How often have we read about Linux fan boys complaining about the lack of Linux support?
I see it about several times a day in #Kubuntu, often they find the hardware they were complaining about is supported, it just required them to install a package or unblacklist a module etc.
How often do they start "campaigns" to put it out there to the vendors, get them to notice there's a following?
Never seen any.
How often have we seen these kinds of posts on just this site?
What? Like, "If Dell supported Linux I would buy from them", and then the next post, they're pointed to www.dell.com/linux ?
Conversely, how many average users are going to be going to this site?
I think people who want Linux on Dell don't know about Dell's Linux offerings, which indicates to me they're likely to be more closer to average than geeks.
because colleagues of mine who use Linux have told me about little issues like when upgrading the kernel to the latest version because it supported some more hardware and then existing hardware that previously worked stopped work, NICE!!
2.4 to 2.6?
Although I haven't heard of this issue, there is nothing wrong with staying with your existing kernel version. It's not like you won't be able to run new software like you won't with Windows.
Vista may not work on everyones machines fully, you may even have to use a couple of beta drivers to start with but Linux is exactly the same.
The Linux kernel supports far more hardware than any version of Windows ever did. I disagree with your statement.
The only difference being that with Vista the situation WILL improve over time
I some how doubt I'll be able to use Vista decently on six year old hardware (which I tried) while I can already use Linux on the same six year old hardware with Beryl for those 'spiffy' effects (even though I don't care for them) decently.
As a Macintosh user, I have to ask, what's a driver?
Usually binary code that determines how a computer will communicate with a peripheral device.
The lack of them on OS X (not drivers, but certain drivers that come with the OS) is the reason why so many peripheral devices have a warning label saying something similar to "Not compatible with Macintosh".
Linux is still unsuitable for casual users with other casual users as friends.
Yet nine year olds, people in their mid-30s, heck even my sister is able to use Linux here. Sorry, something doesn't add up with your statement.
For an average user wanting to run business apps or games, Linux/Wine/QEMU just isn't as friendly nor has the "ask your neighbor" tech support that you'd get running Windows.
Most of the advice I hear from other people tends to be bad anyway, causing more problems...
Well that's embarrassing. I honestly never noticed the tab support, and I've been using OS X since around the 9/11 event.
Web-folder? Are you talking about customized Finder windows with background images and such? That's not a web page; you can customize any Finder window like that.
That's what the folder customizations were called in win98, and more people are familiar with that term.
Click the little pill button on the upper-right of the window to get the metal sidebar again.
Heh, that crashes finder with Tinkertool's DMG, excellent.
Most DMGs contain a symlink to the Applications folder right in the window anyway.
Smaller utilities often don't.
Be honest--have you even used a Mac?
For many years. Been using Apple products since classic 7. However, OS X is something I rarely boot into anymore unless I want to test things in it (I personally get very irritated at the entire UI -- I don't want shadows, I don't want anti-aliasing, I don't want to use broken utilities that only manage to fix part of those problems etc.).
Mac apps have an application menu where the "Check for Updates..."
A very common thing I experience:
AUS: Connection Refused
(funny thing is if I extract the URL from the package, it works in the browser -- replicable with any mac on my network). So I can't really rely on the broken updater to tell me anything.
I prefer a standardized menu item to a command-line package manager for program updates.
Depends on what the computer is for. For my desktop systems, I like Adept to notify me by just popping up in my tray and update the system when I tell it to.
If a spammer pulls a joe-job and sends out 100K messages with my email address as the forged sender, then I get idiots like you doing the callback thing. I block such sites at the firewall as soon as I see 'em.
Generally I'm not too worried about that happening from domains that don't even have SPF records.
Blocking my connections just reinforce that e-mails from your domain won't be delivered to mine -- Since I don't even know who you are or why that's a bad thing for me, I see no problem with this.
No, you didn't. It was the first step you listed--"Find website of program."
Sorry, I consider searching for the correct website another step.
Fast access from the Dock has nothing to do with package management.
Perhaps I should of phrased it as "menu creation".
I could say the same thing about creating a desktop shortcut in Debian.
Desktop shortcuts for what?
I certainly can see the use in having installed programs in a menu, but scattered on your desktop which you can't even scroll through when it's full is pointless. Hell, it isn't even organized unlike proper menu structures.
It's padding you stuffed into the list.
You have a point and I didn't realize it. OS X doesn't really use menus in the first place -- In this particular point it was my personal problems with the OS design, since I have 'workarounds' (applications folder in dock, and applications under proper categorical folder under that) -- my mind was set on that train of thought about dock items in OS X.
You only get auto-update for software in the repositories. Some software is not. You might say, it does not follow the Linux conventions. So, why are you blaming OS X for apps that don't follow the conventions, when Linux has the same problem?
I can't even remember the last time I had this issue on Linux, definately isn't common in my experience.
Note also that fixing this for the developers on MacOS is pretty easy, just include the Sparkle library. Fixing it on Linux is really hard, and it's out of the developers hands.
Eh? I don't see the problem. Let's take Skype for example.
Does it work with my package manager? Yes.
Do I have to to download individual packages in a webbrowser then install them? No.
Will my package manager get the latest version of Skype in their repositories? Yes.
Basically if you are included correctly and kept up to date in a distro, it's a matter of luck.
Or the developers could provide their own repositories. Or even submit their own packages to various distributions.
In my opinion, if developers provide a program that is already setup to be packaged for RPM, DEB, that's probably the best way to go. Adding it to online source repositories -- even better. That way, even if your distribution/architecture doesn't have a binary package built specifically for it. You can just use one of the automated source building tools.
Myself, I provide some source repositories for some small projects I work on. compiling, packaging and installing anything from them is just as simple as typing 'apt-build install programname'.
As for included correctly -- Feel free to show me some verifiable statistics, such as in Ubuntu repositories, where things aren't included correctly. Most official and original developer's repositories have high standards.
Seems seems of my points didn't make it into the other post...
Your Debian list conveniently leaves out having to click the KDE start menu
I also 'conveniently' skipped opening a webbrowser on OS X too. Do you see a pattern here?
"Create new icon in dock." - The fuck? You don't have to do this
No, you don't, but if you want fast access to the application from the dock... (I tend to have nothing but the trash and applications folder in my dock -- But that's only because I got tired of adding each application).
That's all very well if I want a package that's in the repository, but if I want one that isn't ?
Since you used the word 'package', we'll assume you meant the software in question has already been packaged in some form. You can...
add the repository that has it.
or
add the source repository that has it and apt-build install it
If there are no repositories (would be unusual if they already went to the step of making the deb), open the deb (or rpm) file downloaded from the site and the package manager should attempt to install it.
Or a version that's newer than the one in my distribution ?
See above
Then unix installation is sheer hell.
I don't think Debian based packaging is a Unix thing.
Open disk image that contains the program." - DMGs are auto-mounted by Safari.
Believe it or not, I don't use Safari on OS X. I like tabs.
"Open Applications folder." - There's already an Applications shortcut on the Finder, so you just drag to that when the disk image window automatically opens.
Except for the fact that you get weird web-folder crap often in those mounted drive images that popup that don't have the applications shortcut in finder. I should probably of said this point with "open another finder window or use a existing one other than this one to drag and drop"
Bullshit. This doesn't even have to do with package management, and it's an OS X convention for apps to auto-check for updates when they're run. You don't have to recheck any websites.
Too bad so many Mac applications don't follow OS X's conventions then, isn't it?
Except Linux package management does this, and it's my opinion it's a good system, a feature that OS X lacks.
Your Debian list conveniently leaves out having to click the KDE start menu, fire up a Terminal window, type in the root password, waiting while the package manager goes through dependencies, etc. What a phony comparison of steps. I could just have easily reduced OS X's step to one line of "Drag app icon to Applications shortcut" in the same the way you reduced Debian's steps.
I rarely use the start menu, I usually do alt + f2 -> program name.
As for the command line, I wasn't referring to being in X at that point.
You get a point on the root password and reminded me that most package management on Linux does not permit so much user-specific installations as nicely.
If only major linux distros would use Application Packages like OS X, the world would be a better place.
Because you can't install RPMs on DEB syste.. Oh wait, you can.
Most distributions let you convert&install/install other package formats, this article's problem is a non-issue in my opinion.
And no, I don't think drag and drop is easier. I just want to type the application name I was to install and that's it. Not having to worry about updates etc.
The OS X method:
Find website of program Download program Open disk image that contains program Open applications folder Drag and drop the application folder from the disk image Create new icon in dock Have to recheck the site periodically to check for a update for a specific program
Simply dump SMTP and move everyone to a whole new standard. X400 would be fine by me, though it was never really designed with eithernet or IP as part of the network stack in mind. *shrug*
Where will this go? I think email (as in RFC822, etc) is doomed. The protocol is broken. It has no safeguards to confirm the legitimacy of the sender or recipient, no mechanism to secure the communication during transmission (like a real envelope), and as a result the protocol begs to be exploited by Internet fucktards. Which is exactly what's happening. Time to toss SMTP and start from scratch.
Didn't some mail providers like AOL start rejecting mails from domains that didn't have SPF records?
If we had a few more free mail providers like hotmail, gmail etc. doing that, we'd probably start seeing a widespread adoption of SPF which would confirm the legitimacy of the server sending mail.
Unfortunately SPF isn't exactly a key for fighting spam. For a period of time I rejected mail to my mail account from domains that didn't have SPF records. The spammers would relay through legitimate providers like hotmail, gmail, yahoo (and I have people I communicate with on those providers), they would also use exploited servers that had SPF records -- It didn't really stop the spam.
I have ended up using automatic whitelisting, which works well.
There is a slight annoyance when I signup on certain websites, as I need to log into the web interface and check the whitelist queue folder, authorize&move the e-mail for that site.
I still use SPF on my mail server, along with spamhaus's zen DNSBL and additionally aggressive verification (checks to see if the e-mail address exists by trying to relay a e-mail to it -- canceling at the last moment). I know some people are probably getting whitelist e-mails somewhere -- But I do think I have done my best to minimize the amount of useless traffic sent out by my server. I also don't bounce the original message with whitelist e-mails, just the headers.
If there's anyone working on GNOME (or KDE) who hasn't read this book, they should immediately resign and work on some other project. Only people who have some talent or training in thinking about usability should get involved in these things.
Because no one and I mean no one is capable of understanding what a good UI design is unless they read that book.
One of the biggest problems is that so many of these people are mildly aspergic and therefore have limited ability to empathize with how other people (who don't know as much as they do about the system they're designing) will be able to use it.
Because a [advanced] button that exposes more settings for more technological oriented users is going to hurt the poor users.:(
Slashdot Mirror
We're at Amiga OS4 now and it's pretty much the same -- very low memory (a few MB now).
Amiga OS5 is in development and apparently will be supported on more architectures than just PPC.
You may want to look at other vendors like System 76 or Lenovo.
Have you tried System 76?
Although I haven't heard of this issue, there is nothing wrong with staying with your existing kernel version. It's not like you won't be able to run new software like you won't with Windows.The Linux kernel supports far more hardware than any version of Windows ever did. I disagree with your statement.I some how doubt I'll be able to use Vista decently on six year old hardware (which I tried) while I can already use Linux on the same six year old hardware with Beryl for those 'spiffy' effects (even though I don't care for them) decently.
The lack of them on OS X (not drivers, but certain drivers that come with the OS) is the reason why so many peripheral devices have a warning label saying something similar to "Not compatible with Macintosh".
Blocking my connections just reinforce that e-mails from your domain won't be delivered to mine -- Since I don't even know who you are or why that's a bad thing for me, I see no problem with this.
I certainly can see the use in having installed programs in a menu, but scattered on your desktop which you can't even scroll through when it's full is pointless. Hell, it isn't even organized unlike proper menu structures.
You have a point and I didn't realize it. OS X doesn't really use menus in the first place -- In this particular point it was my personal problems with the OS design, since I have 'workarounds' (applications folder in dock, and applications under proper categorical folder under that) -- my mind was set on that train of thought about dock items in OS X.
Does it work with my package manager? Yes.
Do I have to to download individual packages in a webbrowser then install them? No.
Will my package manager get the latest version of Skype in their repositories? Yes.Or the developers could provide their own repositories. Or even submit their own packages to various distributions.
In my opinion, if developers provide a program that is already setup to be packaged for RPM, DEB, that's probably the best way to go. Adding it to online source repositories -- even better. That way, even if your distribution/architecture doesn't have a binary package built specifically for it. You can just use one of the automated source building tools.
Myself, I provide some source repositories for some small projects I work on. compiling, packaging and installing anything from them is just as simple as typing 'apt-build install programname'.
As for included correctly -- Feel free to show me some verifiable statistics, such as in Ubuntu repositories, where things aren't included correctly. Most official and original developer's repositories have high standards.
add the repository that has it.
or
add the source repository that has it and apt-build install it
If there are no repositories (would be unusual if they already went to the step of making the deb), open the deb (or rpm) file downloaded from the site and the package manager should attempt to install it.See aboveI don't think Debian based packaging is a Unix thing.
Except Linux package management does this, and it's my opinion it's a good system, a feature that OS X lacks.I rarely use the start menu, I usually do alt + f2 -> program name.
As for the command line, I wasn't referring to being in X at that point.
You get a point on the root password and reminded me that most package management on Linux does not permit so much user-specific installations as nicely.
Most distributions let you convert&install/install other package formats, this article's problem is a non-issue in my opinion.
And no, I don't think drag and drop is easier. I just want to type the application name I was to install and that's it. Not having to worry about updates etc.
The OS X method:
Find website of program
Download program
Open disk image that contains program
Open applications folder
Drag and drop the application folder from the disk image
Create new icon in dock
Have to recheck the site periodically to check for a update for a specific program
Debian package system:
sudo apt-get install firefox thunderbird seamonkey
(you can choose multiple applications if you want even)
or graphically,
Open Adept
Type in program name
Click "request install" (you can choose multiple applications if you want even)
click install
Updates -- I wake up in the morning and see Adept telling me there are updates available for some of the software I use.
If we had a few more free mail providers like hotmail, gmail etc. doing that, we'd probably start seeing a widespread adoption of SPF which would confirm the legitimacy of the server sending mail.
Unfortunately SPF isn't exactly a key for fighting spam. For a period of time I rejected mail to my mail account from domains that didn't have SPF records. The spammers would relay through legitimate providers like hotmail, gmail, yahoo (and I have people I communicate with on those providers), they would also use exploited servers that had SPF records -- It didn't really stop the spam.
I have ended up using automatic whitelisting, which works well.
There is a slight annoyance when I signup on certain websites, as I need to log into the web interface and check the whitelist queue folder, authorize&move the e-mail for that site.
I still use SPF on my mail server, along with spamhaus's zen DNSBL and additionally aggressive verification (checks to see if the e-mail address exists by trying to relay a e-mail to it -- canceling at the last moment). I know some people are probably getting whitelist e-mails somewhere -- But I do think I have done my best to minimize the amount of useless traffic sent out by my server. I also don't bounce the original message with whitelist e-mails, just the headers.