The GNOME project has quite a few usability people from RedHat, Ximian and Sun. Don't underestimate them. You too can participate by joining the usability mailing list. They will listen to you even if you can't program.
And how's this any different from Windows? My friends have called me to fix their Windows install many, many times because they can't figure out how to do it themselves. Windows is *not* better than Linux in this case.
Installation problem? The solutions are called apt and urpmi. If you're using Mandrake you already have URPMI. If you use RedHat, download Apt4RPM (the next version of RedHat will include apt).
"I can't stand distros that use graphical boots or boot up into X"
X is the windowing system and graphics subsystem. How do you want to run a graphical desktop without X? It's no different than Windows booting from the commandline to the GDI.
"so what the hell are they doing trying to turn it into windows?"
Because everybody expects it to be like Windows. If developers don't listen to them, they will get flamed down for being elitists and people will post on Slashdot about how Linux is Not Ready For The Desktop *and* get modded up as +5 Insightful.
Feel free to join the Autopackage project and contribute code to solve the Linux installation problem. We're trying to create a packaging system that allows binaries to be installed on most distributions (notice the "most"; we don't support ancient distributions like RedHat 6.x since no desktop user should be still using them, or some obscure distro that doesn't even have bash or grep installed).
[quote]Science used to "know" the world was flat. They used to "know" that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the human heart worked just like a furnace.[/quote]
Since didn't "know" that. That the world was flat was considered common sense, not a product of science. Same goes for the sun spinning around the earth: it was considered common sence, not science. Gallilei used mathmetical modals to prove that the earth was round. *That*'s science.
So does that mean everything will run faster if, say, we port GCC to compile to the chip's "native" instruction set and then recompile the kernel and all apps?
People go to all kinds of messageboards (including Slashdot, where they get modded up to +5 Insightful), talking about how stupid and elitist the Linux community is and how nobody should use Linux and that Linux will never succeed etc. etc.
Are you kidding? The whole reason why everybody thinks the Linux community is full of elitist is because of usenet! IRC and usenet happen to be the last places with Linux elitists. And where do newbies go look for help? IRC and usenet.
And why is being 2 separate config systems a problem? To the end user, there is no difference. He sees a GUI configuration dialog, clicks on a few things, and it works. He doesn't, and shouldn't have to care about implementation details.
All (or at least, nearly all) desktop GUI apps already have a GUI for configuration. The apps that do not are commandline apps, and non-techies will not use them anyway. So the problem you describe is non-existant.
I don't know about Linux but these are the problems I've encountered: 1. No way to rename files without losing revision info. 2. Ditto for moving files. 3. Can't handle symlinks.
...a huge flamewar against RMS. After all, RMS is one of the, if not the, most hated person on Slashdot. I assure you, 40% of the posts will be about how they think RMS is spreading bullshit, 50% will insult RMS personally, and 10% will be the usual goatse/gnaa/whatever flames and trolls.
With Microsoft's EULA you can't even see the code! But if you *did* see Microsoft's code, then all the software you write is automatically comtaminated and Microsoft will sue you to hell. And there's no way to get out.
Not so with the GPL. You can read as much GPL'ed code as you want. As long as you don't insert that GPL'ed code in your own code, there's no problem. Even if you do that, as long as you don't distribute your application, there's no problem. And in case you do want to distribute your proprietary program that contains GPL'ed code, all you have to do is remove those code and writing your own. If you copied (or heck, even just read) Microsoft's code, you can't get away just by removing the code. They assume that your brain is "comtaminated" with their code, sue you to hell, and you will never, ever, be able to get a programming job again.
Sorry but the GPL is nowhere near "viral" as for example Microsoft's Shared Source.
"If, however, I want to include GPLed code in my program, the GPL forces me to release my program under the GPL. It has *infected* my program. This is where the term `viral' originates with regard to the GPL."
And why is that a problem? 1. If you don't like their license then write your own code. You can't critisize people for not wanting to give away code without getting anything back in return. 2. You can't even see the source code for proprietary programs.
"Frankly, I'd be pissed if you forked my project,"
The only one you should be pissed on is yourself. If you chose to release your project as open source and someone forks it and you don't like it, then it's entirely your fault.
Uhm no. Read the GPL. You are allowed to have private code. You, only have to release the code if you distribute the binaries. If you don't distribute binaries and keep everything in-house, you won't have to release the source code either.
On top of that, even in 2003: - QT for Windows isn't Free. - GTK for Windows still doensn't work 100% correctly and doesn't integrate well with the environment.
As much as you may hate it, it's the reality. Deal with it. Yes it *shouldn't* be like this, but it *is* like this, and there's nothing you can do to change it.
Rich text: Built-in spell checking I can understand, but rich text enabled? I've never seen any CGI applications that support rich text, other than maybe web forums that use UBB code (but that's not RTF, that's UBB code). And I'd hardly call spell checking "groundbreaking". It's nice but not ground breaking; most users won't switch just for a spelling checker.
SGML: Why would anyone want to view SGML on the web? If you want to view SGML then use an SGML viewer or an SGML->HTML converter. Heck, I haven't even seen anybody putting an SGML document on the web for viewing.
Slashdot Mirror
"Truly changing KDE or GNOME's interface model to one superior to Windows will make it a better long term choice to users."
That's easier said than done. The whole reason why GUIs haven't changed much for the past 10 years is because nobody has found a better one yet.
The GNOME project has quite a few usability people from RedHat, Ximian and Sun. Don't underestimate them. You too can participate by joining the usability mailing list. They will listen to you even if you can't program.
And how's this any different from Windows? My friends have called me to fix their Windows install many, many times because they can't figure out how to do it themselves. Windows is *not* better than Linux in this case.
Installation problem? The solutions are called apt and urpmi. If you're using Mandrake you already have URPMI. If you use RedHat, download Apt4RPM (the next version of RedHat will include apt).
"I can't stand distros that use graphical boots or boot up into X"
X is the windowing system and graphics subsystem. How do you want to run a graphical desktop without X? It's no different than Windows booting from the commandline to the GDI.
"so what the hell are they doing trying to turn it into windows?"
Because everybody expects it to be like Windows. If developers don't listen to them, they will get flamed down for being elitists and people will post on Slashdot about how Linux is Not Ready For The Desktop *and* get modded up as +5 Insightful.
Feel free to join the Autopackage project and contribute code to solve the Linux installation problem. We're trying to create a packaging system that allows binaries to be installed on most distributions (notice the "most"; we don't support ancient distributions like RedHat 6.x since no desktop user should be still using them, or some obscure distro that doesn't even have bash or grep installed).
I've never, *ever* seen any modern binaries that link to any libc version prior to 6.
[quote]Science used to "know" the world was flat. They used to "know" that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the human heart worked just like a furnace.[/quote]
Since didn't "know" that. That the world was flat was considered common sense, not a product of science. Same goes for the sun spinning around the earth: it was considered common sence, not science. Gallilei used mathmetical modals to prove that the earth was round. *That*'s science.
So does that mean everything will run faster if, say, we port GCC to compile to the chip's "native" instruction set and then recompile the kernel and all apps?
Well, me and Mike both do. Besides, there's no point in having 2 Slashdot accounts.
"So what's wrong with some elitism."
People go to all kinds of messageboards (including Slashdot, where they get modded up to +5 Insightful), talking about how stupid and elitist the Linux community is and how nobody should use Linux and that Linux will never succeed etc. etc.
Are you kidding? The whole reason why everybody thinks the Linux community is full of elitist is because of usenet! IRC and usenet happen to be the last places with Linux elitists. And where do newbies go look for help? IRC and usenet.
And why is being 2 separate config systems a problem? To the end user, there is no difference. He sees a GUI configuration dialog, clicks on a few things, and it works. He doesn't, and shouldn't have to care about implementation details.
All (or at least, nearly all) desktop GUI apps already have a GUI for configuration. The apps that do not are commandline apps, and non-techies will not use them anyway. So the problem you describe is non-existant.
"I'd hope that kde and gnome provide a framework to help make loading/saving preferences easier."
*cough* GConf and KConfig *cough*
Geez people, why can't you keep up with GNOME and KDE development? They've had unified configuration systems for years.
"Yeah, but with the cost of hardware and memory these days and gigabit NICs that argument is moot."
Multiply that by 500 (computers) and that argument is *not* moot.
I don't know about Linux but these are the problems I've encountered:
1. No way to rename files without losing revision info.
2. Ditto for moving files.
3. Can't handle symlinks.
Huh? It was up yesterday.
...a huge flamewar against RMS. After all, RMS is one of the, if not the, most hated person on Slashdot.
I assure you, 40% of the posts will be about how they think RMS is spreading bullshit, 50% will insult RMS personally, and 10% will be the usual goatse/gnaa/whatever flames and trolls.
With Microsoft's EULA you can't even see the code! But if you *did* see Microsoft's code, then all the software you write is automatically comtaminated and Microsoft will sue you to hell. And there's no way to get out.
Not so with the GPL. You can read as much GPL'ed code as you want. As long as you don't insert that GPL'ed code in your own code, there's no problem. Even if you do that, as long as you don't distribute your application, there's no problem.
And in case you do want to distribute your proprietary program that contains GPL'ed code, all you have to do is remove those code and writing your own. If you copied (or heck, even just read) Microsoft's code, you can't get away just by removing the code. They assume that your brain is "comtaminated" with their code, sue you to hell, and you will never, ever, be able to get a programming job again.
Sorry but the GPL is nowhere near "viral" as for example Microsoft's Shared Source.
"If, however, I want to include GPLed code in
my program, the GPL forces me to release my program under the GPL. It has *infected* my program. This is where the term `viral' originates with regard to the GPL."
And why is that a problem?
1. If you don't like their license then write your own code. You can't critisize people for not wanting to give away code without getting anything back in return.
2. You can't even see the source code for proprietary programs.
"Frankly, I'd be pissed if you forked my project,"
The only one you should be pissed on is yourself. If you chose to release your project as open source and someone forks it and you don't like it, then it's entirely your fault.
Uhm no. Read the GPL. You are allowed to have private code. You, only have to release the code if you distribute the binaries. If you don't distribute binaries and keep everything in-house, you won't have to release the source code either.
Who cares about how the discussion began? I was replying to one of the replies that was talking about using a unified cross-platform toolkit!
On top of that, even in 2003:
- QT for Windows isn't Free.
- GTK for Windows still doensn't work 100% correctly and doesn't integrate well with the environment.
As much as you may hate it, it's the reality. Deal with it. Yes it *shouldn't* be like this, but it *is* like this, and there's nothing you can do to change it.
Rich text: Built-in spell checking I can understand, but rich text enabled? I've never seen any CGI applications that support rich text, other than maybe web forums that use UBB code (but that's not RTF, that's UBB code). And I'd hardly call spell checking "groundbreaking". It's nice but not ground breaking; most users won't switch just for a spelling checker.
SGML: Why would anyone want to view SGML on the web? If you want to view SGML then use an SGML viewer or an SGML->HTML converter. Heck, I haven't even seen anybody putting an SGML document on the web for viewing.