I know that this will never happen but why not focus on a "server distro", on a "desktop distro" and on a "minimalistic distro" rather than developing hundreds of clones of themselves?!?
This always gets modded insightful, but the truth is that the posts lacks a careful insight. The reason why Linux won't unify is because their is many more different needs for OSes beyond "server" and "desktop." Embedded systems need an OS, firewalls need an OS, low end desktops need an OS, high end desktops and workstations need an OS, web servers need an OS, servers needed for specific venders software needs an OS, Joe Users needs an OS if it helps his ego. For each of these uses for an OS (and more) there is a least one Linux based OS serving the need.
The closest thing the Windows world has for many of these things is older versions of the OSes. Linux is just a kernel used in many more ways than I can imagine. Each distro is its own OS (based on Linux) and so the problem is that there might be too many OSes since Linux came around. And that might be true if you fear choice....
And it's that arrogance towards doing things the way people are comfortable doing them that is making the switch from Windows to GNU/Linux for many people too challenging.
You are correct. Very much so. Not being more like Internet Explorer/Office/Windows is hindering the adoption of Firefox/OpenOffice/Linux. Thing about it is (aka the essential truth of open source projects) is that it doesn't need to win any popularity contests to thrive. A few devoted fans/companies/benefactors are better than many people who are not committed more than their own use. The devoted will do things how they see best, user's experience be damned. I used to think differently, but after a long time of trying to be a "save the world from itself" open source zealot I have learned the truth. OSS projects will not bend to the will of the public, it will be the other way around. Eventually the price of open source projects (and harsher laws that prevent software piracy) will make them popular despite the majority of users previous experiences. Sorry if I come off as arrogant, it's what I believe to be true from being on both sides of the coin.
Too many people like yourself are quick to call their past experiences with using a computer (the procedures they've grown comfortable with, such as clicking "next,next,next" to install) "bad habits."
Calling dog poo a rose doesn't make it sink less...Klik and apt-get are better than anything in Windowsland.
Using IE and MY OWN BRAIN I have been virus/spyware free for over three years.
What is this "brain" feaure you talk about? I know it didn't ship with XP because all of my family members (whose computers run more spyware than I know exists at one time) lack it.
Windows was always good enough for nerds. It sucks to be a nerd cleaning up its messes with the rest of the world though.
This is THE biggest problem with Windows. Mentioning this is the way to make a Windows fan stop in their tracks. The fact that Multi-user stuff was bolted on later shows, and it is the reason I now use Linux.
Of course, IMO, the best option is to have any program needing higher rights makes the OS popup a dialog asking for confirmation specifying exactly what is needed (special file access, network access)
Just like my Ubuntu Linux desktop does and just like my sister's Powerbook does.
And Windows fans wonder why people are switching in droves.
The problem with much of Linux distro/window manager usability is you're not building on their previous experience (in the context of installation of software) of double-clicking on a binary to run its install script or dragging an icon
Old habbits aren't always the best. There is a lot of clicking next in Windowsland that doesn't need to happen.
- they're forced to use a commandline interface for a package manager or compile something or some other nonsense they care not to learn.
So how is a non-geek user supposed to know which of the various flavors of Linux to get.
Let them ask a Geek. They are all over the world and the internet, ready to offer advice.
Which one will work with no more computer smarts needed than to re-install Windows for the ump-teenth time?
Most of the popular ones, or none depending on your needs/hardware/desires. Just like any other OS.
Will the hapless user get all their hardware peripherals, such as printers, cameras and MP3 player to work without knowing how to edit a config file somewhere?
Maybe depending on their hardware. All of my stuff works. Plug and play. I help as a moderator on the Ubuntu forum so I know that people has stuff that doesn't work. But I've also experianced hardware that refused to work in XP as well (not same hardware, in fact one thing (a printer) works in Linux for me when it wouldn't in Windows because of bad drivers.)
If it works, the user gets a great, free OS with tons of free software. If it doesn't work well enough Windows gets reinstalled. Life is tough sometimes.
I still think it is more accurate to say that a fast processor is an important element of a fast system
I used to think this. Its bull. Put 128mb of RAM in any new machine (2.6+ GHZ) and WATCH IT SLOW TO A CRAWL!!! Meanwhile a 512mb upgrade for my old 700Mhz laptop has increased its performance (for most thing like web browsing/ mp3 playing) to the point were it feels almost as fast as my desktop 3 times the CPU speed. That is, until I got a SATA drive for that desktop (replacing an IDE one) and IT felt TWICE as fast. CPU matters, but its not the most important thing. Here is my list, nerds please pick it apart:
1. RAM
2. Hard Disk
3. Memory and system bus speeds
4. CPU
5. GPU (this jumps up the list when games are considered.
Many think that CPU is the most important because that is where the marketing is. But I am sure (because of EXPERIANCE) that huge increases in RAM has been the REAL thing that has made computers faster.
But this is only possible if Apple sells a true PC-compatible version of OS X.
But you see, this is the problem. X86 land is a mess. There are BILLIONS of combinations of hardware and peripherals for IBM compatible computers. Part of the reason MS moves so slow is that they are dragging a lot of dead weight behind them. Much of this hardware is junk (this said after wasting a weekend on a new Linksys card with drivers that were so poorly made that it would cause hard lockups every hour or so), and its crappy nature would mess up Apple's reputation.
Look, tonight was my first night to mess with OSX because my suster got a new powerbook. And you know what I noticed was the difference between it and Windows/Linux (I use both A LOT)? That everything works. The wireless worked out of the box. Every piece of hardware worked well, no messing with drivers or any of that crap.
X86 land is like General Motors products. There are plenty of cheap add on parts, service is cheap and prices are low but big problems can come about with lots of use. Apple is like BMW- hardware is expensive and add ons are fewer but everything just works (tm).
You will NEVER see OSX for x86 because Apple doesn't want to deal with piracy and dead weight. It would cost them more money than they could make (and it makes a nice profit now).
I don't see that PJs religion was being mocked. It was mentioned, but I don't see merely mentioning it as mockery.
Thats because her religion wasn't directly mocked, but instead was used to make false assumptions about PJ and imply worse things about her. For example:
Now, according to one of Pamela's neighbors and fellow Jehovah's Witness, being a Jehovah's Witness is pretty much a full-time job in and of itself.
I have friend's who are Jehovah's Witness, and this is a baldface lie. Sure they spend a good deal of time working for their beliefs, but it is no "full time job" for them. The way this is written it implies that PJ is part of some cult.Also:
Witnesses also don't usually get involved in worldly affairs.
This is the worst. After it is implied that PJ is a freaky religious person, it is then implied that she is a bad Jehovah's Witness. Good ones, according to Maureen O'Gara, "don't usually get involved in worldly affairs," which implies that PJ is a bad JW because the whole reason any news organization cares about her is because she is getting involved in the worldly affair called Linux. Its a cheap shot that is hidden in wording. I study marketing all day (or what it should be called "the way to say things without actually saying them") and this is obviously some unethical stuff.
I have to ask, where is Ubuntu? The article says the Debian spinoffs are not counted in Debian's totals and seeing as how Ubuntu the top distro on distrowatch it seems unlikely that is has such a small percentage of the desktop market as to not matter. I mean, it doesn't even have an option for Ubuntu in the poll. Distos like Peanut and Elx (which are fine distros by the way, but are less popular than Ubuntu) are on there for cripes sake... Debian's lost position could be due to the fact that Debian desktop users have gone to Ubuntu en mass, but this survey has no way to even try to figure that out.
Oh well, maybe it was good that they didn' include Ubuntu. We have enough nerd advertising as it is, it just bugs me that this survey totally misses one of the fastest growing distros in recent memory....take any results that miss such a large distro with a grain of salt...
How can California do this? The sites that allow people to hunt are here in Texas. They are on ranches where killing of deer preditors (to save cattle) has made the deer population become too large and many deer are starving. These ranchers set this up to control the populations and to make a quick buck in the process. Texas won't ban it because its seen as a noble way to fix the overpopulation (compared the the alternative of starvation) of deer. What good does this law do? Does it ban future sites from being set up in Cali? Does it exist just to make animal right's people (who don't understand the alternative of starvation) happy? I don't see how it could be enforced.
Someone please explain. I like the idea of internet hunting, if only because the site of a starving deer is a sad one....
That's a valuable lesson, you have to use the British tastiness scale, which is a lot different than normal people's.
No shit. When I went on a tour of Europe a few years ago I remember enjoying the local food in every country except Britian. Its like every menu I saw was like an American Chili's or Bennigens with all of the good stuff taken out. After a week I was glad to eat McDonald's food for the first time in my life. Otherwise the island was great. (the only other problem was the price of things. Stuff like CDs and the like cost as many pounds as they cost in dollars here, despite the fact pounds are worth more. Never understood that....)
I was just sad that many of the poor Britons haven't tried some really good food like some Tex-Mex.
That's not what the maxim meant and you know that. It meant "censorship isn't effective". I realized that was an absurd meme at 18. You control the network, you control information.
Thats the thing. The Internet is a World Wide (W)network. It would take all the governements in the world working together to control it!!!
What would come out of anarcho-libertarianism is very simlilar to what came out of Marxism: totalitarian, feudal-like power.
Ole modern Capitalism also seems to be sliding in this direction. Could it be that no government or economic system works well for a long amount of time?
No. What we need to get "back" to is the idea of personal responsibility.
Sure, but how do we do that?
What we're getting to, slowly but surely, is the idea that all work is boring and unnecessary.
No. What we've gotten to in the U.S. is a point where everyone wants to be a high paid manager and expects all of the really needed, tough jobs to be done by someone else. Americans refuse to work in a factory or dig holes or whatever menial labor job for $4 bucks an hour. And guess what- ME TOO! You too too I bet. We'd rather let the Chinese or illegal Mexicans do it. Even Bush admits this, that why he pushes for Amnesty for Illegal Immigrant.s
Part of it is the fact that you can go on welfare and earn more. But that isn't all of it. We live in a society where being poor is degrading. You are assumed to be lazy or stupid if you don't pull in the big bucks. The "big on" personal responsibility people like yourself make this worse by doing a lot of shouting and helping nothing. "If a person can't make enough to eat, he's lazy and its completely his fault." No, sometimes it has to do with the fact that real estate speculation in that person's area has created a high price bubble that made real wages decrease for the last 50 years. That the cost of living is the U.S. has gotten so high that we couldn't compete if we wanted to.
In Bush & Co.'s "Ownership Society", you own your trash. If you throw it in a park, you get your ass kicked. You don't get somebody whose job was replaced by a machine to pick it up for you.
Alright Bush fan, I've got a question for you. What happens in this "Ownership Society" tens years down the road when privatization of things like Social Security allow a HUGE percentage of Americans to blow their money on bad investments? The problem with Bush's utopia is the assumption that everyone has the same abilities to be good owners and investors but that is not the case. Casinos and Market Bubbles and record highs in personal debt wouldn't occur if most people were good with money but most people are not.
With Bush's plan, a large percent of American will blow their money on high risk stuff and be worse off before privatization. Bush's society says about this "too bad, you should have done better. its your fault, now deal with the consequences." But thats not how it going to happen. Instead all of these people will vote the Democrats back into power, and then taxes will increase (for the richest) in order to keep all of these people out of poverty.
And the great thing is, the libertine liberals can't do a damn thing about it, because their candidate will lose badly against whomever follows Bush.
You are correct, the Democrats are more messed up now then they have been in a long time. If Hillary runs, it will be like saying "we want to lose." But their disorganization isn't a blank check. You keep up this "its always the individual's fault" mess too much longer (without any moderation) because those who are at fault but don't care to suffer will amass enough political power to kick elephant out of Washington.
Slashdot Mirror
This always gets modded insightful, but the truth is that the posts lacks a careful insight. The reason why Linux won't unify is because their is many more different needs for OSes beyond "server" and "desktop." Embedded systems need an OS, firewalls need an OS, low end desktops need an OS, high end desktops and workstations need an OS, web servers need an OS, servers needed for specific venders software needs an OS, Joe Users needs an OS if it helps his ego. For each of these uses for an OS (and more) there is a least one Linux based OS serving the need.
The closest thing the Windows world has for many of these things is older versions of the OSes. Linux is just a kernel used in many more ways than I can imagine. Each distro is its own OS (based on Linux) and so the problem is that there might be too many OSes since Linux came around. And that might be true if you fear choice....
Gxine. Or Kaffine for the other side.
You are correct. Very much so. Not being more like Internet Explorer/Office/Windows is hindering the adoption of Firefox/OpenOffice/Linux. Thing about it is (aka the essential truth of open source projects) is that it doesn't need to win any popularity contests to thrive. A few devoted fans/companies/benefactors are better than many people who are not committed more than their own use. The devoted will do things how they see best, user's experience be damned. I used to think differently, but after a long time of trying to be a "save the world from itself" open source zealot I have learned the truth. OSS projects will not bend to the will of the public, it will be the other way around. Eventually the price of open source projects (and harsher laws that prevent software piracy) will make them popular despite the majority of users previous experiences. Sorry if I come off as arrogant, it's what I believe to be true from being on both sides of the coin.
Calling dog poo a rose doesn't make it sink less...Klik and apt-get are better than anything in Windowsland.
And there is NO antivirus included. Despite years of problems with Window's viruses. MS is trying, I'll give them that, but they still fall short.
What is this "brain" feaure you talk about? I know it didn't ship with XP because all of my family members (whose computers run more spyware than I know exists at one time) lack it.
Windows was always good enough for nerds. It sucks to be a nerd cleaning up its messes with the rest of the world though.
This is THE biggest problem with Windows. Mentioning this is the way to make a Windows fan stop in their tracks. The fact that Multi-user stuff was bolted on later shows, and it is the reason I now use Linux.
Just like my Ubuntu Linux desktop does and just like my sister's Powerbook does.
And Windows fans wonder why people are switching in droves.
Old habbits aren't always the best. There is a lot of clicking next in Windowsland that doesn't need to happen.
- they're forced to use a commandline interface for a package manager or compile something or some other nonsense they care not to learn.
BS.You can use great GUI tools to install, and use great internet tools to avoid installing.Both ways seem far better to me than "next, next,next,next,next,next,next,etc."
Let them ask a Geek. They are all over the world and the internet, ready to offer advice.
Which one will work with no more computer smarts needed than to re-install Windows for the ump-teenth time?
Most of the popular ones, or none depending on your needs/hardware/desires. Just like any other OS.
Will the hapless user get all their hardware peripherals, such as printers, cameras and MP3 player to work without knowing how to edit a config file somewhere?
Maybe depending on their hardware. All of my stuff works. Plug and play. I help as a moderator on the Ubuntu forum so I know that people has stuff that doesn't work. But I've also experianced hardware that refused to work in XP as well (not same hardware, in fact one thing (a printer) works in Linux for me when it wouldn't in Windows because of bad drivers.)
If it works, the user gets a great, free OS with tons of free software. If it doesn't work well enough Windows gets reinstalled. Life is tough sometimes.
I used to think this. Its bull. Put 128mb of RAM in any new machine (2.6+ GHZ) and WATCH IT SLOW TO A CRAWL!!! Meanwhile a 512mb upgrade for my old 700Mhz laptop has increased its performance (for most thing like web browsing/ mp3 playing) to the point were it feels almost as fast as my desktop 3 times the CPU speed. That is, until I got a SATA drive for that desktop (replacing an IDE one) and IT felt TWICE as fast. CPU matters, but its not the most important thing. Here is my list, nerds please pick it apart:
1. RAM
2. Hard Disk
3. Memory and system bus speeds
4. CPU
5. GPU (this jumps up the list when games are considered.
Many think that CPU is the most important because that is where the marketing is. But I am sure (because of EXPERIANCE) that huge increases in RAM has been the REAL thing that has made computers faster.
But you see, this is the problem. X86 land is a mess. There are BILLIONS of combinations of hardware and peripherals for IBM compatible computers. Part of the reason MS moves so slow is that they are dragging a lot of dead weight behind them. Much of this hardware is junk (this said after wasting a weekend on a new Linksys card with drivers that were so poorly made that it would cause hard lockups every hour or so), and its crappy nature would mess up Apple's reputation.
Look, tonight was my first night to mess with OSX because my suster got a new powerbook. And you know what I noticed was the difference between it and Windows/Linux (I use both A LOT)? That everything works. The wireless worked out of the box. Every piece of hardware worked well, no messing with drivers or any of that crap.
X86 land is like General Motors products. There are plenty of cheap add on parts, service is cheap and prices are low but big problems can come about with lots of use. Apple is like BMW- hardware is expensive and add ons are fewer but everything just works (tm).
You will NEVER see OSX for x86 because Apple doesn't want to deal with piracy and dead weight. It would cost them more money than they could make (and it makes a nice profit now).
Thats where you are wrong Mr. Dolt:
http://www.fedorafaq.org/#nvidia
That should fix your problem. Rememeber- package managers are your friend......
Thats because her religion wasn't directly mocked, but instead was used to make false assumptions about PJ and imply worse things about her. For example:
Now, according to one of Pamela's neighbors and fellow Jehovah's Witness, being a Jehovah's Witness is pretty much a full-time job in and of itself.
I have friend's who are Jehovah's Witness, and this is a baldface lie. Sure they spend a good deal of time working for their beliefs, but it is no "full time job" for them. The way this is written it implies that PJ is part of some cult.Also:
Witnesses also don't usually get involved in worldly affairs.
This is the worst. After it is implied that PJ is a freaky religious person, it is then implied that she is a bad Jehovah's Witness. Good ones, according to Maureen O'Gara, "don't usually get involved in worldly affairs," which implies that PJ is a bad JW because the whole reason any news organization cares about her is because she is getting involved in the worldly affair called Linux. Its a cheap shot that is hidden in wording. I study marketing all day (or what it should be called "the way to say things without actually saying them") and this is obviously some unethical stuff.
Thanks for this post. I found it to be very interesting. I always wondered how schools got byt technology wise. I assumed piracy.
A fair and insightful assessment of the situation.
4.10 warty
Release Date - 2004/10/20
Oh well, maybe it was good that they didn' include Ubuntu. We have enough nerd advertising as it is, it just bugs me that this survey totally misses one of the fastest growing distros in recent memory....take any results that miss such a large distro with a grain of salt...
Someone please explain. I like the idea of internet hunting, if only because the site of a starving deer is a sad one....
No shit. When I went on a tour of Europe a few years ago I remember enjoying the local food in every country except Britian. Its like every menu I saw was like an American Chili's or Bennigens with all of the good stuff taken out. After a week I was glad to eat McDonald's food for the first time in my life. Otherwise the island was great. (the only other problem was the price of things. Stuff like CDs and the like cost as many pounds as they cost in dollars here, despite the fact pounds are worth more. Never understood that....)
I was just sad that many of the poor Britons haven't tried some really good food like some Tex-Mex.
Ask anyone who has worked in the Oil industry (I have) or the defense industry, or in heavily regulated utilities.
Yeah, look what happened to Amtrack.
Thats the thing. The Internet is a World Wide (W)network. It would take all the governements in the world working together to control it!!!
This is just history repeating itself. Its happened before.
Ole modern Capitalism also seems to be sliding in this direction. Could it be that no government or economic system works well for a long amount of time?
Sure, but how do we do that?
What we're getting to, slowly but surely, is the idea that all work is boring and unnecessary.
No. What we've gotten to in the U.S. is a point where everyone wants to be a high paid manager and expects all of the really needed, tough jobs to be done by someone else. Americans refuse to work in a factory or dig holes or whatever menial labor job for $4 bucks an hour. And guess what- ME TOO! You too too I bet. We'd rather let the Chinese or illegal Mexicans do it. Even Bush admits this, that why he pushes for Amnesty for Illegal Immigrant.s
Part of it is the fact that you can go on welfare and earn more. But that isn't all of it. We live in a society where being poor is degrading. You are assumed to be lazy or stupid if you don't pull in the big bucks. The "big on" personal responsibility people like yourself make this worse by doing a lot of shouting and helping nothing. "If a person can't make enough to eat, he's lazy and its completely his fault." No, sometimes it has to do with the fact that real estate speculation in that person's area has created a high price bubble that made real wages decrease for the last 50 years. That the cost of living is the U.S. has gotten so high that we couldn't compete if we wanted to.
In Bush & Co.'s "Ownership Society", you own your trash. If you throw it in a park, you get your ass kicked. You don't get somebody whose job was replaced by a machine to pick it up for you.
Alright Bush fan, I've got a question for you. What happens in this "Ownership Society" tens years down the road when privatization of things like Social Security allow a HUGE percentage of Americans to blow their money on bad investments? The problem with Bush's utopia is the assumption that everyone has the same abilities to be good owners and investors but that is not the case. Casinos and Market Bubbles and record highs in personal debt wouldn't occur if most people were good with money but most people are not.
With Bush's plan, a large percent of American will blow their money on high risk stuff and be worse off before privatization. Bush's society says about this "too bad, you should have done better. its your fault, now deal with the consequences." But thats not how it going to happen. Instead all of these people will vote the Democrats back into power, and then taxes will increase (for the richest) in order to keep all of these people out of poverty.
And the great thing is, the libertine liberals can't do a damn thing about it, because their candidate will lose badly against whomever follows Bush.
You are correct, the Democrats are more messed up now then they have been in a long time. If Hillary runs, it will be like saying "we want to lose." But their disorganization isn't a blank check. You keep up this "its always the individual's fault" mess too much longer (without any moderation) because those who are at fault but don't care to suffer will amass enough political power to kick elephant out of Washington.