Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Oct 2010 21:54 UTC
Linux Well, it's been a while since we've opened this particular jar (box is not historically accurate) owned by Pandora. Desktop Linux... Yes, that ever elusive readiness of the desktop that is Linux-powered. Some story on ComputerWorld argues that the desktop Linux dream is dead, and apparently, the story is causing some stir on the web. Well, paint me pink and call me a lightbulb, but of course desktop Linux is dead. However - who gives a flying monkey? Linux is being used by more people than ever!
Permalink for comment 445828
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

It's called Program Files, not Programs (or Programmes, even). For the computer literate, that could easily be taken to mean libraries. For the layperson, that could easily be taken to mean the files produced by their programmes. Abbreviations and current usage aside, /bin is far more descriptive.

Don't forget /usr/bin, and /usr/local/bin, and /opt, and /sbin and /usr/sbin. i don't think its particularly descriptive at all, since many programs these days, e.g. python apps aren't even binaries in many cases, and an abbreviation for 'UNIX System Resources' isn't particularly clear. I can understand why some people might prefer the 1970s UNIX way, its just that most people don't, and this is a big reason why desktop users find Linux difficult to deal with.

If you started with a clean sheet or paper, would you honestly end up with /usr/local/bin?

I think any file manager worth it's salt can. Thunar definitely can, nautilus could last I used it. I haven't used dolphin extensively enough to know, although considering KDE's kitchen sink mentality, it's absurd to think that it doesn't provide facilities for manipulating permissions. Thunar and nautilus also make it a might simpler than Explorer does, too.

GNOME support for ACLs is an addon application, network file systems don't support them by default without specific mount options, and most bundled archiving utilities won't support them by default either. Any change to file permissions that doesn't use setfacl will also blow the ACLs away. This is really poor from a user's point of view. I'm not talking about the basic ability to manipulate ACLs, its the inconsistent and fragile underlying implementation.

Samba ACLS, NFS4 ACLs, POSIX draft ACLs are all different, its a mess. And the current status quo largely stems from the POSIX requirement that a POSIX chmod operation must result in the files having no more expansive permission than that specified in the chmod bitmask. This requirement is pretty much completely incompatible with a useful ACL system.

While arguing from your own personal ignorance is just dandy, it seems.

I have plenty of experience with ACL problems on Linux, thanks.

Tried it, hasn't happened to me. Opposite is true, though: Qt4's Gtk+ emulation fails to pick up font hinting settings, fails where the gtkrc defines more than one font (although it's rare that anyone does this), etc. Of course, it will still get it roughly right and doesn't break simply because you changed the font to something other than 8pt MS Sans.

So widget incompatibility is an issue then? I mean, I know its an issue, which is why i mentioned it. This is a problem, its a user-visible problem, and solving it, one way or another, would make the Linux desktop much better. Toolkit fragmentation is a very user-visible problem, and while it may be improving, its been a nightmare for years.

Tried it, hasn't happened to me. Had Xfce notification daemon windows steal keyboard focus in compiz but that's as close as I've gotten to focus problems when mixing and matching software (albeit, neither are desktop apps) and there was an adequate workaround.

Well theres one issue you've managed to avoid. Thats something I suppose.

...and listen to the mac fags groan?

Seriously, implying that people who use macs are homosexuals? Thats wholly inaccurate, and very stupid.

]And get different menubar and toolbar widgets, a host of different ways of drawing MDIs and notebook tabs, totally different menu widgets. Hell, forget even the vanilla MFC and Winforms comparisons, just open some of MS' own software: open up outlook 2003 or above, Word 2007 or above, Windows Live Messenger, any version of Explorer, cmd.exe and enjoy the... what was it you called it? Oh, that's right:
"seamless look and feel
And that's just the first party software. No Windows users are going to give a shit that programme X, in environment Y has font problems, when they're coming from a platform where no two apps look alike, attempting to so much as increase the font size results in the entire UI falling back to a 90's eyesore, half your fonts are still 8pt and the other half cause widgets to break, or become misaligned and before you even change anything, the UI is broken (unfocussed menubars, menus, broken dialogue windows in the control panel, focus-dependant scrollwheel) and contains lots of legacy cruft, with certain widgets randomly falling back to 90's ugly, or having unreadable text. "

Hasn't happened to me.

]To use 'Windows' and 'seamless look and feel' in the same paragraph, is to demonstrate that you're in lala land.

I think apps using windows GUI APIs do seem more polished and consistent than apps using Linux GUIs, in my opinion, yes.

Never mind that comparing two disparate toolkits with quite different origins, to two where the latter was, from it's outset, designed to harmonise with the former, is stacking the deck in your favour.

How can the deck be stacked in my favour when Windows has all the problems and Linux doesn't?

I mean, either there are serious user-visible issues with toolkit proliferation on Linux, which makes the deck stacked in Windows' favour because of its corporate-enforced 'somewhat consistent' UI APIs, or those problems (which you have been so stridently arguing against) don't exist on Linux which would mean there was no stacked deck.

I'm sure life must be difficult when every second word that dribbles out of your mouth is demonstrable bullshit but don't try to take credit for my criticisms.

I offered my own ideas as to where the problems lie, which you generously tried to pass off as your own. DKMS has nothing to do with any of this.

I didn't try to pass any of your work off as my own. How do you figure that?

And if DKMS has nothing to do with this, why bring it up at all? Its obvious there are problems with the lack of a kernel API, everyone who writes a driver, closed source or open that isn't integrated into the kernel tree has a problem with this. And everybody who wants to use any driver, open or closed source, that is maintained outside the kernel tree has a problem with it too. People saying 'well <X> works for me, so shut up' doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

A stable kernel API would be good for Linux, standards for interoperability are a good idea in general. The 'We must force people to open source their work and integrate it into the mainline kernel by severely inconveniencing them for doing otherwise' is a very childish foundation on which to build a desktop operating system that driver developers should be encouraged to target.

Its not that I don't understand the kernel developers' standpoint, I just think its counterproductive if the linux desktop is to become a reality.

Are you really this obtuse?

I guess so, are you really this aggressive, bigoted and rude? I guess when you disagree with me its perfectly justified but when I disagree with you its all gay, obtuse bullshit?

Reply Parent Score: 2