1) The KDE team Produces a desktop environment overlayed on an existing operating system, not an entire turnkey solution as MS does.
That has nothing to do with what I was asking, which is the difference between Microsoft integrating its net and file browser and KDE doing the exact same thing.
2) You can pick and choose which components of KDE you want to use. It is my understanding that you don't even have to have Konquerer installed to use KDE, but I could be wrong.
You can do the same with Windows...
3) KDE is free and open. You are in charge when using KDE and not the other way around.
That's so vague, it's not even a valid point that really says anything about the subject we're discussin which is integrating a file and net browser, which KDE and Microsoft both did.
4) The KDE team has never (to my knowledge) been responsible for signing OEM deals where the vendor is restricted from installing other software from competitors as MS has been.
Again, has absolutely nothing to do with KDE integrating its file and net browser and Microsoft integrating its file and net browser, and somehow one being a-okay with Slashdotters.
1. Konqueror can be removed without taking the entire system down. On Windows, you can remove the shortcuts for IE at most.
You can easily remove IE. I can name five free utilities to do it off the top of my head.
2. KDE and Linux don't have a monopoly. When you're a monopoly, the rules change (why do people *still* don't know this after all these years?).
I already knew that. It doesn't change the fact that there is no difference. Does it mean KDE will remove its integration once it reaches a certain percentage of acceptance? I doubt it.
Yeah that's great. How much % market share does Firefox have again?
What does that have to do with anything?
And that's the problem. As competitor, even though you can exist, the chance that you get a big enough market share is almost zero.
Why? Again, nobody is holding a gun to your head to use IE...are they?
For example, you're the developer of BonchBrowser. BonOffice is smaller (only 500 KB!), faster (renders 10 MB HTML in 2 seconds), uses much less memory than IE (1 MB only), is 100% standards compliant, has popup and ad blocking, is secure, etc. etc. Can you get more than, say, 40% of the browser market share? I don't think so! IE is already installed on all Windows computers, people will not switch to BonchBrowser even if it really is better than IE.
Absolutely, 100% wrong. If BonchBrowser is better, people will switch. As it is, Mozilla is slower, bloated, and doesn't have as simple an interface as IE. And with IE coming out with pop-up blocking, people will have less reason to switch because for most people, Mozilla doesn't offer enough advantages. I'm sure you think it does because you're a Linux guy, but the entire rest of the world is a little different than the niche that is Slashdot.
As competitor you simply has no chance to beat them no matter what you do, simply because MS has a monopoly.
Netscape is what killed Netscape. Stop buying into the victimhood mentality and accept it.
KDE didn't kill competitive browsers by integrating Konqueror.
And neither did IE. I'm using Firefox under XP to type this.
Netscape killed Netscape, not IE.
KDE doesn't have exclusionary licenses that restrict OEM's from also including Netscape on the desktop, or even removing Konqueror.
Neither does Windows. Even if it did, just install Netscape yourself. What's the problem? Obviously a company doesn't want to be forced to advertise its competitors.
KDE didn't lie in court, presenting doctored videotape evidence, that Konqueror could never been removed from KDE, and doing so would horribly impact the performance of KDE. (In fact, KDE can substitute Mozilla's HTML engine under the hood for KHTML.)
Yeah, what does this have to do with the point again, which is the integration of Konquerer compared to the integration of IE? Are you saying one is bad because one of them lied?
KDE did not have internal e-mail conversations about "cutting off Netscape's air supply".
All companies have e-mail conversations about cutting off their competitors' air supply.
Those are just a few ways that it is different.
You barely showed me any differences between IE being integrated into Windows and Konquerer being integrated into KDE. All you did was bring up OEM licenses and court lies, which have nothing to do with what I was talking about, pointless integration of a 'net browser and a file browser.
Does this mean if KDE surpassed a certain percentage, it would be required to remove the integration? I'm unclear as to what what your point is regarding 98% of installed desktops.
It amuses me that people here expect companies to follow the copyright of the GPL but are freely willing to break the copyright of other companies' products simply because it's "easy" and "convenient." Amused me so much, I put it in my sig.
I also think it's funny that there is still somewhat of a stigma over pirating software--particularly games--simply because a lot of people here are programmers or look up to programming heroes like John Romero.
If Slashdot was made up mostly of musicians, their tune would change (pun intended).
I wasn't aware that KDE's Konq was out to make money. I also wasn't aware that KDE owned Linux and charged you for its use.
So the only difference is that I paid for one and not the other?
I also didn't realize that KDE forced the little guys out by unfair practices.
I still never saw what was unfair about a company decided to offer a free browser. If people didn't like their browser, they would have used something else. As it so happens, that's what I and many others choose to do. Others choose not to.
People like to forget that it wasn't Microsoft that killed Netscape, but Netscape itself.
Instead of actually discussing what the source code is or the technology behind it...the rest of the Slashdot discussion here will be about Microsoft's "motivations" for releasing it and what their plans "really" are.
Has anyone here who's posting actually downloaded it and tried it yet?
And we all want to see "M$"--by the way, 1998 wants its moronic term back--hurt because everything they do is Bad(tm)...right? At least, that's what Slashdot tells me.
My dislike of Microsoft comes from their business practices. Crushing Netscape, RealPlayer, Wordperfect, Eudora, etc etc by levering their monopoly position on the desktop has nothing to do with closed or open source software. Watch their conduct in the coming search engine wars -- they will tie everything in with the OS in the name of "innovation" and "helping the end user" but in the end it's really just a ploy to exterminate Google and Yahoo. Just as IE was a ploy to exterminate Netscape.
What's the difference between IE's integration into the Windows shell and Konquerer's integration into KDE?
I don't see the big fucking deal. I run Windows XP at work yet--gasp--choose to run Firefox. Believe it or not, Microsoft isn't holding a gun to my head...
More importantly, since Slashdot posted an article entitled "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China," simply because the government there uses Windows, does this mean OSS violates human rights as well? After all, China has its own custom Linux distribution, and Red Hat removed the Taiwan flag to sell there...
Just curious what Slashdot editors' position is, since it's apparently so evil for Microsoft to be over there.
If it was Linux or FreeBSD, I could read the man page, or find out where the log file was. Oops -- no such option on MacOS X.
Uh, hello? OS X uses CUPS and, being based on a UNIX-like OS, has always had man pages. Hell, edit the conf file yourself if you want--it's in/etc/cups/cupsd.conf. Those error messages you mentioned?/var/log/cups. Better yet, head to localhost:613 and configure it yourself.
I mean, you did know that OS X is a UNIX-like system, didn't you?
So what do I do? Reboot my machine; no dice. Reboot her machine; no dice. Give up. Some days it works, and some days it doesn't. Shrug.
You must feel pretty silly then considering you could have figured out the problem, but you refused to because you dismissed OS X as a closed system without poking further.
The solution ends up being just what it probably was in the Raymond household: transfer the file to my wife's machine, then ask my wife to get up from her desk and let me print the file. The main difference is that since MacOS X is a proprietary, closed-source system, there's no way for people with the necessary skillz to dig through the source code, figure out what's wrong, and fix it.
Except that CUPS is open source, so you can dig all you want since the only real "proprietary, closed-source" part of OS X is the GUI on top of it. Yes, Slashdotters, it's UNIX meets usable GUI. Welcome to what Linux has been (and will be) trying to be for years!
Yet another example of OS X ignorance...I mean, seriously, I wonder if you're trolling since you surely knew at the least that OS X has man pages...
Longhorn is going to do all that stuff but with full 3D hardware acceleration--so I won't feel guilty turning on all the visual cues because it won't drop performance.
This is absolute crap. Every time a story like this someone comes along and posts a "What Linux needs is Unity!!" post, acting as if they were some sort of prophet sent to lead Linux to the promise land.
And then some "tough guy" comes along insulting them because they dared suggest change. You fear change. That's a mighty big chip you've got on your shoulder. Don't whine and complain when Linux doesn't make any desktop headway.
Why does Linux need this one singular desktop? Who is going to benefit from lack of choice?
It's called interface consistency.
Do you really expect developers to give up their choice in what to develop with, just because you think it will help more people adopt Linux.
Oh, I see--Linux desktops are all about the developer. The programming weenies are all that count. Meanwhile, bitch some more about the lack of mainstream Linux acceptance.
Where on kernel.org do you see that goal of "Get everyone off of windows and onto a Linux Desktop"? Where on KDE's site do you see the goal of "Being the ONE TRUE Linux desktop." I like having a choice in my desktop, and I like having a choice in my development tools.
Whoopdey-freaking-doo. That doesn't make Linux desktops suck any less.
First off, this isn't the kind of dictatorship that is used in kernel development, the "top-down" management you speak of doesn't exist.
I don't know why you keep referring to kernel development.
Linus doesn't decide by himself the roadmap for the kernel
Yes, he does.
he doesn't dictate what the developers should use
Yes, he does.
or how they should code
Yes, he does.
he just makes sure that anything put in the kernel is quality.
And yes, he does. Sometimes stuff gets in that doesn't follow those previous requirements 100%, but he does dictate Linux's roadmap, coding conventions, what tools people should use (i.e., Bitkeeper), and the quality of the code.
Next.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. As long as there is a choice, there will be no breakthrough?
Yes--absolutely, 100% true.
Perhaps we should all ditch Linux, OS X, BeOS, BSD or whatever else for Windows, because having a choice is apparently bad for innovation, and as long as we choose to fight over what OS to use, there wil be no breakthroughs.
No, we should just stop offering two desktops, 10 toolkits, and 20 millions window managers as the choices for new Linux users instead of offering them one really good integrated solution that is so great it gets everything done.
How the hell do you expect commercial vendors to write for your system if it's 10 different moving targets? Ignorant people like you are the precise reason Linux has such a lack of commercial support when compared to the application base that Windows and OS X have.
Have you ever programmed in.NET? How about Cocoa? Developers are raving about those solutions--and they're not complaining, "Oh, I wish I had five other toolkits to choose from so I could have CHOICE! My whole world revolves around CHOICE!" No, their world revolves around getting the damn job done, and their jobs are made a lot harder when there is no stable platform to target.
Where the hell is all this incompatability you speak of? Right now I'm running fluxbox with several KDE and Gnome apps open.
Congratulatuions, you have two ENTIRE DESKTOP ENVIRONMENTS installed along with a third window manager just to run those apps, when you should have just needed ONE. Thanks for proving the point.
They don't tell me "Fuck you, I'm not gonna work if you have those other guys' libraries installed!".
Actually, they tell you "I'm not gonna work if you DON'T have those other guys' libraries installed." It's called incompability with what you're running.
Having programmed in the Windows environment, I know there are multiple competing widget sets there too, so I know your argument is fundamentally wrong.
Um, no, there aren't--not unless you're counting Linux toolkit ports like QT and wxWindows that 95% of commercial Windows developers do not use. They simply use Win32/DirectX, or MFC for the more GUI-oriented apps.
You're like the second or third person to pull the "b-but there are multiple Windows toolkits" sham when it's not really true. Win32 is the standard, and.NET will be the standard in 2006--there aren't multiple major toolkits competing with each other like there is with GTK and QT.
I don't get why bringing up Windows has much to do with anything anyway. It doesn't change the fact that the stupid competition going on in Linux is hurting its chances on the desktop. People are so anti-"M$" and anti-monopoly and anti-"dictatorship" that they're obsessed with offering 20 choices instead of integrating and offering one incredibly good one. It's silly.
Nobody in Windows land complains that there's more than one widget set (MFC vs VCL vs Qt vs pure Win32 API vs resource controls vs.NET WinForms vs whatever weird toolkits Photoshop, Norton AntiVirus, ZoneAlarm, etc. use)
Nobody complains because most people use MFC. I don't even know what you're talking about regarding Photoshop, Antivirus, and so forth.
MFC still calls Win32. Microsoft is moving things over to.NET in Longhorn and replacing Win32. Your argument seems to fall a little flat. Win32 is the standard now, and.NET will be the Windows standard in 2006.
We don't need one implementation, we need implementations to be compatible and interoperable! Instead of trying to make a dictatorship, go support effords like Freedesktop.org.
Goddammit--get it through your skulls, it's not always good to have multiple choices. It's not a "dictatorship" to have one interface--it's call interface consistency. Who the hell is going to write for your system if you have 20 different environments all half-adhering to some standard on a website? It's too many moving targets.
What desktop linux needs is ONE desktop to replace them all. That is; one set of widgets, one way of doing everything, and one interface for developing gui apps for linux.
Y-Windows--and Mark Thomas' paper there describes all the reasons. I have yet to heard anyone validly refute them.
* If I had to stare at that font rendering all day, my eyes would hurt pretty bad too. Hell, look at those lowercase "w"s in your top menu.
* The "shadows" beneath the menu items, hacked into KDE 3.2, are embarrassing. They are godawful ugly. XP's actually fades out gracefully. Those are just blocks of dark shape that abruptly end and simply garble the shapes all the more when I glance at the text.
* The text of menus is too tall, and the menu items are too close together.
* I don't know what to think about being proud that your Linux desktop completely rips off the look and feel of another operating system without actually coming close to its usability. Let's INNOVATE, people! We could come up with our own original ideas...but we don't. I can't believe you even stuck a Dock-alike in there. Jeesh!
I think that one of the areas that linux can really beat windows given enough effort is with it's desktop environments.
I really doubt it, and here's why. The OSS community doesn't seem to have any of the artistic types that Microsoft and, more specifically, Apple employs, and there is no real focus on the "feel" of the desktop.
KDE developers will talk about adding more buttons and sidebars and crap, and GNOME will talk about fixing a Save dialog and such. Meanwhile, they're still using Start menus and taskbars--complete ripoffs of Windows (amusing considering the vitriol toward "M$"), but more importantly, the taskbar and start menu are horrible interface decisions that had their time long ago.
Taskbars are not spatial, they get crowded too easily, and are very bad design. They still confuse non-techies. Start menus are worse--and they get so crowded on Windows as it is, but fire up KDE and you get redundancies like "System," "Control Center," and "Preferences," not to mention bizarre subgroups like "More Programs" that I still haven't figured out the purpose of.
I'm looking to Y-Windows--not only are they finally ridding the world of the failure that is X11, but I look foward to the opportunity to completely revamp desktop design and implement something that is different and innovative, in the vein of MacOS and BeOS. To me, KDE and GNOME feel like hacks on top of XFree86 and have always felt that way. I despite how similar they are to Windows.
Hopefully, something else comes along, but I just don't see the push for it in the OSS community. I've offered ideas, but they get turned down because "users want what they're used to," which means we get crap like this XPde thing--a complete rip-off of the Windows XP desktop. Do you honestly think that's beneficial at all to the cause?
One thing I am impressed with is that this copycat fully emulates Windows XP's desktop simplicity. By that I mean, look at some of the screenshots--just a gray bar at the bottom with a Start button, and a few icons on the desktop.
Default installs of Gnome and KDE give me one or two gray bars (top and bottom of the screen), tons of buttons, an extremely crowded "start" menu, two or three applets on the panel, etc.
They lost on a technicality. Why do people not know this?
So, if Microsft copied Apple (and don't forget Apple copied Xerox), what is wrong if somebody copies Microsoft?
Apple had a legal right because they made a deal with Xerox to tour the facilities. Unlike the Hollywood-esque Pirates of Silicon Valley movie, it wasn't like Steve Jobs swept in with his band of rogues to steal their ideas. It was a standard business deal.
Apple will shut you down if you try to make, say, an Aqua rip off.
How do you wean someone off of something if you're giving them what you're allegedly weaning them off of?
I cannot believe anybody would even waste the time to emulate the Windows GUI. "B-but people won't switch because it's 'what they're used to'!" Um, no, people will switch if you come up with something better and easier. I work in tech support for my company. You don't think I can't bring up a hundred examples off the top of my head on how people are confused by Windows every day? Don't even get me started on the failure that is the "taskbar."
I guess you missed the study that Slashdot posted which stated Linux was the most breached OS on the net.
I seriously doubt Windows is inherently more secure--the fact is, that operating is in use by some 90% of computer users, so it's not unreasonable to expect that things are going to get through once in a while. In that regard, Windows has the potential to become more secure than Linux simply because it's so much more field-tested.
You mention that Longhorn will ship with worm vulnerabilities, without realizing that Longhorn will be entirely.NET, so most everything will be sandboxed. What's going to happen when we see another article about a public Linux breach like we've had with Gentoo, Debian, Gnome, etc. and nothing happening on the Windows front because Microsoft has taken all these extra measures? I'm sure Slashdotters will find something to bitch about, but personally the technology fascinates me, and there are some damn smart people working over there at Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy:
1) The KDE team Produces a desktop environment overlayed on an existing operating system, not an entire turnkey solution as MS does.
That has nothing to do with what I was asking, which is the difference between Microsoft integrating its net and file browser and KDE doing the exact same thing.
2) You can pick and choose which components of KDE you want to use. It is my understanding that you don't even have to have Konquerer installed to use KDE, but I could be wrong.
You can do the same with Windows...
3) KDE is free and open. You are in charge when using KDE and not the other way around.
That's so vague, it's not even a valid point that really says anything about the subject we're discussin which is integrating a file and net browser, which KDE and Microsoft both did.
4) The KDE team has never (to my knowledge) been responsible for signing OEM deals where the vendor is restricted from installing other software from competitors as MS has been.
Again, has absolutely nothing to do with KDE integrating its file and net browser and Microsoft integrating its file and net browser, and somehow one being a-okay with Slashdotters.
Next.
There are many differences:
1. Konqueror can be removed without taking the entire system down. On Windows, you can remove the shortcuts for IE at most.
You can easily remove IE. I can name five free utilities to do it off the top of my head.
2. KDE and Linux don't have a monopoly. When you're a monopoly, the rules change (why do people *still* don't know this after all these years?).
I already knew that. It doesn't change the fact that there is no difference. Does it mean KDE will remove its integration once it reaches a certain percentage of acceptance? I doubt it.
Yeah that's great. How much % market share does Firefox have again?
What does that have to do with anything?
And that's the problem. As competitor, even though you can exist, the chance that you get a big enough market share is almost zero.
Why? Again, nobody is holding a gun to your head to use IE...are they?
For example, you're the developer of BonchBrowser. BonOffice is smaller (only 500 KB!), faster (renders 10 MB HTML in 2 seconds), uses much less memory than IE (1 MB only), is 100% standards compliant, has popup and ad blocking, is secure, etc. etc.
Can you get more than, say, 40% of the browser market share? I don't think so! IE is already installed on all Windows computers, people will not switch to BonchBrowser even if it really is better than IE.
Absolutely, 100% wrong. If BonchBrowser is better, people will switch. As it is, Mozilla is slower, bloated, and doesn't have as simple an interface as IE. And with IE coming out with pop-up blocking, people will have less reason to switch because for most people, Mozilla doesn't offer enough advantages. I'm sure you think it does because you're a Linux guy, but the entire rest of the world is a little different than the niche that is Slashdot.
As competitor you simply has no chance to beat them no matter what you do, simply because MS has a monopoly.
Netscape is what killed Netscape. Stop buying into the victimhood mentality and accept it.
KDE didn't kill competitive browsers by integrating Konqueror.
And neither did IE. I'm using Firefox under XP to type this.
Netscape killed Netscape, not IE.
KDE doesn't have exclusionary licenses that restrict OEM's from also including Netscape on the desktop, or even removing Konqueror.
Neither does Windows. Even if it did, just install Netscape yourself. What's the problem? Obviously a company doesn't want to be forced to advertise its competitors.
KDE didn't lie in court, presenting doctored videotape evidence, that Konqueror could never been removed from KDE, and doing so would horribly impact the performance of KDE. (In fact, KDE can substitute Mozilla's HTML engine under the hood for KHTML.)
Yeah, what does this have to do with the point again, which is the integration of Konquerer compared to the integration of IE? Are you saying one is bad because one of them lied?
KDE did not have internal e-mail conversations about "cutting off Netscape's air supply".
All companies have e-mail conversations about cutting off their competitors' air supply.
Those are just a few ways that it is different.
You barely showed me any differences between IE being integrated into Windows and Konquerer being integrated into KDE. All you did was bring up OEM licenses and court lies, which have nothing to do with what I was talking about, pointless integration of a 'net browser and a file browser.
Does this mean if KDE surpassed a certain percentage, it would be required to remove the integration? I'm unclear as to what what your point is regarding 98% of installed desktops.
It amuses me that people here expect companies to follow the copyright of the GPL but are freely willing to break the copyright of other companies' products simply because it's "easy" and "convenient." Amused me so much, I put it in my sig.
I also think it's funny that there is still somewhat of a stigma over pirating software--particularly games--simply because a lot of people here are programmers or look up to programming heroes like John Romero.
If Slashdot was made up mostly of musicians, their tune would change (pun intended).
I wasn't aware that KDE's Konq was out to make money. I also wasn't aware that KDE owned Linux and charged you for its use.
So the only difference is that I paid for one and not the other?
I also didn't realize that KDE forced the little guys out by unfair practices.
I still never saw what was unfair about a company decided to offer a free browser. If people didn't like their browser, they would have used something else. As it so happens, that's what I and many others choose to do. Others choose not to.
People like to forget that it wasn't Microsoft that killed Netscape, but Netscape itself.
Instead of actually discussing what the source code is or the technology behind it...the rest of the Slashdot discussion here will be about Microsoft's "motivations" for releasing it and what their plans "really" are.
Has anyone here who's posting actually downloaded it and tried it yet?
Guess it depends on if you think every person here at Slashdot is anti-Bush. This ain't K5, you know...
After all, OSS "hurts" a company, right?
And we all want to see "M$"--by the way, 1998 wants its moronic term back--hurt because everything they do is Bad(tm)...right? At least, that's what Slashdot tells me.
My dislike of Microsoft comes from their business practices. Crushing Netscape, RealPlayer, Wordperfect, Eudora, etc etc by levering their monopoly position on the desktop has nothing to do with closed or open source software. Watch their conduct in the coming search engine wars -- they will tie everything in with the OS in the name of "innovation" and "helping the end user" but in the end it's really just a ploy to exterminate Google and Yahoo. Just as IE was a ploy to exterminate Netscape.
What's the difference between IE's integration into the Windows shell and Konquerer's integration into KDE?
I don't see the big fucking deal. I run Windows XP at work yet--gasp--choose to run Firefox. Believe it or not, Microsoft isn't holding a gun to my head...
More importantly, since Slashdot posted an article entitled "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China," simply because the government there uses Windows, does this mean OSS violates human rights as well? After all, China has its own custom Linux distribution, and Red Hat removed the Taiwan flag to sell there...
Just curious what Slashdot editors' position is, since it's apparently so evil for Microsoft to be over there.
If it was Linux or FreeBSD, I could read the man page, or find out where the log file was. Oops -- no such option on MacOS X.
/etc/cups/cupsd.conf. Those error messages you mentioned? /var/log/cups. Better yet, head to localhost:613 and configure it yourself.
Uh, hello? OS X uses CUPS and, being based on a UNIX-like OS, has always had man pages. Hell, edit the conf file yourself if you want--it's in
I mean, you did know that OS X is a UNIX-like system, didn't you?
So what do I do? Reboot my machine; no dice. Reboot her machine; no dice. Give up. Some days it works, and some days it doesn't. Shrug.
You must feel pretty silly then considering you could have figured out the problem, but you refused to because you dismissed OS X as a closed system without poking further.
The solution ends up being just what it probably was in the Raymond household: transfer the file to my wife's machine, then ask my wife to get up from her desk and let me print the file. The main difference is that since MacOS X is a proprietary, closed-source system, there's no way for people with the necessary skillz to dig through the source code, figure out what's wrong, and fix it.
Except that CUPS is open source, so you can dig all you want since the only real "proprietary, closed-source" part of OS X is the GUI on top of it. Yes, Slashdotters, it's UNIX meets usable GUI. Welcome to what Linux has been (and will be) trying to be for years!
Yet another example of OS X ignorance...I mean, seriously, I wonder if you're trolling since you surely knew at the least that OS X has man pages...
Nice, but what's the CPU toll?
Longhorn is going to do all that stuff but with full 3D hardware acceleration--so I won't feel guilty turning on all the visual cues because it won't drop performance.
This is absolute crap. Every time a story like this someone comes along and posts a "What Linux needs is Unity!!" post, acting as if they were some sort of prophet sent to lead Linux to the promise land.
.NET? How about Cocoa? Developers are raving about those solutions--and they're not complaining, "Oh, I wish I had five other toolkits to choose from so I could have CHOICE! My whole world revolves around CHOICE!" No, their world revolves around getting the damn job done, and their jobs are made a lot harder when there is no stable platform to target.
And then some "tough guy" comes along insulting them because they dared suggest change. You fear change. That's a mighty big chip you've got on your shoulder. Don't whine and complain when Linux doesn't make any desktop headway.
Why does Linux need this one singular desktop? Who is going to benefit from lack of choice?
It's called interface consistency.
Do you really expect developers to give up their choice in what to develop with, just because you think it will help more people adopt Linux.
Oh, I see--Linux desktops are all about the developer. The programming weenies are all that count. Meanwhile, bitch some more about the lack of mainstream Linux acceptance.
Where on kernel.org do you see that goal of "Get everyone off of windows and onto a Linux Desktop"? Where on KDE's site do you see the goal of "Being the ONE TRUE Linux desktop." I like having a choice in my desktop, and I like having a choice in my development tools.
Whoopdey-freaking-doo. That doesn't make Linux desktops suck any less.
First off, this isn't the kind of dictatorship that is used in kernel development, the "top-down" management you speak of doesn't exist.
I don't know why you keep referring to kernel development.
Linus doesn't decide by himself the roadmap for the kernel
Yes, he does.
he doesn't dictate what the developers should use
Yes, he does.
or how they should code
Yes, he does.
he just makes sure that anything put in the kernel is quality.
And yes, he does. Sometimes stuff gets in that doesn't follow those previous requirements 100%, but he does dictate Linux's roadmap, coding conventions, what tools people should use (i.e., Bitkeeper), and the quality of the code.
Next.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. As long as there is a choice, there will be no breakthrough?
Yes--absolutely, 100% true.
Perhaps we should all ditch Linux, OS X, BeOS, BSD or whatever else for Windows, because having a choice is apparently bad for innovation, and as long as we choose to fight over what OS to use, there wil be no breakthroughs.
No, we should just stop offering two desktops, 10 toolkits, and 20 millions window managers as the choices for new Linux users instead of offering them one really good integrated solution that is so great it gets everything done.
How the hell do you expect commercial vendors to write for your system if it's 10 different moving targets? Ignorant people like you are the precise reason Linux has such a lack of commercial support when compared to the application base that Windows and OS X have.
Have you ever programmed in
Where the hell is all this incompatability you speak of? Right now I'm running fluxbox with several KDE and Gnome apps open.
Congratulatuions, you have two ENTIRE DESKTOP ENVIRONMENTS installed along with a third window manager just to run those apps, when you should have just needed ONE. Thanks for proving the point.
They don't tell me "Fuck you, I'm not gonna work if you have those other guys' libraries installed!".
Actually, they tell you "I'm not gonna work if you DON'T have those other guys' libraries installed." It's called incompability with what you're running.
And please exp
Having programmed in the Windows environment, I know there are multiple competing widget sets there too, so I know your argument is fundamentally wrong.
.NET will be the standard in 2006--there aren't multiple major toolkits competing with each other like there is with GTK and QT.
Um, no, there aren't--not unless you're counting Linux toolkit ports like QT and wxWindows that 95% of commercial Windows developers do not use. They simply use Win32/DirectX, or MFC for the more GUI-oriented apps.
You're like the second or third person to pull the "b-but there are multiple Windows toolkits" sham when it's not really true. Win32 is the standard, and
I don't get why bringing up Windows has much to do with anything anyway. It doesn't change the fact that the stupid competition going on in Linux is hurting its chances on the desktop. People are so anti-"M$" and anti-monopoly and anti-"dictatorship" that they're obsessed with offering 20 choices instead of integrating and offering one incredibly good one. It's silly.
Nobody in Windows land complains that there's more than one widget set (MFC vs VCL vs Qt vs pure Win32 API vs resource controls vs .NET WinForms vs whatever weird toolkits Photoshop, Norton AntiVirus, ZoneAlarm, etc. use)
.NET in Longhorn and replacing Win32. Your argument seems to fall a little flat. Win32 is the standard now, and .NET will be the Windows standard in 2006.
Nobody complains because most people use MFC. I don't even know what you're talking about regarding Photoshop, Antivirus, and so forth.
MFC still calls Win32. Microsoft is moving things over to
We don't need one implementation, we need implementations to be compatible and interoperable! Instead of trying to make a dictatorship, go support effords like Freedesktop.org.
Goddammit--get it through your skulls, it's not always good to have multiple choices. It's not a "dictatorship" to have one interface--it's call interface consistency . Who the hell is going to write for your system if you have 20 different environments all half-adhering to some standard on a website? It's too many moving targets.
What desktop linux needs is ONE desktop to replace them all. That is; one set of widgets, one way of doing everything, and one interface for developing gui apps for linux.
Y-Windows--and Mark Thomas' paper there describes all the reasons. I have yet to heard anyone validly refute them.
They are aiming for a 1.0 release within a year.
Reasons that is not pretty:
* If I had to stare at that font rendering all day, my eyes would hurt pretty bad too. Hell, look at those lowercase "w"s in your top menu.
* The "shadows" beneath the menu items, hacked into KDE 3.2, are embarrassing. They are godawful ugly. XP's actually fades out gracefully. Those are just blocks of dark shape that abruptly end and simply garble the shapes all the more when I glance at the text.
* The text of menus is too tall, and the menu items are too close together.
* I don't know what to think about being proud that your Linux desktop completely rips off the look and feel of another operating system without actually coming close to its usability. Let's INNOVATE, people! We could come up with our own original ideas...but we don't. I can't believe you even stuck a Dock-alike in there. Jeesh!
I think that one of the areas that linux can really beat windows given enough effort is with it's desktop environments.
I really doubt it, and here's why. The OSS community doesn't seem to have any of the artistic types that Microsoft and, more specifically, Apple employs, and there is no real focus on the "feel" of the desktop.
KDE developers will talk about adding more buttons and sidebars and crap, and GNOME will talk about fixing a Save dialog and such. Meanwhile, they're still using Start menus and taskbars--complete ripoffs of Windows (amusing considering the vitriol toward "M$"), but more importantly, the taskbar and start menu are horrible interface decisions that had their time long ago.
Taskbars are not spatial, they get crowded too easily, and are very bad design. They still confuse non-techies. Start menus are worse--and they get so crowded on Windows as it is, but fire up KDE and you get redundancies like "System," "Control Center," and "Preferences," not to mention bizarre subgroups like "More Programs" that I still haven't figured out the purpose of.
I'm looking to Y-Windows--not only are they finally ridding the world of the failure that is X11, but I look foward to the opportunity to completely revamp desktop design and implement something that is different and innovative, in the vein of MacOS and BeOS. To me, KDE and GNOME feel like hacks on top of XFree86 and have always felt that way. I despite how similar they are to Windows.
Hopefully, something else comes along, but I just don't see the push for it in the OSS community. I've offered ideas, but they get turned down because "users want what they're used to," which means we get crap like this XPde thing--a complete rip-off of the Windows XP desktop. Do you honestly think that's beneficial at all to the cause?
One thing I am impressed with is that this copycat fully emulates Windows XP's desktop simplicity. By that I mean, look at some of the screenshots--just a gray bar at the bottom with a Start button, and a few icons on the desktop.
Default installs of Gnome and KDE give me one or two gray bars (top and bottom of the screen), tons of buttons, an extremely crowded "start" menu, two or three applets on the panel, etc.
Yes, and they lost.
They lost on a technicality. Why do people not know this?
So, if Microsft copied Apple (and don't forget Apple copied Xerox), what is wrong if somebody copies Microsoft?
Apple had a legal right because they made a deal with Xerox to tour the facilities. Unlike the Hollywood-esque Pirates of Silicon Valley movie, it wasn't like Steve Jobs swept in with his band of rogues to steal their ideas. It was a standard business deal.
Apple will shut you down if you try to make, say, an Aqua rip off.
Remember the Microsoft vs. Apple lawsuit, that Microsoft won. It basically means that ripping off your competitor's "look and feel" is OK.
That case was dismissed on a technicality. There was no real ruling.
No, ripping off a look and feel is not okay. Ask Apple how they feel about Aqua interface rip-offs.
How do you wean someone off of something if you're giving them what you're allegedly weaning them off of?
I cannot believe anybody would even waste the time to emulate the Windows GUI. "B-but people won't switch because it's 'what they're used to'!" Um, no, people will switch if you come up with something better and easier. I work in tech support for my company. You don't think I can't bring up a hundred examples off the top of my head on how people are confused by Windows every day? Don't even get me started on the failure that is the "taskbar."
I guess you missed the study that Slashdot posted which stated Linux was the most breached OS on the net.
.NET, so most everything will be sandboxed. What's going to happen when we see another article about a public Linux breach like we've had with Gentoo, Debian, Gnome, etc. and nothing happening on the Windows front because Microsoft has taken all these extra measures? I'm sure Slashdotters will find something to bitch about, but personally the technology fascinates me, and there are some damn smart people working over there at Microsoft.
I seriously doubt Windows is inherently more secure--the fact is, that operating is in use by some 90% of computer users, so it's not unreasonable to expect that things are going to get through once in a while. In that regard, Windows has the potential to become more secure than Linux simply because it's so much more field-tested.
You mention that Longhorn will ship with worm vulnerabilities, without realizing that Longhorn will be entirely