That was pretty funny. But I have to say, it shows dogma on both sides...
The Linux/OSS/GNU/FSF people all feel that the things Microsoft is doing to make it harder to use a PC with non-MS software is horrible and appaling.
The Windows/MS apologists think. So what? If I can still use the PC to do what I want, the hell with you Linux loving freaks.
The dichotomy comes from the fact that both groups tend to use their machines in different ways:
The typical Linux user is more likely to use his PC to control the lights in his house, server out web pages and e-mail. And do a LOT of customization. In addition, they are also likely to be building a system from the ground up to do some very interesting and innovative things. But they work at an atomic level, by making these things happen in very small steps (writing in C, PERL or eve bash scripts)
The typical Windows uber-user is likely to just buy or pirate the software they need to do many of the same things that the Linux user does. But they probably won't write the stuff from the ground up. So if there is something they might want to do, but none of their software can, they just wait until something comes out that does it. The rare Windows user that can code, may "roll his own", but that's not too typical.
That's why the Linux crowd gets so agitated when yet another road block is thrown up. It will affect the way THEY use a computer, but not the way a typical Windows guy uses one.
Off Topic but: Yeah. I like it too. It was one of the better scifi programs on TV after Voyager went off the air. I liked the whole idea of people working together and getting past their differences to make something decent (The struggle to rebuild the Commonwealth).
I haven't watched it this season because it's not on at a good time anymore in my area. But, I would be curious to know what happened to Trance as well. They kept referring to her having changed last season. They also kept talking about her meeting her future self. It almost sounds like they imply that the two traded places.
Oh well... if anyone knows, I'd be interested in finding out. Thanks.
I know people are going to slay me here for this, so let me preface this comment: 1. I do not use Microsoft products on any of my personal machines (All of my machines at home have Linux with GNOME, and Open BSD here thank you very much) 2. I don't agree with Microsoft's licensing, pricing or business practices. 3. I only use XP at work and on the laptop that my job provided me with. Doesn't cost me a cent...
But... Windows XP Professional is the best product I've seen come out of Microsoft. It offers features that make working VERY easy. The revamp of the Start menu is very well thought out. It provides immediate and easy access to the applications that you use the most (In my case Cygwin bash and Cygwin X Server, CMD, Windows Remote Desktop, Cicso VPN client) by listing them directly on the Start menu in order of the frequency of usage. It also provides immediate access to IE and OE, (if you use them. I removed them from the menu and use Phoenix. My mail client is still Evolution via X) as well as the typically accessed: -My Documents -My Recently used Documents -My Pictures -My Music -My Computer -My Network Places -Control Panels -Administrative Tools -Connect to... (An agreggate of dial-up, WLAN and LAN connections tha tyou can choose from. Very helpful for laptop users to allow quick connect/disconnect) -Printers and Faxes (Combines the old Printers and Faxes applets which used to be separate)
and of course:
-Search (hate the little dog though..) -Run... (By far the most useful menu option for accessing remote file shares, the CMD prompt and quick access to notepad)
Then it also has the "All Programs" sub menu which gives you access to the rest of the less used programs on the system.
The Log Off button makes logging out (or even suspending a session to let someone else log on) a snap.
I'd have to say that Windows XP really makes some great improvements on Windows 2K. Anyone who has problems with Windows XP Pro, is probably fairly inflexible. Keep in mind, I am not saying that such a person is not bad. Mac users are fairly inflexible in that they don't want to move from their GUI paradigm to the Windows paradigm. Most of my co-workers (Windows fans all of them) don't like XP either and always go back to Classic View. I forced myself to stay with the native XP view and have found that it is actually a lot faster than Classic View once you know where everything is. as much as I hate to say it, MS did a great job with XP. I haven't had any problems with it so far.
I think that we developers in the Linux/OSS/GNU world need to take a good look at XP and see what it offers that we can improve upon. We already know that Linux/UNIX is stable, secure, robust, etc... Those are important factors. But so are the factors that real users see: Ease of use, quick and efficient ways to access data and applications, intelligent environments. For anyone who is working on developing software for "Joe Average", we need to think about having the apps learn their user's usage style. Not in the annoying way that MS does it. MS tends to be application-centric with regard to intelligent applications (that learn what you do). The intelligent applications should be user-centric. Where they learn what a user does, and rather than suggest or force the user to do something (Office assistant and the Start menu listing the most recently used applications), it builds a list of options and notifies the user with a dialog to select the way that they want to do the task. The dialog can be dismissed or filled in and submitted. The machine won't have a need to ask the user about that approach again. Just a simple example. The point is that MS is getting better at doing what the users want. We as developers for the "other side" can't forget that the users are what matter, not the apps or the OS...
The multiple "Desktop" distros are all coming from different mindsets. Lycoris wants to emulate Windows. Lindows.com wants to kind of emulate Windows, but add features from other OSes as well as some new ideas. RedHat is trying to set a standard across environments that seems to piss people off more than help. Suse is pretty original and seems to be the closest to making a "Joe User" Linux distro but they have no market share outside of Europe yet.
It's actually a case of "too many chefs". No one can agree on what a "great" desktop actually is, since a desktop is so many different things to so many people. The amount of flames I usually receive from people on Slashdot about how feature "X" in environment "X" (or even Windows XP) is stupid and pointless illustrates that well. To one person, it's performance that makes for a great desktop. To another, it's applications. Yet another, eye candy. So far, here's a breakdown of what I've seen:
There are the guys who like to run light with TWM and just use X as a way of having multiple terminals visible at once. I'll bet if there was an option to do this without the overhead of X, they would. As I ocassionally would, myself.
Then there are the folks (like me) who love the eye candy and use X with environments like Gnome or KDE, or just go with a window manager like Enlightenment. These people are the obsessive tweakers who constantly poke and prod and try to get their GUI to be as efficient, customized and sweet looking as possible. To them, the eye-candy/themes, easy customizability and responsiveness of the GUI are what make for a great desktop.
Then there are the utilitarians. They believe that a computer is just a tool. There are also subgroups within this group because some of them want to run light (TWM, FVWM, etc...) and others want an easy to use system that resembles Windows or Macintosh depending on their previous platform (KDE).
Those who use KDE tend to just do the trivial tasks like, browsing the web, working with e-mail, writing docs and balancing their checkbook. They are less concerned about looking cool and more interested in "just working". To them, KDE is the ideal desktop.
The FVWM and TWM crowd that go beyond using X for terms, usually have more specialized needs. They don't need a file manager since they tend to do that from the terminal. They don't need a launcher, since they tend to do that from the terminal too. But they want access to a basic GUI for the apps they run that need it: (GIMP, Mozilla, Netscape, etc...).
There are more groups, but I won't continue. The basic problem is that the desktop is something different for every person. I think the ideal would be an environment that can be as spare as TWM with only xterms/gnome-terms/konsoles, as feature filled as a normal GNOME or KDE environment, and as beautiful as Enlightnment. Upon installation of the environment, the user picks "Thin, Moderate, Full, Custom" and gets what they want. If KDE or GNOME could be made to do this easily and on-the-fly, that would be wonderful.
For instance, if a window manager like Sawfish or KWM could tell it was running with the gnome-panel or kicker, it would revert to a TWM mode. In this mode it would minimize apps to icons on the root window and place a simple right click menu (like TWM's) on the desktop to run a basic set of apps (terms specifically). I think the people who want the lightness of TWM, but maybe like more modern looking widgets and their accompanying functions would really appreciate this.
The ability to switch between Thin, Moderate, Full and Custom, on the fly would be great too. A laptop user could just toggle to Full mode when plugged in and toggle to Light (TWM-like) mode when on battery.
Suspendable X session would be nice too... You suspend the X session and go to runlevel 3 to do deep work that needs all the horsepower it can get. Or you suspend and get back to XDM/GDM/KDM and log in as a different user to do other tasks. (Great for a multiuser machine at home or work) Then you resume your X session with all apps running. This would be kind of interdependent on both the environment and X.
Whatever the case, I think the "Desktop Distro" that will win dominance would be the distro that addresses these issues and does it in a simple way for "Joe User" as well as more complex ways for "Joe Power User" and "J03 G33k G0d".
This is only true as long as the companies don't lock the source code up later. The problem with BSD licensing is that the companies can take the code, make changes/improvements and only their (double paying through taxes and direct purchase) customers will get that. The people who paid for the original product get nothing or next to it. Any free software developer that wanted to provide a no-cost alternative would not be able to do so as easily since the new changes and modifications are concealed.
Any publicly funded code should be completely available to all taxpayers, forever and in all it's incarnations. Sorry, but I don't think the corporations deserve to make a killing on the backs of the public.
If the corporations that develop software with taxpayer funds keep their code open and allow for true competition and innovation, then everyone will be better off. We'd be assured that there was never a "king of the hill". That would be in everyone's best interest, including the companies with the best coders and not the best marketroids. (Marketing needs to be controlled as well... MS makes lots of claims about it's software and it's competitors that are just not true, but that's a different discussion)
Think about it... the only reason that closed source (which BSD code can potentially become) is beneficial to corporations is that it allows them to hide how bad their code may be from both their customers and their competitors. Then by using FUD, they can scare people away from potentially better alternatives. If there were no secrets in the software industry, the playing field would be a lot more level. No one company would dominate the industry. They'd all sort of sit in the middle taking turns at the "top" which would be much lower than where it is now. (ie. More accessible to true competition) So... the GPL would actually be quite a nice fit for gov't funded software.
I tried doing a few searches there to see if they are truely an alternative to Google as their owner claims. The searches featured ads prominently and only the most obvious hits for real information. The other problem is that rather than ads being separated out from real information, it's intermingled with it. This makes it difficult for "joe user" to find valid info for their searches. More than likely all they will find are products and services that are vaguely related to their searches. In many cases this doesn't help anyone. The real answer would be to establish two different kinds of search engine categories. Those that operate like Google and Altavista and bring you reliable info for your search, and those that are geared towards goods and services. I think it would be great if I could go to a search engine and type in "Oil Change", +Nissan, +City and get a list of oil change shops in the city I am in along with customer ratings and maybe a Mapquest link. Or, I could do "Hard Drives", +Maxtor, vendor=OL (online only) and get a list of web dealers for hard drives along with customer rankings, etc... Maybe even a link to BBB reports. Now, if SearchKing did that, then maybe their PageRanks wouldn't be so low. I highly doubt that Google ranks them low to keep them from competing, it's just that they are currently a pretty crappy search engine.
It sounds like your system has some problems. I've used XFree86 with KDE 3.0, Gnome 2.0 and Enlightenment with no speed/performance issues. This is a Pentium III with 256 Megs of RAM. Works just as fast as Windows NT/2K. (I haven't tried XP on this machine) The other point you make about X over slow links shows ignorance on your part. I used X over my 128K VPN connection to work with lbxproxy (The Low Bandwidth Extensions for X included as a part of X) the other day and the performance was on par with a VNC session. Yeah, that's not as snappy as Citrix, but it's more than usable. I use X every day at work on a 10 Mbit network and it's just like the apps are running on the system I'm sitting down at.
One thing you can't do with Citrix ICA/RDP that you can with X is run multiple apps on one desktop that are on different application servers. This allows for cut and paste between the apps. Try that with RDP/ICA. Can't do it...
Yes... we don't have controlled media here... It's always "the truth" on all network news in North America... Right. That's why the current administration said that it should be a crime for anyone to speak against them. How many reports do you see airing the dirty laundry of the current administration? Definitely not on par with the last administration. No for a lack of dirty underwear though.
The communists have their problems, but no more so than the rotten capitalists. Mark my words, capitalism is failing. Within the next 50-75 years, it will be gone and the rest of the world will have moved onto something else. The former U.S.A. will be like the third-world/less developed countries in the last century were. Not suffering under a communist regime though... suffering under a corporate regime dominated by monopolies that the rest of the world has more than likely avoided. Trust me, unless the U.S.A. becomes more aware and involved in world affairs as a peer rather than trying to be a leader, it will quickly become irrelevant. Winning every time is meaningless if no one is paying attention to you. I think that's what bugs capitalists more than anything else. Wake up! The American century is over.
I know this is off toppic, but what exactly IS dogrel? I can't find a definition for it in any dictionary. There were some references to it on Google, but those just seemed to be a German word and I don't understand German. Does "dogrel" actually mean anything in English? It kind of makes me think of Dogbert.:P
If they were really in trouble, I don't think the actors would be seeing those huge salaries. I don't think Lucasfilm would have all the high tech capabilities to make digital movies. And we would be seeing fewer films going to the box office. The real problem is that ticket sales are probably dropping off slightly for several reasons:
-The economy is in the shit can -Hollywood isn't putting many interesting new films out, mostly just "safe" formula vehicles. -If a movie sucks, no one is going to go see it. -Ticket prices are way too high. There is a reason for this and it goes all the way back to the studios. See below:
The reason you have to pay so much for movie tickets is because the studios dictate how much a movie theater must pay to exhibit a film. If the movie stays in the theater for 3 or more months, then it makes a profit for the studios and the theater. The income from the ticket sales goes to cover the cost of exhibition for the first 3 months, then after that, to the movie theater itself. Since not all movies make the 3 months, movie theaters lose out on profits. That's why you're starting to see regular ads in front of movies (ads for cars, local businesses, soft drinks, etc...). The movie theaters don't have much say in what ads they can show (also dictated by the studios), but they do make a profit from the ads. Most of the time they make only enough money from the ticket sales to barely break even for exhibiting the film. This is also why you have to pay so much for consessions. That is the only way that movie theaters make most of their money without having to split it with the studios.
So... here's the run down: Fewer people are going to see movies because they are too expensive and many of them suck. The movies are too expensive to exhibit because the studios control the exhibition terms. The movies suck because the studios are trying to make sure they stay with the most guaranteed profit generating vehicles (The "best" of anything is usually not the most popular, and the most popular is usually not the "best": witness the *nixes vs. MS Windows;) ). If fewer people are going to see movies these days, and the studios are making less money, they have only themselves to blame for making poor business decisions.
I still say that capitalism is failing for the same reasons that communism did: greed and fear. Just like the Ponzi scheme, there is only so much wealth/power to go around in any economic/political system. In the end, someone (ususally lower in the pyramid) has to suffer to put/keep someone else on top. Tradgedy of the commons... and all that jazz.
Good point.:) I didn't think of that, but running lean on a laptop makes a lot of sense. I tend to have more of a desktop bias since most of my computing is done at home and at work.
Why lean? I'm not trolling, I'm just curious. Why would someone who has a P4 1.x Ghz box with 1 Gig of RAM and 200 Gigs of HD want to run lean? What are you going to do with the other 3/4ths of a gig of RAM and 90% CPU other than run apps? What I usually do if I need extra horsepower is init from runlevel 5 to runlevel 3. Then I run my job from the console.
I do think that X is pretty resource hungry, but look at all of the useful things it can do. Just last night I ran it over a DSL connection using VPN. My upstream is only 128K and using 'lbxproxy' to compress the X data from the client apps, the response was pretty much on par with a VNC session. If anything, I think we need something like a local X proxy so that we can leave apps running for reattachment later. To be honest, I am still frustrated by the fact that I can't remotely reattach to a background job or one that was started in a session that was disconnected. (I think screen might be able to do this, but I'm still unsure) Look at Windows XP... a user can log off and let someone else log in to do other work, then log back in later to pick up where they left off. Damn cool. We need that in *nix. VNC can kind of do it, but with a real X proxy that supported acceleration, ANY app could be run this way. Now THAT would be damn cool. Of course that's just my opinion... and I'm sure you know what people say about opinions.
"Nukeyelar" instead of Nuclear. I know what a nucleus is, but what the hell is a "Nukeyelus"? George Bush Sr. is to blame for this one becoming popular. Even more annoying is that it's now found in encyclopaedias.
No... Word isn't preloaded, but most of the DLLs that used to load on execution are part of the OS now. So... the old joke that Ballmer used to make about MS Office being the OS is actually true now.
I use XP at work and it is pretty snappy, but it's all sleight of hand. There are no true performance benefits, just an apparent increase in speed at the cost of a larger memory footprint. Linux can be made to do the same things if someone really wanted that.
Being an ISP DOESN'T cost "nothing". The cost of the media to carry the data is NOT cheap and has to be paid for over time. The intial investment to my ISP and their upstream provider is not cheap by any means. The reason they charge you more as your bandwidth goes up is that they have to pay for tangible objects that have real value: like routers, switches, fiber. They have to pay for replacements when things fail. They have to pay the people who maintain the network for real services (like installing new lines, configuring network equipment, etc). None of these things are free or cheap. So, my ISP is more than justified in charging a fair price to compensate the cost of setup and maintenance on their end.
So for that, my answer still stands: If it doesn't cost anything to provide (software devel with GNU tools and other free software and a good idea), then it shouldn't necessarily need to be paid for. If it does cost something (investment in tangible objects), then there is every right for the provider to charge (as in ISPs). Sure, my workstations cost me money, but that still doesn't impact development since they do so many other things for me. The cost is more than paid for by virtue of the fact that these machines provide many other valuable services. The cost of development is still nil to me.
Still you completely miss the point: There should always be free alternatives for any type of software as long as someone is capable of making a free alternative. If there is an "itch", then scratch it.
My time isn't worthless either. It's valuable enough that I believe I have a duty to give some of it up to making the world better for others. I happen to like coding as much as I enjoy things like walking in the park, or composing music. So... if I like to do it, and I get enjoyment out of it, AND I make something that some one else can use, why should I charge for it? If I do, that's just greed. If I don't then that is true freedom. By charging for something that cost me nothing to make, I am taking away freedom by setting down limits: "You have no right to use my software unless you have the money for it". This is unfair to those who DON'T have the money for it but would otherwise find the software quite useful. THAT is why there should always be free alternatives.
Keep in mind, I have not said that making money for software is "evil" or "bad". I only say that if one can make software and it's no cost to them in terms of money or lifestyle, then why shouldn't it be given freely? I code for the sake of coding. I get a "kick" out of it. It's not "work". If it's "work" and needs to be compenstated for with money, then that's a totally different lifestyle choice from mine. If that's the lifestyle you've chosen, then go right ahead and charge. Just don't bitch about someone like me coming along with a free alternative.
OK. I'll bite. The point you make is idiotic. The computer, network hardware, etc... are all tangible. Software is NOT a physical object therefore it has no monetary value other than what someone arbitrarily assigns to the time spent in creating the software.
Here is my personal take: If I write something that does what I need it to do and want to give it away to others who might find it useful, then the only value it has is in what it actually does. There is no monetary value because I did not assign it any. I created it because it was useful to me and a few other people happened to find it useful as well.
The only reason to make something like this is to try an provide a free alternative to commercial software. For those of us who don't have deep pockets and are not greedy, this makes sense. But to those who believe that you need to make money off of everything and anything, well... you'll never get it.
Conversely, if I can't find a tool that does what I need for free AND I can't make an alternative myself, then there is no other option but to use the readily existing tool. Either that, or go without... which I have done many times.
Keep in mind, my profile is this: I'm not a professional developer. I just like computers. They are my life's passion and a hobby. I could give a shit about making money with them. The only thing I need is to be using a computer to make cool stuff happen: (Automate my lights in my house and make them web accessible, build my own PVR for less than the cost of a real one and have better functionality, make my own wireless access point, etc...). Why should I pay for software to do this, if I am not going to make money? AND... the very fact that doing a lot of this stuff has saved me a lot of money anyway. The money that I would have spent on bogus license schemes gets spent on cool new hardware instead. That's why I have ten computers at my house running all sorts of stuff instead of two constantly blue screening. But... this is not a Linux vs. Windows argument, so I'll stop here.
The main point is that there should be free alternatives for everything. Profit is not important to me. Keeping the wheels of a failing economic system rolling is not important to me. Having fun with computers and living a pretty damn cool lifestyle without being a sucker for the mainstream... THAT'S important to me.
Ummm... why would you consider a Open Source Software (OSS) developer a "cheap bastard"? Remember most of us do this because we like to. So, if we're not getting any money from this, why should we pay anything for our tools? Complaining about BK has nothing to do with being a "cheap bastard". It's about the potential for the license to cause problems for the developers down the road.
Sure, there are some things you absolutely need and have to pay for (VMWare for me since Plex86 isn't quite there yet), but if there are free alternatives, use them. I think what we will see is that BK will be used in kernel development until they screw with the license enough to annoy Linus or until something better (commercial or OSS) comes along. Linus runs the show, as well he should, and it's quite a grand one at that!:) I believe that with his strong control, Linux can only get better whether he uses (and makes others use) commercial or OSS tools.
Correct. I should have been clearer. "Joe Computer Geek" who wants to do this with free software (both beer and speech). Quicktime won't allow for that since it's not open and it doesn't run under anything other than Mac or Windows. "Joe Computer Geek" usually doesn't use a Windows or Mac (maybe different now that Mac OS X is real Unix now) for serving content.
Slashdot Mirror
That was pretty funny. But I have to say, it shows dogma on both sides...
The Linux/OSS/GNU/FSF people all feel that the things Microsoft is doing to make it harder to use a PC with non-MS software is horrible and appaling.
The Windows/MS apologists think. So what? If I can still use the PC to do what I want, the hell with you Linux loving freaks.
The dichotomy comes from the fact that both groups tend to use their machines in different ways:
The typical Linux user is more likely to use his PC to control the lights in his house, server out web pages and e-mail. And do a LOT of customization. In addition, they are also likely to be building a system from the ground up to do some very interesting and innovative things. But they work at an atomic level, by making these things happen in very small steps (writing in C, PERL or eve bash scripts)
The typical Windows uber-user is likely to just buy or pirate the software they need to do many of the same things that the Linux user does. But they probably won't write the stuff from the ground up. So if there is something they might want to do, but none of their software can, they just wait until something comes out that does it. The rare Windows user that can code, may "roll his own", but that's not too typical.
That's why the Linux crowd gets so agitated when yet another road block is thrown up. It will affect the way THEY use a computer, but not the way a typical Windows guy uses one.
Off Topic but: Yeah. I like it too. It was one of the better scifi programs on TV after Voyager went off the air. I liked the whole idea of people working together and getting past their differences to make something decent (The struggle to rebuild the Commonwealth).
I haven't watched it this season because it's not on at a good time anymore in my area. But, I would be curious to know what happened to Trance as well. They kept referring to her having changed last season. They also kept talking about her meeting her future self. It almost sounds like they imply that the two traded places.
Oh well... if anyone knows, I'd be interested in finding out. Thanks.
I said: "Keep in mind, I am not saying that such a person is not bad."
I meant to say:"Keep in mind, I am not saying that such a person is bad.
Sorry folks
I know people are going to slay me here for this, so let me preface this comment:
1. I do not use Microsoft products on any of my personal machines (All of my machines at home have Linux with GNOME, and Open BSD here thank you very much)
2. I don't agree with Microsoft's licensing, pricing or business practices.
3. I only use XP at work and on the laptop that my job provided me with. Doesn't cost me a cent...
But... Windows XP Professional is the best product I've seen come out of Microsoft. It offers features that make working VERY easy. The revamp of the Start menu is very well thought out. It provides immediate and easy access to the applications that you use the most (In my case Cygwin bash and Cygwin X Server, CMD, Windows Remote Desktop, Cicso VPN client) by listing them directly on the Start menu in order of the frequency of usage. It also provides immediate access to IE and OE, (if you use them. I removed them from the menu and use Phoenix. My mail client is still Evolution via X) as well as the typically accessed:
-My Documents
-My Recently used Documents
-My Pictures
-My Music
-My Computer
-My Network Places
-Control Panels
-Administrative Tools
-Connect to... (An agreggate of dial-up, WLAN and LAN connections tha tyou can choose from. Very helpful for laptop users to allow quick connect/disconnect)
-Printers and Faxes (Combines the old Printers and Faxes applets which used to be separate)
and of course:
-Search (hate the little dog though..)
-Run... (By far the most useful menu option for accessing remote file shares, the CMD prompt and quick access to notepad)
Then it also has the "All Programs" sub menu which gives you access to the rest of the less used programs on the system.
The Log Off button makes logging out (or even suspending a session to let someone else log on) a snap.
I'd have to say that Windows XP really makes some great improvements on Windows 2K. Anyone who has problems with Windows XP Pro, is probably fairly inflexible. Keep in mind, I am not saying that such a person is not bad. Mac users are fairly inflexible in that they don't want to move from their GUI paradigm to the Windows paradigm. Most of my co-workers (Windows fans all of them) don't like XP either and always go back to Classic View. I forced myself to stay with the native XP view and have found that it is actually a lot faster than Classic View once you know where everything is. as much as I hate to say it, MS did a great job with XP. I haven't had any problems with it so far.
I think that we developers in the Linux/OSS/GNU world need to take a good look at XP and see what it offers that we can improve upon. We already know that Linux/UNIX is stable, secure, robust, etc... Those are important factors. But so are the factors that real users see: Ease of use, quick and efficient ways to access data and applications, intelligent environments. For anyone who is working on developing software for "Joe Average", we need to think about having the apps learn their user's usage style. Not in the annoying way that MS does it. MS tends to be application-centric with regard to intelligent applications (that learn what you do). The intelligent applications should be user-centric. Where they learn what a user does, and rather than suggest or force the user to do something (Office assistant and the Start menu listing the most recently used applications), it builds a list of options and notifies the user with a dialog to select the way that they want to do the task. The dialog can be dismissed or filled in and submitted. The machine won't have a need to ask the user about that approach again. Just a simple example. The point is that MS is getting better at doing what the users want. We as developers for the "other side" can't forget that the users are what matter, not the apps or the OS...
The multiple "Desktop" distros are all coming from different mindsets. Lycoris wants to emulate Windows. Lindows.com wants to kind of emulate Windows, but add features from other OSes as well as some new ideas. RedHat is trying to set a standard across environments that seems to piss people off more than help. Suse is pretty original and seems to be the closest to making a "Joe User" Linux distro but they have no market share outside of Europe yet.
It's actually a case of "too many chefs". No one can agree on what a "great" desktop actually is, since a desktop is so many different things to so many people. The amount of flames I usually receive from people on Slashdot about how feature "X" in environment "X" (or even Windows XP) is stupid and pointless illustrates that well. To one person, it's performance that makes for a great desktop. To another, it's applications. Yet another, eye candy. So far, here's a breakdown of what I've seen:
There are the guys who like to run light with TWM and just use X as a way of having multiple terminals visible at once. I'll bet if there was an option to do this without the overhead of X, they would. As I ocassionally would, myself.
Then there are the folks (like me) who love the eye candy and use X with environments like Gnome or KDE, or just go with a window manager like Enlightenment. These people are the obsessive tweakers who constantly poke and prod and try to get their GUI to be as efficient, customized and sweet looking as possible. To them, the eye-candy/themes, easy customizability and responsiveness of the GUI are what make for a great desktop.
Then there are the utilitarians. They believe that a computer is just a tool. There are also subgroups within this group because some of them want to run light (TWM, FVWM, etc...) and others want an easy to use system that resembles Windows or Macintosh depending on their previous platform (KDE).
Those who use KDE tend to just do the trivial tasks like, browsing the web, working with e-mail, writing docs and balancing their checkbook. They are less concerned about looking cool and more interested in "just working". To them, KDE is the ideal desktop.
The FVWM and TWM crowd that go beyond using X for terms, usually have more specialized needs. They don't need a file manager since they tend to do that from the terminal. They don't need a launcher, since they tend to do that from the terminal too. But they want access to a basic GUI for the apps they run that need it: (GIMP, Mozilla, Netscape, etc...).
There are more groups, but I won't continue. The basic problem is that the desktop is something different for every person. I think the ideal would be an environment that can be as spare as TWM with only xterms/gnome-terms/konsoles, as feature filled as a normal GNOME or KDE environment, and as beautiful as Enlightnment. Upon installation of the environment, the user picks "Thin, Moderate, Full, Custom" and gets what they want. If KDE or GNOME could be made to do this easily and on-the-fly, that would be wonderful.
For instance, if a window manager like Sawfish or KWM could tell it was running with the gnome-panel or kicker, it would revert to a TWM mode. In this mode it would minimize apps to icons on the root window and place a simple right click menu (like TWM's) on the desktop to run a basic set of apps (terms specifically). I think the people who want the lightness of TWM, but maybe like more modern looking widgets and their accompanying functions would really appreciate this.
The ability to switch between Thin, Moderate, Full and Custom, on the fly would be great too. A laptop user could just toggle to Full mode when plugged in and toggle to Light (TWM-like) mode when on battery.
Suspendable X session would be nice too... You suspend the X session and go to runlevel 3 to do deep work that needs all the horsepower it can get. Or you suspend and get back to XDM/GDM/KDM and log in as a different user to do other tasks. (Great for a multiuser machine at home or work) Then you resume your X session with all apps running. This would be kind of interdependent on both the environment and X.
Whatever the case, I think the "Desktop Distro" that will win dominance would be the distro that addresses these issues and does it in a simple way for "Joe User" as well as more complex ways for "Joe Power User" and "J03 G33k G0d".
This is only true as long as the companies don't lock the source code up later. The problem with BSD licensing is that the companies can take the code, make changes/improvements and only their (double paying through taxes and direct purchase) customers will get that. The people who paid for the original product get nothing or next to it. Any free software developer that wanted to provide a no-cost alternative would not be able to do so as easily since the new changes and modifications are concealed.
Any publicly funded code should be completely available to all taxpayers, forever and in all it's incarnations. Sorry, but I don't think the corporations deserve to make a killing on the backs of the public.
If the corporations that develop software with taxpayer funds keep their code open and allow for true competition and innovation, then everyone will be better off. We'd be assured that there was never a "king of the hill". That would be in everyone's best interest, including the companies with the best coders and not the best marketroids. (Marketing needs to be controlled as well... MS makes lots of claims about it's software and it's competitors that are just not true, but that's a different discussion)
Think about it... the only reason that closed source (which BSD code can potentially become) is beneficial to corporations is that it allows them to hide how bad their code may be from both their customers and their competitors. Then by using FUD, they can scare people away from potentially better alternatives. If there were no secrets in the software industry, the playing field would be a lot more level. No one company would dominate the industry. They'd all sort of sit in the middle taking turns at the "top" which would be much lower than where it is now. (ie. More accessible to true competition) So... the GPL would actually be quite a nice fit for gov't funded software.
I guess that could become a cluster fuck if one was really lucky...
I tried doing a few searches there to see if they are truely an alternative to Google as their owner claims. The searches featured ads prominently and only the most obvious hits for real information. The other problem is that rather than ads being separated out from real information, it's intermingled with it. This makes it difficult for "joe user" to find valid info for their searches. More than likely all they will find are products and services that are vaguely related to their searches. In many cases this doesn't help anyone. The real answer would be to establish two different kinds of search engine categories. Those that operate like Google and Altavista and bring you reliable info for your search, and those that are geared towards goods and services. I think it would be great if I could go to a search engine and type in "Oil Change", +Nissan, +City and get a list of oil change shops in the city I am in along with customer ratings and maybe a Mapquest link. Or, I could do "Hard Drives", +Maxtor, vendor=OL (online only) and get a list of web dealers for hard drives along with customer rankings, etc... Maybe even a link to BBB reports. Now, if SearchKing did that, then maybe their PageRanks wouldn't be so low. I highly doubt that Google ranks them low to keep them from competing, it's just that they are currently a pretty crappy search engine.
It sounds like your system has some problems. I've used XFree86 with KDE 3.0, Gnome 2.0 and Enlightenment with no speed/performance issues. This is a Pentium III with 256 Megs of RAM. Works just as fast as Windows NT/2K. (I haven't tried XP on this machine) The other point you make about X over slow links shows ignorance on your part. I used X over my 128K VPN connection to work with lbxproxy (The Low Bandwidth Extensions for X included as a part of X) the other day and the performance was on par with a VNC session. Yeah, that's not as snappy as Citrix, but it's more than usable. I use X every day at work on a 10 Mbit network and it's just like the apps are running on the system I'm sitting down at.
One thing you can't do with Citrix ICA/RDP that you can with X is run multiple apps on one desktop that are on different application servers. This allows for cut and paste between the apps. Try that with RDP/ICA. Can't do it...
Yes... we don't have controlled media here... It's always "the truth" on all network news in North America... Right. That's why the current administration said that it should be a crime for anyone to speak against them. How many reports do you see airing the dirty laundry of the current administration? Definitely not on par with the last administration. No for a lack of dirty underwear though.
The communists have their problems, but no more so than the rotten capitalists. Mark my words, capitalism is failing. Within the next 50-75 years, it will be gone and the rest of the world will have moved onto something else. The former U.S.A. will be like the third-world/less developed countries in the last century were. Not suffering under a communist regime though... suffering under a corporate regime dominated by monopolies that the rest of the world has more than likely avoided. Trust me, unless the U.S.A. becomes more aware and involved in world affairs as a peer rather than trying to be a leader, it will quickly become irrelevant. Winning every time is meaningless if no one is paying attention to you. I think that's what bugs capitalists more than anything else. Wake up! The American century is over.
Here here... Someone mod this up! This man speaks the truth!
I know this is off toppic, but what exactly IS dogrel? I can't find a definition for it in any dictionary. There were some references to it on Google, but those just seemed to be a German word and I don't understand German. Does "dogrel" actually mean anything in English? It kind of makes me think of Dogbert. :P
If they were really in trouble, I don't think the actors would be seeing those huge salaries. I don't think Lucasfilm would have all the high tech capabilities to make digital movies. And we would be seeing fewer films going to the box office. The real problem is that ticket sales are probably dropping off slightly for several reasons:
;) ). If fewer people are going to see movies these days, and the studios are making less money, they have only themselves to blame for making poor business decisions.
-The economy is in the shit can
-Hollywood isn't putting many interesting new films out, mostly just "safe" formula vehicles.
-If a movie sucks, no one is going to go see it.
-Ticket prices are way too high. There is a reason for this and it goes all the way back to the studios. See below:
The reason you have to pay so much for movie tickets is because the studios dictate how much a movie theater must pay to exhibit a film. If the movie stays in the theater for 3 or more months, then it makes a profit for the studios and the theater. The income from the ticket sales goes to cover the cost of exhibition for the first 3 months, then after that, to the movie theater itself. Since not all movies make the 3 months, movie theaters lose out on profits. That's why you're starting to see regular ads in front of movies (ads for cars, local businesses, soft drinks, etc...). The movie theaters don't have much say in what ads they can show (also dictated by the studios), but they do make a profit from the ads. Most of the time they make only enough money from the ticket sales to barely break even for exhibiting the film. This is also why you have to pay so much for consessions. That is the only way that movie theaters make most of their money without having to split it with the studios.
So... here's the run down: Fewer people are going to see movies because they are too expensive and many of them suck. The movies are too expensive to exhibit because the studios control the exhibition terms. The movies suck because the studios are trying to make sure they stay with the most guaranteed profit generating vehicles (The "best" of anything is usually not the most popular, and the most popular is usually not the "best": witness the *nixes vs. MS Windows
I still say that capitalism is failing for the same reasons that communism did: greed and fear. Just like the Ponzi scheme, there is only so much wealth/power to go around in any economic/political system. In the end, someone (ususally lower in the pyramid) has to suffer to put/keep someone else on top. Tradgedy of the commons... and all that jazz.
As an old OS2 fan (Warp 3), I'd like to see a screenshot of your Linux desktop. :)
Good point. :) I didn't think of that, but running lean on a laptop makes a lot of sense. I tend to have more of a desktop bias since most of my computing is done at home and at work.
Why lean? I'm not trolling, I'm just curious. Why would someone who has a P4 1.x Ghz box with 1 Gig of RAM and 200 Gigs of HD want to run lean? What are you going to do with the other 3/4ths of a gig of RAM and 90% CPU other than run apps? What I usually do if I need extra horsepower is init from runlevel 5 to runlevel 3. Then I run my job from the console.
I do think that X is pretty resource hungry, but look at all of the useful things it can do. Just last night I ran it over a DSL connection using VPN. My upstream is only 128K and using 'lbxproxy' to compress the X data from the client apps, the response was pretty much on par with a VNC session. If anything, I think we need something like a local X proxy so that we can leave apps running for reattachment later. To be honest, I am still frustrated by the fact that I can't remotely reattach to a background job or one that was started in a session that was disconnected. (I think screen might be able to do this, but I'm still unsure) Look at Windows XP... a user can log off and let someone else log in to do other work, then log back in later to pick up where they left off. Damn cool. We need that in *nix. VNC can kind of do it, but with a real X proxy that supported acceleration, ANY app could be run this way. Now THAT would be damn cool. Of course that's just my opinion... and I'm sure you know what people say about opinions.
My peeve:
"Nukeyelar" instead of Nuclear. I know what a nucleus is, but what the hell is a "Nukeyelus"? George Bush Sr. is to blame for this one becoming popular. Even more annoying is that it's now found in encyclopaedias.
No... Word isn't preloaded, but most of the DLLs that used to load on execution are part of the OS now. So... the old joke that Ballmer used to make about MS Office being the OS is actually true now.
I use XP at work and it is pretty snappy, but it's all sleight of hand. There are no true performance benefits, just an apparent increase in speed at the cost of a larger memory footprint. Linux can be made to do the same things if someone really wanted that.
Being an ISP DOESN'T cost "nothing". The cost of the media to carry the data is NOT cheap and has to be paid for over time. The intial investment to my ISP and their upstream provider is not cheap by any means. The reason they charge you more as your bandwidth goes up is that they have to pay for tangible objects that have real value: like routers, switches, fiber. They have to pay for replacements when things fail. They have to pay the people who maintain the network for real services (like installing new lines, configuring network equipment, etc). None of these things are free or cheap. So, my ISP is more than justified in charging a fair price to compensate the cost of setup and maintenance on their end.
So for that, my answer still stands: If it doesn't cost anything to provide (software devel with GNU tools and other free software and a good idea), then it shouldn't necessarily need to be paid for. If it does cost something (investment in tangible objects), then there is every right for the provider to charge (as in ISPs). Sure, my workstations cost me money, but that still doesn't impact development since they do so many other things for me. The cost is more than paid for by virtue of the fact that these machines provide many other valuable services. The cost of development is still nil to me.
Still you completely miss the point: There should always be free alternatives for any type of software as long as someone is capable of making a free alternative. If there is an "itch", then scratch it.
My time isn't worthless either. It's valuable enough that I believe I have a duty to give some of it up to making the world better for others. I happen to like coding as much as I enjoy things like walking in the park, or composing music. So... if I like to do it, and I get enjoyment out of it, AND I make something that some one else can use, why should I charge for it? If I do, that's just greed. If I don't then that is true freedom. By charging for something that cost me nothing to make, I am taking away freedom by setting down limits: "You have no right to use my software unless you have the money for it". This is unfair to those who DON'T have the money for it but would otherwise find the software quite useful. THAT is why there should always be free alternatives.
Keep in mind, I have not said that making money for software is "evil" or "bad". I only say that if one can make software and it's no cost to them in terms of money or lifestyle, then why shouldn't it be given freely? I code for the sake of coding. I get a "kick" out of it. It's not "work". If it's "work" and needs to be compenstated for with money, then that's a totally different lifestyle choice from mine. If that's the lifestyle you've chosen, then go right ahead and charge. Just don't bitch about someone like me coming along with a free alternative.
OK. I'll bite. The point you make is idiotic. The computer, network hardware, etc... are all tangible. Software is NOT a physical object therefore it has no monetary value other than what someone arbitrarily assigns to the time spent in creating the software.
Here is my personal take: If I write something that does what I need it to do and want to give it away to others who might find it useful, then the only value it has is in what it actually does. There is no monetary value because I did not assign it any. I created it because it was useful to me and a few other people happened to find it useful as well.
The only reason to make something like this is to try an provide a free alternative to commercial software. For those of us who don't have deep pockets and are not greedy, this makes sense. But to those who believe that you need to make money off of everything and anything, well... you'll never get it.
Conversely, if I can't find a tool that does what I need for free AND I can't make an alternative myself, then there is no other option but to use the readily existing tool. Either that, or go without... which I have done many times.
Keep in mind, my profile is this: I'm not a professional developer. I just like computers. They are my life's passion and a hobby. I could give a shit about making money with them. The only thing I need is to be using a computer to make cool stuff happen: (Automate my lights in my house and make them web accessible, build my own PVR for less than the cost of a real one and have better functionality, make my own wireless access point, etc...). Why should I pay for software to do this, if I am not going to make money? AND... the very fact that doing a lot of this stuff has saved me a lot of money anyway. The money that I would have spent on bogus license schemes gets spent on cool new hardware instead. That's why I have ten computers at my house running all sorts of stuff instead of two constantly blue screening. But... this is not a Linux vs. Windows argument, so I'll stop here.
The main point is that there should be free alternatives for everything. Profit is not important to me. Keeping the wheels of a failing economic system rolling is not important to me. Having fun with computers and living a pretty damn cool lifestyle without being a sucker for the mainstream... THAT'S important to me.
Ummm... there are? Why? I didn't realize that giving away software that is already free counts as "warez" dood. Maybe you need a little re-ejication?
Ummm... why would you consider a Open Source Software (OSS) developer a "cheap bastard"? Remember most of us do this because we like to. So, if we're not getting any money from this, why should we pay anything for our tools? Complaining about BK has nothing to do with being a "cheap bastard". It's about the potential for the license to cause problems for the developers down the road.
:) I believe that with his strong control, Linux can only get better whether he uses (and makes others use) commercial or OSS tools.
Sure, there are some things you absolutely need and have to pay for (VMWare for me since Plex86 isn't quite there yet), but if there are free alternatives, use them. I think what we will see is that BK will be used in kernel development until they screw with the license enough to annoy Linus or until something better (commercial or OSS) comes along. Linus runs the show, as well he should, and it's quite a grand one at that!
He said "Kick your ass", not "Lick your ass". Pervert.
Now let's go out and make the GIMP of 3D modeling and rendering! :) Make sure those contributions keep going to them too!
Correct. I should have been clearer. "Joe Computer Geek" who wants to do this with free software (both beer and speech). Quicktime won't allow for that since it's not open and it doesn't run under anything other than Mac or Windows. "Joe Computer Geek" usually doesn't use a Windows or Mac (maybe different now that Mac OS X is real Unix now) for serving content.