Just as, in the Java world, there are many competing MVC frameworks for JSP development, so many Open Source developers – says LinuxWorld senior editor James Turner – “scratch the same itch.” In this week’s installment of LinuxWorld’s “Point-Counterpoint” series, LinuxWorld editors James Turner and Steve Suehring slug it out over that most contentious of issues: does the Open Source community on occasion shoot itself in the foot? James says it does, constantly; Steve disagrees.
What’s Wrong with the Open Source Community?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
You can probably get the answer to this question in many of the posts at OSNews.
The OSS community expects every user to be a programmer and as someone who wants to spend their time further developing the software. I am not, nor do I want to be, a programmer and OSS simply does not enable me to perform my job as a graphic designer. Nothing in the OSS world comes close to the power I have using Adobe, Macromedia and Apple applications and nothing likely will anytime soon, if at all.
I totally agree with you, the OSS world wants everybody to be a programmer.
But if they ever want to convert anybody they need a better stance with a better set of GUI tools. This command line everything doesn’t work. My grandmother was totally happy with the 100 Mhz computer running Window 95 and using Microsoft Write (that is the one that comes with windows) to write all her documents on. I gave this to her last year. Now how is she going to even attempt to use Linux, when she things Windows 95/Microsoft Write is the best thing in the world because it is so easy to use, and just requires a double click on the desktop.
Inorder to Linux to gain more of the desktop they need to get away from the elite programmer attitude and become more user friendly. They have to take the attitude, if a 3-4 year old or a 60-80 year old can’t use it than it is too complicated for the masses. Also they need to start looking at developing intuitive GUI’s, that can be summed up a simple one page how to work Linux sheet. Right now you need to buy a book and even that doesn’t always help because every flavor of Linux is different and has a different tool set. So no body can really create a good how-to book.
I know the flames I am going to get back are, “My grandmother could you Linux.”, “Linux is easy to use, and the desktops are more customizable than Windows.”, “What about Lindows”, and finally my favorite “You don’t need to know anything about computers to operate Linux”.
The Open Source community has thousands of feet. Who cases it one is shot?
“OSS world wants everybody to be a programmer.”
This is nonsense. I know about 50 OSS developers. Nobody of them want everybody to be a programmer.
“Inorder to Linux to gain more of the desktop they need to get away from the elite programmer attitude and become more user friendly.”
Good that you say this. Because developers don’t know about such secred knowledge and Linux didn’t become any more user friendly or grow in it’s desktop market share in the past 10 years, did it?
The OSS community expects every user to be a programmer and as someone who wants to spend their time further developing the software
Not really. I know many people who are striving to make OSS easier to use for non-programmers. Heck, I know many people whose goal is to make it so that a OSS user will never have to open up a shell or edit a file, and that everything will be done via the GUI.
Nothing in the OSS world comes close to the power I have using Adobe, Macromedia and Apple applications and nothing likely will anytime soon, if at all.
Well, coming close and working on are two different things. As a person who has used QuarkXpress for page layout, and grew used to Photoshop and Illustrator, I can agree. But, this doesn’t mean alternatives aren’t in the works, or aren’t already moving in that direction.
For example, GIMP, while still lacking in the “for print” category, is still a wonderful graphical editor. And though I have the capabilities to run Photoshop, I prefer GIMP for the many features it offers over Photoshop. The biggest problem with GIMP isn’t even GIMP, but that people are used to Photoshop.
Illustrator is the same way. Sodipodi, while still young, is very capable. However, people learning Illustrator in design school. They don’t learn Sodipodi, and these are applications one really needs to learn.
But then again, not having Adobe, Macromedia, or Apple support is a serious problem with the OSC. Indeed, the Open Source Community isn’t software. You may feel that the OSS community expects everyone to be a programmer (which it doesn’t), but that does not relate to not having support for Adobe, Macromedia, or Apple products.
Interestingly enough, your Adobe, Macromedia, and Apple products that run on top of OS X are running on top of open source projects. Kinda of ironic.
dont blame the opensource community to program something like illustrator or flash for free, blame adobe and macromedia. they should port their apps, and if they dont do so, dont use their products.
sure all this is like an endless feedback loop. software doesnt get ported because no graphic studio uses system X. but no graphic studi will use system X, when there is no available software for it.
i bet when adobe wouldnt port photoshop if it ran natively on c64, while would run linux. as long as the c64 has 80% market share. why? because they are driven by sales departments and a pressure to keep their stock price high. stock price isnt about releasing something thats good for the user. its about making money.
oss isnt driven by such a machinery and thats a good thing.
Inorder to Linux to gain more of the desktop they need to get away from the elite programmer attitude and become more user friendly. They have to take the attitude, if a 3-4 year old or a 60-80 year old can’t use it than it is too complicated for the masses. Also they need to start looking at developing intuitive GUI’s, that can be summed up a simple one page how to work Linux sheet. Right now you need to buy a book and even that doesn’t always help because every flavor of Linux is different and has a different tool set. So no body can really create a good how-to book.
What elite programmer attitude? Rather, I have seen the reverse. Indeed, look at the direction Gnome is taking, by working every hard to make everything easy to use out of the box.
You mention this is something they need to start looking at, and they need to develop intuitive GUI’s. But they are doing that now, they are working towards creating this. Are they there 100%? No. Are they working toward this goal? Yes.
And finally, you complain about every flavor of linux is different, and that it has a different tool set. And that is maybe the fault of the open source community. Maybe. Linux is just the kernel. You have many different distro’s based on this kernel. SuSE, Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, Gentoo, etc. Obviously, each one is different.
Now FreeDesktop.org is working to make certain things similiar, but it obviously can’t dictate common GUI tools.
But is it really a problem? You say people can’t create good how-to books. But this is not true. Oh, for sure, you can’t create a general Linux GUI Tools How-To book (though someone could tell me otherwise). But that doesn’t mean a good how-to book is impossible.
For example: SuSE comes with a manual in the boxed edition. Windows doesn’t even have this (last time I looked). The book is full of how-to, and basically covers how-to use the most common programs, and even some uncommon but useful ones.
I know their are books for Lindows, Red Hat, and Mandrake.
But if they ever want to convert anybody they need a better stance with a better set of GUI tools. This command line everything doesn’t work. My grandmother was totally happy with the 100 Mhz computer running Window 95 and using Microsoft Write (that is the one that comes with windows) to write all her documents on. I gave this to her last year. Now how is she going to even attempt to use Linux, when she things Windows 95/Microsoft Write is the best thing in the world because it is so easy to use, and just requires a double click on the desktop.
Did your grandmother install Windows, or did you? Did your grandmother setup email, or did you? Did you show your grandmother how to use MS Writer?
I am not saying Linux is easier the Windows. Rather, one being easier than the other doesn’t make a difference. It’s in the support. I am positive I could have your grandmother using Linux without a hitch. And it would require just one-click on the desktop. =)
Point being, both Windows and Linux, and Mac, can be setup to be easily used. But! On Windows, Linux, and Mac, when a problem occurs, your grandmother wouldn’t know what to do. Well, she would, and it would most likely be to call you.
I am not contending that you are wront, but rather, your suggestions of what the OSC needs to do are already being done, and that your grandmother example, while good, goes both ways.
I know the flames I am going to get back are, “My grandmother could you Linux.”
Let me see if I understand this. You can tell a story about how your grandmother can use Windows, but if I say my grandmother can use Linux, you consider it a flame? With double standards like this, I don’t know what to say.
Well my friends 3 year old daughter happily uses my linux computer to play her teletubbies game on. And the only time my 77 year old grandmother has even touched a computer she used my mum’s old linux desktop to order a vacuum cleaner from dyson. By those standards i guess both a 3-4 year old and a 60-80 year old can use a linux computer, so i have concisely proved you wrong.
@everyone else
As for support from commercial software vendors, in my experience (in the film industry mainly) any software vendor that _doesnt_ provide linux solutions isnt even considered as a supplier anymore (and if try to claim adobe provide for the film industry, they dont, they are bottom tier here).
If you think we want everyone to be a programmer you a very wrong. Having a poor programmer working on a project is worse than having no programmer at all, any experienced software engineer will back me up on that.
As for many programmers tackling the same problem from different angles, this is absolutely how things should be done. Not only do i like to have choices for my software solutions, i like to have competitors to any software i work on, its both inspiring and helpful (especially if the copmetior is also open source). Having two implementations of the same protocol for instance is a very good way to help find implementation errors that otherwise would have gone unnoticed.
She has only just turned three, so she was in fact happily using my computer by herself when she was two
> dont blame the opensource community to program something like illustrator or flash for free, blame adobe and macromedia. they should port their apps, and if they dont do so, dont use their products.
Why should they? They make a product. It is your choice to use it or not. Most people are most productive with illustrator, so they use it. People want tools.
> sure all this is like an endless feedback loop. software doesnt get ported because no graphic studio uses system X. but no graphic studi will use system X, when there is no available software for it.
The problem is the OSS has no way of getting out of the loop. They have no business model that will do it for them.
> i bet when adobe wouldnt port photoshop if it ran natively on c64, while would run linux. as long as the c64 has 80% market share. why? because they are driven by sales departments and a pressure to keep their stock price high. stock price isnt about releasing something thats good for the user. its about making money.
If they are focusing their resources on 80% of the market, how are they not doing something good for the user, espically since their users are in that 80%?
> oss isnt driven by such a machinery and thats a good thing.
So instead of a quality product for 80%, you get decent software for 100%. That does not seem much better. Look up
> What elite programmer attitude? Rather, I have seen the reverse. Indeed, look at the direction Gnome is taking, by working every hard to make everything easy to use out of the box.
Gnome is doing a good thing. The problem is that not all OSS is like that. Too much requires edits of config files or compiling of code. Many times the solution to a problem was re-compile the kernel.
> You mention this is something they need to start looking at, and they need to develop intuitive GUI’s. But they are doing that now, they are working towards creating this. Are they there 100%? No. Are they working toward this goal? Yes.
Good, call me when they reached their goal. Windows is already there.
> And finally, you complain about every flavor of linux is different, and that it has a different tool set. And that is maybe the fault of the open source community. Maybe. Linux is just the kernel. You have many different distro’s based on this kernel. SuSE, Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, Gentoo, etc. Obviously, each one is different.
Agreed. When I personally say Linux, I mostly refer to the users experience using Linux, no matter what distro. I will only say something is wrong if it is wrong in ALL distro’s.
> Now FreeDesktop.org is working to make certain things similiar, but it obviously can’t dictate common GUI tools.
> But is it really a problem? You say people can’t create good how-to books. But this is not true. Oh, for sure, you can’t create a general Linux GUI Tools How-To book (though someone could tell me otherwise). But that doesn’t mean a good how-to book is impossible.
This is only possible treating each distro as a completely seperate entity. This is fair.
> For example: SuSE comes with a manual in the boxed edition. Windows doesn’t even have this (last time I looked). The book is full of how-to, and basically covers how-to use the most common programs, and even some uncommon but useful ones.
I have no clue what the Windows box has, but there are tons of books available.
The point is that there is tons of documentation since there is one (or at least only a few) of Windows.
With tons of distro’s, documentation resources must be spread out much more thin.
I feel that the biggest problem with the OSS community is, in general, most of the community is so blind by OSS that it is their life, and anything that is not open source is evil, and by definition, Microsoft is evil.
It’s really pathetic and I for one am very tired of this type of attitude.
As for support from commercial software vendors, in my experience (in the film industry mainly) any software vendor that _doesnt_ provide linux solutions isnt even considered as a supplier anymore (and if try to claim adobe provide for the film industry, they dont, they are bottom tier here).
FinalCut Pro
Lightwave 3D
Photoshop
After Effects
And saying that Adobe is “bottom tier” in the film/video industry pretty much negates any claim to seriousness your post had.
Nick is just saying what a lot of people are saying, and I think he is right, and your response is a typical problem with the Linux community. Someone says “Well as far as I’ve seen, I think this is wrong”, and you (and others) respond to him saying “No its not.” Well who are you to say if he is right or wrong? So you have seen one instance where his example wasn’t right. Big deal. If Linux zealots are truly interested in “spreading the word” and getting more users, they need to stop negating the issues that people say they have, and start giving some honest consideration to them.
Generally, this comes in the form of people saying that Linux isn’t easy enough. Why would you ever say to them “Yes it is, you just don’t understand it”? What an instant turn-off that is. Windows is easy to use. OS X is EXTREMELY easy to use. Linux is not easy to use. And as long as you keep the mindset that it is and people are just not smart enough to use it, Linux will not be easy to use.
Someone mentioned that the OSS community wants everybody to be a programmer. I don’t think that’s the problem at all. I think the problem is that everybody wants to be a programmer and nobody wants to do some of the drudge work, specifically documentation.
I’ll give the Mono project as an example. You’ll find docs on the website that are horribly outdated or missing completely. Miguel gave a shout out the other day on the mailing list for people to help in that regards. Something like gtk# had docs that were non-existant or really didn’t help much and forced you to use the gtk+ docs as a reference. Note, that might have changed in recent months, I haven’t really been playing around with gtk# much lately, instead preferring wx.NET or portable.Net’s implementation of SWF.
I read the article a couple days ago, and from what I remember the author was complaining about competing projects , in effect dividing limited resources. Well I guess in an ideal situation there would be the perfect vision of some app that everybody could agree on, but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. Most of these people aren’t getting paid so they if they find an itch to scratch, it’s going to be their itch and not somebody else’s. I think Mozilla is a good example of a Meta-project that spawns competition. You have all these competiting browser(Ephiphany, Galeon, Firebird, etc..) that use the Gecko rendering engine, but at the same time are doing their own thing. Also, I have an old underpowered laptop that has fluxbox on it, so I like to use dillo which is good for people that have old machines laying around that are useful but can’t really run the latest Gnome or KDE.
I still think that the lack of a dominant desktop has hurt Linux. I believe if either KDE or Gnome had won the desktop war then Linux would be in a better position today. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t do things like fluxbox, or WindowMake or whatever, but if there was a dominant desktop then maybe there would be more software from ISVs.
Personally, I want to get paid for what I produce, so I wish shareware had more of an impact then it does today on Linux. I guess some people do get paid for writing OSS, but those people are few and far between.
Frankly, so is Final Cut Pro, although both are making some serious inroads by increasing their quality and performance.
Regards,
Mark Wilson
I feel that the biggest problem with the OSS community is, in general, most of the community is so blind by OSS that it is their life, and anything that is not open source is evil, and by definition, Microsoft is evil.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. There’s another website that I’m sure everybody is familiar with where the group-think is so bad it reminds me of a Cambodian re-education camp.
“What elite programmer attitude?”
You should read some of the comments on osnews about:
*changing the file system layout (i.e. having “Program Files” style directories is evil)
*registry like configuration (GConf is evil)
*direct rendering model for graphics instead of X11 (not having network transparency is evil)
*binary drivers (not free and blah blah blah is evil)
*windows like installers (installers leads to binary software distribution wich is evil)
*wizards (another evil thing spawned at redmond)
Note that more pragmatic people would simply say that they need the unix-like features of linux that would be lost by having all of the above stuff, but unfortunately they are usually much less vocal than the common linux zealot.
If open source software sucks, what have you done to make better? It’s easy to be an armchair critic, but no one on earth will take you seriously if you just sit there and yap.
Yes, yes the Gimp sucks. But at least tell us why it sucks. Statements like, “The Gimp doesn’t cut it” or ” The Gimp is years behind Photoshop” only gives me more incentive to flame you, and have quite a lot of fun doing so too.
And don’t forget to post a link to the bug report you filed, to prove that you have actually used the Gimp and found its functionality and performance to be below par when compared to Photoshop.
Be kind enough to list the task you were not able to accomplish using the Gimp, which was so easy to do in Photoshop.
Demonstrate to us that 90% of photo editors and users need this feature and because of it’s absense, the Gimp essentially sucks.
Write a nasty, critical and well thought out review about the Gimp comparing it to the supposed “holy grail”, Photoshop and submit it osnews. Join the Gimp mailing list and provide a link to the review.
If possible provide a well written narrative on how you think the missing features should be implemented and mail it to the development team. If you are skilled, provide patches. Be willing to help out in anyway to see that this missing feature makes the Gimp sucks will someday be added.
After doing all that with no progress whatsover, you have the balls, the qualifications, the liberty, the respect and the justification to say open source sucks!
It’s open source for a reason, damn it! So that you and I can make it better. The last thing I want to hear is people whining about a something they are free to contribute to and make better. I instantly loose respect for those individuals. In my naive days, I would religiously flame them.
Yes, so it sucks, but let’s see what you have done to make it better. If not get lost! It’s a community for God sake, not a bunch of slaves you tell what to do and what not to.
P.S. Mod me down if you will
Um, huh?
Neither FCP nor Lightwave are made by Adobe. They do make After Effects and Photoshop, but only the latter is a contender. After Effects is more “pro-sumer” than anything else. A lot of very high-end software (XSI, Shake, Toonz, Mirai) does run on Linux though, especially if you’re doing CGI or something of the sort.
PS> Also, Lightwave is definately *not* high-end. It does get used in films, but its at the bottom of the scale really.
*changing the file system layout (i.e. having “Program Files” style directories is evil)
<p>The file system layout rocks. OS X uses it. Things that require larger 3rd party apps in Windows such as preserving user documents and settings after new installations are built in to Unix. Plus, managing networked systems with NFS is a snap. The software to make a single user desktop easier to figure out is called VFS, and both Gnome and KDE are leaning towards really nice solutions that “elite” programmers are working on.</p>
*registry like configuration (GConf is evil)
<p>Registry like configuration is just as hard and confusing in Windows as it would be in Linux. What matters to new users is the GUI frontends. Frontends can also exist for text files, and text files help out the “elite programmers” more than a registry would.</p>
*direct rendering model for graphics instead of X11 (not having network transparency is evil)
<p>Not having network transparency in X is evil because it is a really cool feature, and not a bottleneck in performance. When using X on a single computer, TCP isn’t even used; a much faster and more efficient method is. X may or may not be slow to you, but network transparency isn’t the problem. When double-buffering gets into the X server (probably through freedesktop.org’s work), then you’ll see that X wasn’t slow, it was just choppy.
*binary drivers (not free and blah blah blah is evil)
<p>X has a really good driver interface for providing binary drivers. Binary drivers also can exist as modules for the Linux kernel, but they need to be maintained by the author(s) of the driver to keep up with changes to the kernel.</p>
*windows like installers (installers leads to binary software distribution wich is evil)
<p>Windows like installers are not impossible in Linux. OpenOffice has one. We don’t like them because we’ve got better ways of dealing with binary packages. Throw your “dependency hell” comments out the window, separate installers would cause the same problem. With tools like apt, we now have solutions superior for both the “elite programmer” and the end user. InstallShield is a terrible way of installing software that forces each package to include extra bloat, and often deals with uninstallation incorrectly, leaving extraneous files dangling around your hard drive. I hated it when I installed software in Windows and the app’s directory lingered for no good reason. Not to mention stray .dlls and nasty boot messages telling me stuff was missing after a ‘clean’ uninstall.</p>
*wizards (another evil thing spawned at redmond)
<p>We’re interested in things working “out of the box.” Mandatory configuration should be done by the app itself by figuring out the answers it needs to. Configuration should “tweak,” not make things work to begin with.</p>
…it is currently used with Linux at Disney and other Hollywood animation studios. If that ain’t “real-world use” then I don’t know what is.
Also, I have proof that Linux is as easy to use as Windows and OS X for regular users (who, unlike power users, feel no need to go tinker with the OS): my girlfriend. She is a completely non-technical person who has a limited computing skill set.
Recently, I set up a user for her on my Linux machine, because her Win98 machine is starting to experience the dreaded “Windows Decay.” Also, the power supply fan is getting noisy. I imported her OE mail and addresses, as well as her IE bookmark and set up a nice KDE desktop for her, using the same wallpaper (very important for computer newbies). I also cleaned up her menu structure so it would look closer to what she had in Windows.
She did have a few questions at first, but really had no trouble adjusting. She now uses her Linux desktop about 75% of the time. Now, if my gf can do it, anyone can! FUDsters can claim all they want that “Linux is too complicated” and propagate old myths like “you need to compile stuff” or “lots of hardware isn’t supported” or “you need to use the command line all the time.” These MS fanboys are just scared because their beloved monopoly is threatened. The truth is that KDE/Gnome have caught up with the Windows desktop (and, in the case of KDE, surpassed it) in ease of use.
Someone please mod my post above down. Yuck.
*changing the file system layout (i.e. having “Program Files” style directories is evil)
The file system layout rocks. OS X uses it. Things that require larger 3rd party apps in Windows such as preserving user documents and settings after new installations are built in to Unix. Plus, managing networked systems with NFS is a snap. The software to make a single user desktop easier to figure out is called VFS, and both Gnome and KDE are leaning towards really nice solutions that “elite” programmers are working on.
*registry like configuration (GConf is evil)
Registry like configuration is just as hard and confusing in Windows as it would be in Linux. What matters to new users is the GUI frontends. Frontends can also exist for text files, and text files help out the “elite programmers” more than a registry would.<
*direct rendering model for graphics instead of X11 (not having network transparency is evil)
Not having network transparency in X is evil because it is a really cool feature, and not a bottleneck in performance. When using X on a single computer, TCP isn’t even used; a much faster and more efficient method is. X may or may not be slow to you, but network transparency isn’t the problem. When double-buffering gets into the X server (probably through freedesktop.org’s work), then you’ll see that X wasn’t slow, it was just choppy.
*binary drivers (not free and blah blah blah is evil)
X has a really good driver interface for providing binary drivers. Binary drivers also can exist as modules for the Linux kernel, but they need to be maintained by the author(s) of the driver to keep up with changes to the kernel.
*windows like installers (installers leads to binary software distribution wich is evil)
Windows like installers are not impossible in Linux. OpenOffice has one. We don’t like them because we’ve got better ways of dealing with binary packages. Throw your “dependency hell” comments out the window, separate installers would cause the same problem. With tools like apt, we now have solutions superior for both the “elite programmer” and the end user. InstallShield is a terrible way of installing software that forces each package to include extra bloat, and often deals with uninstallation incorrectly, leaving extraneous files dangling around your hard drive. I hated it when I installed software in Windows and the app’s directory lingered for no good reason. Not to mention stray .dlls and nasty boot messages telling me stuff was missing after a ‘clean’ uninstall.
*wizards (another evil thing spawned at redmond)
We’re interested in things working “out of the box.” Mandatory configuration should be done by the app itself by figuring out the answers it needs to. Configuration should “tweak,” not make things work to begin with.
Basically, Linux isn’t as easy to use as Windows because it will take some time. It’s not bottlenecked by programmers reluctant to adopt changes that will ruin their “elite” experience. I personally think that we already have advantages over Windows, especially in the area of software package management. With clever frontends such as CNR and Synaptic, the experience is easier than in Windows, because you don’t even have to go out looking for Software on your own. Browsing repositories filled with useful descriptions and screenshots is a lot easier than browsing download.com OR the software rack at Best Buy.
These MS fanboys are just scared because their beloved monopoly is threatened.
No, they’re not. They just prefer Windows over Linux. I don’t Windows users necessarily support Microsoft.
This guy hit the nail on the head precisely. I hear this all the time “we are working to make everything easier” yet in the end everyone must judge what the end product is not what the current word of the developer is.
I work on a Mac OS X application for users and I have promised many things which I am working on at this very instant, but still I expect people to judge what is currently out and not what I say is going to be out.
Linux distros all the time say “this distro is so easy to use” and yet a lot of things are 3-10 times more complicated than on Mac OS X or Windows. This is why I cannot really reccomend Linux to anyone.
Another thing I don’t get is why people would create a whole new Linux Disto because they don’t like 1 thing on another distro that they were working on. It’s like “Oh Red Hat Fedora is ok, but GNOME is default so lets create a whole new distro with that one change and then change whatever else we didn’t like in the process.”
Also I don’t get why so many Linux users are so against doing some things easily and intuitively. Like installers, i think it’d be great if Linux had an easy installer like Windows since it will never be as easy as Mac OS X (just drag app to folder or desktop.) I’d like to be able to download a file and run an installation program like Windows and then it’s installed in a normal folder (like Mac OS X/Window) where i know where it’s at, not this /usr/share/ where there is a ton of crap you don’t know (and probably will never know) where it is.
These things are obvious and the open source community must get past these stupid fueds or reasons for not simply fixing it’s problems. Apple really slapped Linux in the face when it put out Mac OS X and put out a UNIX based os thats easy to use. I was thinking about going to Linux but after using OS X then Linux im glad I didn’t. Too many things don’t work right and don’t flow together smoothly like they do in Mac OS X or even Windows.
In short I don’t give a damn that some person(s) and/or project out there promise to fix some problems or make things easier, I want results. I want a Linux distro thats simply easy to use and I can download and install ANY program effortlessly like I can on Mac OS X or Windows. Right now there is no guarantee that any program I can randomly pick will install easily on Linux. I tell people the day Linux gets past these hurdles I’ll install it and dualboot Linux with Mac OS X on my powerbook g4. At this pace I wonder if Linux will ever get there. I know not everyone has these types of attitudes, but they are really dragging down the people who are trying to help.
*changing the file system layout (i.e. having “Program Files” style directories is evil)¨
The UNIX/Linux filesystem structure is better than the Windows mess once you get to know it, but if you really want it you can do what some distros do, and have a Windows-like structure made with links.
*registry like configuration (GConf is evil)
Text files are much more user-friendly than the Windows registry, which is pure hell as far as user-friendliness goes. As a “normal” Windows user to use the registry, and see the look of fear in their eyes.
Anyway, as someone else has said, you can just use GUI frontends to edit the config files. There are lots of them, some very user-friendly.
*direct rendering model for graphics instead of X11 (not having network transparency is evil)
What’s wrong with network transparency? It doesn’t affect performance if you don’t use it (and actually doesn’t affect performance even if you use it). Personally, I think this highlights a weakness in Windows, since you can remotely run graphical apps through SSH with it.
What is missing from X is a good compositing – well, guess what? The guys at freedesktop.org are coming out with the Composite extension to do all the cool eye candy OS X can do (and Longhorn will do as well in 2006).
*binary drivers (not free and blah blah blah is evil)
Only a small minority of users say that binary drivers are evil. Most say that it’s not optimal, since you need to download them separately instead of integrating them in the kernel. As usual, you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.
Windows like installers (installers leads to binary software distribution wich is evil)
I haven’t heard anyone say this – I think you’re grasping at straws here. There are some very cool projects such as the Autopackage.org effort to bring Windows-like installers to Linux (while trying to avoid their obvious drawbacks in matters of bloat).
*wizards (another evil thing spawned at redmond)
Yeah, I guess this is why Mandrake has plenty of them, right?
FUD, FUD and more FUD.
If possible provide a well written narrative on how you think the missing features should be implemented and mail it to the development team. …
Well that’s another reason why it sucks. I have to write a narrative to get the features I want. Whatever happened to human-computer interaction research or even requirements gathering? Don’t developers do those things anymore nowadays? Isn’t that part of the requirements/prototyping phase of software development?
Mike Hearn, the project leader for autopackage, explained why installation systems in OS X and Windows aren’t desireable.
http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2307&page=2
Basically, the problem is with only including rpm without frontends with auto-dependency resolution. The problem could exist with Debian, were it to not include apt-get by default (and just dpkg).
The best solution is to have a solid package manager like dpkg or rpm, then command line tools like apt, then GUI frontends to apt or urpmi repositories such as CNR or synaptic. That brings software selection straght to the end user, and is actually easier than Windows or OS X because not only is one ore two click all that’s needed to install the package just like in OS X, but the user doesn’t have to go out looking for the software itself.
No, they’re not. They just prefer Windows over Linux. I don’t Windows users necessarily support Microsoft.
I’m not talking about “Windows users” in general, but about the anti-Linux advocates that are drawn to such articles as this one like flies. You’re right in saying that Windows users don’t necessarily support Microsoft. In fact, a great deal of them use MS products because they feel they have no choice. Others, like me, are forced to use MS products at work – and thus qualify as “Windows users” as well…
And, to reiterate something which I’ve said before: I’m not anti-Windows, I’m pro-Linux and anti-Microsoft (for their despicable corporate behavior and the danger their monopoly represents to innovation and the economic health of the IT industry). I don’t mind Windows that much, really. It is a capable OS. I prefer Linux, but I can use both OSes without problems. Heck, I’d use a Mac as well if I had access to one, and I might try to set up a FreeBSD firewall/gateway some time in 2004. Unlike these MS shills, I like OS diversity and I want to preserve it. This is why I call out trolls and astroturfers when I see them.
The end user isn’t required to do this. Unless the software is alpha (not yet ready for public release) or beta (a new version with experimental features), you’re not even obliged to do so.
Market research is something that takes a lot of money. OSS has a different approach–let the users who want to take part in the evolution off applications that they use. You can twist this into a disadvantage, but I personally see it as one of our biggest strenghts.
In exchange for getting free software at no cost, you get the oppurtunity to help out the development process. It isn’t a burden if you can choose not to help out.
Some of these posts are ridiculous. Many seem to have the point of view that Linux users are in denial about Linux sucking solely because of their hatred for MS.
The truth is that we’ve learned how to use Linux properly, and now that we know, we love using it. Just as I cannot conceive of someone being satisfied with Windows, they too cannot conceive someone being satisfied with Linux.
Very well said. As if I’d use a sucky OS just because I didn’t like MS’s corporate behavior!
Thank you for making my point, wich was about “elite attitude” and not about those topics, you see Archie even though you maybe right, your attitude is wrong. Compare what you said to what ThanatosNL said and try to find what’s different, especially read ThanatosNL last paragraph and then read yours.
I should amend that. They connot conceive of someone being satisfied with Linux because all the problems that they have with Linux are solved with a little bit of knowledge. And they also tend to equate ease of use with ease of understanding.
My Linux box is really easy to use. In fact, with cron jobs, I don’t need to do anything at all with respect to the actual OS. However, a new user could never accomplish this.
Desktop Linux distributions are reaching the goal of not requiring configuration at all. That’s why reviews are so harsh on installation processes–because once they’re finished, you’re supposed to not need to do anything at all to get things working. You can go into the KDE control panel, for example, and tweak settings, but you shouldn’t need driver disks, network configuration panel, etc.
My attitude is different whether I’m talking to someone who has a genuine interest in discussing these issues, or with a known anti-Linux advocate who’s only interested in spreading FUD. I’ll call BS when I see it, but I’ll help out people who want to learn more, and I’ll politely voice my opinions when discussing with reasonable posters.
What about the attitude of all the pro-MS posters who started to spread the usual FUD about Linux without even reading the article? What kind of attitude is that?
At least you admit that I might be right. That’s a start.
No offense, but your point was not that “elite attitude’ exists, but that “elite attitude” among developers hampers them from accepting easier end user solutions because doing so would compromise the “eliteness” of Linux as a whole.
Great Cthulu would only help that case if he were developer of a distribution actively refusing to implement a change that would make the distribution easier. Even that would not prove your point, since there are many more developers besides him.
If you want to make a case about “elite attitudes” of the more knowledgeable users scaring off new users, than a post to an article such as this is insufficient. You need to go to a forum, newsgroup, or irc channel designed to help out new users of Linux, and demonstrate elite attitudes among the Linux users there.
I think one of the major points was binary compatibility.
Commercial Apps are often monolithic binary releases. They nearly always come with all the necessary requirements. For example Dreamweaver includes the XML parser it needs (I believe it uses one from the Apache project)
OSS apps often require you to install the dependencies.
The weakness of linux/FreeBSD etc in this area is that often you need to recompile the source for your particular distribution.
The main Binary App I use is Opera and I am impressed that I can get Opera on FreeBSD and almost every flavour of Linux. How much work was required to achieve that kind of binary compatibility? (only for x86 as far as I know)
OSX has partially solved these problems by having application folders that contain all the dependencies. Which mostly alleviates the version nightmare you can have with shared libraries. However they seem to have a fair share of applications that just stop working with new OS releases.
I’m not much of a programmer, but all the libc, gcc, elf, a.out and version incompatibilities must make commercial software companies insane. They bug me enough as just an OSS user and I don’t make money out of being a user.
In one sense a stable dominant distribution would solve many of these problems. Linux is starting to get the userbase, if only it were a consistent and marketable userbase.
The second point that this article missed is that OSS developers seem generally open to other projects that scratch the same itch. flamewars and religious debate seems to be the domain of OSS users.
Uhm….your comment doesn’t even make sense. I was responding to the following comment:
As for support from commercial software vendors, in my experience (in the film industry mainly) any software vendor that _doesnt_ provide linux solutions isnt even considered as a supplier anymore (and if try to claim adobe provide for the film industry, they dont, they are bottom tier here).
I don’t ever recall saying that Adobe made Lightwave or FinalCut Pro. I was providing examples of where software vendors that did not provide Linux solutions are prevalant in the film and video industry.
Oh, and P.S. if you think that Lightwave is *NOT* high-end, then you obviously are as confused as the first poster that said Photoshop is a “bottom-tier” program in the media industry. Lightwave is used just as often as alternatives like Maya. Off the top of my head I can name Smallville, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, all of the Star Trek tv shows and movies, Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius, Hercules and Xena, Startship Troopers, and Blade. That’s just off the top of my head. I’ve been using Photoshop for my works for 6 years, and Lightwave 3D for 2 years. This on top of using FinalCut Pro, Avid, DPS, and Adobe Premiere for video editing. To top that off, I also use Adobe After Effects for some post-effects.
To say that Lightwave is not high-end either means you have no idea what you are talking about, or you have some sort of bias against it.
What are you babling about? Are you referring to Archie’s last comment (the one with “sucky OS” in it?) If so, note that he’s saying that he wouldn’t use a sucky OS just because he hated Microsoft. He wasn’t calling Windows a sucky OS?
Anyway, to respond to some of your tripe:
*changing the file system layout (i.e. having “Program Files” style directories is evil)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Experience with Windows has shown that people just can’t grasp hierarchical FSs. So the actual FS layout is irrelevent — the newbie user shouldn’t have to touch it or even know about it. The best solution is to do what most Linux distros do: make regular users unable to touch anything outside their home directory, and start all file managers there. Everyone’s going in this direction, especially MS, with the whole “My Documents” thing. The problem with Linux today is not the overall FHS, but the fact that regular users still need to touch files outside of their home directories on occassion. Once the GUI configuration tools are more developed, this problem will go away. The existing FHS should be retained, because it is infinately more suitable for advanced users to CLI around in than some “Documents and Settings” long-name-with-spaces nonsense.
*registry like configuration (GConf is evil)
>>>>>>>>>
GConf is evil not because its registry-like but because you have to use it for basic configuration. Even OS X isn’t that sparse! Anyway, GConf isn’t even registry-like. Its just a more evolved version of /etc. All data is still stored as a bunch of text files, they are just in a uniform format and have a uniform front-end. KConfig isn’t any different, only it uses ini-style files instead of XML. Even MS is moving away from the binary-registry model.
*direct rendering model for graphics instead of X11 (not having network transparency is evil)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’s just pure and utter crap. I don’t know people here keep bringing this up, but its junk.
Some of the fastest GUIs on modern PCs (BeOS, QNX) used a client/server model. Even Atheneyx directly using SNAP only claims a 20-30% improvement in *raw* performance over X, and that’s in a high-performance gaming situation!
The real problem with X GUIs is with apps that handle redraw poorly. Take OpenOffice, for example. Windows has a relatively fast graphics system, yet OpenOffice *still* redraws slowly! Its the app, not X!
Try using XP (using Luna for a fair comparison!) for a while and note how apps use tricks to improve performance. When resizing an explorer window, the newly exposed part is not filled before being redrawn. This allows the previous contents to show through, which makes the lagging content less noticible. A lot of XP widgets aren’t double-buffered, which again improves resize performance (compare GTK-1 to GTK-2).
Its all about perception. I’ve been using OS X quite often recently, and I’ve noticed some things. First, it really is slow (10.2.6 on a 800MHz G4). Resizing complex windows is very choppy, for example. Yet, the UI in some ways feels faster than, say, a GTK2 app on my 2GHz P4. Its not that OS X’s graphics are fast, but that its graphics system removes application performance from the equation. You never see resize lag because the window frame is synchronized with the window contents. You never see expose lag or flicker, because everything is double-buffered. The actual graphics engine might be slow, but as long as its even moderately performant, it doesn’t matter.
As for network transparency, it matters a lot. Even MS has network transparency these days. Anybody adminning more than one machine without network transparency is a moron. You know how I admin the RedHat server buried in my basement? Through a remote X GUI from the comfort of my bed, over a WLAN connection, of course. Or from 650 miles away at school, no matter.
*binary drivers (not free and blah blah blah is evil)
>>>>>>>>>
That’s a strawman. There are many people against binary kernel drivers because they are a support nightmare, but the “non-free is evil” is a small (vocal) contingent.
*windows like installers (installers leads to binary software distribution wich is evil)
>>>>>>>>>
Windows-like installers are so 1990! ThanatosNL is right on about the power and ease-of-use of a system like APT + Synaptic.
*wizards (another evil thing spawned at redmond)
>>>>>>>>>>
Wizards are nice for newbies, but they’re a hinderence to efficiency. They are very constraining, and a pain when you want to do something simple. A well-labeled dialog is usually just as good for all but the simplest users. Compare the WinXP search function to the Win2k search function. The second one went all wizard-y, and its usability was shot to all hell. Note that even Apple doesn’t use wizards very often.
why do you people keep biting the hook? it’s not about if you or me think any of those points are true or false, it’s about your attitude towards them (topic here being “What’s Wrong with the Open Source Community”), when i said evil i was being *SARCASTIC* but when some of you actually agree with the evil label it’s just plain ridiculous. Get a grip.
Ah, after rereading your post it makes sense now. I thought you were offering those products as examples of Adobe products that are in the high end.
Anyway, high-end doesn’t mean stuff that’s used in the film industry. A range of products are used in the film industry. That doesn’t make them all high-end. Gimp/CinePaint has been used on several film projects — that doesn’t make it high-end. Premiere and After Effects are definately not high-end. Final Cut Pro is kinda mid-range. Its more comparable to Avid’s low end products, like Xpress, than its high-end products, or the custom editors used by many studios. Lightwave is definately not high end, in comparison to programs like XSI or Maya.
Oh, so in order to have a nice “attitude” we should just shut up when anti-Linux trolls and astroturfers spread their FUD?
Well, you know what? I think that MS doesn’t have a friendly attitude towards its competitor, either. It doesn’t have a nice attitude when it compares Linux to a cancer, when it says it’s un-american, or when it says it is outdated technology. I don’t think they have a nice attitude when they make up fake grassroots movements to help them in their anti-trust trial. I don’t think they have a nice attitude when they use their monopoly status to pressure OEMs and retailers into not offering alternatives to Windows.
If anyone’s got an attitude problem, it’s MS and its loyal FUDsters/astroturfers. Personally, I think that exposing myths and lies is the right attitude to have, period.
I guess I’m not sure what you’re doing. I think you’re using the word “high-end” and I’m trying to use the word “standard”. You can make the argument that FinalCut Pro isn’t high-end (though many would disagree), but it is definitely a standard in that it is used as widely as something like Avid (even more in some venues). You can probably make the same arguments for Premiere and After Effects (though a lot more so for Premiere). Not for Photoshop, as it is the most widely used and complete package for 2D graphics editing. I would also highly disagree with you that Lightwave is not high-end. It has not only been used on high-end projects, but it has been used on MANY high-end projects. If you want to say that Lightwave is not high-end, then you might as well take off every other 3D CGI package you mentioned as well.
See, the problem is, you think that anyone who criticizes Linux is “anti-Linux” and respond with either playing the FUD card, or just flat-out saying they are wrong and that Linux is fine. It really alienates people. Instead of simply negating what people are saying about Linux, why don’t you ask them to elaborate? They obviously have found something that personally doesn’t appeal to them about Linux. Maybe a lot of people agree with them, who are you to say. Linux doesn’t have a large enough user base as of now to give them the clout to just say “No, you’re wrong, we’re fine.”
Microsoft plays hardball with Dutch Lindows resellers
“Dutch Lindows resellers are accusing Microsoft of intimidation, after several received phone calls from the software giant seeking meetings to “avoid” legal action over the name of the operating system.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/51/34233.html
See, the problem is, you think that anyone who criticizes Linux is “anti-Linux”
Nothing could be further from the truth. If people have legitimate (and preferably constructive) criticism, I do not consider them to be anti-Linux.
and respond with either playing the FUD card,
When someone spreads FUD, I call it out. Period.
or just flat-out saying they are wrong and that Linux is fine.
Since you’re allegedly describing my behavior, can you point to some examples? Otherwise I’d say you’re simply misrepresenting what I say and do.
It really alienates people.
Well, it alienates anti-Linux trolls and astroturfers, that’s for sure. But I’ve never heard from any “neutral” individual that I’d somehow turned them off of Linux. So I do believe you are profoundly mistaken here.
Take the situation in reverse: some people refuse to acknowledge that there’s anything wrong with Windows, and will flat-out say to you you’re wrong when you point out any such flaws in Windows, saying that it’s fine…will this alienate people away from Microsoft? Nope.
Instead of simply negating what people are saying about Linux, why don’t you ask them to elaborate?
I’ve done that. Quite often, in fact. But whenever I do ask anti-Linux advocates to elaborate, they more often than not repeat the same myths, change the subject, or stop posting altogether.
They obviously have found something that personally doesn’t appeal to them about Linux.
That’s fine. Unfortunately, that’s usually not the people I “debate” with. I’m talking about people who take a strong anti-Linux position based on half-truths, myths or outright fabrications. Some people have legitimate concerns, and that’s fine with me.
Please, before you assume anything else about me or what I post, try to read up on what the people I argue with usually write.
Maybe a lot of people agree with them, who are you to say. Linux doesn’t have a large enough user base as of now to give them the clout to just say “No, you’re wrong, we’re fine.”
What does it matter if lots of people agree with them or not? I say what I think, and what I believe to be true – and I don’t just say “I’m right, you’re wrong”, by the way. I provide counter-arguments, links, etc. Stop misrepresenting what I write, please.
On the other hand, if I understand you correctly, then only the opinion of the majority counts, and people whose opinion is in the minority should just shut up? Well I happen to believe in freedom of speech. If you don’t like it, though. It’s here to stay, and so am I.
…but neither Rayiner, nor Archie, nor myself have indicated that we embrace our views dogmatically.
The fact is, we’ve rebuttled every point you guys could throw at us, and now are twisting our words to support a new opinion that our attitudes are alienating potential converts.
Our attitudes are not elitist; we defend our positions well, and frankly if attacking how we present ourselves and drawing illogical and baseless conclusions is the best you guys can come up with, then I think Rayiner and Archie would agree that we’ve already proven our point.
I once was a “newbie” to Linux. I treat newcomers exactly as I was treated when I was new. I teach them how to figure out answers to questions themselves. “Experts” weren’t born with skills; they aquired them over time by using Linux.
You guys say that documentation is crap, but honestly google taught me how to use Linux. You guys say that developers are arrogant, stubborn fools that are keeping Linux in the stone ages. I’ve actually interacted with many developers of OSS projects, big and small, and guess what? They’re nice, and they welcome help making their software easier for new users (if their software is catered to that audience).
You claim that we pretend that many problems don’t exist. I claim that you all pretend that many problems do exist, and when we show you why, you tell us that we’ve only helped prove your point that we’re a bunch of elitist snobs.
Please. Either Linux has the tangible problems that have been brought up, or it doesn’t. We’ve effectively rebutted the tangibles, and upon demanding evidence to support your conclusion that our attitude is our biggest problem, you have cited us, except we have been more than civil.
Binary compatibility is becoming less and less necessary. I see linux distributions going the way of Debian and Gentoo; i.e. having software repositories that stay up to date all the time.
Once major distributions start automatically updating by default, then the problem of not knowing what version of package foo the user has will be solved (as it is already with distros like Debian, Gentoo, Crux, etc). The version of foo will reliably be the latest version of foo.
Source-based repositories usually require little change; binary repositories will need to take over the job of compiling as well (no big deal).
Linux would never survive if it were hampered by maintaining binary compatibility.
I feel the need to justify my last statement. Linux and OSS software relies on feedback from the user (again, it’s not mandatory), and it would never survive three years of in-house development like closed-source companies put their products through. Software releases come early and often because progress is made by the releases themselves.
You can call it a flaw, but the strenghts of the OSS development model are greater than the drawbacks.
I’ve done that. Quite often, in fact. But whenever I do ask anti-Linux advocates to elaborate, they more often than not repeat the same myths, change the subject, or stop posting altogether.
This statement alone reenforces my point of view. You just admitted that you negate what people say because, in your opinion, it is “the same myths, [they] change the subject, or [they] stop posting altogether.” You’re basically saying that you negate them because you’re right and they’re wrong, which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along.
And for the record, I am a neutral player in this. I think Microsoft has a lot of good points, and I think there are some flaws as well. I feel the exact same way about Linux. My biggest problem with Linux is people with your attitude. When I talk to people like you, you completely alienate me from wanting to use it anymore, or even be a part of the community. So I guess you can’t really say truthfully “I’ve never heard from any “neutral” individual that I’d somehow turned them off of Linux.” Because now you have. Congrats.
…there’s not much to add, either!
I said: “But whenever I do ask anti-Linux advocates to elaborate, they more often than not repeat the same myths, change the subject, or stop posting altogether.”
Your answer:
This statement alone reenforces my point of view.
Unfortunately you misunderstood what I said – or you’re trying to twist my words, whatever.
You just admitted that you negate what people say because, in your opinion, it is “the same myths, [they] change the subject, or [they] stop posting altogether.”
Not at all. First, I do not “negate what people say.” If you re-read that statement I made, what I did admit to is that, more often than not, anti-Linux advocates repeat the same myths, change the subject, or stop posting altogether. This is what I’ve seen, not what I tell them!
Did you even read what you quoted? I’m stating an opinion of what the person told me, on the merit of what they told me. I didn’t just told them “you’re wrong!” I offered counter-arguments to show that they were wrong – just like I did now: you claimed I said something, I offered a counter-argument to demonstrate that I did not. That’s called debate.
You should try it some times, instead of trying to twist other people’s words…
If you compare the Open Source community to the comercial community you’ll find that things such as these hold true in both communities. For example, there are several commercial word processors and several open source. Its about choice. I dont think we’ll even get them to unit. Hopfuly, this can provide healthy competition amoung the open source projects and thus improve quality and features. But also, i think this choice helps spread the word as one product may not be perfect for one user but another product will!
I guess I’m not sure what you’re doing. I think you’re using the word “high-end” and I’m trying to use the word “standard”.
>>>>>>>>>
Which is why I’m saying “high-end”
The programs you are talking about are not high-end, and thus not standard. I’m using high-end as in “used to make StarWars” high-end.
If you want to say that Lightwave is not high-end, then you might as well take off every other 3D CGI package you mentioned as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Maya and XSI are the big-two 3D packages, and are pretty much standard in the high-end. Programs like Mirai fill in for specific modeling tasks. Programs like 3DStudio and Lightwave are the next rung down. Lightwave, in particular, has a lot of power and is affordable, but it doesn’t have the sheer depth of Maya or XSI.
Hmm, I guess I just disagree about Lightwave. It has been used on NUMEROUS film and television productions. But hey then again, I don’t think XSI is as “high-end” as Lightwave. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
At least we seem to agree that Maya is “high-end”.
And for the record, I am a neutral player in this.
No you’re not. I’ve read quite a few of your messages, and you’ve definitely got a pro-MS bias. You should at least admit it.
I think Microsoft has a lot of good points, and I think there are some flaws as well.
Such as?
I feel the exact same way about Linux.
Really? What do you like about Linux? Do you run it on as many machines as Windows? I mean, if you feel exactly the same about the two…
My biggest problem with Linux is people with your attitude.
What, people who speak their mind about things they care about? Who offer compelling counter-arguments?
When I talk to people like you, you completely alienate me from wanting to use it anymore, or even be a part of the community.
Oh, really? Then the technical capabilities are not what interests you in an OS, but rather the attitude of posters you do not know on Internet web sites?
So I guess you can’t really say truthfully “I’ve never heard from any “neutral” individual that I’d somehow turned them off of Linux.” Because now you have.
Yeah, right.
Congrats.
Nice try. Problem is, I already knew that you didn’t care for Linux. It doesn’t take long reading your posts to figure it out. If you did instead feel the same way for both Linux and Windows, then you’d criticize Windows as often as you do Linux – but I don’t recall reading any such posts from you. That makes it kind of hard to take your “abandonment” of Linux seriously.
Really, that was kind of pathetic.
What I get tired of is that most of the people bitching about Linux don’t use it. They keep bringing up total non-issues, ones that those who actually use it don’t even consider. My favorite “myths”:
1) Linux is hard to install
2) You have to compile stuff all the time
3) There is dependency hell
4) X needs direct graphics
5) There are 100 window managers
6) Sucky fonts
7) Too many toolkits
All of these things are easily addressed. They never bring up the real problems with Linux, which indicates that they don’t really use it. Do I have my gripes about Linux? Sure! Here they are!
1) KDE is often unpolished. There are great apps like Konqueror, but a lot of apps are unpolished and (gasp!) unstable. A lot of it is simple attention to asthetics.
2) Intermediate-level configuration is still too hard. RedHat’s or SuSE’s config tools will do most simple things, but often, Windows or OS X has integrated GUI tools for intermediate things, but in Linux, you have to edit a text file. For advanced stuff, you’re in text-file or complex configuration tool land for both.
3) KDE and GNOME apps need to be smarter about redraw.
4) The APT/RPM repositories need to be more complete.
5) Not enough commercial apps for certain segments like engineering, 2D graphics, etc.
6) Better API docs for GTK, more extensive tutorial/developer guide articles.
7) Need better Qt/GTK+ integration.
A whole lot of people consider XSI to be even more powerful than Maya. Certainly, Avid is getting away with charging a lot more for it
I’ve been using the XSI EXP for Linux since it came out, and I’m certainly very impressed. The interface really is wonderfully designed.
Do I have my gripes about Linux? Sure! Here they are!
For the record, I agree with Rayiner on nearly all points. The exception would be about the RPM repositories – personally, I don’t have much problem finding stuff for Mandrake with the URPMI repositories. There are a few apps that aren’t always “bleeding edge” up-to-date, but for most important stuff it’s more than sufficient for me. YMMV depending on your needs and the distro you use, though.
Otherwise I agree on all counts.
You do not need to interact with anybody in order to use Linux. Choosing to not use Linux because you don’t like others who use it is completely irrational. Furthermore, I don’t even think it’s true in most cases; I think most people use it as an argumentative device against Linux.
Again, if that’s the best you can come up with…
@Rayiner
Unfortunately, the reason people refuse to address real concerns is that OSS succeeds at fixing it’s mistakes. Attacking our “attitude” seems to be the only criticism that stands the test of time. Of course, it’s completely wrong, but that’s beside the point. It is an opinion that one can choose to have and stick with despite evidence to the contrary.
I just say a commercial IBM ran on TV about Linux. It’s the first Linux commercial I’ve seen. Many people have often criticized Linux for not having marketing or corporate support. Marketing and corporate support are here, folks, and although Linux for mainstream desktop use is in the early stages of development, I challenge anyone to defend the view that desktop Linux will never be a reality.
That is why this article is off-base. Human error exists in OSS development, but the interests of the audience overpower the interests of the few. Take the problems of the XFree team. Look at freedesktop.org and xouvert.org. Although xouvert.org has suffered from the lead developer having problems, I still maintain that when developers get into feuds, power struggles, etc., others take the torch and once again progress continues.
Also, people overestimate how fragmented the Linux community is. All of us who use a distribution based on Linux, gcc, glibc, binutils, X, etc., have a lot in common. The more you know about Linux, the less differences you see. You can hack a RedHat box into a Gentoo box. The differences are in the defaults and the software used.
Linux has issues, but the real ones get solved. The ones listed here and many other places are factually bankrupt.
Really? I’m pro-Windows? Where do you get off saying that? If for no other reason than I am a very large part of SkyOS, a project I have chosen to work on because I don’t like everything Microsoft does, and feel there are things that can be improved upon.
Over the last 3 years, I have used Linux for probably a total of 1.5 years. While there were certainly things I was impressed with, there were many things I found lacking. I feel the same way about Windows, I think there are many good aspects of it, and certainly things that need to be improved upon. In fact, if I had to list an OS where I was a little biased TOWARDS it, I would have to say it is OS X (though I cannot afford to have a Mac at home).
Maybe you’ve missed a few of my comments that were moderated down about Windows’ shady business practices, or some of the bad aspects of their software?
I’m really about as “middle of the road” as you can get when it comes to Linux and Windows. You, on the other hand, are the typical Linux zealot. Linux can and does do no wrong in your book. If Jesus used an OS, certainly it would be Linux, in your opinion at least. What OS does the Devil use? Windows (whatever the current happens to be) no doubt, because Windows sucks! Yeah, Windows sucks, Linux rocks!
You said “Oh, really? Then the technical capabilities are not what interests you in an OS, but rather the attitude of posters you do not know on Internet web sites?” Well, when the only real technical support available for the OS comes from the community, and the community is composed almost entirely of mean-spirited zealots (with the possible exception of Lycoris), then yes, that is a big consideration of mine.
“Nice try. Problem is, I already knew that you didn’t care for Linux. It doesn’t take long reading your posts to figure it out. If you did instead feel the same way for both Linux and Windows, then you’d criticize Windows as often as you do Linux – but I don’t recall reading any such posts from you. That makes it kind of hard to take your “abandonment” of Linux seriously.”
This is, quite literally, the most baseless comment I’ve ever seen anyone post in a discussion forum. Are you basing your knowledge of my supposed stance on the three posts you’ve read from me in just this discussion? I’ve criticized Microsoft countless times in the past, many of them were moderated down because they were seen as flamebait. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about when you think you know my stance on the Microsoft vs. Linux debate, don’t even pretend you do.
The only real arguments I’ve seen you make about Linux are that it is hard to use.
Archie may be incorrect in his guess that you are “Pro-MS,” but your argument that “the community is composed almost entirely of mean-spirited zealots” is completely inane.
Head over to the Gentoo forums. Gentoo has one of the nicest communities you’ll find. I frequently find many Gentoo zealots out there throwing offtopic plugs giving no regard to the discussion at hand, but by and large the community is more that accomodating for newcomers.
I remember going to a Linux help channel a few years ago trying to get X to work. The problem was that I was typing “X,” and not “startx.” Did I get bashed? Yes, a few people laughed at me and told me to RTFM. But I also got a lot of help as well.
If I extrapolated that the entire Linux community was comprised of elitist jerks, then I would have missed out on a really cool, free OS, with a largely welcoming and amicable community.
And guess what? Sometimes I give help out to others, and it is kind of annoying to get asked a question that can easily be solved by oneself.
Go to linuxquestions.org. There is a lot of community help there. Take a look at how people get responded to and come back when you’ve formed an opinion based on facts, instead of creating facts to support your opinion. As a member of this community who sometimes devotes time helping newcomers, I take offense at you calling us “mean-spirited zealots.”
Indeed, perhaps I have only seen your posts critical of Linux, and missed your posts critical of MS. Perhaps you have been as critical of MS as Linux. If that’s the case then I’ll admit that I was wrong about this. I still don’t take your “abandonment” of Linux seriously, though – I think it’s just a rhetorical trick.
For when I see sentences such as “the community is composed almost entirely of mean-spirited zealots“, I know that you are full of it. The Linux community is often passionate, often derisive of MS (for reasons I’m sure you’ll agree with, since you are critical of MS yourself), but it is not “composed almost entirely of mean-spirited zealots.” On the contrary, I’ve found the community at large to be very helpful and friendly.
You said:
You, on the other hand, are the typical Linux zealot. Linux can and does do no wrong in your book.
Of course it can! There are things I’m not satisfied with Linux. And since it is but a tool, it can be used to do wrong things – just like any other tool.
If Jesus used an OS, certainly it would be Linux, in your opinion at least.
I’m a buddhist.
What OS does the Devil use? Windows (whatever the current happens to be) no doubt, because Windows sucks!
Actually, with the high load that Hell’s computers must surely work under, I’m pretty sure he uses a Unix of some sort.
Yeah, Windows sucks, Linux rocks!
Windows doesn’t suck. Don’t try to pigeonhole me or misrepresent what I say. You’ve already tried to twist my words, don’t make me say things I haven’t said.
If you’d read any of my recent posts on OSNews, you’d know that I actually have nothing against Windows. I use it every day. I’ve used it since 3.0. I help people with their simple Windows problems, etc. I happen to prefer Linux, but I have nothing against Windows per se. Windows’s fine, Linux is better.
I have plenty against Microsoft, but MS != Windows. I can make the distinction between the two. MS I severely condemn and will fight my customer dollars. But I am not a zealot in any sense of the word. An enthusiast, yes, but with a critical mind.
So I guess you’re totally wrong about me, huh? Now, after accusing me of the same thing, the least we can say is that this is a pretty ironic situation.
How about this: I’ll stop saying that you’re an anti-Linux advocate (since I do believe you have criticized MS as well), and you stop trying to use rhetoric tricks such as twisting my words, misrepresenting my opinions and positions, and “pretending to abandon Linux in order to punish the bad zealots.”
How does that sound?
And guess what? Sometimes I give help out to others, and it is kind of annoying to get asked a question that can easily be solved by oneself.
This is exactly what I mean. Linux isn’t as straight-forward as Windows in a lot of situations. How do you start the GUI in Windows? I dunno, you just turn the computer on and its there. How do you do it in Linux? Well, in some distros its the same as Windows. But sometimes its not, or something goes wrong and you get stuck at a command line. Who in the hell would just think to type “startx”? When you have things to click on, its pretty easy to plunk your way through to a solution. When you have to type in archaic commands, its a lot harder. So people turn to you, because you are an “expert”. Obviously, they couldn’t find the answer elsewhere so they went looking for “technical support” (as there isn’t a number you can call most of the time). And how do you (or someone that is an “elitist” at least) answer? By snapping at them because you are annoyed at having been asked the question again. Obviously there is a problem. Multiple people have asked you how to do this. Obviously they could not find the answer online. Why are you snapping at them? You should be snapping at yourself, or the Linux community in general for not making this solution easier to find.
Look, you guys don’t have to convince me, I already have a stance on the whole Windows/Linux thing. I’m just letting you know that, at least to me, one of Linux’s biggest problems is its elitist, “too good for you” community. Not everyone is like that, but enough people are that it makes it a serious problem. Microsoft’s main “human-factor” problem is the way they conduct their business, with a heavy iron fist that is, at best shady, and at worst a horrible monopoly. Linux’s main “human-factor” problem is its awful attitude towards new members.
You can choose now to say “I see your point, Linux does have problems, just like everything else, and we need to listen to all these concerns and do our best as a community to address them”, or you can choose to say “f*ck you” to me, and slap each other on the backs at another job well done. I really don’t care either way, its your community.
You still have extreme bias towards Linux and the Linux community (which is as close as I can come to a comparison of the Microsoft Corporation). You said so yourself.
I’ve found the [Linux] community at large to be very helpful and friendly.
I have plenty against Microsoft
Windows’s fine, Linux is better.
You show extreme bias towards both Linux and the Linux community (compared to Windows and Microsoft Corp.). Compare this to my opinion of Linux and Microsoft:
I think there are a lot of elitist users that plague Linux. As Thanatos pointed out, there are many helpful users. In the end, it probably balances out. I think that Microsoft uses a lot of underhanded tricks during the course of their business transgressions. But they also do a lot of good things. In the end, depending what is more important to you of course, it probably evens itself out (well, maybe a bit weighted against Microsoft).
Windows has a lot of strong points, it also has many things that need to be fixed or improved upon.
Linux has a lot of strong points, it also has many things that need to be fixed or improved upon.
That is a much more unbiased opinion. Its ok that you are biased towards Linux, just like it is ok that people are biased towards Windows. But at least admit that you are. You may not be the biggest zealot in the world (in fact, I can almost guarantee you are not), but you certainly lean heavily towards it. The definition of a zealot:
A fanatically committed person.
Are you a fanatic? Hmm, I would say probably no. But you are quite the ardent supporter, which means you have vested interest in Linux succeeding. And whenever someone has interest staked in something doing well, one should always question their alliances and motivations.
Personally, I don’t care one way or the other which OS “wins” or “loses”. When I see things that can be improved or changed for either OS, I point them out. There are no motivations, no ulterior motives. I couldn’t care less which one succeeds really.
You look at the title of this article, then you see there’s 66 comments…pure flamebait guaranteed to start a nasty argument. But this is OS NEWS.com. Where’s the news in this?
Linux’s main “human-factor” problem is its awful attitude towards new members.
That’s where you’re wrong. I was but a newbie only two years and a half ago. I didn’t find that Linux users were elitist, or unfriendly, or arrogant. Not once was I told to RTFM. This, as much as the OS itself, is what made me switch completely at home. I had found a wonderful community.
You can choose now to say “I see your point, Linux does have problems, just like everything else, and we need to listen to all these concerns and do our best as a community to address them”,
Which is what most of us here do (at least Rayiner and ThanatosNL). Note, however, that we need to listen to concerns when they’re legitimate. The problem is that there is a lot of FUD being thrown around by MS trolls and astroturfers. How can you adress something that isn’t true in the first place?
or you can choose to say “f*ck you” to me, and slap each other on the backs at another job well done.
Did anyone say “f*ck you” to you? I think you are overdramatizing things, here. Calm down. We’re all good people. It’s just OSes, no need to take it all personal.
I’ve already admitted that I was wrong to characterize you as anti-Linux. Perhaps you should now consider the fact that we are not bogeymen (again, Rayiner, ThanatosNL and me), that we welcome constructive criticism and are always ready to help out newbies.
One thing is certain: you should really stop assuming how others deal with newbies. There is no basis for you making such a statement as “Obviously, they couldn’t find the answer elsewhere so they went looking for “technical support” (as there isn’t a number you can call most of the time). And how do you (or someone that is an “elitist” at least) answer? By snapping at them because you are annoyed at having been asked the question again.”
This is a completely unfounded allegation. It’s not because ThanatosNL is annoyed at a question that this automatically translates in “snapping” at those who asked the question! This isn’t even Linux-related! God knows I’ve been asked annoying Windows questions before! And, believe me, there’s plenty of situations with Windows where things go wrong and a newbie will be totally lost…
Seriously, if you can’t refrain from misinterpreting everything we say and keep trying to portray us as mean-spirited zealots when we aren’t , then I see no point in continuing this discussion.
It really sounds as if you’ve got large chip on your shoulder re: the Linux community. Whatever happened to you, don’t project a bad experience on the entire community – because when you insult that community, you’re insulting us as well.
Let me make this easy for you. You took the following statement:
And guess what? Sometimes I give help out to others, and it is kind of annoying to get asked a question that can easily be solved by oneself.
And extrapolated:
And how do you (or someone that is an “elitist” at least) answer? By snapping at them because you are annoyed at having been asked the question again. Obviously there is a problem.
Not only is this not the case for me (you seemed to address this at least), but it’s not the case for most people seeking help. If you want to make that kind of claim, show some evidence. Show me that most help requests are treated by “snapping at [the requester].” Show me some irc logs, newsgroup posts, etc., where members of the community openly bash the person seeking help.
Also, you said:
Obviously, they couldn’t find the answer elsewhere so they went looking for “technical support” (as there isn’t a number you can call most of the time)
1) It is not obvious that they couldn’t find the answer elsewhere.
2) I bought RedHat 7.0 when it first came out (I was relatively new to Linux). I e-mailed their support team for help with my modem, and got a quick response. That’s not a 900 number, but it is support.
Also, while it may not be obvious to type ‘startx’ to get into the gui, most modern distributions throw you into X automatically by default.
Why don’t you see that your negative impression of the community is based on a few loudmouth individuals, and not the majority of the community? We hate those jerks too! There’s still a lot more of us than them.
Biased? Someone is biased when their opinion clouds their judgement. You say I’m biased in favor of the Linux community, I’ll say you’re biased against it. Or at least you contradict yourself. Compare these two sentences you wrote:
I think there are a lot of elitist users that plague Linux. As Thanatos pointed out, there are many helpful users. In the end, it probably balances out.
vs.
the [Linux] community is composed almost entirely of mean-spirited zealots
I do prefer Linux to Windows, but I don’t let it cloud my judgement. Windows is a very capable OS, and is unbeaten in number of applications. If only for games, Windows has a wider catalog by a couple of orders of magnitude. I’ve also identified what I consider to be some problems with Linux.
So while I certainly have a preference, I do not have a bias. The two are not synonyms. If I was biased, that would mean that I’d make false statements in order to support my point of view. We shown to be wrong I admit it, and I do not hide behind tired old myths and FUD.
I am not biased against Windows. I am kind of biased against MS – well, let’s just say they’ve used enough dirty tricks against the competition that I do feel they are fair game, but again, those are two different things. MS != Windows.
I don’t want Windows to “lose” or Linux to “win”. I do want Linux to have an important market share, and consequently for Windows’ market share to drop. I would like a world where OSes coexist peacefully – I’ve said this quite a few times before. And I’d love to try out SkyOS sometimes – though you do realize that, keeping it closed-source, you mark yourselves as a potential target of Microsoft if you ever garner any success…look at what happen to BeOS!
Then again, it’s your choice, and I respect that. And I do wish you the best of luck. Just stop thinking that we’re rabid zealots, and then I promise we won’t act like them! 🙂
Again, I have no vested interest in the outcome of this. Therefore, it is impossible for me to have a chip on my shoulder in regards to the situation. I’ve made my case, and you’ve negated it. You obviously looked at my concerns and decided that they’re not “legitimate”. Fine, you just invalidated me. I approached you with what I see as problems, and you basically told me “no”. Whatever, if you feel this has benefited the Linux community, then that’s your prerogative.
/end discussion
…here on the eastern seaboard. I’m off to bed (mods can delete this post if they feel like it.) Good night…and peace! It’s just an OS…
Another thing; I wouldn’t file bug reports regularly if I were in denial about Linux’s problems. Furthermore, OSS projects wouldn’t have so many bug reports filed by so many people if the community as a whole pretended problems didn’t exist.
Your statement that we can either choose to accept Linux’s problems or shoot the “messenger” and pretend they don’t exist is completely off-base. You haven’t even given any real problems for us to accept! You’ve stated several times that Linux as a whole has lots of problems, and we all agree! Rayiner even made a list of them! OSS would never evolve if the community never admitted to it’s problems.
The simple truth is that you have an outdated, overgeneralized impression of Linux, and an unjustified negative view of it’s community.
I approached you with what I see as problems, and you basically told me “no”.
Jeez, you keep looking for a fight, don’t you? And then you say it’s I who’ve got an attitude problem?
Okay, answer this: what problem did you approach me with, and how did I tell you “no.”
If it’s about the Linux community all being mean to you, what can I say, I had a different experience.
Again: what Linux-related problem have you submitted to you, and how have I negated your answers without trying to give counter-arguments of my own?
You’ve been misinterpreting what we’ve been saying and misrepresenting our positions all night! Whenever we’ve tried to meet you half-way, you’ve come back with more erroneous extrapolations and fallacious statements about a community which is mostly comprised of helpful and friendly individuals.
It seems as if you’re tring to start a fight, so you can say afterwards “see how mean they are, they just want to fight!” You keep on debating, but when someone offers a counter-argument, you whine that they’re “negating you.” And then you make blanket remarks about an entire community.
And then you say you have no personal agenda…yeah, right!
And to say that, in the end, I did think you were a reasonable person. Thanks for wasting my time!
“Again: what Linux-related problem have you submitted to me, and how have I negated your answers without trying to give counter-arguments of my own?”
Let me first say, while I use Windows mainly, but have it dual-booting with Gentoo.
I usually defend Windows only because I feel it is easily the best OS for a desktop. I feel Linux has it’s place, just not on most people’s desktop.
Secondly, I feel the Open Source community has it’s place, but is severly flawed. These flaws limits what can be done.
> You do not need to interact with anybody in order to use Linux. Choosing to not use Linux because you don’t like others who use it is completely irrational.
There is something to be said by being turned off by abrassive members of the Linux community.
> Furthermore, I don’t even think it’s true in most cases; I think most people use it as an argumentative device against Linux.
> Again, if that’s the best you can come up with…
I hope not too
> Unfortunately, the reason people refuse to address real concerns is that OSS succeeds at fixing it’s mistakes.
Fixes are made only after the software reaches the user, but that time it is oftern too late. It requires the user to be part of the community. If this is possible, OSS can work, other wise it can not.
> Attacking our “attitude” seems to be the only criticism that stands the test of time. Of course, it’s completely wrong, but that’s beside the point. It is an opinion that one can choose to have and stick with despite evidence to the contrary.
This “attitude” exists, but many people take it personally and should not. It is about being part of the community. If you are not, members of the community try and get you in. If you don’t want to be in, they don’t care about you. This is the attitude. I personally have no problem with it.
> I just say a commercial IBM ran on TV about Linux. It’s the first Linux commercial I’ve seen. Many people have often criticized Linux for not having marketing or corporate support.
IBM server commercials are out there. Linux is great for servers, no doubt.
> Marketing and corporate support are here, folks, and although Linux for mainstream desktop use is in the early stages of development, I challenge anyone to defend the view that desktop Linux will never be a reality.
Severs is a market that can sell support. Support is actaully required in these markets. Desktops can not sell support, at least it is much harder. Linux is making strides on the server. Not on the desktop, yet. I have nver said Linux will never reach the desktop. I have always said they just have hurddles to overcome first.
> Also, people overestimate how fragmented the Linux community is. All of us who use a distribution based on Linux, gcc, glibc, binutils, X, etc., have a lot in common. The more you know about Linux, the less differences you see. You can hack a RedHat box into a Gentoo box. The differences are in the defaults and the software used.
The only issues with this that I see are different packaging systems. This is not really a big issue, more of an annoyance.
> Linux has issues, but the real ones get solved. The ones listed here and many other places are factually bankrupt.
Linux has issues. Some can be solved but some can not. Linux can be competitve on the server. Support is important here. A support-based business model can not work on the desktop. Thus, how can Linux thrive on the desktop?
A support-based business model can not work on the desktop. Thus, how can Linux thrive on the desktop?
Well, you can have proprietary programs made for Linux. Just because the OS is free doesn’t mean that the apps have to be – for example, I bought a copy of Neverwinter Nights for Linux. The code isn’t open, I cannot redistribute it, etc. It is closed, and yet it hasn’t been denounced by the community.
The problem is actually with proprietary OSes that reach a monopoly position, as the company who produces the OS can use its access to the source code to gain an unfair advantage over the competition. A free and open OS ensures a level playing field for all.
There is something to be said by being turned off by abrassive members of the Linux community.
True. Just like there is something to be said about being turned off by Microsoft’s corporate behavior, or the abrasive attitude of some of its advocates. But the theory that there are more “zealots” or “mean-spirited” persons among pro-Linux posters than pro-MS posters has yet to be proven true. In fact, from what I can tell, it’s probably an even proportion in both camps – at least on this site.
Also, a distinction must be made between frankly speaking your mind while providing compelling arguments to support your opinions, and just telling people off. As I’ve said before, it’s as if standing up for what you believe in is a bad thing that should be frowned upon… This is incompatible with freedom of speech and the nature of the Internet.
And, frankly, if you think these discussions we’re having here are abrasive, then I suggest you go post your opinions on on Usenet “advocacy” newsgroups, or even on popular web sites such as Fark.com. You’ll see that our exchanges here are actually quite civilized!
Don’t be oversensitive, and defend your opinions with solid arguments – that’s all that should be required for posting on such comments section as this one.
> Well, you can have proprietary programs made for Linux. Just because the OS is free doesn’t mean that the apps have to be – for example, I bought a copy of Neverwinter Nights for Linux. The code isn’t open, I cannot redistribute it, etc. It is closed, and yet it hasn’t been denounced by the community.
Programs fine, but the OS itself still is still lacks a working business model.
> The problem is actually with proprietary OSes that reach a monopoly position, as the company who produces the OS can use its access to the source code to gain an unfair advantage over the competition. A free and open OS ensures a level playing field for all.
What exactly do you refer to here?
> There is something to be said by being turned off by abrassive members of the Linux community.
> True. Just like there is something to be said about being turned off by Microsoft’s corporate behavior, or the abrasive attitude of some of its advocates. But the theory that there are more “zealots” or “mean-spirited” persons among pro-Linux posters than pro-MS posters has yet to be proven true. In fact, from what I can tell, it’s probably an even proportion in both camps – at least on this site.
Agreed. I was just saying that I can see how anyone can look upon a community as hostile if their first impression was hostile.
> Also, a distinction must be made between frankly speaking your mind while providing compelling arguments to support your opinions, and just telling people off. As I’ve said before, it’s as if standing up for what you believe in is a bad thing that should be frowned upon…
I personally have never had a problem with that and try to back up claims.
> This is incompatible with freedom of speech and the nature of the Internet.
> And, frankly, if you think these discussions we’re having here are abrasive, then I suggest you go post your opinions on on Usenet “advocacy” newsgroups, or even on popular web sites such as Fark.com. You’ll see that our exchanges here are actually quite civilized!
Hahaha… own3d!!!
> Don’t be oversensitive, and defend your opinions with solid arguments – that’s all that should be required for posting on such comments section as this one.
I agree.
Programs fine, but the OS itself still is still lacks a working business model.
But does the OS really need a business model? The OS is a framework – there’s nothing wrong with having an open, free framework! You don’t have to “monetize” the OS. In fact, the whole idea of marketing the OS is kind of strange, when you think about it.
What exactly do you refer to here?
I wouldn’t be surprised if MS kept “trade secrets” to itself so it could better integrate its own products. MS Office preloading and tight integration of IE into the OS are two examples.
I was just saying that I can see how anyone can look upon a community as hostile if their first impression was hostile.
True. And in fact it is entirely conceivable to have “fake” Linux enthusiasts trolling boards in order to give the community a bad name. That is why it’s important to stay polite and keep debate at a rational level.
I personally have never had a problem with that and try to back up claims.
I believe you. This wasn’t aimed at you, btw.
> But does the OS really need a business model?
Yes, or else no one will use it.
> The OS is a framework – there’s nothing wrong with having an open, free framework! You don’t have to “monetize” the OS. In fact, the whole idea of marketing the OS is kind of strange, when you think about it.
Not really, market is for a user to know the product. If a user doesn’t know Linux exists, they won’t use it.
> I wouldn’t be surprised if MS kept “trade secrets” to itself so it could better integrate its own products. MS Office preloading and tight integration of IE into the OS are two examples.
Do you have proof of this?
> True. And in fact it is entirely conceivable to have “fake” Linux enthusiasts trolling boards in order to give the community a bad name. That is why it’s important to stay polite and keep debate at a rational level.
True.
> I believe you. This wasn’t aimed at you, btw.
I understand, and I have no problem with your style either
Yes, or else no one will use it.
I disagree. There are public infrastructures that no one “owns” yet everybody uses, such as roads. It’s very conceivable to have an OS that is part of the public good, upon which other people can build commercial ventures. In fact, not only is it possible, but it’s already here with Linux. It might not have a large desktop base (though it is still a couple of million users), but it has a considerable market share in the server world.
Not really, market is for a user to know the product. If a user doesn’t know Linux exists, they won’t use it.
You’re forgetting the strongest advertisement money can’t buy: word of mouth. The fact that Linux got where it is today with virtually no marketing whatsoever is quite telling.
Do you have proof of this?
Well, the fact that MS Office is preloaded is well-known, and the tight integration of IE with the OS is also common knowledge. Same thing goes for the Media Player. For the last two items, MS actually pleaded in court that it could not remove them without crippling the OS (which isn’t true, but still an indication that these apps are better integrated with the rest of the OS than offerings from competitors).
Programs fine, but the OS itself still is still lacks a working business model.
You know, people said that Linux could be a good home router, but never be an “enterprise-ready” server. This was before Linux got corporate backing.
I believe that Linux can become a better desktop operating system for most people than Windows. If what you say is true, then it may never be as popular without marketing, but I guess I’ll wait and see. I don’t particularly mind it; progress will continue since the community is already *huge,* albeit underground.
Corporations help, but OSS development model works at developing quality software. It may not work at marketing, but Linux has already gotten writeups at many popular websites (albeit most of them say it’s “not ready”).
I guess my biggest point here is just “wait and see.”
Great Cthulhu :
> I disagree. There are public infrastructures that no one “owns” yet everybody uses, such as roads. It’s very conceivable to have an OS that is part of the public good, upon which other people can build commercial ventures.
You miss my point. My point is that no one has successfully buits a commecial venture for the desktop market using Linux.
> In fact, not only is it possible, but it’s already here with Linux. It might not have a large desktop base (though it is still a couple of million users), but it has a considerable market share in the server world.
As I said, a server market can work using a support based model. A desktop market can not. Nobody has a working model to sell Linux on the desktop.
> You’re forgetting the strongest advertisement money can’t buy: word of mouth. The fact that Linux got where it is today with virtually no marketing whatsoever is quite telling.
Word of mouth only works on peers, the average computer user will not try something because a computer expert says it is good. They need to hear it from another average user.
> Well, the fact that MS Office is preloaded is well-known, and the tight integration of IE with the OS is also common knowledge.
MS Office is pre-loaded, but is still a seperate product. IE is integrated, I give you that.
> Same thing goes for the Media Player. For the last two items, MS actually pleaded in court that it could not remove them without crippling the OS (which isn’t true, but still an indication that these apps are better integrated with the rest of the OS than offerings from competitors).
IE I give into. Media player too I guess, but nothing forces me to use media player or IE. I personally have no problem with MS including whatever they want within the law. If the law is broken, I let the courts figure it out.
ThanatosNL:
> You know, people said that Linux could be a good home router, but never be an “enterprise-ready” server. This was before Linux got corporate backing.
They only have corporate backing because they have a way to sell Linux on servers.
> I believe that Linux can become a better desktop operating system for most people than Windows. If what you say is true, then it may never be as popular without marketing, but I guess I’ll wait and see. I don’t particularly mind it; progress will continue since the community is already *huge,* albeit underground.
What has become a mainstream product withour some kind of marketing or business model behind it?
> Corporations help, but OSS development model works at developing quality software. It may not work at marketing, but Linux has already gotten writeups at many popular websites (albeit most of them say it’s “not ready”).
That is my point. OSS can make quality software, but may never be exposed to the mainstream.
> I guess my biggest point here is just “wait and see.”
I always am, the problem is that there seems, right now, to be little hope. Something big needs to happen.