Except that when it's integrated and Microsoft is pushing it as the preferred method of writing Windows applications, developers will actually have incentive to do it. On Linux, there's no guarantee that Java is installed, but with Longhorn at least you can be sure that the.NET runtime is there. Net result? More apps written in.NET languages, leading to more sandboxed apps and at the very least a better shot at improved security.
I doubt that Microsoft's newest OS will have anything drastically new that the Linux community does not already have, or that can easily be added.
I wouldn't be so sure. Integrated XML user interfaces? Sandboxed VM execution for user-mode applications built in to the OS? Longhorn's got em, Linux doesn't. In particular, the emphasis on.NET apps seems to be a really good idea from a security standpoint -- patch the runtime and all.NET apps benefit, be it performance benefits or security benefits. No more of this "patch a single app" stuff. Microsoft is definitely on the right track with this.
It's attitudes like yours that Icaza is talking about. "Oh, XYZ huh? Yeah Linux has that, if you follow these seemingly endless instructions to get this kludgy hack working." I hate to say it, but just watch. Microsoft's XML UI technology is going to be faster than Mozilla's XUL, and their.NET runtime IS faster than Java, meaning it's actually possible for them to make most of Windows's user apps run in the.NET VM without a huge performance hit. As much as Slashdotters lambast Microsoft for not "innovating", they're definitely taking radical steps with Longhorn. And, as usual, I predict that Linux users will remain stubborn and say "Oh those features are stupid, no one will use them. Linux can already do that with this ugly hack. RTFM" until about two years after Longhorn is released, at which point suddenly you'll see GNOME and KDE emulating all those things that Longhorn has been doing for years.
Perhaps they have the money to pay for school, but don't have $700 to buy a PERSONAL copy of photoshop that they can use at home after paying for school.
Unfortunatly for him the scholarships he has won't pay for a personal copy of After Effects when he can use the copy in the schools editing lab.
Bullshit. If they're somehow getting large sums of money to pay for school, they can afford to pay a small (by comparison) sum for a tool required for school and their job after school. Basically, Photoshop, for an art student, can be viewed simply as a required school expense, like books and lab fees. Your argument would sound quite silly if you were talking about a computer science student that can pay for school, but can't afford a computer. Nonsense. He NEEDS a computer. He will find a way to pay for it. Hello, student loans?
And, as anyone experienced with using high-end tools like Photoshop will tell you, that $700 is not a drain, it's an investment. Just like a computer for a computer science student is. Just like a college education is.
Past that, how many people do you know that are willing to pay nearly $700.00 for photoshop just to occasionally open it for some personal photo retouching?
There are plenty of cheaper tools well-suited to simple photo retouching tasks (GIMP, anyone?). Failing to research alternatives is no excuse for pirating software. You're basically saying, "I need to take red eye out of these photos. Photoshop does it, but it costs $700! I have no choice! I must pirate Photoshop!" This is ridiculous. People who need Photoshop know why they need it and know that nothing else will suffice. Therefore, the pricetag is justified. These "poor art students" are simply hiding behind the price excuse because they can download it for free. If they couldn't download it, they'd find a way to buy it (because they'd have to to complete their degree!), or they'd find an acceptable alternative, or they'd simply do without it.
Because people that need them occasionaly aren't willing to pay for it when they can get it some other way.
Again, more nonsense. Nobody who really needs Photoshop only needs it occassionally. They need Photoshop because they can't get their work done any other way. People who think that they only need Photoshop occassionally don't really NEED it at all.
So these students can afford to pay $30K-$100K for their education but can't afford a few hundred dollars more for tools that will be invaluable during the span of their careers? You know why the don't buy Photoshop for After Effects? Because they don't have to. They can get it for free. They can't get a diploma for free, so they pay for it. Believe me, if they absolutely had to have Photoshop, but couldn't pirate it, they would pay the $500 or so it costs, "poor art student" or not.
The alternative is to let an installer (run with administrator privileges)
Not true. If you aren't logged in as an Admin user, it won't be run with admin privileges.
Also, the alternative is to just come up with a standard package format and have the various distributions agree to ship the packaging tool. Note that this does NOT imply that your choice of package managers is "stifled", you still have choice. There's just a standard package manager that all distros would be guaranteed to support. Linux distros being compatible with one another -- imagine that.
In my post, I was concentrating on the apps one needs for basic desktop usage, and all of those can be easily installed using apt/yum and their kin.
Still, you have not addressed the issue of distros that lack such packaging tools (there are untold numbers of distros, I'm sure there's at least a few that don't have package managers!). What about them? Are they forced to compile from source or perform bizarre hacks to get the program working? The answer is yes.
The software installation is pretty much a non-issue with broadband and apt/yum/emerge-type applications.
You're assuming that every app someone could possibly ever want to use is packaged in the particular format that your distro uses. Depending on your needs, there will most likely be a time when you have to fall back from packages.
These are really great, but not standard across linux distributions. I don't see why they should be, though.
Because maybe it would lead to a situation where every software developer can be sure that every Linux distro, at the bare minimum, has one particular package manager? Having a million different possible ways to package up software is a pain. Have you ever seen how some software downloads look? Links for DEBs, RPMs (separate Redhat, Mandrake, and SuSE versions), Slackware TGZs, regular old.tar.gz files, etc. God help you if you forget some obscure packaging format -- the users will be up in arms! It's ridiculous. A packaging standard (and a GUI standard, and a filesystem hierarchy standard, etc.) across all Linux distros would do a world of good. Sadly, no one in the Linux community wants to embrace it, because they feel that all distros having some standard piece of software (that advanced users could easily customize and/or remove if need be) stifles choice somehow. It's a very counter-productive attitude.
The setup will/should be handled by the OEMs as not many people install windows on their own anyway, not without the help of somebody more knowledgable.
And what about the people who consider themselves knowledgeable about computers, but not Linux?
The driver thing is sadly a question of acceptance. When we are more mainstream, we will have drivers.
That, and some way to resolve the kernel breakage nightmare. I've never understood why binary drivers break with every single minor kernel change, i.e., it works with 2.6.1, but breaks with 2.6.2. Surely there must be some way to make a standard driver interface that keeps drivers from breaking whenever the kernel is upgraded, save for sweeping kernel revisions, right? Linux DEFINITELY needs that before the average hardware company takes releasing Linux drivers seriously. Why should hardware companies have to constantly update their drivers every few weeks just so the driver doesn't break with the latest and greatest kernel? And what about those who stay a few revisions behind? The company has to keep those versions available to DL too (and inevitably, there will be a group of users demanding 2.2 or 2.4 kernel drivers). And then there's those guys who have unofficial kernel versions (2.x.yac-17 or whatever) clamoring for binary drivers compatible with their forked kernel. It's insane, and it's keeping hardware companies away from Linux like crazy. Linux needs STANDARDS or else we're going to be hearing "is 2024 the year of Linux on the desktop?" on Slashdot.
Very good point. People tend to forget that rigging up a customzied, totally stripped Linux installation containing nothing but a desktop with two icons: "Internet" and "E-Mail", proves nothing about Linux usability. All it proves is that even the most computer illiterate folks can handle a dumbed-down computer that only has two or three functions. Hell, pretty much any modern OS can handle that no problem.
You're right, what we need to see are the reactions of people who know a little bit more about computers. People who are, for instance, familiar with the process of installing hardware, software, basic to intermediate system administration, etc.
The author was, obviously, talking about the users. Of course companies are going to push their products all the time. However, I think what the author was trying to say was that you'll be hard pressed to find people who primarily use commercial products that will turn down using a free product (provided it does what they want and is easy to use) on purely philosophical grounds. Compare this with religious OSS proponents, who have a belief that using any proprietary software is absolutely unacceptable and will somehow taint their computer.
Exactly. I know the prevailing theory on Slashdot is that indie music can't get on store shelves because the big music companies have retail outlets in a death grip, but the reality of the situation is that it's fucking expensive to get your album on the shelves. Consider how much it costs to get your album on the shelves of nearly every Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Circuit City, FYE, Coconuts, all the smaller chains, etc. That's what it takes to sell millions of records, and that's why artists rely on record companies. They have the money to get the artist's product on a majority of the shelves in the places Americans buy music, and they have the promotional tools necessary to ensure that the average person is at least somewhat aware of the artist in question before heading to a retail store to buy that artist's album. It's not a conspiracy to keep the little guys out, it's just the reality of the situation: it costs a lot of money to stock products, and if there is little indication that your item is going to sell, stores will be hesitant to waste shelf space on your product when there are products that have a better chance of getting sold.
You are basing this on three years worth of using Linux IN THE MID 90'S????
Perhaps you missed the part where I stated that I still use a FreeBSD box to this day. I should have been more clear about it, but there have been no breaks in my usage of Linux/BSD. So in other words, I've basically been following the whole Linux/open source software stuff SINCE THE MID 90's. I did not just use it for three years and then stop. My server machine has the most recent version of KDE installed on it. It blew then, it still blows now.
Today my digital carmera works with Linux. My PDA works with Linux. My iPod works with Linux.
And I'm sure that you had to make sure that those pieces of hardware worked with Linux before actually buying them. The nice thing about Windows is that you can pick any random piece of hardware off the "PC" shelf at the store and know that it ships with drivers and support for Windows.
Less hassle to run Windows? When I want a new application, I click on the Synaptic icon, find the application and press the install button. In Windows, one had to wade through crap on some shareware site, and then finally end up with a crippled and time limited program (even for the most trivial things!) that then needs more hassle to either register or the endless hassle that of trying to crack or find a serial (immoral, whatever: I'll never do it again because it is such a bitch, yet all windows users I know do it).
This is a bit of a generalization here, don't you think? Not all Windows software is either shareware or costs money. There's plenty of free software for Windows, perhaps you just aren't very aware of it. In fact, there's even Cygwin, so all that free Unix software can run on Windows!
As for the guys mother, I think we can all be glad she won't be able to run the cute little program (read trojan horse or worm) that her friends sent her.
Typical zealot response. It came in an email, it's for Windows, it's executable, so it must be a virus. No, I've seen these programs before. Cute little things like "elf bowling" or executable Flash greeting cards. Old people love them.
And as for the genealogy application, I would come over, install one of the many available and explain to her that she does not need to open her wallet for software again.
Of course, you're assuming these freeware programs are as good as the commercial offering. I know, I know, anything open source is better than anything closed source, but let's get real here. And are you going to tell me that something like Gnucash can compete with Turbo Tax? Please. Assuming you give her a piece of free software that is functionally complete and user-friendly enough to meet her needs, you'll be okay. But as soon as you start recommending she use freeware that is in some way "broken" to her, you're going to keep leading her down the path of "ok, well use that program to do this, and use this other, similar program to do the other thing...", making what otherwise might have been a simple process (for her), into a baffling ordeal.
You know what I do? I have one FreeBSD machine connected to my desktop with an ethernet cable. That's the best of both worlds. Windows XP is a great desktop, it's got all of the software I want and need, it's pretty damn reliable (oh no, I can't get 3 year uptimes, guess I'll just have to settle with getting months at a time), and working with it on a day to day basis is less of a hassle to me. If I want to use Unix software, guess what? I just SSH in or use the X server running on my desktop to do what I need to do. Why would I confine myself to just using a FreeBSD (or Linux) desktop? It's pointless with the kind of setup I have.
Flamebait? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this PRECISELY what will happen the moment his mother tries to install a piece of Windows-only software on her computer? Sorry if I'm flaming everyone with the truth...
No, I don't hate Linux/open source at all. In fact, I used Linux for about 3 years in the mid 90's, then moved on to FreeBSD. I still have a FreeBSD machine that works as a server. I like to think I know a lot about the strengths and WEAKNESSES of Linux/open source software. I use a Windows desktop because after all the years of using Linux, despite knowing all these subtle little nuances, I found it more trouble than it's worth to use Linux/FreeBSD as my desktop when it's a lot less hassle to just use Windows. Recently I've just been trying to knock a little sense into these rabid pro-Linux zealots who refuse to acknowledge some of the real shortcomings of Linux. You know how they say "use the best tool for the job"? I believe that there are situations where Linux is DEFINITELY not the best tool for the job, and Windows is a much better tool. This kind of thinking seems hopelessly lost on the Slashdot crowd, of course.
I put it on an old Dell last month, gave it to my mother, and she did not say anything; the thing got onto the Net, let her edit her documents and send email and browse, print out her papers, and generally did a nice job, well.
And you won't hear anything until your mother either receives some cute Windows-only program in her email from one of her friends or attempts to run some off-the-shelf software, like a Genealogy program (old people love them), or Turbo Tax or something like that.
"Son, why can't I run this program? I put in the CD and it doesn't do anything! What's the matter with my computer? Is it broken? Do I need to buy a new one?"
"No mother, your computer is fine. The software is for Windows, and your computer only runs Linux. I installed Linux on your computer because I wanted to impose my software ideology upon you without your consent. I didn't think you'd actually try to run store-bought software. Just stick to writing emails and browing the net, your computer will be fine."
"Fine? What's fine about my computer, I can't run Family Tree Maker on it! What's Windows? Can you put it on my computer? I want to run this program I bought!"
Have fun explaining what you did to her computer...
Judging by the responses to your post, most Slashdotters just don't get what you're saying. I think there are two big reasons why the average Linux zealot doesn't realize that install/uninstall is easier in Windows than in Linux, TO THE AVERAGE PERSON, no matter how simple the Linux zealot THINKS it is:
1. The oft-repeated line "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
2. Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?" Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in/tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit/etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?" Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"
So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.
I think the issue is that with closed source development, there is more focus on having on having one single vision for how everything works. One group of people is calling the shots and dictating how they want their software to work, whereas in open source development you have all sorts of groups trying to take the software in a million directions. Consequently, the software doesn't have consistent goals for what it wants to accomplish, other than "it should do everything in every imaginable way that a user would want it to." The end result of this thinking is software that is hodge-podged together with a variety of standards that may or may not be compatible with other software. GNOME does things their way, KDE does it another. Some of the software works together, some doesn't. Massive library dependencies, multiple packaging standards, file structure inconsistencies (some distros install software to this location and have config files in a certain kind of hierarchy, others do it another way), etc.
What OS X and Windows do is have one company providing direction and saying "these are our standards and interfaces, at the very least you can rely on things being done THIS way", which helps usability and development massively. Why is it that with Windows you can almost always (barring certain issues related to the software) install any piece of off-the-shelf recent software without hassle on Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, and 2003? Obviously there are exceptions, but they are just that -- exceptions. It happens more often than not that you can do this with Windows. Why then, in 2004 are there still problems getting software "out of the box" to run consistently with all of the Linux distributions? Case in point: our product uses InstallShield to do installations for Windows and Linux. On Windows, no problems getting the installer to run. On Linux, the installer works for most of our supported distributions without a problem, but on one distro (Redhat EE 3.0), you have to do "export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5" or else the installer doesn't work. This is some sort of inconsistency with libraries or something, isn't it? Why do problems like that still exist?
Low profit? I'm guessing more like NO profit. Apple said it themselves, didn't they?
Failures like these (and all the rest that came before, and will come after) just point to the fact that by and large, consumers aren't dying to spend 99 cents on a song, they just want to get music FOR FREE. A lot of rants in the past on Slashdot boiled down to "Oh, it's so obvious! The only reason people are using Kazaa and Napster is because those stupid record companies won't let them buy tracks online for 99 cents apiece!" Well, it doesn't look like that scenario is panning out. Apple is doing good, if you define "doing good" as "barely covering costs, possibly losing money." The only reason they're staying with it is because iTunes can be used to push iPod sales. But when the iPod market becomes thouroughly saturated, then what?
In the end, I don't think this market will ever have any sustainability, because to a lot of people, being able to download an album unattended for FREE will beat having to pay ANY price.
I've said many times on Slashdot that if you want P2P to be taken seriously and not be labeled as a haven for pirates, you need to actively engage in discouraging the use of P2P for illegal file trading. These guys are actually doing that. Good for them. At least they're not acting like some hand-waving Slashbots ranting about how no one takes P2P seriously, all the while refusing to acknowledge that the majority of data transfered on P2P networks is copyrighted, and furthermore refusing to do anything about it.
My favorite comeback line: "Maybe we should outlaw knives because someone might do something illegal with them!" -- completely off-target. Right now, the situation with P2P isn't that a minority of people are using P2P networks to trade copyrighted materials, but that a minority of people are using P2P networks for trading non-copyrighted materials. Until P2P fans actively pursue and discourage the use of P2P for illegitimate uses, P2P will continue to have a bad rap and be pursued by copyright holders.
But seriously, how is this going to help anything?
First of all, how is the average user going to FIND a media player in the first place? If he already knows a player by name, he probably has a preference for it and will download it anyway, whether or not Media Player is pre-installed. He can always Google for a media player, but honestly, not including one just makes the system incomplete. Believe it or not, in this day and age, there are two things that we all (even Linux fans) expect to come with our OS for free: a web browser and a media player.
I feel that bundling all these applications is just going to hurt Microsoft more than is necessary (i.e., these terms are being set just to make Microsoft bleed). I mean, there's the obvious confusion factor inherent with shipping a system with 3 or 4 different media players (Average user: "why are there 3 different media players? Does this one do something the other two don't? Why can't I just have one media player that plays everything? Why do I need 3 installed?"). I know Linux nerds can't grasp this point, since they love having about 50 different text editors, web browsers, etc. all installed at the same time, but to the average user such an approach just looks thrown together and comments poorly on the OS as a whole.
All I'm saying is that this is 2004, you really shouldn't have to edit configuration files and issue cryptic commands to get your hardware to work. Windows proves that you don't have to.
And you know, I imagine Windows would be just a little less popular if, after all these years, Windows users were forced to perform steps like the original poster did just to get their video card working.
P.S. Stop living in the past, it's been almost ten years since anyone has had to edit a config.sys file.
I had a Radeon VE, and acceleration wasn't working as well; by following these steps it worked:
searched for mesa libraries in mandrake cd and installed everything; edited files as follows:/etc/X11/XF86Config-4 Section "Device" Option "AGPMode" "4"/etc/modules agpgart/etc/modules.conf alias char-major-10-175 agpgart options agpgart agp_try_unsupported=1
What with these major leaps in user-friendliness, I'm convinced that 2004 really WILL be the year of Linux on the desktop!
Come on. You're taking zealotry to a whole new level.
Is it really easier for you to believe that this guy is taking kickbacks from Microsoft than to believe that maybe once Microsoft actually made a decent product that this guy really believes in?
So why is everyone getting so mad that this guy got his website "stolen"? I've heard many times on Slashdot that you can't steal information. After all, the original owner was never deprived of his copy of the information. This is the logic used to claim that music cannot be "stolen" from record companies, right? And besides, there's no such thing as "Intellectual Property".
Oh wait, I forgot. If you're stealing from a record company, that's OK, because it's not really stealing. When a little guy gets his information stolen, then it's stealing.
Why don't you just stop illegal trading of copyrighted materials? That'll get the RIAA to stop targeting P2P real quick.
For all this talk I hear on Slashdot about how only the fringe use P2P for illegitimate means and the majority are only interested in trading Linux ISOs, I hear even more talk about coming up with wacky schemes to prevent companies from protecting their copyrighted materials.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that when it's integrated and Microsoft is pushing it as the preferred method of writing Windows applications, developers will actually have incentive to do it. On Linux, there's no guarantee that Java is installed, but with Longhorn at least you can be sure that the .NET runtime is there. Net result? More apps written in .NET languages, leading to more sandboxed apps and at the very least a better shot at improved security.
I doubt that Microsoft's newest OS will have anything drastically new that the Linux community does not already have, or that can easily be added.
.NET apps seems to be a really good idea from a security standpoint -- patch the runtime and all .NET apps benefit, be it performance benefits or security benefits. No more of this "patch a single app" stuff. Microsoft is definitely on the right track with this.
.NET runtime IS faster than Java, meaning it's actually possible for them to make most of Windows's user apps run in the .NET VM without a huge performance hit. As much as Slashdotters lambast Microsoft for not "innovating", they're definitely taking radical steps with Longhorn. And, as usual, I predict that Linux users will remain stubborn and say "Oh those features are stupid, no one will use them. Linux can already do that with this ugly hack. RTFM" until about two years after Longhorn is released, at which point suddenly you'll see GNOME and KDE emulating all those things that Longhorn has been doing for years.
I wouldn't be so sure. Integrated XML user interfaces? Sandboxed VM execution for user-mode applications built in to the OS? Longhorn's got em, Linux doesn't. In particular, the emphasis on
It's attitudes like yours that Icaza is talking about. "Oh, XYZ huh? Yeah Linux has that, if you follow these seemingly endless instructions to get this kludgy hack working." I hate to say it, but just watch. Microsoft's XML UI technology is going to be faster than Mozilla's XUL, and their
Perhaps they have the money to pay for school, but don't have $700 to buy a PERSONAL copy of photoshop that they can use at home after paying for school.
Unfortunatly for him the scholarships he has won't pay for a personal copy of After Effects when he can use the copy in the schools editing lab.
Bullshit. If they're somehow getting large sums of money to pay for school, they can afford to pay a small (by comparison) sum for a tool required for school and their job after school. Basically, Photoshop, for an art student, can be viewed simply as a required school expense, like books and lab fees. Your argument would sound quite silly if you were talking about a computer science student that can pay for school, but can't afford a computer. Nonsense. He NEEDS a computer. He will find a way to pay for it. Hello, student loans?
And, as anyone experienced with using high-end tools like Photoshop will tell you, that $700 is not a drain, it's an investment. Just like a computer for a computer science student is. Just like a college education is.
Past that, how many people do you know that are willing to pay nearly $700.00 for photoshop just to occasionally open it for some personal photo retouching?
There are plenty of cheaper tools well-suited to simple photo retouching tasks (GIMP, anyone?). Failing to research alternatives is no excuse for pirating software. You're basically saying, "I need to take red eye out of these photos. Photoshop does it, but it costs $700! I have no choice! I must pirate Photoshop!" This is ridiculous. People who need Photoshop know why they need it and know that nothing else will suffice. Therefore, the pricetag is justified. These "poor art students" are simply hiding behind the price excuse because they can download it for free. If they couldn't download it, they'd find a way to buy it (because they'd have to to complete their degree!), or they'd find an acceptable alternative, or they'd simply do without it.
Because people that need them occasionaly aren't willing to pay for it when they can get it some other way.
Again, more nonsense. Nobody who really needs Photoshop only needs it occassionally. They need Photoshop because they can't get their work done any other way. People who think that they only need Photoshop occassionally don't really NEED it at all.
So these students can afford to pay $30K-$100K for their education but can't afford a few hundred dollars more for tools that will be invaluable during the span of their careers? You know why the don't buy Photoshop for After Effects? Because they don't have to. They can get it for free. They can't get a diploma for free, so they pay for it. Believe me, if they absolutely had to have Photoshop, but couldn't pirate it, they would pay the $500 or so it costs, "poor art student" or not.
The alternative is to let an installer (run with administrator privileges)
Not true. If you aren't logged in as an Admin user, it won't be run with admin privileges.
Also, the alternative is to just come up with a standard package format and have the various distributions agree to ship the packaging tool. Note that this does NOT imply that your choice of package managers is "stifled", you still have choice. There's just a standard package manager that all distros would be guaranteed to support. Linux distros being compatible with one another -- imagine that.
In my post, I was concentrating on the apps one needs for basic desktop usage, and all of those can be easily installed using apt/yum and their kin.
Still, you have not addressed the issue of distros that lack such packaging tools (there are untold numbers of distros, I'm sure there's at least a few that don't have package managers!). What about them? Are they forced to compile from source or perform bizarre hacks to get the program working? The answer is yes.
The software installation is pretty much a non-issue with broadband and apt/yum/emerge-type applications.
.tar.gz files, etc. God help you if you forget some obscure packaging format -- the users will be up in arms! It's ridiculous. A packaging standard (and a GUI standard, and a filesystem hierarchy standard, etc.) across all Linux distros would do a world of good. Sadly, no one in the Linux community wants to embrace it, because they feel that all distros having some standard piece of software (that advanced users could easily customize and/or remove if need be) stifles choice somehow. It's a very counter-productive attitude.
You're assuming that every app someone could possibly ever want to use is packaged in the particular format that your distro uses. Depending on your needs, there will most likely be a time when you have to fall back from packages.
These are really great, but not standard across linux distributions. I don't see why they should be, though.
Because maybe it would lead to a situation where every software developer can be sure that every Linux distro, at the bare minimum, has one particular package manager? Having a million different possible ways to package up software is a pain. Have you ever seen how some software downloads look? Links for DEBs, RPMs (separate Redhat, Mandrake, and SuSE versions), Slackware TGZs, regular old
The setup will/should be handled by the OEMs as not many people install windows on their own anyway, not without the help of somebody more knowledgable.
And what about the people who consider themselves knowledgeable about computers, but not Linux?
The driver thing is sadly a question of acceptance. When we are more mainstream, we will have drivers.
That, and some way to resolve the kernel breakage nightmare. I've never understood why binary drivers break with every single minor kernel change, i.e., it works with 2.6.1, but breaks with 2.6.2. Surely there must be some way to make a standard driver interface that keeps drivers from breaking whenever the kernel is upgraded, save for sweeping kernel revisions, right? Linux DEFINITELY needs that before the average hardware company takes releasing Linux drivers seriously. Why should hardware companies have to constantly update their drivers every few weeks just so the driver doesn't break with the latest and greatest kernel? And what about those who stay a few revisions behind? The company has to keep those versions available to DL too (and inevitably, there will be a group of users demanding 2.2 or 2.4 kernel drivers). And then there's those guys who have unofficial kernel versions (2.x.yac-17 or whatever) clamoring for binary drivers compatible with their forked kernel. It's insane, and it's keeping hardware companies away from Linux like crazy. Linux needs STANDARDS or else we're going to be hearing "is 2024 the year of Linux on the desktop?" on Slashdot.
Very good point. People tend to forget that rigging up a customzied, totally stripped Linux installation containing nothing but a desktop with two icons: "Internet" and "E-Mail", proves nothing about Linux usability. All it proves is that even the most computer illiterate folks can handle a dumbed-down computer that only has two or three functions. Hell, pretty much any modern OS can handle that no problem.
You're right, what we need to see are the reactions of people who know a little bit more about computers. People who are, for instance, familiar with the process of installing hardware, software, basic to intermediate system administration, etc.
The author was, obviously, talking about the users. Of course companies are going to push their products all the time. However, I think what the author was trying to say was that you'll be hard pressed to find people who primarily use commercial products that will turn down using a free product (provided it does what they want and is easy to use) on purely philosophical grounds. Compare this with religious OSS proponents, who have a belief that using any proprietary software is absolutely unacceptable and will somehow taint their computer.
Exactly. I know the prevailing theory on Slashdot is that indie music can't get on store shelves because the big music companies have retail outlets in a death grip, but the reality of the situation is that it's fucking expensive to get your album on the shelves. Consider how much it costs to get your album on the shelves of nearly every Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Circuit City, FYE, Coconuts, all the smaller chains, etc. That's what it takes to sell millions of records, and that's why artists rely on record companies. They have the money to get the artist's product on a majority of the shelves in the places Americans buy music, and they have the promotional tools necessary to ensure that the average person is at least somewhat aware of the artist in question before heading to a retail store to buy that artist's album. It's not a conspiracy to keep the little guys out, it's just the reality of the situation: it costs a lot of money to stock products, and if there is little indication that your item is going to sell, stores will be hesitant to waste shelf space on your product when there are products that have a better chance of getting sold.
You are basing this on three years worth of using Linux IN THE MID 90'S????
Perhaps you missed the part where I stated that I still use a FreeBSD box to this day. I should have been more clear about it, but there have been no breaks in my usage of Linux/BSD. So in other words, I've basically been following the whole Linux/open source software stuff SINCE THE MID 90's. I did not just use it for three years and then stop. My server machine has the most recent version of KDE installed on it. It blew then, it still blows now.
Today my digital carmera works with Linux. My PDA works with Linux. My iPod works with Linux.
And I'm sure that you had to make sure that those pieces of hardware worked with Linux before actually buying them. The nice thing about Windows is that you can pick any random piece of hardware off the "PC" shelf at the store and know that it ships with drivers and support for Windows.
Less hassle to run Windows? When I want a new application, I click on the Synaptic icon, find the application and press the install button. In Windows, one had to wade through crap on some shareware site, and then finally end up with a crippled and time limited program (even for the most trivial things!) that then needs more hassle to either register or the endless hassle that of trying to crack or find a serial (immoral, whatever: I'll never do it again because it is such a bitch, yet all windows users I know do it).
This is a bit of a generalization here, don't you think? Not all Windows software is either shareware or costs money. There's plenty of free software for Windows, perhaps you just aren't very aware of it. In fact, there's even Cygwin, so all that free Unix software can run on Windows!
As for the guys mother, I think we can all be glad she won't be able to run the cute little program (read trojan horse or worm) that her friends sent her.
Typical zealot response. It came in an email, it's for Windows, it's executable, so it must be a virus. No, I've seen these programs before. Cute little things like "elf bowling" or executable Flash greeting cards. Old people love them.
And as for the genealogy application, I would come over, install one of the many available and explain to her that she does not need to open her wallet for software again.
Of course, you're assuming these freeware programs are as good as the commercial offering. I know, I know, anything open source is better than anything closed source, but let's get real here. And are you going to tell me that something like Gnucash can compete with Turbo Tax? Please. Assuming you give her a piece of free software that is functionally complete and user-friendly enough to meet her needs, you'll be okay. But as soon as you start recommending she use freeware that is in some way "broken" to her, you're going to keep leading her down the path of "ok, well use that program to do this, and use this other, similar program to do the other thing...", making what otherwise might have been a simple process (for her), into a baffling ordeal.
You know what I do? I have one FreeBSD machine connected to my desktop with an ethernet cable. That's the best of both worlds. Windows XP is a great desktop, it's got all of the software I want and need, it's pretty damn reliable (oh no, I can't get 3 year uptimes, guess I'll just have to settle with getting months at a time), and working with it on a day to day basis is less of a hassle to me. If I want to use Unix software, guess what? I just SSH in or use the X server running on my desktop to do what I need to do. Why would I confine myself to just using a FreeBSD (or Linux) desktop? It's pointless with the kind of setup I have.
Flamebait? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this PRECISELY what will happen the moment his mother tries to install a piece of Windows-only software on her computer? Sorry if I'm flaming everyone with the truth...
No, I don't hate Linux/open source at all. In fact, I used Linux for about 3 years in the mid 90's, then moved on to FreeBSD. I still have a FreeBSD machine that works as a server. I like to think I know a lot about the strengths and WEAKNESSES of Linux/open source software. I use a Windows desktop because after all the years of using Linux, despite knowing all these subtle little nuances, I found it more trouble than it's worth to use Linux/FreeBSD as my desktop when it's a lot less hassle to just use Windows. Recently I've just been trying to knock a little sense into these rabid pro-Linux zealots who refuse to acknowledge some of the real shortcomings of Linux. You know how they say "use the best tool for the job"? I believe that there are situations where Linux is DEFINITELY not the best tool for the job, and Windows is a much better tool. This kind of thinking seems hopelessly lost on the Slashdot crowd, of course.
I put it on an old Dell last month, gave it to my mother, and she did not say anything; the thing got onto the Net, let her edit her documents and send email and browse, print out her papers, and generally did a nice job, well.
And you won't hear anything until your mother either receives some cute Windows-only program in her email from one of her friends or attempts to run some off-the-shelf software, like a Genealogy program (old people love them), or Turbo Tax or something like that.
"Son, why can't I run this program? I put in the CD and it doesn't do anything! What's the matter with my computer? Is it broken? Do I need to buy a new one?"
"No mother, your computer is fine. The software is for Windows, and your computer only runs Linux. I installed Linux on your computer because I wanted to impose my software ideology upon you without your consent. I didn't think you'd actually try to run store-bought software. Just stick to writing emails and browing the net, your computer will be fine."
"Fine? What's fine about my computer, I can't run Family Tree Maker on it! What's Windows? Can you put it on my computer? I want to run this program I bought!"
Have fun explaining what you did to her computer...
Judging by the responses to your post, most Slashdotters just don't get what you're saying. I think there are two big reasons why the average Linux zealot doesn't realize that install/uninstall is easier in Windows than in Linux, TO THE AVERAGE PERSON, no matter how simple the Linux zealot THINKS it is:
/tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"
1. The oft-repeated line "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
2. Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"
So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.
I think the issue is that with closed source development, there is more focus on having on having one single vision for how everything works. One group of people is calling the shots and dictating how they want their software to work, whereas in open source development you have all sorts of groups trying to take the software in a million directions. Consequently, the software doesn't have consistent goals for what it wants to accomplish, other than "it should do everything in every imaginable way that a user would want it to." The end result of this thinking is software that is hodge-podged together with a variety of standards that may or may not be compatible with other software. GNOME does things their way, KDE does it another. Some of the software works together, some doesn't. Massive library dependencies, multiple packaging standards, file structure inconsistencies (some distros install software to this location and have config files in a certain kind of hierarchy, others do it another way), etc.
What OS X and Windows do is have one company providing direction and saying "these are our standards and interfaces, at the very least you can rely on things being done THIS way", which helps usability and development massively. Why is it that with Windows you can almost always (barring certain issues related to the software) install any piece of off-the-shelf recent software without hassle on Windows 98, ME, 2000, XP, and 2003? Obviously there are exceptions, but they are just that -- exceptions. It happens more often than not that you can do this with Windows. Why then, in 2004 are there still problems getting software "out of the box" to run consistently with all of the Linux distributions? Case in point: our product uses InstallShield to do installations for Windows and Linux. On Windows, no problems getting the installer to run. On Linux, the installer works for most of our supported distributions without a problem, but on one distro (Redhat EE 3.0), you have to do "export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5" or else the installer doesn't work. This is some sort of inconsistency with libraries or something, isn't it? Why do problems like that still exist?
Low profit? I'm guessing more like NO profit. Apple said it themselves, didn't they?
Failures like these (and all the rest that came before, and will come after) just point to the fact that by and large, consumers aren't dying to spend 99 cents on a song, they just want to get music FOR FREE. A lot of rants in the past on Slashdot boiled down to "Oh, it's so obvious! The only reason people are using Kazaa and Napster is because those stupid record companies won't let them buy tracks online for 99 cents apiece!" Well, it doesn't look like that scenario is panning out. Apple is doing good, if you define "doing good" as "barely covering costs, possibly losing money." The only reason they're staying with it is because iTunes can be used to push iPod sales. But when the iPod market becomes thouroughly saturated, then what?
In the end, I don't think this market will ever have any sustainability, because to a lot of people, being able to download an album unattended for FREE will beat having to pay ANY price.
Contrary to popular belief, an impeachment is not a conviction, it's an indictment. So, you're wrong, Clinton was impeached, but not convicted.
... since he's related to Microsoft, this contribution has to be wrong or evil for some reason.
Come on, get those conspiracy theories going already!
I've said many times on Slashdot that if you want P2P to be taken seriously and not be labeled as a haven for pirates, you need to actively engage in discouraging the use of P2P for illegal file trading. These guys are actually doing that. Good for them. At least they're not acting like some hand-waving Slashbots ranting about how no one takes P2P seriously, all the while refusing to acknowledge that the majority of data transfered on P2P networks is copyrighted, and furthermore refusing to do anything about it.
My favorite comeback line: "Maybe we should outlaw knives because someone might do something illegal with them!" -- completely off-target. Right now, the situation with P2P isn't that a minority of people are using P2P networks to trade copyrighted materials, but that a minority of people are using P2P networks for trading non-copyrighted materials. Until P2P fans actively pursue and discourage the use of P2P for illegitimate uses, P2P will continue to have a bad rap and be pursued by copyright holders.
But seriously, how is this going to help anything?
First of all, how is the average user going to FIND a media player in the first place? If he already knows a player by name, he probably has a preference for it and will download it anyway, whether or not Media Player is pre-installed. He can always Google for a media player, but honestly, not including one just makes the system incomplete. Believe it or not, in this day and age, there are two things that we all (even Linux fans) expect to come with our OS for free: a web browser and a media player.
I feel that bundling all these applications is just going to hurt Microsoft more than is necessary (i.e., these terms are being set just to make Microsoft bleed). I mean, there's the obvious confusion factor inherent with shipping a system with 3 or 4 different media players (Average user: "why are there 3 different media players? Does this one do something the other two don't? Why can't I just have one media player that plays everything? Why do I need 3 installed?"). I know Linux nerds can't grasp this point, since they love having about 50 different text editors, web browsers, etc. all installed at the same time, but to the average user such an approach just looks thrown together and comments poorly on the OS as a whole.
All I'm saying is that this is 2004, you really shouldn't have to edit configuration files and issue cryptic commands to get your hardware to work. Windows proves that you don't have to.
And you know, I imagine Windows would be just a little less popular if, after all these years, Windows users were forced to perform steps like the original poster did just to get their video card working.
P.S. Stop living in the past, it's been almost ten years since anyone has had to edit a config.sys file.
I had a Radeon VE, and acceleration wasn't working as well; by following these steps it worked:
/etc/X11/XF86Config-4 /etc/modules /etc/modules.conf
searched for mesa libraries in mandrake cd and installed everything;
edited files as follows:
Section "Device"
Option "AGPMode" "4"
agpgart
alias char-major-10-175 agpgart
options agpgart agp_try_unsupported=1
What with these major leaps in user-friendliness, I'm convinced that 2004 really WILL be the year of Linux on the desktop!
Come on. You're taking zealotry to a whole new level.
Is it really easier for you to believe that this guy is taking kickbacks from Microsoft than to believe that maybe once Microsoft actually made a decent product that this guy really believes in?
So why is everyone getting so mad that this guy got his website "stolen"? I've heard many times on Slashdot that you can't steal information. After all, the original owner was never deprived of his copy of the information. This is the logic used to claim that music cannot be "stolen" from record companies, right? And besides, there's no such thing as "Intellectual Property".
Oh wait, I forgot. If you're stealing from a record company, that's OK, because it's not really stealing. When a little guy gets his information stolen, then it's stealing.
Why don't you just stop illegal trading of copyrighted materials? That'll get the RIAA to stop targeting P2P real quick.
For all this talk I hear on Slashdot about how only the fringe use P2P for illegitimate means and the majority are only interested in trading Linux ISOs, I hear even more talk about coming up with wacky schemes to prevent companies from protecting their copyrighted materials.