At its Professional Developers Conference this week, Microsoft is taking the wraps off its Longhorn Windows, Yukon SQL Server and Whidbey tool suite. Check back here for news from the Los Angeles event. Articles here, here here, here (lots of good info about the new Longhorn features) and here. Longhorn SDK here, screenshots and video of Longhorn from today conference here, Longhorn Tweak Guide, special access to Longhorn/Whidbey PDC release code. Even more articles here, here and here.
I think the Lindows repository has all the packages the average user will need … But since our target is the home user, granny, I have chosen to use a DE representative on Linux and comparable to any OS offering in the market Windows or Mac inclusive.
I think the problem is that you assume that most people are like your granny, who will just be content to live with whatever apps you forcefeed them and won’t give a shit what else is out there. In other words, in order to keep Linux easy to use and well integrated, you have to bury people in a ‘sandbox’ and say “Here, this is all you get to play with.” But what happens the first time somebody wants to step out of that box? Assume for a second that granny wants to get a webcam, because one of her Windows-using friends that she has made on the Internet wants to voice/video chat with her on Yahoo? Maybe there’s a hack somewhere to make this work in Linux, but is granny going to know that? And assuming there is no hack, what do you do then? Convince her friend to use something that’s compatible with Linux? Fat chance, especially if the friend is only slightly less computer-illiterate than granny, and only got the cam working because his/her daughter got it working for them (a feat that would probably not have been possible with Linux). You could try to get the Windows version of Yahoo Messenger up and running but AFAIK (last time I checked), that would not run in any version of Wine, including Crossover. And even if there was a way to get it working, you think it’s going to be available via the Click ‘n Run repository? If you called Lindows support with this problem, I’m sure they’d tell you where to stick it.
Think a senario like this would never happen? My friend (who is a Linux user) keeps a Win2k partition around soley for this purpose.
This senario is only one out of many possible senarios. What if she gets some Windows-only CD of some thing in the mail and wants to try it out .. “Sorry granny, that’s not going to work on your computer.” What do we say if granny is actually a young person and sees some rad new PC game for sale at EBWorld? Well, hope it works in WineX already.
Granted, the Linux sandbox is pretty big, but it does have limits .. some of which can be reached rather quickly with the ‘wrong’ kind of user. Me? I know how to work outside of the sandbox, but would rather not. You say Linux apps are faster/better .. I will have to agree to disagree with you on this point. Most anything that is remotely decent in Linux (eg – Firebird, Gimp, Gaim, Pan) is also available in Windows. Everything else that I’ve seen is basically just a cheap knock-off of some other Windows app. (For example, Cooledit mops the floor with Audacity .. it’s not even close.) Cheaper, but definitely not better.
Some people tout the ‘freedom’ that comes with using Linux. Personally though, I like the feeling of knowing that if some new piece of hardware is released tomorrow that I really want, as long as its made for PC hardware, there’s a 99% chance it’s gonna work with my OS right out of the box. That, to me … is freedom.
Darius said,”No, but you surely have your fair number of zealots who will bash anything even remoately MS-related at every given opprotunity, all while boldy proclaiming the ‘superiority’ of open source software.”
My Response[/b}Darius, firstly I would help you to understand the difference between the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement. I try to wave the banner of the Free Software movement in my arguements, instead of the Open Source movement. The Open Source movement esposes the practical benifits of shared source to businesses and tries to convice them that using those development models is profitable. I’m not concerned with doing this. I’m not concerned with convincing you or anyone else how much faster things can be when they use GNU/Linux or BSD.
You seem to mistaken my posts. I said that “free software offers no promises” in that we don’t try to sell features. Instead we offer a system where the user can engage someone to implement those features that they determine necessary. It’s true that most features of computers are commonly useful and most features already exist for the user. Sometimes that’s not the case. I was using my arguement to tout the importance of the freedom of the user to change the software for his or her needs, not “proclaiming the ‘superiority’ of open source software. Please do not lump me in with the Open Source movement. I hold the banner of Free Software.
Darius said, “Great, so if I find a feature useful and you don’t, then unless I add it myself, what chance is there that the feature will get added? At least if I’m paying for the app, perhaps the developers might pay attention to what I as a user wants instead of the other way around.”
My Response
If you want a feature that isn’t implemented than you pay a programmer to implement it. If your needs are similar to other users than band together and combine resources. This is a system where users tell the developer what features they want, not the other way around. This system is proven to work, demonstrated by applications such as Photoshop were users pay for scripts, filters, tools, etc.. to be develop. Basically my arguement is that our society has yet to even remotely realize how beneficial free software can be in this sense.
Darius said, “So in other words, if I want a particular feature in an app that the developer doesn’t feel compelled to add on his own, I’m gonna be paying through the nose to make that happen”.
My ResponseThe price to implement certain feature is totally between you and the programmer. You would not have to go to “the developer” if it is free software. You engage anyone to implement features. That’s how you create competition and restrict monopolies. You would never have to go through “official” channels. Small business could develop and the software production would be more open to the rest of the world. Places like India have already seem a boom from developing free software. If you’re truely interested I would suggested researching that specific phenomenon.
Darius said. “Perhaps if a couple of my buddies pitch in, we might be able to swing it.”
My ResponseIndeed! Average people get together and make request. Some corporate megaculture doesn’t have to therefore create artificial wants through the media. Society becomes psycho-socially healthy because they aren’t let down by wasting their money on apps and such that companies say will make their life easier and other such nonsense.
Darius said, “Either that, or else they can download and install ZoneAlarm. It’s moronic to think we should make things difficult to use ‘just because.'”
My ResponseWe aren’t making anything difficult. It’s sort of funny that you say that. A packet filter is a packet filter is a packet filter. I’m one to say that someone who knows what he or she is doing can make Windows more secure than OpenBSD. Zone alarm offers a false sense of security to users. Products like these have only mislead people and made them think abstractly about things for the sake of money, which I view as wrong. Furthermore, we aren’t making things difficult to use simply because they were never some intial simplicity to begin with. Only someone would mislead you into this shallow thinking to take advantage of you. I wouldn’t mind at all paying someone for maintenance of OpenBSD PF on my home network if their was such a service. Just think, computers used to be shipped in one giant system, like the Amiga and Commodore64, but today all hardware is generally seperated into specialized fields. I couldn’t think of it being any other way. It is much superior. It has deconstructed the artificial hardware monopolies of the late 70’s and early 80’s. What’s wrong with people getting paid to maintain software. What, you don’t trust people to write your packet filters? Well that’s a sad situation. I must trust my neighbor at all costs, like I trust my cableman not to install some channel tracking feature where he can track what I watch (not something secretly initiated by the cable company mind you). It’s a ethical decision that I have made. I hope you decide to trust your neighbor. Even skepticism can lead to a bad community.
Darius said, “Why? So they could get sued through the nose by Zonelabs, Sygate, Symantec, etc?”
My ResponseNo. I think it’s dissapointing that they think a firewall can be a simple piece of software. It can to a certain extent, but basically you have to know what you’re doing. They basically added a less-than-adequete firewall, which is turned off by default, in response to various claims about insecurity etc… Basically in their attempt to make it easy to use they have made it a useless tool for system administrators and such professionals to implement. They have basically created a useless firewall in order to say that they have it, and mislead consumers that it makes a difference. Granted in Linux the packet filter is in the same boat as far as the basic user having no use for it, but that’s where someone like me who understands it can be payed to implement it. Just like my grandmother pays me to cut her grass, she could pay me to maintain her iptables.
Darius said, “I can reboot my computer and be back inside WinXP faster than I can restart Gnome.”
My responseYou would kill all running servers, daemons, processes, and such. Their is simply no point in doing so.
Darius said,”No, but you surely have your fair number of zealots who will bash anything even remoately MS-related at every given opprotunity, all while boldy proclaiming the ‘superiority’ of open source software.”
My ResponseDarius, firstly I would help you to understand the difference between the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement. I try to wave the banner of the Free Software movement in my arguements, instead of the Open Source movement. The Open Source movement esposes the practical benifits of shared source to businesses and tries to convice them that using those development models is profitable. I’m not concerned with doing this. I’m not concerned with convincing you or anyone else how much faster things can be when they use GNU/Linux or BSD.
You seem to mistaken my posts. I said that “free software offers no promises” in that we don’t try to sell features. Instead we offer a system where the user can engage someone to implement those features that they determine necessary. It’s true that most features of computers are commonly useful and most features already exist for the user. Sometimes that’s not the case. I was using my arguement to tout the importance of the freedom of the user to change the software for his or her needs, not “proclaiming the ‘superiority’ of open source software. Please do not lump me in with the Open Source movement. I hold the banner of Free Software.
Darius said, “Great, so if I find a feature useful and you don’t, then unless I add it myself, what chance is there that the feature will get added? At least if I’m paying for the app, perhaps the developers might pay attention to what I as a user wants instead of the other way around.”
My Response
If you want a feature that isn’t implemented than you pay a programmer to implement it. If your needs are similar to other users than band together and combine resources. This is a system where users tell the developer what features they want, not the other way around. This system is proven to work, demonstrated by applications such as Photoshop were users pay for scripts, filters, tools, etc.. to be develop. Basically my arguement is that our society has yet to even remotely realize how beneficial free software can be in this sense.
Darius said, “So in other words, if I want a particular feature in an app that the developer doesn’t feel compelled to add on his own, I’m gonna be paying through the nose to make that happen”.
My ResponseThe price to implement certain feature is totally between you and the programmer. You would not have to go to “the developer” if it is free software. You engage anyone to implement features. That’s how you create competition and restrict monopolies. You would never have to go through “official” channels. Small business could develop and the software production would be more open to the rest of the world. Places like India have already seem a boom from developing free software. If you’re truely interested I would suggested researching that specific phenomenon.
Darius said. “Perhaps if a couple of my buddies pitch in, we might be able to swing it.”
My ResponseIndeed! Average people get together and make request. Some corporate megaculture doesn’t have to therefore create artificial wants through the media. Society becomes psycho-socially healthy because they aren’t let down by wasting their money on apps and such that companies say will make their life easier and other such nonsense.
Darius said, “Either that, or else they can download and install ZoneAlarm. It’s moronic to think we should make things difficult to use ‘just because.'”
My ResponseWe aren’t making anything difficult. It’s sort of funny that you say that. A packet filter is a packet filter is a packet filter. I’m one to say that someone who knows what he or she is doing can make Windows more secure than OpenBSD. Zone alarm offers a false sense of security to users. Products like these have only mislead people and made them think abstractly about things for the sake of money, which I view as wrong. Furthermore, we aren’t making things difficult to use simply because they were never some intial simplicity to begin with. Only someone would mislead you into this shallow thinking to take advantage of you. I wouldn’t mind at all paying someone for maintenance of OpenBSD PF on my home network if their was such a service. Just think, computers used to be shipped in one giant system, like the Amiga and Commodore64, but today all hardware is generally seperated into specialized fields. I couldn’t think of it being any other way. It is much superior. It has deconstructed the artificial hardware monopolies of the late 70’s and early 80’s. What’s wrong with people getting paid to maintain software. What, you don’t trust people to write your packet filters? Well that’s a sad situation. I must trust my neighbor at all costs, like I trust my cableman not to install some channel tracking feature where he can track what I watch (not something secretly initiated by the cable company mind you). It’s a ethical decision that I have made. I hope you decide to trust your neighbor. Even skepticism can lead to a bad community.
Darius said, “Why? So they could get sued through the nose by Zonelabs, Sygate, Symantec, etc?”
My ResponseNo. I think it’s dissapointing that they think a firewall can be a simple piece of software. It can to a certain extent, but basically you have to know what you’re doing. They basically added a less-than-adequete firewall, which is turned off by default, in response to various claims about insecurity etc… Basically in their attempt to make it easy to use they have made it a useless tool for system administrators and such professionals to implement. They have basically created a useless firewall in order to say that they have it, and mislead consumers that it makes a difference. Granted in Linux the packet filter is in the same boat as far as the basic user having no use for it, but that’s where someone like me who understands it can be payed to implement it. Just like my grandmother pays me to cut her grass, she could pay me to maintain her iptables.
Darius said, “I can reboot my computer and be back inside WinXP faster than I can restart Gnome.”
My responseYou would kill all running servers, daemons, processes, and such. Their is simply no point in doing so.
Zone alarm offers a false sense of security to users. Products like these have only mislead people and made them think abstractly about things for the sake of money, which I view as wrong.
I’m curious as to why you think ZoneAlarm is a bad firewall? Not saying you’re wrong … I just wanna know.
It’s probably not an ‘industrial strength’ firewall, but I see it as being adequate enough to keep out those damn MSBlast-type worms. Plus, you can engage the Internet lock when you’re not at the computer so nothing goes in or out.
Plus, it’s great for letting you know what’s going out .. I like its method of allowing apps to go outbound instead of dealing with ports.
I use it in conjunction with a Netgear router that has a firewall built-in and so far, I have had no problems with viruses or worms, and (AFAIK) have never been hacked either.
I think the problem is that you assume that most people are like your granny, who will just be content to live with whatever apps you forcefeed them and won’t give a shit what else is out there. In other words, in order to keep Linux easy to use and well integrated, you have to bury people in a ‘sandbox’ and say “Here, this is all you get to play with.” But what happens the first time somebody wants to step out of that box? Assume for a second that granny wants to get a webcam, because one of her Windows-using friends that she has made on the Internet wants to voice/video chat with her on Yahoo? Maybe there’s a hack somewhere to make this work in Linux, but is granny going to know that? And assuming there is no hack, what do you do then? Convince her friend to use something that’s compatible with Linux? Fat chance, especially if the friend is only slightly less computer-illiterate than granny, and only got the cam working because his/her daughter got it working for them (a feat that would probably not have been possible with Linux).
What sandbox? The user has a repository of packages from which he or she can install any software he or she feels like using or trying out. I’m really not into video chatting so I don’t clearly understand how the process works on Linux. However, I know over dozen Linux users who have successfully installed a webcam on Linux. All you are making are just negative biased assumptions. Assuming this and assuming that… The reality is that these things work. I’m not assuming. I know what I’m talking about. You, on the other hand, are distorted by your assumptions.
You could try to get the Windows version of Yahoo Messenger up and running but AFAIK (last time I checked), that would not run in any version of Wine, including Crossover.
You are certainly misguided. Why would I need the Windows version of Yahoo Messenger on Linux? Why would I need to run it on Wine or Crossover? What did you check the last time? Okay, let me get this straight. The last time you checked Linux, you figured out you couldn’t run Yahoo Messenger on Wine or Crossover? Why on earth were you misinformed to do that? Especially when there are abundant native Linux applications that support the Yahoo protocol. So, what the hell are you talking about?
Click ‘n Run repository? If you called Lindows support with this problem, I’m sure they’d tell you where to stick it.
Here you go again with your ‘ifs’ and ‘assumings’ again. You haven’t used the Lindows repository or any of their services. So where are all these unfounded assumptions emanating from?
This senario is only one out of many possible senarios. What if she gets some Windows-only CD of some thing in the mail and wants to try it out .. “Sorry granny, that’s not going to work on your computer.” What do we say if granny is actually a young person and sees some rad new PC game for sale at EBWorld? Well, hope it works in WineX already.
What do you mean by a Windows-only CD? You mean a Windows-only music CD? A Windows-only data CD? A DVD? Or do you mean CDs containing *.exe files that don’t run on Linux? Just like windows programs don’t work on Linux and vice-versa why would expect A CD containing exe extension files to work on Linux. That’s like trying to play ogg files on Windows media player. Forgive my impunity, but that’s a lousy scenario.
Granted, the Linux sandbox is pretty big, but it does have limits .. some of which can be reached rather quickly with the ‘wrong’ kind of user. Me?
If you had cared to peruse most of the arguments on this thread, you would have understood that the premise of the argument was based on how easy to use, well integrated and well unified the Linux platform can be, as opposed to popular misconceptions. In a desperate attempt to seek any possible flaws beyond the original premise of the argument, your collegeaus and now you introduced the limitations of this so called ‘sandbox’ you are talking about. If, again, you had intelligently read the debates on the thread, it would have sunk in that the audience we are targetting aren’t those who can or would identify the limitations of this so called ‘sandbox’, if at all this sandbox has limitations. You and your friends have failed to point out these limitations. You have only continued to ‘ASSUME’ that their are limitations without any concrete evidence, except for your baselesss assumptions. Allow me to render your ‘Sandbox Limitation Theory” null and void.
There is no doubt that in my mind that every application you claim Linux has imitated from windows has been done so better and graciously. There are exceptions. But the exceptions are too few and insignificant. And more often than not, the exceptions will have no impact on granny.
Some people tout the ‘freedom’ that comes with using Linux. Personally though, I like the feeling of knowing that if some new piece of hardware is released tomorrow that I really want, as long as its made for PC hardware, there’s a 99% chance it’s gonna work with my OS right out of the box. That, to me … is freedom.
There are better reasons for people to use Linux other than its religious and philosophical affiliations. Privacy is one of them. I can’t count how many times some Lunatic over at Microsoft has rendered the music files in my hard disk useless, via Windows Media Player 9, because they falsely assume the copies on my disk are illegitimate or some other licensing perculiarities.
Security; I don’t think I need to expand on this.
Abundant quality and free applications; The quality and abundance or free applications available to any one user is astounding. It is further embarrasing that quality of these ‘free’ applications match, and sometimes surpass that of their proprietary commercial counterpart in Windows. And so what if some of them have a quality below par as compared to their Window offerings. They are free for God sake.
Stability; No, I’m not talking about “XP has never crashed on me” crap. I’m talking about an OS that can run a multitude of programs simultaneously for weeks without choking and without degradation in its performance. No, XP slows down after two days of usage. And when I run my DVD I pretty much have to shut everything down. We can argue about hardware issues here, because I run Linux and XP on the same box.
I can go on friends. But I don’t think it’s worth it. I just want this sillyness to end. I want the FUD to stop. I don’t want you to use Linux. Far from it. But I don’t want you spew false, unfounded and outright lies about it for religious reasons. Linux has as much problem has as any other major OS in the market. But it’s definately not the bull crap I’ve seen on these threads. And for a free product, I’m grateful for its existence and the choice is presents to millions of people out there who can’t afford a luxurious Mac and license hunting, insecure Windows. I’m out.
WorknMan said, “I’m curious as to why you think ZoneAlarm is a bad firewall? Not saying you’re wrong … I just wanna know.”
WorknMan, my stance isn’t and never has been the practical uses of “Zone Alarm”. I simply said that I find it wrong for the makers of Zone Alarm to market the idea that their product offers an easy way of securing a computer. A packet filter is hardly something easy to configure and maintain. All attempts to do so will only make the firewall less powerful and therefore nullify the entire situation. I think it’s wrong for Zone Alarm to not allow the emergence of a market in the installation, configuration, and maintanance of free softare firewalls, where users can pay independent developers to implement the features that they want, not what they are told that the need.
In general response to Mystillbeef’s comments to worknman and vice versa
Worknman I think it’s sad for you to argue that “since a monopoly exists we must therefore conform to it”. This is dangerous principle to live by. I would much rather my Grandma have her freedom intact and not have certain programs. It is obvious that you value practical benefits over freedom.
Why must we constantly find ourselves in situations where we assume everyone is inherintly stupid. It seems to be the basic presupposition for all arguements against the use of Free Software. Specifically Apple has gone to great lengths to metaphorically coat the computer, not just with software, but with services as well. Apparantly after all these years people just cannot grasp the concept of things such as “uploading a file to a directory on an ftp server”. It’s much easier to invent metaphors like “save to idisk” than to actually encourage education, discussion, and understanding I guess. Subsequently you have the dumbing down of an entire generation of users through abstract metaphorical lingo that renders them virtually incapable of truely expressing their needs, wants, and purpose in the development and use of technology, namely Operating Systems in this case. I guess humanity is just too fucking stupid compared to all of you making this arguement. Jeezes that’s an ignorant, sad, and anti-social conclusion, but it seems to be the culture in which I find myself.