Re:Installation vs. Usage - Mac 10 Windows 7, Linu
on
Coursey on Palladium
·
· Score: 1
"First, you have to leave you desktop and go into your software install application"
Difficult.
"then you have to look for the application you want to install (check it)"
Please explain the process of getting an application to your Mac desktop. I suppose it just *poof* appears, eh?
"and then add that as a cron job."
This is redundant in relation to the other reply to your message, but this last part shows your ignorance of installation proceedures on Linux.
I won't claim to be perfect, so take this with a grain of salt, but you didn't do your research and your logic is obviously flawed. Opening a program, browsing for a piece of software, checking it and clicking install isn't "Much more complex" than browsing for a program on the 'net, downloading it and dragging it.
In fact, I'll venture that it's simpler just because the application list is centralized in Red Carpet, although this is a limitation as it won't install a package that isn't on the list (so far as I know).
As opposed to the Republicans who support Big Brot^H^H^H^HBusiness? Read: Microsoft.
I'm not knocking either side. I consider myself independant, although my family is typically Republican.
I see retards on both sides of the line, and to generalize politics is about as retarded as expecting the market to teach bad corporations their manners.
Some of the OSS and related pages look downright horrible, yes. Read: the old version of docbook.org.
However, it is my understanding that most OSS programmers would rather spend time programming what *really* matters -- the software, rather than doing website design.
I understand the need for marketing in cases, but I think it's about time the world realized that just because a server costs $12,000 doesn't mean it's that much better than a $3,000 white-box. Yes, reliability and support are an issue, but it doesn't cost $9,000 to aquire those (Read: RAID, SCSI, ECC RAM, redundant systems, blah blah blah).
My point is that people are so concerned about image today it's sick. I can't recall the person who said it, but "Microsoft treats security problems as public relations issues." I'm just wondering when people will apply the saying, "You can't judge a book by its cover" to real lift.
I'll bite -- it's too temping, I'd feel I was missing out on something if I didn't. =P I wouldn't even mention this if I didn't feel like the parent deserved it for being a troll.
>Inconveniencing a customer in order to line your >own pocket is just downright immoral.
Let me break this down for you.
Inconveniencing - annoying someone, wasting their time, etc. A negative effect.
a customer - a person that is paying you for your services.
in order for you to line your own pockets - in order for you to get more money. Basis: greed.
is just downright immoral - is immoral.
Now, let's connect the dots!
Joe walks into your store to pay for your services. Without Joe and those like him, you're out of business.
You hassle Joe in attempt to gain personal benefit.
You are harming someone who is buying your services for your personal benefit. You are hurting Joe, a customer, to extract more money out of his pocket.
While the degree of immorallity is relative, it's still immoral (Read: immoral = wrong), unless you think harming someone for personal gain is OK in every aspect.
Realistically, yes, this happens. But that doesn't make it moral. That just makes it acceptable.
Realistically, yes, the degree here isn't large at all. But if you're going to nit-pick his argument, I'll nit-pick yours.
The fact is the customer is being abused for a business's gain, and that just sucks, no matter what level. But this is an imperfect world.
...and the network of P2P will just become more distributed.
e.g. P2P clients that only share a few files.
This is just off the top of my head, but I'm sure you can find ways to make the entire P2P community blessed with bandwidth share everything nearly evenly. What are they going to do, bring every cable/dsl/campus P2P user into court?
Support for standards does not guarantee it will work.
How do you mean this? What, specifically, is it? If a program can open an HTML file, it can open any HTML file that conforms to that standard, by definition of a standard. That will always work.
As far as proprietary formats, if you don't use a proprietary format, then you have nothing to worry about, which is the whole idea of this point. If you are currently using them, you can simply switch.
What happens if your format isn't supported somehow? The vast majority of the major document types *are* supported (Read: My previous reply). If this *IS* a problem: 1) Wait for it to become supported - if it's popular at all, given the nature and history of open source, this is likely 2) Code your own converter, or start one and GPL it and get help. 3) Slowly change by developing your new projects in an open format.
Corporate Control: People have accepted it so far and I see no signs of it receding, especially in a job environment like the one today.
This is your opinion and I respect that. However, I'm not that cynical.
Content/Document Management Systems try to do the same thing in assigning document permissions. They tend to fail because of the pesky ID thing, but if that can be handled by a combo of hardware/software then who knows?
I hear the weather in Peru is nice this time of year. =)
Anyone want to come with me? Companion tickets are easy to get...
On a serious note, for reasons mentioned in an above reply, I don't think this will happen. Microsoft has been known, even to many of the public, to be a company willing to do what it wants to get it's way. Congress can be retarded often, but I don't think they, nor the American people, nor anyone else in the world, would be stupid enough to trust Microsoft and corporations with this type of thing.
As mentioned in the thread regarding Bruce Sterling's idea of this 'security standard', I think it should be left up to organizations similar to the IEEE.
A global standard, which is where we're headed with this (goal: world-wide secure communication, as I take it), won't happen unless everyone likes it.
Macs are not really directly relevant to this Linux discussion.
I was using it to discuss possible motives for selling Linux computers. I wasn't comparing it to Linux in any way but "Why would a company sell computers with an OS that has such low marketshare?"
The old Unix fans, as far as I can tell, run Windows as a desktop and telnet into their Unix account. I doubt that, personally. I don't know a whole lot of "old Unix fogeys" but the ones I do know are using Linux.
but Linux as a whole, unlike Apple, has no established desktop base
User base? True, we don't have a large one.
Standardized code base? If you mean desktop literally, semi-true - we have two major ones, GNOME and KDE.
Standardized desktop used by the majority? Well, two: GNOME and KE. So only semi-true.
Standardized distribution? Semi-true. Many distributions can share certain binaries, but code works for all. There are a lot of them, though.
Linux, and Unix, as a whole, unlike Apple, has little experience designing for the clueless user.
True, but that's under works. Read: Ximian, desktop changes in the last two years, etc.
And Linux, unlike MS, does not seem to be actively borrowing ideas from Apple
Aye, but Linux borrows from MS.
Linux developers, rather, seem to gain joy from reinventing the wheel for the tenth time.
This isn't the first time I've heard this. But I'd like to hear what you think Linux has reinvented as opposed to copied?
Linux could be a good desktop OS, but the development direction is going to have to radically change.
I think it already has. Read: Ximian, Red Hat orienting to desktop sales, Mandrake, etc.
I wish that Apples were the standard. Sure, having one company control hardware and software sucks, but they had a head start (Win 95 equiv. in 1984) and their software doesn't suck arse, at least IMO. And that's not to say that OSS wouldn't be continuing as it is today.
Most businesses won't risk ANY chance of losing access to those formats. Why risk losing access to a document containing your project that costs $500K if you only need to spend $500 to guarantee access?
You talk about 'most businesses,' but I find most businesses do documents (communication and such), Excel (records, bookkeeping, etc.), and email. Linux supports all of these fine.
If Microsoft changes the format again, YES, you would be locked out of new files. But if you're using Linux, you wouldn't be using the new file formats. And if current trend follows, these new file formats would be incorporated into OSS anyway.
What about AutoCAD, 3d Studio Max or other Windows only software?
I am not familiar enough with any attempts at Linux equivilants for AutoCAD, 3d Studio Max, etc.
What I will say is that if Linux becomes popular, these formats will be ported to Linux, either by the open source community or, more likely, but the companies that made them who want to maintain their marketshare.
Did you ever use CoreldDRAW's import EPS format during the 80s or 90s?
These aren't the 80s or 90s. Linux wasn't around in the 80s... so I fail to see that part of the arugment. Linux has only become a household word (to a degree) in the late 90's with the media coverage about the free OS that could overturn MS. That died off, but Linux is still growing, and as I said, the user and developer base is getting bigger. To me, the Linux community is catching up faster and faster (Read: 2 years from developer-only to user friendly) and will be able to handle changes in software.
Yes, but I don't believe that somehow business will switch over to Linux because it is "fast, easy, stable and simple it is to use for normal applications." If that was true Windows would never have become as big as it is. We'd be using OS/2, AmigaOS or something else. The "Windows is good enough" factor comes into play.
You do have a point. *That* is one of the main reasons why desktop users won't switch on their own. But as I said, corporations will try and save money, and you can look around for examples of Linux doing just that (Read: Amazon.com).
I firmly believe that business will flock to TCPA because of the control it gives them over their workers, their documents and information, and the perceived benefits such a system gives the boss.
I firmly believe that workers won't stand to be owned at the office place for much longer or to a greater extent that is occuring now. And I don't see why home users would want MS or someone else telling them what they can and cannot run on their computer. If this isn't handled perfectly by the TCPA and Microsoft, I think it'll fall apart. Not to mention the geek revolt that would surely come if OSS was forced to be "authorized."
What good are the benefits you mention (stability, options, openness and freedom) if Windows already is perceived to have that?
None. This point simply states that it is a contender with Windows. The real point is that Corps. will change to save money on subscription licensing, maintenance, efficiency, etc. Read the first line of the body of my original post again.
The business user also gets the advantage of controlling information access, which as many lawyers, HR personnel and management types will argue can be of more worth than the equipment it inhabits.
Again, this goes back to the corp. owning the employee instead of the employee selling his services. I don't think it will expand or hold much longer. People will get tired of it. People revolt against control. Read: The 70's. =)
Anderson argues that the Intel PC is commoditized now. Linux is trying to commoditize the OS. MS and Intel try to reverse that trend by offering something unique and of value to those who will pay for it (business). I think that is a logical... strategy. People are willing to pay for something they think will benefit them
I agree. But this is a judgement call, and I judge that corporations would rather get out from under MS, still have control over employees (Read: Permissions, Read: this response), as opposed to dealing with the possible consequences of putting them thumb down on employees even more.
It's a judgement call on that one. We'll have to see.
Believe me, companies desire to control their workers through computer access will trump any supposed benefits of "open" Linux and standards. "Funny, I thought corporations would rather save money by dumping subscription licensing and maintenance and efficiency costs rather than play Big Brother. Not every company out there is a huge, evil devil-incarnate -- those are just the ones that speak the loudest."
If I was correct the first time in interpreting that you think corporations won't use Linux because they want control, ignore this post.
However, reading over what you said once more, slowly, I read it differently. If you meant to say they would trump the benefits as in "use Linux but restrict users," then this is my reply: I will be more explicit: one of the benefits of open source is that of file formats and such. You are not locked into a proprietary system of file formats. (READ: Microsoft Office is trying [i.e. See: Word vs. older word processors, resulting in many Doc formats])
I wasn't meaning to say that Linux offers more freedom for employees, but for companies. In fact, with the permission system, I would say otherwise with regard to employees. Permissions give sysadmins more control, if they like. I can't say I agree with this completely, but it is more the actions of the sysadmins I don't agree with, not the ability for them to control the systems.
...I wanted to point out that the same is true for SuSE 7.x and 8.x, and I've heard that Mandrake 8.x is very good as well. KDE3 is quite usable as well, and so far I consider it a significant improvement on KDE2, which I also liked.
I have to admit, haven't used anything but RH 6.2-7.1 w/[Ximian] GNOME. It's good to hear the same is true about others - I suspected it of Mandrake.
Especially irritating are the MS updates, many of which have to be installed individually, requiring a reboot and then a return to the update site for the rest, which may or may not have to be installed individually. This is not user friendly, and it certainly does nothing to encourage the average user to keep their system up-to-date
I've just got to admire Red Carpet. I'm commenting on this because some folks haven't tried it. =P In Red Carpet, first select a related channel to what you want (e.g. RH Linux 7.3), it'll show you what you can update, what is available to install, and what you can remove. Full information on the package (description, version, size, etc) is available at one click. Simply check those packages you wish to update/install/remove and click a button. It does the rest. No rebooting. Nothing. If that isn't easy to use, I don't know what is.
With SuSE, by contrast, I have no need to find the driver CDs for my hardware
Is this very new hardware, or uncommon, or am I missing something? Wouldn't Win2K come with these drivers?
I have no need to reboot my machine for every driver or app installed
I just put a new HD in my box, and I'm reformatting. It's a dual boot Linux/98 (for games). I installed 98 last night and couldn't count the number of times I rebooted for the install, norton, vid drivers, sound drivers, network drivers, multiple USB devices, etc. Upwards of 10. And to be fair, much of that is 98's fault. But come on. Changing network settings requires a reboot? I hate to hold past problems against MS, but that's just plain retarded.
I expect to have about half of my immediate family (including in-laws) using Linux at least part time by the end of summer. So far, no problem, and if they can use it anybody can;P
I love Linux's remote admin utilities: you can fix problems on your Aunt's computer in Pango Pango. =D It looks like I might be doing an install for a friend's home box (not very computer literate), and any problems that come up will most likely only require a few commands. =)
Another "Linux will take over the desktop in the future" piece. How redundant. Thanks for the troll.
Believe me, companies desire to control their workers through computer access will trump any supposed benefits of "open" Linux and standards. Funny, I thought corporations would rather save money by dumping subscription licensing and maintenance and efficiency costs rather than play Big Brother. Not every company out there is a huge, evil devil-incarnate -- those are just the ones that speak the loudest.
With all the legacy applications and documents in MS and other proprietary formats most businesses will not risk switching over. I can certainly understand this one, to a degree, but as I said, this is coming along. Doc support, one of the biggest issues, is practically solved. Name a few huge formats that aren't supported, if you please.
Maybe in a few years an open source Office app will read MS formats Have you used OpenOffice or AbiWord or KOffice or Gnumeric or Wine or VMWare or etc. etc. lately? Even disregarding Wine or VMWare, I can open Docs, MS Works files, Excel spreadsheets, powerpoint documents, etc. What is your argument?
If you think home users will flock to Linux while business sticks with Windows TCPA, I think you'l be in for a rude shock. Most people's home computer uses what they use at work, for a variety of reasons. That's not what I said -- I said businesses will go first and then home users. Read my article, maybe?
Finally, you might be interested in reading Ross Anderson's piece... Read it. Won't happen unless TCPA becomes law, which I doubt simply because of the Million Geek March (quoted from... eh... The Register? Forgot...).
You can't separate business and home users. Where business goes, the home user will inevitably go How redundant. Just what I said.
You apparently didn't read my article nor research your data or you need to state your argument a bit more clearly.
Re:Installation vs. Usage - Mac 10 Windows 7, Linu
on
Coursey on Palladium
·
· Score: 2, Informative
To comment on this:
-You do not need Windows tech support to view an AVI. I think that was his point.
Misc. comments: -However, you cannot complain that Linux is "too hard" because of some of it's 'fixes'. If Windows breaks, TOUGH -- what can you do but reinstall? If Linux breaks, at least you can fix it. Just because you can fix it and that fix is difficult doesn't make it any harder than Windows -- it's just an option you never had. Note -- I'm not suggesting the parent was meaning to say otherwise, I'm adding this because people often seem to not understand it.
-There is a learning curve on Linux, just the same as Windows. I'm not suggesting that users should be forced into using the shell, but that some people blindly assume because a Windows -> Linux transition isn't 100% painless, Linux is too hard. Again, not suggesting that the parent meant otherwise.
Re:Installation vs. Usage - Mac 10 Windows 7, Linu
on
Coursey on Palladium
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
but downloading and manually building a package and its dependencies, sometimes rebuilding the kernel. It's just not the same as an installshield-type GUI installer, and I won't apologize for it.
Notice my comment about Ximian -- utilities such as Red Carpet and up2date negate the need to do things by hand. True, there is less of an application base for these, but they are coming along quite nicely considering they're both relatively new.
And as far as installation and distrib., I should have been more explicit: Red Hat. Even the custom install is hardly difficult for someone who knows computing basics, especially given the help in the sidebar.
Take, f'rinstance, video formats. Yes, there is a package now for viewing AVIs under Linux. But to get it working is another matter. Like I said, there are plenty of issues with file formats. While doc, xls, ppt, mpg, mp3, etc. etc. etc. are all supported, there are a few important ones missing -- I concur with you, my most sought after file formats are movie formats. Here is something I'm looking forward to become standard.
In order for Linux to "rule" the desktop (as many hope it will), there needs to be the same simplicity in setup, maintenance and use as its competition Repeating myself: Setup - RH Linux is just as simple as Windows on a "Workstation" install, not much more difficult on custom. Maintenance - This is a problem in some areas. Groups like Ximian are working on it -- their new configuration panel (forgot the name -- similar to MS Control Panel) is nice, IMO, and getting better. Use - Again, this area needs work in the area of common applications, but things such as Evolution, AbiWord, OpenOffice, GnuCash, etc. are making a lot of headway here.
IF MS approves it, it would have to be compiled with a proprietary compiler, which understands the Palladium calls.
The TCPA/Palladium FAQ mentions that Intel has typically made their standards open to avoid anti-trust suits. It would make sense if they kept this up.
I also recall reading that the hardware interfaces would be open, but I couldn't find a link to it offhand. Anyone have a link or a rebuke?
Once businesses change over to a Linux desktop to avoid subscription licensing fees, software lock-in, and improve interoperability (read: open standards), people will learn Linux. They will see how fast, easy, stable and simple it is to use for normal applications. *Note: before you debate me on these points, please take the time to use a RH 7.x system with Ximian GNOME - install and usage really is simple for the avg. joe. At least it is for my family and friends.
Once employees see this, they'll want Linux at home. And the Linux desktop market will develop, much like it did with Windows in the early 90's. Wal-Mart and Fry's already sell lower-end Linux based PCs. I've heard speculation for a long time that the retailers would never sell a Linux box until a market developed.
Honestly, I don't see a feasible market at the moment, besides selling to Linux junkies like myself. Over about 95% of all desktops today are running Windows, a few percent are Macs, and even fewer (desktops, mind you, not total boxen) run Linux. Even so, Wal-Mart, a very large company, is investing in a tiny sliver of the desktop market.
Maybe they're willing to take a greater risk than many of us thought? Maybe their ITs have more insight into the future of the desktop than many of us thought? I can't find any other reason than those -- if anyone has any ideas, please say so.
One thought is that Macs are still around and don't have but a few percent. Although this is comparable to Linux, Linux is new and there is no guarantee of returned money on an investment. Mac junkies have been around for quite some time, and have continued to purchase Macs.
In either case, two years ago, I didn't think Linux was for anyone but developers. Now my mom can use it, and she's not even average when it comes to computer literacy. Linux has come so far in the last 2 years that I don't see how it can't go further. The user and developer bases are growing, and it looks like Linux is here to stay.
Stability and options have been here. Features (e.g. virtual desktops) have been here. Openness and freedom have been here. Ease of use is becoming more common, and the user base is growing. The only thing this Linux junkie sees missing is application/file-type support, but that is coming as well, and quickly.
I forsee Linux busting into the desktop market and becoming a serious contender within two years. Of course it will take time for a large change, but I think it's coming.
It's so obvious, it stings like a hard slap in the face, but it is very true.
My own addition:
Insufficient perspective? While/. can be very one sided, it seems to me that we get plenty of perspectives here.
Disdain for history? I am a big history buff, myself. I can't speak for everyone, but I can't see how this generalization can be true.
"The steam engine... probably transformed American law, but the 'law of the steam engine' never existed,"
The steam engine didn't allow for near instantanious sharing of nearly all information, either.
Unnecessary futurology? This is why I agree with what Tackhead said regarding "disdain for the possibilities of the future." This is the first time in human history when instant communication and information sharing is availiable to so many people at once. Telegraphs and phones came close, but now instead of talking to a person, we have entire BOOKS available.
Why should we be afraid to take this as far as we can? The Internet, while allowing for online ordering, cyber-terrorism, and the like, also allows for the instant sharing of information by anyone with access -- almost all information, at least right now. We need laws to protect us from identity theft, etc., but we should not fear information integration.
I'm not trying to imply anything regarding blocking or not blocking internet access -- I am simply stating that it is sad how little managers know of their employees, specifically in regard to their output.
1) Make sure people are doing their jobs. You can tell this by looking at whether or not they produce what is required in the time they have to produce it.
Unfortunately, it *seems* all too common to *me* that supervisors don't know jack about the people working under them. The novel idea of making a programmer a manager of the programming department seems to escape some people.
Last night I installed RedHat 7.2 and it had just as much useless, exploitable stuff running.
Please, do tell. I'd like to know what these bugs might be. I'm sure they're much worse than bugs in IIS, IE and MWP.
Note on IE bug: Read: "...special code exploited a vulnerability in [IE] and forced the spyware onto users' computers."
Worst of all, I needed twice as long to uninstall all of their "bonus" crap...
Ever check install options? You can select what to install and what not to install. Don't whine because you didn't look.
...because rpm is a flaming piece of trash.
The dependance system is much more efficient -- windows setups typically include every dependancy a program needs, leading to a lot of redundant data and bulk. Use something like up2date or Red Carpet to handle dependancies.
Never mind some of the fun stories I could tell you about people running older RH or Mandrake releases.
Care for me to elaborate on the bugs in unpatched versions of (*laugh*) early versions of NT? NT 4? 2000? XP? Regardless, please do tell, I'd be interested to know about these stories.
Slashdot Mirror
"First, you have to leave you desktop and go into your software install application"
Difficult.
"then you have to look for the application you want to install (check it)"
Please explain the process of getting an application to your Mac desktop. I suppose it just *poof* appears, eh?
"and then add that as a cron job."
This is redundant in relation to the other reply to your message, but this last part shows your ignorance of installation proceedures on Linux.
I won't claim to be perfect, so take this with a grain of salt, but you didn't do your research and your logic is obviously flawed. Opening a program, browsing for a piece of software, checking it and clicking install isn't "Much more complex" than browsing for a program on the 'net, downloading it and dragging it.
In fact, I'll venture that it's simpler just because the application list is centralized in Red Carpet, although this is a limitation as it won't install a package that isn't on the list (so far as I know).
As opposed to the Republicans who support Big Brot^H^H^H^HBusiness? Read: Microsoft.
I'm not knocking either side. I consider myself independant, although my family is typically Republican.
I see retards on both sides of the line, and to generalize politics is about as retarded as expecting the market to teach bad corporations their manners.
Some of the OSS and related pages look downright horrible, yes. Read: the old version of docbook.org.
However, it is my understanding that most OSS programmers would rather spend time programming what *really* matters -- the software, rather than doing website design.
I understand the need for marketing in cases, but I think it's about time the world realized that just because a server costs $12,000 doesn't mean it's that much better than a $3,000 white-box. Yes, reliability and support are an issue, but it doesn't cost $9,000 to aquire those (Read: RAID, SCSI, ECC RAM, redundant systems, blah blah blah).
My point is that people are so concerned about image today it's sick. I can't recall the person who said it, but "Microsoft treats security problems as public relations issues." I'm just wondering when people will apply the saying, "You can't judge a book by its cover" to real lift.
Notice my sig.
I'll bite -- it's too temping, I'd feel I was missing out on something if I didn't. =P I wouldn't even mention this if I didn't feel like the parent deserved it for being a troll.
>Inconveniencing a customer in order to line your
>own pocket is just downright immoral.
Let me break this down for you.
Inconveniencing - annoying someone, wasting their time, etc. A negative effect.
a customer - a person that is paying you for your services.
in order for you to line your own pockets - in order for you to get more money. Basis: greed.
is just downright immoral - is immoral.
Now, let's connect the dots!
Joe walks into your store to pay for your services. Without Joe and those like him, you're out of business.
You hassle Joe in attempt to gain personal benefit.
You are harming someone who is buying your services for your personal benefit. You are hurting Joe, a customer, to extract more money out of his pocket.
While the degree of immorallity is relative, it's still immoral (Read: immoral = wrong), unless you think harming someone for personal gain is OK in every aspect.
Realistically, yes, this happens. But that doesn't make it moral. That just makes it acceptable.
Realistically, yes, the degree here isn't large at all. But if you're going to nit-pick his argument, I'll nit-pick yours.
The fact is the customer is being abused for a business's gain, and that just sucks, no matter what level. But this is an imperfect world.
...and the network of P2P will just become more distributed.
e.g. P2P clients that only share a few files.
This is just off the top of my head, but I'm sure you can find ways to make the entire P2P community blessed with bandwidth share everything nearly evenly. What are they going to do, bring every cable/dsl/campus P2P user into court?
Support for standards does not guarantee it will work.
How do you mean this? What, specifically, is it?
If a program can open an HTML file, it can open any HTML file that conforms to that standard, by definition of a standard. That will always work.
As far as proprietary formats, if you don't use a proprietary format, then you have nothing to worry about, which is the whole idea of this point. If you are currently using them, you can simply switch.
What happens if your format isn't supported somehow? The vast majority of the major document types *are* supported (Read: My previous reply). If this *IS* a problem:
1) Wait for it to become supported - if it's popular at all, given the nature and history of open source, this is likely
2) Code your own converter, or start one and GPL it and get help.
3) Slowly change by developing your new projects in an open format.
Corporate Control:
People have accepted it so far and I see no signs of it receding, especially in a job environment like the one today.
This is your opinion and I respect that. However, I'm not that cynical.
Content/Document Management Systems try to do the same thing in assigning document permissions. They tend to fail because of the pesky ID thing, but if that can be handled by a combo of hardware/software then who knows?
The same what? Sorry, I'm a touch lost.
I hear the weather in Peru is nice this time of year. =)
Anyone want to come with me? Companion tickets are easy to get...
On a serious note, for reasons mentioned in an above reply, I don't think this will happen. Microsoft has been known, even to many of the public, to be a company willing to do what it wants to get it's way. Congress can be retarded often, but I don't think they, nor the American people, nor anyone else in the world, would be stupid enough to trust Microsoft and corporations with this type of thing.
As mentioned in the thread regarding Bruce Sterling's idea of this 'security standard', I think it should be left up to organizations similar to the IEEE.
A global standard, which is where we're headed with this (goal: world-wide secure communication, as I take it), won't happen unless everyone likes it.
You think Europe will bend it's knee to MS?
Macs are not really directly relevant to this Linux discussion.
I was using it to discuss possible motives for selling Linux computers. I wasn't comparing it to Linux in any way but "Why would a company sell computers with an OS that has such low marketshare?"
The old Unix fans, as far as I can tell, run Windows as a desktop and telnet into their Unix account.
I doubt that, personally. I don't know a whole lot of "old Unix fogeys" but the ones I do know are using Linux.
but Linux as a whole, unlike Apple, has no established desktop base
User base? True, we don't have a large one.
Standardized code base? If you mean desktop literally, semi-true - we have two major ones, GNOME and KDE.
Standardized desktop used by the majority? Well, two: GNOME and KE. So only semi-true.
Standardized distribution? Semi-true. Many distributions can share certain binaries, but code works for all. There are a lot of them, though.
Linux, and Unix, as a whole, unlike Apple, has little experience designing for the clueless user.
True, but that's under works. Read: Ximian, desktop changes in the last two years, etc.
And Linux, unlike MS, does not seem to be actively borrowing ideas from Apple
Aye, but Linux borrows from MS.
Linux developers, rather, seem to gain joy from reinventing the wheel for the tenth time.
This isn't the first time I've heard this. But I'd like to hear what you think Linux has reinvented as opposed to copied?
Linux could be a good desktop OS, but the development direction is going to have to radically change.
I think it already has. Read: Ximian, Red Hat orienting to desktop sales, Mandrake, etc.
I wish that Apples were the standard. Sure, having one company control hardware and software sucks, but they had a head start (Win 95 equiv. in 1984) and their software doesn't suck arse, at least IMO. And that's not to say that OSS wouldn't be continuing as it is today.
Most businesses won't risk ANY chance of losing access to those formats. Why risk losing access to a document containing your project that costs $500K if you only need to spend $500 to guarantee access?
... strategy. People are willing to pay for something they think will benefit them
You talk about 'most businesses,' but I find most businesses do documents (communication and such), Excel (records, bookkeeping, etc.), and email. Linux supports all of these fine.
If Microsoft changes the format again, YES, you would be locked out of new files. But if you're using Linux, you wouldn't be using the new file formats. And if current trend follows, these new file formats would be incorporated into OSS anyway.
What about AutoCAD, 3d Studio Max or other Windows only software?
I am not familiar enough with any attempts at Linux equivilants for AutoCAD, 3d Studio Max, etc.
What I will say is that if Linux becomes popular, these formats will be ported to Linux, either by the open source community or, more likely, but the companies that made them who want to maintain their marketshare.
Did you ever use CoreldDRAW's import EPS format during the 80s or 90s?
These aren't the 80s or 90s. Linux wasn't around in the 80s... so I fail to see that part of the arugment. Linux has only become a household word (to a degree) in the late 90's with the media coverage about the free OS that could overturn MS. That died off, but Linux is still growing, and as I said, the user and developer base is getting bigger. To me, the Linux community is catching up faster and faster (Read: 2 years from developer-only to user friendly) and will be able to handle changes in software.
Yes, but I don't believe that somehow business will switch over to Linux because it is "fast, easy, stable and simple it is to use for normal applications." If that was true Windows would never have become as big as it is. We'd be using OS/2, AmigaOS or something else. The "Windows is good enough" factor comes into play.
You do have a point. *That* is one of the main reasons why desktop users won't switch on their own. But as I said, corporations will try and save money, and you can look around for examples of Linux doing just that (Read: Amazon.com).
I firmly believe that business will flock to TCPA because of the control it gives them over their workers, their documents and information, and the perceived benefits such a system gives the boss.
I firmly believe that workers won't stand to be owned at the office place for much longer or to a greater extent that is occuring now. And I don't see why home users would want MS or someone else telling them what they can and cannot run on their computer. If this isn't handled perfectly by the TCPA and Microsoft, I think it'll fall apart. Not to mention the geek revolt that would surely come if OSS was forced to be "authorized."
What good are the benefits you mention (stability, options, openness and freedom) if Windows already is perceived to have that?
None. This point simply states that it is a contender with Windows.
The real point is that Corps. will change to save money on subscription licensing, maintenance, efficiency, etc. Read the first line of the body of my original post again.
The business user also gets the advantage of controlling information access, which as many lawyers, HR personnel and management types will argue can be of more worth than the equipment it inhabits.
Again, this goes back to the corp. owning the employee instead of the employee selling his services. I don't think it will expand or hold much longer. People will get tired of it. People revolt against control. Read: The 70's. =)
Anderson argues that the Intel PC is commoditized now. Linux is trying to commoditize the OS. MS and Intel try to reverse that trend by offering something unique and of value to those who will pay for it (business). I think that is a logical
I agree. But this is a judgement call, and I judge that corporations would rather get out from under MS, still have control over employees (Read: Permissions, Read: this response), as opposed to dealing with the possible consequences of putting them thumb down on employees even more.
It's a judgement call on that one. We'll have to see.
EDIT:
Believe me, companies desire to control their workers through computer access will trump any supposed benefits of "open" Linux and standards.
"Funny, I thought corporations would rather save money by dumping subscription licensing and maintenance and efficiency costs rather than play Big Brother. Not every company out there is a huge, evil devil-incarnate -- those are just the ones that speak the loudest."
If I was correct the first time in interpreting that you think corporations won't use Linux because they want control, ignore this post.
However, reading over what you said once more, slowly, I read it differently. If you meant to say they would trump the benefits as in "use Linux but restrict users," then this is my reply:
I will be more explicit: one of the benefits of open source is that of file formats and such. You are not locked into a proprietary system of file formats. (READ: Microsoft Office is trying [i.e. See: Word vs. older word processors, resulting in many Doc formats])
I wasn't meaning to say that Linux offers more freedom for employees, but for companies. In fact, with the permission system, I would say otherwise with regard to employees. Permissions give sysadmins more control, if they like. I can't say I agree with this completely, but it is more the actions of the sysadmins I don't agree with, not the ability for them to control the systems.
...I wanted to point out that the same is true for SuSE 7.x and 8.x, and I've heard that Mandrake 8.x is very good as well. KDE3 is quite usable as well, and so far I consider it a significant improvement on KDE2, which I also liked.
;P
I have to admit, haven't used anything but RH 6.2-7.1 w/[Ximian] GNOME. It's good to hear the same is true about others - I suspected it of Mandrake.
Especially irritating are the MS updates, many of which have to be installed individually, requiring a reboot and then a return to the update site for the rest, which may or may not have to be installed individually. This is not user friendly, and it certainly does nothing to encourage the average user to keep their system up-to-date
I've just got to admire Red Carpet. I'm commenting on this because some folks haven't tried it. =P In Red Carpet, first select a related channel to what you want (e.g. RH Linux 7.3), it'll show you what you can update, what is available to install, and what you can remove. Full information on the package (description, version, size, etc) is available at one click. Simply check those packages you wish to update/install/remove and click a button. It does the rest. No rebooting. Nothing. If that isn't easy to use, I don't know what is.
With SuSE, by contrast, I have no need to find the driver CDs for my hardware
Is this very new hardware, or uncommon, or am I missing something? Wouldn't Win2K come with these drivers?
I have no need to reboot my machine for every driver or app installed
I just put a new HD in my box, and I'm reformatting. It's a dual boot Linux/98 (for games). I installed 98 last night and couldn't count the number of times I rebooted for the install, norton, vid drivers, sound drivers, network drivers, multiple USB devices, etc. Upwards of 10. And to be fair, much of that is 98's fault. But come on. Changing network settings requires a reboot? I hate to hold past problems against MS, but that's just plain retarded.
I expect to have about half of my immediate family (including in-laws) using Linux at least part time by the end of summer. So far, no problem, and if they can use it anybody can
I love Linux's remote admin utilities: you can fix problems on your Aunt's computer in Pango Pango. =D
It looks like I might be doing an install for a friend's home box (not very computer literate), and any problems that come up will most likely only require a few commands. =)
Another "Linux will take over the desktop in the future" piece. How redundant.
Thanks for the troll.
Believe me, companies desire to control their workers through computer access will trump any supposed benefits of "open" Linux and standards.
Funny, I thought corporations would rather save money by dumping subscription licensing and maintenance and efficiency costs rather than play Big Brother. Not every company out there is a huge, evil devil-incarnate -- those are just the ones that speak the loudest.
With all the legacy applications and documents in MS and other proprietary formats most businesses will not risk switching over.
I can certainly understand this one, to a degree, but as I said, this is coming along. Doc support, one of the biggest issues, is practically solved. Name a few huge formats that aren't supported, if you please.
Maybe in a few years an open source Office app will read MS formats
Have you used OpenOffice or AbiWord or KOffice or Gnumeric or Wine or VMWare or etc. etc. lately?
Even disregarding Wine or VMWare, I can open Docs, MS Works files, Excel spreadsheets, powerpoint documents, etc. What is your argument?
If you think home users will flock to Linux while business sticks with Windows TCPA, I think you'l be in for a rude shock. Most people's home computer uses what they use at work, for a variety of reasons.
That's not what I said -- I said businesses will go first and then home users. Read my article, maybe?
Finally, you might be interested in reading Ross Anderson's piece...
Read it. Won't happen unless TCPA becomes law, which I doubt simply because of the Million Geek March (quoted from... eh... The Register? Forgot...).
You can't separate business and home users. Where business goes, the home user will inevitably go
How redundant. Just what I said.
You apparently didn't read my article nor research your data or you need to state your argument a bit more clearly.
To comment on this:
-You do not need Windows tech support to view an AVI. I think that was his point.
Misc. comments:
-However, you cannot complain that Linux is "too hard" because of some of it's 'fixes'. If Windows breaks, TOUGH -- what can you do but reinstall? If Linux breaks, at least you can fix it. Just because you can fix it and that fix is difficult doesn't make it any harder than Windows -- it's just an option you never had. Note -- I'm not suggesting the parent was meaning to say otherwise, I'm adding this because people often seem to not understand it.
-There is a learning curve on Linux, just the same as Windows. I'm not suggesting that users should be forced into using the shell, but that some people blindly assume because a Windows -> Linux transition isn't 100% painless, Linux is too hard. Again, not suggesting that the parent meant otherwise.
but downloading and manually building a package and its dependencies, sometimes rebuilding the kernel. It's just not the same as an installshield-type GUI installer, and I won't apologize for it.
Notice my comment about Ximian -- utilities such as Red Carpet and up2date negate the need to do things by hand. True, there is less of an application base for these, but they are coming along quite nicely considering they're both relatively new.
And as far as installation and distrib., I should have been more explicit: Red Hat. Even the custom install is hardly difficult for someone who knows computing basics, especially given the help in the sidebar.
Take, f'rinstance, video formats. Yes, there is a package now for viewing AVIs under Linux. But to get it working is another matter.
Like I said, there are plenty of issues with file formats. While doc, xls, ppt, mpg, mp3, etc. etc. etc. are all supported, there are a few important ones missing -- I concur with you, my most sought after file formats are movie formats. Here is something I'm looking forward to become standard.
In order for Linux to "rule" the desktop (as many hope it will), there needs to be the same simplicity in setup, maintenance and use as its competition
Repeating myself:
Setup - RH Linux is just as simple as Windows on a "Workstation" install, not much more difficult on custom.
Maintenance - This is a problem in some areas. Groups like Ximian are working on it -- their new configuration panel (forgot the name -- similar to MS Control Panel) is nice, IMO, and getting better.
Use - Again, this area needs work in the area of common applications, but things such as Evolution, AbiWord, OpenOffice, GnuCash, etc. are making a lot of headway here.
IF MS approves it, it would have to be compiled with a proprietary compiler, which understands the Palladium calls.
The TCPA/Palladium FAQ mentions that Intel has typically made their standards open to avoid anti-trust suits. It would make sense if they kept this up.
I also recall reading that the hardware interfaces would be open, but I couldn't find a link to it offhand. Anyone have a link or a rebuke?
Disclaimer: opinion follows. Notice sig.
Once businesses change over to a Linux desktop to avoid subscription licensing fees, software lock-in, and improve interoperability (read: open standards), people will learn Linux. They will see how fast, easy, stable and simple it is to use for normal applications.
*Note: before you debate me on these points, please take the time to use a RH 7.x system with Ximian GNOME - install and usage really is simple for the avg. joe. At least it is for my family and friends.
Once employees see this, they'll want Linux at home. And the Linux desktop market will develop, much like it did with Windows in the early 90's. Wal-Mart and Fry's already sell lower-end Linux based PCs. I've heard speculation for a long time that the retailers would never sell a Linux box until a market developed.
Honestly, I don't see a feasible market at the moment, besides selling to Linux junkies like myself. Over about 95% of all desktops today are running Windows, a few percent are Macs, and even fewer (desktops, mind you, not total boxen) run Linux. Even so, Wal-Mart, a very large company, is investing in a tiny sliver of the desktop market.
Maybe they're willing to take a greater risk than many of us thought? Maybe their ITs have more insight into the future of the desktop than many of us thought? I can't find any other reason than those -- if anyone has any ideas, please say so.
One thought is that Macs are still around and don't have but a few percent. Although this is comparable to Linux, Linux is new and there is no guarantee of returned money on an investment. Mac junkies have been around for quite some time, and have continued to purchase Macs.
In either case, two years ago, I didn't think Linux was for anyone but developers. Now my mom can use it, and she's not even average when it comes to computer literacy. Linux has come so far in the last 2 years that I don't see how it can't go further. The user and developer bases are growing, and it looks like Linux is here to stay.
Stability and options have been here. Features (e.g. virtual desktops) have been here. Openness and freedom have been here. Ease of use is becoming more common, and the user base is growing. The only thing this Linux junkie sees missing is application/file-type support, but that is coming as well, and quickly.
I forsee Linux busting into the desktop market and becoming a serious contender within two years. Of course it will take time for a large change, but I think it's coming.
I thought there was something about AMD and Intel making deals with Microsoft to build this copyright stuff right into the chip?
You're right. That's the TCPA issue, and what scares me is that Senator Fritz from CA is trying to make this law.
I don't think it'll happen, but they're trying, which is why we must be vigilant.
I'm really sorry...
/. can be very one sided, it seems to me that we get plenty of perspectives here.
... probably transformed American law, but the 'law of the steam engine' never existed,"
+5 interesting to parent
It's so obvious, it stings like a hard slap in the face, but it is very true.
My own addition:
Insufficient perspective? While
Disdain for history? I am a big history buff, myself. I can't speak for everyone, but I can't see how this generalization can be true.
"The steam engine
The steam engine didn't allow for near instantanious sharing of nearly all information, either.
Unnecessary futurology? This is why I agree with what Tackhead said regarding "disdain for the possibilities of the future." This is the first time in human history when instant communication and information sharing is availiable to so many people at once. Telegraphs and phones came close, but now instead of talking to a person, we have entire BOOKS available.
Why should we be afraid to take this as far as we can? The Internet, while allowing for online ordering, cyber-terrorism, and the like, also allows for the instant sharing of information by anyone with access -- almost all information, at least right now. We need laws to protect us from identity theft, etc., but we should not fear information integration.
I'm not trying to imply anything regarding blocking or not blocking internet access -- I am simply stating that it is sad how little managers know of their employees, specifically in regard to their output.
Sorry if I was off topic.
I must admit, same here --- but I've heard some horror stories. =(
My company is also small enough (~50 people) and close-knit enough to make that kind of thing easy and natural.
Go to their website and enter sourceforget.net -- it's listed. Thanks for researching your data.
Man, that page is loading sloooooww....
*grin* =D
1) Make sure people are doing their jobs. You can tell this by looking at whether or not they produce what is required in the time they have to produce it.
Unfortunately, it *seems* all too common to *me* that supervisors don't know jack about the people working under them. The novel idea of making a programmer a manager of the programming department seems to escape some people.
*sigh*
Note my sig...
Nope.
Read: Warlords II: Battlecry.
I'll bite.
...because rpm is a flaming piece of trash.
Last night I installed RedHat 7.2 and it had just as much useless, exploitable stuff running.
Please, do tell. I'd like to know what these bugs might be. I'm sure they're much worse than bugs in IIS, IE and MWP.
Note on IE bug: Read: "...special code exploited a vulnerability in [IE] and forced the spyware onto users' computers."
Worst of all, I needed twice as long to uninstall all of their "bonus" crap...
Ever check install options? You can select what to install and what not to install. Don't whine because you didn't look.
The dependance system is much more efficient -- windows setups typically include every dependancy a program needs, leading to a lot of redundant data and bulk. Use something like up2date or Red Carpet to handle dependancies.
Never mind some of the fun stories I could tell you about people running older RH or Mandrake releases.
Care for me to elaborate on the bugs in unpatched versions of (*laugh*) early versions of NT? NT 4? 2000? XP? Regardless, please do tell, I'd be interested to know about these stories.