You misunderstand what I mean by cause. I'm just referring to the goal of having an OS that is truly ours as the "cause." To do that we don't need a bunch of clueless folks. If they want to join us I'm all for it -- I'll be glad to lend a hand, but I don't see any particular need to attract them.
I'm also not calling anyone dumb. There are plenty of smart people who are helpless with technical matters. Can't even adjust their mouse speed in Windows. Likewise, there are plenty of less than brilliant people who could get Linux up and running. Brains has nothing to do with it. I'm only judging people based on their willingness to get their hands dirty when necessary.
I think some of this feeling comes from a desire for hardware support. I happen to think that it is slowly but surely improving as things are, and that we don't need a user-base that swollen.
I (GP) agree. I'm all for giving good information to people who are willing to take it in and make sense of it. I'm just against the Linux community's unrequited love for Joe User. Let him come to Linux when he's ready to RTFM.
I posted here because I disagree with TFA's premise: that it is desirable to bring everyone and their grandma into the fold. It seems like the place to say it to me.
Why are you insulted? Clearly you are one of the ones who does care enough to do the work. I don't particularly enjoy getting a system up and running, but a given system doesn't normally need to be configured more than once. I outgrew my love of troubleshooting long ago myself, but I'm willing to put up with it now and then, as are you. Good for us; we win Linux. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be nice for Linux distros to configure themselves perfectly on any given hardware, up to and beyond a Dorito shoved in a PCI slot. I just don't think users who aren't willing to track down the Nacho Cheesy driver for their chip if they really, absolutely have to aren't an asset to the cause. Let them stick with Windows until they get motivated.
My own oil? A couple months. Brake pads? Mine are okay, but I changed some on another car last time I did my oil. So that was maybe not the best example.
I didn't actually ask any non-rhetorical questions, so I'm not sure which you're addressing, but I can see that we have different ideas of "competing." You seem to think that Linux needs to be installable by old Grandma to even be considered a competitor. I think that Linux is competing fairly well already, and am optimistic about future hardware support.
Good luck then. Previous post aside, I would rather that you didn't have to compile. My opinion is that perhaps Linux wouldn't be better off with a bunch of slobs who quit when they run into a glitch rather than doing some work and some research. It's not the compilation I'm attached to, but rather the fairly competent user-base.
Grammar aside, my comment was more elitist than condescending. The previous sentence was condescending.
I don't think that posting "maybe it's better if new users really want it" on Slashdot is really hurting Linux adoption. Besides, was there anything in my comment to indicate that I would care if a potential new user sees my comment and thinks, "Well, I don't really want it. I'll just buy a Mac instead." I might even call that a good thing.
Linux is failing because driver compilation is fairly easy?
"Success" is in the eye of the beholder. I think Linux is succeeding nicely, although it doesn't have the penetration that Windows does. To me, success is being a decent option for people seeking alternative to proprietary OSes. It is a good alternative for many people, and getting better every day.
Perhaps we don't want people without the wherewithal to find out what compiling is. There are some people that might be better off not trying to do advanced things like installing a new OS.
Microsoft's monopoly is an issue, but vendors do seem to be slowly improving their support for Linux. It remains to be seen how this will all turn out, but I'm optimistic that the situation is getting better.
Yes, I am hearing (or seeing, rather) what I'm saying. I'm also hearing myself say, "But maybe its better if people have to really want it before they get involved with Linux." I won't disagree that the need to learn something is a barrier to adoption -- I'm saying that perhaps that barrier is blocking people we don't need or want. Clueless noobs are perhaps not the people to be running their own systems.
I certainly do think that making Linux easier would be nice -- it's not like I actually enjoy shoehorning it into a system -- but I don't think that doing it in order to seduce the clueless masses is the worthiest of goals.
And your experience is exceptional. Many people have little to no trouble getting things to work. In other cases it can take some work, but it's possible. I'm very sorry that it didn't "just work", but even if Linux's hardware support and auto-detection were much better than it is, you might still have run into trouble if your system is so screwy. I think that your kind of case is what needs worrying about: people who are willing to do some work/learning to make it work, but who encounter some fatal hardware issues. I'm just not so sure we want everybody else too.
To a certain extent, I don't care if Linux is warm and fuzzy or not. It's not currently that difficult to set up a Linux system on most hardware. Even compiling and installing a driver or two isn't rocket science. Most distros have helpful communities ready to give new users a hand with their troubleshooting. Is all that work that most people want to do? Hardly. But maybe its better if people have to really want it before they get involved with Linux.
I'd like to see how OS and use of virtual desktops affect people's windowing habits. I suspect that Linux's good use of swap and the virtual desktops that nearly every WM provides contribute to opening a lot of windows.
"Don't need" doesn't mean "won't need". Some people like their work to sit just as they left it until they come back to it again. Sometimes I'll leave a Firefox window with articles that I'm slowly working through hanging around for days. Not because I'm too lazy to close it or read it, but because I don't always have time to sit and read a bunch of text. Leaving it open stores the pages I'm looking at and my progress down each page. And I'm certainly not the "million icons" type. My desktop has exactly zero and my home directory is obsessively organized as well -- just seven categories and no files.
Multiple tabs can be very useful as a queue for things you can't get to all at once.
First I was using the default four in Gnome. This was nice, but I didn't really know what to do with them all. I pared it down to three, for web browsing, "current task", and system stuff. I also used nine for a while, with no particular purpose for any.
After that I used Ion, with one tiling workspace and one floating space. I distributed windows between these based on whether they tiled well or not (Gimp, I'm looking at you).
I then used the Ratpoison tiling window manager for some time. It has no virtual desktops, but it does have window groups. I'd just create new ones as they were needed. I wasn't doing much at the time, so I usually came in at only one or two.
After that I moved on to dwm, another tiling WM, with five desktops, dedicated to misc., misc., Firefox, Gaim, and floating windows, respectively.
TWM was next. A great WM, but no virtual desktops at all. Window management is easy enough that this wasn't a huge hardship, but I did start to miss it.
Now I'm using vtwm, which is very similar but adds a virtual desktop. It's of the "one big scrolling desktop" variety, which I like. I can place windows partly off the side of the screen, and scroll to see them fully when I need to. I've got the the equivalent of eight screens right now, and I think I'll be sticking with this for a while. Windows can be packed a little more efficiently when you don't have to worry about letting them hang off the screen a little, so I generally use about half this space.
Because to some of us putting them all together would be an unbearable amount of clutter. Who would want the the load display from the system desktop staring at them when they're looking at porn? Or why would you want all your code sitting around when you check your email? Or why do you want your media player around when you're reading the logs for the machine on Desktop #11?
Maybe you're fine with sifting through a stack of windows to find the one you need, but some of us like to be able to get a group of windows off the screen and out of mind, while still being able to recall them instantly.
For me, this swings back and forth. Partly this is due to my preference for the command line: many of the things I do happen in the same window.
Right now I've only got my "all the time" windows hanging around. Firefox is usually there, as is Emacs running Slime, an xclock, and a terminal dedicated to my sound card mixer. I also have a drop-down console a la Quake.
Of course, when I'm working on something the number can spiral up: a word processor, a couple more Firefox windows to keep my work stuff separate from the tabs waiting to be read, ssh sessions to my other computer, and a few more terminals are all frequent visitors.
I generally don't keep windows hanging around when I'm not using them, since it's usually faster to reopen a program than to find its icon on the desktop.
I certainly hope not, since that would be a terrible answer. While Firefox 1.0 does have admirable lightness, it also misses many things. I don't recall it ever running as well as FF 2.0 does, it has minimal or no SVG support, and it doesn't provide client side storage, to name a few. All of these are enhancements that I do want, and do believe should be part of the core browser. When I ask for a lightweight browser, I'm not asking for an out-of-date browser.
Firefox was created partly as an alternative to the bloated Mozilla suite. Now as Firefox matures, it too is gaining features. While all of them are fairly useful, some, such as spell check, web feed previews, and session restoration, might be better implemented as extensions. Firefox is still a fairly lightweight browser, and I appreciate Firefox 2.0's improved response speed, but I still worry that Firefox is becoming the kind of software that I hate.
How committed is the team to keeping Firefox's core as small as possible, and what, if any, features might be turned into extensions in the future?
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand what I mean by cause. I'm just referring to the goal of having an OS that is truly ours as the "cause." To do that we don't need a bunch of clueless folks. If they want to join us I'm all for it -- I'll be glad to lend a hand, but I don't see any particular need to attract them.
I'm also not calling anyone dumb. There are plenty of smart people who are helpless with technical matters. Can't even adjust their mouse speed in Windows. Likewise, there are plenty of less than brilliant people who could get Linux up and running. Brains has nothing to do with it. I'm only judging people based on their willingness to get their hands dirty when necessary.
The statement you quote has nothing to do with victory. Strictly it's nonsense, but I meant it to mean simply that we've done a good job.
I think some of this feeling comes from a desire for hardware support. I happen to think that it is slowly but surely improving as things are, and that we don't need a user-base that swollen.
I (GP) agree. I'm all for giving good information to people who are willing to take it in and make sense of it. I'm just against the Linux community's unrequited love for Joe User. Let him come to Linux when he's ready to RTFM.
I posted here because I disagree with TFA's premise: that it is desirable to bring everyone and their grandma into the fold. It seems like the place to say it to me.
Why are you insulted? Clearly you are one of the ones who does care enough to do the work. I don't particularly enjoy getting a system up and running, but a given system doesn't normally need to be configured more than once. I outgrew my love of troubleshooting long ago myself, but I'm willing to put up with it now and then, as are you. Good for us; we win Linux. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be nice for Linux distros to configure themselves perfectly on any given hardware, up to and beyond a Dorito shoved in a PCI slot. I just don't think users who aren't willing to track down the Nacho Cheesy driver for their chip if they really, absolutely have to aren't an asset to the cause. Let them stick with Windows until they get motivated.
My own oil? A couple months. Brake pads? Mine are okay, but I changed some on another car last time I did my oil. So that was maybe not the best example.
I didn't actually ask any non-rhetorical questions, so I'm not sure which you're addressing, but I can see that we have different ideas of "competing." You seem to think that Linux needs to be installable by old Grandma to even be considered a competitor. I think that Linux is competing fairly well already, and am optimistic about future hardware support.
Good luck then. Previous post aside, I would rather that you didn't have to compile. My opinion is that perhaps Linux wouldn't be better off with a bunch of slobs who quit when they run into a glitch rather than doing some work and some research. It's not the compilation I'm attached to, but rather the fairly competent user-base.
Grammar aside, my comment was more elitist than condescending. The previous sentence was condescending.
I don't think that posting "maybe it's better if new users really want it" on Slashdot is really hurting Linux adoption. Besides, was there anything in my comment to indicate that I would care if a potential new user sees my comment and thinks, "Well, I don't really want it. I'll just buy a Mac instead." I might even call that a good thing.
Linux is failing because driver compilation is fairly easy?
"Success" is in the eye of the beholder. I think Linux is succeeding nicely, although it doesn't have the penetration that Windows does. To me, success is being a decent option for people seeking alternative to proprietary OSes. It is a good alternative for many people, and getting better every day.
Perhaps we don't want people without the wherewithal to find out what compiling is. There are some people that might be better off not trying to do advanced things like installing a new OS.
Microsoft's monopoly is an issue, but vendors do seem to be slowly improving their support for Linux. It remains to be seen how this will all turn out, but I'm optimistic that the situation is getting better.
Yes, I am hearing (or seeing, rather) what I'm saying. I'm also hearing myself say, "But maybe its better if people have to really want it before they get involved with Linux." I won't disagree that the need to learn something is a barrier to adoption -- I'm saying that perhaps that barrier is blocking people we don't need or want. Clueless noobs are perhaps not the people to be running their own systems.
I certainly do think that making Linux easier would be nice -- it's not like I actually enjoy shoehorning it into a system -- but I don't think that doing it in order to seduce the clueless masses is the worthiest of goals.
And your experience is exceptional. Many people have little to no trouble getting things to work. In other cases it can take some work, but it's possible. I'm very sorry that it didn't "just work", but even if Linux's hardware support and auto-detection were much better than it is, you might still have run into trouble if your system is so screwy. I think that your kind of case is what needs worrying about: people who are willing to do some work/learning to make it work, but who encounter some fatal hardware issues. I'm just not so sure we want everybody else too.
To a certain extent, I don't care if Linux is warm and fuzzy or not. It's not currently that difficult to set up a Linux system on most hardware. Even compiling and installing a driver or two isn't rocket science. Most distros have helpful communities ready to give new users a hand with their troubleshooting. Is all that work that most people want to do? Hardly. But maybe its better if people have to really want it before they get involved with Linux.
The preferred term is "enemy combatants".
I'd like to see how OS and use of virtual desktops affect people's windowing habits. I suspect that Linux's good use of swap and the virtual desktops that nearly every WM provides contribute to opening a lot of windows.
"Don't need" doesn't mean "won't need". Some people like their work to sit just as they left it until they come back to it again. Sometimes I'll leave a Firefox window with articles that I'm slowly working through hanging around for days. Not because I'm too lazy to close it or read it, but because I don't always have time to sit and read a bunch of text. Leaving it open stores the pages I'm looking at and my progress down each page. And I'm certainly not the "million icons" type. My desktop has exactly zero and my home directory is obsessively organized as well -- just seven categories and no files.
Multiple tabs can be very useful as a queue for things you can't get to all at once.
I've gone through several different arrangements.
First I was using the default four in Gnome. This was nice, but I didn't really know what to do with them all. I pared it down to three, for web browsing, "current task", and system stuff. I also used nine for a while, with no particular purpose for any.
After that I used Ion, with one tiling workspace and one floating space. I distributed windows between these based on whether they tiled well or not (Gimp, I'm looking at you).
I then used the Ratpoison tiling window manager for some time. It has no virtual desktops, but it does have window groups. I'd just create new ones as they were needed. I wasn't doing much at the time, so I usually came in at only one or two.
After that I moved on to dwm, another tiling WM, with five desktops, dedicated to misc., misc., Firefox, Gaim, and floating windows, respectively.
TWM was next. A great WM, but no virtual desktops at all. Window management is easy enough that this wasn't a huge hardship, but I did start to miss it.
Now I'm using vtwm, which is very similar but adds a virtual desktop. It's of the "one big scrolling desktop" variety, which I like. I can place windows partly off the side of the screen, and scroll to see them fully when I need to. I've got the the equivalent of eight screens right now, and I think I'll be sticking with this for a while. Windows can be packed a little more efficiently when you don't have to worry about letting them hang off the screen a little, so I generally use about half this space.
Because to some of us putting them all together would be an unbearable amount of clutter. Who would want the the load display from the system desktop staring at them when they're looking at porn? Or why would you want all your code sitting around when you check your email? Or why do you want your media player around when you're reading the logs for the machine on Desktop #11?
Maybe you're fine with sifting through a stack of windows to find the one you need, but some of us like to be able to get a group of windows off the screen and out of mind, while still being able to recall them instantly.
For me, this swings back and forth. Partly this is due to my preference for the command line: many of the things I do happen in the same window.
Right now I've only got my "all the time" windows hanging around. Firefox is usually there, as is Emacs running Slime, an xclock, and a terminal dedicated to my sound card mixer. I also have a drop-down console a la Quake.
Of course, when I'm working on something the number can spiral up: a word processor, a couple more Firefox windows to keep my work stuff separate from the tabs waiting to be read, ssh sessions to my other computer, and a few more terminals are all frequent visitors.
I generally don't keep windows hanging around when I'm not using them, since it's usually faster to reopen a program than to find its icon on the desktop.
Both. Well, maybe not so subtle.
I certainly hope not, since that would be a terrible answer. While Firefox 1.0 does have admirable lightness, it also misses many things. I don't recall it ever running as well as FF 2.0 does, it has minimal or no SVG support, and it doesn't provide client side storage, to name a few. All of these are enhancements that I do want, and do believe should be part of the core browser. When I ask for a lightweight browser, I'm not asking for an out-of-date browser.
Good one. Exactly what I was thinking.
Oops. I also meant to mention anti-phishing as something that might should be an extension.
Firefox was created partly as an alternative to the bloated Mozilla suite. Now as Firefox matures, it too is gaining features. While all of them are fairly useful, some, such as spell check, web feed previews, and session restoration, might be better implemented as extensions. Firefox is still a fairly lightweight browser, and I appreciate Firefox 2.0's improved response speed, but I still worry that Firefox is becoming the kind of software that I hate.
How committed is the team to keeping Firefox's core as small as possible, and what, if any, features might be turned into extensions in the future?
It's big trouble when a government moves too fast. Paralysis is healthy.