It would be 60% if the survey was of readers of Linux Format, as they put all the major Mandrake releases on their cover disks. This was how I got my first Linux distro (Mandrake 9.1) and although I'm not currently using it (my old PC was _very_ slow and took about 10 minutes to boot Mandrake!) I'll probably try Mandrake 10.0 as I was impressed with the 31/12/03 Cooker snapshot that I installed. They do an excellent job of bringing in newbies (who are of course tomorrows gurus) by aiming at the less technically experienced.
Let's face it, it beats the crap out of MS products on the server side, but on the desktop front it's usable, yet not ready for prime-time just yet. There are too many disparate systems for Average Joe to figure out what they do, let alone how to fix them when they go awry/get upgraded.
Am I the only person in the world for whom my Linux Desktop 'just works' without having to reconfigure everything?
OK, OK, I would be lying if I said I hadn't had any problems with it, but I have had just as many problems with Win2K. If I'd wanted to edit.conf files, I would have started off installing Debian or Gentoo. However my experience at the time wasn't up to that so I stuck to the free version of one of the commercial distros (Suse). Now I'm more ready to edit.conf files I might give Gentoo a go, but to be honest there are many companies out there making Linux administration as easy (if not easier) than Windows administration.
Long may those companies continue, they are the gatekeepers to the uptake of Linux in the mass market.
I'm a KDE user, but apart from a couple of small details that are specific to my use, could just as easily be a Gnome user. My points are:
1) Gnome provides competition that spurs KDE onto greatness, and KDE provides competition that spurs Gnome onto greatness in equal measure. This friendly (usually) competition has pushed both to improve greatly over time, and to some extent to converge in terms of the end user experience. If either one had not exisited, the remaining one would be far worse and far less refined than it already is. That this competition has exisited now means that we have two desktop environments, both of which are far superior to the most commonly used proprietary desktop (MS-windows).
2) It is a costly business for a distributor to provide full official support for a collection of software as large as a desktop environment. It therefore makes sense to pick one and stick with that; however this does NOT mean that the other will not run, just that it won't receive the same level of support. However, as long as there are other distributions that _do_ officially support the other desktop environment, it should still work well without a huge requirement for support. The fact that KDE is more popular among the 'big' distro providers means that KDE should work well with UserLinux whether or not it's officially supported.
3) Likewise, if UserLinux supports Gnome officially, it should be less of a burden for KDE-centric distros to use Gnome. Officially supported or not, as long as there are some distros which concentrate on KDE and others on Gnome, both should improve greatly, work well without official support and provide the end users with choice between two excellent desktops.
4) I don't see official support for KDE being such a big deal here, although obviously it will be a popular request due to its popularity and familiarity elsewhere.
5) We can therefore all live happily ever after.
Proprietary OSes will ultimately be left behind Open Source OSes in terms of security for the following reason.
In the fight against proprietary OS's such as Microshaft's, there is a big propaganda war with both sides saying "Look, your OS is insecure". Both OS's will have security holes discovered, and hopefully fixed, from time to time. That is a fact we have to live with. The rate at which they are discovered and fixed is roughly proportional to the number of people actively investigating holes in the OS (ignoring the fact that there might be other, political reasons to look for security holes one OS rather than another).
However as time goes on, we should expect the number of users of Debian (and GNU/Linux in general) to increase, hence the number of people discovering and fixing security holes will go up in proportion. This is the 'many eyeballs' effect. this will lead to GNU/Linux becoming ultimately very secure.
In contrast the number of people actively looking for security holes in, say windows, is proportional to the amount of money their perpetraitors (sic) are willing to spend in this task. This does not go up in proportion to the number of users. In fact as competition pushes prices down for proprietary offerings, the perpetrators find they have progressively _less_ money to spend on looking for security holes. Ultimately they will get left behind.
So we should see that Open Source OSes such as GNU/Linux will become more and more secure at a rate which accelerates much faster than for proprietary OSes.
At the moment, we have one OS which is used by 95% of the world's desktops, and scores fairly low on security (although it is improving). On the other hand, we have GNU/Linux which is used on something like 2% of the world's desktops (more on servers), and scores fairly high on security (although it's not perfect).
So from this small user-base, we have already benefitted from the 'many eyeballs' effect of Open Source to gain an advantage over the competition in this respect. This advantage can only accelerate, for the reasons I have outlined above.
Ultimately we should expect to see Open Source winning on all fronts in terms of reliability, functionality and security. It will never be perfect and there will always be crackers trying to spoil the party, but it will be a lot better than today's situation. We just need to work hard to make this happen sooner rather than later, as it will be a long haul...........
Maybe I misunderstand the US legal system, but.....why a class action? Why not a huge number of individual actions in different jurisdictions? This would put a far higher burnen on their legal system, and could potentially drown them if enough actions against them were filed. I know that the outcome of one case could be applied to others, but this would take time to achieve, and in the meantime they could be drowned in a sea of legal red tape that would make it cheaper simply to drop the whole thing.
OTOH, a case going to completion could show the GPL to be robust and obviate the 'need' for future litigation.
We should be encouraging complete freedom to copy any music as much as we want - by only supporting artists that release their music with an open license, such as that at http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php
These people have no interest in imposing DRM, restrictions, proprietary formats etc. and deserve our support. This is what peer to peer should be about - the freedom to copy anything as much as we want. It's the same issue as with open source software - the proprietary mindset of microsoft and their mates is good for them in the short term, but ultimately damaging for the consumer. That's why we should support open source software . If a wider number of musicians were promoting themselves in this way, they would do better for themselves and would make the world a better place for everyone. The RIAA simply runs on greed, and the abuse of what amounts to a monopoly position - just as a certain software company has done recently.
The corollary is that we should be willing to pay for 'open' goods, as doing so helps them to stay 'open'.
Have a look at:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php
I think we should be doing our best to encourage artists to publish their own music under a free licence such as this, by downloading and listening to their music - after all that will ultimately make them more popular and hence more able to make a living from live concerts.
After all, why should the RIAA and it's ilk make a living out of other people's talents, while simultaneously overpumping a very small number of artists and ignoring the vast majority who's artistic talent is equally good (sometimes better)?
Yes I will buy music, but not from any organisation that has anything to do with the RIAA.
The US has always insisted on doing things it's own way, while the rest of the world works together to be interoperable with each other. Look at GSM cellphones, where the US is now playing catchup. Or NTSC/PAL, where most of the rest of the world uses a better standard (for what it was originally designed at least). The US is such a big market that it doesn't have a great need to work with the rest of the world.
So here, the rest of the world is moving on as it does not want to be held to ransom by a foreign company taking it's dollars for computer operating systems and software (or Euros, or Pounds or whatever) and is gradually moving towards a common standard which, incidentally, can support local businesses rather than foreign ones.
I guess the US government will simply carry on down it's own path, in this case paying a local company (MS) so the money stays in the country. Only when the rest of the world has become standardised on open source and open standards will the US govt stop and think, hang on, we're missing a trick here. Even then, it may not care as it will be paying a local company. Lack of interoperability with the rest of the world has never been much of an issue in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Long live Mandrake!!!
Am I the only person in the world for whom my Linux Desktop 'just works' without having to reconfigure everything? OK, OK, I would be lying if I said I hadn't had any problems with it, but I have had just as many problems with Win2K. If I'd wanted to edit .conf files, I would have started off installing Debian or Gentoo. However my experience at the time wasn't up to that so I stuck to the free version of one of the commercial distros (Suse). Now I'm more ready to edit .conf files I might give Gentoo a go, but to be honest there are many companies out there making Linux administration as easy (if not easier) than Windows administration.
Long may those companies continue, they are the gatekeepers to the uptake of Linux in the mass market.
I'm a KDE user, but apart from a couple of small details that are specific to my use, could just as easily be a Gnome user. My points are: 1) Gnome provides competition that spurs KDE onto greatness, and KDE provides competition that spurs Gnome onto greatness in equal measure. This friendly (usually) competition has pushed both to improve greatly over time, and to some extent to converge in terms of the end user experience. If either one had not exisited, the remaining one would be far worse and far less refined than it already is. That this competition has exisited now means that we have two desktop environments, both of which are far superior to the most commonly used proprietary desktop (MS-windows). 2) It is a costly business for a distributor to provide full official support for a collection of software as large as a desktop environment. It therefore makes sense to pick one and stick with that; however this does NOT mean that the other will not run, just that it won't receive the same level of support. However, as long as there are other distributions that _do_ officially support the other desktop environment, it should still work well without a huge requirement for support. The fact that KDE is more popular among the 'big' distro providers means that KDE should work well with UserLinux whether or not it's officially supported. 3) Likewise, if UserLinux supports Gnome officially, it should be less of a burden for KDE-centric distros to use Gnome. Officially supported or not, as long as there are some distros which concentrate on KDE and others on Gnome, both should improve greatly, work well without official support and provide the end users with choice between two excellent desktops. 4) I don't see official support for KDE being such a big deal here, although obviously it will be a popular request due to its popularity and familiarity elsewhere. 5) We can therefore all live happily ever after.
Proprietary OSes will ultimately be left behind Open Source OSes in terms of security for the following reason. In the fight against proprietary OS's such as Microshaft's, there is a big propaganda war with both sides saying "Look, your OS is insecure". Both OS's will have security holes discovered, and hopefully fixed, from time to time. That is a fact we have to live with. The rate at which they are discovered and fixed is roughly proportional to the number of people actively investigating holes in the OS (ignoring the fact that there might be other, political reasons to look for security holes one OS rather than another). However as time goes on, we should expect the number of users of Debian (and GNU/Linux in general) to increase, hence the number of people discovering and fixing security holes will go up in proportion. This is the 'many eyeballs' effect. this will lead to GNU/Linux becoming ultimately very secure. In contrast the number of people actively looking for security holes in, say windows, is proportional to the amount of money their perpetraitors (sic) are willing to spend in this task. This does not go up in proportion to the number of users. In fact as competition pushes prices down for proprietary offerings, the perpetrators find they have progressively _less_ money to spend on looking for security holes. Ultimately they will get left behind. So we should see that Open Source OSes such as GNU/Linux will become more and more secure at a rate which accelerates much faster than for proprietary OSes. At the moment, we have one OS which is used by 95% of the world's desktops, and scores fairly low on security (although it is improving). On the other hand, we have GNU/Linux which is used on something like 2% of the world's desktops (more on servers), and scores fairly high on security (although it's not perfect). So from this small user-base, we have already benefitted from the 'many eyeballs' effect of Open Source to gain an advantage over the competition in this respect. This advantage can only accelerate, for the reasons I have outlined above. Ultimately we should expect to see Open Source winning on all fronts in terms of reliability, functionality and security. It will never be perfect and there will always be crackers trying to spoil the party, but it will be a lot better than today's situation. We just need to work hard to make this happen sooner rather than later, as it will be a long haul...........
Maybe I misunderstand the US legal system, but.....why a class action? Why not a huge number of individual actions in different jurisdictions? This would put a far higher burnen on their legal system, and could potentially drown them if enough actions against them were filed. I know that the outcome of one case could be applied to others, but this would take time to achieve, and in the meantime they could be drowned in a sea of legal red tape that would make it cheaper simply to drop the whole thing. OTOH, a case going to completion could show the GPL to be robust and obviate the 'need' for future litigation.
We should be encouraging complete freedom to copy any music as much as we want - by only supporting artists that release their music with an open license, such as that at http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php These people have no interest in imposing DRM, restrictions, proprietary formats etc. and deserve our support. This is what peer to peer should be about - the freedom to copy anything as much as we want. It's the same issue as with open source software - the proprietary mindset of microsoft and their mates is good for them in the short term, but ultimately damaging for the consumer. That's why we should support open source software . If a wider number of musicians were promoting themselves in this way, they would do better for themselves and would make the world a better place for everyone. The RIAA simply runs on greed, and the abuse of what amounts to a monopoly position - just as a certain software company has done recently. The corollary is that we should be willing to pay for 'open' goods, as doing so helps them to stay 'open'.
Have a look at: http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.php I think we should be doing our best to encourage artists to publish their own music under a free licence such as this, by downloading and listening to their music - after all that will ultimately make them more popular and hence more able to make a living from live concerts. After all, why should the RIAA and it's ilk make a living out of other people's talents, while simultaneously overpumping a very small number of artists and ignoring the vast majority who's artistic talent is equally good (sometimes better)? Yes I will buy music, but not from any organisation that has anything to do with the RIAA.
The US has always insisted on doing things it's own way, while the rest of the world works together to be interoperable with each other. Look at GSM cellphones, where the US is now playing catchup. Or NTSC/PAL, where most of the rest of the world uses a better standard (for what it was originally designed at least). The US is such a big market that it doesn't have a great need to work with the rest of the world.
So here, the rest of the world is moving on as it does not want to be held to ransom by a foreign company taking it's dollars for computer operating systems and software (or Euros, or Pounds or whatever) and is gradually moving towards a common standard which, incidentally, can support local businesses rather than foreign ones.
I guess the US government will simply carry on down it's own path, in this case paying a local company (MS) so the money stays in the country. Only when the rest of the world has become standardised on open source and open standards will the US govt stop and think, hang on, we're missing a trick here. Even then, it may not care as it will be paying a local company. Lack of interoperability with the rest of the world has never been much of an issue in the US.