Slashdot Log In
OSCON 2008 Roundup
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:55 PM
from the where-the-news-was-made dept.
from the where-the-news-was-made dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Infoweek wraps last week's event with Inside The OSCON 2008 Conference, which pulls together interviews with Mark Shuttleworth, Linux Foundation's Jim Zemlin, MySQL's Zach Urlocker and Sam Ramji, who directs Microsoft's Open Source Lab. Best quotes: 'We will make a significant attempt to elevate the Linux desktop to the point where it is as good or better than Apple,' from Shuttleworth; and 'If I would start a business tomorrow I'd do it in the netbook marketplace. I'd build a dead-simple $200 device that targets sports fans, women over forty,' from Zemlin." We discussed Shuttleworth's better-than-Apple proposition while OSCON was going on. Update Jamie noted this OSCON Summary Video that might also be worth your time.
Related Stories
[+]
Ubuntu Is Hyper-Active At OSCON 379 comments
ruphus13 writes "Ubuntu and Canonical have been very active at OSCON this year. They showcased a new distro, announced improvements to their code-hosting platform, and made Mark Shuttleworth available for a couple of talks and panel sessions. Quoting: 'Ubuntu Netbook Remix, a complete distribution designed to run on Atom-based Netbook PCs. The main difference that sets it apart from its big brother Hardy Heron is the Ubuntu Mobile Edition (UME) Launcher, a user interface created specifically for use on the teensy screens and keyboards of today's popular ultra-portable computers.' Canonical also announced Version 2.0 of Launchpad, their code-hosting platform. Enhancements include 'a planned API that'll allow third-party applications to authenticate, query and modify data in the massive Launchpad database, without a user needing to manually access the system via a browser.' Mark Shuttleworth went on to state that Linux's market share will grow when it has better eye-candy than Apple's."
Submission: OSCON 2008 Roundup by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Why Microsoft Cozied up to Open Source at OSCON 325 comments
This year at OSCON it seemed that you couldn't throw a stone without hitting someone from Microsoft (and in fact, I'm sure several people did). They were working very hard to make themselves known, and working desperately to change public opinion of Microsoft's involvement in the open source community. Linux.com's Nathan Willis took a look at what they were preaching, with a hefty dose of skepticism, and tries to postulate what the "angle" is. Of course, the powers that be at Microsoft may have finally seen the writing on the wall and felt the pressure from Google enough to alter their strategy a bit. For now I guess we'll have to wait with guarded optimism (or laughable contempt, depending on how old/jaded you are).
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.
Re:Better-than-Apple? (Score:5, Informative)
For example, when you do a search in a textbox or browser or something, OSX not only highlights the text, it makes it jump out for a second (stretch then shrink). It is really cool. I'm sure it annoys some people. It could be done on linux, but it would take a couple hundred lines. With core animation, it takes 10 or 15, and then because of the modularity of the whole OpenStep GUI system, it is easy to pass that capability into other programs.
Until Linux has a similar programming system, it will be hard to give it the same eye candy. Think about it: suppose I am trying to set up some effect on a windows machine. I know it will take a day or so of coding, so I am going to be careful to set it up and plan well before hand. If it turns out nice, I'm going to feel pretty good.
Whereas with core animation, if I suddenly think of something cool, I can just try it out. If it looks good, then great, if it doesn't, I can tweak it or throw it out until another good idea comes up. And you don't have to be an expert, it is pretty simple once you get it. So even the B-rate programmers can come up with this stuff, and the non-graphics programmers (documentation is still pretty horrible, however). That is cool. In fact it is one of the coolest things I've seen in programming in years.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This just is flat out wrong.
This is like claiming that Apple has such polished desktops and product design because they have really good artists and industrial designers.
It is the management culture at Apple that makes those things happen and the people doing it are just the tools they use. And the same goes for Core Animation and the rest of OS X's UI and imaging technologies.
Just take one look at the visual abortion that is KDE 4.1:
http://www.linux.com/var/uploads/Image/articles/142661.png
Core Image isn't
Re:Better-than-Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
It's true! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Better-than-Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
stop the rants and give us some facts (Score:2, Interesting)
May I interrupt your rant and ask for some facts please? Where are the usability studies showing OS X or Windows to be superior?
The fact is that Apple has never shown their usability to be better than anybody else's.
And you have nothing to back up statements "There is a complete lack of even the most basic UI design concepts that have been developed over the past 20 years." Come on, try naming those "basic UI design concepts" that Gnome or KDE supposedly violate.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.linux.com/var/uploads/Image/articles/142661.png
Looks like a [bad] fanboi theme on XP...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I totally agree with you. I just started hacking around with Cocoa, and I am pretty blown away by how elegant it is.
Objective C is pretty amazing, too. (I couldn't speculate about whether developing for Cocoa with Java is fun or not).
It's a total cliche, but it's true: You only get one shot at making a good API. If it has warts that you want to get rid of later, be assured that millions of developers will have written code that depends on those warts.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah it's basically due to the easy modularisation of the apple API due to Cocoa (objective-c). THat makes programming for mac so simple. Linux has an equivalent to this in Gnustep/Etoile with Objective C but it is lacking developer manpower. I am convinced that with a lot of developers backing gnustep/etoile it could easily replicate the mac experience on linux and surpass it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
E17 (i.e. Enlightenment) has been promising a lot of this kind of thing for a while now. Of course, the Hurd, and DNF also promise a lot as well...
Re:KDE and Gnome Have Failed To Match OS X (Score:4, Interesting)
And it can be done. Each one of the problems you have listed can be overcome, and furthermore OSX has showed how to solve a lot of those problems. It's going to be a lot of hard work, but it can be done. And incidentally, I don't even think Interface Builder is that great. It gets the job done, but the latest version annoys me.
Parent
Re:KDE and Gnome Have Failed To Match OS X (Score:4, Informative)
Apple: down 23% fom their 52 week high Microsoft: down 30% from their 52 week high VA Linux: down 66% from their 52 week high
Why look at VA Linux, when they don't even sell Linux anymore? Take a look at Red Hat, which is down only 14% from their 52 week high.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The real problem is X and the fact that it is an utter pile of gash.
That's a pretty ironic statement, given that both Apple and Microsoft had to abandon their previous window systems a few years back and adopt an X11-like architecture.
Re:Better-than-Apple? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's X11-like about the Apple windowing system ?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That was pretty much X's only really good idea.
Many other technologies you take for granted today were pioneered with X11: mixed desktop and 3D graphics, client/server 3D graphics, separation of window management from applications, theming, 3D look-and-feel, remote GUIs, pixel accurate graphics, backing store policies, server-side extensibility, window server media handling, mixed direct screen buffer and desktop interfaces, and tons more.
And technologically, X11 and the desktops built on it are lightyears
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Macs don't "just work".
People try them because they are told they "just work" and they pay highly for the privilege. When they discover that they have been lied to they are assured to "stick with it" and once they are heavily invested they are afraid to pull out because they don't want to lose that investment. Then they try to enlist other people so they don't feel so abnormal.
In other words, it's a cult. And if you find that too hard to believe, keep in mind that the leader of this cult is Steve Jobs.
Re:Better-than-Apple? (Score:5, Funny)
http://xkcd.com/456 [xkcd.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Macs don't "just work".
People try them because they are told they "just work" and they pay highly for the privilege.
TBH, I bought a Mac because I'd had enough of issues with hardware (both under Windows and Linux) which didn't do what it said on the box.
Which is not to say there isn't the occasional issue - if I'm buying a peripheral I need to ensure it's not some Windows-only POS but to be honest I'd have avoided such things in the Windows world as well because IME Windows-only peripherals are Windows only because the manufacturer decided to shave a bit off their costs and do the legwork in the driver rather than on the
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it's a cult.
Then how come you're acting so much more brainwashed than the people with positive things to say about Macs?
"It just works" is obviously referring to the machine being usable on day one, without requiring a lot of work first. In other words, the software to do what you want to do is already there and there's no preinstalled deadweight bloatware or nagware that you need to waste time removing. It also suggests that the software is of higher quality and crashes less often.
I'm sorry, but it's completely fair f
Re:Better-than-Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
We're not talking about the people who "just like it", we're talking about the people who claim it "just works". It doesn't just work! The fact is that for the vast majority of people who get on a Mac for the first, second, or even 20th time, they damn thing doesn't "just work" it doesn't even "just kinda work". What it does is anything but. So stop speaking shit. I challenge everyone who has never used a Mac to go to the Apple Store and try to perform the most basic of tasks.. hell, try to switch from one maximized application to another. Enjoy the learning curve. They don't.. just.. work..
Parent
Re:Better-than-Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Better-than-Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you take a Mac from the Mac store and sit down and use it (i.e. don't install a bunch of garbage on it before you figure out how to use it), well, most people find it pretty intuitive.
And this is different from Linux how?
If you plop down an Ubuntu system on someone's desktop, in my experience, they find it "pretty intuitive" as well. Actually, many users prefer the Ubuntu desktop because it's easier to find and launch the apps that they need; nobody has has had any complaints about it.
or a linux machine (which could look like anything depending on the window manager installed and the programs opened).
That's a bullshit comparison. You need to compare desktop operating systems, not a kernel and a desktop OS.
Furthermore, OS X can also "look like anything" if people choose to theme it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"Most applications don't start maximised" isn't a solution. I want them maximised, so if they don't start that way, I will do it manually. And from there, I can't just "[click] a window behind the front one".
And once I have 5-6 maximised applications (which is more often than not), "clicking the red or yellow dot in the upper left hand corner of most windows and then clicking the window behind" becomes an utter PITA.
OSX may be pretty, but it'
Re: (Score:2)
Command+~ switches windows. Command+Tab switches applications. You're right that the Zoom button does fit-to-content in some apps and maximize in some apps and I'd rather see it do just one of them, preferably maximize.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I *challenge* you to take a person who has never used a Mac to the Apple store and ask them to use a Mac to do any standard task. Actually listen to what they say. If they don't mutter "how the hell do I..?" in the first 5 minutes you've found a genius. It is not intuitive. You're told it is intuitive and you believe it, but have you actually tested it?
Mr. (or Miss or Mrs, for that matter) MG, you appear to have a great deal of anger about OS X and how intuitive or otherwise it is.
Why? Why does it matter to you what OS anyone elects to use? More to the point, how is it any of your damn business? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, surely?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For the same reason we should care about what Christians believe - cause they are delusional and accepting irrational belief as "ok" is bad for all of us in the long run.
Their belief in charity and community are just a ticking time bomb. I heard the other day they were giving out free food and clothing to the poor! This must be stopped.
Re:Better-than-Apple? (Score:4, Funny)
The nipple's intuitive. Everything else is more or less hard to learn.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I would disagree, while there is a (shallow) learning curve, when I plug in a printer it "just works".
then you do agree with me.
Re: (Score:2)
No.. I'd be happy to say that no OS "just works". It's not a question of Apple-vs-Whatever.. it's a matter of Apple lying.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a trick question because you can't maximize applications.
But in my experience there are those hot corner thingers that make every window fly out of whatever nook or cranny you hid it in and then you just click the one you want. Combining youur visual processing ability and Fitt's law mean you're much more likely to end up with the window you wanted sooner than say a linear search via alt-tab.
Now I don't own any Macs, but frankly, that's a killer feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Took me a couple of days to understand the whole thing.
What? So it didn't "just work"? Huh?
Re: (Score:2)
What? So it didn't "just work"? Huh?
Hey, jackass. "it just works" mean things just work (and this is generally true). It does *not* mean "I don't have to learn how to use it".
How you got the second notion from that phrase is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
"it just works" mean things just work (and this is generally true). It does *not* mean "I don't have to learn how to use it".
Control the language and you control the debate, eh? I see you are still drinking the Koolaid.
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to Windows the Mac indeed "just works". But it still has many problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure.
Apple 'just worked' and had a GUI from the 80s (pre-os X), and now just works and has a modern GUI.
It happens that that OS X is also when the masses really started using Macs again.
Now, there are *A LOT* of factors that changed in that timeframe - marketing, GUI, features, etc. However, is there any proof, one way or the other, that that the 'just works' is enough without a flashy GUI?
There's plenty of proof of the exact opposite, as it happens. Clever marketing can sell a product which is otherwise running about 2-5 years behind everything else in the marketplace.
Witness MS-DOS and the rise of the IBM PC compatible at a time when Apple had a much larger market share than they have ever since.
Re: (Score:2)
People don't use Macs because the GUI is pretty. They use Macs because "they just work"
People do buy macs 'cause the hardware is prettier, which I think is what most people think of when they think Mac eye candy. At this point, Windows just works about as often as Macs do,(meaning just fine as long as it's used as intended) so usually once cost/functionality are factored in, it probably does boil down to eye candy.
Another reason things just work is 'cause Apple GUI's tend to be fairly intuitive, so it's easy to get things working, once the user gets accustomed to it. Lots of FOSS UI's aren't
Re: (Score:2)
I am posting this from a fairly new Mac lappy and I would estimate that I've used the Mac OS on this thing less than two dozen times. Bootcamp + XP SP3. FTW
And yes, yes I bought it for the beauty of the hardware.
Re:Better-than-Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
They use Macs because "they just work".
I constantly hear this quote from Mac fanboys but it doesn't make any sense. The implication is that other computer systems don't work. I'm on a machine that dual boots Windows and Linux, and guess what? It works!
And you know what else. Nearly every server in the world is on Linux or Windows and they work too. And most businesses are running Windows or Linux and it works there too. And finally Linux and other non-Apple OS's are running nearly all of the embedded systems in the world. And what's most interesting about this is how microscopically small the amount of these people who think Apple "just works" is.
Parent
This is why Shuttleworth is dead wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
I have used and administered Linux systems for a decade now. Whenever I try to setup a "Linux" desktop such as Ubuntu, there is always a long list of problems that would never, ever afflict a Mac or Windows system.
Here are some of the current problems:
- NumLock light is opposite the NumLock mode (this on a dead-common 104-key setup). We see a very high degree of spurious breakage of what should otherwise be very solid functionality.
- Right-click in Firefox 3.x sometimes executes random context item without
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't hold your breath:
http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/catastrafont.html
A few more years Linux fonts will suck in an equally but completely different way.
Re:2008 - The Desktop Linux Dream Is Dead (Score:4, Insightful)
My main problem with Linux right now are the damn fonts... They look like complete crap without heavy aliasing. This should *NOT* be the case even with the extra font packs installed.
You probably didn't set up the right anti-aliasing in preferences; that can happen on Windows and OS X as well. The OS doesn't know what you need or want.
When you use X or power management features or bluetooth..etc its not long before something starts going haywire.. at least thats been my experience.
Did you buy supported hardware? If not, that's like complaining that when you install OS X on your PC, things don't work.
It's not a Linux problem when Linux doesn't work on unsupported hardware, and that simply will never get fixed.
Compared to RDP there is no contest in terms of network resources consumed by remote sessions. X11 is a pig.
That is by design: X11 and RDP are designed for totally different bandwidth/performance/functionality tradeoffs.
Furthermore, modern X11 applications are not written or tested for remote usage anymore. The equivalent of RDP in the Linux world is VNC, which works very well.
Give it a few more years and I'm sure Linux will continue to make great strides on the desktop... IMHO they really do just need to kill the damned X11 system alltogether.
You don't know what you're talking about. Microsoft and Apple had to abandon their idiotic attempts at window systems and Windows UI Server and Quartz now have the same architecture (asynchronous client-server systems) as X11. X11 is still the better system.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? "update" only retrieves the package lists, which cannot ruin anything even theoretically. "dist-upgrade" is a bit of a risk but if you're using official repositories and the stable branch, you'd have to try really hard to break something. Either way, it's hardly Debian's fault.
Re:Spice Rubbed Steak with Quick Garlic Fries (Score:5, Funny)
If you're going to troll(?) at least do it in metric please!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I can do better than oven roasted steak.
Parents, talk to your kids about Linux, before somebody else does:
http://xkcd.com/456/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. Are you talking about something other than what's in the Layouts tab of System -> Preferences -> Keyboard? Because there's also the keyboard setup that happens during the install process. What's missing?