So which is it then? The parent and grandparent contradict. Either Linux is being held back by lack of driver support, or Linux already has the best driver support there is.
Could it be that there are other reasons than drivers that Linux isn't being accepted in droves by the mainstream right now?
Striving to look like Windows is a guaranteed failure. People will just ask why they can't just keep using Windows, which already looks like Windows but also has all their apps. There's no point in switching if Linux desktops aren't willing to actually be unique and different and better than the Windows interface. That spans everything from the underlying toolkit to the end user interface. Developing Linux desktop applications is less than elegant right now because everyone, for some reason, ignores GNUstep.
As much as I dislike Microsoft, if it wasn't for them, I think over two-thirds of Slashdotters reading this wouldn't even be into computers like they are now.
Hate the business practices, but don't hate the technology. Microsoft is a great software company; they were just stuck with the problem of DOS backwards-compatibility for ten years. I haven't seen a BSOD since late 1999 when they released Windows 2000 and began unifying all their Windows products onto that codebase.
And another thing for Microsoft-haters, get over Clippy! Haven't seen him since '99 either. And Microsoft Bob was in '94--11 years ago. It's time to live in the now.
Linux rightfully deserves the title of being on the forefront of technology
I don't think Linux is on the forefront of innovation at all. What it has popularized (it sure didn't start it) is community-based development. But it's based on a 30+-year old UNIX model, and its desktop environments resemble Windows in many areas. A prominent OSS guy whose name I don't recall said it best--"All the volunteer effort in the world, and what do we do? We clone UNIX, then we clone Windows on top of it."
If there was ever a top innovative OS, I would say NeXTStep. A lot of the features it had are just now making it into mainstream operating systems, OS X included. And yet, GNUstep/Openstep efforts flounder and get ignored while "Qt" and "GTK+" continue to get used. Sigh...
I read comments on Slashdot telling me that Linux has better support for devices than any other OS, and already has all the kick-ass 3D shooters. Doom 3, UT2004, and so on. Now you're saying it needs both.
What Linux needs to dominate the desktop is one single unified desktop environment, based on a single universal API akin to.NET or Cocoa, that replaces the kludgery that is X11 and focus on the best usability we've ever seen. Get rid of that crappy start menu and taskbar Windows rip-off. Get rid of all those hideous fonts, redundant menu items (KDE ships with "Control Center", "Utilities," "System", and "Settings" as seperate menu items). Everyone needs to start over and do it right the first time. Where is the binary installer/uninstaller API? Better yet, where is the drag-and-drop installing that OS X has? Nope, let's rely on conflicting console package managers for another ten years. That'll bring the mainstream developers to port their products.
When you have ten versions of the same functionality, it's not "choice," it's redundancy. Most OSS people see things in black-and-white where all choice is good. There is moderation for everything, and you have to look at situations on a case-by-case basis. The desktop split that forces me to install two entire desktop environments just to be able to run all the apps out there is completely insane, and if some other company like Microsoft was doing it, everyone would be all over it.
Based on the obsession with KDE and GNOME in the Linux world, I don't see changes happening any time soon, though GNOME seems to be the one not afraid to break the mold and actually try different things for usability's sake. People bitch about Windows, and then when GNOME does something different, and according to all usability studies better, than Windows such as changing the button order or having a spacial finder, people bitch that it isn't close enough to Windows. It's gotten to the point that I've decided people don't really hate Windows at all. They just blindly hate Microsoft but want a Windows to use.
Just my opinion. I'm tired of hearing about how Linux is "almost there" every year, and it never happens because the attitudes and focus don't change. As far as I'm concerned (and this is the recently-converted Apple zealot in me speaking), OS X already beat the OSS world to the punch five years ago when it comes to GUIs on top of UNIX. KDE and GNOME feel like shallow 1998-era wannabes in comparison once you've used OS X all day.
You nailed it. I've been hearing that Linux is on the tipping point since 1998. Microsoft isn't going anywhere. Making a better product is about actually doing it, not talking about how it's going to happen soon.
Linux is rapidly taking over that spot, according to IDC it already has in fact
"Rapidly taking over that spot?" Keep on dreaming.
I searched all over IDC's site for this statistic of yours and couldn't find it. Care to cite your link? There are certainly links that show increase in market share usage of Linux (mostly in financial institutions and server markets), but we've also been hearing increases in Apple market share usage since MacWorld 2005.
When searching, I did find out that 6% of iPod users switched to Mac over PC. With iPods accounting for over 60% of the market and growing each year, Apple has all their cards played just how they want to.
Actually, it's just that Apple has posted so many changes that it's taking a while for the developers to port them to Konquerer. Apple hardly "mangled" the code. Most of their work on Safari involved writing a wrapper for the Qt-dependent code.
Apple doesn't have to work with the Konquerer developers at all. Just like how Linux developers don't have to work with BSD developers, even though there is some BSD code used here and there.
It's not so simple as that. OS X is based on a Mach kernel. It uses some of the userland of FreeBSD, but also borrows from a lot of other sources, including some Linux technologies. For instance, most of the command-line tools are from OpenBSD.
Regardless, the argument is kind of silly. Apple can port iTunes to whatever they want. Obviously, they'll have it for OS X because that is their operating system, and they'll have it for Windows because it is the majority. It doesn't make a lot of sense for them to port to Linux.
No, I didn't, because none of them cited any sources. However, I remember Google's Zeitgeist reporting Linux at 1% and OS X at 5%. Google usage is the best real-world measurement of desktop installbase I can think of.
Most of the hardcore "desktop Linux" guys from the 90s have accepted that Linux will always be a niche in that area, and that its strength is as a free UNIX server platform. Desktop Linux simply does not compare to OS X or Windows XP on so many levels. The only guys left who still push this dream of surpassing Microsoft and Apple are hardcore Slashdot types who sit on irc.freenode.org all day and use Firefox. It's not a criticism of Linux or the OSS movement. Quite simply, no project has achieved the functionality of the commercial desktops, and there is endless evidence and personal examples for that. Based on the current directions of GNOME and KDE, I don't see it happening soon.
A lot of the rest of us have accepted where things stand and use what's best for the job. I stopped using Slackware years ago and got a Mac. I just think it's the best desktop/programming environment right now. I got tired of waiting on Linux (been waiting since 1997).
OS X's install base has been growing and growing, while Linux has stagnated.
When Google's Zeitgeist was still running OS stats, OS X was at 5%. Guess what was at 1%? "Linux/Other." God, even Slashdot posts tons of Apple articles now. It used to be Linux-only.
You don't get it. I never said it's impossible. I never said that nothing in the top500 runs windows.
A few posts up:
"Let me be the first one to say: Windows isn't Designed Ment Capable for/of running on a Top500 server."
Are you saying you didn't mean what you wrote?
If it does the job well enough to be in the Top500, then obviously it's a tool that is right for the job. Just stop backtracking already and admit you were wrong.
Apple's rights weigh over the rights of the bloggers, because the bloggers have no rights to it in the first place. Your question is a loaded question.
The rights afforded to Apple represent the business entity rights entitled to all the employees of Apple. The release of trade secrets and other inside knowledge affects Apple as a business, and therefore, those who work for that business. Instead of citing the rights of every employee who works for Apple, the law simplifies it and treats Apple as a singular entity with rights that represent its employees.
Slashdot used to post a lot of really great scientific and technical articles. In the past five years, it has taken a political advocacy slant, and the stories have become much less technical, to the point that the majority of readers don't even click the links and instead just post away. These days, it's non-stop "YRO" nonsense, pro-piracy articles, and another "Linus said this" dupe.
I paint a grim picture, but for those of us who started coming here in the 90s, there's been an incredible downhill slide of content that just reaks of laziness. It's easy to post a flamebait litigation article and get some cheap page hits rather than post a technical article that requires some thought and knowledge on the subject to discuss it.
You can make a turtle fly at speeds breaking the sound barrier aswell.
Is the turtle designed for that?
Yes.
Is it capable of that?
It's in the Top500 list, isn't it? If it wasn't capable, it wouldn't be doing it. Simple as that.
Please answer those questions
Just did.
So, basically, you implied Windows isn't good enough to run as a Top500 server, someone pointed out that it already does, and now you're defending it by saying, "Even though it is, it's still not good enough?"
This kind of crap really makes the community look immature.
It is very much in the 'public good' to know about new products that are about to render old products over-priced or obsolete.
No, it's not. You're not being forced to buy anything. Companies can charge whatever they want for their products. Think an iPod Mini is overpriced? Don't buy it.
You have a VERY skewed definition of what "public good" means. For the public good would be letting the public know their drinking water is bad, or they're buying a product they don't know is going to break on them in three weeks. There is nothing for the public good in forcing Apple to tell you every single product they're researching in the R&D labs.
In fact, any company forced to do that would be ruined, because once a product is released, research for the next product begins. That's how it always works. Consumers would never buy anything, because they'd figure, "I'll just wait another twelve months for that next thing they're working on." Of course, you can choose to do this now if you want to, but in the above situation, you'd know exactly what was going to be deprecated.
How can you be an informed buyer without information? Companies pull all kinds of tricks to foist off discontinued, refurbished, and remanufactured merchandise as 'new' on uninformed consumers.
You don't need to know what Apple is researching to be an informed buyer about what they have out now. Buying something that will be obsolete later is the same thing for everything, including PCs. Revealing upcoming products would benefit Apple's competitors.
Tell me, what "discontinued, refurbished, and remanufactured merchandise" is being pushed as "'new' on uninformed consumers" by Apple? Let us know, so Slashdot can post an article about it.
If Apple is able to chill the discourse about their products, they are already a good way along the road to preventing any criticism of their behavior at all.
Give me a break! Again, what "behavior?" They're not chilling the discourse of anything. Talk about Apple all you want. But you don't have some magic right to know all about what's going on in their R&D department.
As I said, are you stupid? Or a shill for Apple?
Not only did you not give a single valid point, but you're insulting as well.
In a case with implications for the freedom to blog...
The implication to reveal trade secrets?
Believe it or not, you don't have the freedom to say absolutely anything you want. There are slander laws, libel laws, harrassment laws, trade secret protection laws, and so on. If I worked as a higher-up in Coca-Cola, I wouldn't be able to post the top secret Coke formula on my blog without expecting a lawsuit.
Apple is well within their rights in this case. Revealing upcoming products messes with the release schedule, gives competitors a heads-up, and basically screws things up for Apple.
And no, people, Woz is not contributing to the legal fund of this case. That is a a different case involving the Tiger torrent. I mention it because I've seen at least three posts pointlessly referencing Woz (as if that would matter anyway...because Woz disagrees, we all must as well?).
Are IBM and Xerox tracking people's IPs, search information, and email (Google's privacy policy says your emails might stay on their system--even after deletion--and be indexed for any reason) while employing ex-NSA guys who have top secret security clearance? Does their privacy policy also say they'll turn over any personal information about you that the government feels like requesting that day?
I would argue that Microsoft used to know how to ship software, but the world has changed... The companies that "know how to ship software" are the ones to watch. They have embraced the network, deeply understand the concept of "software as a service", and know how to deliver incredible value to their customers efficiently and quickly.
Now does everyone see the benefit of an OS X update every 1-2 years? "Real artists ship."
I think the "Google OS" rumor was started by overzealous Google fanboys. We've heard all sorts of things, from a Google browser to a Google operating system.
They're a search engine company. In fact, their search results have been in the crapper since 2003 when they adjusted their algorithms (some believe it was because they needed to increase the DocID integer size in order to not run out of them).
Google also employs several ex-NSA guys with security clearances. I mean, if we're going to draw conclusions, why not look at Google's privacy policies that state they'll happily turn over anything the government requests on you? Did you know Google sets an IP-tracking cookie that doesn't expire for 30 years? There are bigger things to be talking about regarding Google.
With technology like Spotlight bringing Google-like searches to the desktop, what's to stop Apple bringing this technology to the web in some way and creating their own search engine to compete with Google?
Somehow, I think (hope?) an Apple search engine would have much less storefront product links and spam pages littering their results.
Slashdot Mirror
So which is it then? The parent and grandparent contradict. Either Linux is being held back by lack of driver support, or Linux already has the best driver support there is.
Could it be that there are other reasons than drivers that Linux isn't being accepted in droves by the mainstream right now?
NeXTStep came out years before Linux.
You're actually saying building a "UNIX-a-like OS" is a negative point? Don't you think that automatically disqualifies Linux too?
Striving to look like Windows is a guaranteed failure. People will just ask why they can't just keep using Windows, which already looks like Windows but also has all their apps. There's no point in switching if Linux desktops aren't willing to actually be unique and different and better than the Windows interface. That spans everything from the underlying toolkit to the end user interface. Developing Linux desktop applications is less than elegant right now because everyone, for some reason, ignores GNUstep.
Dupe of Slashdot comments from the past seven years, that is.
Never believe "Everyone I know is" comments. I've heard so many over the years that didn't predict a damn thing.
As much as I dislike Microsoft, if it wasn't for them, I think over two-thirds of Slashdotters reading this wouldn't even be into computers like they are now.
Hate the business practices, but don't hate the technology. Microsoft is a great software company; they were just stuck with the problem of DOS backwards-compatibility for ten years. I haven't seen a BSOD since late 1999 when they released Windows 2000 and began unifying all their Windows products onto that codebase.
And another thing for Microsoft-haters, get over Clippy! Haven't seen him since '99 either. And Microsoft Bob was in '94--11 years ago. It's time to live in the now.
Linux rightfully deserves the title of being on the forefront of technology
I don't think Linux is on the forefront of innovation at all. What it has popularized (it sure didn't start it) is community-based development. But it's based on a 30+-year old UNIX model, and its desktop environments resemble Windows in many areas. A prominent OSS guy whose name I don't recall said it best--"All the volunteer effort in the world, and what do we do? We clone UNIX, then we clone Windows on top of it."
If there was ever a top innovative OS, I would say NeXTStep. A lot of the features it had are just now making it into mainstream operating systems, OS X included. And yet, GNUstep/Openstep efforts flounder and get ignored while "Qt" and "GTK+" continue to get used. Sigh...
I read comments on Slashdot telling me that Linux has better support for devices than any other OS, and already has all the kick-ass 3D shooters. Doom 3, UT2004, and so on. Now you're saying it needs both.
.NET or Cocoa, that replaces the kludgery that is X11 and focus on the best usability we've ever seen. Get rid of that crappy start menu and taskbar Windows rip-off. Get rid of all those hideous fonts, redundant menu items (KDE ships with "Control Center", "Utilities," "System", and "Settings" as seperate menu items). Everyone needs to start over and do it right the first time. Where is the binary installer/uninstaller API? Better yet, where is the drag-and-drop installing that OS X has? Nope, let's rely on conflicting console package managers for another ten years. That'll bring the mainstream developers to port their products.
What Linux needs to dominate the desktop is one single unified desktop environment, based on a single universal API akin to
When you have ten versions of the same functionality, it's not "choice," it's redundancy. Most OSS people see things in black-and-white where all choice is good. There is moderation for everything, and you have to look at situations on a case-by-case basis. The desktop split that forces me to install two entire desktop environments just to be able to run all the apps out there is completely insane, and if some other company like Microsoft was doing it, everyone would be all over it.
Based on the obsession with KDE and GNOME in the Linux world, I don't see changes happening any time soon, though GNOME seems to be the one not afraid to break the mold and actually try different things for usability's sake. People bitch about Windows, and then when GNOME does something different, and according to all usability studies better, than Windows such as changing the button order or having a spacial finder, people bitch that it isn't close enough to Windows. It's gotten to the point that I've decided people don't really hate Windows at all. They just blindly hate Microsoft but want a Windows to use.
Just my opinion. I'm tired of hearing about how Linux is "almost there" every year, and it never happens because the attitudes and focus don't change. As far as I'm concerned (and this is the recently-converted Apple zealot in me speaking), OS X already beat the OSS world to the punch five years ago when it comes to GUIs on top of UNIX. KDE and GNOME feel like shallow 1998-era wannabes in comparison once you've used OS X all day.
You nailed it. I've been hearing that Linux is on the tipping point since 1998. Microsoft isn't going anywhere. Making a better product is about actually doing it, not talking about how it's going to happen soon.
Have they?
Heard of Darwin?
Linux is rapidly taking over that spot, according to IDC it already has in fact
"Rapidly taking over that spot?" Keep on dreaming.
I searched all over IDC's site for this statistic of yours and couldn't find it. Care to cite your link? There are certainly links that show increase in market share usage of Linux (mostly in financial institutions and server markets), but we've also been hearing increases in Apple market share usage since MacWorld 2005.
When searching, I did find out that 6% of iPod users switched to Mac over PC. With iPods accounting for over 60% of the market and growing each year, Apple has all their cards played just how they want to.
Actually, it's just that Apple has posted so many changes that it's taking a while for the developers to port them to Konquerer. Apple hardly "mangled" the code. Most of their work on Safari involved writing a wrapper for the Qt-dependent code.
Apple doesn't have to work with the Konquerer developers at all. Just like how Linux developers don't have to work with BSD developers, even though there is some BSD code used here and there.
It's not so simple as that. OS X is based on a Mach kernel. It uses some of the userland of FreeBSD, but also borrows from a lot of other sources, including some Linux technologies. For instance, most of the command-line tools are from OpenBSD.
Regardless, the argument is kind of silly. Apple can port iTunes to whatever they want. Obviously, they'll have it for OS X because that is their operating system, and they'll have it for Windows because it is the majority. It doesn't make a lot of sense for them to port to Linux.
No, I didn't, because none of them cited any sources. However, I remember Google's Zeitgeist reporting Linux at 1% and OS X at 5%. Google usage is the best real-world measurement of desktop installbase I can think of.
Most of the hardcore "desktop Linux" guys from the 90s have accepted that Linux will always be a niche in that area, and that its strength is as a free UNIX server platform. Desktop Linux simply does not compare to OS X or Windows XP on so many levels. The only guys left who still push this dream of surpassing Microsoft and Apple are hardcore Slashdot types who sit on irc.freenode.org all day and use Firefox. It's not a criticism of Linux or the OSS movement. Quite simply, no project has achieved the functionality of the commercial desktops, and there is endless evidence and personal examples for that. Based on the current directions of GNOME and KDE, I don't see it happening soon.
A lot of the rest of us have accepted where things stand and use what's best for the job. I stopped using Slackware years ago and got a Mac. I just think it's the best desktop/programming environment right now. I got tired of waiting on Linux (been waiting since 1997).
Just my opinion.
OS X's install base has been growing and growing, while Linux has stagnated.
When Google's Zeitgeist was still running OS stats, OS X was at 5%. Guess what was at 1%? "Linux/Other." God, even Slashdot posts tons of Apple articles now. It used to be Linux-only.
You don't get it. I never said it's impossible. I never said that nothing in the top500 runs windows.
A few posts up:
"Let me be the first one to say: Windows isn't
Designed
Ment
Capable
for/of running on a Top500 server."
Are you saying you didn't mean what you wrote?
If it does the job well enough to be in the Top500, then obviously it's a tool that is right for the job. Just stop backtracking already and admit you were wrong.
Obviously, when I said "yes," I was referring to Windows.
In the same way, Windows was not designed for clustering.
Not that you'd have any insight into the development of Windows NT, but the fact it DOES do clustering already disproves your argument.
Corporations are people under the law.
Apple's rights weigh over the rights of the bloggers, because the bloggers have no rights to it in the first place. Your question is a loaded question.
The rights afforded to Apple represent the business entity rights entitled to all the employees of Apple. The release of trade secrets and other inside knowledge affects Apple as a business, and therefore, those who work for that business. Instead of citing the rights of every employee who works for Apple, the law simplifies it and treats Apple as a singular entity with rights that represent its employees.
Slashdot used to post a lot of really great scientific and technical articles. In the past five years, it has taken a political advocacy slant, and the stories have become much less technical, to the point that the majority of readers don't even click the links and instead just post away. These days, it's non-stop "YRO" nonsense, pro-piracy articles, and another "Linus said this" dupe.
I paint a grim picture, but for those of us who started coming here in the 90s, there's been an incredible downhill slide of content that just reaks of laziness. It's easy to post a flamebait litigation article and get some cheap page hits rather than post a technical article that requires some thought and knowledge on the subject to discuss it.
You can make a turtle fly at speeds breaking the sound barrier aswell.
Is the turtle designed for that?
Yes.
Is it capable of that?
It's in the Top500 list, isn't it? If it wasn't capable, it wouldn't be doing it. Simple as that.
Please answer those questions
Just did.
So, basically, you implied Windows isn't good enough to run as a Top500 server, someone pointed out that it already does, and now you're defending it by saying, "Even though it is, it's still not good enough?"
This kind of crap really makes the community look immature.
Someone let the monkey out of the cage.
Liar! Or are you just stupid?
Way to start off a well-reasoned argument.
It is very much in the 'public good' to know about new products that are about to render old products over-priced or obsolete.
No, it's not. You're not being forced to buy anything. Companies can charge whatever they want for their products. Think an iPod Mini is overpriced? Don't buy it.
You have a VERY skewed definition of what "public good" means. For the public good would be letting the public know their drinking water is bad, or they're buying a product they don't know is going to break on them in three weeks. There is nothing for the public good in forcing Apple to tell you every single product they're researching in the R&D labs.
In fact, any company forced to do that would be ruined, because once a product is released, research for the next product begins. That's how it always works. Consumers would never buy anything, because they'd figure, "I'll just wait another twelve months for that next thing they're working on." Of course, you can choose to do this now if you want to, but in the above situation, you'd know exactly what was going to be deprecated.
How can you be an informed buyer without information? Companies pull all kinds of tricks to foist off discontinued, refurbished, and remanufactured merchandise as 'new' on uninformed consumers.
You don't need to know what Apple is researching to be an informed buyer about what they have out now. Buying something that will be obsolete later is the same thing for everything, including PCs. Revealing upcoming products would benefit Apple's competitors.
Tell me, what "discontinued, refurbished, and remanufactured merchandise" is being pushed as "'new' on uninformed consumers" by Apple? Let us know, so Slashdot can post an article about it.
If Apple is able to chill the discourse about their products, they are already a good way along the road to preventing any criticism of their behavior at all.
Give me a break! Again, what "behavior?" They're not chilling the discourse of anything. Talk about Apple all you want. But you don't have some magic right to know all about what's going on in their R&D department.
As I said, are you stupid? Or a shill for Apple?
Not only did you not give a single valid point, but you're insulting as well.
From the article summary:
In a case with implications for the freedom to blog...
The implication to reveal trade secrets?
Believe it or not, you don't have the freedom to say absolutely anything you want. There are slander laws, libel laws, harrassment laws, trade secret protection laws, and so on. If I worked as a higher-up in Coca-Cola, I wouldn't be able to post the top secret Coke formula on my blog without expecting a lawsuit.
Apple is well within their rights in this case. Revealing upcoming products messes with the release schedule, gives competitors a heads-up, and basically screws things up for Apple.
And no, people, Woz is not contributing to the legal fund of this case. That is a a different case involving the Tiger torrent. I mention it because I've seen at least three posts pointlessly referencing Woz (as if that would matter anyway...because Woz disagrees, we all must as well?).
So don't buy the upgrade, then.
People spend more money on their video cards every two years. Why do so many get hung up on the price of OS updates?
Are IBM and Xerox tracking people's IPs, search information, and email (Google's privacy policy says your emails might stay on their system--even after deletion--and be indexed for any reason) while employing ex-NSA guys who have top secret security clearance? Does their privacy policy also say they'll turn over any personal information about you that the government feels like requesting that day?
I would argue that Microsoft used to know how to ship software, but the world has changed... The companies that "know how to ship software" are the ones to watch. They have embraced the network, deeply understand the concept of "software as a service", and know how to deliver incredible value to their customers efficiently and quickly.
Now does everyone see the benefit of an OS X update every 1-2 years? "Real artists ship."
I think the "Google OS" rumor was started by overzealous Google fanboys. We've heard all sorts of things, from a Google browser to a Google operating system.
They're a search engine company. In fact, their search results have been in the crapper since 2003 when they adjusted their algorithms (some believe it was because they needed to increase the DocID integer size in order to not run out of them).
Google also employs several ex-NSA guys with security clearances. I mean, if we're going to draw conclusions, why not look at Google's privacy policies that state they'll happily turn over anything the government requests on you? Did you know Google sets an IP-tracking cookie that doesn't expire for 30 years? There are bigger things to be talking about regarding Google.
With technology like Spotlight bringing Google-like searches to the desktop, what's to stop Apple bringing this technology to the web in some way and creating their own search engine to compete with Google?
Somehow, I think (hope?) an Apple search engine would have much less storefront product links and spam pages littering their results.