I never cease to be amazed by those from the USA that seem to thin Neil Armstrong walking on the moon was the crowing achievement in the long an arduous race between the US and the USSR, whre the US emerged triumphant.
It wasn't. The US lost the race when Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space on April 12, 1961, orbiting the Earth for 108 minutes in Vostok 1.
You have an ATAPI IDE CDROM writer. ATAPI uses a SCSI like command set over an IDE bus.
The `CD ROM' is/dev/hdx, the IDE device for your CD writer
The `CD writer' is/dev/scdx, the SCSI device for your writer.
UDF and DVD ioctl support is is Linux 2.2.16 or 2.40 or newer. There's some serious bugs in 2.4.1 which mean you`ll want to avoid that particular version.
Since iso9660 bears a similarity to UDF, you can actually mount many DVDs using this driver, but they'll fail when ISO9660 does - after 2 gig.
The way it is now, some distribute RPMs, some use apt-get, and some distribute tarballs (with different compression formats).
Excellent post, but APT get isn't a packaging system. You meant to say Deb. Furthermore, APT get is designed to be packaging system independent and currently works with RPM or Deb.
File Open dialogues should be customized between GNOME/GTK and KDE/QT applications.
Its amazes me when people keep telling me `yes, but different people work on GNOME and KDE' as some type of magical excuse (not you specifically, but in general). So?!?! Lack of consistency is hurting Linux desktops more than competitoion is enhancing it anyway, but that's a point for another day. Sit down with each other and work out a standard design. If you're *really* worried, juts make somethign that looks the same in your respective toolkits.
Actually, there's no reason why anyone couldn't use apt-get to install binary closed source packages. Combined with encryption it could even allow you to purchase them from a distriobution mirror of those packages, with a small portion of the funds going to your vendor.
I'm probably not talking about Debian here, since most commercial software isn't tested too well on Debian or released as.deb. However, the newer APT based distros like Mandrake 8 and Connectiva should definitely expand APT (or libraries) to handle this. It saves admins time and hassle and makes them a little cash too.
As for where oracle should put its stuff, it should probably use/opt.
It should if it didn't come with the distro. if it did come with the distro (eg, Red Hat + Oracle, of free databases which do and don't come with distriobutions) it should live in/usr/local, according to the FHS list (the FHS itself is very unclear).
Hey wait...same package...two locations. I can't sit down on a machine and know where it lives anymore. Oh my God! Maybe/opt is broken!
Amongst all that, I forgot another important point:
*/opt was designed for closed source Unices where there is a clear delineation between OS vendor and third parties. That same delineation exists within Linux, but since the same package can be provided within or without a distribution, its not consistent. A distribution (which includes package x) puts x into its FHS annointed spot. A user running a distributions without package x who installs it puts in its FHS annointed spot.
Same package. Same base standard. Two completely inconsistent locations. I can no longer sit down at a machine and know where package X is instaleld anymore. This is the exact type of thing the FHS is set out to prevent.
The wording in the FHS and its use on the mailing list arenear polar opposites.
The FHS itself uses the wording `optiona' to describe things that go in/opt. Since this is completely arbitrary (neither distributions nor users nor admins nor ISVs have a consistent concept of `optional' software), the FHS itself is fairly poor in this regard.
But ask on the FHS mailing list, and your response will be: ifs its an application that needs its own tree, it should live in/opt, especially it its from an ISV.
If its something you've compiled yourself (which you want to have its own tree, thus being seperate from your packaged applications) it should live in/usr/local.
For one, I think/opt should be dtruck from the FHS. The only reason anyone uses to justify its existence in backwards compatibility - so I'd add a note
Why kill/opt?
* Because Unix applicatioons should be structured by the types of files (ie, documentation, configuration,etc)and their role within the system (ie, whether being a base level component (eg, needed to boot and run nearly all programs)./opt breaks this.
* Because we don't need any more subdirectories under /
* Because people actually believe the FHS when it uses the term `optional' and decide to stick whatever fits their own personal definition of `optional' this week into the directory.
* Because "`/opt" is becoming "Program Files" of the Unix world and a dumping ground for badly written apps that use their own heirarchies making the filesystem even more of a mess
* Because I'd rather break compatibility (even in such a small way) than include this *hack* into the FHS simple for the reasons of backwards compatibility. I'm a DevFS / ACL / boot sanity / Xrender / DRI type of guy - if somethings is broken, I want it fixed, regardless of whether its popular in flavors of Unix I don't use. They don't set the standards any more, we do.
* becuase plenty of people also dislike/opt, including it seems most people on the FHS list and Alan Cox. Most of these would also prefer to see the directory phased out over time.
Re:Still no support for resumable desktops
on
Low-Bandwidth X
·
· Score: 2
1.Use my same desktop from anywhere in the house
2. Access my home's desktop from the computer laboratory in town
x0rfbserver. A Unix/Linux VNC server that acts like a Windows one, where the remote user takes over the desktop.
Send us a link, please. Show us the e-commerce systems that got hit by the ramen worm. Show us the gateway servers, the DB servers, the web servers that got hit by the ramen worm.
the things is that Microsoft doesn't offer any vendor support for basic patches (which are called hotfixes). These patches (which come out a week of two after the announce aren't regression tested or supported by MS. The patches that Red Hat put out a week after most exploits ARE vendor supported. Odd how MS have no confidence in their product.
MS makes admins wait to install monolithic Service packs which not onyl fix my bug, but add funcationaltiy and fix other bugs too. In the process of doing so, they break systems. I don;t know about the 2K certification, but the NT4 MCSE classes told us to never install a service pack unless you needed something fixed and were sure it wouldn't melt the server.
Thanks for trying to help. But Quake has a shotgun. Will Word do that?
No offence, but emacs isn't designed for the task I'm doing. It spell checkers and lack of visualness (yes, I know writers need only be concerned about structure, but I word faster if HEADING I NEED TO EDIT jumps out at me).
And again, I have no choice in the matter, and must submit in word. Its nice not to have to task switch to do that.
What is wrong with plaintext with a simple markup here and there?
Because without things like fonts and headers, most people are less productive. Most tools ehich edit these things don't work visually and therefore slow me down. KLyx works well, but works with TeX rather than SGML. Vi and emacs have poor spell checkers and are designed for syntax highlighting C or Perl, no typing out long documents with images.
Your publisher uses word.doc files? Christ that must be an ineffecient operation!
No matter hot much eithe of us complain the publisher won't change until Linux runs the world, and until then we have to interoperate with them more than they have to interoperate with us. It might suck, but its reality.
Don't blame your lack of knowledge on the proper procedure for creating a nicely formatted published work on the OS.
*laughs*. Why is it that you immediately assume I've never heard of piping and redirection and wc, and find the need to be rude to those that don't? ? Or that I have no idea about structured document app or makup languages? I do. But in this case I need to run somethimg which outputs Word.
My point was that you didn't need a modern operating system to have a reasonable friendly Windows/Icons/Menus/Pointer type GUI environment in Windows (maybe Mandrake 7.0, but that's still less than a year old). You do in Linux. This is because Windows had these features before Linux did.
Since the article is talking about user friendly OSs, the minimum for a user friendly OS in the Windows world is older software than the minimum for a user friendly OS in the Linux world.
MandrakeUpdate and Red Hat are limited to official updates to the distro itself. If I run Red Hat, but don't like using Sendmail because it runs as root when it doesn't need to and has options for things I don't use, like UUCP, I can't use Red Hat Update Agent to get Postfix. I have to spent a short amount of time of rpmfind hunting for it, and often a longer amount of time fixing the long chains of dependencies for it to install.
Actually, most software from 98 runs well on 2000 and Microsoft are attempting to make more of it work on Whistler.
Vacatio nis the software used by almost every Unix implementation to perform automatic replies to incoming messages for a particular email account. Ie, for users on vacation it sends `I'm away from my mail' on their behalf to people that email them. Its very popular.
No, most distros are either Deb or RPM based. APT is a packaging system independent tool capable of finding dopwnloading and resolving dependencies on Deb or RPM based distributions. Unlike Mandrake Update and Red Hat Network, it is not limited to vendor supplies updates.
I use rpmfind quite frequently. It doesn't have all the RPMS available for my distribution, and often if they do they're built for a newer version, and require long chains of dependencies I have to resolve myself.
Apparently not everyone can get their facts straight either. This author is talking about downloading patches via gopher for chrissake.
She's not being literal. She means there no single place to download patches from (unless you cunt APT based distros, but most aren't) and there's no uniform format to get them in (though this is changing). URLs break often - I can't even find the homepage of vacation or the current maintainer (help appreciated).
For my research articles the publisher often likes to have the LaTeX source to be able to format things properly. Guess what, Office 2000 does not output that.
Agreed -Office 2000 could be way better, especially for structured documents, PDF, etc. However unfortunately MS Office has the majority of desktops right now, and we have (for a little while anyway) to be compatible with them more than they have to be compatible with us.
When we win the desktop, this will change. But we won't win the desktop if new Linux users can't read and send documents to their (still Windows based) counterparts.
Office 97 went to market in, oddly enough, 97. It is the most popular office suite in use today, as you know. That's why I chose it. Windows 95 or 98 might be old, but they provide a UI on the sam level that Linux meaning things likde KDE2) has only had avaliable for a short time.
Red Hat 7 with Afterstep is not a comparable UI experience as MacOS, Windows 9x / NT. And yes, that you have the choice is a huge advantage for Linux. But most users, IMHO, would prefer the existing WIMP experience over a fast and unclutter Window Manager. Right or wrong, to get Linux on the desktop, you'll have to provide this.
Why do people continually say X takes a lot of RAM. It doesn't.
You're right of course. I mean a modern Window/Icons/Menus/pounter type GUI desktop environment based on X, now just X by itself, providing equivalent `friendliness' to a Macintosh or Windows machine.
There are *tons* of word processor programs for Linux, including Word Perfect.
Yes there are. As a journalist, I need to write articles that conform to page limits (400 per page) and submit then is.doc format. None of them can handle this function (I use Staroffice clunkily anyway, but Word does work better). Here's why:
* StarOffice won't let me do a word count on a selecton
* OpenOffice isn't stable, and didn't do sectional word counts anyway
* Abiword isn't finished
* Applix doesn't even HAVE a word count.
* KWord can't output stably to Office 97
* WordPerfect Office 2000 works great on Windows and is a pleasure to use. However, the WINE absed Linux version is inconsistently unbreably slow in its GUI and crashes rather often. I (meaning Cybersource) purchased a copy and we got burnt because we can't use it - it's that bad. A QT of GTK version would be wonderful and well worth the cash. A WINE version is not, at least at this current stage (perhaps a service pack might change my mind).
with 128M of RAM and a 220 MHz processor...Office is zippy on those specs? Please.
It is. X takes a lot of RAM, and while KDE and GNOME are growing slimmer by the second, they do too. Office 97 and Windows 95 will run on a P133 w/ 32 Mb of RAM. Not great, but okay. KDE (itself) will take 4 minutes between logon and desktop.
Huh? It's been around since '91 and has been "hot" for the last two years at least... hardly "flavour of the week".
Flavour of the week in an expression. Yes, Linux has only been popular for a relatively short time compared to Windows or netware or MacOS.
Upgrade this driver", "fiddle with this registry setting", etc
There's complexity in installing Windows apps, but the above comments are completely out of touch. NT and 2K Administrators touch the registry quite often. Regular users don't. Very few apps require driver upgrades.
However, I do agree in that a solid packaging system (which needs much more work on standardized package names, capabilities, granularity, naming conventions, etc) combined with a decent utility like apt-get (prolly on a RPM distribution - its the LSB and a more popular system) would provide an incredibly easy to use installation system.
But in the meantime its Gimp needs LibGimp needs GTK upgrade needs Bonobo upgrade needs GlibC upgrade. And that sucks. Still. there's only a couple on months before an easyto use apt based distribution (Mandrake 8) is released.
Duh. Welcome to Free Software, babe. That's the whole *point*.
I thought the point of free software was that it was more ethical to use Free Software than closed source software? In terms of Open Source, that's the exact opposite of Open Source - remember release early, release often? ESR has the same beliefs as this guy, and the B&B emphasises making stable, useable released as frequently as possible (and treating those who give feedback with respect as well, by the way). Besides, some people use Linux for the same reason they use MS Word - because for their task, its the best tool for the job.
I don't know what she's on, but the default Mandrake install, which boots into KDE, looks remarkably similar to other *cough*Windows*cough* GUIs.
Agreed. Mandrake would easily have to be the closest thing to getting Linux going on the desktop. But (for now) things like software installation are still headaches (lacking apt-get till version 8).
I'm salivating at the thought.:) But anyway, I see no problem with her feedback and these are all valid criticisms in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
I never cease to be amazed by those from the USA that seem to thin Neil Armstrong walking on the moon was the crowing achievement in the long an arduous race between the US and the USSR, whre the US emerged triumphant.
It wasn't. The US lost the race when Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space on April 12, 1961, orbiting the Earth for 108 minutes in Vostok 1.
You have an ATAPI IDE CDROM writer. ATAPI uses a SCSI like command set over an IDE bus.
/dev/hdx, the IDE device for your CD writer
/dev/scdx, the SCSI device for your writer.
The `CD ROM' is
The `CD writer' is
UDF and DVD ioctl support is is Linux 2.2.16 or 2.40 or newer. There's some serious bugs in 2.4.1 which mean you`ll want to avoid that particular version.
Since iso9660 bears a similarity to UDF, you can actually mount many DVDs using this driver, but they'll fail when ISO9660 does - after 2 gig.
But Adobe stuff is closed source and ends up in /usr/local...
/usr/lib [!] which contradicts the FHS completely (yes, binaries can go here, no, documenatation are sample files cannot).
/opt.
Actually, it doesn't. At least not in ANY of the acroread packages on RPMfind.net.
Red Hat put in in
Everyone else puts it in
The way it is now, some distribute RPMs, some use apt-get, and some distribute tarballs (with different compression formats).
Excellent post, but APT get isn't a packaging system. You meant to say Deb. Furthermore, APT get is designed to be packaging system independent and currently works with RPM or Deb.
File Open dialogues should be customized between GNOME/GTK and KDE/QT applications.
Its amazes me when people keep telling me `yes, but different people work on GNOME and KDE' as some type of magical excuse (not you specifically, but in general). So?!?! Lack of consistency is hurting Linux desktops more than competitoion is enhancing it anyway, but that's a point for another day. Sit down with each other and work out a standard design. If you're *really* worried, juts make somethign that looks the same in your respective toolkits.
Actually, there's no reason why anyone couldn't use apt-get to install binary closed source packages. Combined with encryption it could even allow you to purchase them from a distriobution mirror of those packages, with a small portion of the funds going to your vendor.
.deb. However, the newer APT based distros like Mandrake 8 and Connectiva should definitely expand APT (or libraries) to handle this. It saves admins time and hassle and makes them a little cash too.
/opt.
/usr/local, according to the FHS list (the FHS itself is very unclear).
/opt is broken!
I'm probably not talking about Debian here, since most commercial software isn't tested too well on Debian or released as
As for where oracle should put its stuff, it should probably use
It should if it didn't come with the distro. if it did come with the distro (eg, Red Hat + Oracle, of free databases which do and don't come with distriobutions) it should live in
Hey wait...same package...two locations. I can't sit down on a machine and know where it lives anymore. Oh my God! Maybe
Amongst all that, I forgot another important point:
/opt was designed for closed source Unices where there is a clear delineation between OS vendor and third parties. That same delineation exists within Linux, but since the same package can be provided within or without a distribution, its not consistent. A distribution (which includes package x) puts x into its FHS annointed spot. A user running a distributions without package x who installs it puts in its FHS annointed spot.
*
Same package. Same base standard. Two completely inconsistent locations. I can no longer sit down at a machine and know where package X is instaleld anymore. This is the exact type of thing the FHS is set out to prevent.
The wording in the FHS and its use on the mailing list arenear polar opposites.
/opt. Since this is completely arbitrary (neither distributions nor users nor admins nor ISVs have a consistent concept of `optional' software), the FHS itself is fairly poor in this regard.
/opt, especially it its from an ISV.
/usr/local.
/opt should be dtruck from the FHS. The only reason anyone uses to justify its existence in backwards compatibility - so I'd add a note
/opt?
,etc)and their role within the system (ie, whether being a base level component (eg, needed to boot and run nearly all programs). /opt breaks this.
/opt, including it seems most people on the FHS list and Alan Cox. Most of these would also prefer to see the directory phased out over time.
The FHS itself uses the wording `optiona' to describe things that go in
But ask on the FHS mailing list, and your response will be: ifs its an application that needs its own tree, it should live in
If its something you've compiled yourself (which you want to have its own tree, thus being seperate from your packaged applications) it should live in
For one, I think
Why kill
* Because Unix applicatioons should be structured by the types of files (ie, documentation, configuration
* Because we don't need any more subdirectories under /
* Because people actually believe the FHS when it uses the term `optional' and decide to stick whatever fits their own personal definition of `optional' this week into the directory.
* Because "`/opt" is becoming "Program Files" of the Unix world and a dumping ground for badly written apps that use their own heirarchies making the filesystem even more of a mess
* Because I'd rather break compatibility (even in such a small way) than include this *hack* into the FHS simple for the reasons of backwards compatibility. I'm a DevFS / ACL / boot sanity / Xrender / DRI type of guy - if somethings is broken, I want it fixed, regardless of whether its popular in flavors of Unix I don't use. They don't set the standards any more, we do.
* becuase plenty of people also dislike
1 .Use my same desktop from anywhere in the house
2. Access my home's desktop from the computer laboratory in town
x0rfbserver. A Unix/Linux VNC server that acts like a Windows one, where the remote user takes over the desktop.
Send us a link, please. Show us the e-commerce systems that got hit by the ramen worm. Show us the gateway servers, the DB servers, the web servers that got hit by the ramen worm.
Okay.
Red Hat (based)Linux==true
False. Shell script. Cron. Up2date. Nuff said.
the things is that Microsoft doesn't offer any vendor support for basic patches (which are called hotfixes). These patches (which come out a week of two after the announce aren't regression tested or supported by MS. The patches that Red Hat put out a week after most exploits ARE vendor supported. Odd how MS have no confidence in their product.
MS makes admins wait to install monolithic Service packs which not onyl fix my bug, but add funcationaltiy and fix other bugs too. In the process of doing so, they break systems. I don;t know about the 2K certification, but the NT4 MCSE classes told us to never install a service pack unless you needed something fixed and were sure it wouldn't melt the server.
Thanks for trying to help. But Quake has a shotgun. Will Word do that?
No offence, but emacs isn't designed for the task I'm doing. It spell checkers and lack of visualness (yes, I know writers need only be concerned about structure, but I word faster if HEADING I NEED TO EDIT jumps out at me).
And again, I have no choice in the matter, and must submit in word. Its nice not to have to task switch to do that.
What is wrong with plaintext with a simple markup here and there?
.doc files? Christ that must be an ineffecient operation!
Because without things like fonts and headers, most people are less productive. Most tools ehich edit these things don't work visually and therefore slow me down. KLyx works well, but works with TeX rather than SGML. Vi and emacs have poor spell checkers and are designed for syntax highlighting C or Perl, no typing out long documents with images.
Your publisher uses word
No matter hot much eithe of us complain the publisher won't change until Linux runs the world, and until then we have to interoperate with them more than they have to interoperate with us. It might suck, but its reality.
Don't blame your lack of knowledge on the proper procedure for creating a nicely formatted published work on the OS.
*laughs*. Why is it that you immediately assume I've never heard of piping and redirection and wc, and find the need to be rude to those that don't? ? Or that I have no idea about structured document app or makup languages? I do. But in this case I need to run somethimg which outputs Word.
My point was that you didn't need a modern operating system to have a reasonable friendly Windows/Icons/Menus/Pointer type GUI environment in Windows (maybe Mandrake 7.0, but that's still less than a year old). You do in Linux. This is because Windows had these features before Linux did.
Since the article is talking about user friendly OSs, the minimum for a user friendly OS in the Windows world is older software than the minimum for a user friendly OS in the Linux world.
> NT and 2K Administrators touch the registry
> quite often. Regular users don't.
I thought we were talking about the desktop here?
We are. Hence the words "regular users don't".
MandrakeUpdate and Red Hat are limited to official updates to the distro itself. If I run Red Hat, but don't like using Sendmail because it runs as root when it doesn't need to and has options for things I don't use, like UUCP, I can't use Red Hat Update Agent to get Postfix. I have to spent a short amount of time of rpmfind hunting for it, and often a longer amount of time fixing the long chains of dependencies for it to install.
Actually, most software from 98 runs well on 2000 and Microsoft are attempting to make more of it work on Whistler.
Vacatio nis the software used by almost every Unix implementation to perform automatic replies to incoming messages for a particular email account. Ie, for users on vacation it sends `I'm away from my mail' on their behalf to people that email them. Its very popular.
No, most distros are either Deb or RPM based. APT is a packaging system independent tool capable of finding dopwnloading and resolving dependencies on Deb or RPM based distributions. Unlike Mandrake Update and Red Hat Network, it is not limited to vendor supplies updates.
I use rpmfind quite frequently. It doesn't have all the RPMS available for my distribution, and often if they do they're built for a newer version, and require long chains of dependencies I have to resolve myself.
Take a look closely around the "m505" marker. Sort of looks odd, doesn't it?
My $0.02 says this is the JPEG compression which occurs around all more detailed surfaces in the images. I think its real.
Apparently not everyone can get their facts straight either. This author is talking about downloading patches via gopher for chrissake.
She's not being literal. She means there no single place to download patches from (unless you cunt APT based distros, but most aren't) and there's no uniform format to get them in (though this is changing). URLs break often - I can't even find the homepage of vacation or the current maintainer (help appreciated).
For my research articles the publisher often likes to have the LaTeX source to be able to format things properly. Guess what, Office 2000 does not output that.
Agreed -Office 2000 could be way better, especially for structured documents, PDF, etc. However unfortunately MS Office has the majority of desktops right now, and we have (for a little while anyway) to be compatible with them more than they have to be compatible with us.
When we win the desktop, this will change. But we won't win the desktop if new Linux users can't read and send documents to their (still Windows based) counterparts.
Office 97 went to market in, oddly enough, 97. It is the most popular office suite in use today, as you know. That's why I chose it. Windows 95 or 98 might be old, but they provide a UI on the sam level that Linux meaning things likde KDE2) has only had avaliable for a short time.
Red Hat 7 with Afterstep is not a comparable UI experience as MacOS, Windows 9x / NT. And yes, that you have the choice is a huge advantage for Linux. But most users, IMHO, would prefer the existing WIMP experience over a fast and unclutter Window Manager. Right or wrong, to get Linux on the desktop, you'll have to provide this.
Why do people continually say X takes a lot of RAM. It doesn't.
You're right of course. I mean a modern Window/Icons/Menus/pounter type GUI desktop environment based on X, now just X by itself, providing equivalent `friendliness' to a Macintosh or Windows machine.
There are *tons* of word processor programs for Linux, including Word Perfect.
.doc format. None of them can handle this function (I use Staroffice clunkily anyway, but Word does work better). Here's why:
Yes there are. As a journalist, I need to write articles that conform to page limits (400 per page) and submit then is
* StarOffice won't let me do a word count on a selecton
* OpenOffice isn't stable, and didn't do sectional word counts anyway
* Abiword isn't finished
* Applix doesn't even HAVE a word count.
* KWord can't output stably to Office 97
* WordPerfect Office 2000 works great on Windows and is a pleasure to use. However, the WINE absed Linux version is inconsistently unbreably slow in its GUI and crashes rather often. I (meaning Cybersource) purchased a copy and we got burnt because we can't use it - it's that bad. A QT of GTK version would be wonderful and well worth the cash. A WINE version is not, at least at this current stage (perhaps a service pack might change my mind).
with 128M of RAM and a 220 MHz processor ...Office is zippy on those specs? Please.
:) But anyway, I see no problem with her feedback and these are all valid criticisms in my opinion.
It is. X takes a lot of RAM, and while KDE and GNOME are growing slimmer by the second, they do too. Office 97 and Windows 95 will run on a P133 w/ 32 Mb of RAM. Not great, but okay. KDE (itself) will take 4 minutes between logon and desktop.
Huh? It's been around since '91 and has been "hot" for the last two years at least... hardly "flavour of the week".
Flavour of the week in an expression. Yes, Linux has only been popular for a relatively short time compared to Windows or netware or MacOS.
Upgrade this driver", "fiddle with this registry setting", etc
There's complexity in installing Windows apps, but the above comments are completely out of touch. NT and 2K Administrators touch the registry quite often. Regular users don't. Very few apps require driver upgrades.
However, I do agree in that a solid packaging system (which needs much more work on standardized package names, capabilities, granularity, naming conventions, etc) combined with a decent utility like apt-get (prolly on a RPM distribution - its the LSB and a more popular system) would provide an incredibly easy to use installation system.
But in the meantime its Gimp needs LibGimp needs GTK upgrade needs Bonobo upgrade needs GlibC upgrade. And that sucks. Still. there's only a couple on months before an easyto use apt based distribution (Mandrake 8) is released.
Duh. Welcome to Free Software, babe. That's the whole *point*.
I thought the point of free software was that it was more ethical to use Free Software than closed source software? In terms of Open Source, that's the exact opposite of Open Source - remember release early, release often? ESR has the same beliefs as this guy, and the B&B emphasises making stable, useable released as frequently as possible (and treating those who give feedback with respect as well, by the way). Besides, some people use Linux for the same reason they use MS Word - because for their task, its the best tool for the job.
I don't know what she's on, but the default Mandrake install, which boots into KDE, looks remarkably similar to other *cough*Windows*cough* GUIs.
Agreed. Mandrake would easily have to be the closest thing to getting Linux going on the desktop. But (for now) things like software installation are still headaches (lacking apt-get till version 8).
I'm salivating at the thought.