When I was new to Linux, I tried something like a dozen different GUI tools trying to adjust the NIC... Once I figured out that all the changes were being made to a file in/etc, I found that editing the file was trivial, and eventually learned that all changes to the system are done by a quick edit in/etc. That's just one example, though. My point is only that, just because you are able to use it, doesn't mean you really understand the major differences in how it works.
I know about etc and text-based configure scripts, but that doesn't mean I like them.;-) Again, without a HOWTO or a dilligent exploration of that folder, you'll have no idea how to configure something. Yeah, you figure it out eventually, but I'd rather be doing work than trying to figure out how to configure piece-of-hardware X that just works on Windows/Mac. Maybe you see that as a good time, but not me.
That is only the start. If you stick with it, you will learn far far more. Apple put in a Unix shell, and they were smart to do it, but that can't replace a full Unix system. The differences are just too great. You'd have to port over all the apps in a Unix system to OS X to get the functionality, and then you're just using an X session on an OS X machine, so you might as well switch at that point.
Sure, and if, in addition to my two UNIX classes and Linux development-testing, I spend countless hours scouring the web for HOWTOs to do all sorts of things and learning all sorts of command-line tools, I'll know so much more about my system. But I still won't care, and I'd rather have spent that time doing productive work. I don't have a curiousity about how my system works, I just want it to work without me having to spend months upon months learning the inner workings of it.
Same thing works with Linux. Download the RPM, double-click it, enter root password, click install. That's really all there is to it.
I've found RPMs (except SRPMs of course) to depend on you to have a particular distro, and a particular version of that distro, installed. Otherwise, you're tracking down "dependency hell" as you end up scouring the web to find RPMs of packages not installed by default for your distro, if they exist, and compiling from source if they don't. And I won't even mention version conflicts. I think most Linux users are so used to problems like these, they almost forget that it's even a problem. In any case, saying "point click install" is an ideal that RPM aspires to, but does not achieve.
[Descriptive folder names]That is a very minor issue.
... for software developers, who understand the meanings of terms like/bin and/lib and can easily remember them. For most people "bin" is a place to put stuff.
Figuring out the meaning of the base folder names is something that only takes a moment. Besides, that is really an administrative issue.
On my home machines, I'm the administrator. It's the same for all home users. And you say that knowing the differences between/opt,/var,/etc,/dev, etc. are easy without knowing what's in them first?? Yes, I know I can read the Linux FileSystem Hierarchy docs... But on Mac I have a folder called/System. One folder with all my "do not touch" stuff in it. Easy to understand.
If you are comparing administering a Linux box to using 1-2 programs on a Mac, obviously it's going to come out behind.
I have some 50-60 programs on my Mac, about half of which I've installed myself. And yes I'm comparing them, because I'd install those same programs (or similar ones) on Linux.
Yes you do... You just don't call it by the same name. On Linux, you could remove a program without a package manager, it would just be a hassle if you had to install it again.
Really? I'm using a package manager on Mac? Would you like to bet money on that?;-)
Mandrake is an attempt to make Linux into an OS that someone from Windows can use. They are failing, you don't have to stress that. I think people have been recommending Suse as a better replacement.
On the contrary, I've tried SuSE 9.1 and far prefer Mandrake. After figuring out how to install SuSE over FTP, and running though the installer (which hung for about 30 minutes for whatever reason), I finally had a distro up and running. No GNOME option, so I was stuck with KDE (yuck). I found their admin tools to be OK, some on par with Mandrake, others not. Overall, not quite as good. But the interesting thing was that I left the box running for about 4-5 hours while I did some work on another box, and when I came back, SuSE had kernel panicked! I could plop down $50 to see if their commercial offering has this problem, but I think I'll pass.
And actually, in a fit of madness a few weeks back, I tried about every major distro that I could (freely) get my hands on. All in all, I've tried Knoppix, SuSE, RedHat, GoboLinux, and Libranet. (I eliminated some KDE-only desktops.) I was also able to get a chance to try Xandros. And in the end, I went back to Mandrake. So while I think the Linux desktop has a ways to go, I think Mandrake is closer than any of the other guys.
Slackware, Debian, Gentoo are all very nice dists with a somewhat hefty learning curve. They cater to geeks, and aren't right for a mainstream user. They are the dists that are doing it like Apple, as you pointed out should be done.
Sure, and I'd say they're a huge success in terms of meeting the goals of their target market.
I completely agree that Windows is -not- the one way, or even the best way to make an easy to use desktop. But tell that to the millions of people who will use nothing but Windows.
Apple did it by providing products (and intuitive interfaces) that you couldn't get on Windows, which drew peoples' attention. The only way Linux will win the "non-geek" target market is by being something new and different from Windows, but not being significantly more difficult to master, which is where Linux typically fails.
It's quite simple. You are so adjusted to the Windows/Mac way of doing things, that doing things the Unix way is unthinkable. It's not that Unix is any harder, it's just that it's totally different.
That's not true at all. How is it 'unthinkable' if I actually use it? I understand how it works. And yes, when I'm doing things like chaining together command line commands or batch automating tasks, it certainly beats Windows (not Mac, because I can do it there too). But Mac has all of this.
What Mac has that UNIX/Linux doesn't is the usability end of the equation. For most things, I can download a program, double-click on it, and do my work. I don't need to learn (and more importantly, remember) command line commands nor search the web for HOWTOs and mailing list postings to figure out how to make something work. When I click on a folder, by its name I can already tell what's in there, i.e. "/Applications" vs. "/usr/bin". I have control of my machine (I don't need a "package manager" to install or delete a program), and when I do need the command line, it's there. It's like Linux, just no "pangs". I can learn the command line at my leisure, instead of being *forced* to learn it because there's no other way to complete even simple system configuration tasks (i.e. sharing with Windows via SAMBA). So what exactly do you mean by saying Linux/UNIX isn't any harder than Mac? Certainly it's MUCH harder to get started with.
Personally, I think that Linux distros make things far more difficult than they need to be for users. GNOME and KDE are like a whole OS on top of Unix, and another very complicated thing that beginners feel they need to learn. Instead, if they started everyone off with a working system, with XFce as their desktop environment, people would take to it quick than MacOS, because it's so simple.
I've never used XFce, so I can't comment there, but GNOME is the only reason I can use Linux at all. KDE is annoying for me, it's like Windows without the usability and with all of the unnecessary bubbly eye candy. Their explorer is actually confusing and more complex than Windows. GNOME at least is starting to take some usability cues from Mac and has a somewhat straightforward interface, which is a start.
You see, the thing about GUIs that many geeks don't seem to get, is that you can click on things and learn only what you want to learn. You can explore new things at your own leisure. You can also choose not to explore, once you learn the two programs you need. It's visual, and a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. The command line relies on rote memorization, which in turn requires on lots of repitition. These are the primary "pangs" you referred to.
They should also include a single, simple program, that would allow you to configure everything about your system (vaguely like the windows control panel). Up to now, all of the configuration tools do different things, and none of them do it all.
This part I agree with. I know every desktop has different system configuration tools, some easy to use, some not, but when I download system X I'm playing roulette as to whether I'll be able to actually configure my system without the help of some friendly HOWTOs.
Linux has already done this. It's current market is full of geeks who don't think that Linux is hard to use. I think Windows is hard to maintain, and that's why I use Linux.
But I was talking about GNOME and, more importantly, Mozilla. Are Mozilla and GNOME just targetting geeks? From what they've said in the past and in the meeting notes, I don't think this is the case. My issues were with how they intend to gain marketshare in the other markets, those who are using other OSes or other products.
The Linux community is now trying to expand their market to people like you, who don't see the elegance of how things are handled in a unix-ish OS.
Then, no disrespect, but it is failing miserably, and statements like "who don't see the elegance.." are indeed elitist and makes it sound like this target market is too dumb for Linux anyways. I use Linux-based distros (Mandrake currently, though not as my primary desktop), I've learned quite a bit about UNIX/Linux, the command line, etc., and while I see its benefits, it was (actually is) a painful and steep learning curve. It's orders of magnitude harder than learning Mac and Windows for someone who didn't start off on UNIX. How can something so elegant be so painful? I just don't see it, right? Well, if I hadn't been stubborn enough to learn how Linux works (and actually it's thanks to Mac that I got more of a sense of the command line), I would have given up on it long ago.
Is my response elitist? A little bit, but it's true. I think you're original post was ignorant. I've been tossing the idea around in my head that maybe it would be better if Linux -wasn't- the most used OS. It'll end up like Windows.
Actually, Linux is just a kernel. This is an important point. There are probably 100s of Linux-based OSes. So why can't you have your uber-geek distribution (Gentoo? Debian?) while I have my easy to use distribution? In fact, I think everyone talking like there is one "Linux" confuses the issue considerably.
Also, it doesn't *have* to end up like Windows, but if it does, it will be because the open source community made it that way. My concern is that this is actually where projects like Mozilla are trying to push things. Windows != easy to use. Windows = "one way to implement an easy to use desktop, although far from the best way to do it". Anyone who uses Windows as the gold standard for ease of use will never create a compelling reason to switch from Windows. In fact, as the saying goes, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". OSS software will thus be seen as the "cheap knock-off" of high-quality Windows software. And that's the last way I'd like OSS to be perceived.
OSS developers tend to push the rather silly 'it's cheaper so they'll switch if we offer a similar solution' battle plan. No thanks. I'm still using Windows (actually, Mac primarily) although Linux is cheaper because Windows and Mac provide me with a whole lot of ease of use that Linux lacks, for what is relatively a small amount of money. (When you consider I work on these things 8 hours a day!) When Linux provides ease of use at more than a superficial level (no, having a GUI doesn't automatically mean "easy to use") then I'll think about switching.
Apple was smart when they took an attitude of "we don't *CARE* what Microsoft is doing, we'll just carve our own markets and create compelling value". This strategy works, because Apple isn't constantly trying to catch up with Microsoft. Instead, they're working on the best possible solution for *their* customers, not Microsoft's. They have a very good understanding of who their customers are, and which customers they're likely to switch over. They've done research on this.
What Mozilla should have learned by now is that the browser just isn't that important anymore. "Our browser is better than yours" will hardly cause end users to switch in boatloads. Developers, however, are more open to switching and more keen on using these technologies in their own apps. Yet, despite this, they say that embedding and the GRE are not priorities until FireFox 1.0 is released. So their focus is on making a good browser, which MS already has. (Don't start about the benefits of Mozilla over IE, I know what they are and most users neither know nor care.)
Their real potential growth market is in embedding, where Windows/Linux/Mac apps can share a similar rendering engine, in tools like Quicken/TurboTax. XUL is an added bonus. But embedding is not a priority nor is it easy to do. So while they could be getting Mozilla/GRE dumped on all sorts of desktops via third-party apps, they've chosen to focus on converting end users, a majority of whom just don't care about which browser they use.
Another great growth area would be Composer, which is already a decent contender to FrontPage, but which most people don't even know exists. Again, a compelling selling point for Mozilla (and embeddable!) but it basically gets ignored. In fact, I think editor embedding is actually a killer app for Mozilla - how many apps work with HTML these days? And unlike with the browser, Mozilla has very little competition here. FrontPage and Dreamweaver are expensive, and they don't offer a real, compelling benefit over Composer.
Instead of pursuing these opportunities, now it sounds like they're going to dump bunches of resources integrating with GNOME and trying to beat Microsoft at its own game (good luck, you're not the first to try!). Also, sounds like they're going to try reinventing portions of wxWidgets/wxWindows internally to provide a "native" XUL, like OpenOffice is now in the process of doing with their own toolkit. Talk about collaboration! It's a wonder we haven't tore Microsoft a new one yet...
The difference is that with a GUI you can explore. Click and see what happens. (Guess what, lots of kids learn this way.) You learn by seeing, you learn by doing. It's a very powerful way to learn.
You can certainly type random commands and see what happens, if you've got a few days to kill... =) Otherwise, you will need to have someone teach you the command to check your mail, the command to browse your files, the command to do word processing, the command to login to the internet, the command to browse the web... Without knowing those commands, you are helpless.
There, you are now equipped with knowledge for every program
...whose name you already know. And, sometimes -h works but --help doesn't, and vice versa. And, the user must know the difference between options (querying or configuring the program) and arguments (passing in data) in order to understand how to do things like get help or find the version.
Also, the user also has to remember names like 'man', which are quite frankly poorly named. (When you want help, think of 'man'...?) You may think all of this is 'simple' because you've learned it and use it on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean its easy to learn. You've simply forgotten or never realized what it took to learn and internalize it.
I'm not arguing which one is superior (they're both well-suited for different tasks, IMHO) but I'm arguing which one you can get started quicker with. It's hard to beat Help->Help Contents for easy to learn (i.e. no instruction needed) access to help.
GUIs let you explore until you find what you want by pointing and clicking on things. With command lines, you need to know the commands, and the options, before starting. That means that you need some sort of training before you start using the command line. So in your analogy, you'd have to "learn" the language of the OS before you can start 'writing' anything at all. Learning English actually took you a very, very long time, even if you don't remember it.
Once you have that training, the command line is a very useful tool. But if you can't get the training, and aren't self-sufficient or technically apt enough to go to the bookstore and buy a book on how to use the command line, you're screwed.
That's why people like having icons for things. The message icon is your mail program. Don't have to remember what it's name is, or where it's at. Just click.
While what you are saying holds some truth, it's really very far from explaining the total situation. For the "developer" status to be of any use, a registered developer has to *own* a Mac first. So this rapid growth in the number of registered developers also shows a trend in people buying Macs as well. Some companies or organizations may do this to "port" their app, but I doubt a lot of OSS developers are shelling out their hard-earned cash just to "port" their app.
As a "switcher", I can say it's like Linux/Unix without the hassle, and with commercial apps available. It is my preferred platform, though I had only cursory experience with Macs before OS X. I develop open source apps then do my homework in Microsoft Office (because I have to), and it all just works. =) And I'm not the only one, there are many, many others out there like this. (Apple laptops, which were hardly seen 3-4 years ago, are becoming common sights at conferences by all accounts.) So I don't think there is very much 'spin' to this. Apple IS getting developer mindshare, and like the article says, probably a considerable amount too.
By far my favorite FTP client has been FileZilla, but as a Mac user I've always been disappointed that I couldn't use it on my Mac. However, FileZilla 3 will be written in wxWidgets, and I'll even help package it for OS X if that is what it takes to get FileZilla on my Mac! =)
True, it's nice to have a choice. As each develops we can see that advantages and disadvantages of each one.
And see various users get "attached" to their format of choice, and then refuse to use other formats, meaning that the different formats will be in existence for a very long time to come.
Why does it make a software developers life hell? We just maintain the source code in a.tgz. Then each distribution can compile and package it as they want. All the major distros have so much momentum that Joe, Jack and Jill can have it in any format they need. You might argue there is a duplication of effort, but in reality turning the apps into packages isn't that difficult.
First, your argument relies on project X having enough "momentum" that each distribution decides to make their own package for it. Good for popular apps, but not so good for new or "niche" apps. And now as a user, I'm primarily dependent on a small group of "packagers" to make sure I can install software easily on my distro? Nice.
Second, I really hate when Linux users claim that *everything* is easy. Easy to use, maybe, easy to learn? No. Most Linux users forget that they spent a great deal of time learning the things they know, and that for new users things are not "easy" at all. Furthermore, in this case, each solution has a text-based format with *different syntax* so I need to basically memorize the syntax of all 3 to be reasonably productive. (Else I sit there continually looking everything up.) In any case, it's a lot more work to learn than Windows and Mac, pretty much exponentially so, especially if your package goes beyond the basic "dump this file here" type.
Not really true. Not only do most distros support alien package formats,
At the binary, or source, level?
but if you don't package it then someone else will.
Might, if there's enough interest in your project. Of course, some users won't try your project until there's a package in their format of choice available, making this an excellent catch 22. The end result: I have to learn all the formats and then package them myself if I want Linux developer support. Yay!
People are getting together and working on a solution, it's just that different people have different ideas as to what that solution is. The three main contenders are.deb,.rpm, compiling from source (eg via Gentoo ebuild).
In short: they can't agree, so they all develop different solutions. It's an excuse not to work together; to repackage NIH syndrome as "competing solutions". There is no Linux solution, there's a Gentoo solution, a RedHat solution, a Debian solution, a "Unix" solution... how is this working together?
This is all supposedly to find out which format is technically superior? I could care less which is superior, really. I just want a binary package format that works reasonably well and lets me target all the platform's users. Even Windows' install system meets this criteria, but none for Linux do.
Solutions may be "ported" to other platforms giving "more" choice, but no developer could really say "hey, you need to install apt-rpm before you can install my package" and expect people to comply. So while the choice benefits the user, the developer can't rely on it to simplify their packaging needs. Competing solutions is not always a bad thing, but deploying such solutions widely is, at least for users who want simple solutions. Once the "competing solutions" all get a significant chunk of market share, it becomes nearly impossible to merge them later, meaning that you're left with 3 different solutions to the same problem. Yay!
Linux is free to have its prized "choice", but it can't have its cake and eat it too. Choice comes at the sacrifice of simplicity and ease of use, because when there's choices, each new user has to *make* choices, which means *learning* all the contenders, understanding the differences between them, and choosing a favorite. That's actu
Yes, but it's only solved in Debian. Have you noticed that people's choice of distribution is usually *heavily* based around the packaging system the distribution uses? Think about that for a minute. All of these distros are not very different at all if you take away their unique packaging systems.
I see that as sad, personally. The ability to install software easily has become the #1 differentiator between distros. As long as everyone picks the same distro, this works great. Otherwise, it makes software developers' lives hell. Joe wants a RPM, Jack wants a DEB, Jill wants an Emerge, and others want an autoconf-based tarball that includes all the dependencies for easy source installs. Cripes.
So while you marvel at Debian's simplicity, I'll pull my hair out learning several different packaging formats and trying to maintain them all. Furthermore, to make binaries, I need to have access to each of those distros! There is supposedly some LSB-compliant binary builder, but I haven't figured that out yet... And yet people expect developers to make more effort to support Linux while Linux vendors (and OSS developers) just keep adding more complexity to the whole thing? It just seems like a case of continually re-inventing the wheel rather than getting together and coming to a solution.
When distribution vendors can get out of the software packaging business (except for the core OS), it will be a great day for developers and users alike. Standards need to be adhered to, and people need to realize that a filesystem designed for optimizing command-line use (i.e. everything on the Path or in "special" folders, easy-to-type folder names vs. easy-to-understand) is no longer a very good choice for today's increasingly complex GUI applications, some of which can have hundreds or thousands of files. Linux has some solutions, but nothing is self-contained, and NOTHING is easy to understand without reading a bunch of docs scattered around the web. I don't need to read 50 pages of documentation to learn where to put my files on Windows/Mac.
If Debian's packaging system is somehow going to resolve all this, let me know. Otherwise, I'll probably stick to Windows and Mac packages at the moment, both of which are simple to put together and just work.
I've read one of those books...
on
Why PHBs Fear Linux
·
· Score: 3, Informative
...and while I haven't read them all, I find that their treatment of OSes is very general indeed. They talk more about computer systems and networks, and the foundations of these, than they do about which OS is good or bad and what's different about them. In the book I read, an OS comparison showed about 7-8 OSes, including Windows, Mac and Linux, and also had a case study about switching to Linux. (Note that the article doesn't really say that MS Windows is mentioned *so much more* than Linux, just that Linux is not mentioned often.)
This article, IMHO, doesn't really show the reality that 1) Linux even 5 years ago was merely a speck in most people's minds, 2) that Unix does have its downsides, and that 3) the authors of these books are probably running Windows as their native OS! This hardly adds up to the kind of bias the article suggests.
2-3 years from now you will start to see Linux information trickle down into these books, as they publish new versions. A couple may retain a "bias", but I bet that most will realistically track what has changed in the marketplace since the previous version of their book. To expect that formal education moves at the same speed as economic developments is silly. Education moves much more slowly, and it's got nothing to do with bias.
I used to do what the OP did, give my parents old machines and clean them up for them. Up until November this worked OK, probably because they were on dial-up, but it was basically just an email/web access for them. In November, my parents decided to get DSL cause they had a deal where it was only $10 more than dial-up (and they no longer needed a second line, so its actually cheaper).
I kid you not, within 4 hours of getting online with DSL my mother had gotten a serious virus that Anti-virus was saying had infected kernel32.dll. OUCH. I didn't know exactly what had happened, but the computer was basically DOA until a certified geek could get working on it. I was NOT about to walk my parents through the process of formatting a drive and reinstalling the OS over the phone.
The earliest chance I had to look at this problem was when I came back for Christmas. So I told my parents this and suggested that they consider getting a new computer - and I recommended a Mac. My dad was totally against the idea, until he saw those new flat-panel iMacs. Then he actually thought they should get that OVER the eMac, which was much cheaper. =) That's what they came home with.
They took it home, set it up, and didn't once call me for help. They called with some internet setup problems, but it was actually the provider's server being flaky. My mom has been really happy with the new machine. She's talking with family via iChat, has figured out email and web just fine, and is even figuring out things I never really taught her. Just a couple weeks ago, she called asking me if she can burn more songs onto an iTunes CD she created. =) I had only introduced the programs like iTunes to her, but never really showed her how to use them, so this was rather surprising to me.
Anyways, they are much happier with the new machine, and honestly my mother in particular feels empowered by the fact that she can do this stuff. I would recommend that everyone at least consider the option. I know it's a bit more expensive, but chances are they'll get more out of the machine as well.
The point of the old fable is that rushing doesn't necessarily make you faster - consider that Microsoft rushed out a bunch of products in the 95-2000 period which really weren't properly designed, and now they're "out of breath" trying to fix all the problems with their previous products. In contrast, the Linux 'turtle' has been slowly puttering along and is now in some areas surpassing Windows. (Consider how long Linux was in development before it was ready for commercial systems, for example.)
What really makes Linux a 'turtle' is the whole "when it's ready" philosophy. The time between finished, *stable* versions of OSS products or Linux can indeed exceed the 'standard' commercial timeframe of 18 months. So from the perspective of a consumer who uses only stable products, Linux development is sometimes comparatively 'slow'. But, now that MS is "out of breath", Linux is starting to move ahead faster than they are. =)
The stripped down version will suck but will be available. Unless the EU wants to force them to not ship a full version in the EU at all, OEMs in the EU will just *elect* to use the full version. They probably won't want to ship an OS that lacks basic functionality that users have come to expect.
Actually, this puts OEMs in an interesting position to bargain. MS cannot stop vendors from shipping an OS without WMP, and I bet Real will be trying to "entice" them into shipping RealPlayer instead. Vendors probably will end up shipping WMP anyways, but I'm betting that MS will have to start paying for the privilege and will get in hot water if they try to 'punish' OEMs that go against the grain. (After all, no doubt OEMs know just how bad MS wants to have their media player on every system in the known universe.) Since MS can't leverage their monopoly to pressure vendors (on this issue), this actually does a lot to level the playing field, even if it just means that RP and QuickTime (and iTunes?) make it onto more desktops in the EU as well as WMP.
Not to mention, being forced to do this in the EU means that they can't claim an "it's impossible!" defense for unbundling apps in the US anymore. Here's hoping this becomes a done deal!
If your solution doesn't count mailing lists, it will only affect those who send messages to everyone in their address book and not have an affect on SPAM (UCE - I personally consider the chain letters and jokes SPAM as well).
I do consider sending a thousand messages, each to one address (in a matter of seconds or minutes, of course) to be the same as sending to everyone in your address book. SMTP servers could detect such (ab)uses and spit out the same error message - after 100 messages in less than 5 minutes, it would say "Message limit exceeded, please try again later" and block them from sending email for, say, an hour.
People who set up their own servers to do all the work can't be affected, of course - but they have to pay money to have their own server. So there is some cost that they must make up in order to keep operating. I bet there are a lot of "mass marketers" who simply download/buy some software package for mass mailings and then just send them out over their ISP. These people pay nothing at all (above and beyond their own Internet cost), so it's probably the method of choice for people who don't want to become "professional" spammers and don't want to have to pay marketing costs for their products.
And would also shut down most of the major legitimate mailing lists out there. I'm on 3 high-volume (200+ messages a day) mailing lists that each have several thousand subscribers. There's also all the very-low-volume (rarely more than 10 messages a week - if even that - for all of them) lists I'm on which I believe have even more subscribers.
Except I never said the same rules would apply for mailing lists. Mailing lists usually cost something to setup - it comes as part of your web hosting service, etc. or like with SourceForge, you need to provide a legitimate reason before you can set one up. I was only referring to SMTP services outside of mailing lists - i.e. Joe Sixpack sending a message to Cindy.
So a spammer could use mailing lists to SPAM, but it has increased the cost and effort for them to SPAM. Would "SPAM mailing list services" or "SPAM server services" pop up? Sure, but they wouldn't be free, and would probably be "metered" services, meaning pay per number of users or messages. And SPAM 'hosts' would not have the ability to change their IP address every week and keep themselves completely anonymous, making it easier to block. (Of course spoofing will still cause problems.) Now spammers have to start paying just to send email and are unable to abuse others' computers and ISPs by using various ISPs and/or using viruses. It's no longer a no-risk proposition for them. It wouldn't be the end of SPAM, but it'd be the end of no-cost SPAM.
Some might (particularly techies), but I think many ISPs would be quite fond of the idea. And if my previous suggestion was too restrictive, they could make it free for up to 100 recipients and then $4.95 for 100-1000, for example. In that scenario, about the only people who would notice would fit into my definition of spammers.
In any case, it's not as if all the broadband ISPs that initiated quotas died a horrible death. Not to mention, AOL is hardly the cheapest or best deal around, but most people stick to it because it's what they know. If AOL implemented this, a LOT of people would end up adhering to it.
Email "light" - you can only send messages to up to 20 recipients - more than that will be met with an error message from the SMTP server
Email "plus" - $4.95 a month, and you can send mail up to 100 recipients at a time - again, an error message if limit is exceeded
Email "bulk" - you need to specifically call to enable this, and it allows you to send to as many recipients as you want, but every recipient over 100 people is $0.01 per person.
Thus, a spammer could not use a person's machine as a spam conduit because the person would be unable to send the spam! Now, the spammer could put a mailing list on their own server and then make a worm to send to that, but they'd still have to get and maintain a server for the mailing list, so what's the point?
Another nice note - it makes things a pain in the butt for people who want to send chain letters to everyone in their address book. People that do this are unlikely to either take the time to create groups of 20, and send the message several times, nor do I think they'll pay $4.95 for the ability to send junk messages.
I think the grandparent poster is absolutely right. Make SPAM cost something for the sender and then only people who can afford to pay will send SPAM, and the overall amount should decrease, probably dramatically.
What I love about this sort of 'unenlightened self-interest' from corporate types like this is that they don't appreciate the irony that if everyone starts outsourcing jobs, no one in the US will be able to afford the goods they produce!
Think about it. If no one in the US can afford their products, then they'll have to either drastically reduce prices, or they'll have to sell many more of them to people in countries like India, who they are paying many times less than they are paying US workers. Can they afford to keep 'US' prices in those countries? Not if they want to sell a lot of machines they can't. They totally miss the fact that well-paid American workers are their best customers and 'profit generators'!
That's what happens when you don't think about the economy as an ecosystem (which it is). And when you lack fundamental ethical thinking skills (i.e. what if everyone did what we did, and what responsibilities do we have to society). Being a responsible corporate citizen pays off, but it simply can't be seen in some corporate 'bottom line' spreadsheet, so most companies sadly ignore it. Make no mistake though, if most things in the US become automated and/or outsourced (which is the current trend), there will be a major crisis in this country.
Let me ask you something - if you created a program that was hard to use (but usable, none the less) and released it to the public where it sold poorly, do you think anyone would buy your excuse that the public was too dumb? That it was their responsibility to try and understand how your program worked? Try it and see what your boss says. See if he thinks it's up to your users to figure out what to do and how to do it, rather than up to you to design a better software package. Try it and you'll be out on the street. =)
This is, in fact, the argument you are making. That Microsoft is not to blame because its end users don't know what port 139 is or how to block it. That users don't know why they shouldn't click on a.pif file or even what it is. That users aren't patching every week. Etc, etc. No, it had nothing to do with the fact that that Microsoft did not take the time and effort out to design a product that was reasonably secure for an audience that (they knew) would not be able to fix an insecure PC. This despite the fact that, as the article shows, it was not difficult at all to do.
Come on, MS knows the technical capacity of many of their users - why do you think they worked so hard to make IE and Windows Media Player default programs? Because they knew most of their users couldn't even tell you what browser/media player they were using. So they knew that this audience wasn't going to just say "oh, I need a firewall!" and go get one, or know what these "critical updates". If a secure setup sold PCs, MS would have made a secure setup. No doubt.
The fact is that Microsoft gets the important things right - and the important things, to them, are only those that affect sales. If it worked half as hard to make PCs secure as it did to crush some of its competitors, Windows would probably be unbreakable by now. But on this one, they passed the buck, because they're not too worried about a major loss in sales from it. The decisions were knowingly made, and they were irresponsible.
Windows strikes me as a dumbed down interface, which is a bad thing. Dumbed down interfaces are different from intuitive ones. Intuitive interfaces are consistent, meaning that the same actions provide the same results in different situations. Skills are also highly reusable, meaning a little learning provides a huge payback.
Dumbed down interfaces, instead, are not consistent, and the only way they can deal with this fact is to continually present menu upon menu of options to the user, like a complex ATM machine. "Power users" are the ones who are *used* to the inconsistencies because they've bothered to take the time to figure them out. They know how to work around them and speak the 'lingo' of the interface. (An intuitive interface, however, should speak the *user's* lingo, not the other way around.)
For example, Apple interfaces do not typically need wizards, while Windows programs are often FILLED with them. Why? For one reason, becuase there is no simple, consistent way to edit program preferences on Windows. It's not always in the same place, and thus the user can't be expected to learn how to do it. On OS X: "(Program Menu)->Preferences". Easy and intuitive. Always in the same place, which provides positive reinforcement, and which leads to an increased feeling of control and repeated use of the skill. Drag and drop is the same thing. After I got comfortable with Mac, I started using drag and drop all the time (although I never really understood the point when I worked primarily on Windows). The idea is that, usually, if you're moving around data drag and drop just works. Sure, there's probably another way to do it, but why learn that? Just drag and drop. Easy. No five-page wizard "Import" screen. The end result is a few key skills which are very reusable and help the users not to feel like "dummies" and do not present unnecessary complexity to the user. And I've met many a person who felt they weren't in control of their computer and that it made them feel dumb. That's not a success story, in interface terms; that's a failure.
Tiny things in interface design make a *huge* difference between whether or not you are able to take control of your computer, or if your computer takes control of you by 'helping' you make all your decisions. Most Windows/*nix users don't see this because they're so used to dealing with inconsistencies that they consider them to be natural. I know because the Mac amazed me solely by its consistency. I thought "wow, this just makes sense. Why hasn't anyone else done this?" I still haven't found an answer. =)
Slashdot Mirror
I know about etc and text-based configure scripts, but that doesn't mean I like them. ;-) Again, without a HOWTO or a dilligent exploration of that folder, you'll have no idea how to configure something. Yeah, you figure it out eventually, but I'd rather be doing work than trying to figure out how to configure piece-of-hardware X that just works on Windows/Mac. Maybe you see that as a good time, but not me.
That is only the start. If you stick with it, you will learn far far more. Apple put in a Unix shell, and they were smart to do it, but that can't replace a full Unix system. The differences are just too great. You'd have to port over all the apps in a Unix system to OS X to get the functionality, and then you're just using an X session on an OS X machine, so you might as well switch at that point.
Sure, and if, in addition to my two UNIX classes and Linux development-testing, I spend countless hours scouring the web for HOWTOs to do all sorts of things and learning all sorts of command-line tools, I'll know so much more about my system. But I still won't care, and I'd rather have spent that time doing productive work. I don't have a curiousity about how my system works, I just want it to work without me having to spend months upon months learning the inner workings of it.
Same thing works with Linux. Download the RPM, double-click it, enter root password, click install. That's really all there is to it.
I've found RPMs (except SRPMs of course) to depend on you to have a particular distro, and a particular version of that distro, installed. Otherwise, you're tracking down "dependency hell" as you end up scouring the web to find RPMs of packages not installed by default for your distro, if they exist, and compiling from source if they don't. And I won't even mention version conflicts. I think most Linux users are so used to problems like these, they almost forget that it's even a problem. In any case, saying "point click install" is an ideal that RPM aspires to, but does not achieve.
[Descriptive folder names]That is a very minor issue.
... for software developers, who understand the meanings of terms like /bin and /lib and can easily remember them. For most people "bin" is a place to put stuff.
Figuring out the meaning of the base folder names is something that only takes a moment. Besides, that is really an administrative issue.
On my home machines, I'm the administrator. It's the same for all home users. And you say that knowing the differences between /opt, /var, /etc, /dev, etc. are easy without knowing what's in them first?? Yes, I know I can read the Linux FileSystem Hierarchy docs... But on Mac I have a folder called /System. One folder with all my "do not touch" stuff in it. Easy to understand.
If you are comparing administering a Linux box to using 1-2 programs on a Mac, obviously it's going to come out behind.
I have some 50-60 programs on my Mac, about half of which I've installed myself. And yes I'm comparing them, because I'd install those same programs (or similar ones) on Linux.
Yes you do... You just don't call it by the same name. On Linux, you could remove a program without a package manager, it would just be a hassle if you had to install it again.
Really? I'm using a package manager on Mac? Would you like to bet money on that? ;-)
On the contrary, I've tried SuSE 9.1 and far prefer Mandrake. After figuring out how to install SuSE over FTP, and running though the installer (which hung for about 30 minutes for whatever reason), I finally had a distro up and running. No GNOME option, so I was stuck with KDE (yuck). I found their admin tools to be OK, some on par with Mandrake, others not. Overall, not quite as good. But the interesting thing was that I left the box running for about 4-5 hours while I did some work on another box, and when I came back, SuSE had kernel panicked! I could plop down $50 to see if their commercial offering has this problem, but I think I'll pass.
And actually, in a fit of madness a few weeks back, I tried about every major distro that I could (freely) get my hands on. All in all, I've tried Knoppix, SuSE, RedHat, GoboLinux, and Libranet. (I eliminated some KDE-only desktops.) I was also able to get a chance to try Xandros. And in the end, I went back to Mandrake. So while I think the Linux desktop has a ways to go, I think Mandrake is closer than any of the other guys.
Slackware, Debian, Gentoo are all very nice dists with a somewhat hefty learning curve. They cater to geeks, and aren't right for a mainstream user. They are the dists that are doing it like Apple, as you pointed out should be done.Sure, and I'd say they're a huge success in terms of meeting the goals of their target market.
I completely agree that Windows is -not- the one way, or even the best way to make an easy to use desktop. But tell that to the millions of people who will use nothing but Windows.Apple did it by providing products (and intuitive interfaces) that you couldn't get on Windows, which drew peoples' attention. The only way Linux will win the "non-geek" target market is by being something new and different from Windows, but not being significantly more difficult to master, which is where Linux typically fails.
That's not true at all. How is it 'unthinkable' if I actually use it? I understand how it works. And yes, when I'm doing things like chaining together command line commands or batch automating tasks, it certainly beats Windows (not Mac, because I can do it there too). But Mac has all of this.
What Mac has that UNIX/Linux doesn't is the usability end of the equation. For most things, I can download a program, double-click on it, and do my work. I don't need to learn (and more importantly, remember) command line commands nor search the web for HOWTOs and mailing list postings to figure out how to make something work. When I click on a folder, by its name I can already tell what's in there, i.e. "/Applications" vs. "/usr/bin". I have control of my machine (I don't need a "package manager" to install or delete a program), and when I do need the command line, it's there. It's like Linux, just no "pangs". I can learn the command line at my leisure, instead of being *forced* to learn it because there's no other way to complete even simple system configuration tasks (i.e. sharing with Windows via SAMBA). So what exactly do you mean by saying Linux/UNIX isn't any harder than Mac? Certainly it's MUCH harder to get started with.
Personally, I think that Linux distros make things far more difficult than they need to be for users. GNOME and KDE are like a whole OS on top of Unix, and another very complicated thing that beginners feel they need to learn. Instead, if they started everyone off with a working system, with XFce as their desktop environment, people would take to it quick than MacOS, because it's so simple.I've never used XFce, so I can't comment there, but GNOME is the only reason I can use Linux at all. KDE is annoying for me, it's like Windows without the usability and with all of the unnecessary bubbly eye candy. Their explorer is actually confusing and more complex than Windows. GNOME at least is starting to take some usability cues from Mac and has a somewhat straightforward interface, which is a start.
You see, the thing about GUIs that many geeks don't seem to get, is that you can click on things and learn only what you want to learn. You can explore new things at your own leisure. You can also choose not to explore, once you learn the two programs you need. It's visual, and a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. The command line relies on rote memorization, which in turn requires on lots of repitition. These are the primary "pangs" you referred to.
They should also include a single, simple program, that would allow you to configure everything about your system (vaguely like the windows control panel). Up to now, all of the configuration tools do different things, and none of them do it all.This part I agree with. I know every desktop has different system configuration tools, some easy to use, some not, but when I download system X I'm playing roulette as to whether I'll be able to actually configure my system without the help of some friendly HOWTOs.
Although that might be confusing to people who are used to calling their Mozilla browser Mozilla/Phoenix/FireBird/FireFox.
;-)
Err.... Nevermind.
But I was talking about GNOME and, more importantly, Mozilla. Are Mozilla and GNOME just targetting geeks? From what they've said in the past and in the meeting notes, I don't think this is the case. My issues were with how they intend to gain marketshare in the other markets, those who are using other OSes or other products.
The Linux community is now trying to expand their market to people like you, who don't see the elegance of how things are handled in a unix-ish OS.Then, no disrespect, but it is failing miserably, and statements like "who don't see the elegance.." are indeed elitist and makes it sound like this target market is too dumb for Linux anyways. I use Linux-based distros (Mandrake currently, though not as my primary desktop), I've learned quite a bit about UNIX/Linux, the command line, etc., and while I see its benefits, it was (actually is) a painful and steep learning curve. It's orders of magnitude harder than learning Mac and Windows for someone who didn't start off on UNIX. How can something so elegant be so painful? I just don't see it, right? Well, if I hadn't been stubborn enough to learn how Linux works (and actually it's thanks to Mac that I got more of a sense of the command line), I would have given up on it long ago.
Is my response elitist? A little bit, but it's true. I think you're original post was ignorant. I've been tossing the idea around in my head that maybe it would be better if Linux -wasn't- the most used OS. It'll end up like Windows.Actually, Linux is just a kernel. This is an important point. There are probably 100s of Linux-based OSes. So why can't you have your uber-geek distribution (Gentoo? Debian?) while I have my easy to use distribution? In fact, I think everyone talking like there is one "Linux" confuses the issue considerably.
Also, it doesn't *have* to end up like Windows, but if it does, it will be because the open source community made it that way. My concern is that this is actually where projects like Mozilla are trying to push things. Windows != easy to use. Windows = "one way to implement an easy to use desktop, although far from the best way to do it". Anyone who uses Windows as the gold standard for ease of use will never create a compelling reason to switch from Windows. In fact, as the saying goes, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". OSS software will thus be seen as the "cheap knock-off" of high-quality Windows software. And that's the last way I'd like OSS to be perceived.
OSS developers tend to push the rather silly 'it's cheaper so they'll switch if we offer a similar solution' battle plan. No thanks. I'm still using Windows (actually, Mac primarily) although Linux is cheaper because Windows and Mac provide me with a whole lot of ease of use that Linux lacks, for what is relatively a small amount of money. (When you consider I work on these things 8 hours a day!) When Linux provides ease of use at more than a superficial level (no, having a GUI doesn't automatically mean "easy to use") then I'll think about switching.
Apple was smart when they took an attitude of "we don't *CARE* what Microsoft is doing, we'll just carve our own markets and create compelling value". This strategy works, because Apple isn't constantly trying to catch up with Microsoft. Instead, they're working on the best possible solution for *their* customers, not Microsoft's. They have a very good understanding of who their customers are, and which customers they're likely to switch over. They've done research on this.
What Mozilla should have learned by now is that the browser just isn't that important anymore. "Our browser is better than yours" will hardly cause end users to switch in boatloads. Developers, however, are more open to switching and more keen on using these technologies in their own apps. Yet, despite this, they say that embedding and the GRE are not priorities until FireFox 1.0 is released. So their focus is on making a good browser, which MS already has. (Don't start about the benefits of Mozilla over IE, I know what they are and most users neither know nor care.)
Their real potential growth market is in embedding, where Windows/Linux/Mac apps can share a similar rendering engine, in tools like Quicken/TurboTax. XUL is an added bonus. But embedding is not a priority nor is it easy to do. So while they could be getting Mozilla/GRE dumped on all sorts of desktops via third-party apps, they've chosen to focus on converting end users, a majority of whom just don't care about which browser they use.
Another great growth area would be Composer, which is already a decent contender to FrontPage, but which most people don't even know exists. Again, a compelling selling point for Mozilla (and embeddable!) but it basically gets ignored. In fact, I think editor embedding is actually a killer app for Mozilla - how many apps work with HTML these days? And unlike with the browser, Mozilla has very little competition here. FrontPage and Dreamweaver are expensive, and they don't offer a real, compelling benefit over Composer.
Instead of pursuing these opportunities, now it sounds like they're going to dump bunches of resources integrating with GNOME and trying to beat Microsoft at its own game (good luck, you're not the first to try!). Also, sounds like they're going to try reinventing portions of wxWidgets/wxWindows internally to provide a "native" XUL, like OpenOffice is now in the process of doing with their own toolkit. Talk about collaboration! It's a wonder we haven't tore Microsoft a new one yet...
The difference is that with a GUI you can explore. Click and see what happens. (Guess what, lots of kids learn this way.) You learn by seeing, you learn by doing. It's a very powerful way to learn.
You can certainly type random commands and see what happens, if you've got a few days to kill... =) Otherwise, you will need to have someone teach you the command to check your mail, the command to browse your files, the command to do word processing, the command to login to the internet, the command to browse the web... Without knowing those commands, you are helpless.
Need I go on?
...whose name you already know. And, sometimes -h works but --help doesn't, and vice versa. And, the user must know the difference between options (querying or configuring the program) and arguments (passing in data) in order to understand how to do things like get help or find the version.
Also, the user also has to remember names like 'man', which are quite frankly poorly named. (When you want help, think of 'man'...?) You may think all of this is 'simple' because you've learned it and use it on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean its easy to learn. You've simply forgotten or never realized what it took to learn and internalize it.
I'm not arguing which one is superior (they're both well-suited for different tasks, IMHO) but I'm arguing which one you can get started quicker with. It's hard to beat Help->Help Contents for easy to learn (i.e. no instruction needed) access to help.
GUIs let you explore until you find what you want by pointing and clicking on things. With command lines, you need to know the commands, and the options, before starting. That means that you need some sort of training before you start using the command line. So in your analogy, you'd have to "learn" the language of the OS before you can start 'writing' anything at all. Learning English actually took you a very, very long time, even if you don't remember it.
Once you have that training, the command line is a very useful tool. But if you can't get the training, and aren't self-sufficient or technically apt enough to go to the bookstore and buy a book on how to use the command line, you're screwed.
That's why people like having icons for things. The message icon is your mail program. Don't have to remember what it's name is, or where it's at. Just click.
While what you are saying holds some truth, it's really very far from explaining the total situation. For the "developer" status to be of any use, a registered developer has to *own* a Mac first. So this rapid growth in the number of registered developers also shows a trend in people buying Macs as well. Some companies or organizations may do this to "port" their app, but I doubt a lot of OSS developers are shelling out their hard-earned cash just to "port" their app.
As a "switcher", I can say it's like Linux/Unix without the hassle, and with commercial apps available. It is my preferred platform, though I had only cursory experience with Macs before OS X. I develop open source apps then do my homework in Microsoft Office (because I have to), and it all just works. =) And I'm not the only one, there are many, many others out there like this. (Apple laptops, which were hardly seen 3-4 years ago, are becoming common sights at conferences by all accounts.) So I don't think there is very much 'spin' to this. Apple IS getting developer mindshare, and like the article says, probably a considerable amount too.
By far my favorite FTP client has been FileZilla, but as a Mac user I've always been disappointed that I couldn't use it on my Mac. However, FileZilla 3 will be written in wxWidgets, and I'll even help package it for OS X if that is what it takes to get FileZilla on my Mac! =)
And see various users get "attached" to their format of choice, and then refuse to use other formats, meaning that the different formats will be in existence for a very long time to come.
Why does it make a software developers life hell? We just maintain the source code in a .tgz. Then each distribution can compile and package it as they want. All the major distros have so much momentum that Joe, Jack and Jill can have it in any format they need. You might argue there is a duplication of effort, but in reality turning the apps into packages isn't that difficult.
First, your argument relies on project X having enough "momentum" that each distribution decides to make their own package for it. Good for popular apps, but not so good for new or "niche" apps. And now as a user, I'm primarily dependent on a small group of "packagers" to make sure I can install software easily on my distro? Nice.
Second, I really hate when Linux users claim that *everything* is easy. Easy to use, maybe, easy to learn? No. Most Linux users forget that they spent a great deal of time learning the things they know, and that for new users things are not "easy" at all. Furthermore, in this case, each solution has a text-based format with *different syntax* so I need to basically memorize the syntax of all 3 to be reasonably productive. (Else I sit there continually looking everything up.) In any case, it's a lot more work to learn than Windows and Mac, pretty much exponentially so, especially if your package goes beyond the basic "dump this file here" type.
Not really true. Not only do most distros support alien package formats,
At the binary, or source, level?
but if you don't package it then someone else will.
Might, if there's enough interest in your project. Of course, some users won't try your project until there's a package in their format of choice available, making this an excellent catch 22. The end result: I have to learn all the formats and then package them myself if I want Linux developer support. Yay!
People are getting together and working on a solution, it's just that different people have different ideas as to what that solution is. The three main contenders are .deb, .rpm, compiling from source (eg via Gentoo ebuild).
In short: they can't agree, so they all develop different solutions. It's an excuse not to work together; to repackage NIH syndrome as "competing solutions". There is no Linux solution, there's a Gentoo solution, a RedHat solution, a Debian solution, a "Unix" solution... how is this working together?
This is all supposedly to find out which format is technically superior? I could care less which is superior, really. I just want a binary package format that works reasonably well and lets me target all the platform's users. Even Windows' install system meets this criteria, but none for Linux do.
Solutions may be "ported" to other platforms giving "more" choice, but no developer could really say "hey, you need to install apt-rpm before you can install my package" and expect people to comply. So while the choice benefits the user, the developer can't rely on it to simplify their packaging needs. Competing solutions is not always a bad thing, but deploying such solutions widely is, at least for users who want simple solutions. Once the "competing solutions" all get a significant chunk of market share, it becomes nearly impossible to merge them later, meaning that you're left with 3 different solutions to the same problem. Yay!
Linux is free to have its prized "choice", but it can't have its cake and eat it too. Choice comes at the sacrifice of simplicity and ease of use, because when there's choices, each new user has to *make* choices, which means *learning* all the contenders, understanding the differences between them, and choosing a favorite. That's actu
Yes, but it's only solved in Debian. Have you noticed that people's choice of distribution is usually *heavily* based around the packaging system the distribution uses? Think about that for a minute. All of these distros are not very different at all if you take away their unique packaging systems.
I see that as sad, personally. The ability to install software easily has become the #1 differentiator between distros. As long as everyone picks the same distro, this works great. Otherwise, it makes software developers' lives hell. Joe wants a RPM, Jack wants a DEB, Jill wants an Emerge, and others want an autoconf-based tarball that includes all the dependencies for easy source installs. Cripes.
So while you marvel at Debian's simplicity, I'll pull my hair out learning several different packaging formats and trying to maintain them all. Furthermore, to make binaries, I need to have access to each of those distros! There is supposedly some LSB-compliant binary builder, but I haven't figured that out yet... And yet people expect developers to make more effort to support Linux while Linux vendors (and OSS developers) just keep adding more complexity to the whole thing? It just seems like a case of continually re-inventing the wheel rather than getting together and coming to a solution.
When distribution vendors can get out of the software packaging business (except for the core OS), it will be a great day for developers and users alike. Standards need to be adhered to, and people need to realize that a filesystem designed for optimizing command-line use (i.e. everything on the Path or in "special" folders, easy-to-type folder names vs. easy-to-understand) is no longer a very good choice for today's increasingly complex GUI applications, some of which can have hundreds or thousands of files. Linux has some solutions, but nothing is self-contained, and NOTHING is easy to understand without reading a bunch of docs scattered around the web. I don't need to read 50 pages of documentation to learn where to put my files on Windows/Mac.
If Debian's packaging system is somehow going to resolve all this, let me know. Otherwise, I'll probably stick to Windows and Mac packages at the moment, both of which are simple to put together and just work.
...and while I haven't read them all, I find that their treatment of OSes is very general indeed. They talk more about computer systems and networks, and the foundations of these, than they do about which OS is good or bad and what's different about them. In the book I read, an OS comparison showed about 7-8 OSes, including Windows, Mac and Linux, and also had a case study about switching to Linux. (Note that the article doesn't really say that MS Windows is mentioned *so much more* than Linux, just that Linux is not mentioned often.)
This article, IMHO, doesn't really show the reality that 1) Linux even 5 years ago was merely a speck in most people's minds, 2) that Unix does have its downsides, and that 3) the authors of these books are probably running Windows as their native OS! This hardly adds up to the kind of bias the article suggests.
2-3 years from now you will start to see Linux information trickle down into these books, as they publish new versions. A couple may retain a "bias", but I bet that most will realistically track what has changed in the marketplace since the previous version of their book. To expect that formal education moves at the same speed as economic developments is silly. Education moves much more slowly, and it's got nothing to do with bias.
Do you need some help?
- Yes, please find someone as desperate as me.
- Yes, please help me develop some good pick up lines.
- Yes, please find someone with the following fetishes:
[search box]
- No thanks, I'll manage my own love life.
[OK] [Cancel]
And people say that Microsoft doesn't innovate. =)
I used to do what the OP did, give my parents old machines and clean them up for them. Up until November this worked OK, probably because they were on dial-up, but it was basically just an email/web access for them. In November, my parents decided to get DSL cause they had a deal where it was only $10 more than dial-up (and they no longer needed a second line, so its actually cheaper).
I kid you not, within 4 hours of getting online with DSL my mother had gotten a serious virus that Anti-virus was saying had infected kernel32.dll. OUCH. I didn't know exactly what had happened, but the computer was basically DOA until a certified geek could get working on it. I was NOT about to walk my parents through the process of formatting a drive and reinstalling the OS over the phone.
The earliest chance I had to look at this problem was when I came back for Christmas. So I told my parents this and suggested that they consider getting a new computer - and I recommended a Mac. My dad was totally against the idea, until he saw those new flat-panel iMacs. Then he actually thought they should get that OVER the eMac, which was much cheaper. =) That's what they came home with.
They took it home, set it up, and didn't once call me for help. They called with some internet setup problems, but it was actually the provider's server being flaky. My mom has been really happy with the new machine. She's talking with family via iChat, has figured out email and web just fine, and is even figuring out things I never really taught her. Just a couple weeks ago, she called asking me if she can burn more songs onto an iTunes CD she created. =) I had only introduced the programs like iTunes to her, but never really showed her how to use them, so this was rather surprising to me.
Anyways, they are much happier with the new machine, and honestly my mother in particular feels empowered by the fact that she can do this stuff. I would recommend that everyone at least consider the option. I know it's a bit more expensive, but chances are they'll get more out of the machine as well.
The point of the old fable is that rushing doesn't necessarily make you faster - consider that Microsoft rushed out a bunch of products in the 95-2000 period which really weren't properly designed, and now they're "out of breath" trying to fix all the problems with their previous products. In contrast, the Linux 'turtle' has been slowly puttering along and is now in some areas surpassing Windows. (Consider how long Linux was in development before it was ready for commercial systems, for example.)
What really makes Linux a 'turtle' is the whole "when it's ready" philosophy. The time between finished, *stable* versions of OSS products or Linux can indeed exceed the 'standard' commercial timeframe of 18 months. So from the perspective of a consumer who uses only stable products, Linux development is sometimes comparatively 'slow'. But, now that MS is "out of breath", Linux is starting to move ahead faster than they are. =)
The stripped down version will suck but will be available. Unless the EU wants to force them to not ship a full version in the EU at all, OEMs in the EU will just *elect* to use the full version. They probably won't want to ship an OS that lacks basic functionality that users have come to expect.
Actually, this puts OEMs in an interesting position to bargain. MS cannot stop vendors from shipping an OS without WMP, and I bet Real will be trying to "entice" them into shipping RealPlayer instead. Vendors probably will end up shipping WMP anyways, but I'm betting that MS will have to start paying for the privilege and will get in hot water if they try to 'punish' OEMs that go against the grain. (After all, no doubt OEMs know just how bad MS wants to have their media player on every system in the known universe.) Since MS can't leverage their monopoly to pressure vendors (on this issue), this actually does a lot to level the playing field, even if it just means that RP and QuickTime (and iTunes?) make it onto more desktops in the EU as well as WMP.
Not to mention, being forced to do this in the EU means that they can't claim an "it's impossible!" defense for unbundling apps in the US anymore. Here's hoping this becomes a done deal!
Kevin
I do consider sending a thousand messages, each to one address (in a matter of seconds or minutes, of course) to be the same as sending to everyone in your address book. SMTP servers could detect such (ab)uses and spit out the same error message - after 100 messages in less than 5 minutes, it would say "Message limit exceeded, please try again later" and block them from sending email for, say, an hour.
People who set up their own servers to do all the work can't be affected, of course - but they have to pay money to have their own server. So there is some cost that they must make up in order to keep operating. I bet there are a lot of "mass marketers" who simply download/buy some software package for mass mailings and then just send them out over their ISP. These people pay nothing at all (above and beyond their own Internet cost), so it's probably the method of choice for people who don't want to become "professional" spammers and don't want to have to pay marketing costs for their products.
Except I never said the same rules would apply for mailing lists. Mailing lists usually cost something to setup - it comes as part of your web hosting service, etc. or like with SourceForge, you need to provide a legitimate reason before you can set one up. I was only referring to SMTP services outside of mailing lists - i.e. Joe Sixpack sending a message to Cindy.
So a spammer could use mailing lists to SPAM, but it has increased the cost and effort for them to SPAM. Would "SPAM mailing list services" or "SPAM server services" pop up? Sure, but they wouldn't be free, and would probably be "metered" services, meaning pay per number of users or messages. And SPAM 'hosts' would not have the ability to change their IP address every week and keep themselves completely anonymous, making it easier to block. (Of course spoofing will still cause problems.) Now spammers have to start paying just to send email and are unable to abuse others' computers and ISPs by using various ISPs and/or using viruses. It's no longer a no-risk proposition for them. It wouldn't be the end of SPAM, but it'd be the end of no-cost SPAM.
Some might (particularly techies), but I think many ISPs would be quite fond of the idea. And if my previous suggestion was too restrictive, they could make it free for up to 100 recipients and then $4.95 for 100-1000, for example. In that scenario, about the only people who would notice would fit into my definition of spammers.
In any case, it's not as if all the broadband ISPs that initiated quotas died a horrible death. Not to mention, AOL is hardly the cheapest or best deal around, but most people stick to it because it's what they know. If AOL implemented this, a LOT of people would end up adhering to it.
What if an ISP did the following:
Email "light" - you can only send messages to up to 20 recipients - more than that will be met with an error message from the SMTP server
Email "plus" - $4.95 a month, and you can send mail up to 100 recipients at a time - again, an error message if limit is exceeded
Email "bulk" - you need to specifically call to enable this, and it allows you to send to as many recipients as you want, but every recipient over 100 people is $0.01 per person.
Thus, a spammer could not use a person's machine as a spam conduit because the person would be unable to send the spam! Now, the spammer could put a mailing list on their own server and then make a worm to send to that, but they'd still have to get and maintain a server for the mailing list, so what's the point?
Another nice note - it makes things a pain in the butt for people who want to send chain letters to everyone in their address book. People that do this are unlikely to either take the time to create groups of 20, and send the message several times, nor do I think they'll pay $4.95 for the ability to send junk messages.
I think the grandparent poster is absolutely right. Make SPAM cost something for the sender and then only people who can afford to pay will send SPAM, and the overall amount should decrease, probably dramatically.
Kevin
What I love about this sort of 'unenlightened self-interest' from corporate types like this is that they don't appreciate the irony that if everyone starts outsourcing jobs, no one in the US will be able to afford the goods they produce!
Think about it. If no one in the US can afford their products, then they'll have to either drastically reduce prices, or they'll have to sell many more of them to people in countries like India, who they are paying many times less than they are paying US workers. Can they afford to keep 'US' prices in those countries? Not if they want to sell a lot of machines they can't. They totally miss the fact that well-paid American workers are their best customers and 'profit generators'!
That's what happens when you don't think about the economy as an ecosystem (which it is). And when you lack fundamental ethical thinking skills (i.e. what if everyone did what we did, and what responsibilities do we have to society). Being a responsible corporate citizen pays off, but it simply can't be seen in some corporate 'bottom line' spreadsheet, so most companies sadly ignore it. Make no mistake though, if most things in the US become automated and/or outsourced (which is the current trend), there will be a major crisis in this country.
Let me ask you something - if you created a program that was hard to use (but usable, none the less) and released it to the public where it sold poorly, do you think anyone would buy your excuse that the public was too dumb? That it was their responsibility to try and understand how your program worked? Try it and see what your boss says. See if he thinks it's up to your users to figure out what to do and how to do it, rather than up to you to design a better software package. Try it and you'll be out on the street. =)
.pif file or even what it is. That users aren't patching every week. Etc, etc. No, it had nothing to do with the fact that that Microsoft did not take the time and effort out to design a product that was reasonably secure for an audience that (they knew) would not be able to fix an insecure PC. This despite the fact that, as the article shows, it was not difficult at all to do.
This is, in fact, the argument you are making. That Microsoft is not to blame because its end users don't know what port 139 is or how to block it. That users don't know why they shouldn't click on a
Come on, MS knows the technical capacity of many of their users - why do you think they worked so hard to make IE and Windows Media Player default programs? Because they knew most of their users couldn't even tell you what browser/media player they were using. So they knew that this audience wasn't going to just say "oh, I need a firewall!" and go get one, or know what these "critical updates". If a secure setup sold PCs, MS would have made a secure setup. No doubt.
The fact is that Microsoft gets the important things right - and the important things, to them, are only those that affect sales. If it worked half as hard to make PCs secure as it did to crush some of its competitors, Windows would probably be unbreakable by now. But on this one, they passed the buck, because they're not too worried about a major loss in sales from it. The decisions were knowingly made, and they were irresponsible.
Windows strikes me as a dumbed down interface, which is a bad thing. Dumbed down interfaces are different from intuitive ones. Intuitive interfaces are consistent, meaning that the same actions provide the same results in different situations. Skills are also highly reusable, meaning a little learning provides a huge payback.
Dumbed down interfaces, instead, are not consistent, and the only way they can deal with this fact is to continually present menu upon menu of options to the user, like a complex ATM machine. "Power users" are the ones who are *used* to the inconsistencies because they've bothered to take the time to figure them out. They know how to work around them and speak the 'lingo' of the interface. (An intuitive interface, however, should speak the *user's* lingo, not the other way around.)
For example, Apple interfaces do not typically need wizards, while Windows programs are often FILLED with them. Why? For one reason, becuase there is no simple, consistent way to edit program preferences on Windows. It's not always in the same place, and thus the user can't be expected to learn how to do it. On OS X: "(Program Menu)->Preferences". Easy and intuitive. Always in the same place, which provides positive reinforcement, and which leads to an increased feeling of control and repeated use of the skill. Drag and drop is the same thing. After I got comfortable with Mac, I started using drag and drop all the time (although I never really understood the point when I worked primarily on Windows). The idea is that, usually, if you're moving around data drag and drop just works. Sure, there's probably another way to do it, but why learn that? Just drag and drop. Easy. No five-page wizard "Import" screen. The end result is a few key skills which are very reusable and help the users not to feel like "dummies" and do not present unnecessary complexity to the user. And I've met many a person who felt they weren't in control of their computer and that it made them feel dumb. That's not a success story, in interface terms; that's a failure.
Tiny things in interface design make a *huge* difference between whether or not you are able to take control of your computer, or if your computer takes control of you by 'helping' you make all your decisions. Most Windows/*nix users don't see this because they're so used to dealing with inconsistencies that they consider them to be natural. I know because the Mac amazed me solely by its consistency. I thought "wow, this just makes sense. Why hasn't anyone else done this?" I still haven't found an answer. =)