Only if you are backing up the db that keeps track of that info. Most libraries don't do that with this part of the db anyway. Patron records are very static and rarely have long term backups. The best anyone could hope for is a month. And in the time that it takes the FBI to get through the internal pecking order to the tape monkey, the tapes in question could be long gone...
> rights - from which come the twin values of > religious freedom and economic freedom, and from > the latter of which comes an advanced > industrialized economy that generates a higher > standard of living for all who live in it - is > cultural imperialism, I'm guilty as charged.
Yes... You are. But, consider this: "religious freedom" seem to only count for certain religions. It's all a crock. The fools who want prayer in schools and are crying out for "religious freedom" are never going to allow Bhuddists, Muslims (especially now) or even Wiccans to practice THEIR religions in school.
And "economic freedom" is only leading us down the garden path to corporate fascism. Vivendi, RIAA, MPAA, "privatization of water by Monsanto, etc... the list goes on and on... Face it, capitalism (if that's what you want to call this monkey house) is failing. Witness Enron and the big mega-merger communications scandals.
So, regardless of whether imposing our crappy western views on the rest of the world can be seen as cultural imperialism, all you are doing is assuring that the rest of the world goes down in flames with you by foisting them on others.
Overall, it seems some people are more equal than others... Maybe that's why so many other countries hate us. And "Dim Son" GW isn't making it any better. Which leads me back to a basic point fools like you seem to forget: humans are greedy, selfish and scared animals. Until someone finds a way to evolve those flawed traits out of us, all systems will continue to fail. Including ours.
I welcome the dissolution of the current Captialist/Western systems as what comes after is bound to improve on things in the same way that the current one improved on past systems.
I don't know exactly how this whole conflict erupted between us as we seem to be on the same side but have a difference of opinion about environments. But I will respond to what you said above:
Fine, you like KDE. Why do you think it should be the exclusive default environment? I don't see the reasoning. I am not saying that KDE shouldn't be there, but I am saying that the environment doesn't matter a hill of beans since the user is going to choose based on the apps. I choose GNOME because it has the apps I like. KDE does not. I used KDE 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. None of them were satisfactory to ME. So I choose GNOME. I think if you looked at it reasonably, you would see that there are always going to be people who prefer to use one environment or the other. Why not give both environments some common ground by way of a theme or a set of themes?
Answer this: why is standardization overrated? It's the only thing that allows something to gain mass acceptance. Look at cars. They are all pretty much the same in terms of the basic "user interface". You can soup up a car and make it look cool or give it some eninge modifications to get extra performance, but any joe off the street will be able to drive even the most modified car. This is becasue ALL cars have a "default theme", so to speak. If someone said, I have a better idea of how to steer the car without using a steering wheel: a steering knob. Do you think that car would ever gain acceptance? Never. That is what KDE and GNOME are like without a common theme. To the end user, KDE and GNOME may as well be totally different operating systems. Keep in mind that to the average user an OS has nothing to do with a kernel, security, performanc, etc... it has to do with where all the nice looking clickety click stuff is. So standardization is the key to gaining mass acceptance.
We could make one distro that is geared towards mass acceptance, but that doesn't really give users a true choice. Giving them multiple distros with the appearance of sameness (because they don't know any better) is a much more equitable approach. After all, that is what free software is about: free choice. There should be no competition with a winner at the end, there should be constant cooperation between all projects to make the whole thing seamless. Everyone benefits then.
> Wow, you change your mind pretty fast. First > you insist on cross-distribution conformity, > now you say that RedHat is the only thing that > matters.
No. I've been completely logical and consistent throughout... I believe tht all distros should have the freedom to package whatever they want in their systems regardless of popularity. But, I also believe that the default dekstop that a user is presented with should be identical across all distros. KDE and GNOME or even Enlightenment, and OpenStep can be made to look and work exactly like each other with default themes. The only differences are going to be the apps. If you have QT and GNOME on the system, you can run both environment's apps. They will funciton identically in either environment. I've seen it, I've done it. There are a few K apps that I will use on ocassion in GNOME. So including this defaulot theme does not do any "damage" to either GNOME or KDE. I have no preference for RedHat, but I do conceed that they are the dominant distro in the US. I haven't touched Mandrake since version 7, so I cannot speak for or against it. I was not impressed with version 7 however. Either way... yes there should be uniformity if you are going to considerr the whole of a distro an OS. No, I did not say that RedHat is the only thing that matters. I said that it's the only thing that sells to the masses in the US. Mass acceptance is the goal...
I don't need a perl script to tell me how much smaller the Linux user base is in the US. I see it at work, I've seen it in the streets (the blank stares at my Got Root shirt and my LINUX license plate). But that has nothing to do with RedHat and everything to do with Linux user's attitudes. Unless a lot of them adjust their attitudes to be more friendly and open to dumb questions and "stupid" ideas, Linux will always remain a minor player. ONe poster on here pointed out that the only reason he doesn't use LInux and went the way of MS is because he dislikes the experience he had with the users. *I* try to be open to what users want and expect out of their computers. No idea or request is too "stupid". At the base of most requests is either misunderstanding from the user or a misunderstanding on the part of the "Linux guru". There don't appear to be many gurus that are willing to put their egos aside and listen. RedHat has no bearing on that... If anything they've done more to get Linux exposure in the US than any other company. I'd love to see Linux grow here in the US, but it won't happen until the gurus and developers realize that it's the user that matters, not the code.
KDE was inflexible for me when it comes to themes. There are many themes for KDE, but they are all same-ish. There is no wild divergence from the generaic Windows/Macintosh/CDE paradigm, and there ought to be. This flexibility is useful for more advanced users sinc it can make the interface much more efficient. I couldn't find any themes that place the window widgets in unusual locations or have more than just the basic "Close" "Minimize" "Maximize" "Stick" and "Menu" buttons. Enlightenment has done a much better job at this than any other window manager. Sure, the KDE themes apply to the apps and the window management, but there wasn't enough variety for ME. KMail is a pretty boring app, it allows you to send and read mail and keep an address book... where are the groupware fatures? I think that Evolution has done a lot more for mail client/groupware than KMail. The applets... boring. Where is the Flame applet in the default set of applets? The Tea minder is OK, but the clocks are boring again... The AfterStep clock is much better: nice themes and a cleaner look. Of course this is ALL subjective. But the point is that the KDE interface really just reminded me of a pale imitation of Windows/Mac/CDE. Whereas GNOME seems much more original and a lot more flexible. Again... just my opnions though.
>> Who cares if it's the environment that most >> distros use? > > You seem to.
No, I didn't say that. The choice of which environment is installed by default should be the vendor's choice when a newbie is installing it. But, why make one envirnment seem so different from the other when it can all look the same? All it requires is a simple question: Are you new to Linux? If they answer yes, then BAM! install the low-grade user's default theme pack. Then it doesn't matter if GNOME or KDE are the distro's default choice, it's going to look the same to joe user and all the functionality will be present.
>> A theme is less of a limitation and has NO >> impact on advanced users. > > As I already pointed out, that's false. A theme > just makes it "look" integrated, but the real > cool features all don't work (and you don't > know why some apps work while others don't > because of your idiotic theme, which makes it > even worse.)
I have no idea what you are talking about here. I've NEVER seen this happen. If I install KDE and GNOME and go with GNOME as my default environment, I can run everything for both environments with no probelms. There might be a quirk or two, and to be real honest here, it doesn't have to be that way. GNOME/KDE cooperation would solve that problem real fast. That's what I was saying earlier about how competition needs to go away since it is only a destructive force. Cooperation would make the entire system seamless and provide benefits to everyone.
Anyway... I will agree to disagree. Neither you nor I is going to convince the other that either of us is right. I think a unified theme that is optional, unbranded and ery basic would be very helpful in getting Linux on more desktops. You feel that KDE is the best environment for all users and should be the default. We just disagree.
So unifying on one user environment and taking away choice with regards to environments is a good thing? I think THAT is a serious mistake. My personal preferences lie with GNOME. Yes, I have used KDE 3 for quite some time at work, but I eventually found it not to my liking, so I dumped it and switched to GNOME 2. So don't accuse me of not having tried it.
KDE IS a great user environment for beginners, and I have seen the first time configuration screen... but I still say that we don't need to standardize on one user environment. That IS limiting in a far greater way than creating a default theme that is common across environments. The flexibility to appear exactly the same is there in both GNOME and KDE, so why not use it? We need to standardize on a default theme that allows easy transitioning from one environment to another.
As far as RedHat being different is concerned, what does it matter for crying out loud!?? Strictly speaking from an Amuhrican point of view, THEY have the majority of the US Linux market like it or not. What distro of Linux do you think newbies are going to buy in the US? They certainly aren't going to get Debian, SuSe or use Linux From Scratch. They are going to buy RedHat every time. When SuSE actually makes a dent in the US, maybe things will be different. But I still think that it would be best if every Linux distro had a common theme across multiple user environments. An unbranded theme that was specifically geared to low-end users. Why is this such a difficult concept for such intelligent people to understand? Maybe you've forgotten what it was like to be a newbie? This attitude does nothing to further the cause of Linux on the desktop.
Your point is that you would like to see people limited to the more popular environment: KDE. Sure, it's nice, but it's hardly the end all and be all of environments. KDE isn't flexible enough, and GNOME needs to mature just a little more. I think we need to have multiple environments, window managers, etc... that's what makes Linux great. But, we need to have a way to draw it all together so that people who are just starting can have a common experience. At the same time, we don't need to limit a distro's choice of environment either. And that is exactly what you are proposing. Who cares if it's the environment that most distros use? It's still a limitation in choice for the user. A theme is less of a limitation and has NO impact on advanced users.
What I am saying is... A newbie NEEDS to see the EXACT same thing on each distro. Otherwise they will get confused, especially if they need support. As someone pointed out earlier; each of these interfaces provides very different environments that are extremely confusing to the average user. On Windows, all newbies see the same thing. Yes, there are minimal changes betweeen revisions of Windows, but in general From Windows 95-2K, there were not many adjustments that joe user had to make. Even with XP, the average user knows what the Start button is supposed to do. But put that same user in front of KDE with it's "K" menu or GNOME with the Footprint, and they won't have a clue. Keep in mind, most "joe users" are extremely technology challenged.
A theme that is tuned to the basic needs of the average user does nothing but make Linux even better. And it still need not affect people who use Linux at a much more advanced level. Just don't install that theme if you don't want it! That's all RedHat did, is make a theme and ADD some functionality that wasn't previously there. Only improvments from where I am standing.
> Why should a "unified" desktop better than > some default desktop? Both are new to the > user. HOW DOES THE NEWBIE BENEFIT?
The newbie benefits because (if this were in all distros) the newbie would never have to deal with the oddities of one user environment over another when dealing with support or working with someone who is more knowledgable. They wouldn't be able to tell the difference between KDE or GNOME. Remember, "joe user" is never going to use all the features that you and I may use.
Here's an example. I set up GNOME for my wife. GNOME has a pager and allows multiple desktops, but she does not multitask, so the pager does her no good. As it is, she rarely even runs more than one program at a time. I left it out of her customized desktop. This is the average user, like it or not. Having all the great features and themes that KDE or GNOME have, is not going to help them out in any way. It will very likely confuse and frustrate them. This is alleviated with a set of default themes that create a comonality among the differing environments.
> Just look at KDE 3.l and Keramik and tell me > RedHat should not install that as a default.
It doesn't matter wht it looks like... While it may look great, it's not going to be any better than something like a basic W.I.M.P. The average user doesn't care about the extra features. Sure the eye candy can and does appeal to average users, but if the default theme is as pretty and useful as it needs to be, why should it matter that they are given a default? This is all most users do anyway (in no particular order):
-Browse the web -Check E-mail -Maybe use multimedia -Type a paper -Create a Spreadsheet -Manage an address book -Dial up/Connect to an ISP -Minimize -Maximize -Close -Shutdown -Per haps log out (in a shared computer situation) -Maybe us an instant messaging program -Set a background wallpaper -Very unlikely, but possibly choose a screen saver. -In rare instances, balance their budget.
That's about it... There may be a few other things they can do, but your average user doesn't even know or care about those things. Changing their window widgets or themes in the window manager is a very unlikely activity for a newbie. Or applying "skins" or "chromes" to their mp3 and web browsers is also extremely unlikely. I challenge you to present me with anything else that an average user will definitely do on a system that they are unfamiliar with.
And once again, you miss my point... this is NOT for you. This is for the person who has never run Linux before. This is for the person who can't set their microwave or VCR clock because it's too difficult. These are not stupid people, they are people who simply don't care. They just want to turn the machine on and get to work.
I think the more sensible approach is a set of themes that are common across all window managers/user environments. This could be a pack of themes that are attuned to the needs of a low grade user. And if RedHat is listening... this would be something that you DO install during a default installation, but can be de-selected during all installations if the admin chooses. If you want to elevate yourself among the masses, then you can call it the "Dummy Pack" for all I care, but either way, it has to be unifrom across all distros and it has to be a default that can be over-ridden by those who "know better".
These changes really don't affect anyone other than newbies.
Think about this: Anyone with any experience using RedHat linux is probably going to pick and choose what they want on their desktop anyway in terms of themes. (I use Enlightnemtnet because it looks so damn cool.) When I used to use RedHat, I found over time that I was installing less and less of it each time. I eventually got to the point where I could compile just about anything I needed in terms of apps, custom kernel, X, window managers, etc... If you want choice in any distro, it's already there. Just don't go with the defaults, use the custom installation.
Chew on this for a bit: How many REAL experienced Linux users actually go with the defaults? Probably none. So.. if you are a user who understands and wants choice, you are likely a user who has experience. Only the newbies don't fully understand the concept of choice... look at where they are coming from (Windows). For them, this is likely to matter very little because they aren't ready for it yet, so the defaults are very likely good. It gives them a chance to try the OS out and have a basic user experience that is similar between KDE and GNOME. If this extended to other distros, it would be great. As they gain experience, they CAN begin to make choices. And, in the event that the only experience they want is a glorified typewriter, then RedHat (and potentially other distros) will be able to offer this to them as well.
There is no reason that this has to be a problem for anyone. RedHat could make it even better by just asking you at installation "Do you want the unified Desktop themes, or do you want to pick your own"? A simple change that I think would benefit newbies and satisfy power users.
Yes... and posting a rant like this on Slashdot means you are getting on with YOUR life. Take your hand off your member, pull your pants up (your underpants too), and take a break from the keyboard. Wipe that jizz off your face while you're at it. Now, why don't you go volunteer for the charity of your choosing instead of being a wanker.
I think you misunderstood. *I* have uptimes at home that range from 40-90 days for my main workstation and I've had as long as 299 days for my server. But, we are not talking about the average Linux user here. We are talking about people moving from Windows to Linux. AVERAGE people, not regular Linux users like you or I.
As far as the fast boot... you are correct that XP is still grinding away. So... why don't we start X up a lot earlier and let Linux do what it does best... start all the other processes in the background? This "illusion" of the system being up and ready may not be important to someone like you or myself. But, to the average user, a system isn't ready until you see the big friendly GUI. And get rid of those ugly text based boot messages while we're at it. I send all of mine to the fourth virtual term so they don't botch the nice looking FB boot logo I patched into the kernel.
There is one main reason that people wil be rebooting linux on a regular basis; You seem to have completely left out laptops. Those people are constantly looking at boot screens unless they are lucky enough to have a distro that *MAYBE* recognizes their system's suspend abilities right out of the box. Sure... you or I could probably make the system suspend or suspend to disk, but I haven't seen a distro yet that does that without re-configing and re-compiling something or other. Or worse yet... repartitioning. (Keep in mind who we're talking about: Joe User)
The login manager. Again, not important to YOU, but very important to the average user. (Especially in a family computer situation) If you present them with xdm, they are likely to think the system is archaic and therefore inferior. It's a rare person who takes a look at xdm and says, "oooooh... I can see this is a superior system". You only get one chance to make a first impression. GDM is an improvement, especially in GNOME 2.0 and the gdm themes, but where are the alpha blends and mouseovers? Or even better, animations? Suse got their boot screen right, it's got the coolest animations I've ever seen for any OS. This is a point many Linux users (especially people like you) miss; the way something looks is going to make a bigger impression on most people than the way something works. You need the "coolness" factor if you want to draw average people over to Linux, plain and simple. Most people if given a choice between a shiny, cool looking, but inferior item are always going to choose it over the less attractive, uncool looking, but reliable item. Never forget that.
The multiple window managers available to X is great in comparison to Windows single, less customizable environment. But they are all getting long in the tooth at this point. The best WM I've seen is Enlightenment, but Rasterman appears to have abandoned the idea of desktop Linux, so I am not sure that the next version will be as useful. (I've only tried E 0.17 once last winter, it could have gotten better.. so don't scream at me.) But, with the exception of the KDE, I haven't seen any environments or WMs that are keeping up with UI improvements in Windows. I, personally don't like or use KDE for myself, but KDE 3.0 is a great environment for users, especially if it has the Liquid engine. Again, like it or not, "coolness" is what's going to get people moving to Linux, not stability, not security, not "superiority". If you show someone a system with xdm and twm... no matter how fast it works or how much you've optimized the kernel, apps, etc... no one is going to be as impressed as they would be if they saw an XP box that grinds along fairly well in comparison. If you show them a linux system with the same optimizations, KDE 3.0 with Liquid, and a nice sound scheme they will be a little more impressed and would think that this system is probably closer to XP. In reality, the first system is probably a lot better than XP, but Joe User doesn't see that. Think of Joe User as the guy who buys the flashy foreign car with the arse engine. That's who uses Windows. To get them to change, we need the same flashy foreign look, but with a super-charger under the hood.
While I'm replying, I may as well add that the stateful session feature of Windows XP is truly cool AND useful. I Know that Linux can be made to do this in some way, but it's not there right now. I've experimented with VNC combined with GNOME to try and implement something like this at home, but unaccelerated X is not much fun. I think it would be great to be able to set up a persistent X session for each user on the system. They log in, use their apps and leave them running and log out. Someone else logs in and does the same, then logs out. The first person comes back a few days later and logs in... all the apps are still running. Combine this with suspend to disk (even on desktpo workstations) and you have a real winner. The latest systems have more than enough power to do this for quite a few uesrs, but I haven't seen a distro that does it yet. It's not impossible to do, it's just that no one has done it yet. I think the key here is the login manager itself. Most dm programs restart the X session when a user logs out killing all the apps along with the old X session. Maybe some kind of "virtual" X server that the dm spawns when a user logs in that the apps connect to would be able to do this. (like VNC but with all the features of a real X server) The local X server allows the virtual one to connect to it as a client using the login credentials of the current user. The dm would check to see if a user already has a session running, if they do, it just reconnects to that session.
The bottom line is that to try and get more people to want to use Linux, we have to think about style as well as substance. Before I really got into computers, I always picked the most stylish forms of computing over the more "superior" forms of computing. The Macintosh was king in my former life. We can't forget that this is how most people think.
Since we're getting personal here (your comments on my abilities as a Linux user): Now.. down to you. You are the scourge of the Linux user base. People with attitudes like yours who poopoo the WANTS of others scare people away from Linux. As I've stated before, I use Linux exclusively at home. I love it, I think it's great, but I also concede that there are ways in which Windows XP is better. Will I run XP at home? Not until the licensing changes.
I've had plenty of experience working with Joe Average both at work and in my private life. I've even helped some people try Linux out at their homes. I've set up boxes with massive customizations (custom kernels, custom themes for their environment, optimized apps for their processor, etc...) to make sure that the system was as foolproof as possible. The boxes worked and worked very well, but in the end, Joe User went back to Windows because it had more of what he wanted. Not just the apps, but the "cool" features: stateful Windows session, suspend to disk, "neat" looking graphics (alpha blends, drop shadows, etc..) and big icons, built in CD-RW support, built-in video capture and editing capabilities, etc... How can you make someone who wants these things stick with Linux, when a lot of these things are not avaliable, or require consultation with someone who knows the system? You have to give them what they WANT. The features may not make the system any better from a technical standpoint, but Joe User is not technical and is likely to consider the system a pale imitation of Windows if it doesn't do what he wants. Your view is one like this (exaggeration):
You: "This is a superior system to Windows" User: "Why does the login screen look so ugly"? You: "You dare to question my authority"!
That's not going to attract anyone.
My take:
Me: "I've customized this system with as many of the typical features you might want. If you run into problems, let me know. Consider this a 'beta test' of a really cool product coming down the road". User: "OK. Hey, how come the login screen doesn't look like Windows XP"? Me: "We're working on it".
Think about it...
And one more thing, I see GDM a whole lot, since I actually take advantage of the multiuser features of Linux. My wife logs out when she's done, and I log in. My Quake playing buddies come over and log in with their own accounts, etc... So I don't see your point about a log in manager not being seen all that often. If it's going to be on the screen in GUI form, it should look nice. End of story.
Actually the monkey got something right. (Not Shakespeare yet, but getting better.) I think this is something that is key for those of us in the Linux community. "Know your enemy". I always used to say this when I was a Mac user in college. A lot of my Mac loving compatriots ridiculed and questioned my desire to stay informed on what was happening in the Microsoft camp. I used to get PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, etc... Basically I wanted to see if MS was getting any closer to having a system that I wanted at the time. BUt, it wasn't just MS at that point for me. It was the entire PC world. I questioned why anyone would want a stark, unfriendly command line interface. Eventually, my curiosity (and my budget) forced me into the PC world. Now, eight years later I am a net admin who uses Windows 2K at work and Linux exclusively at home. I found that the moer I learned about my enemy, the more that they had some things "right". I think that we Linux users tend to become so involved with what we're doing that we have a tendency to forget what else is going on around us.
Today, I made the switch to XP at work. So far, I have to say it's probably the best performing version of Windows I've ever seen. There are a lot of things that MS fixed and got right. For example, the boot time. Mere seconds. Something on the order of 10 seconds on a P4 1.8 G with 256 Megs of RAM. And this is a boot to GUI situation... Even on my own systems at home with custom kernels, my boot time is never shorter than a minute. Why is that important? Think about it... back in the days of the Amiga and the Atari, boot time from a floppy with a few memory resident apps was maybe a minute or so. This was on boxes with 2-8 MHz procs and 1-14 Megs of RAM. Sure the systems were simpler, but why hasn't boot time on most OSes decreased as our hardware has gotten faster? It looks like MS nailed it with something. I imagine that they must have cleaned out a lot of legacy cruft in their kernel. XP can't run on anything less than an MMX Pentium, so they obviously removed 486 and non-MMX 586 kernel code. Why is it that we can't get a basic Linux system (with GUI) to boot in under 15 seconds? If anyone out there has empirical data to prove me wrong about this, I'd like to see it.
Another thing... "cool factor" of the XP login manager. Yes, we have KDM and GDM. But I have to say Windows XP's login manager beats both of them for coolness. It has "mouseovers" of a sort and alpha blending to give it a nice cool look. Why don't we have this in GDM or KDM? This is the kind of thing that attracts users, like it or not. Yes, it uses CPU cycles and has no point, but it's still a necessity if you want to see more "converts".
There are many more features that I will probably run into as I use the system. And that is what we need to be aware of. What is MS doing now. Not so we can imitate it, but so that we may jump a few steps ahead of them again.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and I won't be switching to Windows XP at home until the license is a little less ridiculous. (That means I could be waiting forever.) But, we need to look at LInux differently. Especially for the end user, if we want to convert them.
Here's on simple example of how we can beat XP. It's been a while since I've used a distro of Linux that comes with system sounds enabled by default. ( I can already hear the "oh yucks" in the room, bear with me...) Windows has had system sounds as a default since Windows 95. BUt, the one thing that's always annoyed me about it is that they don't really give you much of an option to choose things during setup with regard to those sounds. Why couldn't we have the following options to set a system default during an install:
Set Default Sound Scheme:
1. No system sounds for all users 2. No system sounds for root only 3. Audition system sound schemes and set a system default 4. Download and audition the latest sound schemes. 5. Use sound scheme default.
That would certainly make the system more inviting to potential converts.
I remeber seeing that Caldera's Open Linux a few years back also had a Tetris game you could play while installing. That gives them several million points for style, but what about substance? Linux is a multitasking OS. Why do we still need to sit and watch the system count bytes copied or time to completion? Why can't we instead, browse the web (if NIC is working), or grab the latest distro updates to a local dir for later perusal/installation? To be honest, I'm still not sure why there isn't a distro with an installer that just boots to the desktop you will have as a default. This would allow the OS to be installed onto your system like an application. This is the route that MacOS used to go. (Not sure if they still do, but I wouldn't be surprised. Just boot the kernel with the needed modules, FBDEV support and X running in FBDEV mode. When X comes up, it has a basic Gnome or KDE desktop with the CDROM mounted and displaying an icon on the desktop, or even an OS installation "wizard". The installation could then be performed just like installing an app. How much easier can you get?
So... getting back to the original troll. He's right, "know your enemy" so that you can know how to be several steps ahead of him when game time hits.
I never read it. He only talked about it in class. However, if you are an eager beaver (huhuhuhuh... he said "beaver") you can look for either Prof. Joe Slade or Roger Good's thesis using whatever resources you may have. I can't remember which prof it was so you'll have to try both. They are still at Ohio University in the Telecommunications school from what I can see on the school web site.
Fag smoker. That's actually appealing? Maybe if you are gay, but if you're straight (and you live outside of England) you wouldn't want to call yourself that. I think smokes became popular because they have addictive additives put into them.
Hmmm... what about an extension to filesystems that allows for a "dummy descriptor". HFS on the Mac has metadata (or whatever the hell they call it) that lets the OS display filenames with NO extensions, but it still knows the type. It also looked to me like the Nautilus people were doing the same type of thing with MIME types.
You are correct sir. I had a college professor who taught telecomm back in 1993. His doctoral thesis was based on the idea that the porno industry has been at the root of making any new entertainment technology cheaper. VCRs were his prime example at the time. Now, I am sure he talks about the internet boom. After all, what other use is there of r a fast connection?;P Not the *I* download a lot of porn or anything.
Look at from a different perspective. Apple users are quite content to pay what some would call extremely high prices for what could be seen as a somewhat anemic system. (I, personally love Macs, but I'll leave that out of this for now.) If you put the Macintosh and a WinTel clone up against each other, it's always a game of catch up on both sides. WinTel boxes can do almost everything a Mac can, and vice-versa. So... why do Mac users pay so much for boxes that won't have support from Apple in a shorter period of time than a cheaper WinTel box? There are a few complicated answers:
1. Style. Like it or not, The Macintosh still beats a WinTel box (especially cheaper, no name boxes) when it comes to style. They have nicer looking hardware out of the box. The user interfaces is simple and streamlined. Although Mac OS X adds a little more complexity, but not as bad as Windows. 2. Psychological Security. "It costs me more, but it's got to be better just because of that reason." This is an extension of the "you get what you pay for" concept. 3. A known quantity vs. fear of the unknown. If you are familiar with a system, why change? Even if the alternative is cheaper, there is a learning curve. A Mac user is already comfortable with their knowledge of the Mac OS. If they've never worked with a WinTel box before, and have a little fear of doing so, they probably are not going to change, even if it can save them some money. 4. "Added value". There are some things that a WinTel box just can't do that a Macintosh can. Although they are very specific niches, they still require a Macintosh. (*Professional* Audio Production is a prime example. Not the "multimedia" crap or Semi-pro stuff that a WinTel box is well suited for.) Yes... there are some pro packages for Windows, but look at answer three to see why a Mac user is more likely to stick with a Mac.
Getting back to the original post: Who's to say that the company that got the bid at $15,000 didn't have a previous relationship with the company who requested the bids? Where I work, we pay out the nose for some things that we could get elsewhere a lot cheaper. But the added cost to us is worth it because we have a very close relationship with our vendors/consultants, etc... Those close relationships allow us to get our work done faster, instead of working with someone new and cheaper who may not be interested in fostering a long term relationship with us. It's unfair and in-efficient IMO, but I don't make those decisions. Whenever the subject of a cheaper alternative has been discussed, those that do make the decisions deride the lower cost by asying that there isn't any security in that since the cheaper company is an unknown quantity.
Another factor that doesn't workk with the Mac analogy, is "Bigger ass to whip if something doesn't work." The company that charges $15,000 for their work rather than $5000 is likely to have larger coffers to raid in the event of a lwa suit. That ALWAYS makes suits feel more secure. If the only assets that a company that charges less for their work has are a car and a house, "litigation happy corp" isn't going to get much in reparation even if they sue for millions.
An aside "rant" (those who aren't interested in my politics can skip this part):
This always brings me back to my conclusion that captalism is failing. (You can call me a troll at this point if you wish, but that doesn't change things.) I am not saying that communism or some other system is better. But, I AM saying that another system is destined to replace it for better or worse. Jump off the sinking ship while you still can and work on developing your own approach to "coding for food". Just keep in mind that the two failings in humanity (fear and greed) are any system's stumbling blocks. Oddly enough they are also responsible for getting us where we are today, both good an bad. Think about it for a bit... Hiroshima. Why? Fear. Gulf War. Why? Greed. Discovery of fire. Why? Fear? End of communism. Why? Greed. Even more interesting is the inextricable link between competition, greed and the advancement of civilization.
Just give it some thought if it interests you. I think we are seeing capitalism fail for the same exact reasons that communism did. Enron? Greed. etc...
This is exactly the case. There is no way that a system like this will work in the way that it is intended to. If you ask me the only reason they are doing this is because they want set a precedent to create dbs that they can use to make it easier to silence dissent.
Crime is a relative term. For example, here are some common business practices that can be perceived in different ways depending on how you look at them:
Depending on where you stand, only one of the terms in each group is legitimate to you. I will use insurance as an example:
In the protection rackets, you "insure" someone that they won't get their place trashed and their legs broken. As the "protector" you feel fully justified that you are providing them with a service: keeping you or your henchmen's violent tendencies at bay. After all, these things just happen from time to time. Right? Either way, in the end it comes down to: "Your money, or your life. It's your choice."
In the insurance industry, there is a bit of legal wrangling, and the roles of the players are somewhat shifted to make it seem more legitimate, but it's a very similar situation: Health care providers (not necessarily doctors mind you... although some of them can be blamed for the unrealistically high insurance rates of today.) have the ability to do something to protect your life in one fashion or another. They are the "protectors". In this case, they don't want to go out and threaten to withhold health care from you. Instead the insurance companies go out and tell you that "without insurance, you could wind up with huge bills that will bury you in debt for life or no health care which can be fatal. It's in your best interest to pay." You wind up in essentially the same position: "Your money, or your life. It's your choice."
So... as you're walking down the street, a "common criminal" comes up to you and puts you in the same exact position by pointing a gun at you: He just comes out and says, "Your money, or your life. It's your choice."
In the end who is more honest about what they do? The "common criminal" because he states in plain view what his intentions are? The protection racketeer, who is somewhat illusory as to his reasoning but still fairly obvious about his intentions? Or... the insurance companies, who use so much obfuscation to cover up the end result? You decide and then look at the end of my reply to see where you fit in.
I would have to say that crime occurs at all levels of society at equal levels. They just call the crimes different things, and in some cases some of the crimes are legalized.
And now for the answers:
If you answered "The Insurance companies are the most honest. Besides , this is America and they have a right to make a profit". Then you are a stinky repugnican.
If you answered "The Protection Racketeer. Hey... accidents happen. Capiche?" Then you are likely a budding mobster who's been playing too much Q3A. BTW... I like your woman.
If you answered "The common criminal because he doesn't hide behind legalese and F.U.D." Then you may actually be a reasonable human being and give hope to others that have given up on the idea that humans are basically intelligent.
You sound like you actually believe that the system works. More power to you, but I hate to tell you how wrong you are. It only works for the majority, not everyone. Like it or not... we (users of free software) are in the minority. There will be no mass uprising that will cause the government to stop the monopolists. Those monopolists are the ones who put the leaders their in the first place. The monopolies aren't going anywhere, and free software is on it's way to becoming a criminal offense. After all... what power do the coders have when going up against corporate whim that is made into federal law. Our capitalist system has become corrupt. It was a nice idea, but it didn't work. Free software is in direct opposition to what the monopolists want. What the monopolists want is what "joe average" believes capitalism is. And if you are opposed to capitalism, then you are an enemy of the state. End of story.
Yes, I have both installed AND upgraded KDE without upgrading my distro or re-installing. Several times on different machine. All successful and very easy to do. You can always use RPMs if doing things manually isn't your bag.
As far as KDE beating Windows, I think it has a lot more useful features/apps "out of the box" than plain vanilla Windows and it looks much better. If you haven't tried KDE 3.0 with the Liquid engine, then I can see your point, but the latest KDE with Liquid goes a good step beyond Windows. Even Windows XP (and that's saying something since Windows XP is a HUGE improvment over their past products. Too bad MS decided to go with a dain bramaged licensing scheme or I might have bought it.
The other complaint that some people seem to have about apps is unfounded as well. (I'm assuming that's what you meant by "useless".) There are plenty of KDE applications. The apps that come with KDE are much nicer than anything Windows throws in and go beyond anything Windows has ever had. If you don't like the built in apps with KDE, you can still run tons of other gui based apps from Gnome to very basic, but useful X apps. I can't think of more than a handful of apps that I miss from the Windows platform that don't have an equivalent or better under Gnome or KDE. The only place that is weak on both sides (although KDE 3 made some nice steps forward) is pro-audio software. Even there KDE has Windows beat hands down though. Does MS bundle a software based synth (with the ability to create custom sounds) and MIDI sequencer with Windows XP? I think not... KDE 3 does. Hopefully Gnome will take a hint there too. Computers are meant to do a lot more than just "work". They are primarily a creative tool in every aspect.
KDE also has a much nicer version of the Windows Task Manager. It's much more extensive and customizable. You can define whether stats are reported in graph, LED readout, pie chart, histogram or numeric format. You can also add counters for different system resources that you wish to track. It's an improvment on both the Windows Task Manager and Performance Monitor. And it's MUCH more "user friendly" than any Windows administration app if you like that sort of thing.
But... I still like to travel light and have a decent looking environment, so Gnome all the way for me.
You sir, are an idiot. I use Gnome pretty much exclusively. I am currently running Gnome 2.0 from source on my Linux boxen and love it. But I have been using KDE 3.0 since it came out on my computer at work. There was no problem installing KDE any more than I had problems compiling and installing Gnome 2.0. The only reason I still prefer Gnome is that it FEELS better to me. But... that doesn't mean it runs any better to the casual observer. Usability-wise, there is little difference between KDE and Gnome. The only thing I don't like about KDE is that it FEELS less customizable on an atomic level when compared with Gnome. As far as all the "Joe User" features go, KDE still beats Windows. But Gnome is on a slightly different level for me, that's all.
Why are there always people assuming that we compute because we want to make a profit? Some of us just do it for fun. Since I used to be more of an electronics hobbyist before I started working on software, I can say that I, for one, would not mind working on the design of a truly open computer system. Something as open and flexible as Linux and perhaps optimized for *NIX. Making money is hardly the best reason for getting into computers. If you make money, fine, but it should be seen as a side effect, not the main focus.
It would be really great if a group of us could get together and build new systems from the ground up. Build in the functionality that people need and want rather than what a marketroid deems "innovative". If there is such a project, you can count me in.
Hehehe... when Clinton was in office, all the repugs could think about was where his penis was. Now that he's not in office, everything bad is his fault. What goes around comes around. The repugs need some bashing for a while.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if you are backing up the db that keeps track of that info. Most libraries don't do that with this part of the db anyway. Patron records are very static and rarely have long term backups. The best anyone could hope for is a month. And in the time that it takes the FBI to get through the internal pecking order to the tape monkey, the tapes in question could be long gone...
> rights - from which come the twin values of
> religious freedom and economic freedom, and from
> the latter of which comes an advanced
> industrialized economy that generates a higher
> standard of living for all who live in it - is
> cultural imperialism, I'm guilty as charged.
Yes... You are. But, consider this: "religious freedom" seem to only count for certain religions. It's all a crock. The fools who want prayer in schools and are crying out for "religious freedom" are never going to allow Bhuddists, Muslims (especially now) or even Wiccans to practice THEIR religions in school.
And "economic freedom" is only leading us down the garden path to corporate fascism. Vivendi, RIAA, MPAA, "privatization of water by Monsanto, etc... the list goes on and on... Face it, capitalism (if that's what you want to call this monkey house) is failing. Witness Enron and the big mega-merger communications scandals.
So, regardless of whether imposing our crappy western views on the rest of the world can be seen as cultural imperialism, all you are doing is assuring that the rest of the world goes down in flames with you by foisting them on others.
Overall, it seems some people are more equal than others... Maybe that's why so many other countries hate us. And "Dim Son" GW isn't making it any better. Which leads me back to a basic point fools like you seem to forget: humans are greedy, selfish and scared animals. Until someone finds a way to evolve those flawed traits out of us, all systems will continue to fail. Including ours.
I welcome the dissolution of the current Captialist/Western systems as what comes after is bound to improve on things in the same way that the current one improved on past systems.
I don't know exactly how this whole conflict erupted between us as we seem to be on the same side but have a difference of opinion about environments. But I will respond to what you said above:
Fine, you like KDE. Why do you think it should be the exclusive default environment? I don't see the reasoning. I am not saying that KDE shouldn't be there, but I am saying that the environment doesn't matter a hill of beans since the user is going to choose based on the apps. I choose GNOME because it has the apps I like. KDE does not. I used KDE 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. None of them were satisfactory to ME. So I choose GNOME. I think if you looked at it reasonably, you would see that there are always going to be people who prefer to use one environment or the other. Why not give both environments some common ground by way of a theme or a set of themes?
Answer this: why is standardization overrated? It's the only thing that allows something to gain mass acceptance. Look at cars. They are all pretty much the same in terms of the basic "user interface". You can soup up a car and make it look cool or give it some eninge modifications to get extra performance, but any joe off the street will be able to drive even the most modified car. This is becasue ALL cars have a "default theme", so to speak. If someone said, I have a better idea of how to steer the car without using a steering wheel: a steering knob. Do you think that car would ever gain acceptance? Never. That is what KDE and GNOME are like without a common theme. To the end user, KDE and GNOME may as well be totally different operating systems. Keep in mind that to the average user an OS has nothing to do with a kernel, security, performanc, etc... it has to do with where all the nice looking clickety click stuff is. So standardization is the key to gaining mass acceptance.
We could make one distro that is geared towards mass acceptance, but that doesn't really give users a true choice. Giving them multiple distros with the appearance of sameness (because they don't know any better) is a much more equitable approach. After all, that is what free software is about: free choice. There should be no competition with a winner at the end, there should be constant cooperation between all projects to make the whole thing seamless. Everyone benefits then.
> Wow, you change your mind pretty fast. First
> you insist on cross-distribution conformity,
> now you say that RedHat is the only thing that
> matters.
No. I've been completely logical and consistent throughout... I believe tht all distros should have the freedom to package whatever they want in their systems regardless of popularity. But, I also believe that the default dekstop that a user is presented with should be identical across all distros. KDE and GNOME or even Enlightenment, and OpenStep can be made to look and work exactly like each other with default themes. The only differences are going to be the apps. If you have QT and GNOME on the system, you can run both environment's apps. They will funciton identically in either environment. I've seen it, I've done it. There are a few K apps that I will use on ocassion in GNOME. So including this defaulot theme does not do any "damage" to either GNOME or KDE. I have no preference for RedHat, but I do conceed that they are the dominant distro in the US. I haven't touched Mandrake since version 7, so I cannot speak for or against it. I was not impressed with version 7 however. Either way... yes there should be uniformity if you are going to considerr the whole of a distro an OS. No, I did not say that RedHat is the only thing that matters. I said that it's the only thing that sells to the masses in the US. Mass acceptance is the goal...
I don't need a perl script to tell me how much smaller the Linux user base is in the US. I see it at work, I've seen it in the streets (the blank stares at my Got Root shirt and my LINUX license plate). But that has nothing to do with RedHat and everything to do with Linux user's attitudes. Unless a lot of them adjust their attitudes to be more friendly and open to dumb questions and "stupid" ideas, Linux will always remain a minor player. ONe poster on here pointed out that the only reason he doesn't use LInux and went the way of MS is because he dislikes the experience he had with the users. *I* try to be open to what users want and expect out of their computers. No idea or request is too "stupid". At the base of most requests is either misunderstanding from the user or a misunderstanding on the part of the "Linux guru". There don't appear to be many gurus that are willing to put their egos aside and listen. RedHat has no bearing on that... If anything they've done more to get Linux exposure in the US than any other company. I'd love to see Linux grow here in the US, but it won't happen until the gurus and developers realize that it's the user that matters, not the code.
KDE was inflexible for me when it comes to themes. There are many themes for KDE, but they are all same-ish. There is no wild divergence from the generaic Windows/Macintosh/CDE paradigm, and there ought to be. This flexibility is useful for more advanced users sinc it can make the interface much more efficient. I couldn't find any themes that place the window widgets in unusual locations or have more than just the basic "Close" "Minimize" "Maximize" "Stick" and "Menu" buttons. Enlightenment has done a much better job at this than any other window manager. Sure, the KDE themes apply to the apps and the window management, but there wasn't enough variety for ME. KMail is a pretty boring app, it allows you to send and read mail and keep an address book... where are the groupware fatures? I think that Evolution has done a lot more for mail client/groupware than KMail. The applets... boring. Where is the Flame applet in the default set of applets? The Tea minder is OK, but the clocks are boring again... The AfterStep clock is much better: nice themes and a cleaner look. Of course this is ALL subjective. But the point is that the KDE interface really just reminded me of a pale imitation of Windows/Mac/CDE. Whereas GNOME seems much more original and a lot more flexible. Again... just my opnions though.
>> Who cares if it's the environment that most
>> distros use?
>
> You seem to.
No, I didn't say that. The choice of which environment is installed by default should be the vendor's choice when a newbie is installing it. But, why make one envirnment seem so different from the other when it can all look the same? All it requires is a simple question: Are you new to Linux? If they answer yes, then BAM! install the low-grade user's default theme pack. Then it doesn't matter if GNOME or KDE are the distro's default choice, it's going to look the same to joe user and all the functionality will be present.
>> A theme is less of a limitation and has NO
>> impact on advanced users.
>
> As I already pointed out, that's false. A theme
> just makes it "look" integrated, but the real
> cool features all don't work (and you don't
> know why some apps work while others don't
> because of your idiotic theme, which makes it
> even worse.)
I have no idea what you are talking about here. I've NEVER seen this happen. If I install KDE and GNOME and go with GNOME as my default environment, I can run everything for both environments with no probelms. There might be a quirk or two, and to be real honest here, it doesn't have to be that way. GNOME/KDE cooperation would solve that problem real fast. That's what I was saying earlier about how competition needs to go away since it is only a destructive force. Cooperation would make the entire system seamless and provide benefits to everyone.
Anyway... I will agree to disagree. Neither you nor I is going to convince the other that either of us is right. I think a unified theme that is optional, unbranded and ery basic would be very helpful in getting Linux on more desktops. You feel that KDE is the best environment for all users and should be the default. We just disagree.
So unifying on one user environment and taking away choice with regards to environments is a good thing? I think THAT is a serious mistake. My personal preferences lie with GNOME. Yes, I have used KDE 3 for quite some time at work, but I eventually found it not to my liking, so I dumped it and switched to GNOME 2. So don't accuse me of not having tried it.
KDE IS a great user environment for beginners, and I have seen the first time configuration screen... but I still say that we don't need to standardize on one user environment. That IS limiting in a far greater way than creating a default theme that is common across environments. The flexibility to appear exactly the same is there in both GNOME and KDE, so why not use it? We need to standardize on a default theme that allows easy transitioning from one environment to another.
As far as RedHat being different is concerned, what does it matter for crying out loud!?? Strictly speaking from an Amuhrican point of view, THEY have the majority of the US Linux market like it or not. What distro of Linux do you think newbies are going to buy in the US? They certainly aren't going to get Debian, SuSe or use Linux From Scratch. They are going to buy RedHat every time. When SuSE actually makes a dent in the US, maybe things will be different. But I still think that it would be best if every Linux distro had a common theme across multiple user environments. An unbranded theme that was specifically geared to low-end users. Why is this such a difficult concept for such intelligent people to understand? Maybe you've forgotten what it was like to be a newbie? This attitude does nothing to further the cause of Linux on the desktop.
Your point is that you would like to see people limited to the more popular environment: KDE. Sure, it's nice, but it's hardly the end all and be all of environments. KDE isn't flexible enough, and GNOME needs to mature just a little more. I think we need to have multiple environments, window managers, etc... that's what makes Linux great. But, we need to have a way to draw it all together so that people who are just starting can have a common experience. At the same time, we don't need to limit a distro's choice of environment either. And that is exactly what you are proposing. Who cares if it's the environment that most distros use? It's still a limitation in choice for the user. A theme is less of a limitation and has NO impact on advanced users.
What I am saying is... A newbie NEEDS to see the EXACT same thing on each distro. Otherwise they will get confused, especially if they need support. As someone pointed out earlier; each of these interfaces provides very different environments that are extremely confusing to the average user. On Windows, all newbies see the same thing. Yes, there are minimal changes betweeen revisions of Windows, but in general From Windows 95-2K, there were not many adjustments that joe user had to make. Even with XP, the average user knows what the Start button is supposed to do. But put that same user in front of KDE with it's "K" menu or GNOME with the Footprint, and they won't have a clue. Keep in mind, most "joe users" are extremely technology challenged.
r haps log out (in a shared computer situation)
A theme that is tuned to the basic needs of the average user does nothing but make Linux even better. And it still need not affect people who use Linux at a much more advanced level. Just don't install that theme if you don't want it! That's all RedHat did, is make a theme and ADD some functionality that wasn't previously there. Only improvments from where I am standing.
> Why should a "unified" desktop better than
> some default desktop? Both are new to the
> user. HOW DOES THE NEWBIE BENEFIT?
The newbie benefits because (if this were in all distros) the newbie would never have to deal with the oddities of one user environment over another when dealing with support or working with someone who is more knowledgable. They wouldn't be able to tell the difference between KDE or GNOME. Remember, "joe user" is never going to use all the features that you and I may use.
Here's an example. I set up GNOME for my wife. GNOME has a pager and allows multiple desktops, but she does not multitask, so the pager does her no good. As it is, she rarely even runs more than one program at a time. I left it out of her customized desktop. This is the average user, like it or not. Having all the great features and themes that KDE or GNOME have, is not going to help them out in any way. It will very likely confuse and frustrate them. This is alleviated with a set of default themes that create a comonality among the differing environments.
> Just look at KDE 3.l and Keramik and tell me
> RedHat should not install that as a default.
It doesn't matter wht it looks like... While it may look great, it's not going to be any better than something like a basic W.I.M.P. The average user doesn't care about the extra features. Sure the eye candy can and does appeal to average users, but if the default theme is as pretty and useful as it needs to be, why should it matter that they are given a default? This is all most users do anyway (in no particular order):
-Browse the web
-Check E-mail
-Maybe use multimedia
-Type a paper
-Create a Spreadsheet
-Manage an address book
-Dial up/Connect to an ISP
-Minimize
-Maximize
-Close
-Shutdown
-Pe
-Maybe us an instant messaging program
-Set a background wallpaper
-Very unlikely, but possibly choose a screen saver.
-In rare instances, balance their budget.
That's about it... There may be a few other things they can do, but your average user doesn't even know or care about those things. Changing their window widgets or themes in the window manager is a very unlikely activity for a newbie. Or applying "skins" or "chromes" to their mp3 and web browsers is also extremely unlikely. I challenge you to present me with anything else that an average user will definitely do on a system that they are unfamiliar with.
And once again, you miss my point... this is NOT for you. This is for the person who has never run Linux before. This is for the person who can't set their microwave or VCR clock because it's too difficult. These are not stupid people, they are people who simply don't care. They just want to turn the machine on and get to work.
I think the more sensible approach is a set of themes that are common across all window managers/user environments. This could be a pack of themes that are attuned to the needs of a low grade user. And if RedHat is listening... this would be something that you DO install during a default installation, but can be de-selected during all installations if the admin chooses. If you want to elevate yourself among the masses, then you can call it the "Dummy Pack" for all I care, but either way, it has to be unifrom across all distros and it has to be a default that can be over-ridden by those who "know better".
Aaaaaaaackphft!!
These changes really don't affect anyone other than newbies.
Think about this: Anyone with any experience using RedHat linux is probably going to pick and choose what they want on their desktop anyway in terms of themes. (I use Enlightnemtnet because it looks so damn cool.) When I used to use RedHat, I found over time that I was installing less and less of it each time. I eventually got to the point where I could compile just about anything I needed in terms of apps, custom kernel, X, window managers, etc... If you want choice in any distro, it's already there. Just don't go with the defaults, use the custom installation.
Chew on this for a bit: How many REAL experienced Linux users actually go with the defaults? Probably none. So.. if you are a user who understands and wants choice, you are likely a user who has experience. Only the newbies don't fully understand the concept of choice... look at where they are coming from (Windows). For them, this is likely to matter very little because they aren't ready for it yet, so the defaults are very likely good. It gives them a chance to try the OS out and have a basic user experience that is similar between KDE and GNOME. If this extended to other distros, it would be great. As they gain experience, they CAN begin to make choices. And, in the event that the only experience they want is a glorified typewriter, then RedHat (and potentially other distros) will be able to offer this to them as well.
There is no reason that this has to be a problem for anyone. RedHat could make it even better by just asking you at installation "Do you want the unified Desktop themes, or do you want to pick your own"? A simple change that I think would benefit newbies and satisfy power users.
Yes... and posting a rant like this on Slashdot means you are getting on with YOUR life. Take your hand off your member, pull your pants up (your underpants too), and take a break from the keyboard. Wipe that jizz off your face while you're at it. Now, why don't you go volunteer for the charity of your choosing instead of being a wanker.
Reality check... [OK]
Cult member... [OK]
Logged in... [OK]
Troll... [OK]
Booyah!!!... [OK]
I think you misunderstood. *I* have uptimes at home that range from 40-90 days for my main workstation and I've had as long as 299 days for my server. But, we are not talking about the average Linux user here. We are talking about people moving from Windows to Linux. AVERAGE people, not regular Linux users like you or I.
As far as the fast boot... you are correct that XP is still grinding away. So... why don't we start X up a lot earlier and let Linux do what it does best... start all the other processes in the background? This "illusion" of the system being up and ready may not be important to someone like you or myself. But, to the average user, a system isn't ready until you see the big friendly GUI. And get rid of those ugly text based boot messages while we're at it. I send all of mine to the fourth virtual term so they don't botch the nice looking FB boot logo I patched into the kernel.
There is one main reason that people wil be rebooting linux on a regular basis; You seem to have completely left out laptops. Those people are constantly looking at boot screens unless they are lucky enough to have a distro that *MAYBE* recognizes their system's suspend abilities right out of the box. Sure... you or I could probably make the system suspend or suspend to disk, but I haven't seen a distro yet that does that without re-configing and re-compiling something or other. Or worse yet... repartitioning. (Keep in mind who we're talking about: Joe User)
The login manager. Again, not important to YOU, but very important to the average user. (Especially in a family computer situation) If you present them with xdm, they are likely to think the system is archaic and therefore inferior. It's a rare person who takes a look at xdm and says, "oooooh... I can see this is a superior system". You only get one chance to make a first impression. GDM is an improvement, especially in GNOME 2.0 and the gdm themes, but where are the alpha blends and mouseovers? Or even better, animations? Suse got their boot screen right, it's got the coolest animations I've ever seen for any OS. This is a point many Linux users (especially people like you) miss; the way something looks is going to make a bigger impression on most people than the way something works. You need the "coolness" factor if you want to draw average people over to Linux, plain and simple. Most people if given a choice between a shiny, cool looking, but inferior item are always going to choose it over the less attractive, uncool looking, but reliable item. Never forget that.
The multiple window managers available to X is great in comparison to Windows single, less customizable environment. But they are all getting long in the tooth at this point. The best WM I've seen is Enlightenment, but Rasterman appears to have abandoned the idea of desktop Linux, so I am not sure that the next version will be as useful. (I've only tried E 0.17 once last winter, it could have gotten better.. so don't scream at me.) But, with the exception of the KDE, I haven't seen any environments or WMs that are keeping up with UI improvements in Windows. I, personally don't like or use KDE for myself, but KDE 3.0 is a great environment for users, especially if it has the Liquid engine. Again, like it or not, "coolness" is what's going to get people moving to Linux, not stability, not security, not "superiority". If you show someone a system with xdm and twm... no matter how fast it works or how much you've optimized the kernel, apps, etc... no one is going to be as impressed as they would be if they saw an XP box that grinds along fairly well in comparison. If you show them a linux system with the same optimizations, KDE 3.0 with Liquid, and a nice sound scheme they will be a little more impressed and would think that this system is probably closer to XP. In reality, the first system is probably a lot better than XP, but Joe User doesn't see that. Think of Joe User as the guy who buys the flashy foreign car with the arse engine. That's who uses Windows. To get them to change, we need the same flashy foreign look, but with a super-charger under the hood.
While I'm replying, I may as well add that the stateful session feature of Windows XP is truly cool AND useful. I Know that Linux can be made to do this in some way, but it's not there right now. I've experimented with VNC combined with GNOME to try and implement something like this at home, but unaccelerated X is not much fun. I think it would be great to be able to set up a persistent X session for each user on the system. They log in, use their apps and leave them running and log out. Someone else logs in and does the same, then logs out. The first person comes back a few days later and logs in... all the apps are still running. Combine this with suspend to disk (even on desktpo workstations) and you have a real winner. The latest systems have more than enough power to do this for quite a few uesrs, but I haven't seen a distro that does it yet. It's not impossible to do, it's just that no one has done it yet. I think the key here is the login manager itself. Most dm programs restart the X session when a user logs out killing all the apps along with the old X session. Maybe some kind of "virtual" X server that the dm spawns when a user logs in that the apps connect to would be able to do this. (like VNC but with all the features of a real X server) The local X server allows the virtual one to connect to it as a client using the login credentials of the current user. The dm would check to see if a user already has a session running, if they do, it just reconnects to that session.
The bottom line is that to try and get more people to want to use Linux, we have to think about style as well as substance. Before I really got into computers, I always picked the most stylish forms of computing over the more "superior" forms of computing. The Macintosh was king in my former life. We can't forget that this is how most people think.
Since we're getting personal here (your comments on my abilities as a Linux user): Now.. down to you. You are the scourge of the Linux user base. People with attitudes like yours who poopoo the WANTS of others scare people away from Linux. As I've stated before, I use Linux exclusively at home. I love it, I think it's great, but I also concede that there are ways in which Windows XP is better. Will I run XP at home? Not until the licensing changes.
I've had plenty of experience working with Joe Average both at work and in my private life. I've even helped some people try Linux out at their homes. I've set up boxes with massive customizations (custom kernels, custom themes for their environment, optimized apps for their processor, etc...) to make sure that the system was as foolproof as possible. The boxes worked and worked very well, but in the end, Joe User went back to Windows because it had more of what he wanted. Not just the apps, but the "cool" features: stateful Windows session, suspend to disk, "neat" looking graphics (alpha blends, drop shadows, etc..) and big icons, built in CD-RW support, built-in video capture and editing capabilities, etc... How can you make someone who wants these things stick with Linux, when a lot of these things are not avaliable, or require consultation with someone who knows the system? You have to give them what they WANT. The features may not make the system any better from a technical standpoint, but Joe User is not technical and is likely to consider the system a pale imitation of Windows if it doesn't do what he wants. Your view is one like this (exaggeration):
You: "This is a superior system to Windows"
User: "Why does the login screen look so ugly"?
You: "You dare to question my authority"!
That's not going to attract anyone.
My take:
Me: "I've customized this system with as many of the typical features you might want. If you run into problems, let me know. Consider this a 'beta test' of a really cool product coming down the road".
User: "OK. Hey, how come the login screen doesn't look like Windows XP"?
Me: "We're working on it".
Think about it...
And one more thing, I see GDM a whole lot, since I actually take advantage of the multiuser features of Linux. My wife logs out when she's done, and I log in. My Quake playing buddies come over and log in with their own accounts, etc... So I don't see your point about a log in manager not being seen all that often. If it's going to be on the screen in GUI form, it should look nice. End of story.
Actually the monkey got something right. (Not Shakespeare yet, but getting better.) I think this is something that is key for those of us in the Linux community. "Know your enemy". I always used to say this when I was a Mac user in college. A lot of my Mac loving compatriots ridiculed and questioned my desire to stay informed on what was happening in the Microsoft camp. I used to get PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, etc... Basically I wanted to see if MS was getting any closer to having a system that I wanted at the time. BUt, it wasn't just MS at that point for me. It was the entire PC world. I questioned why anyone would want a stark, unfriendly command line interface. Eventually, my curiosity (and my budget) forced me into the PC world. Now, eight years later I am a net admin who uses Windows 2K at work and Linux exclusively at home. I found that the moer I learned about my enemy, the more that they had some things "right". I think that we Linux users tend to become so involved with what we're doing that we have a tendency to forget what else is going on around us.
Today, I made the switch to XP at work. So far, I have to say it's probably the best performing version of Windows I've ever seen. There are a lot of things that MS fixed and got right. For example, the boot time. Mere seconds. Something on the order of 10 seconds on a P4 1.8 G with 256 Megs of RAM. And this is a boot to GUI situation... Even on my own systems at home with custom kernels, my boot time is never shorter than a minute. Why is that important? Think about it... back in the days of the Amiga and the Atari, boot time from a floppy with a few memory resident apps was maybe a minute or so. This was on boxes with 2-8 MHz procs and 1-14 Megs of RAM. Sure the systems were simpler, but why hasn't boot time on most OSes decreased as our hardware has gotten faster? It looks like MS nailed it with something. I imagine that they must have cleaned out a lot of legacy cruft in their kernel. XP can't run on anything less than an MMX Pentium, so they obviously removed 486 and non-MMX 586 kernel code. Why is it that we can't get a basic Linux system (with GUI) to boot in under 15 seconds? If anyone out there has empirical data to prove me wrong about this, I'd like to see it.
Another thing... "cool factor" of the XP login manager. Yes, we have KDM and GDM. But I have to say Windows XP's login manager beats both of them for coolness. It has "mouseovers" of a sort and alpha blending to give it a nice cool look. Why don't we have this in GDM or KDM? This is the kind of thing that attracts users, like it or not. Yes, it uses CPU cycles and has no point, but it's still a necessity if you want to see more "converts".
There are many more features that I will probably run into as I use the system. And that is what we need to be aware of. What is MS doing now. Not so we can imitate it, but so that we may jump a few steps ahead of them again.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and I won't be switching to Windows XP at home until the license is a little less ridiculous. (That means I could be waiting forever.) But, we need to look at LInux differently. Especially for the end user, if we want to convert them.
Here's on simple example of how we can beat XP. It's been a while since I've used a distro of Linux that comes with system sounds enabled by default. ( I can already hear the "oh yucks" in the room, bear with me...) Windows has had system sounds as a default since Windows 95. BUt, the one thing that's always annoyed me about it is that they don't really give you much of an option to choose things during setup with regard to those sounds. Why couldn't we have the following options to set a system default during an install:
Set Default Sound Scheme:
1. No system sounds for all users
2. No system sounds for root only
3. Audition system sound schemes and set a system default
4. Download and audition the latest sound schemes.
5. Use sound scheme default.
That would certainly make the system more inviting to potential converts.
I remeber seeing that Caldera's Open Linux a few years back also had a Tetris game you could play while installing. That gives them several million points for style, but what about substance? Linux is a multitasking OS. Why do we still need to sit and watch the system count bytes copied or time to completion? Why can't we instead, browse the web (if NIC is working), or grab the latest distro updates to a local dir for later perusal/installation? To be honest, I'm still not sure why there isn't a distro with an installer that just boots to the desktop you will have as a default. This would allow the OS to be installed onto your system like an application. This is the route that MacOS used to go. (Not sure if they still do, but I wouldn't be surprised. Just boot the kernel with the needed modules, FBDEV support and X running in FBDEV mode. When X comes up, it has a basic Gnome or KDE desktop with the CDROM mounted and displaying an icon on the desktop, or even an OS installation "wizard". The installation could then be performed just like installing an app. How much easier can you get?
So... getting back to the original troll. He's right, "know your enemy" so that you can know how to be several steps ahead of him when game time hits.
I never read it. He only talked about it in class. However, if you are an eager beaver (huhuhuhuh... he said "beaver") you can look for either Prof. Joe Slade or Roger Good's thesis using whatever resources you may have. I can't remember which prof it was so you'll have to try both. They are still at Ohio University in the Telecommunications school from what I can see on the school web site.
One? If you worked with some of my previous bosses you'd have more on the order of twenty or so.
Fag smoker. That's actually appealing? Maybe if you are gay, but if you're straight (and you live outside of England) you wouldn't want to call yourself that. I think smokes became popular because they have addictive additives put into them.
Hmmm... what about an extension to filesystems that allows for a "dummy descriptor". HFS on the Mac has metadata (or whatever the hell they call it) that lets the OS display filenames with NO extensions, but it still knows the type. It also looked to me like the Nautilus people were doing the same type of thing with MIME types.
You are correct sir. I had a college professor who taught telecomm back in 1993. His doctoral thesis was based on the idea that the porno industry has been at the root of making any new entertainment technology cheaper. VCRs were his prime example at the time. Now, I am sure he talks about the internet boom. After all, what other use is there of r a fast connection? ;P Not the *I* download a lot of porn or anything.
Look at from a different perspective. Apple users are quite content to pay what some would call extremely high prices for what could be seen as a somewhat anemic system. (I, personally love Macs, but I'll leave that out of this for now.) If you put the Macintosh and a WinTel clone up against each other, it's always a game of catch up on both sides. WinTel boxes can do almost everything a Mac can, and vice-versa. So... why do Mac users pay so much for boxes that won't have support from Apple in a shorter period of time than a cheaper WinTel box? There are a few complicated answers:
1. Style. Like it or not, The Macintosh still beats a WinTel box (especially cheaper, no name boxes) when it comes to style. They have nicer looking hardware out of the box. The user interfaces is simple and streamlined. Although Mac OS X adds a little more complexity, but not as bad as Windows.
2. Psychological Security. "It costs me more, but it's got to be better just because of that reason." This is an extension of the "you get what you pay for" concept.
3. A known quantity vs. fear of the unknown. If you are familiar with a system, why change? Even if the alternative is cheaper, there is a learning curve. A Mac user is already comfortable with their knowledge of the Mac OS. If they've never worked with a WinTel box before, and have a little fear of doing so, they probably are not going to change, even if it can save them some money.
4. "Added value". There are some things that a WinTel box just can't do that a Macintosh can. Although they are very specific niches, they still require a Macintosh. (*Professional* Audio Production is a prime example. Not the "multimedia" crap or Semi-pro stuff that a WinTel box is well suited for.) Yes... there are some pro packages for Windows, but look at answer three to see why a Mac user is more likely to stick with a Mac.
Getting back to the original post: Who's to say that the company that got the bid at $15,000 didn't have a previous relationship with the company who requested the bids? Where I work, we pay out the nose for some things that we could get elsewhere a lot cheaper. But the added cost to us is worth it because we have a very close relationship with our vendors/consultants, etc... Those close relationships allow us to get our work done faster, instead of working with someone new and cheaper who may not be interested in fostering a long term relationship with us. It's unfair and in-efficient IMO, but I don't make those decisions. Whenever the subject of a cheaper alternative has been discussed, those that do make the decisions deride the lower cost by asying that there isn't any security in that since the cheaper company is an unknown quantity.
Another factor that doesn't workk with the Mac analogy, is "Bigger ass to whip if something doesn't work." The company that charges $15,000 for their work rather than $5000 is likely to have larger coffers to raid in the event of a lwa suit. That ALWAYS makes suits feel more secure. If the only assets that a company that charges less for their work has are a car and a house, "litigation happy corp" isn't going to get much in reparation even if they sue for millions.
An aside "rant" (those who aren't interested in my politics can skip this part):
This always brings me back to my conclusion that captalism is failing. (You can call me a troll at this point if you wish, but that doesn't change things.) I am not saying that communism or some other system is better. But, I AM saying that another system is destined to replace it for better or worse. Jump off the sinking ship while you still can and work on developing your own approach to "coding for food". Just keep in mind that the two failings in humanity (fear and greed) are any system's stumbling blocks. Oddly enough they are also responsible for getting us where we are today, both good an bad. Think about it for a bit... Hiroshima. Why? Fear. Gulf War. Why? Greed. Discovery of fire. Why? Fear? End of communism. Why? Greed. Even more interesting is the inextricable link between competition, greed and the advancement of civilization.
Just give it some thought if it interests you. I think we are seeing capitalism fail for the same exact reasons that communism did. Enron? Greed. etc...
This is exactly the case. There is no way that a system like this will work in the way that it is intended to. If you ask me the only reason they are doing this is because they want set a precedent to create dbs that they can use to make it easier to silence dissent.
Crime is a relative term. For example, here are some common business practices that can be perceived in different ways depending on how you look at them:
Stock Investments = Prospective Trading = Gambling
Insurance = Protection = Extortion = Mugging
Inaccurate Quarterly Reports = Creative Accounting = Embezzling = Mugging
Depending on where you stand, only one of the terms in each group is legitimate to you. I will use insurance as an example:
In the protection rackets, you "insure" someone that they won't get their place trashed and their legs broken. As the "protector" you feel fully justified that you are providing them with a service: keeping you or your henchmen's violent tendencies at bay. After all, these things just happen from time to time. Right? Either way, in the end it comes down to: "Your money, or your life. It's your choice."
In the insurance industry, there is a bit of legal wrangling, and the roles of the players are somewhat shifted to make it seem more legitimate, but it's a very similar situation: Health care providers (not necessarily doctors mind you... although some of them can be blamed for the unrealistically high insurance rates of today.) have the ability to do something to protect your life in one fashion or another. They are the "protectors". In this case, they don't want to go out and threaten to withhold health care from you. Instead the insurance companies go out and tell you that "without insurance, you could wind up with huge bills that will bury you in debt for life or no health care which can be fatal. It's in your best interest to pay." You wind up in essentially the same position: "Your money, or your life. It's your choice."
So... as you're walking down the street, a "common criminal" comes up to you and puts you in the same exact position by pointing a gun at you: He just comes out and says, "Your money, or your life. It's your choice."
In the end who is more honest about what they do? The "common criminal" because he states in plain view what his intentions are? The protection racketeer, who is somewhat illusory as to his reasoning but still fairly obvious about his intentions? Or... the insurance companies, who use so much obfuscation to cover up the end result? You decide and then look at the end of my reply to see where you fit in.
I would have to say that crime occurs at all levels of society at equal levels. They just call the crimes different things, and in some cases some of the crimes are legalized.
And now for the answers:
If you answered "The Insurance companies are the most honest. Besides , this is America and they have a right to make a profit". Then you are a stinky repugnican.
If you answered "The Protection Racketeer. Hey... accidents happen. Capiche?" Then you are likely a budding mobster who's been playing too much Q3A. BTW... I like your woman.
If you answered "The common criminal because he doesn't hide behind legalese and F.U.D." Then you may actually be a reasonable human being and give hope to others that have given up on the idea that humans are basically intelligent.
You sound like you actually believe that the system works. More power to you, but I hate to tell you how wrong you are. It only works for the majority, not everyone. Like it or not... we (users of free software) are in the minority. There will be no mass uprising that will cause the government to stop the monopolists. Those monopolists are the ones who put the leaders their in the first place. The monopolies aren't going anywhere, and free software is on it's way to becoming a criminal offense. After all... what power do the coders have when going up against corporate whim that is made into federal law. Our capitalist system has become corrupt. It was a nice idea, but it didn't work. Free software is in direct opposition to what the monopolists want. What the monopolists want is what "joe average" believes capitalism is. And if you are opposed to capitalism, then you are an enemy of the state. End of story.
So... what dream state do you live in?
Yes, I have both installed AND upgraded KDE without upgrading my distro or re-installing. Several times on different machine. All successful and very easy to do. You can always use RPMs if doing things manually isn't your bag.
As far as KDE beating Windows, I think it has a lot more useful features/apps "out of the box" than plain vanilla Windows and it looks much better. If you haven't tried KDE 3.0 with the Liquid engine, then I can see your point, but the latest KDE with Liquid goes a good step beyond Windows. Even Windows XP (and that's saying something since Windows XP is a HUGE improvment over their past products. Too bad MS decided to go with a dain bramaged licensing scheme or I might have bought it.
The other complaint that some people seem to have about apps is unfounded as well. (I'm assuming that's what you meant by "useless".) There are plenty of KDE applications. The apps that come with KDE are much nicer than anything Windows throws in and go beyond anything Windows has ever had. If you don't like the built in apps with KDE, you can still run tons of other gui based apps from Gnome to very basic, but useful X apps. I can't think of more than a handful of apps that I miss from the Windows platform that don't have an equivalent or better under Gnome or KDE. The only place that is weak on both sides (although KDE 3 made some nice steps forward) is pro-audio software. Even there KDE has Windows beat hands down though. Does MS bundle a software based synth (with the ability to create custom sounds) and MIDI sequencer with Windows XP? I think not... KDE 3 does. Hopefully Gnome will take a hint there too. Computers are meant to do a lot more than just "work". They are primarily a creative tool in every aspect.
KDE also has a much nicer version of the Windows Task Manager. It's much more extensive and customizable. You can define whether stats are reported in graph, LED readout, pie chart, histogram or numeric format. You can also add counters for different system resources that you wish to track. It's an improvment on both the Windows Task Manager and Performance Monitor. And it's MUCH more "user friendly" than any Windows administration app if you like that sort of thing.
But... I still like to travel light and have a decent looking environment, so Gnome all the way for me.
You sir, are an idiot. I use Gnome pretty much exclusively. I am currently running Gnome 2.0 from source on my Linux boxen and love it. But I have been using KDE 3.0 since it came out on my computer at work. There was no problem installing KDE any more than I had problems compiling and installing Gnome 2.0. The only reason I still prefer Gnome is that it FEELS better to me. But... that doesn't mean it runs any better to the casual observer. Usability-wise, there is little difference between KDE and Gnome. The only thing I don't like about KDE is that it FEELS less customizable on an atomic level when compared with Gnome. As far as all the "Joe User" features go, KDE still beats Windows. But Gnome is on a slightly different level for me, that's all.
Why are there always people assuming that we compute because we want to make a profit? Some of us just do it for fun. Since I used to be more of an electronics hobbyist before I started working on software, I can say that I, for one, would not mind working on the design of a truly open computer system. Something as open and flexible as Linux and perhaps optimized for *NIX. Making money is hardly the best reason for getting into computers. If you make money, fine, but it should be seen as a side effect, not the main focus.
It would be really great if a group of us could get together and build new systems from the ground up. Build in the functionality that people need and want rather than what a marketroid deems "innovative". If there is such a project, you can count me in.
Hehehe... when Clinton was in office, all the repugs could think about was where his penis was. Now that he's not in office, everything bad is his fault. What goes around comes around. The repugs need some bashing for a while.
Hmmm.... found this one too. Sounds like what I said in my first post. I am a research GEENIUS!!
http://sourceforge.net/projects/utcboot/
Worship me.