OK, that's weird, I *never* have had a problem, I'm using Jaunty 9.04 which I've upgraded all the way from 7.04. Just have never had a reason to completely do a fresh install.
And I thought you could put in any CD, not just the alternate CD, that had updated packages on it, and could use it as a repository. In other words, I'm pretty sure putting in a normal desktop CD will make it prompt for if you want to update your packages off of it, and in the case of desktops, the desktop CD should be what you should use, as it would probably have more appropriate packages than the alternate CD may have.
I dunno, but that reminds me of the hamster in the ball, who was always sorta bored watching TV until finally his favourite star Bolt shows up at his doorstep, and he's all like woah, and Bolt is all like yep, and Mittens is all like wuuuuut, and we're all like haha.
Sorry, thought I'd contribute to the randomness. ^^
Meh, not having an opinion on the capabilities of the Java system itself, anything which needs extra library Y that you aren't using yet is going to slow down while loading it though. I know that Java is even slower due to it being a virtual machine and not just a library of course. Most programs now days have ports for all three major OSes any way, at the same time computers keep getting faster making running things like Java less annoying, so I can't decide whether Java use will increase or not.
As long as each distro is using a standardized driver interface, it shouldn't matter. Linux adding standards doesn't mean forcing users to use software X, Y, and Z, but instead merely that users will have much more freedom and compatibility if they use software X, Y, and Z that are compatible with a standard.
"There is no common way to install and remove software."
Heard of apt or yum? Both are far superior that the "Windows Way".
You're still locked into a proprietary repository and packaging system. Linux needs to have packaging standards that all the package managers can be made compatible with, so that I can go and install basically any package out there easily to get the software I want if it doesn't happen to be in my repository. I shouldn't be forced to suckle the teat of the company behind my distro, I want real actual freedom. On Windows, you can go most any place and easily download and install whatever software it is in a few clicks. Linux needs this in order to ramp up it's success on the desktop.
Look up packagekit, it hooks into rpm, apt, etc etc, and lets face it, all distros, more or less use apt or yum, two different things with nearly identical uses... yeah, so difficult. which brings us onto our next point
You just made his point for him. There is no standard package management - there are dozens of tools, and dozens more repositories for them. And yes, it is difficult for the lay person - why do you think phishing and trojans are so common - people really don't understand this stuff, nor do they want to - they just want to use their computer.
Being one of the most pissed Linux users about this issue, I have to chime in. =P
The problem isn't so much different software. While you can either prefer yum or apt-get, the problem isn't that, it's standardizing the *interfaces*/APIs. You don't hear someone saying "OMG Linux sucks because I have a choice between KWord and OpenOffice!!!!" That's because those are easy to find and use even if you're switching between one and the other. As long as you save your docs in, say, ODF, things are cool, since both programs are compatible with ODF.
The problem is there needs to be one or more types of packages that can be easily made compatible with ALL OF THE PACKAGE MANAGERS. Proprietary Linux packaging is shameful beyond belief, these distro companies have for far too long enjoyed making their Linux "version" be an island, forcing users to swim to it just because of this issue which causes developers to say oh fuck it, and just keep releasing source packages, forcing Linux users to have to know how to compile which is an instant and immediate FAIL for 99% of all computer users.
Piracy helps Microsoft. They want you using their stuff for free if you don't want to use their stuff. Linux needs file sharing to become rampant as well in order to help spread it's adoption, and that won't happen until universal packaging is a reality. No more binaries with unresolved dependencies, no more proprietary packages, Linux shouldn't and doesn't have to put up with that shit. All it takes is communication, and that won't happen until more Linux users get pissed and push for it.
Geezus these arguments get old. The fact is that being similar can help win new users, as *well* as being better. So, even if you have a better program, you may not get as many converts of everyone is used to another method that isn't as "good". Then there's also the fact that often "good" depends on who you ask. Maybe Gimp should fork and become Gimp, and Gimpshop.;) Oh wait...
But why are dependencies a problem? The reason is because *those* packages are proprietary. If a package used a universal naming convention, like the actual names of the programs the developers named them, then a program could simply say "I want this, this, and this" and the manager would know what the hell they wanted and install it all easily. Distro repositories should be nothing more than mirrors of sourceforge basically, for the packages they wanted to support, but it should be able to hook into the outside world to pull dependencies when users wanted/needed those. If I wanted, I shouldn't HAVE to install Firefox updates from distro repos, I should be able to get system updates directly from Mozilla. Bad example as Mozilla actually does have a Ubuntu repo, but that's proprietary, I want universal formats so that ALL Linux users can easily install, remove, and update any and all Linux software they want.
A Mandriva user shouldn't have to install Ubuntu just because OMGAwsomeGame version 5.125.53.325 that they want or need for some reason isn't in Mandriva's repos. These distro companies aren't caring about this problem because they want the size of their repos to *cause* this to happen, for users to switch just for their access to software. That barrier is opposed to Linux's principals and to truly free software. Not to mention, you know, it makes Linux *suck*. Unless you use Ubuntu. But even then, things still suck, and user's freedoms are very much lessened.
And of course again, yeah yeah, you can compile, but only like 5% of users really care about that, and they're mostly developers. Linux needs more features, and this is a big one. Software packages "just work" on Windows and OS X, Linux users can and should have that same freedom, and there is no reason whatsoever that it's not possible and can't be solved through better programming and standards.
Not that you should support buying discs that make it difficult to view their contents and require giving Hollywood more money in order to view those precious movies which you purchased and instead should download them all from someone else who has ripped them, but still.
Not that you should fear software patents, since they should be abolished, but yes, OGM and MKV are good completely legally open (in the U.S.) containers, Vorbis is much better than MP3 of course though I'm not sure about it vs. AC3, but what really needs more love are the actual video codecs. Theora is OKish but Dirac and others are where the future seems to be with open video codecs.
If the issue was an ffmpeg or VLC issue, then that would qualify as a dependency issue. The newer VLC should have required the newer ffmpeg. If, however, it was an Ubuntu packaging naming issue, I completely blame proprietary Linux packaging for that.
This is one of the many reasons Linux packaging standards are needed. Distros should be offering the same exact software that you can get easily online. If they want to modify a program, they need to change it's name, but if it's simply distros having different package names then they need to fucking stop it. Metapackages are fine, but fucking around with software names just so you can make your repository be proprietary is wrong. Until Linux users are really free to choose what software to install no matter their distro, and the focus is shifted to making the default software work correctly for all Linux users, you sadly will have more freedom in some ways on a proprietary OS.
Thank you distro wars for giving everyone less freedom and making Linux suck more.
If Flash were a decent media container, it could have more than one format, and I know that it does. I'm pretty sure it does avi and I know it does mp4. Can it contain Vorbis or Dirac though? Probably not Dirac since it's still so new, but I wouldn't be surprised if Vorbis support was there.
Regardless, you're right in that it's not a very open specification, seems more like a closed moving target. I'm hoping that Firefox + Vorbis is the start of something good as far as internet standards go, and also the upcoming Dirac, Snow, and other truly open codecs.
There are already several projects to ensure Linux software runs well on small devices. What would be best is if Gnome or KDE could scale easily to accommodate tiny resolutions, but if not, hopefully this project is just another desktop environment that could be chosen from the login screen? ^^
My point is: standards. Don't let companies create proprietary Linux projects if and where possible.
I would still really like to see a unified driver specification for all graphics cards...:P
It's what Freedom software is supposed to be all about.
Now the only big thing left is to use a unified package manager to be able to add, remove, and upgrade Linux packages, even the ones outside the distro's repository. Once Linux is free of proprietary distro packaging, and projects are using more standardized APIs so that users can swap out one program in their software "stack" for another program if, say, they wanted to do something like switch to a new desktop notification system, or what have you, it would be cake! Then users would never be forced to install a different OS just because there's a piece of software they want and they don't know anything about compiling or the command line!
Linux adoption increasing will directly effect you, whether you know it or not. It will even effect Mac and Windows users due to (hopefully) increased competition and other factors. I very much want Linux to be more usable, not just for me but for everyone, and for it's adoption to grow, which in turn effects me and everyone else.
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
Ugh, can everyone please communicate effectively? I know that's hard for geeks, but...:P
IMO what the OP seemed to be trying to say, in their own silly way ("THEEEIR PROBLEM"! THEEEEIR "FAULT"!) is that Linux issues effects everyone, especially for a community project like Linux, so everyone should care about all issues.
For instance, one user could want more games for Linux, and another could want better printer support. Well guess what? If you had better printer support, Linux adoption would be higher than without better printer support. This in turn allows there to be more use of Linux, which carries the weight of there being a higher demand for games. Everything effects everything else in the Linux ecosphere.
As for "fault", everyone knows there is no such thing, you can always blame both sides, "fault" is just based on what is expected, and given that fact, Linux driver development being on the side of Linux developers *is* what is expected, but I totally agree that it shouldn't *have* to be that way, but who cares. The important thing is to always try to make things better, period.
Now to actually respond to your post...better. ^^
Yes, you're right that for Windows and Mac, the fault is shifted to the manufacturer, while for Linux it is shifted to random or specific Linux developers. That's because typically that's who is doing the driver support in each case. Again, you can still blame both sides, just because one or the other is expected doesn't mean each side can't do things better. You have to look at each situation for what it is.
Linux: Driver development more difficult in some ways (don't have to jump through Microsoft's certification hoops tho!) due to the actual maker, who knows all about the device, often not supporting Linux by making a driver for it. Tux grew up in the Antarctic and struggles to swim and keep up. Windows: Usually always supported by the makers just because Microsoft is the gorilla, they sit around being fed driver bananas by the makers. Mac: Like a cat, does their own thing, and doesn't really care too much about playing nicely with anyone.
No doubt the nv driver that you were using was a binary, so, that was a binary blob too, it's just that the license for it was open source. Binaries = good when the attached license is open. It means a normal computer user can actually, you know, use it.
nVidia sucks as far as openness, so the nv driver understandably sucks. AMD/ATI still has sucky closed drivers, but because they are being more open, the ati driver is much nicer than nv is now. Using the ati driver, xrandr works great, so I can use the Gnome resolution tool to configure multiple monitors, and even high-def movie playback is working well. While I know that the GPU isn't being used as much as it could be, or will be in future ati driver versions, it's still better than nothing.
Meanwhile, the fglrx driver is pretty crappy compared to the nvidia driver.
"Then maybe you might try compiling it yourself or find a different binary package."
OOo: Faster than MSOffice...if You're a Nerd.
Seriously though, OOo should obviously be compared after it's been compiled against the latest libraries, and it's the developers job to release that latest version on their site.
In any case, a fair comparison should be done using the same version. All I know is that OOo is snappier on Linux, and without the bleeps, sweeps, and the creeps which the Windows version suffers from.
I hope unauthorized material is shared, without the consent of the creator.
First off, please get this right. All things are "copyrighted" immediately upon creation/composition/whatever, whether or not they wanted it to be, or so the law states. Secondly, you never know if someone has the consent of the copyright holder. It's perfectly legal for me to download a movie if the movie creator told me that I could, or if I have a "right" to do so as defined by law. Regardless of what the stupid law says (dumb DMCA, go to hell please) if you purchased a movie and want a backup or want to restore a lost disc or whatever it may be, that definitely should be completely legal, and there's no way for Facebook or any of those retards to know if your need is a "legitimate" one or not.
Regardless, everyone should keep sharing ideas and utilizing them to their full potential. Copyright and patent laws be damned.
Slashdot Mirror
I see, thanks for the info. :)
OK, that's weird, I *never* have had a problem, I'm using Jaunty 9.04 which I've upgraded all the way from 7.04. Just have never had a reason to completely do a fresh install.
And I thought you could put in any CD, not just the alternate CD, that had updated packages on it, and could use it as a repository. In other words, I'm pretty sure putting in a normal desktop CD will make it prompt for if you want to update your packages off of it, and in the case of desktops, the desktop CD should be what you should use, as it would probably have more appropriate packages than the alternate CD may have.
I dunno, but that reminds me of the hamster in the ball, who was always sorta bored watching TV until finally his favourite star Bolt shows up at his doorstep, and he's all like woah, and Bolt is all like yep, and Mittens is all like wuuuuut, and we're all like haha.
Sorry, thought I'd contribute to the randomness. ^^
Meh, not having an opinion on the capabilities of the Java system itself, anything which needs extra library Y that you aren't using yet is going to slow down while loading it though. I know that Java is even slower due to it being a virtual machine and not just a library of course. Most programs now days have ports for all three major OSes any way, at the same time computers keep getting faster making running things like Java less annoying, so I can't decide whether Java use will increase or not.
As long as each distro is using a standardized driver interface, it shouldn't matter. Linux adding standards doesn't mean forcing users to use software X, Y, and Z, but instead merely that users will have much more freedom and compatibility if they use software X, Y, and Z that are compatible with a standard.
"There is no common way to install and remove software."
Heard of apt or yum? Both are far superior that the "Windows Way".
You're still locked into a proprietary repository and packaging system. Linux needs to have packaging standards that all the package managers can be made compatible with, so that I can go and install basically any package out there easily to get the software I want if it doesn't happen to be in my repository. I shouldn't be forced to suckle the teat of the company behind my distro, I want real actual freedom. On Windows, you can go most any place and easily download and install whatever software it is in a few clicks. Linux needs this in order to ramp up it's success on the desktop.
Look up packagekit, it hooks into rpm, apt, etc etc, and lets face it, all distros, more or less use apt or yum, two different things with nearly identical uses... yeah, so difficult. which brings us onto our next point
You just made his point for him. There is no standard package management - there are dozens of tools, and dozens more repositories for them. And yes, it is difficult for the lay person - why do you think phishing and trojans are so common - people really don't understand this stuff, nor do they want to - they just want to use their computer.
Being one of the most pissed Linux users about this issue, I have to chime in. =P
The problem isn't so much different software. While you can either prefer yum or apt-get, the problem isn't that, it's standardizing the *interfaces*/APIs. You don't hear someone saying "OMG Linux sucks because I have a choice between KWord and OpenOffice!!!!" That's because those are easy to find and use even if you're switching between one and the other. As long as you save your docs in, say, ODF, things are cool, since both programs are compatible with ODF.
The problem is there needs to be one or more types of packages that can be easily made compatible with ALL OF THE PACKAGE MANAGERS. Proprietary Linux packaging is shameful beyond belief, these distro companies have for far too long enjoyed making their Linux "version" be an island, forcing users to swim to it just because of this issue which causes developers to say oh fuck it, and just keep releasing source packages, forcing Linux users to have to know how to compile which is an instant and immediate FAIL for 99% of all computer users.
Piracy helps Microsoft. They want you using their stuff for free if you don't want to use their stuff. Linux needs file sharing to become rampant as well in order to help spread it's adoption, and that won't happen until universal packaging is a reality. No more binaries with unresolved dependencies, no more proprietary packages, Linux shouldn't and doesn't have to put up with that shit. All it takes is communication, and that won't happen until more Linux users get pissed and push for it.
Fuck proprietary distro packaging.
Geezus these arguments get old. The fact is that being similar can help win new users, as *well* as being better. So, even if you have a better program, you may not get as many converts of everyone is used to another method that isn't as "good". Then there's also the fact that often "good" depends on who you ask. Maybe Gimp should fork and become Gimp, and Gimpshop. ;) Oh wait...
But why are dependencies a problem? The reason is because *those* packages are proprietary. If a package used a universal naming convention, like the actual names of the programs the developers named them, then a program could simply say "I want this, this, and this" and the manager would know what the hell they wanted and install it all easily. Distro repositories should be nothing more than mirrors of sourceforge basically, for the packages they wanted to support, but it should be able to hook into the outside world to pull dependencies when users wanted/needed those. If I wanted, I shouldn't HAVE to install Firefox updates from distro repos, I should be able to get system updates directly from Mozilla. Bad example as Mozilla actually does have a Ubuntu repo, but that's proprietary, I want universal formats so that ALL Linux users can easily install, remove, and update any and all Linux software they want.
A Mandriva user shouldn't have to install Ubuntu just because OMGAwsomeGame version 5.125.53.325 that they want or need for some reason isn't in Mandriva's repos. These distro companies aren't caring about this problem because they want the size of their repos to *cause* this to happen, for users to switch just for their access to software. That barrier is opposed to Linux's principals and to truly free software. Not to mention, you know, it makes Linux *suck*. Unless you use Ubuntu. But even then, things still suck, and user's freedoms are very much lessened.
And of course again, yeah yeah, you can compile, but only like 5% of users really care about that, and they're mostly developers. Linux needs more features, and this is a big one. Software packages "just work" on Windows and OS X, Linux users can and should have that same freedom, and there is no reason whatsoever that it's not possible and can't be solved through better programming and standards.
Is what many users would like to see. ^^
Not that you should support buying discs that make it difficult to view their contents and require giving Hollywood more money in order to view those precious movies which you purchased and instead should download them all from someone else who has ripped them, but still.
But H264 is a patented codec, so they can fuck off. Support open codecs, help make patents worthless.
Not that you should fear software patents, since they should be abolished, but yes, OGM and MKV are good completely legally open (in the U.S.) containers, Vorbis is much better than MP3 of course though I'm not sure about it vs. AC3, but what really needs more love are the actual video codecs. Theora is OKish but Dirac and others are where the future seems to be with open video codecs.
If the issue was an ffmpeg or VLC issue, then that would qualify as a dependency issue. The newer VLC should have required the newer ffmpeg. If, however, it was an Ubuntu packaging naming issue, I completely blame proprietary Linux packaging for that.
This is one of the many reasons Linux packaging standards are needed. Distros should be offering the same exact software that you can get easily online. If they want to modify a program, they need to change it's name, but if it's simply distros having different package names then they need to fucking stop it. Metapackages are fine, but fucking around with software names just so you can make your repository be proprietary is wrong. Until Linux users are really free to choose what software to install no matter their distro, and the focus is shifted to making the default software work correctly for all Linux users, you sadly will have more freedom in some ways on a proprietary OS.
Thank you distro wars for giving everyone less freedom and making Linux suck more.
If Flash were a decent media container, it could have more than one format, and I know that it does. I'm pretty sure it does avi and I know it does mp4. Can it contain Vorbis or Dirac though? Probably not Dirac since it's still so new, but I wouldn't be surprised if Vorbis support was there. Regardless, you're right in that it's not a very open specification, seems more like a closed moving target. I'm hoping that Firefox + Vorbis is the start of something good as far as internet standards go, and also the upcoming Dirac, Snow, and other truly open codecs.
There are already several projects to ensure Linux software runs well on small devices. What would be best is if Gnome or KDE could scale easily to accommodate tiny resolutions, but if not, hopefully this project is just another desktop environment that could be chosen from the login screen? ^^
:P
My point is: standards. Don't let companies create proprietary Linux projects if and where possible.
I would still really like to see a unified driver specification for all graphics cards...
It's what Freedom software is supposed to be all about.
Now the only big thing left is to use a unified package manager to be able to add, remove, and upgrade Linux packages, even the ones outside the distro's repository. Once Linux is free of proprietary distro packaging, and projects are using more standardized APIs so that users can swap out one program in their software "stack" for another program if, say, they wanted to do something like switch to a new desktop notification system, or what have you, it would be cake! Then users would never be forced to install a different OS just because there's a piece of software they want and they don't know anything about compiling or the command line!
Linux adoption increasing will directly effect you, whether you know it or not. It will even effect Mac and Windows users due to (hopefully) increased competition and other factors. I very much want Linux to be more usable, not just for me but for everyone, and for it's adoption to grow, which in turn effects me and everyone else.
Ugh, can everyone please communicate effectively? I know that's hard for geeks, but... :P
IMO what the OP seemed to be trying to say, in their own silly way ("THEEEIR PROBLEM"! THEEEEIR "FAULT"!) is that Linux issues effects everyone, especially for a community project like Linux, so everyone should care about all issues.
For instance, one user could want more games for Linux, and another could want better printer support. Well guess what? If you had better printer support, Linux adoption would be higher than without better printer support. This in turn allows there to be more use of Linux, which carries the weight of there being a higher demand for games. Everything effects everything else in the Linux ecosphere.
As for "fault", everyone knows there is no such thing, you can always blame both sides, "fault" is just based on what is expected, and given that fact, Linux driver development being on the side of Linux developers *is* what is expected, but I totally agree that it shouldn't *have* to be that way, but who cares. The important thing is to always try to make things better, period.
Now to actually respond to your post...better. ^^
Yes, you're right that for Windows and Mac, the fault is shifted to the manufacturer, while for Linux it is shifted to random or specific Linux developers. That's because typically that's who is doing the driver support in each case. Again, you can still blame both sides, just because one or the other is expected doesn't mean each side can't do things better. You have to look at each situation for what it is.
Linux: Driver development more difficult in some ways (don't have to jump through Microsoft's certification hoops tho!) due to the actual maker, who knows all about the device, often not supporting Linux by making a driver for it. Tux grew up in the Antarctic and struggles to swim and keep up.
Windows: Usually always supported by the makers just because Microsoft is the gorilla, they sit around being fed driver bananas by the makers.
Mac: Like a cat, does their own thing, and doesn't really care too much about playing nicely with anyone.
No doubt the nv driver that you were using was a binary, so, that was a binary blob too, it's just that the license for it was open source. Binaries = good when the attached license is open. It means a normal computer user can actually, you know, use it.
nVidia sucks as far as openness, so the nv driver understandably sucks. AMD/ATI still has sucky closed drivers, but because they are being more open, the ati driver is much nicer than nv is now. Using the ati driver, xrandr works great, so I can use the Gnome resolution tool to configure multiple monitors, and even high-def movie playback is working well. While I know that the GPU isn't being used as much as it could be, or will be in future ati driver versions, it's still better than nothing.
Meanwhile, the fglrx driver is pretty crappy compared to the nvidia driver.
"Then maybe you might try compiling it yourself or find a different binary package."
OOo: Faster than MSOffice...if You're a Nerd.
Seriously though, OOo should obviously be compared after it's been compiled against the latest libraries, and it's the developers job to release that latest version on their site.
In any case, a fair comparison should be done using the same version. All I know is that OOo is snappier on Linux, and without the bleeps, sweeps, and the creeps which the Windows version suffers from.
Who doesn't love it.
I hope unauthorized material is shared, without the consent of the creator.
First off, please get this right. All things are "copyrighted" immediately upon creation/composition/whatever, whether or not they wanted it to be, or so the law states. Secondly, you never know if someone has the consent of the copyright holder. It's perfectly legal for me to download a movie if the movie creator told me that I could, or if I have a "right" to do so as defined by law. Regardless of what the stupid law says (dumb DMCA, go to hell please) if you purchased a movie and want a backup or want to restore a lost disc or whatever it may be, that definitely should be completely legal, and there's no way for Facebook or any of those retards to know if your need is a "legitimate" one or not.
Regardless, everyone should keep sharing ideas and utilizing them to their full potential. Copyright and patent laws be damned.
You've got to be a complete idiot to post such an article. Yes, a game must be violent to help your eyesight. A new low for Slashdot.
I'm hoping for Google to do it, but we'll see.
Fox McCloud?
DO A BARREL ROLL...to get that cask of wine down to the cellar, so you can come back and help make more grapes...? Oh wait, I made that up.