Slashdot Log In
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.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
ESR's Desktop Linux 2008 Deadline
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 535 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Just remove the 'Open'? (Score:5, Insightful)
We can have an Open Source Desktop if we just don't make it Open Source! Brilliant!
Re:Pinky & The Brain meets Open Source (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday July 23 2004, @09:41AM)
ESR: Come, Linus, we must prepare for tomorrow night.
Linus: What are we going to do tomorrow night?
ESR: The same thing we do every night, Linus...TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
NARF.
Re:Just remove the 'Open'? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Just remove the 'Open'? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.castlesteelstone.us/ | Last Journal: Friday June 30 2006, @01:35AM)
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.
H.264 (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.shambala.net)
World Domination 201? (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.halley.cc/ed/)
Like a college course? WD201? It's just like ESR to post something so sophomoric as this.
The only real problem of Linux is (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The only real problem of Linux is (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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.
Re:The only real problem of Linux is (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.imagicity.com/)
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.
Re:The only real problem of Linux is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The only real problem of Linux is (Score:5, Insightful)
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
### 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.
Re:The only real problem of Linux is (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 22 2006, @10:27PM)
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!
So this is what ESR has been doing! (Score:3, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/~Slithe | Last Journal: Saturday February 24 2007, @07:21PM)
Re:Oh good grief (Score:4, Insightful)
Enough said. And seeing what actually happens in US IT court rooms, I fully agree this time with ESR.
Re:Interesting Article (Score:4, Interesting)
-- 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
-- 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.
They miss the biggest point (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 01, @12:01PM)
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.
Re:They miss the biggest point (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.jasonlefkowitz.net/)
Re:They miss the biggest point (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.annexia.org/)
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
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)
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)
(http://go.away/)
ESR? A leader? Hahahahahaha....
Vista 32-bit? (Score:4, Insightful)
From TFA:
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.
Joke got out of hand... (Score:3, Funny)
(Last Journal: Sunday July 13 2003, @10:38AM)
The desktop on Linux on the desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 16, @02:57AM)
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