In most cases whan Linux comes preinstalled it means that the hardware configuration is somewhat supported under Linux. And usually if something works with distro Foo it will work also under Bar (minus really weird stuff like binary only drivers for RH - but that also can be made to work with something different).
So I would like to see Dell offering "Linux compatible PCs with distro Foo as default or your choice of Linux (after manual install)".
As for pre-installs from vendors - they suck. I always wipe them out on new hardware rollups and fix them with own vanilla install of operating system. But one optimistic thing is that there is no crapware for Linux, yet. At least I haven't see one (maybe cause nobody ships Linux as preinstalled OS).
Totally agree with you. What is sad that maniacs posting stuff like this will get associated with general Linux/Free/Open/Software community and build the opinion that such users don't give a shit about stealing (well this is not exactly theft - copyright violation).
I am all about copyrights (and copylefts). The same rights that protect new Simpsons episodes also apply to protecting f.e. GPL-ed code (from license violations).
It is also sad that editors running this site are retarded to post things like that.:\
It is not OK to take some licensed media and just upload if to Youtube. You fucking (/. editors) hypocrits will cry loud when GPL is violated but when somebody evidently pirates a copy of copyright protected Simpsons episode it is OK?
> It has already been established that DRM is bad.
It is somekind misleading for me. DRM itself is not bad per se - it is only a product, a technology. Same as with knifes - knifes are not bad. It is bad to kill somebody with knife but not bad to prepare delicious meal using knife.
So using DRM to take their rights from users is bad. Not DRM per se. DRM as a way to control information is neutral. It would me nice to have The Good DRM in your use. F.e. in organisations that proces confidential data - to control how/where and by whom the file can be opened would be Good Thing to have.
So it is not DRM that is bad. What is bad is the notion to use DRM to take away our rights.
> Paranoia is good - I don't disagree that there's an issue that > needs fixing, but the way it's presented is as if there's a > general exploit, but it just isn't that easy.
You mean how it is presented here (on Slashdot). Well you must be new here.;))) They always present it like that - this is like lowest grade journalism. But I like the fact that users that read this kind of information are geek enough to understand that this is overhyped. It is some kind of local (global in fact) folklor that is unique to/.:)
> Clearly targeting a specific user where you knew information > like the username and system setup beforehand would make this > possible (independent of OS).
And this is scary. As we had agreed on (I assume) anything we stated I can only add that in current situation a browser (or MUA - or anything that processes data from the untrusted sources/Internet) that runs different privilege domain/context (hell we have it from ages in Linux via SELinux) would render this kind of attack useless. Too bad such kind of privileges are quite new yet - as for now typical user is in Windows 95 era and he/she does not understand basic NT or unix file permissions. And this is the biggest problem I think.:\
You kind of right. It is hard but not impossible or in fact very easy for skilled cracker.
I've always liked MZ way of thinking. I've read his book. Usually his discoverings do not cover the mass side of a thing. He usually focuses on targeted attacks which are hard but possible - I mean attacks when you target some individual or organisation to get data, not when you want to have biggest coverage of zombies on casual-home-user-machines.
Same as in here. If you are a security professional (I can guess - I am not) you do not worry to much about automated bot stuff targeted against people who do not patch their machines or have little-to-none knowledge about security and face it use vanilla Windows installation. I guess that when you are paranoid about security (and I wish people who are responsible for that to be paranoid) than such kind of just possibility makes you just wonder.
> People have to write the software and it's going to take a bit of time.
Sadly some types of software won't appear on Linux unless Linux will be in wider use. And Linux will not be in wider use since it lack software. This is how it works. The open/free aspects of Linux appeal to server and similar use. These aspects are not so important (for most people) in desktop use. OSX has similar problems - it has its niche in graphical/multimedia/powerfull-workstation tasks but it lacks applications especially in business area. F.e. in my office we could be using Linux - I would have no problem buying hardware that works nicely with Linux and configuring it to work in office setup. The problem is lack of applications. Linux lacks applications like Corel, Acrobat (for us) also in finance/accounting area it lacks even just simple invoice software (which comes in tons for Windows).
The problem is simple - some kinds of software won't be written by community in opensource model since it does not scratch somebodys itch and it is painfull to support (like finance/accounting software). At least here where I live the law changes constantly so such software needs to be changed constantly. Nobody is going to do this for free. And since Windows is 99% everybody that sells software does it for Windows because it is the main market. Same with games.
Unless it gives profits to write software for Linux there will be no software (of certain types) for it. And the fact that things like common packaging, Linux Standard Base are quite fresh makes things even worse since it is harder to do software for Linux.
So I don't see things as bright as you do. I use Linux on daily basis - but I feel the lack of applications myself (I need to use Windows and OSX sometimes since Linux does not have the apps I need).
> Before recently, people weren't even focusing on Linux becoming > a Desktop platform... it wasn't until Ubuntu and Fedora that Desktop > software really started getting better on Linux,
This is BS. Sorry. I am using Linux since 96 and Ubuntu/Fedora are just distros. Nothing revolutionary. Before Fedora people were using Mandrake (now Mandriva) and Red Hat Linux (now splitted into RHEL and Fedora) and SUSE and Debian and few others. There were commercial efforts like Corel Linux or Connectiva even.
Fedora and Ubuntu are nice but they are just distributions - they don't change anything about desktop. What changes the desktop now are projects like FreeDesktop, udev, HAL and other stuff (also in kernel) - but they are not really mature now. They work. But Windows has such things like HAL, stable API and so on from ages. So Linux is really catching up. I don't see anything revolutionary in Fedora or Ubuntu - just distros. Few years for now you will be saying that todays Linux Desktop is like FooshmooLinux or BarTux or whatever.
> and that's because these distros were easy enough for your > Windows geek to download and install.
Linux is easy to get and easy to install - I don't argue with that. It has been like this from ages. It was hard to install in its really early ages. I think from about 2000 Linux is as easy to install (even if not easier, more flexible for sure) as any given version of Windows. Installation is not a problem. Problem is lack of drivers and applications.
I see few issues here:
- the first one is that people and vendors do not release drivers and software for Linux since it has too little install base and it is not economically feasible - I don't see anything we can do about it (despite advocacy) so it is really a non issue
- it is hard to release software for Linux - no standard API/ABI - just always-emerging standards like LSB, the kernel is an always moving target, there is little to none backward compatibility, there is no uniform standard way of installing software (./configure; make; make install - I know), licensing issues force some wicked methodology (like linking on behalf of user and so on)
> Oh yeah, because everyone is checking CVS for the consumer-ready build of Linux. > Right. Well, actually, Linux will (or has) evolve to be consumer-ready gradually, > and it won't sweep across the nation overnight when it does.
And yet it is not. Everyone actually *is* looking for Linux to be mainstream and customer ready so it helps us fight MS monopoly. Lots of people will *love* to see Linux being customer ready OS. First of all the hardware vendors would not be tied to be MS OEM and could do offerings with Linux (minority now). The customer even if not using Linux would get better prices for Windows since there would be real competition on the market and prices will go down.
So actually I would love to have customer ready Linux ready to checkout from CVS.:) I would even pay for it.
> Linux doesn't have marketing behind it, and most PCs don't even come with the > option of shipping with Linux, so I don't see how you can say that. Linux will > come to the mainstream more gradually.
Or will not. This thing about Linux being ready for the desktop and coming to mainstream gradually is repeated like from 1998 and still yet it has not significant share in the market. On the server market it rocks. In consumer market it only exists in appliances such as routers or set top boxes (think tivo) and similar. Not the PCs.
> You say it's not ready for grandma, but guess what? That's what my grandparents are > running now. A couple of years ago I set up my parents with Linux and have never had > to go back and touch it, never had any requests for help with a problem, and they can > do everything they want (surf the web, watch videos, email + webcam, digital camera, > scanning and printing, word processing/spreadsheet, the usual stuff). I'm much happier > as a result, no more fiddling every time I go to visit:)
It depends on what they need to do. Right now my parents and grandparents are heavly using computer to fo VoIP (among other stuff - but this is the killer one for them). They use Skype with video-cameras. They bought they cameras in normal shop, connected it to the (Windows) PC installed Skype and somehow it works for them. They did it themself.
If they were using Linux they couldn't buy just any camera (since most of them don't work with Linux), they couldn't just plug it in since using Skype in Linux often requires technical voodoo like editing text files, knowing about niuances of ALSA/OSS, installing packages and so on. Not to mention that Skype for Linux is like few versions behind and I don't really think it can do video.
They also like to run those CDs with various multimedia apps (like health encyclopedia, history of football, whatever) that come with various magazines. These don't work with Linux either.
Well I can agree that Linux can work if you have a skilled admin that will set it up for you and you don't need many apps that do not exist for Linux. But having a skilled admin just to administer your PC is not economically possible. For some reasons people that do not have Linux admin in family manage to run Windows while they will fail square on running Linux. This is reality.
And it has really little to do with Linux technical (or lack of) superiority. Rather with politics and reality. Linux could be the best OS but with no or Little apps and drivers it will be where it is now. Not really existing on PC arena - only in limited setups such as your parents or in places where you like to have limited setups (I have little call center (10 PCs) running Linux).
But even for people that just wan't to do email, web and some IM and multimedia I think a good appliance (they just started to appear on the market) like game console that also can do all that would be better than full fledged PCs with all its flaws (not just those of operating system).
> The problem with Linux -- or the difficulty for the average user > -- is typically not so much the user experience, but administration. > As it turns out, this is the same problem people tend to have with Windows.
Yes. Because it is not a problem - it is possible to do nice distribution that will work just fine for the user. Not harder than say OSX. The real problem is lack of applications (like games, tools, professional tools) and weak hardware support - please don't start with saying that hardware is not a problem. I am using Linux on daily basis and I see things have changed for better in the hardware front but it is still not so good. I am not speaking about general stuff like network or graphic cards - these are just fine in Linux. I am speaking f.e. printer (like integrated fax-scan-print-copy etc. machines), scanner, digital camera, few other little gizmos - for stuff like this open source model will not work since so little people use the camera integrated f.e. in a laptop that only exisiting driver is that for Windows. Maybe some hacker will sometime write a driver for it but it would be when the laptop is four years old...
So now it is the network effect - people do not do apps and drivers for Linux since not many people use it. Not many people use it since people do not do apps and drivers for Linux. And I don't expect it to change soon. Also other OSes are not standing in place.
It can't be Apple fault that they haven't tested and developed iTunes on Vista. It is not that Vista is quite new version and some stuff works different. It is not that Vista test versions were aviable from like half year which gives Apple plenty of time to actually *test* the software and issue new/corrected version timely.
To be honest I am to blame Apple for not testing their software with such significant (Windows is the biggest market for iTunes/iPod) OS release.
To judge technically there is not enough details - but given MS Windows quite good backward compatibility I guess that Apple did some ugly hack in iTunes (around the USB stack and similar things) and now it shows with new OS version.
Anyway if you are software vendor YOU NEED TO FUCKING TEST IT IN TARGET OPERATING SYSTEM.
> Linux is already good for very unexperienced users. The problem > are users who were once introduced to windows, they are spoiled. > It is about the same as when programmers are spoiled with the GOTO > statement, it is possible to unlearn this mess but it takes a lot > of effort.
This is BS. The problem with Linux is lack of applications *and* problematical hardware support. And that is basically it. There is no problem with users. Face it. Lying when advocating Linux is the worst thing you can do.
> However Linux is consumer ready already. Like for grandpa.
So this grandpa. Exactly where she should go to buy like software that works with Linux? A game maybe? Or an financial appliaction or smth.? This DVD that she bought with her newspaper - why it does not work with this Linux thingie?
Ask parent poster - he expected Windows to Just Work - I don't expect my computer to Just Work for same reasons as yours. Complexity.
You've mentioned training to use a car and so on - I am not against it. But when I use my car I expect that when I make it stop it stops. If it does not stop the manufacturer (or the service) is in really deep shit. Now with computers - if your computer does not work nobody is really responsible - it is Just The Way It Is - computers usually tend to work.
> Linux is still not for everyone, and people need to come to terms with that.
Windows also is not for everyone. Take average user - make him install Windows. The installation will get borked with virii and other shit very quickly. Also during the process he will get annoyed with stuff like installing drivers and so on. I am not saying that Windows sucks and Linux is teh roxxxooorr. Please read on.
> We need to stop trying to convert the masses - it's still too early. > Build a truly better operating system and you won't have to spend so > much time trying to sell people on a free product.
Well. Maybe, just maybe Linux will never be on par with Windows. And it has nothing to do with technical superiority. Linux has quite different philosophy. If hardware vendors released specs for their hardware Linux would have superior (and I really belive that) hardware support. If software vendors would not patent everything that moves you would have no problem with any codecs, media playback and such under Linux. Etc.
It is just Linux philosophy to be free (as in speech) does not fit reality too much. It is nice OS (I am using it right now) but it is politics that makes it less freindly to end user.
> Wait until "it just works" otherwise we're going to continue to turn people off.
The Just Works slogan... is just a slogan. I use plethora of OSes - from Symbian via Windows Mobile, OSX, Linux, various BSDs, playing a little with Solaris, even Windows and some other more obscure stuff. Sadly none of them Just Work. Computing got to the state where you accept that something is good enough - but is far away from Just Works sadly.
My fridge Just Works, my microwave oven Just Works, my shower Just Works. My computers Just Seem Too Work - but really they often fail and require far more attention that they should.
Linux is not customer ready OS right now (like for grandpa or smth.). If it would it would be mainstream right now. But it isn't. The fact that it is not customer OS does not degrades its value. Linux (and other alternative free-as-in-speech unix OSes) has great value once you learn how to harvest it and make Linux to work for you.
So with that in mind Linux is an OS for professionals and hobbyists/hackers.
For professionals right now it is I think mandatory to know Linux in *some* way. Even just in way to see that Windows works better for you. But it is essential to know Linux in way that lets you make clear decision of what to use. But anyway nobody ever got fired for buying MS - or was he?;)
For hobbyists Linux is a Must Have - if you are into computing and you like it you must try Linux since it may make nice things for you in some way or another. It does not mean that you need to dump Windows and go Linux exclusively - but it means that Linux has great potential and it is worth to use.
Linux advocacy has nothing to do with ease of use compared to Windows or whatever. If Windows is easier to use for you than go on - use it.
Heh I won't argue about the interface. Just two obvious facts:
- hundreds bilion of people use normal phones like now and with no problem - keyboard IS BETTER for inputting text than touchscreen
> I see people harping on about 3G. Sorry but it is a phone. If you > want data access, go to a free WiFi access point at a Coffee shop.
Buahhaah. - Sorry I need to go to Coffee shop I need to access some data with my laptop. - Oh? Are you one of those iPhone users? Well. Go on while I'll stay here enjoying data access here sitting on this beach and having a coctail.
>> The Iphone on the other hand is jumping into a saturated >> market with plenty of REALLY good competition.
> You have forgotten, that is exactly what the iPod entered > into as well.
No. It was not *exactly* the same market. The market of MP3 players was a market of devices that just play stuff. Nobody really cared about it.
Teleco (that is bacically it) market is operated by carriers (service providers), not handset manufacturers.
It is basically a whole lot different market.
> A market that was fairly far along, with a lot of products > that offered more features than the iPod.
Well bacic feature of MP3 player was to play music. iPod leveraged that to other functions. Now basic market for telephones is to make calls - I don't see iPhone making better calls that others. It for sure does not do video calls - here in Europe it is a huge boom already (in Asia it had already happened). You can call somebody and see him/her - this is a big boom. So here it is just another handset that does not do video - the worse one.
> if they do not have the same feature count as other smart > phones, they will do quite well.
First of all iPhone is not a smartphone. Second - it depends on expectations. From music player you expect that it plays music and does it well (also has nice interface). Well for phone I expect that it does calls offers high speed data access (iPhone does not), and does video (iPhone does not).
My main point is that given that presentation anybody (like Nokia/Samsung/SonyEricsson/whatever with whatever decent carrier) right now could have just dissed Jobs in his presentation, like:
Jobs: Well iPhone does not have a keyboard and contact books are hard in other phones. Anybody: Well are you retarded? Anybody can use contact book in a phone and call somebody and keyboards are nice for inputting text. Jobs: But iPhone is like iPod. Anybody: Well here you are probably right - iPhone plays music. We also do. But ours are not like iPod. Point for you. Jobs: And we can do web browsing and email. Anybody: Please Steve, stop being retarded - we do web browsing and email for ages. We also do this faster, like you now that 3G thingie. Jobs: 3G? Well... no 3G here but we have this nice touch interface... Anybody: And video calls? Can you do that? Jobs: Vi...vi...video? No but we have these nice photos here that you can show your granny on this tiny screen... Anybody: But no video calls? How about a high speed Internet access? Jobs: We have these nice widgets here... Anybody: So you cannot use your phone for high speed Internet access for your portable computer? Jobs: Not really. But check it out - Google....
Well maybe they are not longer into computers? I don't really know how the income of Apple looks (like how much of it are iPods and how much are Macs) but maybe they can get more money (and this is what they are here for) selling consumer electronics like iPods and such than Macs?
I am not stating that they will drop Macs or smth. but just maybe they are going to get more money (and this is what investors want) the other way. They had dropped "computers" from the name.
> No video downloads over EDGE, and audio downloads will > pause while you are speaking on the phone. Furthermore, > it doesn't even seem that it will have a J2ME stack.
First things first - I don't need my phone to download any audio or video. I use it for communicating, you know - calling people and stuff. The my PC or Media PC can download video just fine and display it on decent (i.e. not 5x3cm) screen. As for audio I hardly see *ANY* phone downloading like 60 minutes of decent quality music - I'd rather sync music with my phone for PC.
Well just about today I did like one hour (total) call with my friend with VISION - like you know - videotelephony. This is fucking cool I think. Like before (I know - in Asia they do this for ages) in SF novels and such. Now - just press a button and you actually *see* the other person. I do this with Samsung handset. I guess this is very uncool - it would be cooler and hippier to not to do it with Apple branded stuff.:)
The iPhone simply sucks - maybe that is the point why the whole announcement of it was a mistake.
> i dont think apple is really going after the IT crowd with > this, they are the only ones who will complain because it > doesnt have feature X, rather than focusing on how well it > performs the things it can do.
Oh.:) Like right today I spend like hour talking to my friends with VISION. Not like this is cool or smth. It is so uncool to just have videotelephony anyway in some normal Samsung/Nokia/whatever hardware - it is cool not to have it with Apple branded stuff!
Oh! Did I mentioned that I did it for free (well, not paying for it since I and my friends are in some 3G testing here and we also get these handsets for free)?
But I guess you can well... just talk (come on! everybody does video now)... with this new trendy iPhone of yours? How lame.
Yes, I am an IT worker. Yes. I think iPhone in its current shape is overpiced piece of shit.
Just probably anybody that goes into any cooperation with Microsoft gets kicked in the ass by MS later.
Speaking of multimedia/DRM systems MS once had a program called "PlaysForSure". It was targeted towards hardware manufacturers which produce media players and ones that sell media via Internet. It offered these parties an option to cooperate under MS PlaysForSure umbrella - so hardware manufacturers that produce media players would design their hardware to these "specs", media selling companies would design their services to operate with the devices - all of course using and licensing MS technology called Windows Media. Well looks good - no.
After MS released their Zune it happened that their device does not "PlaysForSure" and cannot connect to other services.
How MSish.
I cannot think of a company that ever succeded in partnering MS. Well maybe exept Intel and Citrix.
> What would be an obvious way? (You are not allowed to assume > that users already know how to do this in Word.)
Per document - in document properties alternatively somewhere around tools/spelling.
Per paragraph/text fragment - when you select text in context menu of that text under language/spelling or similar.
Per style - in style properties.
(...)
> I can sort of see that they're not really formatting options.
I guess thinking of such stuff like office-type application design the document model/properties should be divided into properties like formatig (format, layout, styles, visual stuff), structure (sections etc.), any other aids for tools (like said language settings, tools settings, etc.). I haven't really studied OpenDocument format specifications but I can guess they look something like I've described. Now if only interface would be constructed strictly reasembling these properties.
> There's a tension between the the requirement that it not > be too alien for MS Office users and the general wish to > make a good user interface. I would prefer to give the latter > a higher priority, and I hope that now that MS Office itself > has finally had some quite radical user interface changes the > former requirement will be less of a competitive neceessity > for OpenOffice.org's commercial backers.
> You read half my post:) Sure my teachers only view my work,
OK - so here we do agree that for producing read-only documents like spec, letters, offers etc. PDF is most safe to use?:)
> but the Kitchen manager and restaurant owner both work on > the same sheets. The kitchen manager is doing his work in > OpenOffice. The restaraunt owner is doing his work in MSO.
With Calc/Excel compatibilit is better. I agree. Usually things work. But FYI Calc does not support some things that Excel does. Maybe you don't use this functions but we (I am talking about my office, pivot table, macros and such) do.
Also with Writer/Word I *do* encounter strange things. The formatting just blows away sometimes. Paragraphs tend to go right, right, right straight behind page area etc.
> This isn't real time collaboration, but that was never the > point of my post, as well I am not saying that very high > levels of document sharing and collaboration are going to work. > I would have never assumed so. Thanks for clarifying your point.
OK. But I still insist on speaking the truth and not calling OOO compatible (since it is not) with MSO. It is not that there is something wrong with OOO - it is a great program. But telling people that it is compatible with MSO is just a lie. It is better to say that OOO *tries* (well there is a difference between trying and being) to be compatible - mostly it works. But there surely are issues (especially with advanced usage).
Slashdot Mirror
In most cases whan Linux comes preinstalled it means that the hardware configuration is somewhat supported under Linux. And usually if something works with distro Foo it will work also under Bar (minus really weird stuff like binary only drivers for RH - but that also can be made to work with something different).
So I would like to see Dell offering "Linux compatible PCs with distro Foo as default or your choice of Linux (after manual install)".
As for pre-installs from vendors - they suck. I always wipe them out on new hardware rollups and fix them with own vanilla install of operating system. But one optimistic thing is that there is no crapware for Linux, yet. At least I haven't see one (maybe cause nobody ships Linux as preinstalled OS).
Totally agree with you. What is sad that maniacs posting stuff like this will get associated with general Linux/Free/Open/Software community and build the opinion that such users don't give a shit about stealing (well this is not exactly theft - copyright violation).
:\
I am all about copyrights (and copylefts). The same rights that protect new Simpsons episodes also apply to protecting f.e. GPL-ed code (from license violations).
It is also sad that editors running this site are retarded to post things like that.
It is not OK to take some licensed media and just upload if to Youtube. You fucking (/. editors) hypocrits will cry loud when GPL is violated but when somebody evidently pirates a copy of copyright protected Simpsons episode it is OK?
> It has already been established that DRM is bad.
It is somekind misleading for me. DRM itself is not bad per se - it is only a product, a technology. Same as with knifes - knifes are not bad. It is bad to kill somebody with knife but not bad to prepare delicious meal using knife.
So using DRM to take their rights from users is bad. Not DRM per se. DRM as a way to control information is neutral. It would me nice to have The Good DRM in your use. F.e. in organisations that proces confidential data - to control how/where and by whom the file can be opened would be Good Thing to have.
So it is not DRM that is bad. What is bad is the notion to use DRM to take away our rights.
> Paranoia is good - I don't disagree that there's an issue that
;))) They always present it like that - this is like lowest grade journalism. But I like the fact that users that read this kind of information are geek enough to understand that this is overhyped. It is some kind of local (global in fact) folklor that is unique to /. :)
:\
> needs fixing, but the way it's presented is as if there's a
> general exploit, but it just isn't that easy.
You mean how it is presented here (on Slashdot). Well you must be new here.
> Clearly targeting a specific user where you knew information
> like the username and system setup beforehand would make this
> possible (independent of OS).
And this is scary. As we had agreed on (I assume) anything we stated I can only add that in current situation a browser (or MUA - or anything that processes data from the untrusted sources/Internet) that runs different privilege domain/context (hell we have it from ages in Linux via SELinux) would render this kind of attack useless. Too bad such kind of privileges are quite new yet - as for now typical user is in Windows 95 era and he/she does not understand basic NT or unix file permissions. And this is the biggest problem I think.
You kind of right. It is hard but not impossible or in fact very easy for skilled cracker.
I've always liked MZ way of thinking. I've read his book. Usually his discoverings do not cover the mass side of a thing. He usually focuses on targeted attacks which are hard but possible - I mean attacks when you target some individual or organisation to get data, not when you want to have biggest coverage of zombies on casual-home-user-machines.
Same as in here. If you are a security professional (I can guess - I am not) you do not worry to much about automated bot stuff targeted against people who do not patch their machines or have little-to-none knowledge about security and face it use vanilla Windows installation. I guess that when you are paranoid about security (and I wish people who are responsible for that to be paranoid) than such kind of just possibility makes you just wonder.
> The fact that this does not affect Office 2007 suggests that Microsoft
;)
> is learning from their mistakes.
Not really. It also may be that nobody targets bugs in these products yet.
FreeDOS also has not many known vulnerabities.
> People have to write the software and it's going to take a bit of time.
Sadly some types of software won't appear on Linux unless Linux will be in wider use. And Linux will not be in wider use since it lack software. This is how it works. The open/free aspects of Linux appeal to server and similar use. These aspects are not so important (for most people) in desktop use. OSX has similar problems - it has its niche in graphical/multimedia/powerfull-workstation tasks but it lacks applications especially in business area. F.e. in my office we could be using Linux - I would have no problem buying hardware that works nicely with Linux and configuring it to work in office setup. The problem is lack of applications. Linux lacks applications like Corel, Acrobat (for us) also in finance/accounting area it lacks even just simple invoice software (which comes in tons for Windows).
The problem is simple - some kinds of software won't be written by community in opensource model since it does not scratch somebodys itch and it is painfull to support (like finance/accounting software). At least here where I live the law changes constantly so such software needs to be changed constantly. Nobody is going to do this for free. And since Windows is 99% everybody that sells software does it for Windows because it is the main market. Same with games.
Unless it gives profits to write software for Linux there will be no software (of certain types) for it. And the fact that things like common packaging, Linux Standard Base are quite fresh makes things even worse since it is harder to do software for Linux.
So I don't see things as bright as you do. I use Linux on daily basis - but I feel the lack of applications myself (I need to use Windows and OSX sometimes since Linux does not have the apps I need).
> Before recently, people weren't even focusing on Linux becoming
> a Desktop platform... it wasn't until Ubuntu and Fedora that Desktop
> software really started getting better on Linux,
This is BS. Sorry. I am using Linux since 96 and Ubuntu/Fedora are just distros. Nothing revolutionary. Before Fedora people were using Mandrake (now Mandriva) and Red Hat Linux (now splitted into RHEL and Fedora) and SUSE and Debian and few others. There were commercial efforts like Corel Linux or Connectiva even.
Fedora and Ubuntu are nice but they are just distributions - they don't change anything about desktop. What changes the desktop now are projects like FreeDesktop, udev, HAL and other stuff (also in kernel) - but they are not really mature now. They work. But Windows has such things like HAL, stable API and so on from ages. So Linux is really catching up. I don't see anything revolutionary in Fedora or Ubuntu - just distros. Few years for now you will be saying that todays Linux Desktop is like FooshmooLinux or BarTux or whatever.
> and that's because these distros were easy enough for your
> Windows geek to download and install.
Linux is easy to get and easy to install - I don't argue with that. It has been like this from ages. It was hard to install in its really early ages. I think from about 2000 Linux is as easy to install (even if not easier, more flexible for sure) as any given version of Windows. Installation is not a problem. Problem is lack of drivers and applications.
I see few issues here:
- the first one is that people and vendors do not release drivers and software for Linux since it has too little install base and it is not economically feasible - I don't see anything we can do about it (despite advocacy) so it is really a non issue
- it is hard to release software for Linux - no standard API/ABI - just always-emerging standards like LSB, the kernel is an always moving target, there is little to none backward compatibility, there is no uniform standard way of installing software (./configure; make; make install - I know), licensing issues force some wicked methodology (like linking on behalf of user and so on)
So you see -
> Oh yeah, because everyone is checking CVS for the consumer-ready build of Linux.
:) I would even pay for it.
:)
;)
> Right. Well, actually, Linux will (or has) evolve to be consumer-ready gradually,
> and it won't sweep across the nation overnight when it does.
And yet it is not. Everyone actually *is* looking for Linux to be mainstream and customer ready so it helps us fight MS monopoly. Lots of people will *love* to see Linux being customer ready OS. First of all the hardware vendors would not be tied to be MS OEM and could do offerings with Linux (minority now). The customer even if not using Linux would get better prices for Windows since there would be real competition on the market and prices will go down.
So actually I would love to have customer ready Linux ready to checkout from CVS.
> Linux doesn't have marketing behind it, and most PCs don't even come with the
> option of shipping with Linux, so I don't see how you can say that. Linux will
> come to the mainstream more gradually.
Or will not. This thing about Linux being ready for the desktop and coming to mainstream gradually is repeated like from 1998 and still yet it has not significant share in the market. On the server market it rocks. In consumer market it only exists in appliances such as routers or set top boxes (think tivo) and similar. Not the PCs.
> You say it's not ready for grandma, but guess what? That's what my grandparents are
> running now. A couple of years ago I set up my parents with Linux and have never had
> to go back and touch it, never had any requests for help with a problem, and they can
> do everything they want (surf the web, watch videos, email + webcam, digital camera,
> scanning and printing, word processing/spreadsheet, the usual stuff). I'm much happier
> as a result, no more fiddling every time I go to visit
It depends on what they need to do. Right now my parents and grandparents are heavly using computer to fo VoIP (among other stuff - but this is the killer one for them). They use Skype with video-cameras. They bought they cameras in normal shop, connected it to the (Windows) PC installed Skype and somehow it works for them. They did it themself.
If they were using Linux they couldn't buy just any camera (since most of them don't work with Linux), they couldn't just plug it in since using Skype in Linux often requires technical voodoo like editing text files, knowing about niuances of ALSA/OSS, installing packages and so on. Not to mention that Skype for Linux is like few versions behind and I don't really think it can do video.
They also like to run those CDs with various multimedia apps (like health encyclopedia, history of football, whatever) that come with various magazines. These don't work with Linux either.
Well I can agree that Linux can work if you have a skilled admin that will set it up for you and you don't need many apps that do not exist for Linux. But having a skilled admin just to administer your PC is not economically possible. For some reasons people that do not have Linux admin in family manage to run Windows while they will fail square on running Linux. This is reality.
And it has really little to do with Linux technical (or lack of) superiority. Rather with politics and reality. Linux could be the best OS but with no or Little apps and drivers it will be where it is now. Not really existing on PC arena - only in limited setups such as your parents or in places where you like to have limited setups (I have little call center (10 PCs) running Linux).
But even for people that just wan't to do email, web and some IM and multimedia I think a good appliance (they just started to appear on the market) like game console that also can do all that would be better than full fledged PCs with all its flaws (not just those of operating system).
Or a Mac Mini.
> The problem with Linux -- or the difficulty for the average user
> -- is typically not so much the user experience, but administration.
> As it turns out, this is the same problem people tend to have with Windows.
Yes. Because it is not a problem - it is possible to do nice distribution that will work just fine for the user. Not harder than say OSX. The real problem is lack of applications (like games, tools, professional tools) and weak hardware support - please don't start with saying that hardware is not a problem. I am using Linux on daily basis and I see things have changed for better in the hardware front but it is still not so good. I am not speaking about general stuff like network or graphic cards - these are just fine in Linux. I am speaking f.e. printer (like integrated fax-scan-print-copy etc. machines), scanner, digital camera, few other little gizmos - for stuff like this open source model will not work since so little people use the camera integrated f.e. in a laptop that only exisiting driver is that for Windows. Maybe some hacker will sometime write a driver for it but it would be when the laptop is four years old...
So now it is the network effect - people do not do apps and drivers for Linux since not many people use it. Not many people use it since people do not do apps and drivers for Linux. And I don't expect it to change soon. Also other OSes are not standing in place.
It can't be Apple fault that they haven't tested and developed iTunes on Vista. It is not that Vista is quite new version and some stuff works different. It is not that Vista test versions were aviable from like half year which gives Apple plenty of time to actually *test* the software and issue new/corrected version timely.
To be honest I am to blame Apple for not testing their software with such significant (Windows is the biggest market for iTunes/iPod) OS release.
To judge technically there is not enough details - but given MS Windows quite good backward compatibility I guess that Apple did some ugly hack in iTunes (around the USB stack and similar things) and now it shows with new OS version.
Anyway if you are software vendor YOU NEED TO FUCKING TEST IT IN TARGET OPERATING SYSTEM.
> Linux is already good for very unexperienced users. The problem
> are users who were once introduced to windows, they are spoiled.
> It is about the same as when programmers are spoiled with the GOTO
> statement, it is possible to unlearn this mess but it takes a lot
> of effort.
This is BS. The problem with Linux is lack of applications *and* problematical hardware support. And that is basically it. There is no problem with users. Face it. Lying when advocating Linux is the worst thing you can do.
> However Linux is consumer ready already. Like for grandpa.
So this grandpa. Exactly where she should go to buy like software that works with Linux? A game maybe? Or an financial appliaction or smth.? This DVD that she bought with her newspaper - why it does not work with this Linux thingie?
This is Bad Advocacy what you are doing.
> Why should a computer 'just work'?
Ask parent poster - he expected Windows to Just Work - I don't expect my computer to Just Work for same reasons as yours. Complexity.
You've mentioned training to use a car and so on - I am not against it. But when I use my car I expect that when I make it stop it stops. If it does not stop the manufacturer (or the service) is in really deep shit. Now with computers - if your computer does not work nobody is really responsible - it is Just The Way It Is - computers usually tend to work.
> Linux is still not for everyone, and people need to come to terms with that.
Windows also is not for everyone. Take average user - make him install Windows. The installation will get borked with virii and other shit very quickly. Also during the process he will get annoyed with stuff like installing drivers and so on. I am not saying that Windows sucks and Linux is teh roxxxooorr. Please read on.
> We need to stop trying to convert the masses - it's still too early.
> Build a truly better operating system and you won't have to spend so
> much time trying to sell people on a free product.
Well. Maybe, just maybe Linux will never be on par with Windows. And it has nothing to do with technical superiority. Linux has quite different philosophy. If hardware vendors released specs for their hardware Linux would have superior (and I really belive that) hardware support. If software vendors would not patent everything that moves you would have no problem with any codecs, media playback and such under Linux. Etc.
It is just Linux philosophy to be free (as in speech) does not fit reality too much. It is nice OS (I am using it right now) but it is politics that makes it less freindly to end user.
> Wait until "it just works" otherwise we're going to continue to turn people off.
The Just Works slogan... is just a slogan. I use plethora of OSes - from Symbian via Windows Mobile, OSX, Linux, various BSDs, playing a little with Solaris, even Windows and some other more obscure stuff. Sadly none of them Just Work. Computing got to the state where you accept that something is good enough - but is far away from Just Works sadly.
My fridge Just Works, my microwave oven Just Works, my shower Just Works. My computers Just Seem Too Work - but really they often fail and require far more attention that they should.
Linux is not customer ready OS right now (like for grandpa or smth.). If it would it would be mainstream right now. But it isn't. The fact that it is not customer OS does not degrades its value. Linux (and other alternative free-as-in-speech unix OSes) has great value once you learn how to harvest it and make Linux to work for you.
;)
So with that in mind Linux is an OS for professionals and hobbyists/hackers.
For professionals right now it is I think mandatory to know Linux in *some* way. Even just in way to see that Windows works better for you. But it is essential to know Linux in way that lets you make clear decision of what to use. But anyway nobody ever got fired for buying MS - or was he?
For hobbyists Linux is a Must Have - if you are into computing and you like it you must try Linux since it may make nice things for you in some way or another. It does not mean that you need to dump Windows and go Linux exclusively - but it means that Linux has great potential and it is worth to use.
Linux advocacy has nothing to do with ease of use compared to Windows or whatever. If Windows is easier to use for you than go on - use it.
Heh I won't argue about the interface. Just two obvious facts:
:>
- hundreds bilion of people use normal phones like now and with no problem
- keyboard IS BETTER for inputting text than touchscreen
> I see people harping on about 3G. Sorry but it is a phone. If you
> want data access, go to a free WiFi access point at a Coffee shop.
Buahhaah.
- Sorry I need to go to Coffee shop I need to access some data with my laptop.
- Oh? Are you one of those iPhone users? Well. Go on while I'll stay here enjoying data access here sitting on this beach and having a coctail.
Pff.
>> The Iphone on the other hand is jumping into a saturated
>> market with plenty of REALLY good competition.
> You have forgotten, that is exactly what the iPod entered
> into as well.
No. It was not *exactly* the same market. The market of MP3 players was a market of devices that just play stuff. Nobody really cared about it.
Teleco (that is bacically it) market is operated by carriers (service providers), not handset manufacturers.
It is basically a whole lot different market.
> A market that was fairly far along, with a lot of products
> that offered more features than the iPod.
Well bacic feature of MP3 player was to play music. iPod leveraged that to other functions. Now basic market for telephones is to make calls - I don't see iPhone making better calls that others. It for sure does not do video calls - here in Europe it is a huge boom already (in Asia it had already happened). You can call somebody and see him/her - this is a big boom. So here it is just another handset that does not do video - the worse one.
> if they do not have the same feature count as other smart
> phones, they will do quite well.
First of all iPhone is not a smartphone. Second - it depends on expectations. From music player you expect that it plays music and does it well (also has nice interface). Well for phone I expect that it does calls offers high speed data access (iPhone does not), and does video (iPhone does not).
My main point is that given that presentation anybody (like Nokia/Samsung/SonyEricsson/whatever with whatever decent carrier) right now could have just dissed Jobs in his presentation, like:
...
Jobs: Well iPhone does not have a keyboard and contact books are hard in other phones.
Anybody: Well are you retarded? Anybody can use contact book in a phone and call somebody and keyboards are nice for inputting text.
Jobs: But iPhone is like iPod.
Anybody: Well here you are probably right - iPhone plays music. We also do. But ours are not like iPod. Point for you.
Jobs: And we can do web browsing and email.
Anybody: Please Steve, stop being retarded - we do web browsing and email for ages. We also do this faster, like you now that 3G thingie.
Jobs: 3G? Well... no 3G here but we have this nice touch interface...
Anybody: And video calls? Can you do that?
Jobs: Vi...vi...video? No but we have these nice photos here that you can show your granny on this tiny screen...
Anybody: But no video calls? How about a high speed Internet access?
Jobs: We have these nice widgets here...
Anybody: So you cannot use your phone for high speed Internet access for your portable computer?
Jobs: Not really. But check it out - Google.
Etc.
Lack of 3G is the biggest mistake.
Well maybe they are not longer into computers? I don't really know how the income of Apple looks (like how much of it are iPods and how much are Macs) but maybe they can get more money (and this is what they are here for) selling consumer electronics like iPods and such than Macs?
I am not stating that they will drop Macs or smth. but just maybe they are going to get more money (and this is what investors want) the other way. They had dropped "computers" from the name.
> No video downloads over EDGE, and audio downloads will
:)
> pause while you are speaking on the phone. Furthermore,
> it doesn't even seem that it will have a J2ME stack.
First things first - I don't need my phone to download any audio or video. I use it for communicating, you know - calling people and stuff. The my PC or Media PC can download video just fine and display it on decent (i.e. not 5x3cm) screen. As for audio I hardly see *ANY* phone downloading like 60 minutes of decent quality music - I'd rather sync music with my phone for PC.
Well just about today I did like one hour (total) call with my friend with VISION - like you know - videotelephony. This is fucking cool I think. Like before (I know - in Asia they do this for ages) in SF novels and such. Now - just press a button and you actually *see* the other person. I do this with Samsung handset. I guess this is very uncool - it would be cooler and hippier to not to do it with Apple branded stuff.
The iPhone simply sucks - maybe that is the point why the whole announcement of it was a mistake.
> i dont think apple is really going after the IT crowd with
:) Like right today I spend like hour talking to my friends with VISION. Not like this is cool or smth. It is so uncool to just have videotelephony anyway in some normal Samsung/Nokia/whatever hardware - it is cool not to have it with Apple branded stuff!
> this, they are the only ones who will complain because it
> doesnt have feature X, rather than focusing on how well it
> performs the things it can do.
Oh.
Oh! Did I mentioned that I did it for free (well, not paying for it since I and my friends are in some 3G testing here and we also get these handsets for free)?
But I guess you can well... just talk (come on! everybody does video now)... with this new trendy iPhone of yours? How lame.
Yes, I am an IT worker. Yes. I think iPhone in its current shape is overpiced piece of shit.
Just probably anybody that goes into any cooperation with Microsoft gets kicked in the ass by MS later.
Speaking of multimedia/DRM systems MS once had a program called "PlaysForSure". It was targeted towards hardware manufacturers which produce media players and ones that sell media via Internet. It offered these parties an option to cooperate under MS PlaysForSure umbrella - so hardware manufacturers that produce media players would design their hardware to these "specs", media selling companies would design their services to operate with the devices - all of course using and licensing MS technology called Windows Media. Well looks good - no.
After MS released their Zune it happened that their device does not "PlaysForSure" and cannot connect to other services.
How MSish.
I cannot think of a company that ever succeded in partnering MS. Well maybe exept Intel and Citrix.
> What would be an obvious way? (You are not allowed to assume
:)
> that users already know how to do this in Word.)
Per document - in document properties alternatively somewhere around tools/spelling.
Per paragraph/text fragment - when you select text in context menu of that text under language/spelling or similar.
Per style - in style properties.
(...)
> I can sort of see that they're not really formatting options.
I guess thinking of such stuff like office-type application design the document model/properties should be divided into properties like formatig (format, layout, styles, visual stuff), structure (sections etc.), any other aids for tools (like said language settings, tools settings, etc.). I haven't really studied OpenDocument format specifications but I can guess they look something like I've described. Now if only interface would be constructed strictly reasembling these properties.
> There's a tension between the the requirement that it not
> be too alien for MS Office users and the general wish to
> make a good user interface. I would prefer to give the latter
> a higher priority, and I hope that now that MS Office itself
> has finally had some quite radical user interface changes the
> former requirement will be less of a competitive neceessity
> for OpenOffice.org's commercial backers.
I can fully agree with that.
> You read half my post :) Sure my teachers only view my work,
:)
OK - so here we do agree that for producing read-only documents like spec, letters, offers etc. PDF is most safe to use?
> but the Kitchen manager and restaurant owner both work on
> the same sheets. The kitchen manager is doing his work in
> OpenOffice. The restaraunt owner is doing his work in MSO.
With Calc/Excel compatibilit is better. I agree. Usually things work. But FYI Calc does not support some things that Excel does. Maybe you don't use this functions but we (I am talking about my office, pivot table, macros and such) do.
Also with Writer/Word I *do* encounter strange things. The formatting just blows away sometimes. Paragraphs tend to go right, right, right straight behind page area etc.
> This isn't real time collaboration, but that was never the
> point of my post, as well I am not saying that very high
> levels of document sharing and collaboration are going to work.
> I would have never assumed so. Thanks for clarifying your point.
OK. But I still insist on speaking the truth and not calling OOO compatible (since it is not) with MSO. It is not that there is something wrong with OOO - it is a great program. But telling people that it is compatible with MSO is just a lie. It is better to say that OOO *tries* (well there is a difference between trying and being) to be compatible - mostly it works. But there surely are issues (especially with advanced usage).