It's damn near impossible to release software with "no bugs." It's impossible to forsee every hardware configuration that the software will run under. Linus even said himself that it would be dumb to assume that there wouldn't be later 2.2.X kernels.
How am I being 'elitist'? I'm a living example of the benefits of Linux Documentation. When I first started using Linux, I didn't know shit about it, but Thanks to the volumes of docs, I'm now happy to say I know Linux Very well. In the case of technical documentation Quality would be the equivilent of Quantity. You don't need to be a novelist to write documentation.
By the way, I am FAR from elite in the world of Linux. But I know enough to maintain my systems, and maintain them well. And the documentation, whether it have been online, or installed in the HOWTO pages, helped. Tremendously. Elite has nothing to do with it.
Linux is hard. No matter how you slice it, there's no avoiding this truth: the operating system cherished by hackers everywhere is a pain in the neck to install, configure and use. Forget about the fawning press accounts, the surging market-share numbers and the tide of Microsoft-hating corporations paying homage to this jewel in free software's crown. Linux is a morass of arcane text commands, bewildering options and incomprehensible Unix concepts. Linux sucks.
The start of the article isn't too nice. The author claims that he is speaking as "a stupid user." Let me say that Linux isn't FOR stupid users. If you're a stupid user, install Windows. Point and click your way to happiness.
But if you're a stupid user who just wants to get on the Net and surf for Spice Girls pics, and the words "command-line interface" send spikes of terror through your bone marrow, then Linux is gruesome. It is not designed for you.
Correct. It's not designed for stupid users.....BUT, the author continues:
Linux, in other words, needs help.
Yeah, Linux can be improved. It would be ignorant to say that it DOESN'T need improving. But gearing an operating system toward idiots is not the way to plan for the future. Improve power, performance, and usage. Powerful operating systems don't belong in the hands of clueless users.
The Linux HowTo archive is a terrific resource.......But it doesn't do a darned thing for the stupid user.
How can extensive documentation not do anything for users? This article is clueless on so many points, and it seems to contradict itself on almost all of them.
Gee....Considering Linus himself is on the team developing this chip, I would venture a guess to say that Linux would be ported NATIVELY to this thing. Although it would run under it's built-in x86 emulation, It would run (obviously) faster natively. I know Linus chose a job that was Linux neutral, but this has nothing to do with his JOB, it's just a new platform for Linux to be ported to.
This sounds like a gripe, but it's a valid one: If it's cheap to make, why not pass on the savings to the Consumer? Sounds like Transmeta is a bit greedy, but hey, I guess it pays for future research.
This is kind of off topic, but I noticed that this is the first article of this type that doesn't have the phrase "Linux was written in 1991 by Linus Torvalds at the University of Helenski in Finland." or words to that effect.
Floppy Disks are one of the most versatile forms of media. That's why they survived for so long. That's ALSO why everyone made a fuss when the iMac didn't come with one.
Ugh. The new SGI logo is Horrible. There is no distinguishing it between a Computer Graphics company and perhaps a clothing chain. Stick with the old one!!
And I bet you're in your room, happily tapping away on your lime-flavored iMac. The computer COMES IN COLORS! Colors named after FRUIT FLAVORS!! Does this sound like a serious computer to you?
(Cut to: Elegantly furnished office. Dark wood finish on the walls, expensive leather chair, and on the marble-topped desk sits a Cherry iMac.)
P.S.: I'd take a DELL over an iMac any day. And given the choice, I'd probably take the Compaq too.
I am a 110% believer in Linux. I Don't want Office to be ported to Linux, let alone any microsoft product. I'd prefer not to be included in your stereotype, thank you.
Do you truly believe that Microsoft will say "Shit, we lost. Ok everyone, Delete all of the windows source code, and nobody work on any operating system-related things for 10 years." Gimme a break. If in fact your idea were to be put into play, it would be useless, because all Microsoft would have to do is develop it's OS behind the scenes as technology progresses, and after 10 years, they'll release it.
How much would they auction it off for? I mean DAMN, if they base it on sales of versions of the 9x kernel alone, that auction would get PRETTY steep.....
Now that I think about it, This could pose an interesting point.
If Microsoft can "develop *a* windows", wouldn't that be just what they want? I mean, when a person (GASP!) goes to buy Windows, they usually want MICROSOFT Windows.
BUT, I think a peek at the windows source code would be very interesting, but as I said before, parts could be conveinantly left out, and I don't doubt Microsoft would do that.
Slashdot Mirror
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
"Sir, to open that program, just Double-Blink on it's icon....."
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
By the way, I am FAR from elite in the world of Linux. But I know enough to maintain my systems, and maintain them well. And the documentation, whether it have been online, or installed in the HOWTO pages, helped. Tremendously. Elite has nothing to do with it.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
The start of the article isn't too nice. The author claims that he is speaking as "a stupid user." Let me say that Linux isn't FOR stupid users. If you're a stupid user, install Windows. Point and click your way to happiness.
But if you're a stupid user who just wants to get on the Net and surf for Spice Girls pics, and the words "command-line interface" send spikes of terror through your bone marrow, then Linux is gruesome. It is not designed for you.
Correct. It's not designed for stupid users.....BUT, the author continues:
Linux, in other words, needs help.
Yeah, Linux can be improved. It would be ignorant to say that it DOESN'T need improving. But gearing an operating system toward idiots is not the way to plan for the future. Improve power, performance, and usage. Powerful operating systems don't belong in the hands of clueless users.
The Linux HowTo archive is a terrific resource.......But it doesn't do a darned thing for the stupid user.
How can extensive documentation not do anything for users? This article is clueless on so many points, and it seems to contradict itself on almost all of them.
I can go on, but I think I made my point. Bah.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
This sounds like a gripe, but it's a valid one: If it's cheap to make, why not pass on the savings to the Consumer? Sounds like Transmeta is a bit greedy, but hey, I guess it pays for future research.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Long live the 3.5 Floppy!
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Ugh. The new SGI logo is Horrible. There is no distinguishing it between a Computer Graphics company and perhaps a clothing chain. Stick with the old one!!
Let's get some of our less-educated readers/writers to take a peek at this article. It may clear up some of the FUD.
(But I doubt it.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
(Cut to: Elegantly furnished office. Dark wood finish on the walls, expensive leather chair, and on the marble-topped desk sits a Cherry iMac.)
P.S.: I'd take a DELL over an iMac any day. And given the choice, I'd probably take the Compaq too.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
How much would they auction it off for? I mean DAMN, if they base it on sales of versions of the 9x kernel alone, that auction would get PRETTY steep.....
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
If Microsoft can "develop *a* windows", wouldn't that be just what they want? I mean, when a person (GASP!) goes to buy Windows, they usually want MICROSOFT Windows.
BUT, I think a peek at the windows source code would be very interesting, but as I said before, parts could be conveinantly left out, and I don't doubt Microsoft would do that.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?