The Free Standards Group has decided to move away from a single, core LSB (Linux Standards Base) specification, and is instead going to break this down into different modules that can be combined to give a server or desktop LSB standard. Elsewhere, Bill Gates has sent an email to all Microsoft’s corporate customers warning that those in search of technological interoperability shouldn’t look towards open source software.
Group to Divide Linux Standards Base
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Elsewhere, Bill Gates has sent an email to all Microsoft’s corporate customers warning that those in search of technological interoperability shouldn’t look towards open source software.
I can understand the man pretty well. After all, those who look towards the OSS are indeed likely to find technological interoperability, and that’s a scary perspective for some, isn’t it?
“those in search of technological interoperability shouldn’t look towards open source software.”
Yes, he’ll make sure of that!
I would be ROFL, if I wasn’t too busy sighing in dismay. Let’s ask Bill why MS Office can’t open StarOffice/OpenOffice docs, even though it is an open standard. Let’s ask Bill why IE hasn’t managed a CSS2 implementation yet. Let’s ask Bill who’s making sure his .Net baby is actually multi-platform.
Let’s ask Bill what in the world *he* means by interoperability.
Why would Microsoft waste their time catering to a group that no comprises not even a single digit percentage of the desktop office software market? And by market I mean the people who use word processors and the like to accomplish actual work, rather than writing up software reviews for their blog.
Additionally, why should Microsoft feel forced to support an unofficial, reverse-engineered clone of their popular .Net platform?
It seems evident that your so-called “open standards” are not truly free…
The Free Standards Group has decided to move away from a single, core LSB (Linux Standards Base) specification
Very good idea. Each Linux distro should define its own LSB (Linux Standard Base) and should follow it to the letter.
100 Linux distros- 100 LSBs. That will support freedom of choice.
If you don’t like it- create your own, 101-st Linux distro, which will follow yours LSB standard (101-st). Freedom means freedom, right?
Why does the LSB even matter to the desktop? In order for an application to not look ass-ugly it’s going to have to use QT or GTK2 otherwise it will look like an alien in the context of whatever your distribution standard uses. I can understand need for the LSB on the server, where some users may want to run binary apps from commercial vendors that run as daemons.
But if a vendor ships a product for the desktop it would likely be based on gtk2 (or maybe qt), which means that any sort of standardization is useless unless the LSB picks a widget set and declares that to be standard. Anything less will mean that LSB/desktop apps will be ass-ugly on every platform and commercial vendors would just ignore the LSB. I’m not sure there is a good answer here.
As opposed to yet more vendor lock in by Microsoft? Yes, by all means, give us no choice at all. We don’t really need it anyway, right?
Let’s ask Bill what in the world *he* means by interoperability.
Perhaps the ability for future Microsoft products to read
data from existing products, so that upgrades to new Microsoft products can be done easily. At least as long as old Microsoft products doesn’t need to read data from newer versions of Microsoft software. But never mind, there is a solution for that…
i’m fed up with installing a distro, only to find after 12 months i can’t install anything new without faffing around with third-party dependencies and upgrades and manual compilations and, if worst comes to worst full upgrades of the whole bloody os
Debian or Ubuntu are what you need. apt-get update; apt-get upgrade. Oh, and stable is for sissy’s using testing (sarge) or unstable to stay really current.
“technological interoperability”
According to whose standards — Microsoft’s or what the rest of the world wants?
Very good idea. Each Linux distro should define its own LSB (Linux Standard Base) and should follow it to the letter.
You should RTFA. This has nothing to do with having different LSB for different distros. Rather, it’s breaking up the LSB into different modules that can be combined to form a Server LSB, a Desktop LSB, an Embedded LSB, a Cluster LSB, and so on. It actually makes a lot of sense.
You criticism was completely off-target. I suggest you think things through before your next trolling effort.
yeah that’s just what we need, MORE ‘standards’. app installation is already a disaster on linux (which distro? whick release? which package format? which shared libraries installed?)
I think you’re a little bit confused about what the LSB is, and what is proposed here. It is not “new” standards, it is a common standard base to which you’re either compliant or not. It has nothing to do with how apps are installed, but rather what is installed. What shared libraries are installed, for example – in other words, it’s there to solve one of the issues you raised, and thus you should be in favor of it.
Now, when I say it has nothing to do with how packages are installed, that’s because you can have a LSB-compliant Mandrake install (which uses RPMs), a LSB-compliant Debian install (which uses .deb packages) or a LSB-compliant Gentoo system (which compiles from source).
However, if you think that Package Managers are too complex, you should look into Klik, which will make software installation in Linux much easier than anything equivalent in the Windows world…
i mean, you could install windows 2000 back in 2000, and still run 99% of recent apps on it from ONE source today. try that on a 2000 linux distro like red hat 6.1 – no way.
If the app is only available for Red Hat 6.1, then stick with that. If not, well, upgrading is a quick and easy process with modern package managers.
and it doesn’t matter if upgrading is ‘free’ because that still takes time, is awkward and bumps up hardware requirements each time
False, false and false. Upgrading is a breeze with modern package managers such as URPMI. And it’s simply not true that upgrading will bump up hardware requirements every time. Case in point: KDE 3.3 takes less resources than KDE 3.0 because of streamlining of code.
On the other hand, upgrading from Win98 to WinXP will require more resources, and possibly a hardware upgrade as well.
i’m fed up with installing a distro, only to find after 12 months i can’t install anything new without faffing around with third-party dependencies and upgrades and manual compilations
You must install some pretty esoteric software, because on my Mandrake box I’ve never had to “faf” around with such hassles.
if a new app comes out thats not on your distro, you have to go through all kinds of messy business.
Every time I hear about a new exciting app, it’s always available on the Mandrake repositories.
it’s a nightmare. windows 98/2k/XP – double click and its there
Win98? Yeah, right…
Anyway, there are equivalent or better installers available for Linux (autopackage, the OpenOffice installer, the Loki-based Codeweavers installer, Klik, Zeroinstall).
i want to love linux, but while it’s conistantly slower than windows (kde/gnome/openoffice – they need serious work)
KDE is not any slower than WinXP on similar hardware. I work daily with both and there’s no speed issue with Linux at all. Perhaps you should try a modern distro.
and needs so much bloody babying to install apps and drivers
It doesn’t. Installing software is actually easier under a modern Linux distro than under Windows, and Package Managers are much more powerful than the Windows Add/Remove Programs wizard.
people have been saying its the year of the linux desktop for what, 5 years now?? why aren’t they sorting out the REAL problems instead of just throwing junk everywhere making it all slow and even more complex?
They are solving real problems, and making the code more efficient and fast. Linux is evolving at a much quicker pace than Windows ever did.
Now, to get back on topic, the story is about how the LSB will be made modular (i.e., better). Try to discuss that instead of spreading FUD, please.
Microsoft number one man is eighter completely ignorant or suffer from serious mental illness!
Microsoft applications are incompatible with themselves and TOTALY INOPERATIVE with one another and totaly nonstandard.
When my daughter does her homework in MS WORD97 I used to
repeat this mantra:”FORGET *.DOC format do *.RTF *.TXT”
Otherwise , there’s no way to print her homework on my Win2000/MSOffice2000 PC which printer is attached to.
Nor she can continue with her work at home once she starts editing file in MS Publisher 2003 in shcool and I have only MS Publisher 2000 on my home PC.
But, yes, I agree Microsoft really needs INTEROPERABILITY
since there are more and more LINUX users who are blaming their friends who are sending their MS formated or (misformatted?) files.
Fortunetaly my duaghters and my wife are doing their computing on Xandros Desktop 2.0 Business edition more and more.
I would be ROFL, if I wasn’t too busy sighing in dismay. Let’s ask Bill why MS Office can’t open StarOffice/OpenOffice docs, even though it is an open standard. Let’s ask Bill why IE hasn’t managed a CSS2 implementation yet. Let’s ask Bill who’s making sure his .Net baby is actually multi-platform.
Let’s ask Bill what in the world *he* means by interoperability.
Microsoft Blue(TM) will interoperate with any* Blue(TM).
* Must be #086DCD (pat. pend.) or 100% compatible and licensed
Why would Microsoft waste their time catering to a group that no comprises not even a single digit percentage of the desktop office software market?
Thank you for proving my point! Why *would* MS do such a thing? There’s certainly no profit in it! And since it’s proprietary, the only features that will ever be added are the ones that are profitable to MS. Including interoperability features. So who was Bill telling us we could count on for interoperability again? Oh right, MS…
Additionally, why should Microsoft feel forced to support an unofficial, reverse-engineered clone of their popular .Net platform?
I’m not talking about their lack of support for Mono. (who would want them supporting it anyway?) I’m talking about the fact that when MS says “interoperability”, they don’t mean with anything that might potentially be competition. If the .Net framework results in true cross-platform interoperability, it will be in spite of MS, not because of them.
Java would be another case in point… MS’s only use for interoperability is as a veil for their embrace-and-extend, vendor-locking, competition-killing campaigns.
I’m talking about the fact that when MS says “interoperability”, they don’t mean with anything that might potentially be competition. If the .Net framework results in true cross-platform interoperability, it will be in spite of MS, not because of them.
Very well said.
However, if you think that Package Managers are too complex, you should look into Klik, which will make software installation in Linux much easier than anything equivalent in the Windows world…
will? but when? people have been saying this for years. and how can it be any easier than double-click-install a la windows? its amazing when people talk about these package managers as if they’re a blessing from god when they are needlessly complicated – the fact that a ‘package manager’ is needed instead of double-click-install is a crutch and problem
If the app is only available for Red Hat 6.1, then stick with that. If not, well, upgrading is a quick and easy process with modern package managers.
that’s a terrible excuse. so whereas on windows 2000 i can install what i please, on linux i have to upgrade my distro every 6 months or be stuck with age-old apps? that is a BIG problem!!
You must install some pretty esoteric software, because on my Mandrake box I’ve never had to “faf” around with such hassles.
take this case in point:
i install linux (say red hat 6.1) in 2000. a few years later, i want to install a new app – for example the latest evolution. oh, it requires new gnome libs. which in turn require new atk/pango/bleh. which in turn requires a new gtk. which in turn requires a new glibc. i am happy with my current os but have to upgrade it all for one app?
on windows 2000 – i double-click the new app and it installs
if you don’t see that as a problem, clearly you will be wondering why linux has such a tiny market share in ANOTHEr 5 years……
KDE is not any slower than WinXP on similar hardware. I work daily with both and there’s no speed issue with Linux at all
i have tried several linux distros, they all boot slower than xp/2k3, all feel more sluggish on the desktop, firefox takes longer to start than ie, openoffice takes longer to start than ms office
i don’t care what ‘tricks’ they use – it is a faster and more productive overall experience. crappy xp boxes full of spyware and pointless gadgets may be slow, but in my experience a well maintained xp/2k3 box is much faster and more pleasant than the disk-grinding linux distros
and it seems my experience is shared, look at the osnews story ‘is linux getting fat’, there were loads of replies from windows users who had tried linux, all with the same dismay at its slowless
answers like ‘use fluxbox’ are crap – i should throw away the whole desktop just to get respectable speed???
Installing software is actually easier under a modern Linux distro than under Windows
the more you say that, the worse it looks. i repeat, for 99.999% of situations
windows – double click and its installed
linux – mess around with ‘package managers’, finding rpm or deb or tgz or ebuild or… for your distro, but as long as your distro isnt over 6 months out of date or youll have to upgrade the other kde/gnome libs but they have not been packaged for your distro so youll have to compile from source but wait that needs gcc and…
if you really think software installation in general on linux comes even close to windows, you need help!
as said, i really do want to like linux. i hate microsofts business practices and poor security. but every time i try linux ,when people have been saying its so fast and easy and stable and secure, it still feels slower, is full of scripts/libraries/config files all over the place, is a nightmare to run modern apps unless i keep making sweeping upgrades etc.
security is a let down too, i installed ubuntu the other day and guess what – 80 megs of security updates were downloaded during installation. wtf! ubuntu only came out like 5 months ago!
form a Server LSB, a Desktop LSB, an Embedded LSB, a Cluster LSB, and so on. It actually makes a lot of sense.
Yes, it does. Following the same route, x86 LSB makes a lot of sense. Intel LSB follwed by AMD LSB is good, too. 32bit LSB vs. 64bit LSB makes a lot of sense.
What is wrong with Red Hat Server LSB and Fedora desktop LSB, and Debian “mother of many distros” LSB?
What, will not happen? How would you be sure? You listed four LSB already- it was only one LSB just a week ago.
*******************
You can figure out where the problem is, or you can keep calling me and other people names if it makes feel you better.
will? but when?
Klik is already here, but not all programs have been packaged for it (obviously). But it is progressing at a very fast pace.
people have been saying this for years.
Not really. Klik is recent development. However, other improvements have been made for software installation under Linux (URPMI, Click’n’Run, Red Carpet, Xandros Networks).
how can it be any easier than double-click-install a la windows?
Easy: the program and dependencies are all contained in a single file. Double-click on the file (or on a shortcut to that file) to launch the program. So it is, in fact, easier than double-click-install.
the fact that a ‘package manager’ is needed instead of double-click-install is a crutch and problem
Dude, there is a package manager on Windows. It’s called Add/Remove Programs. Package managers are essential for managing modern computers, and make system administration a breeze.
that’s a terrible excuse. so whereas on windows 2000 i can install what i please, on linux i have to upgrade my distro every 6 months or be stuck with age-old apps? that is a BIG problem!!
The problem is that you’re not being fair in your comparison. Comparing RedHat 6.1 to RedHat 9 (or whatever they are at right) now is like comparing Win98 to Win2K. It’s Apples and Oranges. You can’t install some programs made for Win2K on Win98.
The fact is that Linux development is faster than Windows development, so new distro versions come out faster than Windows versions.
i install linux (say red hat 6.1) in 2000. a few years later, i want to install a new app – for example the latest evolution. oh, it requires new gnome libs. which in turn require new atk/pango/bleh. which in turn requires a new gtk. which in turn requires a new glibc. i am happy with my current os but have to upgrade it all for one app?
Same thing for Windows. If you installed Win98 but want to use a new app that’s only available for Win2K, then you’ll have to upgrade your OS.
Then again, with Klik you’d be able to use the new program by simply double-clicking on it…
in my experience a well maintained xp/2k3 box is much faster and more pleasant than the disk-grinding linux distros
Your experience has been limited, it appears. I work on nearly identical machines at work and at home, with Win2K at work and Mandrake 10.1 at home, and there is no speed difference – with the exception of the double-buffered desktop on Windows, which makes thing appear a tiny bit snappier. This is already availabe for Linux, but still experimental. By spring it should be more stable.
I don’t use OpenOffice on Linux (I use MS Office) so I wouldn’t know, but the preload trick is available for OpenOffice as well and it makes the program load as fast as MS Office (or so I hear). I use Konqueror as my main browser and it is preloaded, so it starts as fast as IE or Windows Explorer does on Windows (except it’s a much superior program).
and it seems my experience is shared, look at the osnews story ‘is linux getting fat’, there were loads of replies from windows users who had tried linux, all with the same dismay at its slowless
Take this testimony with a grain of salt. There are dozens of anti-Linux posters here with a clear FUD agenda. In my experience, both systems are snappy and there is no noticeable speed difference (except for the aforementioned, minor point about desktop double-buffering).
linux – mess around with ‘package managers’, finding rpm or deb or tgz or ebuild or… for your distro
That sentence makes no sense. Using a package manager, all you have to do is check the box next to the software you want to install/upgrade in the list on the nice GUI application for it. Let’s say I want to install the new versions of Firefox, Evolution, Gimp and Mplayer (with all associated dependencies). This is what I would do:
1) Start Rpmdrake by clicking on its icon
2) Click on “update media” to make sure I’ve got the latest information
3) Click on the Firefox checkbox
4) Confirm the list of dependecy (if any) by clicking OK
5) Click on the Evolution checkbox
6) Confirm the list of dependecy (if any) by clicking OK
7) Click on the Gimp checkbox
8) Confirm the list of dependecy (if any) by clicking OK
9) Click on the Mplayer checkbox
10) Confirm the list of dependecy (if any) by clicking OK
11) Click “Install”
12) Sit back and relax
13) Click OK when all is done
14) Close Rpmdrake
All in all, 9 to 13 clicks, depending on dependencies.
Now, doing the same thing on Windows
1) Start browser (1 click)
2) Go to Microsoft’s web site (type in name + enter, or choose from menu – let’s be generous and say 1 click)
3) Try to find the Outlook Download page (if you’re lucky, in 3 clicks)
4) Click Download
5) Run the installer (1 click)
6) Accept EULA (1 click)
7) Click “Next” a couple of times (average: 3 clicks)
8) Go to Firefox home page (type in name + enter, or choose from menu – again we’ll be generous and count it as 1 click)
9) Click on the Download link (1 click)
10) Confirm where you want to save it (1 or more clicks – let’s say it saves on the desktop by default)
11) Close the browser (1 click)
12) Double-click on Firefox Icon
13) Agree to the license agreement (1 click)
14) Confirm where you want to install Firefox (1 click)
15) Close Window once Firefox is installed (1 click)
We’re already at almost 20 clicks, and we still have two more apps to install… Yeah, that’s much easier!!!
I think you’re confusing “simple” and “familiar”. You’re used to the Windows way, so other ways seem more complex to you even though they aren’t.
as long as your distro isnt over 6 months out of date or youll have to upgrade the other kde/gnome libs but they have not been packaged for your distro
I think you are underestimating the time it takes for new software to be available on a distro’s repository. For Mandrake, it usually takes about a week or two, tops.
80 megs of security updates were downloaded during installation. wtf! ubuntu only came out like 5 months ago!
I don’t use Unbutu, so I wouldn’t know, but realize the sheer quantity of software on a Linux distro vs. a bare-bones Windows install. You’re not just updating vulnerabilities in the OS, but in every software installed, from the Web server to the Office suite to the image processing software to the CD-burning program. Now, imagine updating the security vulnerabilities for all those apps in Windows, and how much longer it would take…
Anyway, if you don’t like Linux, don’t use it. You don’t have to come and spread FUD on web sites to justify your personal preferences… Personally, I use and like both OSes (though I really don’t like MS’s corporate practices) – but I really do think that software management is a lot simpler and more powerful under Linux (once you get out of the Windows mindset, that is…)
Yes, it does. Following the same route, x86 LSB makes a lot of sense. Intel LSB follwed by AMD LSB is good, too. 32bit LSB vs. 64bit LSB makes a lot of sense.
No, it doesn’t. You can have a AMD Server or a x86 Server. Who cares what the processor is? It’s a servers and fulfill a definite function – the processor is irrelevant. The LSB is linked to the machine’s general function, not its hardware. Your argument is based on false premises, and therefore faulty.
What is wrong with Red Hat Server LSB and Fedora desktop LSB, and Debian “mother of many distros” LSB?
This won’t happen because it would defeat the purpose of what the LSB is – i.e. a cross-distro standards base. Again, you don’t seem to understand what they want to do here, preferring instead to extrapolate irrelevant doomsday scenarios based on faulty logic.
What, will not happen? How would you be sure? You listed four LSB already- it was only one LSB just a week ago.
Are you arguing that a server is identical in fuction to an embedded system, or a desktop? Why should an embedded device have exactly the same standard base as a server? They’ll share a common module, but have their own specific modules, which makes perfect sense.
Again, you criticism is way off-target. This is a smart thing to do, and will continue to maintain cross-platform standards compliance.
You can figure out where the problem is, or you can keep calling me and other people names if it makes feel you better.
Aw, did I hurt your feelings? Are you sad? Do you feel humiliated?
Well, you shouldn’t, because I didn’t call you any names. That is, simply put, a blatantly false accusation. I did say you were trolling, but that’s not calling you names by any definition. The fact is that you were trolling, i.e. making deliberately provocative statements in order to elicit a response (in this case, statements based on faulty logic, and therefore inaccurate).
Just thought I’d point out that LSB does specify how packages should come, either in rpm format, or with an installer that’s LSB compliant.
Steve Jobs has stated that he has recently handed over his reality distortion field to Bill Gates. “I just knew it was time to pull my head from the clouds and realise what was going on in the world” he said.
From now on all comments from Steve will be credible but from Bill to be taken with a ghrain of salt or a crack pipe.
On a side note, Windows fan boys, Hands up ANYONE who is running an original install of Windows 98 and utilising current Windows software, be it office, Adobe products, Video/Audio or games? Anyone?
I seriously doubt it. Any Win98 install from that period would have had countless Hard Drive formats and re-installs cause program management in Windows is shot. The regestry is a bad piece of software design and can’t handle day to day tasks required by a modern OS. Can’t wait for WinFS to comeout. More crap from MS to give many support people lots of money.
The problem is that you’re not being fair in your comparison. Comparing RedHat 6.1 to RedHat 9 (or whatever they are at right) now is like comparing Win98 to Win2K.
the point is: i can install windows 2000, and five years later be installing the latest software with a simple double-click.
i install a linux distro in 2000, and barely 12 months on i need to do a whole os upgrade because the newest apps all require a massive chain of dependencies thats a huge job to upgrade by hand
see my evolution example as a real-life case. this is a MAJOR problem
Take this testimony with a grain of salt. There are dozens of anti-Linux posters here with a clear FUD agenda. In my experience, both systems are snappy and there is no noticeable speed difference (except for the aforementioned, minor point about desktop double-buffering).
right, so hundreds of people with perfectly valid complaints about linux’s speed all happen to be just fudmeisters? god, what an attitude. and you wonder why 15 years since linux was started (and even more since gnu) it still has only a few percent of the market??
way to dismiss genuine problems
oh, and you fell into a hole there – you admitted that there is “no noticeable speed difference” – so there goes one incentive to switch! you say linux gives you no speed boost, yet i always hear linux fans talking about how much faster it is than windows, but here you admit its no better
sigh! people NEED incentives to switch
dongs> Additionally, why should Microsoft feel forced to support an unofficial, reverse-engineered clone of their popular .Net platform?
Microsoft is not forced, but can we choose to like or dislike its deeds?
.Net is popular ? it is not obvious yet. Let’s say ‘some minority likes .Net’
unofficial ? that means there are official clone. Go and sho it.
Reverse-Engineered? Dot-GNU never did that!
It seems You’ve been harmed be some FUS and since FUS is viral, now it tries to infect us too 🙂
dongs> It seems evident that your so-called “open standards” are not truly free…
Yesterday i saw a white dog , now i’m pretty sure that all so-called dogs are white 🙂
WTF is “open standard” ? Even Microsoft advertises .Net s open standard.
And can You tell the difference between standard (such as .Net specifications – text books to read) and implementations (diffrerent programs like .Net Runtime, .Net CE Runtime, DotGNU, Mono) that were written more or less after those books ?
Can You tell e-mail standard from certain program like Outlook Express or Thunderbird or Opera ?
When You go to the shop tonight for a bottle of milk, what the thing may be called milk – is a standard, free. But the certain bottle of milk is for money.
And the non-free standard means that tomorrow, when You’re in the shop, it would be (for example) me, who will tell You what You should call milk, and what You should not. Do You like such a standards? sincerely ?
Granted things can change rather quickly in the Linux world, and if you want the latest and greatest stuff then you’ll probably need some of the other latest and greatest stuff. But if all you want is Evolution as in your example, then install the version of Evolution that comes with your distro. It certainly won’t be all that different.
As for 3rd party apps, they’ve never been a problem really for me. I run a lot of games in particular, savage, doom3, etc, and they’ve pretty much all run on the distro’s I’ve throw at them, which if you know me is a whole slew of different distros. 3rd party apps usually don’t have a whole lot of dependencies, or if they do come in a statically linked form, as skype for example.
And speed, man, here at work I’ve got a 1ghz machine, which is getting kinda ancient in my eyes, but man, speed has never been a problem at all with KDE. I open an app, it opens (sure, open office is somewhat slow, but big deal, I didn’t pay 5 thousand bucks for it either). I minimize something, and it minimizes. I maximize something and presto. What more do you want? You need it 5 microseconds faster? Or what? Boot time, well, learn how to turn off the services you don’t need. And I’d certainly argue that windows can be just as slow, if not slower. Sure you might get a login prompt rather quickly with xp, but how long after you log in until the hard drive stops churning and all the stuff that starts up has done it’s thing. It’ can be a very very long time, I’m telling you.
As for “bloat” as some people call it, give me more and more I say. If my distro of choice came on 20 cds I’d be even happier. All the more free software just for me to use and enjoy. With a fairly modern hard disk, it’s no problem. And the way Linux works, it’s certainly not going to slow down my system just sitting there on my hard disk, unlike some OS’s I could mention.
If your post was’nt full of badly mispelled words, it might make sense. However it just makes you look comical and ignorant. Next time slow down and use spell check.
Oh, and one more thing. If you’re smart, and have a seperate /home partition, then what’s the big deal with upgrading your distro anyway really? Seems to me it’s quite painless, and you get to enjoy all that new stuff. But man, if it really really really bugs you, there’s always Gentoo, or Lunar, or something along those lines.
Some how the bigger the lie you tell the more likely it is to be believed, because people will not believe that somebody would make up such a big lie. For Gates to talk about interoperability when he is the king of closed standards is a lie that if there is a God will not be tolerated.
Gates and Microsoft at the least are a very negative force in this world.
i install a linux distro in 2000, and barely 12 months on i need to do a whole os upgrade because the newest apps all require a massive chain of dependencies thats a huge job to upgrade by hand
The point is, you don’t have to upgrade by hand. Example: in Mandrake, you’d open up rpmdrake and check the little box next to evolution. All required dependencies will be installed as well, without you needing to hunt them down and install them separately.
I noticed you completely ignored the fact that, if you have more than one program to install, it’s actually much faster (and requires less user intervention) under Linux.
right, so hundreds of people with perfectly valid complaints about linux’s speed all happen to be just fudmeisters?
Hundreds? Funny, I’ve been following discussions on this site for almost two years, and I’ve only read a couple of messages that claimed that Linux was slower than Windows. In fact, you’re the first person to bring it up in months. I think you are grossly exaggerating things here.
god, what an attitude. and you wonder why 15 years since linux was started (and even more since gnu) it still has only a few percent of the market??
Apple computers are easy to use and are as fast as Windows PCs, and yet they have the same market share as Linux. Therefore, there doesn’t seem to be a causal link between the alleged speed problem (which is very rarely used by Linux critics in the first place) and market share. Unless you’re referring to my “attitude”…that’s still irrelevant as Windows die-hard advocates are as bad as anything you’ll find on the Linux side, and yet MS has a 90%+ market share.
In other words, your argument doesn’t hold. You’ll have to do better than that.
way to dismiss genuine problems
Well, perhaps it’s because it’s NOT a genuine problem. Seriously, I’ve heard lots of stuff from anti-Linux advocates over the past two years, but Linux being slow?
In any case, you can’t convince me of something which I know from personal experience isn’t true (as I said, I work on two nearly identical PCs everyday, one running under Windows and one running under Linux, and there’s no noticeable speed difference).
oh, and you fell into a hole there – you admitted that there is “no noticeable speed difference” – so there goes one incentive to switch!
What are you talking about? Fell into a hole? Did I ever claim that Linux was faster than Windows? No, I didn’t.
you say linux gives you no speed boost, yet i always hear linux fans talking about how much faster it is than windows, but here you admit its no better
Again, I’ve been here (and on other web sites that discuss technology) for two years, and I don’t recall Linux being faster than Windows as an argument used by Linux advocates. Security (especially with regards to malware), stability, open standards, freedom, low price, customization, a better file/web browser, ease of software maintenance, sticking it to the abusive monopoly…yes, I’ve heard all of these. But speed? Well, if you have a headless server it’s true you gain a bit of performance, but I can’t recall desktop speed ever being a selling point.
I’m sorry, you’re trying to start a flamewar on a non-issue. That’s just not gonna work.
So whenever a company want to sell something they tag the term “environment friendly” on to it. Simply because it sells better. Not that it actually _is_ environment friendly, but that was not the point.
Just the same Bill Gates sells interoperability.
And before you know it the word got a whole new meaning. Interoperability all of the sudden means that it works fine on Microsoft windows.
Yes my friends, that’s bussiness.
i have an old duron700/kt133/128mb/15gb 7200rpm hdd/nvidia riva tnt2 m64 pro
windows 2000? slow
windows 98 se? fast but unstable => slow in the end
fat linux distro (xandros 3.0)? slow
mepis with debian unstable upgrade (latest kde)? fast!!!
i think among fat ditributions only mandrake is quite fast, but buggy like hell
for me debian based distros are the solution. slower pc? np! apt-get update, apt-get dist-upgrade. really slow pc? apt-get install icewm
ad bill:
he reads too much tolkien (one os to rule them all
)
Microsoft broke the back then open SMB protocol deliberately.
They broke the W3C HTML4 specifications and never fixed them.
They were in the Corba consortium and then ignored the standards and went for a Windows only solution.
Interoperability in Gates terms means,
works between the latest Windows incarnations.
But even the things are broken, Samba often works better between various Windows clients than Windows does.
“Again, you criticism is way off-target. This is a smart thing to do, and will continue to maintain cross-platform standards compliance.”
You miss the point. Linux is strong while it is united.
Divided Linux is weak, and will be dismissed by Solaris 10 on server and Mac Mini on desktop.
When I see Linux trademark owner saying that a little fragmentation is good, a Free Standards Group looking for excuses to explain why they can’t keep united LSB- I see the same slippery slope that was taken by the UNIX few years ago.
Not exactly the same, of course- but similar. Done with the good intentions, no doubt about that.
You can figure out where the problem is with the route Linux development is taken, or you can keep calling me and other people names if it makes you feel better.
”
When I see Linux trademark owner saying that a little fragmentation is good, a Free Standards Group looking for excuses to explain why they can’t keep united LSB- I see the same slippery slope that was taken by the UNIX few years ago. ”
a single LSB for desktops, servers as well as embedded systems is totally pointless. who would want to have X on a embedded system. you are ignoring real life issues for a seemingly integrated solution
“why you choose to completely ignore these problems is beyond me”
And why you choose to post links that have nothing to do with your argument is beyound me. Examples:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=110635&cid=9387034
That post has tought me three things;
1)he does not know how to properly setup win98
2)he does not know how to properly setup winXP
3)he does not know how to properly setup unkown red hat version (funny how the person didnt mension a version…)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=110635&cid=9386647
This poster is just way too unrealistic about a modern OS running on 64MB of RAM. This is not a problem of Linux, rather a problem of most modern OSs…and if you start trying to tell me you can run win2K/XP with any kind of speed or responsiveness w/ 64MB RAM I swear I will laugh so hard I will pee my pants!
“You miss the point. Linux is strong while it is united.”
Is it you who are still missing the point of what the split actually is. You made that obvious when you said “Linux is strong while it is united”, as if to imply that it is dividing. This split will allow the standard(s) to focus on their respective markets, rather than trying to be a jack of all trades, master of none.
“Divided Linux is weak, and will be dismissed by Solaris 10 on server and Mac Mini on desktop.”
Oh…just cuz you said so? Or maybe because of some other completely unrelated reason that has nothing to do with this discussion?
Want stability of the software, erratta & security patch availability for several years?
Consider CentOS, TAO Linux, White Box Linux, or one of the other Red Hat Ent Linux (RHEL) clones.
If you just don’t have to be “bleeding edge”, you might just find that a RHEL clone will make life so much easier and controllable.
Have fun!
JT
Want stability of the software, erratta & security patch availability for several years? Consider CentOS, TAO Linux, White Box Linux, or one of the other Red Hat Ent Linux (RHEL) clones.
so you install one of them, and 12 months down the line you want/need the latest evolution. except it requires the newest gnome libs (then gtk, pango, glibc etc etc etc) and red hat only makes security fixes. so you cant install it
you have to try to find a whole load of unknown thirdparty packages which usually dont exist, and then build a load of stuff by hand. just to get a new email program…
i cant believe the linux advocates dont see what a massive problem this is. ive had this problem with distros, so have loads of other people ive seen on forums
even with a windows of 5 yrs ago, 99% of the time i can just double-click and have a new program
Massive problem? I already gave you a solution. Run Gentoo. Or follow Mandrake cooker. Or something. One beautiful thing about Linux, there are lots of options. And with the source code to most every app that runs on Linux distros you could even go that route. Or again, you could just upgrade your distro. Upgrading can be quite painless if you have any sort of clue.
And speed, I still don’t buy it. I deal with Linux machines and Windows machines every day. On the same hardware I really don’t notice a difference. Sure, the resource requirements of modern Linux distros may have been upped a bit from what it was in the past, but if all you can give me is people complaining about Linux not being able to run on their pentium 133, well, that’s rediculous. Ff you have any sort of real world benchmarks, the things that really count when discussing these issues, then by all means post them. I’m gonna laugh when it turns out that your gripe is that KDE windows minimize .03 seconds slower than windows under Windows XP.
Massive problem? I already gave you a solution. Run Gentoo. Or follow Mandrake cooker
right… er… so the ‘solution’ to this problem with linux, is to run untested bleeding-edge mid-development distros? oh dear
that answer alone should highlight how bad the problem is!
for linux to get any real desktop market share, users need to be able to install it, and then a few years down the road add new apps and drivers without having to upgrade the whole os.
Quote from article:
Linux application binary portability is a goal shared by all of the stakeholders in Linux
As you can see, LSB is exactly meant solve your noted problems about “linux backwards compatibility”.
Why LSB was split? IMHO FSGroup just couldn’t handle overall standardizing needs (at least not so fast as it would be needed). By splitting standards all/some different standards can be developed more easily, granting binary compatibility for example for desktop applications sooner.
About your example of easy upgrading/apps installing on 5 years old W2000 system – I can fully agree. Most apps will run on W98 either. Backwards/forwards compatibility is one key component in Windows success, at the same time this compatibility slows down windows progress. Linux in past 5 years has improved in much faster manner – thereby incompatibilities are bigger.
If you take your old W2000 out of box and install there any newer Microsoft application (IE6, Office2k3, VS.net etc), upgrading base system is performed exactly like it needs to be performed on 5 years old linux. Difference is that in windows you usually don’t see this process; in linux you often fall into dependency problems, if you aren’t upgraded your system before.
@A nun, he moos
You’re partially right about using package managers – for (usually open-source) software, present in distro related repositories, nothing can beat good package manager.
Take synaptic for example – this is the only linux app what I personally find superior to any windows counterparts. (Well, there are not exact counterparts in windows, but I need to perform similar tasks). Search your favourite software (fast!), check it and install – really enjoyable.
Which doesn’t help at all, if you don’t know, what exactly you want; or your needed app is not in any repositories; or you have some old propieritary binary app. Doesn’t happen often, but if happens, then you’re out of luck. Of course you can compile open-source apps yourself and make them run with less or more correct libraries, but “normal” users won’t do that.
In windows using such unsupported apps usually is possible without any problem, just click and install. Somehow this demonstrates more freedom than in linux – I’m free to find and try any application from entire world, I’m not limited to my distro repositories.
I hope that standardizing linux makes this (click/install any app) possible in linux too.
(I personally am just waiting for driver standards – I need to get ATI binary driver work on not supported distros for example.)
Sure, the resource requirements of modern Linux distros may have been upped a bit from what it was in the past, but if all you can give me is people complaining about Linux not being able to run on their pentium 133, well, that’s rediculous.
I used Win2K on Pentium 150, 32MB RAM and it worked quite well for me. Load time was comparable with today linux distros.
again, read the comments section of that ‘is linux fat’ article here.
Dude, “here” is OSNews, not Slashdot.
why you choose to completely ignore these problems is beyond me
Because I don’t experience them? I have no speed problem with Linux, my KDE desktop is snappy on a Athlon 900.
or you think all THOSE people are just making it up too? sheesh man
I looked at the comments, and a lot of them refer to running Linux on older hardware. That this one (which you quoted):
There is a huge segment of the market with 64-128M PCs who don’t want to be forced to upgrade their hardware just so as to run XP. If Linux could run responsively on that much memory, it could own that market. But instead, modern distros are too slow.
This comment implies that Windows XP is as slow – if not slower – than Linux. So, really, you can’t use that as an argument.
Perhaps it’s because I don’t run Linux directly on a Pentium 166 with 96MB that I don’t feel Linux is slow. However, I can use that Pentium 166 to connect to through XDMCP to my Athlon 900, and have an acceptable X terminal if someone just wants to check e-mail or browse the web while I’m using the “big computer” (which is already old). Try doing that with WinXP…
Again, to me this is a non-issue: I don’t have those speed problems, so…
You called me a lunatic, among other names. It was just few days ago, remember?
Yeah, and you’ve called me a Linux zealot a couple of times. I guess that makes you immature as well, huh?
Just for curiosity, can you remind me what thread that was in?
What’s been said in another thread belongs to another thread. I haven’t called you anything in this thread (though you have, saying that I’m immature and need professional help).
Still you have been trolling. So that makes you a troll, I guess – but we already knew that.
I’ll respond to your other points separately, since this exchange will probably get modded. In the meantime, I suggest you grow a thicker skin and stop crying foul whenever someone uses a derogatory term towards you, especially when you yourself are not above calling people name. It would make you look less hypocritical and show that you have some backbone as well.
You miss the point. Linux is strong while it is united.
…and making specific LSB modules that can be combine for Servers, Desktops, etc. will not disunite it.
Look at ISO standards. They have all kinds of specific standards for specific items. A server is not a desktop, nor is it an embedded system. You’d have to be a looney to believe they are! 🙂
Divided Linux is weak, and will be dismissed by Solaris 10 on server and Mac Mini on desktop.
Huh? I think you are overestimating the response to Solaris 10 (and Sun’s ability to regain its former glory). As for the Mac Mini, it will steal market share from Windows, not Linux. In any case, that has nothing to do with the LSB being made modular to accomodate servers, desktops, etc. You’re not making any logical sense.
When I see Linux trademark owner saying that a little fragmentation is good,
Nice way to take things out of context, here.
a Free Standards Group looking for excuses to explain why they can’t keep united LSB
Stop saying false things, or I shally have to call you a new name. The LSB is staying united, it is just being modularized. I know you WISH it was becoming disunited, because of your anti-Linux agenda, but it isn’t, and no amount of wishing or spreading FUD on your part will change that.
You can figure out where the problem is with the route Linux development is taken, or you can keep calling me and other people names if it makes you feel better.
Please stop, you’re going to make me cry. No, really.
Start by making arguments that are logically sound, and then maybe you won’t have to pretend to be offended to masquerade the fact that what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. The LSB is not fragmenting.
Which is worse, me calling you names, or you lying? We’ll let other people decide.
Which doesn’t help at all, if you don’t know, what exactly you want; or your needed app is not in any repositories
True. Which is why Klik is such an exciting development (and why dale hasn’t responded to my points about it, since he knows this makes software installation a lot easier than anything Windows can offer).
http://klik.atekon.de/
I hope they develop it for Mandrake at some point…
Windows can claim its compatable… yeah right.
Take office, a common problem is office files arnt always backwared compatable with older office apps.
So basicly MS are saying-
Stay with us, our software is compatable with its self, if you want to be able to communicate with others and keep up to date, keep buying our software- We’ll keep you compatable.
What a joke, windows is barely compatable with its self, for each new version of windows.
Every major release of windows, there are many changes and new drivers need to be written.
I cant run one of my favorate apps because it only works on Win98, I assume there are other apps that havnt yet been ported to 98… Not being ported = Not compatable.
If they have been ported to XP then the Author has Made them compatable, but thats because 98 and XP are at times “Incompatable”
Also Windows dosent support standards very well.
If your using linux, chances are files/methods used to get the job done will be standard, even supported on Other OS’s.
So switching from Linux to MacOSX shouldent be a big deal for eg.
Switching from WinXP to OSX would be a lot harder I would think.
What I joke….
That’s what they taught me in college, and that’s what Microsoft is doing.
My point of view: Windows environments are so similar, that viruses and worms can easily spread and cause a lot problems. Security and development of Windows is up to Microsoft only. Quite rare people support Windows like they support Open Source applications, on voluntary base. If Microsoft does not develop something (e.g. security against worms and viruses or a better browser), these must come from another source than the operating system. You can’t get automatic security updates for anything other than operating system core (few exeptions exist). You can not have several versions of Microsoft Office installed at the same time, you can not have several versions of user interface (explorer) at the same time (Windows is monolithic, it’s not modular).
Microsofts marketing: Linux does not come from single vendor, Open Source is complicated, Open Source software is not governed from a single vendor / management, and it encourages several solutions for a certain problem.
Eleknader
First of all your problem isn’t even a problem as far as I’m concerned. As I say, I run dozens of 3rd party apps on my Linux systems, from compilers, to Skype, to Real Player, to Flash player, to loads of games, to Java runtimes, and whatever else I forgot. Having to do some massive upgrade of my whole system for any of these to work has never once happened.
Sure, if you wanted go with the latest and greatest release of Gnome or KDE as in your example, then you’re probably going to be in for some work. But the people that want to do that will do that. And they’ll know how to do that, and not complain about it. If you’re not up to the task then you’re probably best off leaving it to your distro’s maintainers.
And one more thing, Gentoo is quite different from something like Mandrake cooker. I certainly wouldn’t call Gentoo an “untested bleeding-edge mid-development distro”.
That’s nothing. I run Linux on my Sparcstation IPX, and the load times are quite comprable with today’s versions of Windows.
lol
I used Win2K on Pentium 150, 32MB RAM and it worked quite well for me. Load time was comparable with today linux distros.
So you want us to believe that you installed Windows 2000 on a PC with HALF the MINIMUM required RAM and a CPU one step higher and it booted in 1 1/2 minutes and performed well.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/professional/evaluation/sysreq…
Either you’re confusing Windows Millenium with Windows 2000 – 2 VERY different beasts or you’re a bold-faced liar.
I doubt that Windows 2000 would install on such a PC let alone perform well.