Username or EmailPassword
Why isn't Linux more user-friendly? Is this an inherent limitation with open source software?
It isn't Open Source or the freaking license that makes a UI bad. However there other usually has just rather poor overall management compared to the other 2 big OS's.
Even the best Open Source projects are usually managed as such.
Lead Developer who is project managing the other developers. The developers are more or less fighting their egos and the best person wins.
Good Commercial Development is much more advanced. First we have a huge element of managers and bosses who may not be use to the technology the same way you do. They can look at an app and because they are the boss and are paying the money for your success. Will openly go to you and point out where the problems are, then you discuss how to fix it. And more and more not programming until you come with a rather well polished solution. As the software developer this is very annoying to have my creative drive knocked down a peg for everything I try. Plus it is frustrating all these attention, to stupid details that really isn't a key issue to development. But the MBA in me sees how this makes a better product. Then we work back and forth to come up with the best interface. It isn't best Idea that wins but taking the good ideas of the team and building on them. It MBA it comes down to the most overused and Stupid Sounding words "Synergy" or where a good team has an additive effect of the people.
Open Source has more of a Group Model where a bunch of ideas go across and the Project Manager will choose the Best Idea. But no Synergy will happen.
Linux systems, as a commercial operating system and otherwise, are much more popular then OS X ever was or ever will be.
There is more to the world then what sits on a home user's table.
It's massively successful. It is certainly one of the most popular OSes of all times. Really it's only second to Windows and that is only in desktops and corporate IT.
The FSF really needs new management. It has been getting more and more negative. It is making me feel like every day like it is an evangelical religious group. Where there is once statement of how God/Free Software is great and the rest touting the Evils of the world and you should Repent/Use Open Source Software.
FSF should really focus on encouraging open source development and making it viable for business and working with adding good business models uses of open source. Not just restricting it to support. As well treating your adversaries with some respect and finding common grounds. Being Anti-This and Anti-That does help to get a vocal group however overall it doesn't accomplishes anything.
The OSI organization was founded in February 1998 :
So they did not invent the term , witch was used to describe UNIX and BSD , they coined it's implication as a development model.
Don't bother with him.
He is a troll.
And not even funny one.
Open Source is not a license. It's a method of development. It suposedly certify license that are supposed to be Open Source.
> The worse part about Richard Stallman is that he puts himself up as a 'leader' and yet me provides no vision what so ever - just broad sweeping statements loaded with misdirected attacks against those whom he considers 'enemies of liberty' (as if he see's himself as a modern day Paul Revere).
Bullshit. The guy is a activist and he beleives in what he beleives in. He has never asked anybody to do anything that he has not already done himself.
He is massively smart and has accurately predicted many things and has been proven right when everybody else was telling him he was wrong.
His major fault is that he has a very very specific viewpoint and is hard edged in the way he speaks and approaches people. He tells them what to do and tells them they are wrong when he thinks they are wrong. That sort of behavior tends to piss off a lot of people.
It's one thing to dissagree with somebody, it's quite another talk about the thoughts and feelings of another person when you have obviously no clue about what he has actually accomplished, said, or done.
For much of the early history of Linux vs BSD the BSD operating systems were plainly and obviously superior to Linux in almost every way. They were more stable, more feature complete, and had a much more established history.
However it was Linux that attracted the attention and garnered the support of people like IBM and have made Redhat wealthy and successful.
There originally a push for commercial BSD variants, like BSDi.
You know what happens?
Microsoft takes OpenBSD userland and ports it to POSIX side of NT. Yes the NT kernel is very technologically advanced, much more so then XNU kernel used in OS X which is pathetic in comparison (in terms of sophistication, performance, and usability). The NT kernel can take on many different APIs. The API that you use when you use 'Windows' is the Win32 API (since renamed to reflect it's 64bit-ness. However NT also supports POSIX. So for Microsoft's Services For Unix, they took OpenBSD and ported it to NT, for much of the userland and whatnot.
What did OpenBSD get back from it? Nothing.
Microsoft also took the BSD TCP/IP stack and used it to form the basis of it's TCP stacks for early versions of NT and Windows 9x. (Since then it's obviously been heavily worked over). If you know anything about Unix and anything about NT networking you'd quickly notice that there are some oddities.
Did you ever think that it was funny to use a etc directory in Windows?
And what about companies that have improved BSD's performance in realtime situations and have used it in embedded devices and multimedia set top boxes and whatnot? Did FreeBSD or anybody else ever get anything back with that?
Linux uses the GPL. When companies want to use Linux in a commercial setting they know that they can contribute code back to projects and not have to worry about their competitors taking that code and using improvements that they can't use.
With BSD license there is no such assurances. If you release code under BSD license and your trying to compete against Microsoft then Microsoft will just take that code, dump 30 million dollars into developing on it, and drive you out of business.
People go on and on about how GPL is so unfriendly to corporations, when in fact it's one of the best things that has ever happenned for commercial open source software!
RMS's concepts of 'Copyleft' and his GPL license is how people are able to make software to compete against companies like Microsoft and stay in business. distributed development of software is much more effective, cheaper, and much more efficient then traditional closed source approaches.
And before you point out Apple you need to realize two things:
1. Microsoft is the #1 producer of OS X compatible software.
2. Microsoft saved Apple from bankrupcy by buying a 150 million dollars in 1997. If it wasn't for Microsoft then OS X would of died in development.
I would like to assure everyone that Microsoft did not pay sbergman27 to make the preceding poast. I haven't seen him at any of our meetings and his name isn't on the payroll of our elite OSNews Astroturfing Ninja Attack Squad.
Just thought that I should make that clear.
Yeah they mentioned something about having to work a lot harder to gain a satisfactory result.
Cisco VPN (the client) no longer works on Snow Leopard - but there's a built-in Cisco VPN client in Snow Leopard. Just that, I am sure for at least 60% of people using it, its near-useless. It doesn't accept *.PCF configuration files (with things like group name and group password).
And I haven't figured out how to configure Mail.app to my Exchange account. And little features that are missing that will throw any office worker into a fit of rage: for example, today I took a day off. But I can't set an out-of-office email without going to Outlook Web Access.
It's fast, responsive, I love the new Expose, and its worth the hundred ringgit I spend on it. But its Enterprise features needs some spit-and-polish.
I have gotten the e-mail and contacts to work with Snow Leopard from my Exchange 2007 server, but I have not gotten the calendar to work.
I can say that OWA is the best way to set up OOO replies and have them work 100% of the time.
I can tell you that you have to set your internal and external servers (which I do not have to do with Outlook 2007 or Entourage BTW) to be the same server, and that you also need to specify your user name as your username@<fully qualified domain name> , not just your username.
It's not 100%, and the synchronization takes a couple of hours (it is slower than Entourage 2004!), but it works.
PM me if you have any issues. I'm writing a doc for some of our internal users today talking about some of the issues, including the fact that Firefox randomly crashes in it, and that the Citrix XenApp client and Safari are not getting along well either.
AFAIK, the "Cisco VPN" is just IPSec.
Enter the VPN information and it should work. Why do you need a .PCF file?
I had VPN working, but it wasn't very userfriendly. PCF files has all the configuration information, including group name and group password - for me, the group password was encoded. (Decoding was a simple Google search away, but again, not very userfriendly - Apple could easily accept this.