There _is_ no hate for Ubuntu. There's just somewhat disdain for Ubuntu fanboys, but don't let it get you down. All are wellcome in the community, but please be civil.
Now, this "hate for Ubuntu"-meme that surfaced about a week ago, _that_ I hate.
Why people have to turn "many long time users are not that impressed with Ubuntu" into "many hate Ubuntu", is beyond me. But it is probably just a sign of the linux desktop getting close to critical mass, and the userbase broadening up.
Oh, and you meant to write "new users" not "normal users".
Come on, don't be dense. This percentage is different for any timeframe. Individual developers make large or small changes in the kernel during a cycle. Sometimes a huge amount of commits is made when whole trees are changed for minor things, and sometimes a small commit is a big thing for the code.
If I were IBM I'd have a very good look at _how_ this decision came to be. The timing is just so _perfect_, and the impact will resonate in the IT press the next weeks. And we'll wonder what happened to that other story of the big IT player who is so good at influencing official decision making. Microsoft will have ammunition for years to come to spin any story it's own way by comparing itself to IBM. Also, what kind of organization is the EPA under Bush? Chock full of people who only think of the environment? I would suspect people with double agenda's.
And if it's a april 1st story, i'll eat my tin foil hat.
Than you must first know that data exists, and then you must find the right security services, and then they must be willing to hand over their secret data. And you make it sound so simple. My point is that data _doesn't_ work both ways in the case of surveillance.
"You obviously don't know who I am if you think I'm not "in the know". *rolls eyes*"
Oh, so you _are_ in the know!
However, you're engaging in some circular reasoning here:
- First, you're stating that an operating system shouldn't have user apps.
- Then, the AC said to you that you're confusing operating systems and distributions.
- So, you answer was that Linux == operating system because that's how people call it.
- So suddenly the (Linux) OS has user apps, which it shouldn't.
What you're missing here is the GNU project. As in the Linux/Gnu operating system, I'm sure you remember that.
(Linux kernel + GNU project) == Linux OS
(Linux OS + user apps) == Linux distribution (and with user apps I mean, say, The Gimp, not/bin/more)
And please, if everyone says something wrong, it doesn't become right. In the case of these naming mixups people mostly understand what others say, but you can see that things don't get any clearer (even for kernel developers).
Could you please explain what this "religion" thing is? And, just saying, your opinion seems pretty dogmatic to me. In fact, I think you're grasping, here. Unfortunately, many here feel the need to answer this religion accusation, so that's discussion points for you.
What's with that name calling? If you can't keep track of the stated opinions and replies please don't assume it's the others fault. It could very well be your _own_ failure to understand my points.
But, for your pleasure I'll spell it out:
This is a popular meme with Windows users: "as soon as Linux is as big as Windows, it will suck as much as Windows". Now I can understand why you would hope so. But that doesn't make it true.
You've clearly got a Windows desktop user POV, but need to understand: step out of that "small" world and you'll find plenty of software companies that don't want to brand your desktop. There still exists a software industry where quality is paramount! The thing is however, if you only use the Windows desktop you'll find that quality driven development is much more rare.
Did you know that 70% of kernel development at the moment happens in big companies? (Red Hat, IBM, Novell, Intel, linutronix, Oracle, SWsoft, CERN, Movial, Linux Foundation, to name the top ten). Now compare that with your statements on companies and Linux: "They have no interest in linux because it is a small audience and not worth the developement costs." it just isn't true, eh?
And listen, I don't fault you for not having a clear view of how-things-are with Linux. You don't use it, you hardly read about it in your computer magazine, it won't ever just get mentioned on -say- television. And here on/. one can find stupid posts like: "if you only configure the sources with the fb-devel included you'll get real transparency after make!!!", don't think silly stuff belongs to the daily chores of a Linux user, it just doesn't.
In short, I think it says enough about Windows when Windows-users try to find the same faults in Linux. It means these faults are endemic to the Windows software world. Which, unfortunately is the only software world you know.
Photoshop is just shorthand for "every mature application that hasn't been ported to Linux." The graphics pro, the small businessman, the home user, each has his own list of essentials.
Ah, "the essentials".
Luckily, it turns out -when you have a serious look at these- that most of these apps will run virtualized. If you just need a few simple Windows apps, QEMU is a perfect and easy solution. Obviously Wine can help you out sometimes, but I consider Wine too much of a hot-or-miss solution. Xen or the prorietary VMWare are excellent.
A problem with the virtualization approach is the scalability. It's just not suited for a (very) small set-up. One home user just doesn't use a server and doesn't want to run 2 OSes on his desktop. You also know this, hence your "graphics pro, the small businessman, the home user" list.
However, the moment a business is bigger than (very) small, these solutions suddenly become feasible. Provided the person responsible for the IT infrastructure is knowledgeable enough, otherwise Microsoft products will be an expensive fall-back.
And then there are the businesses that have many simple desktops and no legacy applications (-that just have to have their own Windows), these are perfect for linux desktops. Think customer services, banks, insurance companies, public services etc. Many of the apps these organisations use already are web (intranet) based. You'll find that this segment of the market is *big*.
But I do know many organisations have dug themselves deep into the Microsoft trap. That stuff you mention, that's why I also take lock-in into account when selecting software. Microsoft certainly isn't stupid and it's product line is one big interlocking mechanism designed to pull in the customer and integrate even more IT. Is that maybe the meaning of that puzzle logo?
Anyway, it's obvious there's a segment of the market were the Linux desktop has difficulty competing with the Microsoft infrastructure, but that does not mean that Linux cannot compete. And, likewise, there are whole segments were Linux on the desktop is a perfect solution. And in these segments of the market people are looking at or implementing Linux desktops, as we speak.
And the "graphics pro"? He's a lost case, for now.
The home user? If he (or she, yeah right) wants to play the latest and greatest games, he's a lost case. But remember that the high-end gaming market is _small_, it's the on-line gaming (flash-games) and simple games market that is _huge_ (something you won't easy realise when reading the stuff here). Otherwise a Linux desktop is perfect for email, document editing, and browsing (the stuff most home users do), and a boat load of simple games.
No, I don't think so. You say Windows apps are far better then linux apps. I said they aren't.
You say windows apps under wine on linux are not good. I said: who cares?
So, let's see:
1/ No Photoshop
Sure, if a company needs Photoshop, Linux is out. But how many PS installations does a regular company needs, unless it is a graphics shop? One, maybe two.
2/ No GAMES
Companies don't want people to play games.
3/ No MS Office
So you simply use OpenOffice. And it doesn't take "an hour to load". On my desktop (a simple AMD 3200) it takes 12 seconds to load the first time, the second time 2 seconds.
No package dependency hell
Yes, and 1999 wants it's fud back.
no half-baked "will finish between my studies and my first job" software
You can find that kind of software for any os, also for Macs.
no "we don't ship the settings for the mobos sensors even though we do have them"
What!? Ship settings?
"these drivers support half a thousand obsolete webcams that no one makes anymore"
What's wrong with that? It's very much better than not having the drivers. And how are the obsolete webcam drivers for Mac doing?
"this has been compiled with GCC2.95 and an alternative libc"
That is why one uses the packages for _one_ distribution. And don't try too install binaries from unknown sources, please.
"recompile your kernel without support for your TV tuner if you want to ever use the controller card that interfaces to the HDs you bought to record TV"
Did this happen to you, or did you just try to think of something weird?
"When Linux is INTEGRATED and works RIGHT, NOW, as in OUT-OF-THE-FUCKING-BOX, then I'll use it again."
You wanted a pre-installed box? No problem, you even have choice these days.
"If it has the software I need to GET WORK DONE : Adobe Suite and MS Office."
Oh, ok. Goodbye.
I responded to your argument. If you still don't understand, read your OWN post.
"I'm just saying its the intentions of these companies to infect our computers, no matter what the os."
So you do, but the fact is: the os _does_ matter. On a linux computer these evil companies don't misbehave like they do on Windows. For the why, also please read MY post.
You really have been out of linux land for a while. And you totally missed those years when linux apps turned from "good enough" into "good". You obviously also failed to see that having AIM installed feature-complete is a total non-issue these days as Gnome or KDE offer _good_ alternatives.
In the years when we compiled our own desktop many apps certainly were terrible. However, nowadays there's no need or wish to run a piece of cr*p like AIM.
"If everyone were installing the kitchen sink on Linux, it too, would have a dozen programs trying to run updates."
Let's see (on my openSUSE_factory = unstable here):
- Google Earth (auto-update, so it certainly exists over here)
- the 200+ other applications on my desktop
So no, you way off.
And Linux can also be configured to reboot on automatic updates if you so desire.
Feature or bug?
If you can switch it off it is a feature. It's that simple.
That's a big BUT for that lame argument. Yes, everyone does it, even the linux folks too. Except if you change your linux desktop once, it won't ever change back to being a marketing machine (if you accept that having a big Red Hat logo puts linux in the same category as Windows). And your updates will still be from one source except the plethora of company names and update mechanisms you see with Windows. Besides, are you really sure you can control it?
Slashdot Mirror
There _is_ no hate for Ubuntu. There's just somewhat disdain for Ubuntu fanboys, but don't let it get you down. All are wellcome in the community, but please be civil.
Now, this "hate for Ubuntu"-meme that surfaced about a week ago, _that_ I hate.
Why people have to turn "many long time users are not that impressed with Ubuntu" into "many hate Ubuntu", is beyond me. But it is probably just a sign of the linux desktop getting close to critical mass, and the userbase broadening up.
Oh, and you meant to write "new users" not "normal users".
"an OOXML SDK that will make it easy to implement OOXML readers and writers"
"So I'm afraid that OOXML opponents will have to come up with a new talking point."
You _do_ know what talking points are?
"It's just the kernel."
and
"The kernel is just one part of Linux."
Aah, a cup of coffee and a good laugh in the morning.
Come on, don't be dense. This percentage is different for any timeframe. Individual developers make large or small changes in the kernel during a cycle. Sometimes a huge amount of commits is made when whole trees are changed for minor things, and sometimes a small commit is a big thing for the code.
"others have already implemented OOXML"
Link, please.
If I were IBM I'd have a very good look at _how_ this decision came to be. The timing is just so _perfect_, and the impact will resonate in the IT press the next weeks. And we'll wonder what happened to that other story of the big IT player who is so good at influencing official decision making. Microsoft will have ammunition for years to come to spin any story it's own way by comparing itself to IBM. Also, what kind of organization is the EPA under Bush? Chock full of people who only think of the environment? I would suspect people with double agenda's.
And if it's a april 1st story, i'll eat my tin foil hat.
Than you must first know that data exists, and then you must find the right security services, and then they must be willing to hand over their secret data. And you make it sound so simple. My point is that data _doesn't_ work both ways in the case of surveillance.
"Surveillance data would have been a weapon to defend the innocent, for data works both ways."
Wow, you really don't think before you write, eh?
you should know.
"You obviously don't know who I am if you think I'm not "in the know". *rolls eyes*"
/bin/more)
Oh, so you _are_ in the know!
However, you're engaging in some circular reasoning here:
- First, you're stating that an operating system shouldn't have user apps.
- Then, the AC said to you that you're confusing operating systems and distributions.
- So, you answer was that Linux == operating system because that's how people call it.
- So suddenly the (Linux) OS has user apps, which it shouldn't.
What you're missing here is the GNU project. As in the Linux/Gnu operating system, I'm sure you remember that.
(Linux kernel + GNU project) == Linux OS
(Linux OS + user apps) == Linux distribution (and with user apps I mean, say, The Gimp, not
And please, if everyone says something wrong, it doesn't become right. In the case of these naming mixups people mostly understand what others say, but you can see that things don't get any clearer (even for kernel developers).
Semantics. An operating systems _with_ software is called a distribution, in linuxese.
Could you please explain what this "religion" thing is? And, just saying, your opinion seems pretty dogmatic to me. In fact, I think you're grasping, here. Unfortunately, many here feel the need to answer this religion accusation, so that's discussion points for you.
I guess you also don't work in, say, animation. Or you would know http://www.cinepaint.org/.
What's with that name calling? If you can't keep track of the stated opinions and replies please don't assume it's the others fault. It could very well be your _own_ failure to understand my points.
/. one can find stupid posts like: "if you only configure the sources with the fb-devel included you'll get real transparency after make!!!", don't think silly stuff belongs to the daily chores of a Linux user, it just doesn't.
But, for your pleasure I'll spell it out:
This is a popular meme with Windows users: "as soon as Linux is as big as Windows, it will suck as much as Windows". Now I can understand why you would hope so. But that doesn't make it true.
You've clearly got a Windows desktop user POV, but need to understand: step out of that "small" world and you'll find plenty of software companies that don't want to brand your desktop. There still exists a software industry where quality is paramount! The thing is however, if you only use the Windows desktop you'll find that quality driven development is much more rare.
Did you know that 70% of kernel development at the moment happens in big companies? (Red Hat, IBM, Novell, Intel, linutronix, Oracle, SWsoft, CERN, Movial, Linux Foundation, to name the top ten). Now compare that with your statements on companies and Linux: "They have no interest in linux because it is a small audience and not worth the developement costs." it just isn't true, eh?
And listen, I don't fault you for not having a clear view of how-things-are with Linux. You don't use it, you hardly read about it in your computer magazine, it won't ever just get mentioned on -say- television. And here on
In short, I think it says enough about Windows when Windows-users try to find the same faults in Linux. It means these faults are endemic to the Windows software world. Which, unfortunately is the only software world you know.
Luckily, it turns out -when you have a serious look at these- that most of these apps will run virtualized. If you just need a few simple Windows apps, QEMU is a perfect and easy solution. Obviously Wine can help you out sometimes, but I consider Wine too much of a hot-or-miss solution. Xen or the prorietary VMWare are excellent.
A problem with the virtualization approach is the scalability. It's just not suited for a (very) small set-up. One home user just doesn't use a server and doesn't want to run 2 OSes on his desktop. You also know this, hence your "graphics pro, the small businessman, the home user" list.
However, the moment a business is bigger than (very) small, these solutions suddenly become feasible. Provided the person responsible for the IT infrastructure is knowledgeable enough, otherwise Microsoft products will be an expensive fall-back.
And then there are the businesses that have many simple desktops and no legacy applications (-that just have to have their own Windows), these are perfect for linux desktops. Think customer services, banks, insurance companies, public services etc. Many of the apps these organisations use already are web (intranet) based. You'll find that this segment of the market is *big*.
But I do know many organisations have dug themselves deep into the Microsoft trap. That stuff you mention, that's why I also take lock-in into account when selecting software. Microsoft certainly isn't stupid and it's product line is one big interlocking mechanism designed to pull in the customer and integrate even more IT. Is that maybe the meaning of that puzzle logo?
Anyway, it's obvious there's a segment of the market were the Linux desktop has difficulty competing with the Microsoft infrastructure, but that does not mean that Linux cannot compete. And, likewise, there are whole segments were Linux on the desktop is a perfect solution. And in these segments of the market people are looking at or implementing Linux desktops, as we speak.
And the "graphics pro"? He's a lost case, for now.
The home user? If he (or she, yeah right) wants to play the latest and greatest games, he's a lost case. But remember that the high-end gaming market is _small_, it's the on-line gaming (flash-games) and simple games market that is _huge_ (something you won't easy realise when reading the stuff here). Otherwise a Linux desktop is perfect for email, document editing, and browsing (the stuff most home users do), and a boat load of simple games.
All you have to know is that you missed my point.
You say windows apps under wine on linux are not good. I said: who cares?
So, let's see:
1/ No Photoshop
Sure, if a company needs Photoshop, Linux is out. But how many PS installations does a regular company needs, unless it is a graphics shop? One, maybe two.
2/ No GAMES
Companies don't want people to play games.
3/ No MS Office
So you simply use OpenOffice. And it doesn't take "an hour to load". On my desktop (a simple AMD 3200) it takes 12 seconds to load the first time, the second time 2 seconds.
No package dependency hell
Yes, and 1999 wants it's fud back.
no half-baked "will finish between my studies and my first job" software
You can find that kind of software for any os, also for Macs.
no "we don't ship the settings for the mobos sensors even though we do have them"
What!? Ship settings?
"these drivers support half a thousand obsolete webcams that no one makes anymore"
What's wrong with that? It's very much better than not having the drivers. And how are the obsolete webcam drivers for Mac doing?
"this has been compiled with GCC2.95 and an alternative libc"
That is why one uses the packages for _one_ distribution. And don't try too install binaries from unknown sources, please.
"recompile your kernel without support for your TV tuner if you want to ever use the controller card that interfaces to the HDs you bought to record TV"
Did this happen to you, or did you just try to think of something weird?
"When Linux is INTEGRATED and works RIGHT, NOW, as in OUT-OF-THE-FUCKING-BOX, then I'll use it again."
You wanted a pre-installed box? No problem, you even have choice these days.
"If it has the software I need to GET WORK DONE : Adobe Suite and MS Office."
Oh, ok. Goodbye.
So you do, but the fact is: the os _does_ matter. On a linux computer these evil companies don't misbehave like they do on Windows. For the why, also please read MY post.
"CONSISTENT"
Feh, take the apps into account and suddenly linux (KDE or Gnome) is much more consistent than Windows can hope to be.
And this Joe bought a bare-metal laptop. or...?
You really have been out of linux land for a while. And you totally missed those years when linux apps turned from "good enough" into "good". You obviously also failed to see that having AIM installed feature-complete is a total non-issue these days as Gnome or KDE offer _good_ alternatives.
In the years when we compiled our own desktop many apps certainly were terrible. However, nowadays there's no need or wish to run a piece of cr*p like AIM.
- Google Earth (auto-update, so it certainly exists over here)
- the 200+ other applications on my desktop
So no, you way off.
If you can switch it off it is a feature. It's that simple.
That's a big BUT for that lame argument. Yes, everyone does it, even the linux folks too. Except if you change your linux desktop once, it won't ever change back to being a marketing machine (if you accept that having a big Red Hat logo puts linux in the same category as Windows). And your updates will still be from one source except the plethora of company names and update mechanisms you see with Windows. Besides, are you really sure you can control it?