Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

ESR's Desktop Linux 2008 Deadline

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:13 AM
from the might-be-a-couple-years-late dept.
jesboat noted Eric S. Raymond and Rob Landley's essay about what the Linux community must do to achieve dominance entitled "World Domination 201". It says "Idealism about open formats will not solve our multimedia problem in time; in fact, getting stuck on either belief in the technical superiority of open source or free-software purism guarantees we will lose. The remaining problems aren't technical ones, and none of the interesting patents will expire before the end of 2008. We've got to ship something that works now. If we let this be a blocking issue preventing overall Linux adoption during the transition window, we won't have the userbase to demand changes in the laws to untangle the screwed up patent system, or even prevent it from getting worse. It's a chicken and egg problem, demanding a workaround until a permanent solution can be achieved. We can't set the standards until after we take over the world."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 24 2006, @10:16AM (#17353576)
    "Idealism about open formats will not solve our multimedia problem in time"

    We can have an Open Source Desktop if we just don't make it Open Source! Brilliant!
    • Brain: "Just remember, in order to take over the world -- you have to be brilliant. What better way than turning Open Source into Open-Shut Source? Hmmmm and that's what the OSS could truly end up standing for! (We just won't tell them.)"
    • by OriginalArlen (726444) on Sunday December 24 2006, @12:12PM (#17354216)

      getting stuck on belief in [...] free-software purism guarantees we will lose.

      Staying Free is a guaranteed way to lose? Tell me more, you seem to have invented a fascinating new branch of logic, cos it seems to me that if you are forced to use non-Free software (or hardware), you have already lost.

      We've got to ship something that works now.
      For a given value of "works", where 'works' is defined as meeting requirements. My first requirement as a software user is that doesn't steal my freedoms to share, copy, study, modify, redistribute (etc) it. If I can't do that with it, it's not working. There's a saying about he who would swap eye-candy for essential freedoms deserving neither. (Danny O'Brien I think that was.)
      • Staying Free is a guaranteed way to lose? Tell me more, you seem to have invented a fascinating new branch of logic, cos it seems to me that if you are forced to use non-Free software (or hardware), you have already lost.

        Yes, exactly. Right now, OSS is losing because of the focus on free formats, among other things.

        Free Software must be able to read the not-open format, or it's useless. And useless software never becomes prevalent enough to take hold and start dictating formats.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Did you read the whole thing? The crux of his argument is that Linux would only need to compomise in the short term. Once it gained a large enough userbase, it would be able to pressure companies to release open source drivers. At least, that's how I read it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Don't be silly, I use each and every single one of the 30 calculators, 60 text file viewers, 40 email clients...

        This is the problem with anarchy; everyone will tend towards choosing different things. Some leadership is required to say "we're going to concentrate here", so that resources are consolidated, and projects can really start moving forward at a much faster rate.

  • H.264 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheSHAD0W (258774) on Sunday December 24 2006, @10:19AM (#17353592) Homepage
    So... Why did Adobe use H.264 for Flash's codec, considering its patent burden? How much in royalties are THEY paying? Is it really that much better than the OGM codec?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If by "OGM codec" you mean Theora [theora.org] I think the answer is yes, H.264 is still vastly superior in terms of a visual quality to size trade off. When people see a Flash video they expect it to play instantaneously so bandwidth matters.
    • Maybe because H.264 offers good compression and video quality while OGM [wikipedia.org] is only a container format? What you are looking for, instead, is Theora [wikipedia.org].

      As an aside, H.264 will play in Windows, Mac, iPods, PSPs, and quite a few cell phones.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Why did Adobe use H.264 for Flash's codec,

      It doesn't.

      Flash 6 introduced the Sorenson Spark codec that was essentially a variant of H.263 (not H.264).

      Flash 8 added support for On2 VP6, a proprietary codec.

      H.264 is not presently supported by Flash.
  • by Speare (84249) on Sunday December 24 2006, @10:20AM (#17353600) Homepage

    Like a college course? WD201? It's just like ESR to post something so sophomoric as this.

  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Sunday December 24 2006, @10:20AM (#17353604)
    Ease of installation. Be it drivers that manufacturers don't bother providing for Linux, or applications that require configuring as root, etc... But the problem of drivers aside, there's a fundamental clash between ease of installation (i.e. something grandma can figure out herself) and security: if you make Linux as easy to use as Windows, then you need to discard the root/user distinction, and that would make Linux as bad as Windows. Yes, I know Windows has a superuser/normal user distinction too, but grandma doesn't use it, and those who do know it's a pain.

    The real solution to make Linux more mainstream is to make users more computer litterate. That sort of plan is a 10 year plan at the very least, and requires educating people at school about basic computer security, and the dangers of being a computer idiot. No amount of tweaking will make a good secure OS an easy one.
    • by Kjella (173770) on Sunday December 24 2006, @11:02AM (#17353776) Homepage
      The real solution to make Linux more mainstream is to make users more computer litterate.

      Good choice of word to misspell. Besides that, "people" in general want to use whatever everyone else is using, they want to use whatever brand name apps they've heard about and most of all, they want it simple. Every company in every line of business wish their customers were better informed and better trained, it's not going to happen. You can teach a monkey new tricks (like that the Intarnets is now the fiery fox, not the blue e) but most people don't want to become "computer literate". Not even the modern kids who MSN all day want to be "computer literate" in the way you think of it.

      Want to make inroads:
      1. Corporate workstations. That means in particular
      a. Exchange replacement
      b. Policy management like Active Directory
      c. Heavy compatibility work with MS Office

      2. Educational facilities
      a. Get Linux labs, dual-booting machines
      b. Deploy Firefox, OpenOffice etc. as alternatives on all desktops
      c. Make sure all internal systems are platform-independent

      3. "Family management"
      a. More shades between "root" and "user". Waaay too often I get asked for the root password for things I'd like to delegate, but not give away total control. Linux is great when you're either one person or administering a bunch of people that only get approved applications, inbetween is not that great.
      b. Security updates that really are without question, so you could set them up to install automatically. I really like apt-get and all, but it annoys me that I don't know if I'll get asked about some config file where the defaults have changed or whtaever.
      c. Somewhere to put "common documents" that is somewhat standard and sane. Everybody has their home dir like "My documents", it's not difficult to fix but it's always a custom dir with custom links, don't people have like general data that's shared with all users?

      Gamers and people that rely on support lines or local tech shops just aren't cases you'll win. There's so many quirks in changing to Linux, it just gets too expensive to pay for it (and these aren't the people to search online forums). You need someone with Linux sklil in the company, institution or family. To think that any significant share will put in a k/ubuntu CD and install it by themselves, is dreaming.
          • by grcumb (781340) on Sunday December 24 2006, @04:56PM (#17355838) Homepage Journal
            Not even close. I can "sudo su" and I'm root. GP is asking for a good implementation of ACLs.

            Heh, never thought I'd actually say this, but... RTFM [gratisoft.us] .

            sudo allows a user exactly as much or as little access as they've been granted by the root user. We used it widely to limit access to logged-in users on production machines to about 6 commands. Anything else had to be specifically authorised by Ops. I'd love to know how to get the same degree of control with as little effort on Windows servers.

    • by compm375 (847701) on Sunday December 24 2006, @11:05AM (#17353794)
      The problem is not ease of installation nearly as much as it not being preinstalled on many computers. Most Linux installation processes are pretty easy, maybe even easier than a Windows installation, but the average user doesn't do a Windows installation either - it is preinstalled. What we need is either a bunch of OEMs cooperating, or some kind of effort to install Linux on people's computers for them.
    • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Sunday December 24 2006, @11:40AM (#17353996) Homepage
      ### Ease of installation.

      I am sorry, but that is just bullshit. Linux has been extremely easy to install for years, it also happens to be a heck of a lot easier to install then Windows and lets not forget we have LiveCDs, so giving Linux a quick try is among the most trivial things you can do. Beside from that, installation is totally overrated, you do it like once in a lifetime and then never ever again, if you have trouble with it, find a friend that helps with it. Installation is a pretty much solved problem, with repartitioning being the only thing that requires some thinking.

      The real problem isn't installation, but maintaining an Linux, simply things as installing a piece of software you have seen on a webpage can be extremely hard and time consuming, even for somebody with 10+ years of Linux experience, for your grandma such things are simply totally out of reach. Sure we have apt-get and friends, but those help absolutely nothing if a piece of software isn't in your distribution, which kind of is always the case with new software. Unless that changes and software installation becomes a no-brainer, Linux won't stand much a chance in the mass market.

      And speaking about security, that one is totally overrated as well. On a desktop computer there is only one account that matters and that is the one of the user using it, lets call it juser. If root or jusers account is compromised doesn't make a difference, since in *both* cases the intruder has full access to everything that matters anyway. If there is something I really don't care about on my Linux then its /bin, /usr, /var and all those other root-write only directories that have absolutely nothing of valuable data, since it comes straight from the distribution CD and is trivial to recover, if /home/juser/ on the other side says bye-bye and you don't have a recent backup, then you can really be in trouble. On large multi-user installations things look different, but on your average desktop that whole root/user separation doesn't provide much benefit at all. That of course doesn't mean we should get rid of it, but you don't really need much more then a password-less sudo.

      ### The real solution to make Linux more mainstream is to make users more computer litterate.

      Good luck trying that, it won't work, ever. The simple reason for that is that computers simply don't make sense. You can teach a person math, because math makes sense and is logic, but handling a computers relies in very large part simply on learning the quicks of its broken software, on Linux just the same as everywhere else. So knowledge from 5 years ago can be totally useless today, lots of computer knowledge is already worthless after a year. Computers simply don't make sense and it requires just way to much time for the average person to learn all the quirks and workarounds. The solution to all this is to simply *fix* all those quirks and bugs so that they never ever touch the users desktop. There simply isn't a logical reason why installing a tar.gz requires me to manually track down dependencies, why there is no undelete and why changing the mouse speed requires editing Xorg.conf while changing mouse acceleration does not, its just bugs and history that made the software the way it is today, there is no logical design principle behind all this. Simply fix it and don't try to teach the user why your software is broken and how to work around it, just a waste of time.

    • by UbuntuDupe (970646) * on Sunday December 24 2006, @11:46AM (#17354040) Journal
      If that's the problem, here's a crazy idea:

      Market PC's with Linux already installed and ready to start.

      Hire a real marketing team. Put it where the masses will see it.

      Oh, you mean that take real money and business expertise? Ah, dammit, so *that's* why they charge for software! I *knew* there was a reason behind it!
    • That sort of plan is a 10 year plan at the very least, and requires educating people at school about basic computer security, and the dangers of being a computer idiot.

      You don't think schools have enough to teach people already? (Clue: Look at the literacy levels and mathematical skills of the average school leaver.)

      You can never make a computer 100% secure, because there will always be people who tell others their password. Every time you raise the game, there will still be someone at the bottom who'

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Making more people computer literate is not the solution.

      This is like solving societies problems as follows:

      • Healthcare with more medically literate people
        How many medical journals do you read? How much biochemistry and anatomy do you know? or want to know?
      • Automotive transportation with more mechanically literate people
        Most likely a skilled automatic transmission mechanic outearns you. The work is more physically demandng than computer work.
      • Energy distribution with more electrically literate people
        Can yo
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Not just installation. From TFA:

      When somebody with a degree in finance or architecture or can grab a Linux laptop and watch episodes of The Daily Show off of Comedy Central's website without a bearded Linux geek walking them through an elaborate hand-configuration process first, maybe we'll have a prayer.

      People use Windows because (believe it or not), for all its faults, it's easier to use than Linux.

      The real solution to make Linux more mainstream is to make users more computer litterate.

      NO!

      Way to miss th
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Meanwhile, reliability problems with import/export of .DOC files, the underpowered Calc that can't keep up with Excel, the lack of anything to compete head-to-head with Outlook, and several other serious concerns will prevent most/all mid- and large-sized businesses moving to OO any time soon. It's just not ready for the big time yet, like so many other OSS applications, and this is exactly my point.

            I just don't accept this; I have been supporting businesses using Open Office for a long time, and haven't e
  • by Slithe (894946) on Sunday December 24 2006, @10:21AM (#17353610) Homepage Journal
    He has not posted anything in his blog [ibiblio.org] for six months!
  • How exactly can Linux lose? It's getting better all the time. It can't go bankrupt, it can't be taken over, it can't be bought out.

    You could argue it might gain more marketshare if we 'relax' our ideals and principles, but so what? We aren't going to lose linux or anything if we don't.
    • Re:Oh good grief (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Pecisk (688001) on Sunday December 24 2006, @10:51AM (#17353720)
      We can be sued out of market.

      Enough said. And seeing what actually happens in US IT court rooms, I fully agree this time with ESR.
    • This is an idea that struck me a long time ago ('98ish). Since Linux does not 'compete' per se, it cannot lose. At least not in the traditional way.

      I''m not sure things 'need' to be done within a time period as ESR seems to believe. The steady march of FLOSS is what's kept it alive and growing so far and I don't think that'll change.

  • "Why can't we work out our differences? Why can't we work things out? Little people, why can't we all just get along?"
  • They like to use history is this essay, but backward compatability is by far the biggest factor in the history of desktop operating system software. This essay hardly mentions it, and not in the context of history. The biggest reason Windows 3.1 won was because of its backward compatability with DOS -- and Microsoft never forgot the lesson. Dos -> Win3.1 -> Win 95 -> Win 98 -> NT 3.1 (sort of) -> Win2000 -> XP -> Vista. Microsoft gives you a relatively smooth glide up the chain so that you don't have to throw away all your existing software -- and hardware. Of course, it's not perfect, but it's sure better than throwing away everything to move to Linux or a Mac.

    • Absolutely correct. You can, in fact, download the original version of VisiCalc [bricklin.com] -- the original spreadsheet program, released for MS-DOS in 1981 -- and run it, unmodified, in Windows XP.
      • You can, in fact, download the original version of VisiCalc -- the original spreadsheet program, released for MS-DOS in 1981 -- and run it, unmodified, in DOSEMU under any version of Linux you feel like.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            That's like saying I can run any Mac application on the PC I want, as long as I have a Mac emulator. Who cares? Can I download that program in Linux, and run it like any other application, unmodified?. No.

            In case you didn't know, Windows XP and Vista use an emulator for DOS programs too. In fact, the emulator has enough problems that dosbox, an emulator for both Linux and Windows, is better for some applications than Microsoft's own emulation of DOS in WinNT derived OSs. Also, dosbox and dosemu have almost no effect on the emulated program's performance and near-100% compatibility. This includes programs like DOOM that use 32 bit extentions, or BBS software that access serial port hardware through a FOSSI

        • Dell already sells computers without Windows on it. Why does hardly anyone choose to get it? Because very, very, very few people want it.

          I think that's got a lot more to do with the fact that Dell hides their Linux offerings on the site, and even if you do manage to find them, you'll have to buy in large quantities before they'll sell you them.

          Wake me up when Dell has a drop down "operating system" saying

          • Windows
          • Linux (-$50)
          • None (-$55)

          on each and every page where they sell PCs. At the moment, the "choice" (if you can call it such) is XP or XP Professional.

          Rich.

  • Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pecisk (688001) on Sunday December 24 2006, @10:59AM (#17353752)
    Finally someone of our leaders said what was needed to say - we need to get serious market share, period. No buts, no whys. If you don't get it, you never will be serious about IT, seriously. Because IT don't need only stuff that works now, but which also have serious legacy and support. Don't like it? You bet it, no one likes it, but it is REAL LIFE. Not some dreaming about John Lennon vision of the world, yes, we can try to achieve that, but let's be honest here - we need wilder strategy and understanding about politics here. We need seek out how to get people to our side. For example, I can say honestly that if someone would tried to push me to use FLAC or Ogg instead of allowing to play mp3s on Linux desktop, then I would definitely said good luck and went to study Macs or something else. Only features open me world of "freedom" and "openess" what I value so much now.

    We should LEARN and EDUCATE people, not try to PUSH them on our side. It will never work.

    This time, ESR got this in the center.

    Happy Christmas everyone, go out, meet your dear ones, be with your family.

    Peter.
    • Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld@NosPam.gmail.com> on Sunday December 24 2006, @11:23AM (#17353896) Homepage
      Finally someone of our leaders

      ESR? A leader? Hahahahahaha....
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I'll third the claim that ESR is not a leader. He's more of a pundit. He has very little open source software to his credit, and the people that tried to use it say it's bad. I think that's more software than Robert X. Cringely has to his credit, but at least Cringely is a little amusing and a little bit educational, I can't say that ESR is either.

      I do think that he may have said what needed to be said. That doesn't make him a leader though.
  • Vista 32-bit? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 24 2006, @11:01AM (#17353764)

    From TFA:

    Vista is still 32-bit.

    Uhh... no. Vista is available as a native 64-bit OS for x86-64 systems. The kernel is 64-bit, the drivers are 64-bit, and most applications are 64-bit. Is everything 64-bit? No. Is everything on a typical x86-64 Linux distribution 64-bit? No.

  • by Bazman (4849) on Sunday December 24 2006, @11:16AM (#17353858) Journal
    I'm sure Linus originally talked about World Domination as a joke. A funny. Everyone laughed. He didn't really mean it. ESR means it. And he has guns.

  • by SoupIsGood Food (1179) on Sunday December 24 2006, @11:34AM (#17353960)
    Well... first off, it's got nothing to do with Linux. What we're talking about is a user interface that runs on top of X-windows. As such, it will run comfortably on any flavor of BSD or commercial Unix, and even stranger operating systems.

    Second off, we're talking about a vast set of tools. Gnome is nice, KDE is nice, but they're pieces of a larger puzzle that includes X-windowing systems, and all of their assorted tools, drivers, and niceties, window managers, and applications that may or may not be designed to work within the look-and-feel guidelines of anything recognizeable at all. The problem space is way to big for any one person or organization to just decide, "Hey everyone, we're all gonna be doing THIS!"

    Open source software grows and evolves as programmers scratch an itch. You can't crack the whip, as the project will just fork as programmers follow whatever their interest is... commercial, educational, political or just for the hell of coding something neat. It would be nice if everyone could assume a role that's perfectly suited for some master-plan to reach some goal... but they won't. Human nature is in the way.

    Open Source Software is not a place where a single goal achieved by everyone working in unison is possible. Yes, Linux itself is cool... but how many variants, patches and forks of it are out there? Quite a few... people take what they need, and follow their own interest. This is what open source software is about. Even then, there's more than Linux: there are the three (Four... five?) BSD-based operating systems, and things like SkyOS and Haiku, besides.

    In this maelstrom of variation and choice, you want a single standard UI? Not going to happen. What's more, it will likely work against Linux on the desktop rather than for it. Gnome came about because they didn't like KDE, and wanted something with different political and technical goals. KDE came about because the company had a different commercial and technical goal than Motif. Can you imagine how much it would suck if everyone working on KDE and Gnome were forced to work on making a better Motif? We're better off with many projects working for their own ends. Open Source means that the projects cna pick and chose what they like from each other, everyone wins.

    Then there's the issue that Gnustep isn't a part of the discussion, despite being an Open Source re-implementation of the UI Apple uses for Mac OS X... so if the best solution isn't going to "win" anyway, it's pointless whining that the third or fourth best solution isn't getting all the attention. (And, as you've figured out, the order from "best" to "worst" won't be the same for everyone... or even a majority.)

    In the end, it's up to the commercial distro-makers to decide what works for them, and to pay programmers and project leads and software architects to make it happen. The interface for the OLTP project shows how to get it done, and done on a shoestring budget in a tight time constraint.
  • Any Fact Checking? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tqbf (59350) on Sunday December 24 2006, @12:09PM (#17354200) Homepage

    Microsoft made $3.5 billion (net) last quarter alone, and has enough cash on hand to buy a company the size of Home Depot outright.

    Absurd. Home Depot is the second largest retailer in the world, with top-line revenue exceeding $80bn and quarterly gross profits of over $6bn. Microsoft has net tangible assets of only $35bn. HD is in the top 20 of the Fortune 500, Microsoft is #48.

    In the parallel universe of business that ESR inhabits, Microsoft still has more to worry about from HD than the other way around. What other completely obvious things do ESR and his co-author get wrong in this essay?

  • by Animats (122034) on Sunday December 24 2006, @12:34PM (#17354350) Homepage

    The essay is amusing. Not for its content, but for its format. It starts out with a revision history of all things. Only a dweeb would put that at the beginning of an essay intended for public consumption.

    Then there's the focus on "64 bit". Microsoft and Apple both had 64-bit operating systems, then backed off. (It was surprising that when Apple went from PowerPC to x86, they went to 32-bit x86, even though 64 bit parts were already out. Which meant Apple users would face an unnecessary 32 to 64 bit transition on x86, and Apple would have to deal with annoying dual-mode issues.)

    What does this essay say Linux needs? "Drivers for all existing hardware". "People who buy a new desktop want to plug in their old PCI cards..." Earth to Linux fanatics: 80% of all PCs are never opened in the field during their entire working life. What's important is drivers for what's shipping right now from major hardware vendors.

    "Luckily, Windows more or less stopped being a moving target recently." Haven't looked at what Microsoft wants developers to do for Vista apps, have you? There's a big push by Microsoft to get developers using Microsoft-only technologies embedded in Vista, ones you can't run under Wine because they require non-redistributable DLLS.

    "To attract enough non-technical end users to make the hardware vendors care about us, we need Linux to come preinstalled on PCs in a configuration that just works." Finally, the right answer. But that's a political and legal problem. Vendors don't offer Linux preloads because Microsoft penalizes them if they do, and Ashcroft's Justice Department rolled over on keeping Microsoft from doing that.

    This essay is aimed at making Linux fanatics happy. What it should be aimed at is making low end desktops for office use cheaper. Push on Leonovo to offer something comparable to Red Flag Linux (which they preload for Chinese consumption) for export. Push on WalMart to sell it. The standard low-end business desktop should become Linux. Your call center people don't need Windows.

    This hits Microsoft where it hurts - price pressure. Microsoft wants to charge more for Vista than for XP, and that could be derailed.

  • yeah yeah yeah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argoff (142580) * on Sunday December 24 2006, @01:13PM (#17354626)
    ESR has been saying that free as in freedom "zealots" are going to hurt Liunux for forever. Well he is still wrong. Because we are free and because we have control, that means that the market is under pressure to cater to us as we grow and expand ... not the other way around. It also means that our growth happenes is spite of proprietary alternatives and inspite of occasional commercial bias against free software. Is is the free nature of Linux that puts pressure on the market to go our way, not corporate idealisim or conformity. Nothing magical about 2008 is going to change that. Nothing magical is going to say "well, the window has passed and now all of a sudden people have no alternative". Yeah, I'm sure he wants to beat Vista to the punch, but that is a personal thing just as is his bias against people who see freedom as the ends and not the means.
  • by mad.frog (525085) <steven@NOSpAM.crinklink.com> on Sunday December 24 2006, @02:40PM (#17355134)
    Lord knows I'm no fan of Vista, but ESR is plain wrong on this one.

    I have a machine running Vista 64 in my cubicle.

    It has weird, funky compatibility issues, yes, but is definitely faster than running Vista-32 on the same hardware.
  • by Laven (102436) on Sunday December 24 2006, @02:50PM (#17355194)
    https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/ 2006-April/msg00118.html [redhat.com]
    https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/ 2006-April/msg00358.html [redhat.com]
    Read about ESR's ridiculous attempts to troll the Fedora Project into violating the GPL and shipping proprietary software. ESR continues his irresponsible crusade. This is NOT in the best long-term interest of the community. Please do not give this "leader" any credence.
    • Re:...and? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Sunday December 24 2006, @10:27AM (#17353630)
      Why is ESR so hellbent on taking over the world? We have a system that works, and that can play multimedia just fine, albeit illegally, why does it matter how many people use it? I, for one, don't see ESR wanting to take over the world as enough of a reason to cave in and use proprietary technologies...

      You just gave the reason why we need more people adopting Linux: what you say is that Linux can play multimedia files just fine, only illegally (I'm assuming you're referring to the proprietary mplayer codecs here). Yet you see no reason to "cave in and use proprietary technologies"? Strange line of thought...

      If, on the other hand, a significant number of people used OSS, they would have a lote more weight to lobby software manufacturers for more open-source codecs, native ports of their software to Linux, etc... making using Linux perfectly legal when those codecs are available on your favorite platform.
    • Just clone the fucking major OS X desktop APIs and UI elements and LET'S GET ON WITH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS. And then clone the major iApps.

      And who will port the 20-so years of software development that have been made for X, Motif, tk, GTK or Qt? you?

      Sure multiple GUI toolkits are a pain and a waste of resources, but so is throwing away perfectly good software on the ground that the newer OS doesn't support it anymore. Just ask Mac users...
    • > The silly myth that having multiple desktops is some sort of advantageous competition driving the Linux desktop forward is utter bullshit.

      It's advantageous to *me*, *I* don't happen to *LIKE* MAC OS X you insensitive arrogant thesaurusise("clod")
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Opinions are just that: opinions. Not everyone believes Mac OS X's UI is the best one out there. Using Mac OS X's UI will thus not suddenly make everything better. When I boot into Ubuntu using GNOME it looks and functions arguably better than the picture you linked to.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 24 2006, @11:48AM (#17354062)
      The answer is simple. When Vista comes out, if it gets popular, there will be no middle ground, no sharing between Microsoft and Linux. Vista has so much of a lock in factor in both hardware and data formats, that it will eventually become impossible to install Linux on a PC. Things like Trusted Computing, remote attestation, patents, and the Vista secure hardware requirements will make sure of this. Vista is Microsofts last chance to keep their monopoly, and they are doing everything they can to keep that monopoly.

      The only alternative is to get enough users to rely on Linux, that there will be enough pressure on governments and hardware manufacturers to stop Vista and Microsoft from getting this ultimate lock in. Then we might have a chance to stop this before its too late.
    • by NormalVisual (565491) on Sunday December 24 2006, @11:52AM (#17354094)
      A few of other things to consider:

      -- Right now, to have a good conceptual understanding of Linux and to be really effective with it, one has to have a handle on a *lot* of stuff. Too much stuff. Contrast that to Windows where you could almost train a monkey to use it. Common example - if you screw up your video settings in Windows and get an unusable display, you can reboot into safe mode and fix it relatively easily. If you do the same thing in Linux, you're probably looking at directly editing the X config file or, if you're lucky, using the command-line version of SaX or something similar to fix your problem. That's not an acceptable option if you're selling to the unwashed masses.

      -- Differences in distros. I think someone actually mentioned this before, but there needs to be a standard fricking way to reconfigure your system. If you want to reconfigure your network card, you need to go to /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth* if you're running RH, or /etc/network/interfaces if you're running Debian, or /etc/conf.d/net for Gentoo since there's no universal config app for that. There's never going to be a Linux desktop that's popular with the non-geek world unless everyone can decide where everything goes and how it should be configured. Consistency is everything here. Yes, I'm aware of the FHS standard, but there are plenty of distros that don't seem to be.

      -- The "RTFM" syndrome. Certainly, I get as annoyed as anyone else when someone bugs me with a question that could easily have been answered by spending 15 seconds in the docs. However, the docs are not in a neat, centralized place - you often have to set off on a damn quest to find what you need. Even if the documentation were more accessible, the sheer arrogance that's shown by a lot of FOSS supporters does a lot to steer people away when they *do* try to dabble their feet in the Linux waters. No one likes to be treated like an idiot (even if they are!), and no one likes to deal with a jerk.

      Ultimately, what it comes down to is that Linux development and support isn't centralized. Linux is quite popular on the back-end, but when you look at that more closely you see that it's an environment where there are highly trained people who are qualified to easily deal with the crap I mentioned above. Additionally, most of the more popular back-end software packages (Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc.) is generally maintained by a single group that maintains tight control, so in that situation it's more like dealing with a vendor than a bunch of individuals. I believe that we'll see Linux continue to hang on to the datacenter because it's simply a good system, but I just don't see it becoming a desktop standard to any great degree unless someone does with it what Apple did with BSD.
      • Wow. An interesting response without the "me too" /.ism. :)

        And critical to the pseudo elitism to boot! Too bad real discussion is becoming less frequent here. I appreciate your counter-points. The whole F you attitude seems to be kind of back in vogue and I'm guessing its probably more of new generation who haven't really been watching this whole thing unfold (and repeat itself!) over the past decade.

        The fact that you should even know /etc/network/interfaces exists is a flaw. We rely on our old (comfort