Re:Linux Desktop Thoughts...
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 4, Informative
one point most people will agree on is that OS X and Windows are both more usable than XWindows...
XWindows, or more properly "the X Windows System", is not the desktop. It's a low level GUI API, not much different in purpose than Windows' own Win32 and GDI libraries. Except for one difference. I've programmed in both bare Xlib and bare Win32, and Xlib is by far the better library. It may take a bit more "scaffolding", but it's much more sensible and easier to use for the moderately experienced developer. (Ditto comparing Motif to MFC, the latter being completely unusable without the help of Visual Studio's wizards.)
Let's move up a step. You next mentioned window managers and desktops, so let's talk about them. The Windows desktop is perceived to be user friendly *ONLY* because it is familiar to people. The window manager portion of it is actually quite rudimentary and difficult to use. Usability features like snap-to and rollups are simply missing in Windows, yet standard offerings for even the most humble X11 window manager. Similar problems exist for on "desktop" side of things. Consider the "show desktop" button in Windows, which will minimize all windows, but tells usability to smeg off when it won't subsequently restore them. And where are the multiple desktops?
I haven't really used OSX that much, so I can't comment on it. But in comparison to Windows, Unix/X11 + [KDE|GNOME|XFCE] is far more usable and friendly. But people don't know it because they haven't been steeped in it like they have been for Windows.
I spent a couple of years using FreeBSD/KDE at work (until they forced me to stop). The phrase "wow, how did you do that" in reference to my desktop was often uttered in my cubicle. This wasn't in response to the "cool" stuff of KDE, but in response to the ordinary everyday things I take for granted. Such as multiple desktops, "show desktop" that also restores, snap-to windows, rollups, z-ordering, etc, etc.
As long as Linux/Unix has newbies from Windows-land, we will continue to hear whines of X11 being difficult and obtuse. But that's only because they refuse to learn the new culture. In many ways the X11 desktops certainly are difficult and obtuse, but they are a lot less so than Windows.
Re:It's not the business model...
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If it were not from grown-ups (in suits) working for Red Hat and IBM driving the Market, Linux would still be a nifty project on University campuses, instead of the multi-billion-dollar industry that it is.
Not quite. Companies still need to earn a profit (at least some of the time). If Windows were a complete pile of shit, they would be flocking to Unix in droves. Actually a couple of decades ago they were, but I digress. But because Windows is mediocre, it's much harder for Unix to make headway.
p.s. Note that I'm using the word "Unix". In the real world (outside of Slashdot) Linux is merely another flavor of Unix. It may not be genuine Unix, but it looks, smells and tastes like it. And it doesn't require expensive hardware either.
It's not about being productive every waking hour, it's about a having a proper balance. Too little fun is bad, but so is too much fun.
Sitting in your parent's basement all day playing GTA:SA is *not* fun. You may think it is, but that's only because your brain is desensitized. The only difference from those people sitting in front of Oprah and Phil all day long is that you're giving your thumb some exercise.
The idea seems like science fiction, but it is consistent with the laws of physics and biology.
ROTFALMAO!!
There are no *laws* of physics or biology that assert the existance of alternate universes, let alone allow for travel to such universes. Here's a shocker for some of you: This particular universe itself is the BOUNDARY of science! Science can't even talk about stuff that isn't a part of this universe.
But what if it promotes useful arts and encourages crap at the same time? There's nothing in the Constitution about promoting the useful arts just so long as crap is never encouraged.
And amongst that crap that the vast majority prefers, there is indeed some useful art for the discerning minority. It sounds like the system is working to me.
Um, after RTFA, one can see this has nothing to do with the **AA.
I was responding to the grandparent post, not the story. Please read my response in context. To quote the grandparent: "The **AA don't create things, they just hoard the rights to other people's creations."
Slightly off topic, but apropos to the whole idea of "you don't know what you're getting in Bangalore until it's too late." Last week I did my first code review for some code developed in Bangalore by my company's new team of whiz-bang offshored developers. During the pre-coding phase we were quite happy with them. The rumours that Indian developers are great process people are true. They produced the required process documentation in record time, specifications were complete, and there was enough UML to cause several PHBs to burst into spontaneous song.
But now I have actual product in my hand, and I am reviewing it. It's a minor component written for a complex system. A single developer wrote it. It's not horrible code, but not excellent. Slightly above mediocre. It's good enough for other companies, but it's not good enough for ours. So I log my findings and send them off. The next day I get my response.
Except for the suggestion to use more comments, the developer REFUSED to fix anything. Among the things the developer refused to do include: using the company standard API for error reporting; use try/catch blocks instead of those weird BEGIN, END, FAIL macros that were used instead; stop using hungarian notation per our coding standard; etc. The developer even refused to consider the use of constants in place of single-element enumerations. In every case (but the comments) the developer has some stupid excuse ("but that's how I learned it in school", or "but the other developers aren't doing that!")
Needless to say, we are not going to accept this developer's code. But this is only the first bit of code we've gotten back. It's all going to start coming in soon for this one project, and we're sitting here with clenched buttocks hoping beyond hope that this one particular developer is a fluke.
...because home buyers do not have a reasonable expectation of "doorknob contracts," unlike software EULAs.
Judge Snork: "The court hereby finds for the defendent, on the basis that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of getting mugged by the defendent in that alley at that time of night."
Well, with software, it has to by copied into RAM to run. This is considered copyright infringement (!) unless specifically allowed by the publisher.
Except that this is specifically allowed by copyright law! Copying into RAM is permitted for the purposes of executing the software. In fact, installation onto the harddrive is permitted if that's what you need to do to use it.
The sole purpose of most of these EULAs is to make you ABANDON your pre-existing rights under copyright, such as utilization and reverse engineering.
One problem with your analysis is that the whole notion of acceptance with regards to EULAs is suspect. If I buy a product, I own it. Yet when I open it there's a EULA that says I have to accept something or other before I can make use of my own property. That's nonsense. I have the legal right to install the software by virtue of purchasing it. Yet I cannot install it without clicking "I Agree". It's the equivalent of my taping a contract to your front doorknob saying that by opening the door you agree to the contract. Bullshit.
Some vendors say that when you buy software you're really only buying the opportunity to subsequently agree to a contract allowing you to use it. But that's not what it says on the package or the bill of sale. When I buy a copy of "Windows XP" my sales receipt says "Windows XP". It does NOT say "license to use Windows XP." Thus, I am covered under copyright law which allows me to utilize the software I legally possess.
When I click "I Agree" during an installation screen, I am doing nothing more than ripping off that silly contract someone taped to my front doorknob.
p.s. Of course MMOGs are a bit different, as they are 90% service and only 10% actual product. But for that 10% portion, the principle is the same.
Think about your basic tabletop RPG and wonder if it would really be better if you could by stuff by slipping the GM a fiver.
Heck yeah! My problem is that my GM has this ethical streak in him a mile wide. GMs have no business being ethical, dammit. I've tried bribing him, but it was no use, he let my character die anyay. Heck, he wouldn't even let me bring my dead character's twin brother who had inherited all his gear! What a meanie!
I must correct myself. Or rather, clarify myself. While I have had this happen to me in the past, it has always been at an airport, and never while crossing a border by automobile. For example, Germany asked me when I flew in to Frankfurt, but they didn't ask me a thing when I re-entered the country from France in a car.
p.s. Actually, if I recall correctly, France didn't ask me that, because they first asked me how long I was going to be there, and I said it was a day trip over to Strasbourg and Riquewihr. So there was no need to ask me where I was staying because they already new I wasn't going to be. Oh, and I had a German driver, so it was also obvious that someone competent was going to take responsibility for that rude American who didn't even bother to learn French without an accent. But I digress...
People who say "I can build that for less" are either not bothering to account for their time...
If someone was doing this at work you would be correct. But last I checked I wasn't getting paid for stuff I do on my own time after I come home in the evenings. I am not getting paid for my time from six pm to eight am, so I'm in no way losing money by building something like this.
I mean, if I fly to the US intending to wander round and find a hotel that looks nice to stay in, but don't know ahead of time where i will, in fact be staying, will I get detained at the airport?
Well duh! What in the world would make you think otherwise? It isn't the US doing this, it is EVERY nation on the face of the earth doing it! I don't care how "progressive" the country is, you just don't do it. Anywhere. So go make a reservation ahead of time. Sheesh.
After all, you could find all the hotels booked solid when you arrive, and we don't want to chip your frozen ass off the sidewalk the next morning.
While SMP is certainly nice on the desktop, it is not necessary. Millions of people use single CPU systems on their desktop every day. And I dare say the vast majority wouldn't see a benefit to SMP if it were given to them.
To most Linux advocates SMP is merely a checkbox. It's something to brag about even though they don't use it. Let's face it, *EVERY* OS out there (but for a few embedded variants) has SMP. All of the BSDs do. Bragging about SMP is like a corporation bragging about their ISO 9000 status. BFD!
It doesn't matter what happens underneath the surface of a text editor! Emacs is Lisp underneath, but I can still use it despite my complete ignorance of all things Lisp. But when I save my file I've been editing in Emacs, it had damned well be plain text and not Lisp!
This article isn't about what editors and compilers and other tools will use underneath the surface in the future. Instead it's about the actual DATA they will be manipulating! Call me a neanderthal, but I want my C++ code to remain fully and completely C++. When I save the file I want it saved as C++. When I check it in to the code base I want it checked in as C++. When I print it out for a code review I want it printed out as C++. When I attach to an email I want C++ sent.
And dammit I don't want to have to use an Export dialog to make it behave!
It's not strictly a pyramid scheme, that is true. Pyramid schemes are illegal, Social Security is not. And as another poster explained, it should be more accurately characterized as a Ponzi scheme.
I made the comparison not for the purposes of an exact analogy, but in order to evoke the image of an unbalanced financial house of cards. Which is what Social Security is.
Slashdot Mirror
one point most people will agree on is that OS X and Windows are both more usable than XWindows...
XWindows, or more properly "the X Windows System", is not the desktop. It's a low level GUI API, not much different in purpose than Windows' own Win32 and GDI libraries. Except for one difference. I've programmed in both bare Xlib and bare Win32, and Xlib is by far the better library. It may take a bit more "scaffolding", but it's much more sensible and easier to use for the moderately experienced developer. (Ditto comparing Motif to MFC, the latter being completely unusable without the help of Visual Studio's wizards.)
Let's move up a step. You next mentioned window managers and desktops, so let's talk about them. The Windows desktop is perceived to be user friendly *ONLY* because it is familiar to people. The window manager portion of it is actually quite rudimentary and difficult to use. Usability features like snap-to and rollups are simply missing in Windows, yet standard offerings for even the most humble X11 window manager. Similar problems exist for on "desktop" side of things. Consider the "show desktop" button in Windows, which will minimize all windows, but tells usability to smeg off when it won't subsequently restore them. And where are the multiple desktops?
I haven't really used OSX that much, so I can't comment on it. But in comparison to Windows, Unix/X11 + [KDE|GNOME|XFCE] is far more usable and friendly. But people don't know it because they haven't been steeped in it like they have been for Windows.
I spent a couple of years using FreeBSD/KDE at work (until they forced me to stop). The phrase "wow, how did you do that" in reference to my desktop was often uttered in my cubicle. This wasn't in response to the "cool" stuff of KDE, but in response to the ordinary everyday things I take for granted. Such as multiple desktops, "show desktop" that also restores, snap-to windows, rollups, z-ordering, etc, etc.
As long as Linux/Unix has newbies from Windows-land, we will continue to hear whines of X11 being difficult and obtuse. But that's only because they refuse to learn the new culture. In many ways the X11 desktops certainly are difficult and obtuse, but they are a lot less so than Windows.
If it were not from grown-ups (in suits) working for Red Hat and IBM driving the Market, Linux would still be a nifty project on University campuses, instead of the multi-billion-dollar industry that it is.
Not quite. Companies still need to earn a profit (at least some of the time). If Windows were a complete pile of shit, they would be flocking to Unix in droves. Actually a couple of decades ago they were, but I digress. But because Windows is mediocre, it's much harder for Unix to make headway.
p.s. Note that I'm using the word "Unix". In the real world (outside of Slashdot) Linux is merely another flavor of Unix. It may not be genuine Unix, but it looks, smells and tastes like it. And it doesn't require expensive hardware either.
It's not about being productive every waking hour, it's about a having a proper balance. Too little fun is bad, but so is too much fun.
Sitting in your parent's basement all day playing GTA:SA is *not* fun. You may think it is, but that's only because your brain is desensitized. The only difference from those people sitting in front of Oprah and Phil all day long is that you're giving your thumb some exercise.
Actually, inauguration day is the one of the few days of the year when you can be assured he's not in his office doing stuff!
The idea seems like science fiction, but it is consistent with the laws of physics and biology.
ROTFALMAO!!
There are no *laws* of physics or biology that assert the existance of alternate universes, let alone allow for travel to such universes. Here's a shocker for some of you: This particular universe itself is the BOUNDARY of science! Science can't even talk about stuff that isn't a part of this universe.
But what if it promotes useful arts and encourages crap at the same time? There's nothing in the Constitution about promoting the useful arts just so long as crap is never encouraged.
And amongst that crap that the vast majority prefers, there is indeed some useful art for the discerning minority. It sounds like the system is working to me.
Seriously, how do you get that anyone is saying anything about **AA in this story?
Sigh. I was merely responding to the grandparent post. It was that post who brought up the *AA, not me. Really. It's true. Here, I'll even make it easy to verify by linking to it: "The **AA don't create things, they just hoard the rights to other people's creations."
And you wonder where I got the term "slashdork." Sheesh.
Um, after RTFA, one can see this has nothing to do with the **AA.
I was responding to the grandparent post, not the story. Please read my response in context. To quote the grandparent: "The **AA don't create things, they just hoard the rights to other people's creations."
Slightly off topic, but apropos to the whole idea of "you don't know what you're getting in Bangalore until it's too late." Last week I did my first code review for some code developed in Bangalore by my company's new team of whiz-bang offshored developers. During the pre-coding phase we were quite happy with them. The rumours that Indian developers are great process people are true. They produced the required process documentation in record time, specifications were complete, and there was enough UML to cause several PHBs to burst into spontaneous song.
But now I have actual product in my hand, and I am reviewing it. It's a minor component written for a complex system. A single developer wrote it. It's not horrible code, but not excellent. Slightly above mediocre. It's good enough for other companies, but it's not good enough for ours. So I log my findings and send them off. The next day I get my response.
Except for the suggestion to use more comments, the developer REFUSED to fix anything. Among the things the developer refused to do include: using the company standard API for error reporting; use try/catch blocks instead of those weird BEGIN, END, FAIL macros that were used instead; stop using hungarian notation per our coding standard; etc. The developer even refused to consider the use of constants in place of single-element enumerations. In every case (but the comments) the developer has some stupid excuse ("but that's how I learned it in school", or "but the other developers aren't doing that!")
Needless to say, we are not going to accept this developer's code. But this is only the first bit of code we've gotten back. It's all going to start coming in soon for this one project, and we're sitting here with clenched buttocks hoping beyond hope that this one particular developer is a fluke.
And thus the Slashdork justifies his behavior. "All things are justified so long as it sticks it to the **AA!"
...because home buyers do not have a reasonable expectation of "doorknob contracts," unlike software EULAs.
Judge Snork: "The court hereby finds for the defendent, on the basis that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of getting mugged by the defendent in that alley at that time of night."
Of course, go ahead and blame Bush. All Evil can be attributed to him, especially that Evil perpetrated by the prior administration. Sigh.
Well, with software, it has to by copied into RAM to run. This is considered copyright infringement (!) unless specifically allowed by the publisher.
Except that this is specifically allowed by copyright law! Copying into RAM is permitted for the purposes of executing the software. In fact, installation onto the harddrive is permitted if that's what you need to do to use it.
The sole purpose of most of these EULAs is to make you ABANDON your pre-existing rights under copyright, such as utilization and reverse engineering.
One problem with your analysis is that the whole notion of acceptance with regards to EULAs is suspect. If I buy a product, I own it. Yet when I open it there's a EULA that says I have to accept something or other before I can make use of my own property. That's nonsense. I have the legal right to install the software by virtue of purchasing it. Yet I cannot install it without clicking "I Agree". It's the equivalent of my taping a contract to your front doorknob saying that by opening the door you agree to the contract. Bullshit.
Some vendors say that when you buy software you're really only buying the opportunity to subsequently agree to a contract allowing you to use it. But that's not what it says on the package or the bill of sale. When I buy a copy of "Windows XP" my sales receipt says "Windows XP". It does NOT say "license to use Windows XP." Thus, I am covered under copyright law which allows me to utilize the software I legally possess.
When I click "I Agree" during an installation screen, I am doing nothing more than ripping off that silly contract someone taped to my front doorknob.
p.s. Of course MMOGs are a bit different, as they are 90% service and only 10% actual product. But for that 10% portion, the principle is the same.
Think about your basic tabletop RPG and wonder if it would really be better if you could by stuff by slipping the GM a fiver.
Heck yeah! My problem is that my GM has this ethical streak in him a mile wide. GMs have no business being ethical, dammit. I've tried bribing him, but it was no use, he let my character die anyay. Heck, he wouldn't even let me bring my dead character's twin brother who had inherited all his gear! What a meanie!
Get to it already, and leave the others alone with your (to them) totaly worthless opinion.
The edges of my mind are starting to fray at the surreality that is Slashdot...
I must correct myself. Or rather, clarify myself. While I have had this happen to me in the past, it has always been at an airport, and never while crossing a border by automobile. For example, Germany asked me when I flew in to Frankfurt, but they didn't ask me a thing when I re-entered the country from France in a car.
p.s. Actually, if I recall correctly, France didn't ask me that, because they first asked me how long I was going to be there, and I said it was a day trip over to Strasbourg and Riquewihr. So there was no need to ask me where I was staying because they already new I wasn't going to be. Oh, and I had a German driver, so it was also obvious that someone competent was going to take responsibility for that rude American who didn't even bother to learn French without an accent. But I digress...
People who say "I can build that for less" are either not bothering to account for their time...
If someone was doing this at work you would be correct. But last I checked I wasn't getting paid for stuff I do on my own time after I come home in the evenings. I am not getting paid for my time from six pm to eight am, so I'm in no way losing money by building something like this.
I have to do the very same thing when I fly from the US to Europe! Next thing I know you'll be bitching about having to have a passport to get here...
I mean, if I fly to the US intending to wander round and find a hotel that looks nice to stay in, but don't know ahead of time where i will, in fact be staying, will I get detained at the airport?
Well duh! What in the world would make you think otherwise? It isn't the US doing this, it is EVERY nation on the face of the earth doing it! I don't care how "progressive" the country is, you just don't do it. Anywhere. So go make a reservation ahead of time. Sheesh.
After all, you could find all the hotels booked solid when you arrive, and we don't want to chip your frozen ass off the sidewalk the next morning.
...but best of all, Amiga people were a cut above.
So tell me, have you figured out yet why everyone else in the world hated you?
And what did you have to do to achieve this?
I chose "KDE" as my desktop during installation. Duh!
While SMP is certainly nice on the desktop, it is not necessary. Millions of people use single CPU systems on their desktop every day. And I dare say the vast majority wouldn't see a benefit to SMP if it were given to them.
To most Linux advocates SMP is merely a checkbox. It's something to brag about even though they don't use it. Let's face it, *EVERY* OS out there (but for a few embedded variants) has SMP. All of the BSDs do. Bragging about SMP is like a corporation bragging about their ISO 9000 status. BFD!
It doesn't matter what happens underneath the surface of a text editor! Emacs is Lisp underneath, but I can still use it despite my complete ignorance of all things Lisp. But when I save my file I've been editing in Emacs, it had damned well be plain text and not Lisp!
This article isn't about what editors and compilers and other tools will use underneath the surface in the future. Instead it's about the actual DATA they will be manipulating! Call me a neanderthal, but I want my C++ code to remain fully and completely C++. When I save the file I want it saved as C++. When I check it in to the code base I want it checked in as C++. When I print it out for a code review I want it printed out as C++. When I attach to an email I want C++ sent.
And dammit I don't want to have to use an Export dialog to make it behave!
It's not strictly a pyramid scheme, that is true. Pyramid schemes are illegal, Social Security is not. And as another poster explained, it should be more accurately characterized as a Ponzi scheme.
I made the comparison not for the purposes of an exact analogy, but in order to evoke the image of an unbalanced financial house of cards. Which is what Social Security is.