Uhuh, and flaming developers with dumb stereotypes and discouraging them to continue to develop will do the end users any good?
I have nothing against making it easy for end users. In fact, that's exactly what I'm developing: easy solutions for end users. But insults and stereotypes from people like you is EXACTLY what I hate so much!
That argument is not very god. 1. The most important question: WHY would anyone fork it? Where are the 'hundreds of forks' of Perl and Python? 2. And just who the hell will actually use an incompatible, impopular Java fork, that isn't even legally allowed to be called "Java"? 3. How's forking Java and making it incompatible any different from creating your own language with incompatible but similar Java-like syntax? (other than that under the hood it's based on Sun Java, but nobody cares about that)
"Often, the open source community has a very narrow and selfish view when it comes to certain things. Like, why make software easy to install, like OS X? No need- any Linux user (present or future) is smart enough to compile his own software, resolve dependencies, etc."
Sigh... don't give me stupid stereotypes like that. I've been working for more than 2 years on the autopackage project, which is exactly trying to make Linux software installation easier. I've put many man hours into the project and you come up with a dumb stereotype!? I'm very insulted! I'm sure all the people who put a lot of efford into GNOME and KDE would feel the same way too.
I swear, if Linux ever fails on the desktop, it'll be because people like you keep insulting developers with dumb stereotypes.
"A person has to ask- could the OSS community ever have produced a gem like OS X? Could it have produced Java? OSS has the skillset, some of the sharpest folks on the planet."
Yeah. How about Mono? Everybody who has tried.NET is bragging about how great it is. How about GCJ? It can produce native executables from Java source code. Perl and Python are also very nice and powerful languages.
"But who is keeping them coordinated? Who is the CEO with a single, cohesive vision?"
How about the project maintainer? The BSDs has a clear visiion of what it's supposed to be. Inkscape's maintainer has a clear vision of the future. There are good and bad maintainers, but there are also good and bad CEOs. Don't act like corporate control is some kind of bliss.
"But that's not your average user's goal; your average user wants to be able to get his job done without using terminals or memorizing keyboard shortcuts that have no mouse alternatives. Thus, it's a major step backward when useful functionality, like a filename box, is removed from a standard dialog."
Huh? That statement is self-contradicting. First you claim the average user doesn't want to type anything to open a file, then you claim that removal of the input box in the open file dialog is a bad thing for the average user? If the average user only wants to point & click on pretty icons then why should it have an input box?
ftp? smb? fish? You just lost the average user by using those geek terms. Average users DON'T WANT TO TYPE IN URLS! Attitudes like yours are exactly why Linux is not succeeding on the desktop.
Average users don't want to type in a filename. They want to use the mouse to click on pretty icons. Adding an input box will only create more clutter for average users. The Ctrl+L thing is for power users only.
RedHat/Fedora ships with only one app for every category. There is only one browser (well, actually two: Mozilla and Konqueror. but the latter doesn't show up in the menus), one email client, one IRC client, one instant messenger, one office suit, etc.
I hope you're kidding. These days, there are very little people who still know Netscape. Those who do remember Netscape are immediately reminded of Netscape 4.7 and 6.0. Words like "slow", "bloated", "buggy" and "piece of crap" immediately jumps into their minds. I've seen more than enough people who avoid anything Netscape just because of the name. People hate Netscape that much!
Urgh, you've clearly not read enough Slashdot posts or OSnews posts. I regularly see people predicting the death of Linux. Webwereld (Dutch news site) once said that 2001 (or was it 2002?) was the year of "the downfall of Linux" (because so many companies went bankrupt).
As for the rest of your post: GUI tools they are being created. RedHat/Fedora, Mandrake and SuSE all come with GUI configuration tools (although not for every single). There's an ongoing gnome-system-tools efford which attempts to create a unified set of GUI configuration tools for all distributions (they kinda lack manpower unforunately). Linux on the desktop needs some work but it isn't *that* bad. In it's current form it's certainly usable.
4) The virus only runs on Win64. Also, whomever wrote the virus has obviously proven that he can't design usable software because the virus has no (friendly) GUI at all. It will never succeed on the desktop. Therebefore it is clearly dying.
16-bit apps cannot link to 32-bit DLLs. You can run Win 3.1 apps because the backward compatibility libraries are already installed. That's no different than Linux with compatibility libraries installed.
Anti-Linux zealots have been predicting the death of Linux since 1998, yet Linux is only getting stronger and stronger. But I guess this, along with all the other switches (like the City of Large), won't make them stop flaming Linux all day.
So why is that point relevant? I can just as easily point out that Emacs can be a phychotherapist (no joke, that feature does exist) and that Visual Studio can't, but that's just as pointless as your point if I don't need it.
"1) This is not the unix way of doing things. Small individual apps that can be combined in powerful ways."
The average user does not care about "the unix way". They want an easy to use and as complete as possible product. Attitudes like yours is exactly why Slashdotters will never succeed on desktop debates.
"A consistant reply of "These aren't the window managers you're looking for," hardly seems to fit the bill."
A consistant reply of "This isn't the (insert name of some Windows software here) you're looking for" hardly seems to fit the bill.
Yeah big deal, some software is better than other software in certain circumstances. That's life, get over it. And some digital cameras are better than others in specific ways.
"t's okay if it munges data and causes a pain in the ass, because secretly it's all *really* microsofts fault,"
Yeah and people on Slashdot and OSnews blame Linux for every single piece of imperfection they find. So what? Linux is getting just as, or should I say even more, often bashed at than MS.
"trust us, besides hey it's free, and basically no one wants to use it anyway, so really when you think about it it's not a problem."
Nope, wrong again. I use it. My parents use it. Some of my friends use it. End of story.
"That's linux I guess. A handful of excuses for why every square peg crammed in a round hole is exactly as it should be."
And in other news: Windows is full of bugs and holes. Lots of Windows hardware and software don't work out-of-the-box on every single system. Yet you don't hear people nitpicking about them in the same way as they nitpick about Linux? You zealots disgust me.
I can't believe you actually called yourself a zealot. All the other Slashdotters are flaming and insulting Linux zealots all the time. Everybody on OSnews and other sites are constantly bashing Linux zealots. Heck, the word "Linux zealot" now has a bad reputation and is cosidered moderally evil. Yet you still call yourself a Linux zealot?
Joe User doesn't install Linux. Geeks and power users do. Those people certain *do* give a rat ass about whose fault it is.
Heck, I'd say even Joe User would give a rat ass about whose fault it is. If Joe User bought a Canon Scanner and it doesn't work on WinXP, and the help desk tells him it's because of a bug in XP and that he needs to upgrade to SP1, then he'll do that instead of keep bitching to Canon about that he doesn't give a rat ass and that Canon sucks etc. etc. Only slashsationalists like you don't give a rat ass and pretend like the rest of the world doesn't either.
But all known vulnerabilities for open source software is published. Contrast to commercial software: you only know what the company tells you. I wouldn't be surprised if a company hides thousands of bugs.
"* You can make your hardware work, but it's not easy. Next time, buy better (but more expensive) hardware."
That's a completely legitimate answer. If the drivers aren't good then what do you expect those people to do? Magically create a new working driver for you from thin air?
"* Linux can't do whatever it is you're trying to do. Therefore, don't do that or do this other thing, which is kind of what you're trying to do, but not really."
That's also a legitimate answer. He's just being honest to you about what Linux can or cannot do. Everything has limits. What's your problem?
"These aren't RTFM replies in the most explicit sense, they are just nicely (or not!) worded advice that is about as helpful as RTFM."
Why is RTFM not helpful? If a question has been asked THOUSANDS OF TIMES and is answered in the FAQ, then why shouldn't you read it? Why waste volunteers' time when they've put efford into writing documentation for you, which you don't even read?
Slashdot Mirror
Uhuh, and flaming developers with dumb stereotypes and discouraging them to continue to develop will do the end users any good?
I have nothing against making it easy for end users. In fact, that's exactly what I'm developing: easy solutions for end users. But insults and stereotypes from people like you is EXACTLY what I hate so much!
That argument is not very god.
1. The most important question: WHY would anyone fork it? Where are the 'hundreds of forks' of Perl and Python?
2. And just who the hell will actually use an incompatible, impopular Java fork, that isn't even legally allowed to be called "Java"?
3. How's forking Java and making it incompatible any different from creating your own language with incompatible but similar Java-like syntax? (other than that under the hood it's based on Sun Java, but nobody cares about that)
"Often, the open source community has a very narrow and selfish view when it comes to certain things. Like, why make software easy to install, like OS X? No need- any Linux user (present or future) is smart enough to compile his own software, resolve dependencies, etc."
.NET is bragging about how great it is. How about GCJ? It can produce native executables from Java source code. Perl and Python are also very nice and powerful languages.
Sigh... don't give me stupid stereotypes like that. I've been working for more than 2 years on the autopackage project, which is exactly trying to make Linux software installation easier. I've put many man hours into the project and you come up with a dumb stereotype!? I'm very insulted! I'm sure all the people who put a lot of efford into GNOME and KDE would feel the same way too.
I swear, if Linux ever fails on the desktop, it'll be because people like you keep insulting developers with dumb stereotypes.
"A person has to ask- could the OSS community ever have produced a gem like OS X? Could it have produced Java? OSS has the skillset, some of the sharpest folks on the planet."
Yeah. How about Mono? Everybody who has tried
"But who is keeping them coordinated? Who is the CEO with a single, cohesive vision?"
How about the project maintainer? The BSDs has a clear visiion of what it's supposed to be. Inkscape's maintainer has a clear vision of the future. There are good and bad maintainers, but there are also good and bad CEOs. Don't act like corporate control is some kind of bliss.
No operating system will ever get simple enough for average users to install. Not Linux, not Windows, not MacOS X, not BeOS.
"But that's not your average user's goal; your average user wants to be able to get his job done without using terminals or memorizing keyboard shortcuts that have no mouse alternatives. Thus, it's a major step backward when useful functionality, like a filename box, is removed from a standard dialog."
Huh? That statement is self-contradicting. First you claim the average user doesn't want to type anything to open a file, then you claim that removal of the input box in the open file dialog is a bad thing for the average user?
If the average user only wants to point & click on pretty icons then why should it have an input box?
ftp? smb? fish? You just lost the average user by using those geek terms. Average users DON'T WANT TO TYPE IN URLS! Attitudes like yours are exactly why Linux is not succeeding on the desktop.
Average users don't want to type in a filename. They want to use the mouse to click on pretty icons. Adding an input box will only create more clutter for average users. The Ctrl+L thing is for power users only.
I hope you're kidding. I installed Win2k and WinXP at least 7 times. They don't leave your MBR intact (unless you're talking about Upgrade Edition).
And since when is do average users, who can't search the web for a solution, install Linux distributions?
RedHat/Fedora ships with only one app for every category. There is only one browser (well, actually two: Mozilla and Konqueror. but the latter doesn't show up in the menus), one email client, one IRC client, one instant messenger, one office suit, etc.
I hope you're kidding. These days, there are very little people who still know Netscape. Those who do remember Netscape are immediately reminded of Netscape 4.7 and 6.0. Words like "slow", "bloated", "buggy" and "piece of crap" immediately jumps into their minds. I've seen more than enough people who avoid anything Netscape just because of the name. People hate Netscape that much!
But if you *do* ship only one browser, people will flame you down for being insecure. And then you *still* lose.
Urgh, you've clearly not read enough Slashdot posts or OSnews posts. I regularly see people predicting the death of Linux. Webwereld (Dutch news site) once said that 2001 (or was it 2002?) was the year of "the downfall of Linux" (because so many companies went bankrupt).
As for the rest of your post: GUI tools they are being created. RedHat/Fedora, Mandrake and SuSE all come with GUI configuration tools (although not for every single). There's an ongoing gnome-system-tools efford which attempts to create a unified set of GUI configuration tools for all distributions (they kinda lack manpower unforunately).
Linux on the desktop needs some work but it isn't *that* bad. In it's current form it's certainly usable.
4) The virus only runs on Win64. Also, whomever wrote the virus has obviously proven that he can't design usable software because the virus has no (friendly) GUI at all. It will never succeed on the desktop. Therebefore it is clearly dying.
16-bit apps cannot link to 32-bit DLLs. You can run Win 3.1 apps because the backward compatibility libraries are already installed. That's no different than Linux with compatibility libraries installed.
Anti-Linux zealots have been predicting the death of Linux since 1998, yet Linux is only getting stronger and stronger.
But I guess this, along with all the other switches (like the City of Large), won't make them stop flaming Linux all day.
So why is that point relevant? I can just as easily point out that Emacs can be a phychotherapist (no joke, that feature does exist) and that Visual Studio can't, but that's just as pointless as your point if I don't need it.
That's why you combine Emacs with the excellent QT Designer. Emacs is meant for writing code, and being *good* at it.
That's only because Internet Explorer and Outlook Express is already shipped with Windows. To the end user, it *is* a complete Internet suit.
"1) This is not the unix way of doing things. Small individual apps that can be combined in powerful ways."
The average user does not care about "the unix way". They want an easy to use and as complete as possible product.
Attitudes like yours is exactly why Slashdotters will never succeed on desktop debates.
"What about the year of the linux desktop?"
What about it?
"A consistant reply of "These aren't the window managers you're looking for," hardly seems to fit the bill."
A consistant reply of "This isn't the (insert name of some Windows software here) you're looking for" hardly seems to fit the bill.
Yeah big deal, some software is better than other software in certain circumstances. That's life, get over it. And some digital cameras are better than others in specific ways.
"t's okay if it munges data and causes a pain in the ass, because secretly it's all *really* microsofts fault,"
Yeah and people on Slashdot and OSnews blame Linux for every single piece of imperfection they find. So what? Linux is getting just as, or should I say even more, often bashed at than MS.
"trust us, besides hey it's free, and basically no one wants to use it anyway, so really when you think about it it's not a problem."
Nope, wrong again. I use it. My parents use it. Some of my friends use it. End of story.
"That's linux I guess. A handful of excuses for why every square peg crammed in a round hole is exactly as it should be."
And in other news: Windows is full of bugs and holes. Lots of Windows hardware and software don't work out-of-the-box on every single system. Yet you don't hear people nitpicking about them in the same way as they nitpick about Linux? You zealots disgust me.
I can't believe you actually called yourself a zealot. All the other Slashdotters are flaming and insulting Linux zealots all the time. Everybody on OSnews and other sites are constantly bashing Linux zealots. Heck, the word "Linux zealot" now has a bad reputation and is cosidered moderally evil. Yet you still call yourself a Linux zealot?
Joe User doesn't install Linux. Geeks and power users do. Those people certain *do* give a rat ass about whose fault it is.
Heck, I'd say even Joe User would give a rat ass about whose fault it is. If Joe User bought a Canon Scanner and it doesn't work on WinXP, and the help desk tells him it's because of a bug in XP and that he needs to upgrade to SP1, then he'll do that instead of keep bitching to Canon about that he doesn't give a rat ass and that Canon sucks etc. etc.
Only slashsationalists like you don't give a rat ass and pretend like the rest of the world doesn't either.
But all known vulnerabilities for open source software is published. Contrast to commercial software: you only know what the company tells you. I wouldn't be surprised if a company hides thousands of bugs.
"* You can make your hardware work, but it's not easy. Next time, buy better (but more expensive) hardware."
That's a completely legitimate answer. If the drivers aren't good then what do you expect those people to do? Magically create a new working driver for you from thin air?
"* Linux can't do whatever it is you're trying to do. Therefore, don't do that or do this other thing, which is kind of what you're trying to do, but not really."
That's also a legitimate answer. He's just being honest to you about what Linux can or cannot do. Everything has limits. What's your problem?
"These aren't RTFM replies in the most explicit sense, they are just nicely (or not!) worded advice that is about as helpful as RTFM."
Why is RTFM not helpful? If a question has been asked THOUSANDS OF TIMES and is answered in the FAQ, then why shouldn't you read it? Why waste volunteers' time when they've put efford into writing documentation for you, which you don't even read?