The unfortunate reality is the humans are creatures of habit, don't like change and don't like being in unfamiliar territory.
The one thing that's really kept me with Linux as of late is the fact that I can tune it and customize it a whole lot. In the case of a desktop environment I can even change the underlying window manager and I can't explain how impressed I am when I run Konqueror inside of Gnome (I love Konq as a file manager!) and it just works with this completely different setup.
For someone like me, a tech and a control freak and someone who loves to toy with things, this is great. Unfortunately I'm a minority. So are a lot of other developers.
I think Apple's strength isn't in its lack of openess but rather the fact that it's a company. Open source projects are of, by and for programmers. Apple, on the other hand, has developers, but there's more to the company than that.
This being said, their GUI is tuned nicely from the start and MOST people won't do a lot of changing. Just because something can be fine tuned doesn't mean it will be.
Apple's GUI stands on its own because it is both beautiful and functional out of the box, period. Often times projects don't understand the importance of both of those factors and it's usually obvious which one of the two got the most effort.
When someone non technical sees me working in Gnome, they don't generally say anything and aren't terribly interested. It looks nice but, particularly its look right out of the box, it's nothing that makes you go, "Wow!" Whereas, when most non technical types walk by my friend on his iMac (one of the newer flat screen ones) they go "Wow, what's that?"
Apple sells and impressive package that's useful AND beautiful and it's that way out of the box. Whether or not you can change the way it looks is irrelevant because MOST people won't.
In order to get to the point of being a monopoly you have to get quite the user base first. Microsoft didn't just appear from an abyss with a sudden monopoly (if you can really even call it that).
Gates made a lot of very smart, very cut throat, very shady decisions that put him on top. I'm not saying this is an example of a good company that got out of hand. I'm just saying there's a lot more than the monopoly factor. It explains MS now, but certainly not how they came to be.
And yeah, "innovation" is word that's used WAY too much. It's almost as bad as the word "solution." Everyone is selling "solutions" now-a-days. Thank goodness I'm just a tech.
Linux can be tedious to set up but I'm so sick and tired of hearing, "But Windows is so much easier. Bash is too hard. Config files are too hard." My mom uses Linux, you know why? Because I set her computer up. It boots into a GUI and a nice clean windowed environment with graphical icons to let her get into all the programs she needs. Is Mozilla Firebird more complex in Linux than in Windows? Is it more complex than IE?
My dad still uses Windows because unlike my mom who finally decided to stop being a luddite my dad's been using one for years and has apps he's used to. Still, that's all he knows. When he needs a new email account set up, the background changed or whatever, who does he call? Me. Whether it's a check box or a config file he's gonna call me.
My point? Either you're the type that can tweak a computer in which case it doesn't matter if it's a config file or something in a preferences menu because you're trained enough to figure it out or you're the type that's gonna call a tech.
I'm sitting here using Xfce4 right now and I almost never touch the shell for standard, day to day operations. I do for certain file management tasks, network troubleshooting and compiling but is the average yutz gonna do that? No.
Ultimately we're talking about an organization who has no problem spending MY money on a $400 toilet seat, so why should they even worry about evaluating an alternative?
I can see using Windows because they're used to it. That makes sense. But I'm so sick and tired of hearing crap like, "These guys don't give a shit about learning the wonders of the bash shell." There is NO NEED TO EVER SEE A CLI IN LINUX! The Windows GUI isn't any "easier." Clicking an icon and running a program is pretty much the same in both arenas.
Heh. Linux is all about choice? From a technological standpoint this seems true, but I swear... I can't even begin to count the number of jackasses that tell me that choice sets Linux apart from commercial OSes like any of Microsoft's offerings and then turn around to tell me what distro I need to use in order to be a real man.
You distro freaks kill me. Seriously. On a daily basis I find myself amazed at the diversity and coolness of the open source world from both a technological and idealistic point of view. There's just a whole lot going on and a whole lot to choose from.
Of course, in the mix there are a bunch of pricks who have to tell people to do crap like get a "real distro." I'd ask you what exactly qualifies as a "real distro" but you'd simply reply with "Debian."
Linux and, more importantly open source are about choice. Choice. Choosing. Why? Because we're not the same as the Microsoft/Corporate world would like to make everyone think. You like Debian. Great. Is Debian more real than Redhat or SuSE or Slackware? Nope.
I use two distros on a regular basis, Slackware and Gentoo. Is either better? Yeah, for their intended tasks. My servers are Slack boxes and my desktop is a Gentoo box. Seeing as I'm typing this in Mozilla Firebird right now, it seems safe to assume that this is a "real" Linux distro in that my computer is up and running and working nicely.
There's no such thing as a "real" distribution. There's no light to see. There's no moment of holy communion. It's an OS you jackass. And like everything else in the world one size, no matter how flexible, does not fit all.
Slashdot Mirror
The unfortunate reality is the humans are creatures of habit, don't like change and don't like being in unfamiliar territory.
The one thing that's really kept me with Linux as of late is the fact that I can tune it and customize it a whole lot. In the case of a desktop environment I can even change the underlying window manager and I can't explain how impressed I am when I run Konqueror inside of Gnome (I love Konq as a file manager!) and it just works with this completely different setup.
For someone like me, a tech and a control freak and someone who loves to toy with things, this is great. Unfortunately I'm a minority. So are a lot of other developers.
I think Apple's strength isn't in its lack of openess but rather the fact that it's a company. Open source projects are of, by and for programmers. Apple, on the other hand, has developers, but there's more to the company than that.
This being said, their GUI is tuned nicely from the start and MOST people won't do a lot of changing. Just because something can be fine tuned doesn't mean it will be.
Apple's GUI stands on its own because it is both beautiful and functional out of the box, period. Often times projects don't understand the importance of both of those factors and it's usually obvious which one of the two got the most effort.
When someone non technical sees me working in Gnome, they don't generally say anything and aren't terribly interested. It looks nice but, particularly its look right out of the box, it's nothing that makes you go, "Wow!" Whereas, when most non technical types walk by my friend on his iMac (one of the newer flat screen ones) they go "Wow, what's that?"
Apple sells and impressive package that's useful AND beautiful and it's that way out of the box. Whether or not you can change the way it looks is irrelevant because MOST people won't.
In order to get to the point of being a monopoly you have to get quite the user base first. Microsoft didn't just appear from an abyss with a sudden monopoly (if you can really even call it that).
Gates made a lot of very smart, very cut throat, very shady decisions that put him on top. I'm not saying this is an example of a good company that got out of hand. I'm just saying there's a lot more than the monopoly factor. It explains MS now, but certainly not how they came to be.
And yeah, "innovation" is word that's used WAY too much. It's almost as bad as the word "solution." Everyone is selling "solutions" now-a-days. Thank goodness I'm just a tech.
Linux can be tedious to set up but I'm so sick and tired of hearing, "But Windows is so much easier. Bash is too hard. Config files are too hard." My mom uses Linux, you know why? Because I set her computer up. It boots into a GUI and a nice clean windowed environment with graphical icons to let her get into all the programs she needs. Is Mozilla Firebird more complex in Linux than in Windows? Is it more complex than IE? My dad still uses Windows because unlike my mom who finally decided to stop being a luddite my dad's been using one for years and has apps he's used to. Still, that's all he knows. When he needs a new email account set up, the background changed or whatever, who does he call? Me. Whether it's a check box or a config file he's gonna call me. My point? Either you're the type that can tweak a computer in which case it doesn't matter if it's a config file or something in a preferences menu because you're trained enough to figure it out or you're the type that's gonna call a tech. I'm sitting here using Xfce4 right now and I almost never touch the shell for standard, day to day operations. I do for certain file management tasks, network troubleshooting and compiling but is the average yutz gonna do that? No. Ultimately we're talking about an organization who has no problem spending MY money on a $400 toilet seat, so why should they even worry about evaluating an alternative? I can see using Windows because they're used to it. That makes sense. But I'm so sick and tired of hearing crap like, "These guys don't give a shit about learning the wonders of the bash shell." There is NO NEED TO EVER SEE A CLI IN LINUX! The Windows GUI isn't any "easier." Clicking an icon and running a program is pretty much the same in both arenas.
Heh. Linux is all about choice? From a technological standpoint this seems true, but I swear... I can't even begin to count the number of jackasses that tell me that choice sets Linux apart from commercial OSes like any of Microsoft's offerings and then turn around to tell me what distro I need to use in order to be a real man.
You distro freaks kill me. Seriously. On a daily basis I find myself amazed at the diversity and coolness of the open source world from both a technological and idealistic point of view. There's just a whole lot going on and a whole lot to choose from.
Of course, in the mix there are a bunch of pricks who have to tell people to do crap like get a "real distro." I'd ask you what exactly qualifies as a "real distro" but you'd simply reply with "Debian."
Linux and, more importantly open source are about choice. Choice. Choosing. Why? Because we're not the same as the Microsoft/Corporate world would like to make everyone think. You like Debian. Great. Is Debian more real than Redhat or SuSE or Slackware? Nope.
I use two distros on a regular basis, Slackware and Gentoo. Is either better? Yeah, for their intended tasks. My servers are Slack boxes and my desktop is a Gentoo box. Seeing as I'm typing this in Mozilla Firebird right now, it seems safe to assume that this is a "real" Linux distro in that my computer is up and running and working nicely.
There's no such thing as a "real" distribution. There's no light to see. There's no moment of holy communion. It's an OS you jackass. And like everything else in the world one size, no matter how flexible, does not fit all.