Now think about this. How many of those engineers do you suppose code in their free time as a hobby, or at least provide valuable bug reports and feedback?
Knowing how people are, probably three.
How many do you suppose are now coding their hobbies to run on OS X primarily instead of Linux?
Two.
How many decided not to solve a Linux on the Desktop problem because Apple solved it for them and it no longer bothers them?
None. I have never seen engineers try to solve desktop problems.
And I see Linux falling behind as a desktop more than I see it catching up. I use Linux and OS X daily (actually WinXP too). I think this is due to several factors. First, Linux is still primarily a server OS, and when it comes to the point where a large change is needed to help Linux as a desktop, it is resisted by most Linux developers because they want to minimize changes to keep their server as stable as possible and keep the footprint small.
When a large change is needed, the distributions that target those uses implement it and use it.
Also, Linux is a distributed effort. No one party can really break it, but no one party can make a decision to break with the old and do something really new, unless they can make it 100% backwards compatible or they can get the other major developers on board.
I've seen distributions take their own way all the time. Anyone who runs a distribution can do what they want with that distribution, if you don't have enough influence. You can fork off and start your own. That is the beauty of it.
OS X's weakness is that Steve Jobs can say, "I want the menu bar translucent dammit!" and it happens. OS X's strength is Steve Jobs can say, "I want drag and drop package installation with packages that work across different processors and that are super easy to use" and it happens.
Believe it or not, there are Linux distributions that do exactly that too.
Can you even imagine what it would take to get all the major Linux distros to switch to using OpenStep packages and to allow drag and drop installation and uninstallation? Redhat would want to use RPMs no matter what and all the server oriented developers would scream about bloat. It would never fly and since not everyone would be on board you'd end up with a mix and have a less usable system than Linux has now.
It would take a new LSB proposal and once accepted the distributions would add support for it.
Much like how currently RPM is considered the universal package format in the LSB. You can use LSB RPMs just fine on non-RPM distributions like Ubuntu.
It would never fly and since not everyone would be on board you'd end up with a mix and have a less usable system than Linux has now.
If it would never fly, the LSB wouldn't exist and wouldn't work. It does.
And there's another thing to consider, remember all those Linux on the desktop suing engineers that switched to using OS X on the desktop?
From my experience, most old Linux engineer/administrators users who used to use Linux but now use another platform are usually people from the older Unix generation of using the BSDs, Solaris, HP/UX etc. These are people who claim UNIX is a superior design philosophy to everything else in the past. Most current Linux users don't think about UNIX when they choose a operating system. Current engineers recognize the 'flaws' in the UNIX design and try to fix the issues in such a way that it doesn't break legacy software. They spout it's superiority like a holy grail.
Guess what, they are now firmly in the camp that wants Linux optimized as a server, since they still use it for that, and OS X has solved their desktop needs.
*shrugs* They will get what they want, and the Linux desktop users will get what they wa
The enemies of Linux aren't Apple or even Microsoft, but the fragmentation and confusion caused by the many different distributions out there.
Linux is just a kernel, not a operating system. The kernel is being used everywhere these days.
Also, since Linux is driven by noncommercial interests, for the most part, it isn't targeted towards nontechnical users, isn't tied to any particular hardware platform and is sorely missing a services infrastructure.
Considering most of the popular distributions are commercial distributions, I have to disagree.
That's is a great pity, because Linux is a beautiful idea, except for the fact that the market or target audience just isn't there!
I don't think you understand what Linux is about.
I want Linux to succeed among nontechnical users, but for that to happen, a number of changes will have to be made.
1) Standardization. The various distros need to converge and be forged into a very solid and highly polished unified distribution, a product if you will. This standardization will have to cover every aspect of the operating system.
For one, this goes against the Linux "idea". And two... Hell no, that would stiffle innovation, trap us into a single set of technologies and if this were dictated somehow. That would mean we couldn't make interesting little distributions for specific purposes - be it research, embedded device controllers, unique desktop systems etc.
2) Branding and marketing. Linux needs a common denominator, a product name that people will remember and desire. If there was a Google Linux, I'm sure it would get a huge following, for instance. But there isn't - just a bunch of quirky distros, I'm sorry to say.
I think remembering SuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora and so on, aren't harder than remembering Mac OS X. As for common denominator, people say "Linux", despite that not being the correct terminology.
In many ways, Apple is the opposite: it's a very tightly run ship, and ultimately, there is only one captain on the bridge: Steve Jobs. This would be a very bad thing if Steve was just a dictator, a greedy tyrant. But he isn't. He has a very positive side that eases the pain of the bad ones: he knows how to bring out the creative energy in people, and how to transform that energy into great products that people want.
Having been a Apple user for years (still am). I can tell you, I don't like OS X.
I hate the GUI
This might sound funny, but I really hate how the GUI is not consistant in OS X. Apple has a HiG, and they don't follow it, nor do many other 3rd party applications designed for that desktop environment. When I use a Gnome application or a KDE application, they are usually designed against the standards of that desktop environment.
I hate the dock, I want a real taskbar.
I hate how I can't customize it
I hate how everything is focused towards ease of use for the new than functionality for the experienced knowledgeable user
I hate Finder (with all it's issues, who doesn't?)
I absolutely hate the X11 support in OS X. The x11 support is so bad that it can't even do copy/pasting correctly (extremely small buffer limit for clipboard content), deliver full messages between x11 applications nor can it even do drag and drop!
I hate how most GUI toolkits like GTK absolutely suck in OS X making crossplatform development a major pain.
I hate how I can take POSIX code from HP/UX, Solaris, Linux, BSDs.. Compile the code on any of those, but on OS X, the core libraries of course have to go do something else to mess it up.
I hate how the OpenGL implementation doesn't work to specifications in OS X, while I can use the exact same code on Windows, Linux, BSDs and so on just fine.
I think OS X is the only platform where I had to add platform specific hacks ever for the cross platform
I'm sure *you* know how to do it, but most people don't and it isn't generally considered the "right" way of going about installing software on Linux. The standard way of installing Linux software is to either install it from teh distribution and be stuck with that version until you decide to upgrade your whole system all at once, or hope the someone has built a package for your particular distribution and version. Well, i guess there is that tiny fraction of software that has "universal" installers. But those is quite the exception.
Sorry, I see nothing wrong with what popular distributions are doing. We don't even need a universal installers anymore when we have the LSB which dictates RPM support. Distributions support the LSB software, most odd software out there will come with it's own loki installer or a RPM, DEB while the binaries inside are LSB compliant.
Those are considered supported by distributions and those are currently being used by proprietary software on Linux. The only software I can think of that doesn't come packaged that nicely from the developers that provide binaries is Mozilla's. Even then, it doesn't matter since most distributions provide Firefox, thunderird etc.
It is a darn good thing that very few vendors do it... or need to do it. Basically what you are saying is that Windows can theoretically be as difficult as Linux when it comes to transfering binaries between distributions, but in practice it generally isn't an issue. It is very much an issue on Linux.
It's not a issue in my opinion because distributions repackage the same software anyway and they optimize the binaries for their systems, doing otherwise is considered unsupported in most distributions. I think what they are doing is correct.
Its strength (beauty) is also its greatest weakness. Users shouldn't have to worry about whether or no they chose the correct distribution. Not everyone has time or the inclination to tinker with distributions like you or I do.
Then they can live with the faults. Like OS X users live with the faults of OS X and Windows users live with the faults of Windows. I don't see a issue honestly since most distributions have the same software anyway, doing otherwise is considered unsupported in most distributions.
So you are comparing what COULD BE the general situation on WIndows with what IS the situation on Linux? What is even the point of making such a comparison?
I am saying the issues exist with both. There are Linux distributions that package everything into folders like OS X (can't remember the distro name right now), there are Linux distributions that make 'universalish' binaries like Slackware.
I should note that Linux developers don't have the luxury of clicking a check box which determines what distribution to target.
You're right about the checkbox. I have to take a additional step. I just have to specify the base URL for the deb repositories to build my deb packages against with pbuilder. I could do the same with RPM-based distributions using another tool.
Mod me down if you want to, but a lot of the "failings" of desktop Linux have to do with, what I consider to be, WINE's screwed up priorities. Yes, I know it's free software and they have put together an amazing product. However, until the code is in place for a recent version of M$-Office (XP or 2003) flawlessly running on Linux with WINE, (and that includes the entire suite, including MS-Access), desktop Linux adoption will continue at its piddly rate.
Mac OS X has the "it just works" reputation it does because it's written for very specific hardware and can take full advantage of all the capabilities of that hardware. As soon as you can install OS X on any shitbox you can cobble together, you lose that.
I would believe you. But after updating OS X 10.4.5 to 10.4.9 and the internal wireless that came with the macbookpro would no longer work until I reinstalled and kept the system at OS X 10.4.5. I don't. Nor do I believe it after seeing a g4 iMac graphic card loose acceleration on OS X 10.4.5 when upgraded. Both of which, had no resolution from Apple. To my knowledge, the issues are still there today.
Yes, Apple has been notified, yes the systems were sent to Apple and Apple sent them back - I'm not going to get into the Applecare mess though.
No, I think Apple does things the way they are doing because that is how they feel they are the most profitable.
Any Unix like, POSIX compliant* operating system is welcome as far as I'm concerned.
Windows has a POSIX subsystem which is 100% compliant. One can make full use of it using Windows Services for Unix. It even has device files (unlike OS X) and even handles signaling correctly (unlike OS X), plus it takes POSIX code from HP/UX, Solaris, Linux and appears to compile them fine.
I'm not a Windows advocate, or any particular OS advocate. Just be careful what you wish for -- You might just get it.:)
As soon as OSX is able to run on my non-Mac platform, has a proven track record of stability and performance in a production environment and is free I might just start using it myself.
Being a OS X user (I also use all the other major operating systems)... I can tell you that the stability of applications is over hyped (especially when it comes to applications like Firefox, OpenOffice, the ports in finf, darwin ports, macports etc. - which don't seem to crash on other platforms).
And don't let anyone trick you with the whole thing that you never need to reboot OS X. I have had to reboot OS X for installing codecs, QuickTime updates, iTunes updates... Basically non-essential OS programs requiring me to restart.
The main thing that I love is the video. It is much easier, for me, than Linux video. I can actually see the Mythbusters' videos on the web. I know that Linux can do video, it just isn't as easy (at least with openSUSE and/or Fedora, haven't tried Ubuntu).
Might I make a suggestion?
There is a Ubuntu distribution that specializes in multimedia features such as audio and video called Ubuntu Studio, you may like it.
Like any Ubuntu distribution, you get the default Ubuntu repositories, which contains packages from all the various Ubuntu 'distributions'. So you shouldn't have a problem getting non-Ubuntu studio specific packages for other things too.
First off, 15 minutes is a stretch, just to format the HDD/RAID and copy the files off the CD/DVD and would take at least 15 mins, I'll assume you're not counting that.
Actually I am. ubuntu-server allows me to choose a LAMP setup, and will set it all up out of the box (10 minutes). The only thing I need to do is add the needed user accounts, configure networking if I need to and install FTP/SSH or whatever is needed just for external access.
I can install Windows 200x server in my sleep as well, your point is that you know your OS and I know mine. I wrote the same type of scripts you wrote to do the same types of tasks you did.
Nope, I'm talking about from scratch, no scripts or anything. No network boot installations, no custom install CDs, no imaged DVDs and so on.
I have an install disc that can bring a server up in under an hour, with the OS, ASP.net, MSSQL and IIS.
I can beat you at that since I know how to build DVDs that contain windows images (win2k or win2k3 - doesn't matter) that I can install and setup fully within 30 minutes, with all the necessary programs. It will run the windows setup on first boot though (the same way some OEMs do windows preinstalls) and request for the Windows serial key. You would need to add the licenses manually for the other services such as MSSQL. Since windows setup resets the network configuration on the image, I would need to setup the network sharing correctly for folders.
That said, I can also use the same methods with Linux in less time, as there is no worrying about software keys, I don't have to worry about Linux taking out my predefined settings for ssh/samba/ftp, nor does a 'installer' need to run on first boot.
Let's say the license for that domain controller is $500. And you cost your employer the typical IT salary + benefits of $100,000 a year -- about $50 an hour. If it takes you more than ten hours to setup the Samba domain controller, it's a bad idea.
I can do it in 30 minutes easily. Most of my past jobs had the same pay for a Windows administrator doing the same thing on Windows.
(The Auditor's laptop takes an extra hour of your time to work with Samba? you need to spend a week to train your replacement when you leave?)
*Shrugs* I haven't needed to train anyone when I left places. They just got another administrator.
For your point on Linux administrators costing more - That remains debatable as within the region I live, they cost the same as Windows administrators.
Wrong Linux requires more because Linux has more tweaks and settings on how admins want it. What Linux has over Windows is the ability to fit into the environment more easily. Yet to make that fit takes more time.
I can setup a standard LAMP setup (which is what most people want) in fifteen minutes from scratch (including installing the OS). To do a ASP.net, MS SQL, IIS setup with Windows from scratch, it takes me literally five hours on the same hardware.
Wrong Windows is easier updated. You don't know what you are getting, but it is easy to update. Linux again has the ability to tune and tweak the updates.
How is windows easier to update with compared to say a LAMP SuSE Linux setup or a LAMP Ubuntu-server setup?
I have had difficulties in the past because updates on Windows take ages to install and I needed to/move/ right there and then, which was making administration a lot harder.
With Linux in theory you have the ability to fix it yourself. Otherwise you are in the same boat as Microsoft. And if you do fix it yourself, you are taking away time that you should be using for administration tasks. Thus you are costing the corporation more by fixing a problem.
On the other hand, you're saving the corporation costs since that means less downtime and less issues. Their salary costs for you likely don't increase whether you sit around doing basic administration or actually do real administration by fixing the issue.
No, it depends on your administration abilities. These days it is just as easy to bugger up a Windows system as a Linux system. And if we want to go back in history the first worm that literally brought down the entire Internet was a worm that exploited a --UNIX-- hole.
Which wasn't Linux I might add.
No there are not sever licenses. But as illustrated in your previous points your increased salary (should be) does make up quite nicely for the "no license" fees.
No increased salary here, this point is moot.
I was an OSCON once and there was a guy talking about Open Source and comparisons. And he said you know this license argument is BS. Think of it as follows, in the West we have interest on mortgages. In Sharia you have "rent". If you add the payments together "interestingly" enough the two added together make it look like there is interest being charge. His point was that you can call it what you want, you still end up paying one way or another.
Fascinating, but I'm pretty sure my past Linux server installations have cost companies far less, from domain setups to webservers - the fact that Linux is capable of handling things faster/more than most Windows solutions (such as when it came to samba setups) means there was even a reduction in the requirement of servers. Not as expensive hardware, not as many servers, no software licenses, smaller electric bill.
Sorry, I don't agree.
For if LINUX was truly cheaper in the overall then Windows would completely collapse.
It wouldn't in the desktop market for the fact that many people rely on their proprietary technologies (outlook, Microsoft Office formats), shops don't sell Linux in the computer shops and go, "Well, sir. If you want Windows Vista home addon, it will cost you 50USD more.". People have used Windows in the past, and thus are more reluctant to try something else too.
Plus, there is a even larger issue, Microsoft software is free. What do I mean by free? Everybody has that someone who can get them a free copy of any Microsoft software they need *cough*illegally*cough*. If you give most people a choice, between Microsoft software for free and Linux software for free, they are going to choose the item that they have more experience with and they are sure they want. Of course, there are always the exceptions, I am just talking about the majority.
And this is bad exactly how? I don't see maintaining packages as a principal activity being profitable in the long run. Disk space is cheap, compatibility is priceless.
There are advantages and disadvantages. Since we know already the advantages, here are the disadvantages:
Libraries which aren't shared take up additional RAM when applications using the same libraries would take less.
When there is a new security vulnerability, each of these applications have to release a update rather than the single library just being updated.
Generally, it's a lot easier ensuring one library that is global is updated than tonnes of 3rd parties who have their own release schedules, making a system more vulnerable.
Application vendors bundling their apps with all required libs, tagetting a minimum standard base (I haven't read the LSB so I don't know what basic functionality it covers), would be a killer app for F/OSS.
LSB gives options for this. Also LSB compliance specifies minimal bases that you can rely on being there always.
I suppose Linux could evolve into a sort-of "OSX on Hackintosh with Fink or MacPorts"... Which is what I'm using, for one.
Honestly, Fink, Darwin Ports, MacPorts are quite... annoying with their dependency hell issues.
Hmm.. What was that Linux distribution that followed the OS X way of packaging things into folders? I can't remember it's name.
Re:well, not effortlessly
on
RTF Vs. OOXML
·
· Score: 1
AVI is a just as proprietary as rm if not more so. With Helix you can have an FOSS program that can read rm files. Yes Mpeg would be more open.
A OGM or MKV container that uses Vorbis for audio streams and Theora for video would be considered a 100% open format. MPEG, Realmedia codecs and their containers, less so.
A Linux distribution from 2001 is all but useless without quite a bit of work (read: compiling stuff from source) unless it is sitting in some closet doing some fixed task that doesn't require recent software.
I know I could get the original binaries working just fine, using only packages from the original distribution by setting things like path variables. No compiling required. Yes, it's more difficult than click and run, but this exact issue exists with Windows software when you target a specific version of Windows too.
How frustrating woudl it be to have to upgrade their entire system, applications and all, just to fix some minor incompatability with a particular application? Suddenly applying a service pack on Windows seems pretty straight forward, doesn't it?
Very frustrating. The most common issue is that people aren't updating because things aren't working in SP2 - From CD burning software to wireless card, graphic card drivers.
How frustrating woudl it be to have to upgrade their entire system, applications and all, just to fix some minor incompatability with a particular application? Suddenly applying a service pack on Windows seems pretty straight forward, doesn't it?
No, not really. I don't want to have people screaming at me because SP2 broke their system (because certain drivers no longer work, or certain applications), made it continuously bluescreen etc. again.
I've experienced that too much in the past and I don't intend to have any more of it.
And that is exactly what I'd be afraid of if Linux ever became mainstream on the desktop. Vendors would resort to bloating each application with a redundant set of libraries.
This is what happens on OS X with it's self contained application folders.
I can guarantee you that Linux ever became mainstream on the desktop, users would not be upgrading their distribution every time a new version was released. They would expect to be able to do what you consider to be "unsupported." Like they can on Windows.
An easy fix would be making the package manager refuse to install such packages, much like Windows installers refuse to install on certain versions of operating systems. Power users will know how to get around that and set it up manually if they need to. To do something that is not considered supported at all.
Well sure, if you limit the app set to LSB compliant ones, but what apps are LSB compliant?
Pretty much the ones that don't come with my distribution usually.
How inclusive is the LSB? Can you make a GNOME application, for example, that is LSB compliant and will install (binary, not source) on most any Linux system?
I know I could do it within the confines of the LSB (infact I did already once with packaging a generic Gimp-gnome build).
What package format would you use?
LSB standard is RPM. Any distributions that follow LSB compatibility will support RPM. Before you say it, yes Debian/Ubuntu support RPM packages just fine, despite being Deb based. They offer to install it, then convert RPM packages on the fly with tools like 'alien' to a.deb package, and then install it (just from double clicking the RPM in the GUI).
My experience with Linux distributions (mainly Debian based) is that you are more or less stuck with whatever applications were available when the distribution was "frozen." Unless you are willing to compile stuff from source or get a backport of a package from the "unstable" release of the dist.
If you don't like it, use another distribution that focuses on having the latest "unstable" stuff. Different distributions have different rules and that is what the beauty of it is.
But that is the exception to the rule. On linux it is the other way around. The rule is that
The question is, why would you do that when targeting say, Win2k, is adequate for most applications?
At the moment, I do this to fix annoying bugs, such as weird 64bit oddities with your 32bit applications.
If you're running XP with no service packs in 2008 you're going to have a lot bigger problems than running apps from a developer who doesn't know how to target his Win32 applications for maximum compatibility.
I find that argument amusing. That is like saying, "This isn't a problem with Windows because the insane amount of issues have forced you to update!" -- Yet apparently Linux doesn't quite give you enough issues to force you to update -- but because it isn't perfect, it's bad.
And yet the end users rarely sees the issue on Windows.
When users encounter runtime errors and odd crashes, they don't suspect it is because their Windows system is out of date. I know from hours of debugging issues with users.
Linux users, on the other hand, often can't run the same package on different versions of the same distribution spanning more than a couple years.
I honestly couldn't recall ever needing to. Being a programmer though, I am aware of issues between using libraries compiled against a specific libc while the programs being compiled against another causing a issue. But, since you are doing something that is considered unsupported, of course it's not going to be easy - the easy work around would be to just grab the package and requirements and have the paths setup in such a way that it will rely on the libraries you downloaded instead of on the system.
Which in my opinion means: If you aren't getting packages made for another specific distribution working, you are doing it wrong. Because it is definitely possible despite being unsupported.
I do have older software such as Staroffice, Unreal Tournament, Winex and so on from many, many years ago that I used in previous distributions that still work 100% fine today.
In fact, I dread using the OS for anything more than playing games, but it does have one thing going for it and that is decent backward and forward application compatibility.
As I've said, I've never had a problem with Linux software that was using things like the LSB. I am not even aware of a compatibility issue ever ocuring.
I haven't used Slackware since around 1996 so i can't really confirm this, but the fact that so many things depend on your distribution only goes to prove my point.
Sorry, I didn't get your point.
Well, least you can run apps for PPC on x86 at all. Windows and Linux users are still struggling with 32 -> 64bit on the SAME architecture.
I acknowledge that, but it still doesn't change the facts.
As for OS X versions and backward/forward compatability... 10.3 is pretty much the minimum that you need these days. While not as good as Windows, it is better than the Linux distribution mess.
I have 10.3 applications that don't work either on 10.5.
I'll assume you're using the term "distribution" lightly and are including major versions of an OS such as OS X 10.4 vs. 10.3.
In which case I can only say that you often have little choice. It woudl be awesome if all developers could produce unique builds for every major release of your favorite OS, but it just ain't going to happen.
Indeed, this is why developers either create software for a certain subset of distributions or make as I've mentioned before, generic packages and binaries that work on all distributions.
I've been running OS X Leopard since it came out and I don't think I'm running a single application that is targeted specifically for Leopard aside from the apps that came with it.
Any applications that take advantages of the newly introduced APIs in 10.
Windows XP Home Edition and Windows Vista Home Premium don't even have a POSIX subsystem: "Note: The product will not install on Windows 9x or Windows XP Home Edition". You need XP Pro or Vista Ultimate to make a POSIX workstation.
I am not surprised, but finding that out annoys me all the same. Did you know you can't even access the ACL file permissions GUI (security tab in property dialogs) in the home edition? Honestly, the things they try to do to give incentive to upgrade to a higher version feels like they personally made that edition be annoying.
I hate Microsoft's home editions, I'd be happier if they got rid of this stupid edition non-sense.
Anyway, the point remains that the Windows POSIX subsystem does behave correctly.
Why not keep 10.5 on an older Mac so as to keep your Classic data?
I'm not sure, but was classic support removed from 10.5 on the PPC version (I haven't checked)?
You've gotta move on eventually. Isn't 5 years or so enough time to stop supporting an old format that a very small percentage of users rely on?
People need to access older information apparently and it isn't always possible to convert that data properly to a new format.
However, being unable to upgrade the OS presents new issues where it is difficult to do actions like copying the data needed from one program to another, since the new program only runs on a newer version of the OS etc.
That said, there are programs like Mini vMac, Basilisk II and SheepShaver...
We are leading the World in terms of health-related research, new drug discoveries, successes in complex surgical procedures (such as multiple organ transplants, hearth surgery, brain surgery, etc.).
The French research in that area is apparently doing very well actually.
What sucks is that we have to pay for the rest of the world as well since your socialist governments invest jack shit in research and the Americans foot that bill.
Actually, a lot of countries and a lot of organizations are donating and investing in American research facilities.
Also, guess why we only lost 3k soldiers in Iraq while the Russians lost 200k in Chechnya? Because our medics are so good that the wounded just don't die!
I am pretty sure it's a lot more than just medics.
It is not my intent to plug a Linux program. However, I am aware of a program that may do what you want on Linux:
I agree with a lot of what you say (and I'm a Mac user), but for editing one of the things that keeps me on a Mac is that there is no Linux port of the wonderful TextMate.
I have never used TextMate (I'll try that out a bit later), but after reading your post and the site.. Have you perchance managed to try Kdevelop out yet?
It's biased to Emacs keybindings
If you don't like the default key bindings in Kdevelop, you can set the system to to be more like emacs, vim or whatever you want using 'systemsettings' or 'kcontrol' and set any application specific keybindings for tasks in kdevelop it self.
Keyboard short cuts for everything, easy automation, source control, syntax highlighting etc etc.
Kdevelop seems to have the features stated on the website and the ones you underlined in your post. I obviously can't make any useful comparison between the two since I have yet to use TextMate.
That said, if you have used kdevelop - I would like to hear your criticisms on it.
How is Wikipedia to draw traffic to their search engine? Obviously not via Google, as search engines are content free on their own. Integrating it with Wikipedia? But again, Wikipedia is the end target, not a start point, so how could this work.
Wikipedia is ran by Wikimedia. Wikia is starting the search engine.
Wikipedia is falling apart because no one agrees on anything. Any additions are being deleted because they don't contain PC(pol.correct) language.
Wikipedia works for me, despite the occasional flaws.
Why would the search website work?
With the amount of adverts wikia keeps shoving on their free hosted Wikis, I already feel assaulted - I'm not sure if Wikia can pull it off. Another company like the Wikimedia foundation on the other hand, in my opinion could pull it off.
Slashdot Mirror
Knowing how people are, probably three.
Two.
None. I have never seen engineers try to solve desktop problems.
When a large change is needed, the distributions that target those uses implement it and use it.
I've seen distributions take their own way all the time. Anyone who runs a distribution can do what they want with that distribution, if you don't have enough influence. You can fork off and start your own. That is the beauty of it.
Believe it or not, there are Linux distributions that do exactly that too.
It would take a new LSB proposal and once accepted the distributions would add support for it.
Much like how currently RPM is considered the universal package format in the LSB. You can use LSB RPMs just fine on non-RPM distributions like Ubuntu.
If it would never fly, the LSB wouldn't exist and wouldn't work. It does.
From my experience, most old Linux engineer/administrators users who used to use Linux but now use another platform are usually people from the older Unix generation of using the BSDs, Solaris, HP/UX etc. These are people who claim UNIX is a superior design philosophy to everything else in the past. Most current Linux users don't think about UNIX when they choose a operating system. Current engineers recognize the 'flaws' in the UNIX design and try to fix the issues in such a way that it doesn't break legacy software. They spout it's superiority like a holy grail.
*shrugs* They will get what they want, and the Linux desktop users will get what they wa
Linux is just a kernel, not a operating system. The kernel is being used everywhere these days.
Considering most of the popular distributions are commercial distributions, I have to disagree.
I don't think you understand what Linux is about.
For one, this goes against the Linux "idea". And two... Hell no, that would stiffle innovation, trap us into a single set of technologies and if this were dictated somehow. That would mean we couldn't make interesting little distributions for specific purposes - be it research, embedded device controllers, unique desktop systems etc.
I think remembering SuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora and so on, aren't harder than remembering Mac OS X. As for common denominator, people say "Linux", despite that not being the correct terminology.
Having been a Apple user for years (still am). I can tell you, I don't like OS X.
Those are considered supported by distributions and those are currently being used by proprietary software on Linux. The only software I can think of that doesn't come packaged that nicely from the developers that provide binaries is Mozilla's. Even then, it doesn't matter since most distributions provide Firefox, thunderird etc.It's not a issue in my opinion because distributions repackage the same software anyway and they optimize the binaries for their systems, doing otherwise is considered unsupported in most distributions. I think what they are doing is correct.Then they can live with the faults. Like OS X users live with the faults of OS X and Windows users live with the faults of Windows. I don't see a issue honestly since most distributions have the same software anyway, doing otherwise is considered unsupported in most distributions.I am saying the issues exist with both. There are Linux distributions that package everything into folders like OS X (can't remember the distro name right now), there are Linux distributions that make 'universalish' binaries like Slackware.
You're right about the checkbox. I have to take a additional step. I just have to specify the base URL for the deb repositories to build my deb packages against with pbuilder. I could do the same with RPM-based distributions using another tool.I honestly could say the same about yours.
Yes, Apple has been notified, yes the systems were sent to Apple and Apple sent them back - I'm not going to get into the Applecare mess though.
No, I think Apple does things the way they are doing because that is how they feel they are the most profitable.
I'm not a Windows advocate, or any particular OS advocate. Just be careful what you wish for -- You might just get it.
And don't let anyone trick you with the whole thing that you never need to reboot OS X. I have had to reboot OS X for installing codecs, QuickTime updates, iTunes updates... Basically non-essential OS programs requiring me to restart.
There is a Ubuntu distribution that specializes in multimedia features such as audio and video called Ubuntu Studio, you may like it.
Like any Ubuntu distribution, you get the default Ubuntu repositories, which contains packages from all the various Ubuntu 'distributions'. So you shouldn't have a problem getting non-Ubuntu studio specific packages for other things too.
I agree with the parent, it's a great mod.
That said, I can also use the same methods with Linux in less time, as there is no worrying about software keys, I don't have to worry about Linux taking out my predefined settings for ssh/samba/ftp, nor does a 'installer' need to run on first boot.
I have had difficulties in the past because updates on Windows take ages to install and I needed to
Sorry, I don't agree.It wouldn't in the desktop market for the fact that many people rely on their proprietary technologies (outlook, Microsoft Office formats), shops don't sell Linux in the computer shops and go, "Well, sir. If you want Windows Vista home addon, it will cost you 50USD more.". People have used Windows in the past, and thus are more reluctant to try something else too.
Plus, there is a even larger issue, Microsoft software is free. What do I mean by free? Everybody has that someone who can get them a free copy of any Microsoft software they need *cough*illegally*cough*. If you give most people a choice, between Microsoft software for free and Linux software for free, they are going to choose the item that they have more experience with and they are sure they want. Of course, there are always the exceptions, I am just talking about the majority.
- Libraries which aren't shared take up additional RAM when applications using the same libraries would take less.
- When there is a new security vulnerability, each of these applications have to release a update rather than the single library just being updated.
- Generally, it's a lot easier ensuring one library that is global is updated than tonnes of 3rd parties who have their own release schedules, making a system more vulnerable.
LSB gives options for this. Also LSB compliance specifies minimal bases that you can rely on being there always.Honestly, Fink, Darwin Ports, MacPorts are quite... annoying with their dependency hell issues.Hmm.. What was that Linux distribution that followed the OS X way of packaging things into folders? I can't remember it's name.
I know I could get the original binaries working just fine, using only packages from the original distribution by setting things like path variables. No compiling required. Yes, it's more difficult than click and run, but this exact issue exists with Windows software when you target a specific version of Windows too.
Very frustrating. The most common issue is that people aren't updating because things aren't working in SP2 - From CD burning software to wireless card, graphic card drivers.
No, not really. I don't want to have people screaming at me because SP2 broke their system (because certain drivers no longer work, or certain applications), made it continuously bluescreen etc. again.
I've experienced that too much in the past and I don't intend to have any more of it.
This is what happens on OS X with it's self contained application folders.
An easy fix would be making the package manager refuse to install such packages, much like Windows installers refuse to install on certain versions of operating systems. Power users will know how to get around that and set it up manually if they need to. To do something that is not considered supported at all.
Pretty much the ones that don't come with my distribution usually.
I know I could do it within the confines of the LSB (infact I did already once with packaging a generic Gimp-gnome build).
LSB standard is RPM. Any distributions that follow LSB compatibility will support RPM. Before you say it, yes Debian/Ubuntu support RPM packages just fine, despite being Deb based. They offer to install it, then convert RPM packages on the fly with tools like 'alien' to a .deb package, and then install it (just from double clicking the RPM in the GUI).
If you don't like it, use another distribution that focuses on having the latest "unstable" stuff. Different distributions have different rules and that is what the beauty of it is.
At the moment, I do this to fix annoying bugs, such as weird 64bit oddities with your 32bit applications.
I find that argument amusing. That is like saying, "This isn't a problem with Windows because the insane amount of issues have forced you to update!" -- Yet apparently Linux doesn't quite give you enough issues to force you to update -- but because it isn't perfect, it's bad.
When users encounter runtime errors and odd crashes, they don't suspect it is because their Windows system is out of date. I know from hours of debugging issues with users.
I honestly couldn't recall ever needing to. Being a programmer though, I am aware of issues between using libraries compiled against a specific libc while the programs being compiled against another causing a issue. But, since you are doing something that is considered unsupported, of course it's not going to be easy - the easy work around would be to just grab the package and requirements and have the paths setup in such a way that it will rely on the libraries you downloaded instead of on the system.
Which in my opinion means: If you aren't getting packages made for another specific distribution working, you are doing it wrong. Because it is definitely possible despite being unsupported.
I do have older software such as Staroffice, Unreal Tournament, Winex and so on from many, many years ago that I used in previous distributions that still work 100% fine today.
As I've said, I've never had a problem with Linux software that was using things like the LSB. I am not even aware of a compatibility issue ever ocuring.
Sorry, I didn't get your point.
I acknowledge that, but it still doesn't change the facts.
I have 10.3 applications that don't work either on 10.5.
Indeed, this is why developers either create software for a certain subset of distributions or make as I've mentioned before, generic packages and binaries that work on all distributions.
Any applications that take advantages of the newly introduced APIs in 10.
I hate Microsoft's home editions, I'd be happier if they got rid of this stupid edition non-sense.
Anyway, the point remains that the Windows POSIX subsystem does behave correctly.
However, being unable to upgrade the OS presents new issues where it is difficult to do actions like copying the data needed from one program to another, since the new program only runs on a newer version of the OS etc.
That said, there are programs like Mini vMac, Basilisk II and SheepShaver...
That said, if you have used kdevelop - I would like to hear your criticisms on it.
Different companies all together.