[quote]There's a reason we've been hearing since 1998 that Linux will "overtake Windows on the desktop," but it's never happened and never will with its current mindset.[/quote]
Oh sure it's always easy to put all the blame on the attitude and oversimplifying the situation. The o-so-friendly-and-fast BeOS didn't succeed either. And the o-so-friendly MacOS X still doesn't have more than a few percent market share. Heck, *no* non-MS operating system has succeeded into getting more than a few percent market share!
"But the truth is, people don't want to choose, they want you to choose for them."
Well, just because there IS choice doesn't mean you HAVE to choose. If those people don't want to choose then why don't they just let their distributor/geek friend/vendor/whatever choose for them?
And you forgot why there is choice in the first place: one size does not fit all! The only way to satisfy as many people as possible is to provide choice. The people who don't like that their distributor/vendor/whatever chose for them will choose, and the people who don't want to choose will let their distributor/vendor/whatever chooce for them. What's wrong with that?
"The main argument why Gnome 1 was better than KDE always was "it's more configurable""
Average users don't care about thousands of configuration options! They want things to just work! Your attitude is exactly what is being criticized by the "Linux-aint-ready-for-the-desktop-util-people-chan ge-their-attitude"-Slashdotters all the time.
And if you like config options so much? Why not just use KDE? KDE sounds exactly like what you want. The two desktop projects have to have different goals! Why the hell do we have two desktops if their goals are the same? Joe Average doesn't want to choose between two nearly equal desktops!
Let's keep it this way: GNOME for simplicity, KDE for configurability and raw power.
"Yet for joe-six-pack-end-user (which everyone here on slashdot eventually wants as linux users, right?) , there isn't "multiple window managers", there is the start menu, and he doesn't really care whether it is a "K" or a "foot" down in the lower left hand corner."
So where's the problem? If Joe Sixpack doesn't care then he doesn't have to choose! Simply let him use the distribution's default desktop.
Just because you can choose doesn't mean you must.
"That's the thing with open source, you can't assign work to your developers."
Actually you can - hire some developers. Open source is just a development model. Open source doesn't automatically mean everybody has to be a volunteer. You can still hire as many professionals as you want.
And a quarter of those no-Ex functions are deprecated, and MS recommends using the Ex-variant instead. But even the no-Ex functions are still overly complicated.
There are many, many, *many* people out there who flame down X for "copying of MS Windows". They even think MS can sue X just because they think X is called "X Windows". But why? X is not called "X Windows". Yet people still flame down for something X isn't, just because everybody calls it "X Windows".
This misunderstanding is taking rediculous forms. It's starting to harm X.
Let's compare it to this (example) situation: You wrote a book called "21st Century Car Engines". There is already another (popular) book called "Cars" written by Joe. Everybody calls your book "21 Cars" even though that's not really your book's name. You try to tell them about that but they don't listen. The next day, your mailbox is suddenly filled with hundreds of hate mails, accusing you of copying Joe's book's title, just because everybody *thinks* your book is called "21 Cars", while it isn't. Won't you get pissed at that? Everybody hates you now because of something that isn't even true? Won't you get annoyed at that?
Then how do you explain that each and every time, the "I know I will get modded down for this" Linux criticising posts get modded up to +5 Insightful? People have been saying that Slashdot is full of zealots for years, yet every time they say that they get modded up? That completely contradicts their claims. If Slashdot is truly full of zealots they would have been modded down, not up.
Nope I'm not. I have a lower ID than you. You guys just can't see what's really going on, and only believe that the Linux community is full of zealots because you *want* to believe that.
The problem with you MS zealots is that you're acting as if the entire Linux community spreads FUD about MS. That's false: only a small minority is. Now suddenly you are the guys again that spread FUD.
"If they can't stand the criticism, then they should just shut the hell up."
As opposed to the Windows community? Moderators from many Windows forums can and will ban you if you say anything that they don't agree with.
Besides, most "criticism" isn't criticism at all, but just insults, flames, trolls and whining. All those "criticism" don't provide any information to make the situation better: all they do is try to mentally hurt people.
"You talk with *astericks* a *lot* and try to drive the point that people knows OSS is imperfect...do you even visit Slashdot?"
Yes. It's because I visit Slashdot that I know most Slashdotters know Linux isn't perfect. Just look at it: every single time when someone points out that Linux is not perfect and that the rest of the community says it is, he gets modded up. Well obviously people do know Linux is imperfect, otherwise those people (including you) won't get modded up.
And this happens every time, over and over and over. It's about time people realize that most people do know Linux isn't perfect.
"Let's face it, Linux and its community of developers will never be accepted professionally beause of their unprofessional attitudes."
- Why must the Linux community be accepted by professionals? Do you expect "the Windows community" (if that even exists) to be accepted by professionals? It's just another community. Professionals will most likely go to Linux professionals, like RedHat.
- There are many professionals working on Linux and related projects. Alan Cox, Havoc Pennington, Owen Tyler, just to name a few.
- Ugly GUIs? Go to http://art.gnome.org/screenshots/index.php and tell me that's ugly.
If you're talking about RandomApp version 0.0.1, then that's a non-argument. There are many, *many* Windows freeware apps with bizarre GUIs and horrible names. Small, volunteer-driven open source apps should be compared to Windows freeware with source code, not commercial software.
- "the anti-Microsoft hatred that drives everything"?? It seems anti-Linux hatred is driving you. I remember that a while ago, someone like you (who assumes the whole Linux community is driven by anti-MS hatred) posted a troll on one of the GNOME mailing lists. One of the things he said was "you guys use Linux because you hate Microsoft, right?" And guess what? There were no flames whatsoever. All he got was several calm, objective replies such as "I use Linux because I think it's the operating system with the best value for the least money".
It's more likely that the "Linux is driven by anti-MS hatred"-stereotype is driven by anti-Linux hatred.
"BSD is the real professional, secure community around here."
Yeah right. You're acting as if absolutely nobody in the BSD community hates MS and as if everybody using BSD is a professional.
"Linux feels like it's fueled by Microsoft hatred."
Until you give me hard proof that the MS haters are more than a small vocal minority of the Linux community, I'm not convinced.
As much as a troll he may be, he does have a point. Windows zealots usually use stories like this to say that Linux is insecure. However, when they do that, we can just say "So what? Open source is still more secure. If you want absolute security then go use OpenBSD."
It's not about Linux vs Microsoft, it's about Open Source vs Microsoft. Heck, maybe even Unix vs Microsoft. Because then we can use MacOS X to beat all the Windows zealots.
Uhm no. You're wrong. If this is MS the world would just try to justify by saying things "it's the administrator's fault" and "security depends on the user". Previous articles have proven time after time that most people try to justify MS's security flaws rather than flame them down.
On the other hand, when there's an article about a security bug in Linux, people will massively mod Linux down for being insecure and insult the entire community for being zealots.
This is a fact: most people are anti-Linux, not anti-MS.
Uhm... the arguments in that article can be applied to Linux too.
But when they're applied to Linux, people will massively shoot down those arguments. Yet when they're applied to MacOS, people don't do anything. Interesting... (I smell anti-Linux zealotry...)
You're talking as if the Linux community is full of zealots who can't be objective. That's completely wrong.
People *already* know that OSS is not perfect, and they have known for years. People already know OSS is not immune. But, more importantly, those same people know *nothing* is immune. Not MS, not Linux, not BSD, not (even!) MacOS, not DOS. *All* systems can be hacked.
What *really* matters is the attitude to security. - A lot of the larger OSS projects care deeply about security. If a security bug is found, it's usually fixed very fast, and the fix will be peer reviewed. - They openly admit all flaws and bugs. Because of this, OSS *appears* to have more bugs. Do you see Microsoft admit all their bugs? I don't think so. MS hides a lot of bugs, pretending that they don't exist and that Windows is perfect.
Too bad all the MS zealots and anti-OSS/anti-Linux zealots use that to "proof" Windows is more secure than Linux/OSS/whatever. The number of bugs is *not* an accurate indication of security.
Linux zealots are only a small minority of the community. If you think they represent the entire community then you're wrong, just like so many people out there.
"Has Redhat ever been compromised?"
Maybe. If they haven't then it's because of pure luck.
Actually even "X Windows" won't help, because "X Windows" doesn't exist. It's called "The X Windowing System", or just "X". "X Windows", "X-Windows", "X Window" or "X-Window" are just slangs made up by users who don't know better.
Yet another person trying to justify the basher. You just don't get it do you? The *ONLY* thing those people do is bashing, complaining and whining, and nothing more! The X server is being maintained by VOLUNTEERS. 1) It's rude to keep on complaing over and over and over and over about voluntary work. 2) Not only that, most complaints are either outdated, ignorant, or just wrong. 3) Most complaints ARE NOT constructive criticism, but plain whining! They provide NOTHING constructive and are only meant to insult developers personally.
You are seriously overestimating the value of complaints. If you get 200 complaints every day, about a thing that you've fixed a year ago, *and* all those complaints insult you personally, how would you feel? If you want to complain, at least do it RIGHT instead of mindlessly whining!
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Yet people keep telling that kind of things. If you can make them stop, go ahead.
[quote]There's a reason we've been hearing since 1998 that Linux will "overtake Windows on the desktop," but it's never happened and never will with its current mindset.[/quote]
Oh sure it's always easy to put all the blame on the attitude and oversimplifying the situation. The o-so-friendly-and-fast BeOS didn't succeed either. And the o-so-friendly MacOS X still doesn't have more than a few percent market share. Heck, *no* non-MS operating system has succeeded into getting more than a few percent market share!
That reasoning makes no sense.
"But the truth is, people don't want to choose, they want you to choose for them."
Well, just because there IS choice doesn't mean you HAVE to choose. If those people don't want to choose then why don't they just let their distributor/geek friend/vendor/whatever choose for them?
And you forgot why there is choice in the first place: one size does not fit all! The only way to satisfy as many people as possible is to provide choice. The people who don't like that their distributor/vendor/whatever chose for them will choose, and the people who don't want to choose will let their distributor/vendor/whatever chooce for them. What's wrong with that?
"The main argument why Gnome 1 was better than KDE always was "it's more configurable""
n ge-their-attitude"-Slashdotters all the time.
Average users don't care about thousands of configuration options! They want things to just work!
Your attitude is exactly what is being criticized by the "Linux-aint-ready-for-the-desktop-util-people-cha
And if you like config options so much? Why not just use KDE? KDE sounds exactly like what you want.
The two desktop projects have to have different goals! Why the hell do we have two desktops if their goals are the same? Joe Average doesn't want to choose between two nearly equal desktops!
Let's keep it this way: GNOME for simplicity, KDE for configurability and raw power.
What do you mean "easily"? I highly doubt that 1) he'll even try 2) people will recognize the "new" foundation.
"Yet for joe-six-pack-end-user (which everyone here on slashdot eventually wants as linux users, right?) , there isn't "multiple window managers", there is the start menu, and he doesn't really care whether it is a "K" or a "foot" down in the lower left hand corner."
So where's the problem? If Joe Sixpack doesn't care then he doesn't have to choose! Simply let him use the distribution's default desktop.
Just because you can choose doesn't mean you must.
"That's the thing with open source, you can't assign work to your developers."
Actually you can - hire some developers.
Open source is just a development model. Open source doesn't automatically mean everybody has to be a volunteer. You can still hire as many professionals as you want.
Because they dyed their hair.
And a quarter of those no-Ex functions are deprecated, and MS recommends using the Ex-variant instead.
But even the no-Ex functions are still overly complicated.
There are many, many, *many* people out there who flame down X for "copying of MS Windows". They even think MS can sue X just because they think X is called "X Windows".
But why? X is not called "X Windows". Yet people still flame down for something X isn't, just because everybody calls it "X Windows".
This misunderstanding is taking rediculous forms. It's starting to harm X.
Let's compare it to this (example) situation:
You wrote a book called "21st Century Car Engines". There is already another (popular) book called "Cars" written by Joe. Everybody calls your book "21 Cars" even though that's not really your book's name. You try to tell them about that but they don't listen.
The next day, your mailbox is suddenly filled with hundreds of hate mails, accusing you of copying Joe's book's title, just because everybody *thinks* your book is called "21 Cars", while it isn't.
Won't you get pissed at that? Everybody hates you now because of something that isn't even true? Won't you get annoyed at that?
Then how do you explain that each and every time, the "I know I will get modded down for this" Linux criticising posts get modded up to +5 Insightful?
People have been saying that Slashdot is full of zealots for years, yet every time they say that they get modded up? That completely contradicts their claims. If Slashdot is truly full of zealots they would have been modded down, not up.
Nope I'm not. I have a lower ID than you.
You guys just can't see what's really going on, and only believe that the Linux community is full of zealots because you *want* to believe that.
I spent a weekend trying to get my Epson C82 working under Windows XP too! Don't think Windows is perfect.
The problem with you MS zealots is that you're acting as if the entire Linux community spreads FUD about MS. That's false: only a small minority is. Now suddenly you are the guys again that spread FUD.
"If they can't stand the criticism, then they should just shut the hell up."
As opposed to the Windows community? Moderators from many Windows forums can and will ban you if you say anything that they don't agree with.
Besides, most "criticism" isn't criticism at all, but just insults, flames, trolls and whining. All those "criticism" don't provide any information to make the situation better: all they do is try to mentally hurt people.
"You talk with *astericks* a *lot* and try to drive the point that people knows OSS is imperfect...do you even visit Slashdot?"
Yes. It's because I visit Slashdot that I know most Slashdotters know Linux isn't perfect.
Just look at it: every single time when someone points out that Linux is not perfect and that the rest of the community says it is, he gets modded up. Well obviously people do know Linux is imperfect, otherwise those people (including you) won't get modded up.
And this happens every time, over and over and over. It's about time people realize that most people do know Linux isn't perfect.
"Let's face it, Linux and its community of developers will never be accepted professionally beause of their unprofessional attitudes."
- Why must the Linux community be accepted by professionals? Do you expect "the Windows community" (if that even exists) to be accepted by professionals? It's just another community.
Professionals will most likely go to Linux professionals, like RedHat.
- There are many professionals working on Linux and related projects. Alan Cox, Havoc Pennington, Owen Tyler, just to name a few.
- Ugly GUIs? Go to http://art.gnome.org/screenshots/index.php and tell me that's ugly.
If you're talking about RandomApp version 0.0.1, then that's a non-argument. There are many, *many* Windows freeware apps with bizarre GUIs and horrible names. Small, volunteer-driven open source apps should be compared to Windows freeware with source code, not commercial software.
- "the anti-Microsoft hatred that drives everything"?? It seems anti-Linux hatred is driving you.
I remember that a while ago, someone like you (who assumes the whole Linux community is driven by anti-MS hatred) posted a troll on one of the GNOME mailing lists. One of the things he said was "you guys use Linux because you hate Microsoft, right?"
And guess what? There were no flames whatsoever. All he got was several calm, objective replies such as "I use Linux because I think it's the operating system with the best value for the least money".
It's more likely that the "Linux is driven by anti-MS hatred"-stereotype is driven by anti-Linux hatred.
"BSD is the real professional, secure community around here."
Yeah right. You're acting as if absolutely nobody in the BSD community hates MS and as if everybody using BSD is a professional.
"Linux feels like it's fueled by Microsoft hatred."
Until you give me hard proof that the MS haters are more than a small vocal minority of the Linux community, I'm not convinced.
The downside is that anti-open source/anti-Linux zealots will use stories like this to "proof" that open source is less secure than MS software.
As much as a troll he may be, he does have a point. Windows zealots usually use stories like this to say that Linux is insecure. However, when they do that, we can just say "So what? Open source is still more secure. If you want absolute security then go use OpenBSD."
It's not about Linux vs Microsoft, it's about Open Source vs Microsoft.
Heck, maybe even Unix vs Microsoft. Because then we can use MacOS X to beat all the Windows zealots.
Uhm no. You're wrong. If this is MS the world would just try to justify by saying things "it's the administrator's fault" and "security depends on the user". Previous articles have proven time after time that most people try to justify MS's security flaws rather than flame them down.
On the other hand, when there's an article about a security bug in Linux, people will massively mod Linux down for being insecure and insult the entire community for being zealots.
This is a fact: most people are anti-Linux, not anti-MS.
Uhm... the arguments in that article can be applied to Linux too.
But when they're applied to Linux, people will massively shoot down those arguments. Yet when they're applied to MacOS, people don't do anything.
Interesting... (I smell anti-Linux zealotry...)
You're talking as if the Linux community is full of zealots who can't be objective. That's completely wrong.
People *already* know that OSS is not perfect, and they have known for years. People already know OSS is not immune.
But, more importantly, those same people know *nothing* is immune. Not MS, not Linux, not BSD, not (even!) MacOS, not DOS. *All* systems can be hacked.
What *really* matters is the attitude to security.
- A lot of the larger OSS projects care deeply about security. If a security bug is found, it's usually fixed very fast, and the fix will be peer reviewed.
- They openly admit all flaws and bugs. Because of this, OSS *appears* to have more bugs.
Do you see Microsoft admit all their bugs? I don't think so. MS hides a lot of bugs, pretending that they don't exist and that Windows is perfect.
Too bad all the MS zealots and anti-OSS/anti-Linux zealots use that to "proof" Windows is more secure than Linux/OSS/whatever. The number of bugs is *not* an accurate indication of security.
Linux zealots are only a small minority of the community. If you think they represent the entire community then you're wrong, just like so many people out there.
"Has Redhat ever been compromised?"
Maybe. If they haven't then it's because of pure luck.
What do you mean "few"? There are tons of them, even on Slashdot (heck, they're the majority).
Actually even "X Windows" won't help, because "X Windows" doesn't exist. It's called "The X Windowing System", or just "X".
"X Windows", "X-Windows", "X Window" or "X-Window" are just slangs made up by users who don't know better.
"including Red Hat (isn't the package manager or the install routine non free? I believe it's proprietary.)"
No. Why do people keep thinking that? In RedHat:
- The GUI config utilities are GPL'ed.
- The installer (Anaconda) is GPL'ed.
- RPM is GPL'ed.
The only non-free RedHat package is redhat-logos, which contains their trademark.
No it isn't. If you steal, the original owner loses the item. If you copy, the original owner doesn't lose anything.
Yet another person trying to justify the basher. You just don't get it do you?
The *ONLY* thing those people do is bashing, complaining and whining, and nothing more! The X server is being maintained by VOLUNTEERS.
1) It's rude to keep on complaing over and over and over and over about voluntary work.
2) Not only that, most complaints are either outdated, ignorant, or just wrong.
3) Most complaints ARE NOT constructive criticism, but plain whining! They provide NOTHING constructive and are only meant to insult developers personally.
You are seriously overestimating the value of complaints. If you get 200 complaints every day, about a thing that you've fixed a year ago, *and* all those complaints insult you personally, how would you feel?
If you want to complain, at least do it RIGHT instead of mindlessly whining!