Linked by David Adams on Fri 18th Jun 2010 19:17 UTC
Linux Linux Magazine has a profile of Daniel Fore and the Elementary project. Elementary is a Linux distro that's committed to a clean and simple user experience, but it's more than a distro - it's actually a multi-pronged effort to make improvements to the user experience for a whole ecosystem of components, including icons, a GTK theme, Midori improvements, Nautilus, and even Firefox. The work that elementary is doing isn't limited to their own distro, and some of their work is available in current, and perhaps future, Ubuntu releases. The results are really striking, and I think it's probably the handsomest Linux UI I've ever seen.
Order by: Score:
Comment by mrAmiga500
by mrAmiga500 on Fri 18th Jun 2010 20:55 UTC
mrAmiga500
Member since:
2009-03-20

It looks more like a "multi-pronged effort" to copy the Mac.

Reply Score: 6

d'oh!
by marcp on Fri 18th Jun 2010 21:01 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

I protest! desktop environments and wms are OS-independent [at least in *nix case], so please, stop telling the world that 'linux has it all'. It makes people to think that KDE is Linux, Fluxbox is linux, CDE is linux etc ... we also have BSDs, [Open]Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, [Open]VMS [not unix though], Minix ...
Some of the DEs/WMs was ported from linux [KDE, Gnome, more], but some were not [CDE, more].
Linux is just a tip of an iceberg in an OS [and *nix based, or similar] world

Reply Score: 8

RE: d'oh!
by Delgarde on Sun 20th Jun 2010 21:28 UTC in reply to "d'oh!"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Linux is just a tip of an iceberg in an OS [and *nix based, or similar] world


We're talking desktop, here, and realistically, Linux is the only UNIX variant relevant in that environment - if Linux desktop has just a few percent of the market, all those others you mention aren't even a fraction of a percent. Not a lot of Minix, AIX, or VMS desktops out there...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: d'oh!
by marcp on Mon 21st Jun 2010 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE: d'oh!"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

Hey, we're talking IT, not marketing or market share here. Why would anyone care for the stats? the fact is the fact: these DEs and WMs don't belong to linux exclusively and some of us use it on other OSs.

Reply Score: 2

RE: d'oh!
by phoenix on Mon 21st Jun 2010 05:59 UTC in reply to "d'oh!"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Don't forget that KDE runs on Windows as well.

Reply Score: 2

Come on People
by jrash on Fri 18th Jun 2010 21:06 UTC
jrash
Member since:
2008-10-28

Can we come up with something besides ripping off OSX? That Screenshot looks identical to 10.6, even the icons are clones of the Mac. Apple Computer...err sorry "Apple, Inc." is not the end all of UI design. Some people don't like how the top and bottom panels work in GNOME but at least its something different from some candy coated dock that looks great for the first year and then just becomes annoying to use. (dock icons bounce in my nightmares)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Come on People
by KyleCardoza on Fri 18th Jun 2010 21:16 UTC in reply to "Come on People"
KyleCardoza Member since:
2005-07-05

Different isn't good enough. Ultimately, I'd hope the goal is to surpass OS X, but in order to surpass it, it must first be equalled. I like global menu bars, I like application-centric window management, I like an interface that works whether you have fifteen mouse buttons or just one. On the other hand, I grant you the dock - it's a usability nightmare, drastically overdue for a ground-up rewrite.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Come on People
by jrash on Fri 18th Jun 2010 21:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Come on People"
jrash Member since:
2008-10-28

Well those features you like were different before MacOS/OSX, but at least in GNOME you can change it around somewhat and use different themes as opposed to OSX. I guess Apple no longer wants anyone to "Think Different"

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Come on People
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 18th Jun 2010 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Come on People"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Wait, are you really suggesting that in order to be better than apple, a interface must first become identical to apple?

I agree with the previous poster, that an over emphasis on recreating OSX doesn't bode well for future UI development.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Come on People
by ple_mono on Sat 19th Jun 2010 01:13 UTC in reply to "Come on People"
ple_mono Member since:
2005-07-26

Can we come up with something besides ripping off OSX? That Screenshot looks identical to 10.6, even the icons are clones of the Mac.

It probably goes for the same look, but it's far from identical.
In any case, the elementary project is more than just about the looks - it also aims to improve some aspects of software that are ignored by upstream developers (such as with the case of nautilus). It aims at making the linux desktop refined and coherent.

The only thing keeping me from running a linux desktop is the lack of attention, polish, and elegance to UI details in the major DE's, and linux desktop applications. It seems that some linux devs (and users) don't care about such things. The elementary project does, though.

Oh, and stop focusing on the theme for gods sake.

Edited 2010-06-19 01:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Come on People
by Aristocracies on Sat 19th Jun 2010 04:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Come on People"
Aristocracies Member since:
2010-06-15

Maybe not identical, but certainly derivative.

http://i.imgur.com/xzZwb.jpg

That's pretty bad. I'm looking to STOP using OS X in the home -- Everything at work is FBSD and Linux and I've been using FBSD since the 90s in one form or another. This is not what I want to see when I finally pull the trigger.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Fri 18th Jun 2010 21:07 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

That screenshot is so sexy.

Reply Score: 3

Yet another distro!
by intangible on Fri 18th Jun 2010 21:17 UTC
intangible
Member since:
2005-07-06

Every time another distro is created, some complain "Why do we need another distro? It'll never have enough users to matter; it just takes away from distro A or B".
I think it's actually a good thing, the distro doesn't have to become the "next greatest thing", it just needs to scratch a particular itch, try some ideas that may be too drastic in the established distros...
If it has good ideas, the common large distros will adopt (or "copy" if you like to complain) some of the changes and we'll all be better for it, maybe the new distro presenting the alternative viewpoint won't be needed at some point in the future because everyone else implemented the good ideas from this one and it'll naturally die off because it's unneeded.

Some good ideas are a bit extreme and may never get adopted or may take longer to get adopted (filesystem structure from Gobo comes to mind); but I definitely think they should be tried.

Reply Score: 4

Looks are not the problem.
by SlackerJack on Fri 18th Jun 2010 21:28 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

It's OK making a distro that looks good and supposedly improves usability, to what seems like an OS X work flow but what about bugs?

What would help is fixing bugs that Canonical still haven't fixed. Intel drivers, Plymouth, copy&paste without needing to keep the app open, stuff like that. This distro will still have the same filtered down bugs or problems from all the other Ubuntu derivatives.

It seems to me they are just taking the best parts of OS X and trying to make something that's more usable. Well, the Linux desktop is usable, so I don't see where this is going.

Edited 2010-06-18 21:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Looks are not the problem.
by gilboa on Mon 21st Jun 2010 12:01 UTC in reply to "Looks are not the problem."
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

copy&paste without needing to keep the app open.


Huh?!?!?
klipper (KDE's clipboard manager) can do it since, KDE 3? 2?

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

OMG that looks GOOD!
by MacMan on Fri 18th Jun 2010 22:01 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

My original thoughts were oh freaking great, yet another freaking distro, but, dammed, that screenshot looks good! This really is what Ubuntu should be. (Yes, I use Ubuntu everyday).

What exactly is wrong with copying the way OSX looks? Apple spends a lot of money working on the UI (along with MS), why not take advantage of their work. Consider, the original goals of the GNU project: from what I have read, Stallman used Unix, but became frustrated because he could not modify the original closed source Unixes, so he set out to create a free os based on Unix. Was it a copy, sure, but it fixed the problem with original Unix, namely it was closed source.

I think a similar argument holds for OSX. I love OSX, but it has one fundamental problem: it is tied to the insanely overpriced Apple hardware. In my experience Linux has a much better performing kernel and certainly memory manager, than OSX. Problem with Linux is the UI (any flavor, take your pick) generally sucks compared with OSX, and even Windows. Ubuntu 10.04 has improved things, but still nowhere near the usability of OSX.

So, I'm going to give elementary a try.

Edited 2010-06-18 22:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: OMG that looks GOOD!
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 18th Jun 2010 23:10 UTC in reply to "OMG that looks GOOD!"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Consider, the original goals of the GNU project: from what I have read, Stallman used Unix, but became frustrated because he could not modify the original closed source Unixes, so he set out to create a free os based on Unix. Was it a copy, sure, but it fixed the problem with original Unix, namely it was closed source.


Do you know what GNU stands for?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: OMG that looks GOOD!
by ndrw on Sat 19th Jun 2010 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE: OMG that looks GOOD!"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

It doesn't matter what it stands for, it's just a name. GNU was developed as a free alternative of UNIX, similarly WINE was started to run Windows software on x86 Linux.

I guess GNU and WINE acronyms (or just N's in them) were adopted to avoid trademarks and to stress that no copyright violation took place (both products are independent reimplementation of some API's).

If not that, we'd probably settle for names like "Free UNIX" or "Windows Emulator".

Reply Score: 0

v RE[3]: OMG that looks GOOD!
by chris_l on Sat 19th Jun 2010 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OMG that looks GOOD!"
RE[4]: OMG that looks GOOD!
by ndrw on Sat 19th Jun 2010 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OMG that looks GOOD!"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

Moron,


Oh, that makes you look so intelligent. Bye.

FYI:

emulator

Main Entry: em·u·la·tor
Pronunciation: \ˈem-yə-ˌlā-tər\
Function: noun
Date: 1589

1 : one that emulates
2 : hardware or software that permits programs written for one computer to be run on another computer

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: OMG that looks GOOD!
by WereCatf on Sat 19th Jun 2010 12:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OMG that looks GOOD!"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

emulator

Main Entry: em·u·la·tor
Pronunciation: \ˈem-yə-ˌlā-tər\
Function: noun
Date: 1589

1 : one that emulates
2 : hardware or software that permits programs written for one computer to be run on another computer


I don't mean anything negative with butting in the conversation, but I just feel like I could perhaps help clarify this. Yes, I do understand why people often liken WINE to an emulator; after all it does indeed let you run applications designed for a different OS under an OS they weren't meant for.

However, WINE does not emulate a computer. It does not modify application's code in any way, nor does it modify parts of the underlying OS either. Instead it just passes certain function calls to the underlying OS, and maybe adjusts the parameters sent in order for the function to work properly. The code of the application itself however is untouched. And WINE itself mostly consists of a reimplementation of WIN32 environment. Like f.ex. Mono isn't emulating .NET neither does WINE emulate WIN32, they're just new implementations of the same old thing.

So, number 1 doesn't apply to WINE. And since WINE does not indeed allow you to run x86 applications under non-x86 compatible hardware number 2 doesn't apply either.

What does that leave us with? WINE, a program that allows you to run software designed for Windows under Linux, what would a proper term for it be? I personally would call it Windows-compatible environment, or a Windows compatibility layer. Feel free however to offer any insightful comments or better phrasings if you feel inclined ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: OMG that looks GOOD!
by cerbie on Sat 19th Jun 2010 13:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: OMG that looks GOOD!"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

How about API layer?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: OMG that looks GOOD!
by ndrw on Sat 19th Jun 2010 14:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: OMG that looks GOOD!"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

I don't mean anything negative with butting in the conversation

Sorry about that. You're more than welcome to join the discussion.


So, number 1 doesn't apply to WINE.

I think you're narrowing the definition a bit too much. Look:

emulate
2 entries found.

1. emulate (transitive verb)
2. emulate (adjective)

Main Entry: 1em·u·late
Pronunciation: \ˈem-yə-ˌlāt, -yü-\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): em·u·lat·ed; em·u·lat·ing
Etymology: Latin aemulatus, past participle of aemulari, from aemulus rivaling
Date: 1582

1 a : to strive to equal or excel b : imitate; especially : to imitate by means of an emulator
2 : to equal or approach equality with


And since WINE does not indeed allow you to run x86 applications under non-x86 compatible hardware number 2 doesn't apply either.

Definition says nothing about the CPU type or the implementation.

Yes, internally WINE is just an independent implementation of Windows API. But, aren't VMWare or Bochs just software implementations of the x86 hardware interface? Isn't VMWare limited to x86?


Like f.ex. Mono isn't emulating .NET neither does WINE emulate WIN32, they're just new implementations of the same old thing.

Very interesting point. I would say that Mono isn't emulating .NET the specification but it is emulating .NET the implementation. In the end it's pretty fluid, depending which of these really defines the platform.

Finally, let's not be so fussy about a name. I've seen names like "Windows" or "Apache" applied to software products. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

v RE[7]: OMG that looks GOOD!
by chris_l on Sat 19th Jun 2010 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: OMG that looks GOOD!"
RE[7]: OMG that looks GOOD!
by JAlexoid on Sat 19th Jun 2010 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: OMG that looks GOOD!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19


Like f.ex. Mono isn't emulating .NET neither does WINE emulate WIN32, they're just new implementations of the same old thing.

Very interesting point. I would say that Mono isn't emulating .NET the specification but it is emulating .NET the implementation. In the end it's pretty fluid, depending which of these really defines the platform.


WINE is an API/ABI abstraction layer. Why can't it be called an emulator? Because Windows is an OS and WINE is nowhere near that. Though WINE with Linux, as a tandem, could be called a Windows Emulator.

Yet, Mono does try to emulate MS.NET in all and every aspect, top to bottom.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: OMG that looks GOOD!
by Barnabyh on Sat 19th Jun 2010 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OMG that looks GOOD!"
Barnabyh Member since:
2006-02-06

WINE stands for 'Wine Is Not an Emulator'.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: OMG that looks GOOD!
by adamk on Sat 19th Jun 2010 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: OMG that looks GOOD!"
adamk Member since:
2005-07-08

I can say that I'm not a 34 year old male from the United States. That doesn't mean I'm not a 34 year old male from the United States, though.

Adam

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: OMG that looks GOOD!
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 21st Jun 2010 16:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: OMG that looks GOOD!"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

That is not the accepted definition that is currently in use in the industry.

The user contributed article from wikipedia, best describes the current definition in use in the industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator

Reply Score: 2

Everyone thinks they know best...
by cmost on Fri 18th Jun 2010 22:13 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

The problem with all these so called experts who are trying to "improve" the Linux desktop is that they believe they know what's best for users. Sorry. Users know what's best for themselves and that's why I love Linux. I can have it my way; you can have it your way and we're both happy. Why does there have to be a standard? For newbies? Sorry I don't buy that excuse. There are plenty of distros that cater to Windows refugees by theming the Linux desktop to resemble XP, Vista or even old Win9x. There are also distros that cater to the Mac look and feel. Gnome and KDE default setups are pretty intutive in their own right so why even resort to theming? Half of these so called "easy" distros are Ubuntu re-spins, the other half Debian so compatibility with the most popular software is there. In the meantime, leave my distro alone!

Reply Score: 13

chris_l Member since:
2010-02-14

The problem with all these so called experts who are trying to "improve" the Linux desktop is that they believe they know what's best for users. Sorry. Users know what's best for themselves and that's why I love Linux. I can have it my way; you can have it your way and we're both happy. Why does there have to be a standard? For newbies? Sorry I don't buy that excuse. There are plenty of distros that cater to Windows refugees by theming the Linux desktop to resemble XP, Vista or even old Win9x. There are also distros that cater to the Mac look and feel. Gnome and KDE default setups are pretty intutive in their own right so why even resort to theming? Half of these so called "easy" distros are Ubuntu re-spins, the other half Debian so compatibility with the most popular software is there. In the meantime, leave my distro alone!



Couldn't have put it better myself. The real problem here is that the *VAST MAJORITY* of these so-called UI experts are leeches trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of the linux community.

Reply Score: 3

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Couldn't have put it better myself. The real problem here is that the *VAST MAJORITY* of these so-called UI experts are leeches trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of the linux community.


I wouldn't be that mean. When you compare a well configured GNOME with a well maintained Linux distribution the difference as so far as UI consistency it is no worse than Windows. Sure, it is no 'Mac OS X' but I sit back and laugh when I hear people try to claim that some how the OSS UI is far behind the times.

What is wrong as so far as the desktop from my stand point is the incompleteness; KDE still using HAL, projects that use HAL aren't moving (check out GIMP, HAL being deprecated and the GIMP programmer who literally told the GNOME project to go f-ck themselves as one example), the fact that GNOME applications aren't having their bugs fixed and are too rigidly bound to Linux with patches to support alternative operating systems being turned down (there is a reason why *BSD's and OpenSolaris maintain so many custom patches). So it is the underlying infrastructure that is the problem, not the presentation.

As for the rest, OpenOffice.org is simply horrible, here I am in 2010 and they still don't support chicago style citations for christ sake - it is things like that that hold back student adoption that blocks out an avenue which would have otherwise won over an end user for life. The UI is ascetic unpleasing and yes when something isn't attractive it doesn't help the usability or the productivity either. But again, that is outside the perspective of KDE and GNOME given that OpenOffice.org is an entirely different project altogether (I always got the impression though from the likes of Minguel that he wished there was something better).

But back to the article; what is the focus of these UI improvements? there seems to be a small group of people who are hell bent on wanting to take over the world who actually do zero in the way of real programming. On the other hand there are those who do the heavy lifting who aren't interested in taking over the world, simply working on what they want for their own benefit. Until those who make the grandiose visions of world conquest actually contribute to the development of what needs to be developed there will always be this situation that exists today.

As for what I'd like to see, FreeBSD + Better hardware support + KDE that hooks into the FreeBSD system features instead of relying on HAL. If that was delivered tomorrow it would be good bye Apple, hello 'hypothetically desktop operating system'. What I demand from an OS isn't unrealistic, it is depressing how such an easy goal cannot be achieved ;)

Edited 2010-06-19 09:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

As for what I'd like to see, FreeBSD + Better hardware support + KDE that hooks into the FreeBSD system features instead of relying on HAL.


Just to avoid misunderstandings.

KDE does not rely on HAL.

HAL is one possible way to access data about the system KDE is running on, i.e. there is a KDE platform plugin that accesses the D-Bus API usually provided by HAL.

Therefore there are two options on how to get system data from other facilities:
- implement the HAL D-Bus interface and use KDE's HAL plugin
- implement a KDE plugin for this other system facility

Option two is probably the better choice, especially in the face of HAL having been abandoned/deprecated by its own developers.

Reply Score: 3

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

"As for what I'd like to see, FreeBSD + Better hardware support + KDE that hooks into the FreeBSD system features instead of relying on HAL.


Just to avoid misunderstandings.

KDE does not rely on HAL.
"

Until someone actually sits down and codes up a non-HAL-based Solid backend, KDE relies on HAL.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

...stop flame-baiting

Reply Score: 3

We need two versions of Linux/*BSD UIs
by bousozoku on Fri 18th Jun 2010 23:06 UTC
bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

We need two versions of UIs for Linux/*BSD: one ultimate GUI for consumers who aren't going to compile anything but just want to play a few casual games, browser the web, and manipulate e-mails. We need another GUI or TUI for those who want to tinker.

The lack of a single face still confuses ordinary consumers, among other things.

It's great to see people working toward such a goal but they're not going to get far until everyone agrees. At least, the latest Ubuntu release looks appealing for the most part, so a few are blazing a trail.

Reply Score: 2

I for one
by Barnabyh on Fri 18th Jun 2010 23:35 UTC
Barnabyh
Member since:
2006-02-06

don't like the interface at all. Haven't brushed metal aluminium interface and blue icons already been done to death?

Reply Score: 3

RE: I for one
by Morgan on Sat 19th Jun 2010 14:28 UTC in reply to "I for one"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Blue icons I'll grant you -- and the dock and the translucent-black windows -- but where did you see any brushed metal? It looked to me more like the smooth-gradient gray that Leopard and Snow Leopard use.

I actually really like this theme; it's obviously very similar to the Mac but something is better about it. I just can't put my finger on it.

I might give it a spin on this Ubuntu install I've been using; I do miss my Hackintosh install on this computer but I've come to find that OS X really doesn't work right on non-Macs.

Reply Score: 2

Copying
by reez on Fri 18th Jun 2010 23:38 UTC
reez
Member since:
2006-06-28

The problem is they are all copying. While it is nice to have an interface you can use, because you already know it it isn't really something that makes desktop users switching. Both Windows and OS X have always been copied. The two usually interesting things for the average desktop user I know are it's security and the fact that it's free. It has been faster (from the view of a desktop user, so I'm speaking of responsiveness), but I think Windows 7 pretty much changed this. They are now both responsive enough.

The real problem is the same as it has always been. A user can't use the (very same!) application he used to use on Windows. This does change with web applications and the browser being the primary application nowadays. So I think Mozilla Firefox is something that makes people switch. Nut not all applications run in your browser (yet?), so if you want to increase the market share one should care that many software vendors build native applications and every windows application runs using wine.

But honestly I don't really care which OS people use ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Copying
by Darkmage on Fri 18th Jun 2010 23:49 UTC in reply to "Copying"
Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

If you're going to copy osx, at least do it right. Use gnustep/etoile and finish the damn APIs. Get all the open source osx software ported to linux, by that point your api's should be close enough to osx to get a lot of the professional mac software ported. Sure you'll never get apple porting apps but you can still get to a very usable system point. Might even get Adobe porting if you do a good enough job.

There's 200,000 iphone/ipad developers, hitting them up for code on linux would be a decent way to expand the developerbase of linux. Plus there's a bunch of cool toys we could get ported. ATM GNUStep is working on porting coregraphics to linux. Would be interesting if linux could run most iphone/ipad apps.

Edited 2010-06-18 23:53 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Copying
by MacMan on Sat 19th Jun 2010 03:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Copying"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

Finishing GnuSTEP would be nice, but I don't think its ever going to happen. I tried GnuSTEP (Ubuntu 10.04, installed from Synaptic) a few weeks ago, and it is an absolute disaster. Its still about 5% there, I really can't tell what has changed since freaking 1996 or 1997 when I tried it last. WTF have the GnuSTEP devs don in 14 freaking years???

There might be some hope for a new re-implementation of the Cocoa apis called cocotron: http://www.cocotron.org/

In a few years he's done more that GnuSTEP has in its entire history.

Cocoa really is a wonderful toolkit, it should be easy to wrap it around GTK or Win32, no idea why GnuSTEP wants to roll its own rendering layer.

So, yeh, it would be my dream to have a 100% free, open source OSX compatible OS, if that ever happens, I doubt GnuSTEP will have had any part in it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Copying
by vivainio on Sat 19th Jun 2010 06:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Copying"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


There's 200,000 iphone/ipad developers, hitting them up for code on linux would be a decent way to expand the developerbase of linux.

We have Mono already, and it seems gazillions of Windows developers didn't suddenly start writing Linux applications.

BTW, how do the GNUStep guys feel about recent actions of Apple? Do they still feel objc ecosystem is something they want to support on their volunteer time?

Reply Score: 3

Comment by nagnatron
by nagnatron on Sat 19th Jun 2010 00:00 UTC
nagnatron
Member since:
2009-09-24

He is doing awesome work.

Reply Score: 1

v Improving the Linux desktop?
by z. vukman on Sat 19th Jun 2010 01:19 UTC
yet another Linux
by SonicMetalMan on Sat 19th Jun 2010 01:26 UTC
SonicMetalMan
Member since:
2009-05-25

I've said this before, the biggest reason I see for so many damn flavors of Linux is that NOBODY gets it "just right". Current Linux vendors just can't throw the manpower at UI designs and get every aspect of the look and feel right. I have tried many Linux FOTM releases and I end up tweaking every one of them to overcome some deficiency. I might die of a heart attack if I ever installed a new Linux OS that didn't require hands-on attention.

Apple gets it right because they have virtually unlimited resources to make the user experience a pleasant and consistent one.

Reply Score: 2

rip-off Mac OS X!
by sergio on Sat 19th Jun 2010 02:19 UTC
sergio
Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple spends tons of money on usability, designers, GUI I+D and so on... Linux desktops must reimplement Mac OS X desktop. That's all.

Please Linux developers/vendors... don't waste precious resources reinventing the wheel. Just rip Apple off!!

Edited 2010-06-19 02:21 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: rip-off Mac OS X!
by Neolander on Sat 19th Jun 2010 03:53 UTC in reply to "rip-off Mac OS X!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Apple spends tons of money on usability, designers, GUI I+D and so on... Linux desktops must reimplement Mac OS X desktop. That's all.

Errr... No. Really, no.

Had Apple spent much on usability and GUI, they wouldn't have rolled out horrors like the Dock, application-centric window management on a single virtual desktop, and the Finder.

If desktop Linux distros start to mimick OSX, I'll consider that the Linux desktop has failed to deliver an interesting product, and just go back to Windows and say goodbye to easy development. Or go arcane and try my best to get used to Haiku. OSX is far from being wondrous in terms of user interface, that's one of the reasons why I'm not using it.

Edited 2010-06-19 03:55 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: rip-off Mac OS X!
by nt_jerkface on Sat 19th Jun 2010 04:11 UTC in reply to "RE: rip-off Mac OS X!"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

OSX is far from being wondrous in terms of user interface, that's one of the reasons why I'm not using it.


I don't like it either. It's ok if you just launch a few programs but switching through a dozen programs in the dock gets annoying. The other issue I have with OSX is that it doesn't make proper use of the right mouse button.

I think a better strategy for the Linux desktop would be to build around a cross development platform (Qt) to attract developers. People turn on a computer to use applications, not screw with the UI. Distros need to work to make life easier for cross-platform, proprietary developers. Stallman's plan of having the people's army code everything has been a failure.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: rip-off Mac OS X!
by Neolander on Sat 19th Jun 2010 04:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: rip-off Mac OS X!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think a better strategy for the Linux desktop would be to build around a cross development platform (Qt) to attract developers. People turn on a computer to use applications, not screw with the UI. Distros need to work to make life easier for cross-platform, proprietary developers. Stallman's plan of having the people's army code everything has been a failure.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that, since most of the software I use on a daily basis was coded by the people's army and works fairly well. I'd rather say that we don't need proprietary software for everything, but that we should not bar it access either.

Two tasks of a linux distro that are often ignored, in my opinion, is to reach API consistency (instead of GTK here, pulseaudio there, QT up above, and VDPAU somewhere in the wild) and to heavily documentate said API in an easily accessible way.

As an example, for scientific calculations, the combination of Python and some science-oriented APIs is astonishingly getting widespread, but most people still prefer Matlab over Python. (I chose Matlab because contrary to other scientific software like Mathematica and Maple, its syntax is in par with that of Python in terms of awfulness and being inadapted to the job in my opinion)
What are the two top differences, before anything else ? Matlab has got a huge and helpful help system, and its various commands are tightly integrated with each other. To the contrary, with things like Numpy and Scipy, all you get is a bunch of HTML pages (which already feels clunky and unprofessional to start with), and the commands do not feel integrated with each other (as an example, when you want to introduce a formal parameter in python, you can't just use a variable without attributing a value to it, it will get you an "undefined symbol"-like error).

Today, on Linux, when Adobe wants to decode an H.264 stream using the hardware in Flash Player and ask the community which APIs are available, the answer is something like "xv, VA-API, VDPAU, (and some others)".
On OSX, the answer is like "Use api X in the latest safari or fallback to software rendering". Guess which platform gets the most polished release in the end...

In my opinion, by using a single coherent set of APIs and a good documentation that's fully available at a single place, the Linux world would ease the life of both proprietary software developers and amateurs. Better software availability would ensue.

Edited 2010-06-19 04:41 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: rip-off Mac OS X!
by nt_jerkface on Sat 19th Jun 2010 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: rip-off Mac OS X!"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


I wouldn't go as far as saying that, since most of the software I use on a daily basis was coded by the people's army and works fairly well.


Most of it? You must use a lot of GNU utilities. Most of the open source software I use was built by corporations like Google and then released as open source to the public.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: rip-off Mac OS X!
by Neolander on Sat 19th Jun 2010 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: rip-off Mac OS X!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Most of it? You must use a lot of GNU utilities. Most of the open source software I use was built by corporations like Google and then released as open source to the public.

At home, I'm most often using...
-Core : Linux Kernel and various free drivers + software (FOSS, indep.+GNU)
-CLI : Bash (FOSS, GNU)
-UI layer : Xorg+KDE 4+KDM (FOSS, indep.)
-Firefox (FOSS, can arguably be considered as a new codebase seeing the time which elapsed since Netscape code was released so indep. or Netscape as you wish)
-GCC (FOSS, GNU)
-GNUplot (FOSS, GNU)
-Binutils (FOSS, GNU)
-Bochs (FOSS, indep.)
-OpenOffice (FOSS, Sun)
-GIMP (FOSS, GNU)
-VirtualBox (FOSS, Sun)
-Audacity (FOSS, indep.)
-Nvidia's proprietary driver (Proprietary, NVidia)
-Adobe Flash Player (Proprietary, Adobe)

Proprietary software has its place on my computer, and Sun has done a lot for the open source community before the Oracle thing, but GNU and independent software still takes the biggest part...

Edited 2010-06-19 20:20 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: rip-off Mac OS X!
by cycoj on Sun 20th Jun 2010 02:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: rip-off Mac OS X!"
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

"I think a better strategy for the Linux desktop would be to build around a cross development platform (Qt) to attract developers. People turn on a computer to use applications, not screw with the UI. Distros need to work to make life easier for cross-platform, proprietary developers. Stallman's plan of having the people's army code everything has been a failure.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that, since most of the software I use on a daily basis was coded by the people's army and works fairly well. I'd rather say that we don't need proprietary software for everything, but that we should not bar it access either.

Two tasks of a linux distro that are often ignored, in my opinion, is to reach API consistency (instead of GTK here, pulseaudio there, QT up above, and VDPAU somewhere in the wild) and to heavily documentate said API in an easily accessible way.

As an example, for scientific calculations, the combination of Python and some science-oriented APIs is astonishingly getting widespread, but most people still prefer Matlab over Python. (I chose Matlab because contrary to other scientific software like Mathematica and Maple, its syntax is in par with that of Python in terms of awfulness and being inadapted to the job in my opinion)
"

I don't quite understand that sentence, do you mean you use Matlab, because it is not quite as awful as
Maple and Mathematica and on par with Python?

I have to disagree, Matlab syntax is pretty awful compared to Python. I actually switched to Python because Matlab syntax was annoying the crap out of me. 90% of errors are find the missing dot. Also I guess you never had to write a GUI for your Matlab code. Python is so far ahead of Matlab in that respect (Matlab GUI code makes my eyes bleed).


What are the two top differences, before anything else ? Matlab has got a huge and helpful help system, and its various commands are tightly integrated with each other. To the contrary, with things like Numpy and Scipy, all you get is a bunch of HTML pages (which already feels clunky and unprofessional to start with),


Why are HTML pages unprofessional? That's what pretty much every software manufacturer uses for the help pages AFAIK. Also I actually never use the HTML pages or the Matlab help system. I just type "help command"
in the prompt (I do the same in Matlab whenever I have to use it). That said numpy/scipy still do need to work on their documentation (actually numpy made huge strides last year in their summer of documentation).

Another thing, if I compare the documentation of the Matlab language (not the commands) to the documentation of the Python language, the Python documentation is way better.



and the commands do not feel integrated with each other (as an example, when you want to introduce a formal parameter in python, you can't just use a variable without attributing a value to it, it will get you an "undefined symbol"-like error).

I don't quite get what you mean, something like
def fct(x, *args) ??



Today, on Linux, when Adobe wants to decode an H.264 stream using the hardware in Flash Player and ask the community which APIs are available, the answer is something like "xv, VA-API, VDPAU, (and some others)".
On OSX, the answer is like "Use api X in the latest safari or fallback to software rendering". Guess which platform gets the most polished release in the end...

In my opinion, by using a single coherent set of APIs and a good documentation that's fully available at a single place, the Linux world would ease the life of both proprietary software developers and amateurs. Better software availability would ensue.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: rip-off Mac OS X!
by Neolander on Sun 20th Jun 2010 06:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: rip-off Mac OS X!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I don't quite understand that sentence, do you mean you use Matlab, because it is not quite as awful as
Maple and Mathematica and on par with Python?

No, I chose Matlab because its syntax is on par with Python in terms of awfulness in my opinion. Python is a good programming language for prototyping and low-performance software, and insane people can even use it for other use cases and get cursed by their users. Just like C#, ActionScript, and Java. But its syntax is just inadapted to scientific calculation. You can use it for that, but it is painful. Matlab has an incredibly crappy syntax which manages to be on par with that of Python in terms of inadaptation, even though it is theoretically suited for the job.

I have to disagree, Matlab syntax is pretty awful compared to Python. I actually switched to Python because Matlab syntax was annoying the crap out of me. 90% of errors are find the missing dot. Also I guess you never had to write a GUI for your Matlab code. Python is so far ahead of Matlab in that respect (Matlab GUI code makes my eyes bleed).

You're preaching a convinced people, though for me GUI programming and calculation should be left to separate languages. I HATE Matlab's syntax. Every time I have to use it, I try my best to remember the commands used to launch the GUI tools and never, ever, use its command line, except when being forced to do so.

Seriously, should any sane people have to use tf([1],[1,1]) or some other trick like s = tf([1, 0]) in order to input 1/(1+s) ? I don't care if transfer functions are treated separately by the software, for me it is just a rational function and should be treated as such.

Why are HTML pages unprofessional? That's what pretty much every software manufacturer uses for the help pages AFAIK.

No, they aren't that widespread, except maybe for the content. People often use Windows' CHM or some in-house solution, be it only for one good reason : searching. In a good help system like that of Maple, Mathematica, and Matlab, you search for keywords like "polynomial", "linear algebra" or "inequation plot", and you get all the related functions, sorted by relevance order if the guys took some time to polish it. In HTML help, you get a web browser, a tool made for something else which doesn't provide indexed search facilities, and you have to use full-text search in the index, which requires you to know the exact name of the command or the category it's put in, and parse through loads of irrelevant answers.

Also I actually never use the HTML pages or the Matlab help system. I just type "help command"
in the prompt (I do the same in Matlab whenever I have to use it).

1/Is python able to provide in such a case an extensive help page describing command use, options, and examples with results, with links to related topics, in a non-cluttered way like that of Mathematica and Maple ? (the "click-to-expand" way)
2/Again, this only fits one use case of the help system, namely checking syntax of an already known command. Command discovery is not poor with this help system.

Another thing, if I compare the documentation of the Matlab language (not the commands) to the documentation of the Python language, the Python documentation is way better.

I was talking about the help system shape and use cases, the contents are another thing ;) (And that Python's core syntax is better documented is logical, since it is that of a general-purpose programming language, more complex than a specialized one, and generally not teached in courses contrary to Matlab which is alas common).

I don't quite get what you mean, something like
def fct(x, *args) ??

Mathematica :
a = 3*x
Result : 3x. Plot(a, {x,0,4}) will work.
Python :
a = 3*x
Result : Undefined symbol "x". Plot will not work.
Things like that make a general-purpose language a pain to use for everything that's mathematics-related.

Edited 2010-06-20 07:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: rip-off Mac OS X!
by siride on Sun 20th Jun 2010 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: rip-off Mac OS X!"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Just one thing. Whether or not existing HTML help systems do this, I want to say that there's no reason an HTML-based system can't have a kickass search feature, if it's running on a server somewhere. Actually, I think some systems will do it in JavaScript, so you don't need a server.

What I really take issue with is your statement that a web-browser is not meant to display documentation. That is bollocks. A web-browser is designed and has been from the beginning, to show interlinked content, mainly of a textual variety, in a formatted way. Displaying documentation pages is probably closest to the basic principles of HTML and the web than many other uses that web-browsers now serve.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: rip-off Mac OS X!
by cycoj on Sun 20th Jun 2010 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: rip-off Mac OS X!"
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

"I don't quite understand that sentence, do you mean you use Matlab, because it is not quite as awful as
Maple and Mathematica and on par with Python?

No, I chose Matlab because its syntax is on par with Python in terms of awfulness in my opinion. Python is a good programming language for prototyping and low-performance software, and insane people can even use it for other use cases and get cursed by their users. Just like C#, ActionScript, and Java. But its syntax is just inadapted to scientific calculation. You can use it for that, but it is painful. Matlab has an incredibly crappy syntax which manages to be on par with that of Python in terms of inadaptation, even though it is theoretically suited for the job.

I have to disagree, Matlab syntax is pretty awful compared to Python. I actually switched to Python because Matlab syntax was annoying the crap out of me. 90% of errors are find the missing dot. Also I guess you never had to write a GUI for your Matlab code. Python is so far ahead of Matlab in that respect (Matlab GUI code makes my eyes bleed).

You're preaching a convinced people, though for me GUI programming and calculation should be left to separate languages. I HATE Matlab's syntax. Every time I have to use it, I try my best to remember the commands used to launch the GUI tools and never, ever, use its command line, except when being forced to do so.
"
Why do you separate calculation and GUI? That sounds awfully complicated to me, suddenly you have to learn 2 languages + the glue between them.


Seriously, should any sane people have to use tf([1],[1,1]) or some other trick like s = tf([1, 0]) in order to input 1/(1+s) ? I don't care if transfer functions are treated separately by the software, for me it is just a rational function and should be treated as such.


It seems to me you want symbolic math manipulation not really scientific computing. So something like Mathematica or Sage on the Python side would be more suited to your needs.

"Why are HTML pages unprofessional? That's what pretty much every software manufacturer uses for the help pages AFAIK.

No, they aren't that widespread, except maybe for the content.
"
Actually, that was my point the content is very often HTML, they just write a specific help browser for the html pages

People often use Windows' CHM or some in-house solution, be it only for one good reason : searching. In a good help system like that of Maple, Mathematica, and Matlab, you search for keywords like "polynomial", "linear algebra" or "inequation plot", and you get all the related functions, sorted by relevance order if the guys took some time to polish it. In HTML help, you get a web browser, a tool made for something else which doesn't provide indexed search facilities, and you have to use full-text search in the index, which requires you to know the exact name of the command or the category it's put in, and parse through loads of irrelevant answers.

Agreed a specific documentation search at docs.scipy.org would be great. I disagree however that a webbrowser is the wrong tool, if the HTML pages are well structured and written a browser is just as good a specific help system.


"Also I actually never use the HTML pages or the Matlab help system. I just type "help command"
in the prompt (I do the same in Matlab whenever I have to use it).

1/Is python able to provide in such a case an extensive help page describing command use, options, and examples with results, with links to related topics, in a non-cluttered way like that of Mathematica and Maple ? (the "click-to-expand" way)
"
I can't comment on Mathematica and Maple, but they do provide a rather extensive help, which describes all options etc. There's also the short help which provides you with a short usage string if you use ipython ?<command>


2/Again, this only fits one use case of the help system, namely checking syntax of an already known command. Command discovery is not poor with this help system.

Agreed but in my experience that's not really that much better in matlabs system either, e.g. the last I recall was searching for writing to a text file in an arbitrary format. If I hadn't known fprintf from C I don't think I'd ever found out using the Matlab help system.


"Another thing, if I compare the documentation of the Matlab language (not the commands) to the documentation of the Python language, the Python documentation is way better.

I was talking about the help system shape and use cases, the contents are another thing ;) (And that Python's core syntax is better documented is logical, since it is that of a general-purpose programming language, more complex than a specialized one, and generally not teached in courses contrary to Matlab which is alas common).
"
Well especially if it is taught in courses I'd expect the syntax would be well documented.


"I don't quite get what you mean, something like
def fct(x, *args) ??

Mathematica :
a = 3*x
Result : 3x. Plot(a, {x,0,4}) will work.
Python :
a = 3*x
Result : Undefined symbol "x". Plot will not work.
Things like that make a general-purpose language a pain to use for everything that's mathematics-related.
"

Well I can only repeat what I've said above, you really want a symbolic math manipulation, that cannot be provided by a programming language like python and matlab alone. I'd argue that this is another use case entirely, and although there are some packages for python and I think matlab as well. They will never perform as well as a language specifically build for that purpose. However if you want to to numeric simulations (like I do), that often does not fit into systems like Mathematica and I find using a proper language like Python is a lot more comfortable for me than using matlab.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: rip-off Mac OS X!
by Neolander on Mon 21st Jun 2010 09:58 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: rip-off Mac OS X!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Why do you separate calculation and GUI? That sounds awfully complicated to me, suddenly you have to learn 2 languages + the glue between them.

Because mathematics have a grammar and user needs that are different from GP computer programming language. In mathematics, an undefined symbol is a parameter.
In a GP programming language, which all toolkits are based on, an undefined symbol is an error.

In mathematics, almost everything is expressed in terms of command line.
GUI programming, on the other hand, can only be made a fun task provided you've got the right tools.

Software which do their maths correctly already weight several GBs and eat up considerable power.
Adding up GUI to them is only slowing them down even further, while for most people their performance is already unsatisfactory.

In my opinion, adding up GUI functions to a scientific calculation software is adding up a huge bloat and making the language or its interpreter (your choice) more complicated, for a benefit that's pretty small because 99% of time you'll be using it to do calculations, and for most people it is 100%. It's not optimizing the common case, it's adding up features for the sake of adding up features. Just like when Microsoft manages to eat up twice the HDD space in a new release of Windows while the user experience is left unchanged for most people.

It seems to me you want symbolic math manipulation not really scientific computing. So something like Mathematica or Sage on the Python side would be more suited to your needs.

Everything which does calculations must handle symbolic expressions to a certain degree.
When you type Plot(3*x, x=0..5) or whatever in a numeric calculation software, you've entered the 3*x symbolic expression. What makes a symbolic math manipulation software different is the way it allows to act on those symbolic expressions, to apply transformations to it (expand, simplify, factor, and so on). But all software which pretends to be able to do some maths (and Matlab fits in this category) should be able to parse and store a symbolic expression in a variable.

When you tell to matlab s=tf[1,0], a kind of symbolic expression is effectively stored in s. So why separate transfer functions from other rational functions ?

Actually, that was my point the content is very often HTML, they just write a specific help browser for the html pages

It depends on the level of professionalism which the documentation team have ^^ The guys who wrote the help systems for Maple and Mathematica took the time to write it in Maple/Mathematica, which allows the user to dynamically change parameters in the example and see the result. Though this is a small feature which shouldn't get much attention, it gives a pretty nice feeling when it is present. It looks like the people actually fully wrote an online help suited for online help purposes, instead of just putting an electronic version of the paper manual in the software bundle.

Agreed a specific documentation search at docs.scipy.org would be great. I disagree however that a webbrowser is the wrong tool, if the HTML pages are well structured and written a browser is just as good a specific help system.

I agree. If the guys take the time to make a good webpage, they can reach the functionality of a good help system. However, I'm not sure that it is doable without using some kind of PHP/MySQL programming and hence requiring an external server (professional software should be independent from any form of internet connection). And it will still feel unprofessional because you'll get several things which have nothing to do with help around : web bookmarks, private browsing...

I can't comment on Mathematica and Maple, but they do provide a rather extensive help, which describes all options etc. There's also the short help which provides you with a short usage string if you use ipython ?

Kind of like UNIX man pages, or something more colorful and mouse-friendly ?

Agreed but in my experience that's not really that much better in matlabs system either, e.g. the last I recall was searching for writing to a text file in an arbitrary format. If I hadn't known fprintf from C I don't think I'd ever found out using the Matlab help system.

Well, I'm pretty sure that something like the "writing text file" keywords could have done wonders, but I don't have Matlab set up on this computer so I can't test it...

Well I can only repeat what I've said above, you really want a symbolic math manipulation, that cannot be provided by a programming language like python and matlab alone. I'd argue that this is another use case entirely, and although there are some packages for python and I think matlab as well. They will never perform as well as a language specifically build for that purpose. However if you want to to numeric simulations (like I do), that often does not fit into systems like Mathematica and I find using a proper language like Python is a lot more comfortable for me than using matlab.

Well, for numeric simulations I either use Mathematica's NDsolve-like tools when I'm lazy (they work quite well if you take the time to set them up when the simulation is nontrivial) or C++ code when I want to fine-tune everything. I suppose that Python would fit the second use case quite well if you need some higher-level stuff or want to code quick and don't mind the performance hit (which can be big on numerical simulations, that's the reason why I learned C after playing with Python for some time). But it just lacks the "lazy" aspect of other scientific software which takes equations and various settings as input and returns results as output.

Edited 2010-06-21 10:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Rip-offs are news worthy now?
by jtfolden on Sat 19th Jun 2010 04:32 UTC
jtfolden
Member since:
2005-08-12

The most elementary fact here is that this distro is a dead-end. Copycats of other UI's don't really succeed. Surely people involved with Linux should have grasped this basic idea by now.

From a UI standpoint, when an interface mocks a more popular one to such a detailed degree then it actually causes MORE user frustration than less - reason being that when it LOOKS the same, people expect it to behave and respond the same as well. No Linux distro is going to behave the same as a Mac so aping the UI is simply damaging to the distro.

Sure, a few people who can't afford real Macs might run it but other than that... it's irrelevant.

Why not work on something truly useful, like creating an easy to use distro where upgrading apps is as simple as it is on Windows and Mac, as well? Linux is surely a decade past due on THAT simple request.

Edited 2010-06-19 04:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Rip-offs are news worthy now?
by Neolander on Sat 19th Jun 2010 04:54 UTC in reply to "Rip-offs are news worthy now?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Why not work on something truly useful, like creating an easy to use distro where upgrading apps is as simple as it is on Windows and Mac, as well? Linux is surely a decade past due on THAT simple request.

Oo How ? In my experience, the central repository system of Linux, to the contrary, made updates a much easier and smoother experience than on Windows and OSX...

Except, of course, if you're referring to some distros which just introduce buggy updates right away, instead of heavily testing them before moving them in repositories at the expense of not having newly released upstream updates available right away. But it's not the case on all. I've yet to see an update breaking the system on Debian stable (or even Testing) ^^

/begin ad

More seriously, for people who don't like the make-your-own approach of Debian, my distro of choice, Pardus, never broke with an update, pretty much anything worked out of the box and continued to do so ever since. Even when upgrading to the newest 2009.2 release, which I did with extreme caution and backups because of my past experience with upgrading Windows and Linux to a new release, everything just worked perfectly fine. Its packages are of acceptable freshness when having the excellent stability in mind.

/end ad

My advice in that area is to use a rock-solid distribution and then put bleeding-edge repositories for some softwares only if you need it.

Edited 2010-06-19 04:58 UTC

Reply Score: 5

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

I've yet to see a simple, easy-to-use, universal solution to upgrading apps on Linux.

I'm talking about not having to upgrade your whole distro just to use the latest release of your favorite music player, etc...

This happens all the time.

"For example, if Ubuntu ships with OpenOffice.org 2.0.x, it will remain at OpenOffice.org 2.0.x for the entire 6-month release cycle, even if a later version gets released during this time. The Ubuntu team may apply important security fixes to 2.0.x, but any new features or non-security bugfixes will not be made available."

Sure there are "backports" but lots of apps never get this treatment.

This is not normally an issue on Windows or Mac OS X.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Oh but you *can* always have the latest releases, or even pre-releases, with either rolling-release distros like Arch, "testing" repositories, or downloading and installing a .deb/.rpm of the update.

I prefer not to do so when I don't need to, because I prefer the increased stability of a stable installed base. But you can do that. As an example, my old Ubuntu box had repositories for GIMP betas and Emesene nightlies. Others have one for Opera.

Just imagine one second, knowing the famous quality of Nvidia and ATI drivers on all platforms, that they were always updated to the latest release on Windows. Your computer would effectively be broken quite often.

Edited 2010-06-19 05:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Option 1: "Rolling-release" distros *are* essentially upgrading portions of the OS as you upgrade apps, etc... it just comes pouring down the wire and stability suffers, as a result.

Option 2: "Testing" repositories are not a solution at all, because a) not every app has one, and b) you generally have to manually set up the repository for each one (that might, possibly, maybe, happen to be available).

So, Option 1 is the equivalent of having to continually install beta releases of Windows or OS X just to get the newer apps available. Option 2 is not particularly user friendly and it's incredibly spotty at best.

Neither of these options provide the previously mentioned easy of use in comparison to Windows or OS X. Heck, I think just about all the apps I currently use on OS X even check for their own updates and install them for you, upon approval, without me ever having to do a thing - and I never have to worry about the stability of the OS or that the core might be tampered with...

Remember, I never said that there weren't ways to possibly upgrade apps, but these kludges are simply not suitable in a modern desktop operating system. The OS and the applications should not be so tightly bound to one another and I think the main failing here is the way libraries and resources are handled by the OS.

Reply Score: 3

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

What about option 3 ? Not every application provides binary packages, but most of the big ones (the ones you probably want to upgrade) actually do so, just like on Win/OSX...

Reply Score: 3

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

This may have changed since I last tried using binary packages but doesn't that bring into play the issue of dependencies - both in having to possibly install something secondary that effects the core of the OS (and potentially breaks another app) and having said dependencies available for your particular distro?

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

This may have changed since I last tried using binary packages but doesn't that bring into play the issue of dependencies - both in having to possibly install something secondary that effects the core of the OS (and potentially breaks another app) and having said dependencies available for your particular distro?

Oh, yeah, that's right... Yes, as far as I know, there's no way to avoid this issue, except upgrading. Linux distros are kind of a "all-in-one" product...

(I didn't care enough about that, again, to understand. As long as something work, I'm cautious about updates which may not make it work anymore. Consider all those Office users who upgraded to 2007 and had to re-learn the UI from the ground up...)

Reply Score: 2

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Remember, I never said that there weren't ways to possibly upgrade apps, but these kludges are simply not suitable in a modern desktop operating system. The OS and the applications should not be so tightly bound to one another and I think the main failing here is the way libraries and resources are handled by the OS.


Hit the nail on the head. With disk space as abundant as it is today, app encapsulation is the way to go.

Actually, the overall layers of userland libraries need to first be better defined. When it comes to e.g. graphics and multimedia libraries there is no standard base. So it's an all-or-nothing approach--every library depends on every other library all the way down to the core of the system. So it makes app encapsulation quite a bit more difficult.

Reply Score: 4

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Exactly! ...and if a group are going to chase after OS X for anything, it should be the way it handles applications/libraries and not simply cosmetics.

There's no reason that a Linux distro can't do this and the fact that there have been all these attempts at landing on the desktop without anyone satisfactorily solving this issue, at this late date, is kind of mind boggling.

Reply Score: 1

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


Hit the nail on the head. With disk space as abundant as it is today, app encapsulation is the way to go.


The deal is that with desktop becoming a less and less interesting target, reusing the already loaded libries is interesting again. It's not as much about disk space than it is about memory usage. Having multiple versions of the same library loaded at the same time eats all your RAM.

Reply Score: 4

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Having multiple versions of the same library loaded at the same time eats all your RAM.


That's no longer an issue when every new laptop has at least 2 gigs.

What does Linux have to lose by moving away from the shared library system? Marketshare?

I'm really surprised by how many people are defending the status quo at this point.

Reply Score: 3

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Hit the nail on the head. With disk space as abundant as it is today, app encapsulation is the way to go.

Actually, the overall layers of userland libraries need to first be better defined. When it comes to e.g. graphics and multimedia libraries there is no standard base. So it's an all-or-nothing approach--every library depends on every other library all the way down to the core of the system. So it makes app encapsulation quite a bit more difficult.

You mean like the all-in-one bundles you see on OSX ? I *heavily* disagree with that. I offered a pen tablet to my girlfriend for Christmas, which came in a bundle with a photoshop elements licence. I discovered that there was no DVD in the box, it was available for download only. I then said "well, no issue". That's what I thought. But downloading 2 GB of data over a crappy Wi-fi network is a pure nightmare. After the third time the download stopped without a warning one hour after the beginning and refused to restart except by re-downloading from byte 0, I just gave up and teached her how to use GIMP, even though the OSX version belongs to the hall of shame of most crappy software ports in my opinion. Software packages are *much* easier to download when they're small.

Edited 2010-06-19 09:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Yea Gimp in OSX sucks, use Seashore.

But I would fix her wifi or plug into lan since Photoshop Elements is worth the download.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I've gone over this a 1000 times here so don't waste too much energy with the status quo defenders.

Program management in Linux is an insult to software engineering. I'm glad that I'm not the only person that can see this.

Have a nice day sir.

Reply Score: 3

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Yes, I'm seeing what you mean! lol

Reply Score: 1

cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

Oh please ...

repeating it over and over does not make it true. Everything in a single package is a huge waste of resources:

Disk resources because you have libraries several times on your disk (and this is actually relevant if you use an SSD for example).

RAM, I'd rather use my RAM for useful things instead of keeping multiple copies of the same library in it.
Bandwidth, if a library that is part of a lot of packages needs a security upgrade, you suddenly have to download all these packages. Now let these packages be things like Photoshop and suddenly you look at multiple GB downloads. I'm not even talking about the fact that you have to wait for a new version of every one of the packages.

CPU, every app needs to check for updates, great use of resources!

Time, looking for software at places all over the internet is definitely not a better use of my time than looking in one central location.

I can't believe you actually touting all-inclusive packages as the better engineering solution.

Reply Score: 2

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Oh please ...

repeating it over and over does not make it true. Everything in a single package is a huge waste of resources:


Don't just criticize, what's your solution because the current ways are utterly broken and is a relevant portion of why Linux does not have wider adoption.

Disk resources because you have libraries several times on your disk (and this is actually relevant if you use an SSD for example).


..and the satisfactory alternative here is to a) force the user to wait 6 months and re-install their OS over again for the newer libraries and apps or b) resort to an unstable rolling-release distro?

No, the size of modern hard drives is not an excuse for the currently shoddy app upgrade methodology used by various distros. If you're running some sort of resource deprived device then chances are you need a stripped down distro rather than a desktop one.

RAM, I'd rather use my RAM for useful things instead of keeping multiple copies of the same library in it.


Actually, if the apps you are running use the same library revisions as the core OS, they wouldn't need to load their own. However, if the app requires a newer version, it already has it within and it doesn't effect the rest of the OS.

Not to mention the fact that you could continue to run the apps as they were delivered with the OS and not worry about upgrading (since you can't normally anyway) until you upgrade the whole OS. Choice... how great is that. I'll gladly take app bundles in trade for a few extra MB's of drive space or memory allocation.

Bandwidth, if a library that is part of a lot of packages needs a security upgrade, you suddenly have to download all these packages. Now let these packages be things like Photoshop and suddenly you look at multiple GB downloads. I'm not even talking about the fact that you have to wait for a new version of every one of the packages.


So what if you have to wait? Chances are the app in question has newer versions of the library in question compared to the core OS anyway, else it's using the OS libraries and not loading it's own. Also, Photoshop updates are not multiple GB to download on OS X now, why would they be on Linux? ...or maybe that highlights another issue with Linux where you have to download the entire application over and over again every time you upgrade, instead of just the parts that have changed.

CPU, every app needs to check for updates, great use of resources!


Are you running a 386 with 16MB of RAM and a 9600 baud modem or something? All these arguments you're bringing up were barely relevant to resource starved systems of 10 years ago let alone today.

Time, looking for software at places all over the internet is definitely not a better use of my time than looking in one central location.


I don't see what that has to do with anything talked about. Mac users don't need to do that. The app checks for them. They don't even need to load a package manager to check, don't have to configure 3rd party repositories, don't have to go through repo hell to solve random dependencies if they're trying to upgrade to newer apps than their current release officially supports, etc...

I can't believe you actually touting all-inclusive packages as the better engineering solution.


Its certainly better than Linux is currently offering in its attempt to be a modern desktop OS. Your excuses seem to be tied to systems with a performance level I threw out years ago.

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


CPU, every app needs to check for updates, great use of resources!


Library interdependencies are not required to have a central update system. See: iPhone.


Time, looking for software at places all over the internet is definitely not a better use of my time than looking in one central location.

Library interdependencies are not needed for this feature either.


I can't believe you actually touting all-inclusive packages as the better engineering solution.


They are and they wouldn't have to be all-inclusive. You could provide some stable system libraries for programs to share and then keep everything else separate.

Reply Score: 2

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

I've yet to see a simple, easy-to-use, universal solution to upgrading apps on Linux.

apt-get install [package] works on most Debian based distros.

Most other distros have their version of this command and/or a GUI version.

Reply Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Dude we all know about apt-get.

It comes with problems like users being unable to upgrade software until system dependency issues have been resolved. Updating an application should not require a major system update.

Reply Score: 2

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Dude we all know about apt-get.

It comes with problems like users being unable to upgrade software until system dependency issues have been resolved. Updating an application should not require a major system update.

Dude. Apparently some of us don't know much about apt-get.

Please link a few recent examples of such a problem.

Also, please name an OS that is better at handling program uninstalls.

Edited 2010-06-19 07:46 UTC

Reply Score: 4

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Please link a few recent examples of such a problem.


Ubuntu 8.04 users were unable to upgrade to OpenOffice 3.0. They were told to upgrade their OS to 9.04 if they wanted the latest version of an office suite. That's retarded. 8.04 was released in 2008.


Also, please name an OS that is better at handling program uninstalls.


OSX. Most the time the uninstaller isn't needed since everything is kept in a single file. But the best implementation of this I have seen is in RISC OS.

Reply Score: 3

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Ubuntu 8.04 users were unable to upgrade to OpenOffice 3.0. They were told to upgrade their OS to 9.04 if they wanted the latest version of an office suite. That's retarded. 8.04 was released in 2008.

I'm just going to take your word on this one, because I can't find the problem with a shallow web search and you didn't provide a link.

Yes. That is probably terrible to have to upgrade the whole OS for Open Office. Not having ever had such a problem nor used Ubuntu for more than a few days, I would not know what it entails to upgrade Ubuntu.

However, Ubuntu is only one of hundreds of Linux distros.

Furthermore, what could Open Office 3.0 do that the previous version couldn't?

Also, please name an OS that is better at handling program uninstalls.
OSX. Most the time the uninstaller isn't needed since everything is kept in a single file. But the best implementation of this I have seen is in RISC OS.

Okay. I meant to say "uprgade" not "uninstall."

However, I fail to see how searching for a directory in Finder and then deleting it is superior to or quicker than typing apt-get purge [package] in an already open terminal. I also don't see how the OSX method is better than some GUI package manager -- with a package manager, you know you are removing hidden symlinks and user config files.

Also, Gobolinux has everything in a single directory.

Reply Score: 2

btrimby Member since:
2009-09-30

OSX. Most the time the uninstaller isn't needed since everything is kept in a single file. But the best implementation of this I have seen is in RISC OS.


This works very well for most applications, but for applications that do require an installation package, OS X does *not* provide an uninstall system. Some seemingly simple app bundles will also install a package when they're first run. This works great for those programs, but many (most?) leave behind remnants in /Library when they are drag-to-trash "uninstalled"

As a software engineer who is also responsible for packaging cross-platform per-machine software, I can say that at Apple does not provide a good uninstall mechanism. To make matters worse, they change the installer each release such that build scripts tend to break between releases.

Reply Score: 1

Mac OS X apps
by s_groening on Sun 20th Jun 2010 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Rip-offs are news worthy now?"
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

Actually, a Mac OS X application typically consists of a number of folders nested within a special folder with the .app extension, which then has specific properties assigned to it, allowing users to double-click on it and have the application run.

Many applications install parts into the /Library/Application Support folder, that you would also have to remove in order to perform a complete removal of the software.

Reply Score: 2

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

That really doesn't provide a solution to the previously mentioned issue afflicting Linux distros.

Reply Score: 1

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

That really doesn't provide a solution to the previously mentioned issue afflicting Linux distros.

It always provided flawless upgrades for me and countless others.

There's also aptitude, which is touted by many as better than apt-get.

Perhaps somebody could go into detail about a few specific upgrade problems.

Reply Score: 2

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

I'm sorry but I don't think you've been reading this discussion very closely. The problem is endemic to the majority of popular, if not all, Linux distros in general. This is not a case of isolated issues, it's a problem with the methodology at a basic level really.

There are workarounds that are successful to various degrees but as highlighted in this thread - none of them completely, satisfactorily solve the issue.

Reply Score: 2

siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Yes, it is a methdological problem, more specifically, a policy problem. Most apps really don't need a base system upgrade to be upgraded. Distros just choose not do app upgrades because it's easier for them, or they are idiots (not sure which is true yet). If major system libraries do need to be upgraded, there is no reason why a distro can't have side-by-side installations of different versions of libraries. Windows does this. ELF certainly supports versioned libraries. The distros just don't do it. Why, I don't know. But it's definitely not a technical problem. It's an idiocy problem.

Reply Score: 2

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

I'm sorry but I don't think you've been reading this discussion very closely.

Personal attack... okay.

I'll tell you what I am reading -- I see a lot of vague conjecture without any hard facts to back it up.


The problem is endemic to the majority of popular, if not all, Linux distros in general. This is not a case of isolated issues, it's a problem with the methodology at a basic level really.

I'm sorry but I don't think you know what you're talking about. There is a great variety in basic methodology of Linux distros.

Furthermore, I have noticed that the only supporting arguments that you provide seem to focus on Ubuntu, and even those assertions lack solid detail and links to actual forum complaints. It is a fatal flaw to assume that Ubuntu is the whole of Linux. Ubuntu and its derivatives make up only a small fraction of the many, varied Linux distros.

Ubuntu might have the few package manager problems that you mention (I wouldn't know, having never really used it that much). However, most other distros do not have such problems, and that includes the non-Ubuntu Debian-based distros.

I can tell you from first hand experience that the repository of my 2009-01 version of Sidux continually and actively updates its packages. I do an apt-get update every week or two, and I have to wait for it to finish updating. Never had any problems with an upgrade from the sidux repos.

In addition, I use non-sidux repositories, with almost no trouble. The independent Debian Multimedia repository ( http://debian-multimedia.org/ ) is updated daily. Certainly, there will be occasional problems when changing builds on a daily basis, but I recall having only one upgrade problem with a package from this repository, using sidux, and it was automatically fixed when I upgraded the package a few days later.

Any distro base on Debian Sid will have very recent versions in the repo.

Also, there are plenty of other non-Debian, cutting-edge distros which have no problem upgrading packages to the latest version. Fedora, Arch, Gentoo immediately come to mind, but there are many others.

Reply Score: 1

chris_l Member since:
2010-02-14

I've yet to see a simple, easy-to-use, universal solution to upgrading apps on Linux.

There is no so such animal for *ANY* OS


I'm talking about not having to upgrade your whole distro just to use the latest release of your favorite music player, etc...

This happens all the time.

"For example, if Ubuntu ships with OpenOffice.org 2.0.x, it will remain at OpenOffice.org 2.0.x for the entire 6-month release cycle, even if a later version gets released during this time. The Ubuntu team may apply important security fixes to 2.0.x, but any new features or non-security bugfixes will not be made available."

Bullshit. Under Fedora for instance just run "yum install blah" as root using su from a terminal.

If you don't have what the program needs, yum will download and install it for you.


Sure there are "backports" but lots of apps never get this treatment.

This is not normally an issue on Windows or Mac OS X.


That's because Windows or Mac OS X will require you to run out and spend $$$$ on the latest version of the OS, or buy a freaking new computer.

Don't agree? Try running the latest versions of either VLC or Firefox on Windows 98se for instance. There's quite frankly no reason that I can see for either of these programs to *NOT* run under Win98se except for the fact the the developers wanted to force people to upgrade for no real reason.


Reply Score: 1

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

There is no so such animal for *ANY* OS


Are you kidding? Virtually everything I install on my Mac is via simple DnD. Virtually every app I run has the ability to download updates and upgrade themselves. All of this going on without having to update the core of the OS every time to do so.



Bullshit.


That scenario is not Bullshit at all. It's quoted verbatim from Ubuntu documentation as an example.

That's because Windows or Mac OS X will require you to run out and spend $$$$ on the latest version of the OS, or buy a freaking new computer.

Don't agree? Try running the latest versions of either VLC or Firefox on Windows 98se for instance. There's quite frankly no reason that I can see for either of these programs to *NOT* run under Win98se except for the fact the the developers wanted to force people to upgrade for no real reason.


Oh, so the latest VLC and FireFox will install without any updates to the OS on Red Hat Linux 5.1, released in 1998?

"There's quite frankly no reason that I can see for either of these programs to *NOT* run under Red Hat Linux 5.1 except for the fact the the developers wanted to force people to upgrade for no real reason." LOL

I will gladly plunk down $99 every 2 years for OS X and not have to worry about installing a whole new version of the OS every 6 months just to have the latest apps. On top of that, I don't have to worry about an unsupported app installing dependencies that screw with the stability of the system.

Reply Score: 2

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

No, but you must be to think willingly upgrading OS X on my schedule and being able to upgrade apps ANY TIME along the way, independent of that, is somehow equal to being forced to upgrade a distro like Ubuntu every 6 months in order to get the latest apps. It's absurd.

OS X, and even WIndows, offers so much more flexibility and freedom in this area that it's not even funny.

Reply Score: 2

dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

I can update my apps without updating the core OS (no, toolkits are NOT core OS). Yes, I'm using Fedora, which is more bleeding-edge, but you can always add PPAs on Ubuntu if the Ubuntu repositories don't provide the newest version.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Rip-offs are news worthy now?
by Soulbender on Sat 19th Jun 2010 09:49 UTC in reply to "Rip-offs are news worthy now?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Copycats of other UI's don't really succeed.


Really? Both Windows and Apple has succeeded despite being copies (or "influenced", if you like) of other UI's.

Reply Score: 3

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Oh Really? What popular operating system did they copy from???

Certainly they have borrowed bits and pieces from here and there but nothing as wholesale and artistically bankrupt as we're seeing here.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Oh Really? What popular operating system did they copy from???

Copying or borrowing doesn't need to happen with something visual, it can be the lower-level parts. Like f.ex. Microsoft has grabbed lots of networking-related ideas and even code from IBM, Novell, BSD.. And how about the whole windowing idea? You didn't know that there were windowing systems even before Apple and Microsoft stepped on the stage? And that they both took lots of ideas from f.ex. Plan 9?

You really need to study computer and Operating System history a tad bit more if you think Microsoft and Apple were the first ones to invent all of their ideas.

Certainly they have borrowed bits and pieces from here and there but nothing as wholesale and artistically bankrupt as we're seeing here.

As I stated, not everything that is copied or adapted needs to even be visible at all. And yet still, go read f.ex. about Plan 9 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs and you might surprise yourself.

Now, having proved your point moot I'll go and introduce my own one: why does it matter that ideas are borrowed, copied and adapted to new systems or circumstances? Nothing in this world would be like it is now if that didn't happen because that's called progress; take something you find good and worth of implementing, and try and make it even better. Or do you really mean that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benz-velo.jpg should be the pinnacle of automobile development and no one should have ever taken the idea and improved on it?

Reply Score: 3

siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Why use "f.ex." when there is already a perfectly good abbreviation "e.g." available which is more well-known and considerably less grating than "f.ex."?

Reply Score: 4

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Why use "f.ex." when there is already a perfectly good abbreviation "e.g." available which is more well-known and considerably less grating than "f.ex."?

Because English isn't my native language? I've just never really thought about it and since "f.ex." is used by several of the languages I speak I've just kind of gotten accustomed to it. But sure, if it really bothers you so much that you need to make an entire off-topic comment about it I'll try my best to memorize the "e.g." abbreviation.

Edited 2010-06-19 16:44 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes it's true that Linux is easier to use than it's ever been before. But the very simple reason it's not ready for mass consumption is that it more or less *requires* the CLI and/or editing config files by hand in order to get anything done that's remotely advanced.

Another large-ish factor is that package managers have certain disadvantages from a consumer standpoint. App versions are months behind the newest releases, and installing new versions of anything risks breaking something else. Plus for the few applications that do offer direct-install binaries, you risk not being able to uninstall those apps easily, since the package manager either gets confused or ignores them completely. I'm not saying package managers should be scrapped, I'm saying that direct-install binaries such as Zero Install should be should be treated by distros and developers as first-class citizens. Distros should include Zero Install by default and application project pages had should have big fat links to Zero Install binaries of the newest versions. This would also increase usage and beta testing of small-time apps that distros would otherwise not support and compiler-phobic end users would never try out.

...But still, the CLI is by far the biggest reason why Linux has not "gone mainstream".

Reply Score: 6

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Yes it's true that Linux is easier to use than it's ever been before. But the very simple reason it's not ready for mass consumption is that it more or less *requires* the CLI and/or editing config files by hand in order to get anything done that's remotely advanced.

Huh? There are numerous Linux distros in which one never needs to see a terminal, unlike the remedies required for OSX problems: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-20007737-263.html
I'm guessing that the average Mac chimp is going to have trouble with these terminal commands.


Another large-ish factor ... App versions are months behind the newest releases,...

Huh? Try Arch, Sidux and Gentoo (just to name a few).


... and installing new versions of anything risks breaking something else.

Perhaps you are confusing Linux with OSX. Here are just a few choice Apple upgrading problems that have popped up in the last two days:

Safari completely unresponsive after update: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2466613&tstart=0
Photos lost upgrading library to Ap3: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2465322&tstart=15
Latest SL update seems to screwed up Aperture: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2464161&tstart=30
Problems after upgrade to 4.03 creating events from address book: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2465245&tstart=15
Can't Install Quicktime [upgrading hasn't worked since April 11, 2010]: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa;jsessionid=84756CA46355044...
Mac OS X: Issues with OS X10.6.4 [since upgrading]: http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6126_102-0.html?threadID=398175&tag=for...

Those posts came from a quick scan of the forums of only a few Apple programs. These threads barely scratch the surface of Apple upgrading problems.

I thought everything with Apple "just works!"

Please go to the forums of any major Linux distro and find this many upgrading problems existing in such a short span of time.


Plus for the few applications that do offer direct-install binaries, you risk not being able to uninstall those apps easily, since the package manager either gets confused or ignores them completely.

Of course, Windows and OSX programs are always fully uninstalled when commanded. /s

Furthermore, it is always amazing when someone tries to characterize Linux in a certain way. There are hundreds of different distros, many of which do unique and incredible things. For instance, how does the above notion on problems with Linux independent package uninstall apply to distros such as Gobolinux, where each package and library sits in its own directory?

Another thing, it is rarely necessary to install a more recent, independent binary that is not in the repos, especially with Arch, Sidux, Gentoo, etc. Such distros keep packages fairly recent, and they certainly update the packages more often than most OSX and Windows programs.


...But still, the CLI is by far the biggest reason why Linux has not "gone mainstream".

Not sure on what such a notion is based.

My 84 year old mother installed Mepis by herself, and she doesn't know how to use the CLI, and she has never had to use the CLI.

Edited 2010-06-19 07:37 UTC

Reply Score: 4

m1cro Member since:
2006-12-22

So pointing out problems in OS X somehow makes Linux better? Yeah... right.

Reply Score: 2

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Not only that, but for him to compare reported problems and have them mean something OS X and Linux would need to have the exact same number of users on the Desktop - and they certainly don't. lol

Reply Score: 0

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Uh, there seems to be some confusion as to which OSs have the package updating problems.

The OP suggested that Linux has the upgrade problems, but, obviously, the OP mistook OSX for Linux.

So, again, which OS is it that is "not ready for mass consumption?"

Reply Score: 2

silix Member since:
2006-03-01

Of course, Windows and OSX programs are always fully uninstalled when commanded. /s

pointing at other OS's flaws doesnt solve yours
Windows and OSX are not perfect, of course, but those two OS's are the ones the majority of users actually use despite minor annoyances like this, because they have all the applications already (users want to use applications, not the OS itself) while linux has got OpenOffice and some other horizontal applications (though there's web browsers aplenty) but when it comes to specialized professional grade vertical applications, there's very few to none of them available ( and even in those cases, for specific - sometimes outdated, versions of specific distributions )
other Os's can live with this minor annoyance because they have at least one barrier to entry less than, say, linux

Furthermore, it is always amazing when someone tries to characterize Linux in a certain way. There are hundreds of different distros, many of which do unique and incredible things.

this is the crux of the problem
the vast majority of people would rather settle with something that *works*, has as many features that they need, as possible, and possibly stable API's (so that third party developers can give them the *applications* they need), than be willing to choose among hundreds of different distros (incompatible with each other) just to get one unique or incredible feature but sacrificing on fundamental requirements such as overall functionality and stability

also, development wise, consolidating a platform in a certain application field, and adapting it to operate in other fields are not mutually exclusive things (in fact, they're orthogonal aspects)
and certainly it shouldn't need different distributions to refine feature richness and suitability in the same application field (namely, the desktop), since such refinement may well happen upstream and all distributions benefit from it equally - but this would make all desktop distributions (mutually compatible) clones of each other, diminishing any competitive advantage one may have against the others, so it's not in the distributions' interest to make that happen (although it would be in the users' interest)

For instance, how does the above notion on problems with Linux independent package uninstall apply to distros such as Gobolinux, where each package and library sits in its own directory?

GoboLinux does away with package management and dependency hell - but it's known for suffering from "symlink hell" otoh
simplifying the directory structure and putting some common sense in it (third party applications each in its own directory isn't "the windows way", it's just logical) is all fine and dandy, but it clashes with a plethora of unix userland sw developed with unix paths in mind (or, often times, hardcoded)

My 84 year old mother installed Mepis by herself, and she doesn't know how to use the CLI, and she has never had to use the CLI.

... so when you'll give her a new webcam for christmas, she'll be able to install it herself with just a few mouse clicks (setup-> next->next->finish), or she'll rather have to open the cli and type some obscure commands (or worse yet, wait for you to come and setup it for her) ?

Reply Score: 4

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

... so when you'll give her a new webcam for christmas, she'll be able to install it herself with just a few mouse clicks (setup-> next->next->finish), or she'll rather have to open the cli and type some obscure commands (or worse yet, wait for you to come and setup it for her) ?

Like on OSX, it'll most likely either work out of the box or not work at all. Actually, V4L drivers are not that bad, just like wi-fi. Not every PC hardware will work, but there is a large amount of hardware which is known to work, just like say Sound blaster 16-compatible cards are known to work on Win9x and usb pen drives are known to work on OSX. He'd probably choose among those when buying a webcam, and everything will be fine.

Edited 2010-06-19 17:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

pointing at other OS's flaws doesnt solve yours

First of all, I have already addressed the alleged Linux package upgrade issue elsewhere in this thread. I am not going to repeat myself just because someone doesn't bother to read.

Secondly, the OP stated that Linux is "not ready for mass consumption," which presumes that some other OS is ready for mass consumption. I was merely highlighting the flaw in this reasoning.

OSX and Windows are in many ways less "ready for mass consumption" than Linux.


Windows and OSX are not perfect, of course, but those two OS's are the ones the majority of users actually use despite minor annoyances like this, because they have all the applications already(users want to use applications, not the OS itself) while linux has got OpenOffice and some other horizontal applications (though there's web browsers aplenty) but when it comes to specialized professional grade vertical applications, there's very few to none of them available ( and even in those cases, for specific - sometimes outdated, versions of specific distributions )

Congratulations for posting the second longest run-on in OSNews history!

Windows and OSX are far from perfect, and neither is any better than Linux.

The majority of use Windows, because that is the OS to which they are exposed, not because Windows has applications that Linux doesn't. The same assertion applies to OSX, although I would argue that it is possible that there are more Linux desktops in the world compared to OSX desktops.

Furthermore, I dispute that Windows and OSX have a pool of professional "vertical" applications that Linux/open-source doesn't offer. Certainly, Windows, OSX and Linux "out-do" each other on an individual program basis, but one OS does not dominate over another in terms of which has the best professional-quality applications. If you doubt this claim, perhaps you would care to list the Windows/OSX apps which have no better in Linux/open-source.


this is the crux of the problem

No. The crux of the problem is lack of marketing and anti-Linux FUD, which is surprisingly parroted by posters on this forum who should know better.


the vast majority of people would rather settle with something that *works*, has as many features that they need, as possible, and possibly stable API's (so that third party developers can give them the *applications* they need), than be willing to choose among hundreds of different distros (incompatible with each other) just to get one unique or incredible feature but sacrificing on fundamental requirements such as overall functionality and stability

Wow. That's the third longest run-on in OSNews history!

The vast majority of people settle on to what they have been exposed -- it has nothing to do with quality of programs nor availability of advanced features (which most will never use).

There are plenty of applications for Linux, and I can't think of a single, userland Linux program that cannot be ported to all Linux distros that use Xorg.

By the way, what is the point of mentioning that Linux distros are incompatible with each other? Even if such a claim were completely true, what do you have to compare it to in the Windows/OSX world? The Windows/OSX world doesn't have incompatible distros, because they don't have differing distros. Such amazing variety (with some distros possessing unique features) is a strength of Linux that Windows/OSX will never have.

For instance, with Linux, I can quickly and easily boot a fully function OS from a CD, DVD, USB stick, zip drive, SDHC card, etc, and all data that I create can be saved back to the CD, DVD, USB, zip, SDHC etc. I can travel with all of my applications and data on my key chain, and the OS will boot on most computers with the exact same user configuration.

Another example: without knowing about the internal workings of the OS, I can use a GUI that will easily create my own specialty distro, catered to a specific purpose, such as point-of-sale kiosks, graphics/photo editing, Pro Audio/Video editing, etc. Try to do that on Windows/OSX!


also, development wise, consolidating a platform in a certain application field, and adapting it to operate in other fields are not mutually exclusive things (in fact, they're orthogonal aspects) and certainly it shouldn't need different distributions to refine feature richness and suitability in the same application field (namely, the desktop), since such refinement may well happen upstream and all distributions benefit from it equally - but this would make all desktop distributions (mutually compatible) clones of each other, diminishing any competitive advantage one may have against the others, so it's not in the distributions' interest to make that happen (although it would be in the users' interest)

Congratulations! This sentence is THE longest run-on in OSNews history! I am proud to have it as a response to one of my posts!

Certainly, Linux can be as general or as specialized as one prefers.

One problem with proprietary OSs is that is that they can't specialize with any efficiency, because the general OS cruft will still run in the binary blob. So, with Windows and OSX, one still needs full hardware resources for an entire bloated graphical OS, even if one is merely trying to make a garage door opener that is actuated by a cell phone ( http://www.aboutdebian.com/x10.htm ) or if one is trying to build a super computer to do highly advanced fusion reaction calculations, etc.


GoboLinux does away with package management and dependency hell - but it's known for suffering from "symlink hell" otoh

There is no "hell" with the symlinks, unless the hidden existence of symlinks bother you.


simplifying the directory structure and putting some common sense in it (third party applications each in its own directory isn't "the windows way", it's just logical) is all fine and dandy, but it clashes with a plethora of unix userland sw developed with unix paths in mind (or, often times, hardcoded)

The reason for the symlinks is because some of the larger packages are hard-coded with *nix directory structure. It is not a problem that is inherent in the concept. Again, it is all hidden and does not affect performance.


... so when you'll give her a new webcam for christmas, she'll be able to install it herself with just a few mouse clicks (setup-> next->next->finish), or she'll rather have to open the cli and type some obscure commands (or worse yet, wait for you to come and setup it for her) ?

As one of the other posters mentioned, I would choose a webcam that has Linux drivers. Linux cannot be blamed if the manufacturers omit the necessary drivers and don't provide any information on how to make the drivers.

Reply Score: 1

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Windows and OSX are far from perfect, and neither is any better than Linux.
In some areas they are, in other areas they are not. In the real world the two rarely compete. Most use an OS for a specific reason, and most (outside of raging fanbois like yourself) do not use Linux as a desktop OS.

The majority of use Windows, because that is the OS to which they are exposed, not because Windows has applications that Linux doesn't. The same assertion applies to OSX, although I would argue that it is possible that there are more Linux desktops in the world compared to OSX desktops.


Really? That is the reason? Or more likely you just simply can not come up with an excuse that has any real data. Hate to break the news to you kid, but there are a hell of a lot of people that quite willingly chose your hated Windows over Linux any freaking day of the week.

Furthermore, I dispute that Windows and OSX have a pool of professional "vertical" applications that Linux/open-source doesn't offer. Certainly, Windows, OSX and Linux "out-do" each other on an individual program basis, but one OS does not dominate over another in terms of which has the best professional-quality applications. If you doubt this claim, perhaps you would care to list the Windows/OSX apps which have no better in Linux/open-source.


Why bother listing. Clueless people will think that just about anything would have an equivalency, whether it really does or not. I could mention AutoCAD, to which some twit will pop out some idiotic link to some half ass amateur product thinking they are equal. God knows the clueless FOSS fanbois think there really is competitors to something like Premiere, or hell how about Exchange. Talk about massive failure to come up with a decent competitor there. Does FOSS have anything even close to Active Directory (and all of it's capabilities and supporting roles)? If you even think of saying yes, then you really are one ignorant kid.

Reply Score: 2

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Most use an OS for a specific reason,

Most use an OS for web browsing, email, cell phone, writing, etc. Is that what you mean by "specific?"


and most (outside of raging fanbois like yourself) do not use Linux as a desktop OS.

Ha! I would certainly say that what you say is so, compared to Windows, but I am not sure that the same is true when compared to OSX.

I guess the important thing is, "so what?"


The majority of use Windows, because that is the OS to which they are exposed, not because Windows has applications that Linux doesn't.
Really? That is the reason? Or more likely you just simply can not come up with an excuse that has any real data.

I'm still waiting for you to come up with the long list that proves your point.


Hate to break the news to you kid, but there are a hell of a lot of people that quite willingly chose your hated Windows over Linux any freaking day of the week.

I suggest that you study this page very carefully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension

The point is that the reason that people would choose Windows over another OS is because Windows is all they know.

So, more people would rather use Windows. Again, "so what?" That doesn't make Windows better.


I could mention AutoCAD, to which some twit will pop out some idiotic link to some half ass amateur product thinking they are equal.

Geez! I never would have seen that one coming!

Again, one platform might have one program that is superior, but no OS is dominant in multiple areas.

I don't know much a bout CAD software, so I'll let you have that as a piece of software in which Windows has an advantage.


God knows the clueless FOSS fanbois think there really is competitors to something like Premiere, or hell how about Exchange. Talk about massive failure to come up with a decent competitor there.

I included all Linux software, not just open-source.

Please explain how Adobe Premier surpasses these high-end Linux NLE/compositors:
http://www.ifxsoftware.com/ant
http://www.ifxsoftware.com/ant3d
http://www.ifxsoftware.com/products/piranha
http://www.ifxsoftware.com/products/piranha-stereo


Does FOSS have anything even close to Active Directory (and all of it's capabilities and supporting roles)? If you even think of saying yes, then you really are one ignorant kid.

I don't even know what Active Directory is or does. It sounds like a nerdlinger IT app.

Okay. I'll give you that one, too!

So, Autocad and Active Directory are the only two programs that prove that Windows is better than Linux? Is that all you got?

Edited 2010-06-20 00:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

Funny that you mention Autocad, AFAIK there's no OS X version for it either, so in your argumentation OS X isn't a ready for the desktop either. Or exchange again, no OS X version. As a side node, I would argue that the number users who use windows because of Autocad is probably as big as the number of users who use Linux because of Gnome. Autocad is really not a consumer product, and to say otherwise is simple dishonest. That said if you have to run Autocad for work, it is probably a valid reason for using Windows (at least in a VM). About exchange, there are many Groupware suites around which provide the same functionality, but it's funny that you bring exchange up in a discussion about the Desktop, as it is a server application.

Reply Score: 2

wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

Wow man. This is about the problems of Linux adoption on consumers desktops and you come up talking about kiosk-like customized distros, super computers and garage door openers.

the OP stated that Linux is "not ready for mass consumption," which presumes that some other OS is ready for mass consumption. I was merely highlighting the flaw in this reasoning.

OSX and Windows are in many ways less "ready for mass consumption" than Linux.

As long as you can buy millions of products for Win/OS X that say "Requires Windows XP SP2 or above" or "Requires Mac OS X 10.5.4 or above" and for Linux it's like no info at all or like "Requires at least Linux Kernel 2.6.32, X.org 6.9, glibc vX.X", nothing will change.

although I would argue that it is possible that there are more Linux desktops in the world compared to OSX desktops.

Show me a single statistic that claims it is even semi accurate and is assembled by a large number of sources like lots of different websites. The ones that do exist give no hint at all that your assumption could be true. OS X has 5-6 times more users than Linux on the desktop. Why are there so many more products that people can buy for Mac compared to Linux?

Furthermore, I dispute that Windows and OSX have a pool of professional "vertical" applications that Linux/open-source doesn't offer.

Take music production for example. There is only one decent MIDI sequencer (Rosegarden) and Ardour mostly for audio recording. There is nothing like Logic, Cubase, Pro Tools, Digital Performer and the likes. No fully featured DAW at all. And don't even get me started on all the wonderful Plug-Ins and software instruments there are.

And what about a decent video editing software for semi professionals like Final Cut Express or Adobe Premiere Elements?

There are so many examples one can point out to.

Reply Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Huh? There are numerous Linux distros in which one never needs to see a terminal, unlike the remedies required for OSX problems: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-20007737-263.html
I'm guessing that the average Mac chimp is going to have trouble with these terminal commands.


Mac chimp? You have to insulting and disingenuous?

Funny the last picture of a Linux developer's conference I saw sure contained a lot of Macbooks.

So why don't you name some of these distros that don't require using a CLI? Ubuntu (Linux for humans) not only requires a CLI at times but in fact dumped some people to the command line after a system update broke working video drivers. The OSX example you provided was just a case of a user being unable to delete files. That user was still able to use the system and get online to find help.

But maybe you think it is ok to expect users to do this for a printer install:

hey I just got my psc 1610 working for both scanning and printing (yay me!)...
first I did

sudo apt-get install hplip gtklp xpp hpijs python-qt3-doc libqt3-mt-mysql hplip-ppds

I don't know if you need all those packages they were all reccomended or suggested and I hate going back and adding things later... then I went to system->administration->printing > printer> add printer and in step 2 I selected psc 1600 from 'HP (HPLIP)' in the manufacturer drop down menu (as opposed to just 'HP' which did make a difference for me ) this got the printing part working.

Then xsane told me it didn't find any scanning devices so I installed a package called libsane-extras from synaptic and tried xsane again and it worked.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=151981

Reply Score: 2

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Mac chimp? You have to insulting and disingenuous?

You're right. I'm sorry. It was very insensitive of me to insult chimps by insinuating that they use Macs.

Here's a chimp deftly using a non-Apple touch screen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5nTVF3uits& Wow! He certainly works a lot faster than those Ipad owners that I see in the coffee houses!

I would also like to acknowledge that you are never insulting and disingenuous on this forum.


Funny the last picture of a Linux developer's conference I saw sure contained a lot of Macbooks.

Not that there is any point to your statement, but would you care to link that photo, or do we just have to take your word for it? If such a picture exists, I'm betting that number of Macbooks is in the minority.


Ubuntu (Linux for humans) not only requires a CLI at times but in fact dumped some people to the command line after a system update broke working video drivers.

Okay. Even if Ubuntu does require a CLI sometimes, it is just one distro out of hundreds! You can't characterize the whole of Linux from the problems of one distribution. Personally, I have never used Ubuntu that much because I think it is rather bloated.

A problem with X will sometimes give you a command line, although some distros go into a GUI control panel. At least one has a way to work through the problem.

I don't know how Windows and OSX respond to such a problem, but I guessing that one has to reboot into "safe" mode with Windows.

Mepis is a very solid, and, unless there is a serious problem, one should never need to use the CLI. Any distro based on Debian stable or based on Slackware (with a GUI installer and GUI control center) should be able to do everything without CLI use. There are probably quite a few others, but one would have to research.


The OSX example you provided was just a case of a user being unable to delete files. That user was still able to use the system and get online to find help.

I provided lots of OSX examples, and the ones that I linked barely even scratched the surface of the zillions contained in the official Apple "discussions" forum. There are tons of problem postings in this forum alone, astronomically more than I have seen on any Linux distro forum.


But maybe you think it is ok to expect users to do this for a printer install:

First of all, you have linked an Ubuntu post from March, 2006. That's very telling on the lack of current Linux problems. Couldn't you find anything more recent? All of my links to Apple problems were from the last two days.

Secondly, these days, almost every distro uses CUPS, which is the same printer set-up that OSX uses. So, if there is a missing driver for Linux, it is not the fault of Linux. Gladly, most printers work with Linux and CUPS.

Please find recent examples from one of the more solid Linux distros.

Edited 2010-06-19 23:01 UTC

Reply Score: 3

cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

"
Huh? There are numerous Linux distros in which one never needs to see a terminal, unlike the remedies required for OSX problems: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-20007737-263.html" http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-20007737-263.html" rel="nofollow">http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-20007737-263.html">http://...
I'm guessing that the average Mac chimp is going to have trouble with these terminal commands.


Mac chimp? You have to insulting and disingenuous?

Funny the last picture of a Linux developer's conference I saw sure contained a lot of Macbooks.

So why don't you name some of these distros that don't require using a CLI? Ubuntu (Linux for humans) not only requires a CLI at times but in fact dumped some people to the command line after a system update broke working video drivers. The OSX example you provided was just a case of a user being unable to delete files. That user was still able to use the system and get online to find help.

But maybe you think it is ok to expect users to do this for a printer install:

hey I just got my psc 1610 working for both scanning and printing (yay me!)...
first I did

sudo apt-get install hplip gtklp xpp hpijs python-qt3-doc libqt3-mt-mysql hplip-ppds

"

Apart from the fact that the link you gave is from 2006, posting CLI instructions on the net is almost always better than telling people to:
go to control panel -> printer settings -> options -> press "look for new printer" ...

That's one of the big advantages of the CLI, you can tell people exactly what to enter into the terminal (actually they can copy and paste it), and they can paste the error message if it didn't work. This is a lot better than all the trouble shooting and instructions I have seen about OS X or Windows. Unfortunately I now see more and more instructions for using the GUI tools to do something in Linux as well.

<snip>

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yes it's true that Linux is easier to use than it's ever been before. But the very simple reason it's not ready for mass consumption is that it more or less *requires* the CLI and/or editing config files by hand in order to get anything done that's remotely advanced.

Don't know. I used to think that way, but some months ago, I decided that I would totally stop using CLI and use a GUI for advanced operation whenever it's available. Since I did that, after some distro testing times, when I use CLI now, it is always on my own free will (CLI is better for batch operation, it's just a fact).

The issue is more with all those amateurish tutorials written by CLI freaks, where you *always* have to get the CLI out, even when it's totally unnecessary.

Another large-ish factor is that package managers have certain disadvantages from a consumer standpoint. App versions are months behind the newest releases, and installing new versions of anything risks breaking something else. Plus for the few applications that do offer direct-install binaries, you risk not being able to uninstall those apps easily, since the package manager either gets confused or ignores them completely. I'm not saying package managers should be scrapped, I'm saying that direct-install binaries such as Zero Install should be should be treated by distros and developers as first-class citizens. Distros should include Zero Install by default and application project pages had should have big fat links to Zero Install binaries of the newest versions. This would also increase usage and beta testing of small-time apps that distros would otherwise not support and compiler-phobic end users would never try out.

Why use a new API when the existing one is sufficiently efficient ? People just have to make DEB and RPM packages. Installing a Deb on ubuntu is as simple as double-clicking on it then pressing install and entering root password, and as far as I know, installing an RPM in Suse isn't much more difficult...

Edited 2010-06-19 09:27 UTC

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Don't know. I used to think that way, but some months ago, I decided that I would totally stop using CLI and use a GUI for advanced operation whenever it's available. Since I did that, after some distro testing times, when I use CLI now, it is always on my own free will (CLI is better for batch operation, it's just a fact).

I too use CLI for a lot of different things but mostly because I just find it faster to do things like that, it's not because the GUI tools are lacking in any way. Atleast with Mandriva I _could_ perfectly fine do everything with GUI tools, there has been no case whatsoever yet that required me to drop down to CLI because GUI tools didn't have the features needed.

As such I find the notion of Linux requiring one to use CLI completely erroneous, if not even pure willful spreading of FUD. It just ain't true anymore and haven't been that for several years now.

Reply Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


As such I find the notion of Linux requiring one to use CLI completely erroneous, if not even pure willful spreading of FUD. It just ain't true anymore and haven't been that for several years now.


Oh so the CLI isn't ever needed for installing devices? Fixing broken packages? Installing software outside the repository? Installing software upgrades on 2 year old releases?

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Oh so the CLI isn't ever needed for installing devices?

Ever? Well, you've never had to go to Windows Safe Mode after driver installation screwed up? Or never had OSX screw up permissions on system files? Nuh-uh, ever and never are such indefinite and precise words.

Yes, CLI is _sometimes_ needed, just as is Safe Mode for Windows etc. But usually? Often? No, atleast I haven't had to use CLI to install drivers for several years now.

Installing software outside the repository?

Double-click on the file, select "Install", and enter root password?

Installing software upgrades on 2 year old releases?

I have no idea how other distros do it, but all I had to do was click on the "Upgrade system" button when presented...

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Ever? Well, you've never had to go to Windows Safe Mode after driver installation screwed up? Or never had OSX screw up permissions on system files? Nuh-uh, ever and never are such indefinite and precise words.


Ok we're talking about Linux which you claimed doesn't require the CLI and I stated common cases where it does. Windows Safe Mode isn't a CLI and the system will fix itself with a driver restore. As for OSX I have seen it screw up file permissions twice and I fixed them without going to the command line. Furthermore in OSX that only happened after I was doing programming related activities. I sometimes help people with OSX and I've never been asked to solve that problem.


Double-click on the file, select "Install", and enter root password?

Explain this tutorial for a minor upgrade then:
http://jaxov.com/2009/09/install-upgrade-firefox-3-5-3-in-ubuntu-li...


I have no idea how other distros do it, but all I had to do was click on the "Upgrade system" button when presented...


That doesn't always work and users should not have to upgrade the system just to upgrade software, especially if the release is only 2 years old.
http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-install-openoffice-3.0.0-on-ubuntu...

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Ok we're talking about Linux which you claimed doesn't require the CLI and I stated common cases where it does. Windows Safe Mode isn't a CLI

Windows Safe Mode is still just another hassle. All OSes have their own. And again, I still don't see the reason to drop down to CLI. Even those suggestions where you're told to use apt-get can still be done with GUI tools, there does exist a graphical package manager for that, you know. Just because the author of the instructions insists on using CLI tools doesn't mean other ways don't exist.

Explain this tutorial for a minor upgrade then:
http://jaxov.com/2009/09/install-upgrade-firefox-3-5-3-in-ubuntu-li.....


I don't use Ubuntu. It's a horrible distro.

That doesn't always work and users should not have to upgrade the system just to upgrade software, especially if the release is only 2 years old.
http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-install-openoffice-3.0.0-on-ubuntu.....


That I actually do agree with to some extent. Rolling distros handle such a lot more graciously but they often come with their own set of issues. I tried ArchLinux which is a rolling distro, but it's a helluva mess to set up and in no way beginner-friendly, not even close to it.

Edited 2010-06-19 21:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Explain this tutorial for a minor upgrade then:
http://jaxov.com/2009/09/install-upgrade-firefox-3-5-3-in-ubuntu-li...

As I said before, a lot of Linux tutorials are written by CLI freaks who never miss an occasion to use command-line and hand-editing of config files even if they obviously don't need too. I just can't count the number of occurences of this. They say that it's because it ensures that it works on all configurations. I just wonder why they don't just provide easily-runnable script shells along with their tutorials then.

Edited 2010-06-19 22:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

That tutorial was needed for Ubuntu users that wanted to upgrade Firefox. They couldn't simply click 'upgrade' like in Windows and OSX.

Reply Score: 3

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Oh so the CLI isn't ever needed for installing devices?

It's only needed for devices which are unsupported by the distro.

Fixing broken packages?

What do you mean ?

Installing software outside the repository?

No. Double-click on the .deb/.rpm, in most distros it just works. CLI is needed when you need to compile software, though, but it's a very advanced task.

Installing software upgrades on 2 year old releases?

What about click on the dist upgrade button in the graphical software updater ?

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


What do you mean ?


The CLI is sometimes needed to fix broken dependencies.


No. Double-click on the .deb/.rpm, in most distros it just works. CLI is needed when you need to compile software, though, but it's a very advanced task.


Ugh. How many links do I have to show? There have been numerous cases where Ubuntu users had to use the command line to upgrade software.


What about click on the dist upgrade button in the graphical software updater ?


It doesn't always work and that's the problem. Why do I get the feeling that I read more about Linux than you?

http://www.jfplayhouse.com/2009/11/zdnet-ignores-ubuntu-910-upgrade...

Lunduke also went over this in his recent "Linux sucks" presentation at LinuxFestNorthwest.
http://lunduke.com/?p=1075

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But the very simple reason it's not ready for mass consumption is that it more or less *requires* the CLI and/or editing config files by hand in order to get anything done that's remotely advanced.


Wow, wonder when this nonsese is going to go away? I'm guessing never as long as there are morons around.
If you need to do "advanced" stuff having to use the CLI instead of wading thru registry keys and ini files is not a big deal. Also, mass-consumption is the opposite of needing to do advanced stuff. The mass-consumer is not (at least not immediately) interested in the advanced stuff, they just need something that meats a common denominator and works.

Reply Score: 2

.
by Icaria on Sat 19th Jun 2010 05:59 UTC
Icaria
Member since:
2010-06-19

I agree with the general tone of the thread: this is more fashion, than usability. The former certainly has it's place but lets not conflate the two - especially with regards to OSX, or Windows, whose UIs have been explicitly designed for the least competent of their users. 'Intuitive UI design', is more often than not, a synonym for simply lowering your standards and ceding good design, in favour of one that meets the whims of an arbitrary audience, with little conceptual understanding of what they're doing (the 'computers are magic' mentality).

The only real enhancement I can see, that Elementary brings, is a neatly ordered Nautilus sidebar. Removing menubars isn't an enhancement; they're unobtrusive widgets; if you don't use them, you don't notice them. Dumbing down the toolbar[s], is a poor substitute for making them customisable and the less said about those non-standard buttons on the right, the better.

That said, I do think there are places where the Elementary team could be of assistance. Inconsistent widget padding, icon and button sizes, and toolbar styles, are something that trip up experienced users and novices, alike. Although it's not a glamorous job, if they put their efforts into badgering developers, to ensure consistency across applications, Gtk+ environments would be better for it - aesthetically and functionally.

And no, I don't mean to simply enforce the Gnome HIG, with regards to padding. 2px padding is sensible; the rest should be left up to Gtk+ themers.

Reply Score: 1

simple and stupid...
by spinnekopje on Sat 19th Jun 2010 07:20 UTC
spinnekopje
Member since:
2008-11-29

Developers should spend more time on talking with hardware manufacturers to create a good base for drivers now and in the future.

Most people I talked to that tried linux didn't complain about looks, but about hardware compatibility. Just go back to the KISS principle for looks and go for very good (closed source) drivers to make everything work.

Reply Score: 0

Improvements to Linux?
by WereCatf on Sat 19th Jun 2010 08:19 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I don't really have any naggles with the default DEs; while I don't like KDE4 it still does suite some others, and I do like GNOME even as it is.

But what do I do have a naggle with? Well...X taking all the applications down with it if it crashes! That's STILL one of the most annoying things about Linux desktops and even though it doesn't happen often it still DOES happen.

Another one that bugs me is that whenever a user double-clicks an RPM file (s)he gets for root password, not offered to install the application for the current user only. That's rather silly: almost all Linux software is relocateable and doesn't require to be in the system-wide locations. If there's some users you don't wish to share your root password with, or if you're f.ex. just trying out something you don't wish to install system-wide it'd make sense to have it installed only in your own home directory; just have the package manager resolve the dependencies but install all of them only for the user in question.

Yet one more thing is drivers: when Windows finds a device it doesn't know a driver for it offers to check for such via Windows Update and installs it automatically if one is found. When Linux finds a device it doesn't know a driver for it does nothing. Nada. I have f.ex. this USB webcam which needs a certain kernel module installed but that module isn't part of the kernel sources themselves, instead being an out-of-the-tree one. I have to first Google around and try to find out which module I have to install to get it working and I get multiple possibilities I have to try them all..That's messy.

I've been contemplating about making an online database which Linux distros could access: you could search by driver and get a listing of all the hardware it supports and if a specific device needs some additional module options, or you could search with PCI/USB/etc IDs and get a listing of drivers which support the device, along with the corresponding module options. The distro could just access the site via a simple API, get the results, and then proceed to install the needed drivers. Unfortunately I don't have the bandwidth right now to host such a project myself :/

Reply Score: 3

RE: Improvements to Linux?
by Neolander on Sat 19th Jun 2010 09:50 UTC in reply to "Improvements to Linux?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I don't really have any naggles with the default DEs; while I don't like KDE4 it still does suite some others, and I do like GNOME even as it is.

But what do I do have a naggle with? Well...X taking all the applications down with it if it crashes! That's STILL one of the most annoying things about Linux desktops and even though it doesn't happen often it still DOES happen.

Right enough. This is sadly an architectural defect of the Linux desktop, it would take ages to fix and no one except maybe for the Syllabe guys feels up to the task, as far as I know. (Myself, I prefer to work on a new OS written from the ground up with desktop use and reliability in mind, and its a hobby thing which just aims at proving that doing so still is possible in 2010, I don't aim at joining the big three in terms of things like hardware compatibility)

Another one that bugs me is that whenever a user double-clicks an RPM file (s)he gets for root password, not offered to install the application for the current user only. That's rather silly: almost all Linux software is relocateable and doesn't require to be in the system-wide locations. If there's some users you don't wish to share your root password with, or if you're f.ex. just trying out something you don't wish to install system-wide it'd make sense to have it installed only in your own home directory; just have the package manager resolve the dependencies but install all of them only for the user in question.

Again, I agree with you, but it's a conceptual defect more than a technical one. Linux, in its current form, still mainly targets offices with big servers and thousands of dumb terminals connected to them. Anything else is a bonus. In such a setting, people don't want to let the user install whatever he wants. So it's the default behavior. I think it can be fixed, but the fix is unoptimized and hence probably tricky...

Yet one more thing is drivers: when Windows finds a device it doesn't know a driver for it offers to check for such via Windows Update and installs it automatically if one is found. When Linux finds a device it doesn't know a driver for it does nothing. Nada. I have f.ex. this USB webcam which needs a certain kernel module installed but that module isn't part of the kernel sources themselves, instead being an out-of-the-tree one. I have to first Google around and try to find out which module I have to install to get it working and I get multiple possibilities I have to try them all..That's messy.

I've been contemplating about making an online database which Linux distros could access: you could search by driver and get a listing of all the hardware it supports and if a specific device needs some additional module options, or you could search with PCI/USB/etc IDs and get a listing of drivers which support the device, along with the corresponding module options. The distro could just access the site via a simple API, get the results, and then proceed to install the needed drivers. Unfortunately I don't have the bandwidth right now to host such a project myself :/

Ubuntu tried to do something like that with Jockey from the beginning, but progresses in this area are now very slow, for reasons which I don't know of. It works sometimes with wi-fi cards and works very well with graphic cards, but that's all. I was thrilled the first time I heard about this software, and now pretty much disappointed as it looks abandoned.

Edited 2010-06-19 09:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Improvements to Linux?
by anda_skoa on Sat 19th Jun 2010 16:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Improvements to Linux?"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

"I don't really have any naggles with the default DEs; while I don't like KDE4 it still does suite some others, and I do like GNOME even as it is.

But what do I do have a naggle with? Well...X taking all the applications down with it if it crashes! That's STILL one of the most annoying things about Linux desktops and even though it doesn't happen often it still DOES happen.

Right enough. This is sadly an architectural defect of the Linux desktop
"

Actually wrong..
It is not an architectural defect, it is something the current implementations do not (yet?) take advantage of.

A server/client system is an architecture which implicitly isolates processes through the use of a communication channel.

A webserver crashing does usually not affect browser badly (though there are probably different levels on how good connection loss is handled).

Current X client library implementations make the applications exit (they do not crash) when the X connection is lost.
Browsers could do the same when losing their HTTP connection. X apps could do the same as browser.

The architecture does not enforce either reaction, it is the choice of the client implementors how to react on loss of server connection.

I don't want to claim that there is no problem, but it is just wrong to blame the architecture when this very architecture's properties is isolation of separated concerns.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Improvements to Linux?
by ndrw on Sat 19th Jun 2010 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Improvements to Linux?"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

X (unlike HTTP) is a stateful protocol. A client opens a session and talks to the server. If the server dies, the session is lost, and so is its state (windows, pixmaps, cursors, fonts, inputs etc.).

Yes, one could somehow implement a stateless mechanism by tracking all the state changes in the client, so that if the connection is lost the client has an option to retry it or to use another server. But that would require either changing the protocol and clients or using a wrapper (an intermediate server like Xvnc) and suffer the performance hit.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Improvements to Linux?
by siride on Sat 19th Jun 2010 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Improvements to Linux?"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

They only suffer a performance hit when they have to reconnect, which is fine because the goal there is simply to get back to where you were, not to do it seamlessly fast. The fact of the matter is, clients *do* know pretty much everything they need to know to restore their state. The toolkits have an entire client-side hierarchy of objects that represents useful state. Regenerating the few bits needed on the server should be trivial. And if the app really can't handle the server crashing, then it can just exit gracefully (that is, stay alive long enough to reconnect, then give the user a useful error message, save state somewhere and exit).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Improvements to Linux?
by ndrw on Sun 20th Jun 2010 05:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Improvements to Linux?"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

Yes, there are methods for recreating the state but they are not necessarily that simple. Clients can, for example, reconnect to the server and replay actions that lead to the lost state. This might be hard to do if there is a lot of server-side state (like in legacy X applications) or if the session was migrated to a different resolution/color depth/dpi/... screen.

So, we need to keep the information on the client side as well. And that's what, as you pointed it out, modern toolkits do. The price to pay for it is that all the drawing operations are now being done in software (in the client) and Xserver and graphics card acceleration are only used for blitting the resulting images onto pixmaps and applying some 2D/3D transformations. Yes, it works well (at least locally) but it is not the model X was designed for. In fact it works by deliberately avoiding legacy Xserver features.

The limitations are that this solution works slowly over network (or doesn't work at all if the client/toolkit uses XShm only) and is limited to applications written with new toolkits leaving e.g. $$$ Motif apps behind. That's what I meant by "performance hit" and "changing the clients".

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Improvements to Linux?
by siride on Sun 20th Jun 2010 05:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Improvements to Linux?"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Uhh, who says the drawing has to be done in software? Do you remember what happens when a non-composited window is obscured and then exposed? The contents must be redrawn, manually, by the app. So what's the difference between that and having to redraw because the X server crashed? Very little, aside from a some pixmaps stored on the server and a few other bits. If the toolkits tighten up their policy about pixmaps on the server so that the pixmaps can be recreated if they get lost (which I imagine they probably already can be anyway), then your problem is moot.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Improvements to Linux?
by ndrw on Sun 20th Jun 2010 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Improvements to Linux?"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

Uhh, who says the drawing has to be done in software?

That's what modern toolkits (Gtk, Qt, Cairo) do.

Do you remember what happens when a non-composited window is obscured and then exposed? The contents must be redrawn, manually, by the app.

In a legacy X application all client-side data structures are just handlers pointing to a server-side state. When the connection is lost, you loose the data.

Yes, you can reconnect to the server, open a new window, select new fonts, cursors, allocate pixmaps based only on the application state (and hope there were no big changes on the server meanwhile) but that's a lot more to do than repainting the existing window using existing resources.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Improvements to Linux?
by siride on Sat 19th Jun 2010 16:05 UTC in reply to "Improvements to Linux?"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

So? If Windows crashes, all your apps crash too! Critical system components crashing takes apps with them. Film at 11. Seriously, I can't figure out why this is actually be touted as a major fault of X. X is a system which is actually designed to be able to deal with this fault, whereas other systems have much tighter integration and wouldn't so easily suffer a UI core failure. It's unfortunate that no apps take advantage of the fact that they can simply reconnect to the X server when it restarts.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Improvements to Linux?
by WereCatf on Sat 19th Jun 2010 16:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Improvements to Linux?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

So? If Windows crashes, all your apps crash too!

X crashing doesn't mean entire Linux crashes. And neither does graphics card driver crashing mean that entire Windows system goes down; I've had several times my graphics card driver crash under Windows and it's just been restarted gracefully, without any of the applications going down. Not so with X: if the driver crashes then X goes down and so do all the applications too.

And yes, I am aware that X does allow applications to just reconnect to a new X server if the old one crashes, but none of the major DEs actually use this feature and as such it's a perfectly reasonable thing to complain about.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Improvements to Linux?
by siride on Sat 19th Jun 2010 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Improvements to Linux?"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Then complain to the DEs, not X.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Improvements to Linux?
by WereCatf on Sat 19th Jun 2010 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Improvements to Linux?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Then complain to the DEs, not X.

If you'd read the original comment you'd notice I was complaining about Linux desktop. Not X.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Improvements to Linux?
by debian_avenger on Sun 20th Jun 2010 03:57 UTC in reply to "Improvements to Linux?"
debian_avenger Member since:
2009-08-27

Excellent comment,

I wish hardware companies would care more about Linux developers. When I go shopping for add-ons such as keyboards and graphics cards etc. It would be nice to pick something marked "Linux Compatible"

Just a dream......

Reply Score: 1

are there any screenshots?
by steviant on Sat 19th Jun 2010 08:31 UTC
steviant
Member since:
2006-01-11

For an article about an os with a heavy emphasis on ui, I wasn't able to find any images in the article or on the project website.

Reply Score: 2

Splashtop etc.
by vivainio on Sat 19th Jun 2010 13:13 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

You know where Linux could win big?

It's in these "splashtop" like "instant on" dualboot environments, that provide a lighter experience compared to full blown Windows environment.

Especially on corporate windows laptops, there is tons of anti-malware junk that takes ages to start and makes the computer slow. People would instinctively start moving to using the splashtop more and more, becoming gradually more reluctant to use Windows at all.

Reply Score: 4

v LOLOOO
by lovers2 on Sat 19th Jun 2010 14:47 UTC
is cute GUI really priority #1?
by gehersh on Sat 19th Jun 2010 18:40 UTC
gehersh
Member since:
2006-01-03

I may be hopelessly behind the curve, but when there are still some issues with drivers, especially with video, X needs improvement, interaction with laptop firmware functions is iffy, I would care somewhat less about the level of cuteness of GUI I'm experiencing while running Linux.

In fact the aforementioned issues are primarily the reason I'm running (and hate with all my guts) Vista on my laptop. (XP was way way better, BTW.) Damn it, with such a fugly thing like Vista (and Windows 7, BTW, is improvement in terms of performance, but the front end is exactly the same) Linux finally have a chance. And it's gonna blew it again. As it ever was.

Reply Score: 1

Well judging by the comments
by nt_jerkface on Sat 19th Jun 2010 21:20 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

the Linux desktop is set to keep spinning in the same circle that it has been for over a decade.

You would think that the status quo defenders would at least re-analyze their positions or be more open to critics.

Linux for consumers will have to be handled by companies like Intel. Mob design just isn't working.

There's just too many problems and the mob can't even agree on what constitutes a problem.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Well judging by the comments
by Neolander on Sat 19th Jun 2010 21:25 UTC in reply to "Well judging by the comments"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Maybe the repository system is just good enough for the job, in the same way as Windows, in spite of all its defects, is just good enough as a mainstream desktop OS. Ever thought of that possibility ?

Edited 2010-06-19 21:27 UTC

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

It isn't good enough as a mainstream desktop.

You can't install Ubuntu with Firefox, a pdf reader, Flash and OpenOffice and trust it to auto-update everything for at least 2 years. Something will get screwed up at some point.

Program and system updates aren't the only issue but it is one that needs to be addressed. Maybe going towards rolling releases is the answer but there isn't currently one that is targeted at novice users.

If Linux was good enough as a mainstream desktop then it would have more than 1% share. Novice computer users run into problems with Linux and people like you refuse to acknowledge that these problems even exist. Maybe you should spend some time in Ubuntu forums to see what new users have to go through.

Reply Score: 2

It's all good
by DrLoser on Sat 19th Jun 2010 21:28 UTC
DrLoser
Member since:
2010-06-19
Ditto
by DrLoser on Sat 19th Jun 2010 21:32 UTC
DrLoser
Member since:
2010-06-19

Interesting. That link comes up perfectly fine on the Comment Preview. I'll try again.

Refer to LEAVE SPACES around URLs to autoparse http://www.tmrepository.com/trademarks/solidgoldcomments .

These comments are Solid Gold.

There. That's better.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Ditto
by Soulbender on Mon 21st Jun 2010 15:20 UTC in reply to "Ditto"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Your username is so fitting.

Reply Score: 1

electric.bauhaus
by domokun on Sat 19th Jun 2010 23:08 UTC
domokun
Member since:
2010-06-19

electric.bauhaus
http://image.bayimg.com/panmdaacd.jpg

I'm doing one based on CairoDock2, GTK, and Thunar file manager instead of Nautilus.

for graphic/media pros that need a black theme, and production environments that run linux and mac side by side.

gnome-look:
http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/electric.bauhaus?content=126...

Reply Score: 1

Good...
by ichi on Sun 20th Jun 2010 17:22 UTC
ichi
Member since:
2007-03-06

...for those that are into brushed metal and all.

In my opinion it's hideous though.
-The brushed metal is old and tired (and IMO it never looked good to begin with).
-Docks are only cool until you actually add one to your desktop and realize it does nothing but getting in your way.

The only thing that looks good on the screenshots (kinda) is gloobus preview. Get windows decorations to look like that one (thin borders, very minimalistic) and then you might be onto something.

Reply Score: 2

Installed it on Ubuntu
by Nanotube on Mon 21st Jun 2010 14:20 UTC
Nanotube
Member since:
2008-05-11

It's nice, basically a Mac OS X like interface... but linux desktops have a long way to go before they are truly usable by the general crowd.

What really gets me is the horrible installation process. Open up the terminal, install this and that and that... f*ck off! I want a normal installation package - like the ones you can find on Mac and windows. Download, double click, next, next, password and done. Why is it so hard to do on linux?! I tried installing Firefox 3.1.3 when it was brand new and the version I had was 3.1. I couldn't get it to work!! A f*cken browser installation!! Horrible.

Anyway, it's another step in the right direction.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Installed it on Ubuntu
by Soulbender on Mon 21st Jun 2010 15:26 UTC in reply to "Installed it on Ubuntu"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

What really gets me is the horrible installation process. Open up the terminal, install this and that and that... f*ck off!


1995 wants it's FUD back.

I want a normal installation package - like the ones you can find on Mac and windows. Download, double click, next, next, password and done.


Ah, you mean just like when you click on a .deb file in Ubuntu or Kubuntu and it just installs the application? Heck, it even downloads needed pre-requisites for you.

I couldn't get it to work!!


PEBKAC.

Since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about and obviously haven't used a mainstream distro in the last 10 years or so you should stop flaunting your ignorance.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Installed it on Ubuntu
by jtfolden on Mon 21st Jun 2010 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Installed it on Ubuntu"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

"What really gets me is the horrible installation process. Open up the terminal, install this and that and that... f*ck off!


1995 wants it's FUD back.

"

While it may be FUD to a degree, you know part of the persistence of this type of comment is the fact that,

a) you see certain users, such as on here, bragging about how they have 10 terminal windows open every day, and

b) the moment there is an issue with something on the system, it seems like the command line fixes are the first instructions given - even when there might be an easy GUI-based procedure.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Installed it on Ubuntu
by chris_l on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 09:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Installed it on Ubuntu"
chris_l Member since:
2010-02-14

"[q]What really gets me is the horrible installation process. Open up the terminal, install this and that and that... f*ck off!


1995 wants it's FUD back.

"

While it may be FUD to a degree, you know part of the persistence of this type of comment is the fact that,

a) you see certain users, such as on here, bragging about how they have 10 terminal windows open every day, and

b) the moment there is an issue with something on the system, it seems like the command line fixes are the first instructions given - even when there might be an easy GUI-based procedure. [/q]


That's because the command line fixes are the easy,fastest and less error-prone way of resovling *ANY* problem despite what clueless GUI-using morons like yourself may claim.

What could be simpler than copying and pasting text from a email program or a web browser into a terminal?

Most certainly not hunting and pecking through a bunch of GUI-based menus.

Get a fricking clue, *PINHEAD*.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Installed it on Ubuntu
by jtfolden on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Installed it on Ubuntu"
jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

You're a real class act, aren't ya? A shining example of a Linux user, I'm sure. Nevermind the FUD, 1995 wants YOU back.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Installed it on Ubuntu
by Nanotube on Mon 21st Jun 2010 23:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Installed it on Ubuntu"
Nanotube Member since:
2008-05-11

1995 wants it's FUD back.

Ah, you mean just like when you click on a .deb file in Ubuntu or Kubuntu and it just installs the application? Heck, it even downloads needed pre-requisites for you.

PEBKAC.

Since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about and obviously haven't used a mainstream distro in the last 10 years or so you should stop flaunting your ignorance.


Oh you're a real genius aren't you?

Seriously?! there are .deb files?! Wahhh... anyway, there was no deb file for FF when I wanted to update it (looked for hours on the net). Had to go to the terminal for that and I am not exactly a terminal master - and why should I be?! Same happened when I wanted to install the elemental desktop. Had to type in four different sudo commands in the terminal. WHY?!?!?
That's the whole damn problem with this OS and that's why it will remain stuck below 1% of the market as long as it doesn't change.

typing sudo commands gives you a woody? good for you!
I don't give a shit about terminals, I want to use a free OS that is fast, stable and EASY TO USE.

PEBKAC my ass.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Installed it on Ubuntu
by Soulbender on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Installed it on Ubuntu"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Wow, that sure pushed your buttons, didn't it ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Installed it on Ubuntu
by Novan_Leon on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Installed it on Ubuntu"
Novan_Leon Member since:
2005-12-07

Despite all the anger-vibes going around, I think his comment actually hit the nail on the head about what the problem is with the current desktop Linux. I'm fully command line capable and fairly Linux savvy and still things pop up as problems during regular desktop use that wouldn't otherwise be a problem in Windows or OSX.

A couple years ago I was using Ubuntu and I was doing some image editing and wanted to change the desktop resolution. I open the screen resolution dialog and change the resolution easy enough, but when I chose a resolution that X couldn't handle for whatever reason it crashed the GUI and left me with a command line. I was able to restart X and get it back up and running but this kind of thing just shouldn't happen for normal users. And this is just a simple example, I've had numerous experiences similar to this and the prior gentleman's comments. It's getting better, but I've yet to see a Linux desktop distribution with a refined and robust desktop environment as should be required for the general public.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Installed it on Ubuntu
by Soulbender on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Installed it on Ubuntu"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

A couple years ago I

There has actually been a lot of advances in that period.

but when I chose a resolution that X couldn't handle for whatever reason it crashed the GUI and left me with a command line.


How is this worse than when an XP (since we're talking a few years ago) graphic driver crashes and leave you with a cryptic BSOD?

I've had numerous experiences similar to this and the prior gentleman's comments.

Why do people always pretend there are no problems with Windows or OSX?

I was able to restart X and get it back up and running but this kind of thing just shouldn't happen for normal users.


All OS's crashes, welcome to computing. I guess there is not a single OS that is fit for normal users since all of them crashes now and then.

but I've yet to see a Linux desktop distribution with a refined and robust desktop environment as should be required for the general public.


Funny how Windows was always used by the public even when it had absolutely abysmal robustness.
In terms of robustness todays Linux is no worse (or perhaps also not better) than Windows or OSX.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Installed it on Ubuntu
by Novan_Leon on Wed 23rd Jun 2010 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Installed it on Ubuntu"
Novan_Leon Member since:
2005-12-07

There has actually been a lot of advances in that period.


This was fixed in Windows and OSX over a decade ago. I keep fairly up-to-date with Linux and nothing revolutionary has occurred in the last two years.

How is this worse than when an XP (since we're talking a few years ago) graphic driver crashes and leave you with a cryptic BSOD?


The only difference is that it's never happened to me in 2000, XP, Vista or Windows 7, and I've been using one of these daily for at least the last 10 years. In Linux it happened a couple times to me in the space of several weeks. Given, this is just my experience out of many people's, but I don't think it's outrageous to assume that if it can happen to me it can happen to an average Joe.

Funny how Windows was always used by the public even when it had absolutely abysmal robustness.
In terms of robustness todays Linux is no worse (or perhaps also not better) than Windows or OSX.


Today's desktop Linux is nowhere near as solid as Windows or OSX. I can crash X fairly quickly if I hit the right buttons, but it's almost impossible to take down the Windows or OSX GUI without some pretty fancy technical philandering.

Edited 2010-06-23 20:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

hardware first
by dacresni on Mon 21st Jun 2010 14:44 UTC
dacresni
Member since:
2009-08-26

I think a lot of people forgot that a lot of linux's problems is lack of hardware Vender support. We hack most of it together ourselves. Apple's boon is hardware INTEGRATION not just support. We can't have a distro be what osx is to bsd because we would require a hardware vendor to do the integration and system76 just isn't doing it. Emperor Linux is completely missing the point if u ask me. The software has to compliment the hardware in a beautiful symbiosis or co-evolution. with coreboot and open drivers, its all possible. Its great hardware that makes people want to buy Apple products. HP could give up on HP-UX and make something awesome with their linux distro but that's not likely.

Reply Score: 1

RE: hardware first
by Neolander on Mon 21st Jun 2010 15:19 UTC in reply to "hardware first"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I disagree. Hardware and software are each big businesses, a company generally only is good at one thing. Personally, if there's something which I positively hate, it's when hardware manufacturers try to "integrate" software in their product in an attempt to improve user experience. As an example, second boot (after windows' traditional reboot) of my new computer took 15 min and was followed by a popup overflow on a desktop full of useless icons. It took me an hour to get rid of all this crap, and I'm experienced with that. Normal people would just leave it there and then complain about their computer's slowness...

Hardware companies should focus on making good and gorgeous hardware, and leave software to those who know how to do it. Look at Apple's macbook : they leave the hardware-related work to Asus, they write the software, and according to happy macbook owners it does wonders...

Edited 2010-06-21 15:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2