I don't mean this to troll, but why does Linux have to dethrone desktop Windows to be considered successful as an operating system?
I never said that. I said "Desktop Linux" needs such support. Getting Dell on the side of Desktop Linux is needed if it is ever to be as popular as "Server Linux" and "Embeded Linux." I don't really care about crushing MS, I just want my desktop OS to work with more pieces of hardware and I want my family to use Linux even though they won't buy from anyone but Dell.
Why can't it just live happily as a rock-solid server OS with a desktop component that some advanced users use?
Because:
1. That is boring.
2. I want more linux drivers for things like wireless devices, that won't come till the marketshare does.
3. Why can't Linux be good at both. Why hold Linux back at all?
Desktop Linux needs support from the big computer makers more than anything to succeed. Its interesting that Dell is pushing Mandriva with its laptops and HP recently began doing the same thing with its laptops and Ubuntu. I know from experiance that Linux on laptops can be tough, but mostly thats because the hardware won't work. If I can buy an Dell or an HP laptop with some distro of Linux on it that works with wireless and suspend hardware that works with Linux, then it really doesn't matter which one is on it when its shipped to me. I can put whatever I choose....avoiding the biggest problems with laptops and Linux!
I say bring them on Dell, HP. You might have found a way to make me (and many other geeks) customers again.
Any of those efforts would help (and I'd definitely welcome a good GUI package builder), but in the end a distro is going to have to make it clear what does and does not come with the distro.
Which is hard to do when most of the major distros have a six month release cycle.
BTW, what is wrong with the Apple install?
The same problem with Expose- I had to actually show my less nerdy sister (with a new Powerbook) who is very smart (7th in her class) how to do it before she could. She kept wanting the file to install when double clicked. To her (and 90% of the market) the Windows way is better. To each their own I guess. Sometimes its not whats best, its what people are used to.
(Honestly I personally also prefer say, Ubuntu's synaptic, to OSX's application install procedure because I can search in synaptic and find programs a want easily based on descripition and install them within the same tool, while in OSX I have to do some googling to find the app I need. But I'm not one of those people that need a new app. the day it comes out so I guess I'm not near the popular perspective).
It's too bad that Ubuntu won't join the DCCA. Ubuntu right now is pretty hot, they have a big fan base, and Kubuntu allows KDE people to join the fun too. I suppose the reason is that Ubuntu seems bent on forking Debian almost to where it's unrecognizable as Debian.
As a moderator for the Ubuntu Forums, I feel compelled to give you the correct information.
Ubuntu does not consider joining the DCCA because part of the purpose of that group is to keep things compatible with Debian Sarge. The group intends to rally around the newly released Debian stable and remain compatible with it. Ubuntu cannot and will not do this, because Ubuntu uses packages from Sid to form its distro.
I quote a member of the Ubuntu's Community Council governance board:
Therefore Ubuntu could not even join the DCCA even if it wanted to, because using Sarge (even testing) as a base instead of Sid would break the development model. Ubuntu will stay as compatible with Sarge as Sid does, maybe less.
This sounds like a marketing fabrication. Everybody knows that the release of Vista will not increase Linux adoption. The release of the first Vista virus is what will do that.
Thanks for the explanation. I've tried to make an Ubuntu deb and its way too hard, so I understand where your point. I hope it get better. It sounds like for you all that needs to be done is a fork of Gobolinux. Would it be enough if say, SUSE, made it a lot easier to make RPMs. Like "next, next, next" easy? Do we have to have an Apple like install (because I've tried that and I don't like it as much)? Thanks for helping me think out of the box a little.
This is not so much a technical obstacle as a policy one, and that's the shame of it.
Ok, now that I see your point I must say that most sounds interesting. I must ask you about one thing though: if a new distro on the block does no include a package manager then how would it get popular enough to get people to package things for it? Lets say someone does do what you say and makes a Linux distro where the packages are not made by the distromaker. As a Linux user, why would I use that one over one that has much of the software packaged? It would take some considerable time for any new distro to build a third party package system no matter how easy it was to make packages (this assumes that a new distro could get popular enough fast enough to have any packages made for it). Why would the early users ride out the tough part? Why use this distro and wait until Openoffice or whatever was packaged for it buy a third party, rather than use SUSE today that has Openoffice ready for it? Or Gaim? Or the Gimp? Or my favorite media player? As it is a new distro with a new idea is not going to suddenly inspire OSS developers that release everything as simple tar files to package things for this new kid on the block AND release the tar files for everyone else.
The "policy issues" might just result from the fact that many OSS software developers just like their tar files (why spend more time to package something you don't get paid to package when only one distro can use it?), and that an OS without at least the marketshare of Apple will have trouble getting commercial support. I guess now you can kinda already get what you want- use something like Gobolinux and only install things through autopackage (there are a lot of those now). But how would a new distro overcome these problems? You have had insightful comments so far; I'm too stuck in the Linux mindset to figure out this one myself. It seems to be a big catch 22. A desktop Linux can't have good commercial support until its popular, but so far no desktop Linux has gotten popualr without providing good software support themselves.
So could we please stop talking about how "Linux" works, please. There's no such concrete thing in existence so I haven't the slightest idea of what you are really referring to, and the discussion of making dozens of disparate OSes, that happen to contain a Linux kernel in them, dance to the same tune is just crazy.
Deal.
When one distro figures out how to do things right (which includes ditching package management) and goes beyond re-inventing the wheel with a slightly different circumference, it will skyrocket into the mainstream.
So, "when one distro markets itself enough to go mainstream (like almost everything mainstream), people will want to develop for it." No arguing that.
It will no longer have to worry about package management because people will actually WANT to make packages for it, like they do on Win and Mac.
At such a level package management is just a term. You could correctly call a Windows' package repository "the software section at Best Buy." But I guess you are saying "don't call it that!" Sure.
You basically admit Linux distros need package managers because they can't get developers to make packages for Linux.
Actually there are many Linux packages out there. A bunch of tar balls made to run on Linux. Also each popular distro has many packages for it. Red Hat even gets a lot of third party stuff. Its there, just as much as it should be considering the marketshare.
This should be seen as a "red alert - we are failing" signal to the distro/OS.
As long as Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu and the like stay in business they are not failing.
Instead, there is this impression that really, nothing is actually wrong with our distro, we just need to put 5000 software packages into our distro and then it will be great. Let's not all gang up and fix the problems with the desktop software, instead let's package up broken and poorly written software to run on top of it so that people can install it via a searchable GUI.
I'll have you know its a very nice GUI. And some of the programs often packaged are not poorly written. And you saying things like "gang up" while telling me in your first paragraph why this can't be the case.
But that is the attitude that people have to deal with when they want to improve Linux. I mean, it's just software. Do you want it to be easy? Make it easy!
Thats the motto of Linux. You want it, make it! I personally think Ubuntu is getting easy enough for me. For some people it won't be there till everything has a GUI. For others it won't be there till it can do everything Windows can do. For others it won't be there till it can work with 90% of hardware. For some it can never be.
You were correct at first. Linux doesn't care about the desktop. Its just software. Linspire, Xandros might care about the home desktop but hey can only do so much. Ubuntu, SUSE, and Red Hat are all focused on the business desktop because there are less demands and that is where the money is. Maybe one day a great home user desktop based on Linux will emerge. Maybe it will be based on BSD or Hurd, who knows. All I know is that each distro is doing the best with what they got, and for some of us its enough. If its not enough for you or that random women who you say doesn't want Windows then too bad. What you want is obviously not an easy task: millions of dollars and tons of top minds have been thrown at the problem yet they cannot discover the solution with the ease you have. Maybe because its really hard. Maybe if you have 1% of less desktop marketshare it might be smarter to bundle programs rather than depend on that marketshare to bring developer support. Maybe not, your users can always use autopackage. Or Kilk (which seems to be really close to what you want). An easier desktop based on Linux is being made today and next week. Its just hard to meet so many demands so its not there yet for all. Its there for me.
Any Linux desktop, even the "good" ones, need an on-call techie.
Depends on the needs of the user. I have set up a few Ubuntu boxes that are little more than Internet and Email machines, and I never get calls about them.
I was going to let it go, but this is just plain silly, and if you think about it you'll know it's the case. Not only can I prove it, it has already been proven. Look at Mac OS X. It is a Unix OS, which has very similar underpinnings to Linux and includes many of the base utilities, shared libraries, etc., yet does not require a package manager. Windows doesn't need one either. Do you think they don't have shared libraries, or dependencies, or any of the other "challenges" that Linux/Unix has? Do you really?
For any single distro, what happens with Windows or Apple could happen with it. For example: in Ubuntu, if you please, you can distribute your software in.deb form with all of the dependancies and it will work because you know what Ubuntu has as far as libraries go. Cedega does that. But that same deb won't install on SUSE, or Mandrake, etc. And its no one's fault except maybe the GPL. Thats why I say what you want won't happen until one gets way more popular. But as it is, any single desktop distro would work as you describe. Just not all of them together.
So Ubuntu needs a package manager. Why? Because not every OSS software maker will package their stuff for Ubuntu. Why when its only part of the small part of the small market that is the Linux Desktop? So the distro makers have to package all the software themselves (or in the case of Ubuntu use some on another distro's packages) and use package managers to hold it all together.
Think about OS design. Mac and Windows simply addressed the same challenges in a different way, one focused on ease of use for the end user. They don't say to their users "which of these 2000 packages would you like to install?" because most users wouldn't have a clue about it nor would they care.
This is a good point and its the reason the next version of Ubuntu pretty much hides the package manager. Instead of saying "pick a package!" the user interface allows users to pick programs based on a nice description. It works really well...
They say to developers - "you know what comes with the OS - bundle anything that doesn't."
And here is where you don't get it. The developers in Linuxland don't know what comes with the OS. Why? Because each distro includes their own thing. One has this basic library, one has this one. One has this modified kernel, one has a plain one. One has this version of an essential lib, one has this one. The reason it works in Windows and Apple is because one entity controls the OS. If say, the only distro was SUSE, then it would be the same way in Linuxland. But its not that way. There are over 100 distros and no one can further stop this divide (the license lets them). Thats why I say that for people like yourself that can't understand "why can't Linux just unify" a desktop Linux won't exist until one distro gets way more popular than the other ones. Then the others would have to use its design.
No script needed to analyze your OS, find missing bits, look them up on the web, install them, resolve conflicts and ensure compatibiltiy with other programs needed.
Sounds great. Problem is if the package manager is not involved then each program would have to ship with EVERYTHING it needs, from the kernel on down. You can't assume someones distro will have ANYTHING. Will a user accept downloading multiple a hundred megabyte installer file off the internet that screws up the last program they installed? Because there are no standards in Linuxland (beyond maybe xorg). And I know you will say "I'm sorry you think that," but I don't just think that, its the way Linuxland IS. No one, no even Linus himself, can bring it all together.
But, if you want to (without thinking about the issue seriously) just sit back and claim tha
Oh well, forget it. Your basic premise is that any desktop OS must be a spitting image clone of Windows, which is silly. Not to mention wrong, considering that the computer vendor experiencing the largest growth in userbase is selling computers that don't run Windows or Windows programs. As this shows, a lot of people do *not* want Windows. They want something that *works*!
I agree lots of people want that. I say most of the market want more though and you disagree. Neither can have evidence to prove the other wrong so its a silly debate. Ubuntu after a nerd sets it up just works really nicely. Its just that you need the nerd now. In the next few years Linux will be even better about that - you will need the nerd to set it up less and less- if nothing else because it will come preinstalled. This a good thing. Mepis is a big step in that direction.
Of course, you cannot backup one of your major premises (how Linux can exist without package management) so I guess we are just wasting each other's time anyway...right?
First, no package format will ever "win". If a distro does "win" on the Desktop it will be in part because it removed the need for a package manager. Package managers are useful for people who heavily customize their OS. Of all the computer users in the world, a very small portion actually need to do this. That small portion of users think package management is the bomb and indispensible. The rest of users see it as nothinig but another thing to learn.
You have said that twice. What is the alternative? Thats what I want to know. You said a more unified OS last time, but that can't happen with Linux. If you think it can, you don't understand Linux at all. The only things that are "standards" in the Linux world is whats "best." Thats why we have few standards (xorg, kernel kinda) because its hard to chose best.
I know what you are going to say. "Something like autopackage," but after a long explanation by Mr. Hearn the creator it was shown to me that a unified package format in Linux is possible up to a point but its REALLY hard to do. And it will still need to use package managers. There is no project I know of that has no sort of pacakge management! Even if autopackage found a way, the distro makers would still need package managers for the main part of the distro. I mean...they can be made to look pretty. In Breezy (using it now) there is the easiest GUI for a package manager I have ever seen. It could not be any easier! But they can't be done away with. Its the best way to manage the chaos that is GNU. If you have a good idea please tell me, I want to learn.
As for "it is not Windows", well, what makes you think most computer users know they're running Windows?
They don't. Thats the problem for Linux on the Desktop. To many, Windows IS the computer- the only way it can be. So Linux has to be just like Windows to compete. As soon as the user goes to the store and buys "computer software" (not from the Linux area because he/she never shopped in that part before) and finds out the new product just won't install and work, the new Linux computer is "broken." So Linux must emulate Windows in every way to be "ready" for all these people. Hard to freaking do.
Not much more that I can say than if you actually HAD consumer demand for Linux compatible devices, well, there would be Linux-compatible devices. It's a lot easier when the hardware vendors do the work for you.
Thanks for pointing out a Catch-22 that screws Linux on the desktop. We need the marketshare to get hardware support, but to get the marketshare we need the hardware support. Its a bad cycle. There is no way to "force" developers to comply. Even with the BSDs, a much more relaxed set of OSes.
But I get your point. Linux is not Windows, and cannot hope to match its user experience for non-geeks, and thus can't build up the community necessary to get proper hardware support. Shame you feel that it has to be that way, though.
No. My point is that in order for Linux to be ready, it needs to be just like Windows. Using all the Windows hardware and software; its too hard to explain why it just doesn't to people (you are a nerd and you don't seem to get it a little). Its because its hard. Heck, Apple has a much bigger following of desktop users and it STILL can't do everything Windows can do. Apple gets around that by not allowing its software to be distributed with Dells and such. Linux won't be ready TILL its shipped on Dells and such. Because Dell won't ship it until it can do everything Windows can do.
Its not easy to be Windows. Especially because MS does not help you.
Look at non-GNU OSes. Do Microsoft and Apple package up third-party applications? Do they test and QA them? No. But how can developers build software for their platforms then? The answer is simple: Microsoft and Apple provide a complete OS, rather than letting you pick from a buffet. Why? Because this is *so* much cheaper to do, and frees up money and time to improve the OS rather than making sure OpenOffice runs on it when packages X and Y are installed but not Z.
Thats great for Apple and MS, but it does not apply to Linux. Each distro has their own package format (deb, rpm, or whatever), so "Linux" has that too. But it can't be like MS or Apple till one "wins" on the desktop and its package format get the most popular. Till then, Desktop Linux has to offer the software itself. Better than asking the users to install them the way they are distributed: in tar files!
The people I know using Windows hate it, and would love something better, but Linux requires way too much fiddling with and Macs require buying a whole new computer to go with that OS. They WANT an OS like Linux, they just can't *use* it.
No, they want a Windows that is not broken. Linux is not Windows.
If they really want Linux, not matter how easy it is to use they still have to deal with lack of drivers and the fact that it always lags behind the Windows side with new technology. The fact that it might not work with their printer or that new thing from Best Buy because Linux does not have enough market share to get that level of support is not all Linux's fault.
There's nothing nerdy about wanting an OS which is easy to use, not full of security holes, and doesn't require you to have a Ph.D. in network security to keep safe. There's no reason why Linux by definition can't do these things.
It does. Let them buy a copy of Linspire. Its made to look just like Windows and it works very easily . Or Xandros. I've seen them both in stores. I have also seen computers with Linspire on them is stores at dirt cheap prices. But the consumers want more out of Linux than you suggest.
They want an OS that can use ALL of Windows' hardware, ALL of its software, in the exact way that Windows does but safer and more secure. Linux can't do that yet because ITS HARD TO DO! Apple doesn't do it either. It just tries to really out do Windows on its own hardware to avoid the issue (as my sister- an Apple user says- "they are inferior beings"), and Linux can't a do the same thing.
Sorry. Really, I'm sorry you think all of that is easy to do. Your family could pay a nerd right now to set up a Linux install that works nice for a while easily (I have with Ubuntu for non nerds). Or buy a cheap new one with it installed (hundreds less than mini) at Wal-Mart. Some do. Most don't. Because Linux is not Windows.
Why can't there be a Linux distribution that is changed to meet home user desires?
Ubuntu?
Actually, despite being a moderator on the Ubuntu Forum I would say that Linspire is closer to what a home user wants. They can buy it preinstalled on a computer from Wal-Mart. And it has many things like codecs and such out of the box that Ubuntu won't have (because one of the goals of Ubuntu is to be a libre OS).
Desktop Linux is great for two types of users: Old grannies and aunts who are computer illiterate and need their geek nephews to set everything up an exact way so that all they have to do is click the email icon on the desktop because they'll never do anything more, and advanced Linux types who think text configuration files should be powering everything.
What about the trendy middle-of-the-road users myself that want the nice elitist feeling of running a *nix on the desktop without shelling out the cash for a Mac?;)
If there's anything wrong with the way modern desktop distros handle packaging, it's educating the users away from the "download arbitrary.exe from random website, double click to install" mindset.
According to many, Linux is not "ready for the desktop" till it can download Window's EXEs from a Window's site and install them in a Window's fashion. The game is rigged, Linux can never win. So why play?
I kinda agree with some of your points (except for the thing about package management- if you have a better way to manage the chaos that is the Gnu operating system I would love to hear it- large binaries don't work when the only common thread between distros is nothing). But you are missing one big point:
There is no reason for any "normal" user to switch to Linux on their desktop. If Microsoft's products were not good enough they would not be popular. Heck, there isn't a big reason to switch to Macs either for the same reason. Windows is good enough.
Yet Linux will still enter the lives of people. My sister (someone who claims to "hate Linux" because she did not like a SUSE I gave her once) uses Linux in her TiVo, her cell phone, and her wireless router that gives her Powerbook the internet. THIS is the path of Linux into the home. THIS is where the growth will be.
Who needs Linux on the desktop? Just nerds like me who don't want Windows for many (nerdy) reasons. So...guess what? Desktop Linux will continue to be made for nerds.
Cairo is not part of Gecko 1.8, which is the version of Gecko used by Firefox 1.5b1. Cairo will be part of Gecko 1.9, from which Firefox 2.0 will be released upon.
All I can say is: dammit!
Oh well, its not like the GTK folks allow me to have a hardware accerated Cairo yet.
Will the Linux version suck less? Its the slowest of the big three (OSX, Windows, Linux) in the 1.0.x series. Isn't it going to use Cairo more? Will it eat less CPU and RAM so I can stop recommending Epiphany instead?
I like how it looks best in Linux, but I kinda miss the Windows version sometimes...with its speed and all. And I know its not Linux/Gnome- Epiphany flies. So does a WINEd IE. Only Firefox is slow. Will that be better?
They are? It seems to me that they hold the White House, The Senate, and the House of Representatives and have not lost an important election in years
That totally went over your head. What the parent meant is that the Religious Right and the Neocons have eaten the Republican Party alive. Before it was about less taxes, fiscal responsibility, and and high military DEVELOPMENT. Now the party is about spending as much as the Chinese will loan us, ending radical Islam, and high military DEPLOYMENT.
It used to be simple: the Democrats were ignorant about economics and got that whole part of their platform from decades old disputed economic theory, and the Republicans were ignorant about social issues (there is a reason that stuff is called "The Liberal Arts") and got that whole part of the platform from the Bible to make it easy. It worked well- each hammered on what they cared about the most.
Problem is a new wave of Republicanism came around with tons of people that were ignorant about economics as well (and liked to be) but LOVED the party's stance on social issues, and now its more important for the Republican Party to stomp out sects of Islam and rally against gays (yet doing nothing to stop gay marriage with an Amendment the times it comes up for vote in the congress they control). And the real Republicans-very smart people like Newt Gingrich- were kicked out of the party because he insulted this new wave of Tom Delay followers with his intellegence. Luckilly he fixed the budget for the few years he was able to do things (and now Bill takes credit for that....)
Now real Republicans like myself are powerless- stuck with the Libertarian Party. Our best hope is that the Democratic Party will implode on itself (looking that way) and appoint moderates that actually care more about the economy (Democrats are finally talking about a balanced budget for the first time in a long time). Till then we have to watch Bush spend borrowed money like Paris Hilton in a shopping mall.
Yet you might never see this, because insulting every political party but the Greens is a sure way to be modded down.
Slashdot Mirror
I never said that. I said "Desktop Linux" needs such support. Getting Dell on the side of Desktop Linux is needed if it is ever to be as popular as "Server Linux" and "Embeded Linux." I don't really care about crushing MS, I just want my desktop OS to work with more pieces of hardware and I want my family to use Linux even though they won't buy from anyone but Dell.
Why can't it just live happily as a rock-solid server OS with a desktop component that some advanced users use?
Because:
1. That is boring.
2. I want more linux drivers for things like wireless devices, that won't come till the marketshare does.
3. Why can't Linux be good at both. Why hold Linux back at all?
I say bring them on Dell, HP. You might have found a way to make me (and many other geeks) customers again.
Get one soon. I bought one a few months ago for $35. Its worth it just for Wind Waker (and I got my money's worth out of Paper Mario too).
Respond to my post if you have questions- I bet I have an answer for you!
Which is hard to do when most of the major distros have a six month release cycle.
BTW, what is wrong with the Apple install?
The same problem with Expose- I had to actually show my less nerdy sister (with a new Powerbook) who is very smart (7th in her class) how to do it before she could. She kept wanting the file to install when double clicked. To her (and 90% of the market) the Windows way is better. To each their own I guess. Sometimes its not whats best, its what people are used to.
(Honestly I personally also prefer say, Ubuntu's synaptic, to OSX's application install procedure because I can search in synaptic and find programs a want easily based on descripition and install them within the same tool, while in OSX I have to do some googling to find the app I need. But I'm not one of those people that need a new app. the day it comes out so I guess I'm not near the popular perspective).
As a moderator for the Ubuntu Forums, I feel compelled to give you the correct information.
Ubuntu does not consider joining the DCCA because part of the purpose of that group is to keep things compatible with Debian Sarge. The group intends to rally around the newly released Debian stable and remain compatible with it. Ubuntu cannot and will not do this, because Ubuntu uses packages from Sid to form its distro.
I quote a member of the Ubuntu's Community Council governance board:
"I don't think Ubuntu is a "fork" of Debian, at least not in the traditional sense. A fork suggests that at some point we go our separate way from Debian and then occasionally merge in changes as we carry on down our own path. Our model is quite different; every six months we take a snapshot of Debian's unstable distribution, apply any outstanding patches from our last release to it and spend a couple of months testing and bug-fixing it."
Therefore Ubuntu could not even join the DCCA even if it wanted to, because using Sarge (even testing) as a base instead of Sid would break the development model. Ubuntu will stay as compatible with Sarge as Sid does, maybe less.
Have a nice day.
This sounds like a marketing fabrication. Everybody knows that the release of Vista will not increase Linux adoption. The release of the first Vista virus is what will do that.
Thanks for the explanation. I've tried to make an Ubuntu deb and its way too hard, so I understand where your point. I hope it get better. It sounds like for you all that needs to be done is a fork of Gobolinux. Would it be enough if say, SUSE, made it a lot easier to make RPMs. Like "next, next, next" easy? Do we have to have an Apple like install (because I've tried that and I don't like it as much)? Thanks for helping me think out of the box a little.
Ok, now that I see your point I must say that most sounds interesting. I must ask you about one thing though: if a new distro on the block does no include a package manager then how would it get popular enough to get people to package things for it? Lets say someone does do what you say and makes a Linux distro where the packages are not made by the distromaker. As a Linux user, why would I use that one over one that has much of the software packaged? It would take some considerable time for any new distro to build a third party package system no matter how easy it was to make packages (this assumes that a new distro could get popular enough fast enough to have any packages made for it). Why would the early users ride out the tough part? Why use this distro and wait until Openoffice or whatever was packaged for it buy a third party, rather than use SUSE today that has Openoffice ready for it? Or Gaim? Or the Gimp? Or my favorite media player? As it is a new distro with a new idea is not going to suddenly inspire OSS developers that release everything as simple tar files to package things for this new kid on the block AND release the tar files for everyone else.
The "policy issues" might just result from the fact that many OSS software developers just like their tar files (why spend more time to package something you don't get paid to package when only one distro can use it?), and that an OS without at least the marketshare of Apple will have trouble getting commercial support. I guess now you can kinda already get what you want- use something like Gobolinux and only install things through autopackage (there are a lot of those now). But how would a new distro overcome these problems? You have had insightful comments so far; I'm too stuck in the Linux mindset to figure out this one myself. It seems to be a big catch 22. A desktop Linux can't have good commercial support until its popular, but so far no desktop Linux has gotten popualr without providing good software support themselves.
Deal.
When one distro figures out how to do things right (which includes ditching package management) and goes beyond re-inventing the wheel with a slightly different circumference, it will skyrocket into the mainstream.
So, "when one distro markets itself enough to go mainstream (like almost everything mainstream), people will want to develop for it." No arguing that.
It will no longer have to worry about package management because people will actually WANT to make packages for it, like they do on Win and Mac.
At such a level package management is just a term. You could correctly call a Windows' package repository "the software section at Best Buy." But I guess you are saying "don't call it that!" Sure.
You basically admit Linux distros need package managers because they can't get developers to make packages for Linux.
Actually there are many Linux packages out there. A bunch of tar balls made to run on Linux. Also each popular distro has many packages for it. Red Hat even gets a lot of third party stuff. Its there, just as much as it should be considering the marketshare.
This should be seen as a "red alert - we are failing" signal to the distro/OS.
As long as Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu and the like stay in business they are not failing.
Instead, there is this impression that really, nothing is actually wrong with our distro, we just need to put 5000 software packages into our distro and then it will be great. Let's not all gang up and fix the problems with the desktop software, instead let's package up broken and poorly written software to run on top of it so that people can install it via a searchable GUI.
I'll have you know its a very nice GUI. And some of the programs often packaged are not poorly written. And you saying things like "gang up" while telling me in your first paragraph why this can't be the case.
But that is the attitude that people have to deal with when they want to improve Linux. I mean, it's just software. Do you want it to be easy? Make it easy!
Thats the motto of Linux. You want it, make it! I personally think Ubuntu is getting easy enough for me. For some people it won't be there till everything has a GUI. For others it won't be there till it can do everything Windows can do. For others it won't be there till it can work with 90% of hardware. For some it can never be.
You were correct at first. Linux doesn't care about the desktop. Its just software. Linspire, Xandros might care about the home desktop but hey can only do so much. Ubuntu, SUSE, and Red Hat are all focused on the business desktop because there are less demands and that is where the money is. Maybe one day a great home user desktop based on Linux will emerge. Maybe it will be based on BSD or Hurd, who knows. All I know is that each distro is doing the best with what they got, and for some of us its enough. If its not enough for you or that random women who you say doesn't want Windows then too bad. What you want is obviously not an easy task: millions of dollars and tons of top minds have been thrown at the problem yet they cannot discover the solution with the ease you have. Maybe because its really hard. Maybe if you have 1% of less desktop marketshare it might be smarter to bundle programs rather than depend on that marketshare to bring developer support. Maybe not, your users can always use autopackage. Or Kilk (which seems to be really close to what you want). An easier desktop based on Linux is being made today and next week. Its just hard to meet so many demands so its not there yet for all. Its there for me.
Depends on the needs of the user. I have set up a few Ubuntu boxes that are little more than Internet and Email machines, and I never get calls about them.
I was going to let it go, but this is just plain silly, and if you think about it you'll know it's the case. Not only can I prove it, it has already been proven. Look at Mac OS X. It is a Unix OS, which has very similar underpinnings to Linux and includes many of the base utilities, shared libraries, etc., yet does not require a package manager. Windows doesn't need one either. Do you think they don't have shared libraries, or dependencies, or any of the other "challenges" that Linux/Unix has? Do you really?
For any single distro, what happens with Windows or Apple could happen with it. For example: in Ubuntu, if you please, you can distribute your software in .deb form with all of the dependancies and it will work because you know what Ubuntu has as far as libraries go. Cedega does that. But that same deb won't install on SUSE, or Mandrake, etc. And its no one's fault except maybe the GPL. Thats why I say what you want won't happen until one gets way more popular. But as it is, any single desktop distro would work as you describe. Just not all of them together.
So Ubuntu needs a package manager. Why? Because not every OSS software maker will package their stuff for Ubuntu. Why when its only part of the small part of the small market that is the Linux Desktop? So the distro makers have to package all the software themselves (or in the case of Ubuntu use some on another distro's packages) and use package managers to hold it all together.
Think about OS design. Mac and Windows simply addressed the same challenges in a different way, one focused on ease of use for the end user. They don't say to their users "which of these 2000 packages would you like to install?" because most users wouldn't have a clue about it nor would they care.
This is a good point and its the reason the next version of Ubuntu pretty much hides the package manager. Instead of saying "pick a package!" the user interface allows users to pick programs based on a nice description. It works really well...
They say to developers - "you know what comes with the OS - bundle anything that doesn't."
And here is where you don't get it. The developers in Linuxland don't know what comes with the OS. Why? Because each distro includes their own thing. One has this basic library, one has this one. One has this modified kernel, one has a plain one. One has this version of an essential lib, one has this one. The reason it works in Windows and Apple is because one entity controls the OS. If say, the only distro was SUSE, then it would be the same way in Linuxland. But its not that way. There are over 100 distros and no one can further stop this divide (the license lets them). Thats why I say that for people like yourself that can't understand "why can't Linux just unify" a desktop Linux won't exist until one distro gets way more popular than the other ones. Then the others would have to use its design.
No script needed to analyze your OS, find missing bits, look them up on the web, install them, resolve conflicts and ensure compatibiltiy with other programs needed.
Sounds great. Problem is if the package manager is not involved then each program would have to ship with EVERYTHING it needs, from the kernel on down. You can't assume someones distro will have ANYTHING. Will a user accept downloading multiple a hundred megabyte installer file off the internet that screws up the last program they installed? Because there are no standards in Linuxland (beyond maybe xorg). And I know you will say "I'm sorry you think that," but I don't just think that, its the way Linuxland IS. No one, no even Linus himself, can bring it all together.
But, if you want to (without thinking about the issue seriously) just sit back and claim tha
I agree lots of people want that. I say most of the market want more though and you disagree. Neither can have evidence to prove the other wrong so its a silly debate. Ubuntu after a nerd sets it up just works really nicely. Its just that you need the nerd now. In the next few years Linux will be even better about that - you will need the nerd to set it up less and less- if nothing else because it will come preinstalled. This a good thing. Mepis is a big step in that direction.
Of course, you cannot backup one of your major premises (how Linux can exist without package management) so I guess we are just wasting each other's time anyway...right?
You have said that twice. What is the alternative? Thats what I want to know. You said a more unified OS last time, but that can't happen with Linux. If you think it can, you don't understand Linux at all. The only things that are "standards" in the Linux world is whats "best." Thats why we have few standards (xorg, kernel kinda) because its hard to chose best.
I know what you are going to say. "Something like autopackage," but after a long explanation by Mr. Hearn the creator it was shown to me that a unified package format in Linux is possible up to a point but its REALLY hard to do. And it will still need to use package managers. There is no project I know of that has no sort of pacakge management! Even if autopackage found a way, the distro makers would still need package managers for the main part of the distro. I mean...they can be made to look pretty. In Breezy (using it now) there is the easiest GUI for a package manager I have ever seen. It could not be any easier! But they can't be done away with. Its the best way to manage the chaos that is GNU. If you have a good idea please tell me, I want to learn.
As for "it is not Windows", well, what makes you think most computer users know they're running Windows?
They don't. Thats the problem for Linux on the Desktop. To many, Windows IS the computer- the only way it can be. So Linux has to be just like Windows to compete. As soon as the user goes to the store and buys "computer software" (not from the Linux area because he/she never shopped in that part before) and finds out the new product just won't install and work, the new Linux computer is "broken." So Linux must emulate Windows in every way to be "ready" for all these people. Hard to freaking do.
Not much more that I can say than if you actually HAD consumer demand for Linux compatible devices, well, there would be Linux-compatible devices. It's a lot easier when the hardware vendors do the work for you.
Thanks for pointing out a Catch-22 that screws Linux on the desktop. We need the marketshare to get hardware support, but to get the marketshare we need the hardware support. Its a bad cycle. There is no way to "force" developers to comply. Even with the BSDs, a much more relaxed set of OSes.
But I get your point. Linux is not Windows, and cannot hope to match its user experience for non-geeks, and thus can't build up the community necessary to get proper hardware support. Shame you feel that it has to be that way, though.
No. My point is that in order for Linux to be ready, it needs to be just like Windows. Using all the Windows hardware and software; its too hard to explain why it just doesn't to people (you are a nerd and you don't seem to get it a little). Its because its hard. Heck, Apple has a much bigger following of desktop users and it STILL can't do everything Windows can do. Apple gets around that by not allowing its software to be distributed with Dells and such. Linux won't be ready TILL its shipped on Dells and such. Because Dell won't ship it until it can do everything Windows can do.
Its not easy to be Windows. Especially because MS does not help you.
Thats great for Apple and MS, but it does not apply to Linux. Each distro has their own package format (deb, rpm, or whatever), so "Linux" has that too. But it can't be like MS or Apple till one "wins" on the desktop and its package format get the most popular. Till then, Desktop Linux has to offer the software itself. Better than asking the users to install them the way they are distributed: in tar files!
The people I know using Windows hate it, and would love something better, but Linux requires way too much fiddling with and Macs require buying a whole new computer to go with that OS. They WANT an OS like Linux, they just can't *use* it.
No, they want a Windows that is not broken. Linux is not Windows.
If they really want Linux, not matter how easy it is to use they still have to deal with lack of drivers and the fact that it always lags behind the Windows side with new technology. The fact that it might not work with their printer or that new thing from Best Buy because Linux does not have enough market share to get that level of support is not all Linux's fault.
There's nothing nerdy about wanting an OS which is easy to use, not full of security holes, and doesn't require you to have a Ph.D. in network security to keep safe. There's no reason why Linux by definition can't do these things.
It does. Let them buy a copy of Linspire. Its made to look just like Windows and it works very easily . Or Xandros. I've seen them both in stores. I have also seen computers with Linspire on them is stores at dirt cheap prices. But the consumers want more out of Linux than you suggest.
They want an OS that can use ALL of Windows' hardware, ALL of its software, in the exact way that Windows does but safer and more secure. Linux can't do that yet because ITS HARD TO DO! Apple doesn't do it either. It just tries to really out do Windows on its own hardware to avoid the issue (as my sister- an Apple user says- "they are inferior beings"), and Linux can't a do the same thing.
Sorry. Really, I'm sorry you think all of that is easy to do. Your family could pay a nerd right now to set up a Linux install that works nice for a while easily (I have with Ubuntu for non nerds). Or buy a cheap new one with it installed (hundreds less than mini) at Wal-Mart. Some do. Most don't. Because Linux is not Windows.
I disagree.Thats the best thing in life, is to be able to disagree.
Ubuntu?
Actually, despite being a moderator on the Ubuntu Forum I would say that Linspire is closer to what a home user wants. They can buy it preinstalled on a computer from Wal-Mart. And it has many things like codecs and such out of the box that Ubuntu won't have (because one of the goals of Ubuntu is to be a libre OS).
I'm not saying that new users shouldn't use Ubuntu, but in those cases I recommend that you- the nerd- set it up for them.
What about the trendy middle-of-the-road users myself that want the nice elitist feeling of running a *nix on the desktop without shelling out the cash for a Mac? ;)
According to many, Linux is not "ready for the desktop" till it can download Window's EXEs from a Window's site and install them in a Window's fashion. The game is rigged, Linux can never win. So why play?
There is no reason for any "normal" user to switch to Linux on their desktop. If Microsoft's products were not good enough they would not be popular. Heck, there isn't a big reason to switch to Macs either for the same reason. Windows is good enough.
Yet Linux will still enter the lives of people. My sister (someone who claims to "hate Linux" because she did not like a SUSE I gave her once) uses Linux in her TiVo, her cell phone, and her wireless router that gives her Powerbook the internet. THIS is the path of Linux into the home. THIS is where the growth will be.
Who needs Linux on the desktop? Just nerds like me who don't want Windows for many (nerdy) reasons. So...guess what? Desktop Linux will continue to be made for nerds.
Yes, because Ad Blocking is a "killer feature."
All I can say is: dammit!
Oh well, its not like the GTK folks allow me to have a hardware accerated Cairo yet.
I like how it looks best in Linux, but I kinda miss the Windows version sometimes...with its speed and all. And I know its not Linux/Gnome- Epiphany flies. So does a WINEd IE. Only Firefox is slow. Will that be better?
That totally went over your head. What the parent meant is that the Religious Right and the Neocons have eaten the Republican Party alive. Before it was about less taxes, fiscal responsibility, and and high military DEVELOPMENT. Now the party is about spending as much as the Chinese will loan us, ending radical Islam, and high military DEPLOYMENT.
It used to be simple: the Democrats were ignorant about economics and got that whole part of their platform from decades old disputed economic theory, and the Republicans were ignorant about social issues (there is a reason that stuff is called "The Liberal Arts") and got that whole part of the platform from the Bible to make it easy. It worked well- each hammered on what they cared about the most.
Problem is a new wave of Republicanism came around with tons of people that were ignorant about economics as well (and liked to be) but LOVED the party's stance on social issues, and now its more important for the Republican Party to stomp out sects of Islam and rally against gays (yet doing nothing to stop gay marriage with an Amendment the times it comes up for vote in the congress they control). And the real Republicans-very smart people like Newt Gingrich- were kicked out of the party because he insulted this new wave of Tom Delay followers with his intellegence. Luckilly he fixed the budget for the few years he was able to do things (and now Bill takes credit for that....)
Now real Republicans like myself are powerless- stuck with the Libertarian Party. Our best hope is that the Democratic Party will implode on itself (looking that way) and appoint moderates that actually care more about the economy (Democrats are finally talking about a balanced budget for the first time in a long time). Till then we have to watch Bush spend borrowed money like Paris Hilton in a shopping mall. Yet you might never see this, because insulting every political party but the Greens is a sure way to be modded down.
Actually, that is really IE...I need it for one site.
You are gonna hate me for this....but that was the default!