed, they have the monopoly to use the technology described in the patents.
If they don't allow Microsoft (or any other company) to use it, then Microsoft will have no other choice than to remove all this technology from their products.
Of course that's now what InterTrust wants, they just want one or 2 billion bucks from MS ;-)
There is this T-1000 which can run as fast as a small motorbike with only one objective: Kill John Connor. Then John Connor stands before him, just 3 meters away, yet he doesn't just catch him, he continues to cry for help, why?
Then after Sarah runs out of ammo he's waving his index finger. What was that for? Does he have an ego?
No, I'll stick to my opinion: T1 was great, T2 was crap.
It's the very same scheme:
1) Evil terminator is sent back to kill Connor.
2) Good guy is sent back to protect her/him.
3) Evil terminator and good guy die.
The end.
T1 was great because of the man-against-machine paradigm and because the Terminator was intimidating, but still not invulnerable (he got quite messed up after that carwreck) while the T-1000 is pretty much undestructible by conventional means and is still 100% operational 15 minutes before the end of the movie.
I wonder if the parent is a professional Linux-hater spreading FUD or just plain ignorant.
All that still has nothing to do with hardware.