Linux Distributions Are Too Big 365
wish bot sent in a link to a ZD Net story that talks about how Linux distributions are too big. Many valid points... of course IMHO my distribution is exactly the right size, and I apt-get all the bloat if I want it, later.
Re:Red Hat is 2 CD's now??? (Score:2)
Re:I always thought so... (Score:2)
Some distors have to appeal to a large audience. (Score:2)
I can't install RedHat without X (Score:2)
What a pain in the ass.
how so? (Score:2)
Oh wait, I see. You don't know what you want on your Linux system, so you have to install the defaults... Well, unfortunatly Windows comes w/too much worthless shit as well unless you choose a custom install..
So either learn what you want and need or suffer.
500 packages? Pah! (Score:2)
Maybe I'm not old enough... (Score:2)
First: In windows, I can always count on notepad being there. Linux distributions haven't decided on a default text editor, and suggesting that they do is akin to declaring war. The problem comes when you try to read documentation. Five documents will give 5 different ways of doing the same task, with each way requiring a different set of utilities. Example, research the number of ways to implement automount on a linux system.
Second: What's worse, the distributions haven't accepted there roles as mediators and advisors. Someone has to pull all the projects out there together. They can do this by dumping everything onto a CD, or they can carefully pick and choose best-of-breed. Most distibutions I've seen choose to do the former. This is fine if the distributions would mark packages as 'recommended' or install a basic system and then allow user to choose to add more, but the usual method is to dump everything to hard disk and let the user sort it out. Distributions don't even go so far as to rank the packages as useful, necessary, narrow hack, used by three people in the world.
I believe the second problem could mostly be cleared up by the first. An the first problem could be cleared up if the Linux Standards Base would get off their duff and release a real standard, deliminating a minimalist system.
Please, Redhat/Mandrake/Suse/Somebody, release a minimalist system. Just a kernal, windowing system, text editor, and the bare bones that would be needed to make the system run and advertise the hell out of it. There'll be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, and you'll have to go back and refine. But it will be a start. Everyone will have a reference platform that they can build onto. All the distros will install the basic system, and then go through their own fancy additional installation process. But we will have a definition of what Linux is that everyone can grasp.
Linux walks faster! (Score:2)
I see many here saying: "use RedHat and not SuSE", "No, debian with apt-get" is better" and so on.
Well, I also could join the game and say that SuSE is better. 7.0 has about 10 pre-made configurations that allow you to choose the main use of your machine, has a graphical X configurator that works very well (SAX or SAX2, are the names), and another ton of nice, fast setup options.
So? Is SuSE better than RedHat, Debian & Co.? I'll say "I don't know": I don't use RedHat or Debian, I didn't see their last versions, and I'm NOT going to say "xxxx sucks get SuSE". What you know well is always better than something you saw for some (limited?) time 2 years ago.
Reality is that, in every distributions, important flaws (including setup ones) get fixed in 6/8 month or less. So, in a year, Windows will have a hard time keeping its "easier to use" tag if M$ doesn't start to run NOW. And my impression is that they are running, but in the wrong direction (see Media Player 7...
Final silly note for the article author: how much time does he usualy spend installing and configuring a "full windows workstation", like one doing the things he lists at the end of the article?
In my own experience, it takes at least twice than a Linux setup, and this is if the wonderful Windows Plug & Play doesn't blow up in your face.
The time spent in installations, updates and reinstalls is a huge hidden cost in Windows. With Linux a company would be able to save much more than the M$ license fees.
Ciao,
Roberto.
Re:Zzzzzz-DNet (Score:2)
Yes, we could probably get a few more users if the install were easier and didn't make them choose stuff. But it's still a hell of a lot harder than just buying a machine with everything on it. All the people that would be helped by eliminating choice would be helped even more if the machine just came installed. They wouldn't have to make any choices at all!
Re:Zzzzzz-DNet (Score:2)
You asked that question after spending a full post refuting the ZDNet article's wildly inaccurate assertions. This got your post moderated upward, and now most of the press who's covering Linux is going to see your counter-points.
You still want to ask what the point is?
Re:how so? (Score:2)
I'm sure that most people, UNIX users as well as Windows or Mac users, are not terribly interested in IRQs and DMA channels either. Unless, of course, there's a conflict somewhere that hoses up the system. Windows tries to hide all that from you and is not always successful. With Linux I've never needed to worry much about it (well, there's still that old AHA1542 that I have to take into account... :-) ).
Even with Windows, those hardcore details are hiding just below the surface. It doesn't take too many menu clicks for Joe Blow to run into something that he'll find too confusing. And no explanation is likely to be found in the online help. I can't recall how many times I've run into something in Windows help that walks you through a (supposed) solution, only to find that it didn't fix the problem. Then you're asked 'did this solve the problem' and when you respond `no' you're taken back to the beginning of the same process. Always good for a laugh.
Somehow, and perhaps because I have always had a technical bent, the complexity of the OS hasn't been something that I've found daunting. Are you saying that because there's three hex editors out in some directory that users become frightened? I see something that's complex and look past it until I find that I really need to concern myself with it. Would it help if all those nasty hex editors were placed in a directory where only root would see and have any access to them? Perhaps then Joe Blow wouldn't see them and panic. Also, maybe you're not giving old Joe enough credit. You don't see too many folks shying away from driving their car when the complexity of the systems under the hood places them beyond the ken of anyone who hasn't gone through extensive training and invested in the latest Sun analyzers. Joe doesn't do any tune-ups in his garage any more unless he's got a classic car.
If you're not a problem solving sort of person, IMHO, any computer is likely to seem too complex. I'm beginning to think that Joe Blow and not the business community is the perfect customer for ASPs: ``Buy our $199 internet appliance and we'll take care of those nasty details.'' If computers are too complicated, then why not an ASP or even a dedicated appliance?
--
There's Just No Way To Please Them (Score:2)
Now it seems that Linux is too easy to install, and these guys have to find something else to complain about. So, unlike "the typical desktop OS", the typical Linux distribution comes with basically everything you need to do anything you want to or with your computer. And most distributions' "full install" option installs in under 1GB of space. In an age where PCs ship with a minimum of 10gb of hard disk space, that's hardly an issue. And they don't even force you to install all of those tools that this guy finds so confusing and superfluous. Much like Windows, they give you the choice of two or three standard installs or a custom one where you pick and choose your own packages. Gosh, I never heard anyone complain about how confusing it was to pick and choose between Media Player and Personal Web Server and...
Yes, distribution installers could be made even more braindead-friendly than they are today. But then no doubt these ZDNet people will complain that there aren't enough options.
Re:And now that I've READ the article... :) (Score:2)
There are people on all sides of this issue. But telling us that we all have to keep reading this article until we agree with it is just as stupid as the people that say, "If you don't like it F*CK OFF!". Neither accomplishes anything, and neither is being constructive.
I don't agree with the article at all. To me, Linux is an alternative to the current "standard" desktop environment. Making it just like Windows is not going to leave me an alternative. It would be like, hmm, let's see, having to choose between George W. "drewl and scribble" Bush and Al "Robot Man" Gore. It's not a choice at all. You can be dumb, or you can be dumb, which do you want to be?
If it does make it onto the desktop? Well, great. But it should do it as an Open system. I don't really get into the politics of Open vs. Free myself. But I don't think we need to change every aspect of Linux for it just to survive (and to some people survival seems to be tied up with 'beat Windows' and I don't see it that way at all). Linux will survive for a long time because there are a lot of people (me included) that are going to use it whether it is considered the "standard" or not. And those people aren't all going to just switch to (or back to) Windows just because someone says, "Linux can't succeed".
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't agree with that article. And the more I read it, the more I disagreed. People have differing needs. People won't all agree. That's just the way it is.
But do we want another Windows? (Score:3)
The benefit of volunteer effort in maintenances is not so much that you get a lot of work done, but that you get a lot of committed work done. Things people do in their own time they do well, they do with pride; it's that which (IMHO) gives Open Source software its quality edge, far more than the peer review effect. If the volunteers all drifted away to another OS project, it's probable that the commercial Linux companies could still continue to develop the OS. But it would be developed by wage-slaves driven by marketing agendas, and pretty soon it would have no quality advantage over Uncle Bill's finest.
Linux is good at what it does because the people who know enough to make it what it is care enough about what it does to make it do what it does. If Windows did what we need, Linux wouldn't exist. If Linux did what the Windows audience needs, we would need something different.
It's silly to think of Linux as competing with Windows. The two operating systems address radically different audiences. This is inevitable and a good thing . Let's not dumb down Linux!
Re:Are you an idiot? (Score:2)
This guy is complaining that, once you've installed it, you might have to pick an email client from the menu and that would be too confusing. Frankly, I think it would confuse a newbie more if he had to go back to the installer everytime he wanted to try a common alternative.
> So why is it that your microscopic mind came up with the idea that "delete" is the only solution to making things simpler?
To quote from the article: "But big Linux distributions packed with thousands of apps are likely to leave the average desktop user dazed and confused."
I've installed Debian which, I believe, has the most packages. They are not (and can not) all be installed at the same time. Not that Debian is even aimed at the newbie market or that newbies should be thinking of using it, but the author is complaining that a distribution *exists* with thousands of apps.
No matter what great distribution you come up with, he can still claim that Linux is no good on the Desktop because Debian's got too much stuff.
Another problem that I can imagine Linux having on the desktop is that users like the same thing on their desk at home and work. But what if your office chooses Redhat Desktop Distribution and you chose Debian Desktop Distribution for home. You probably aren't (nor should you be) root on your work machine, and since only KDE was installed, you'd better go back and add KDE to your home machine.
And he goes further:
"The way I see it, for Linux to become a viable desktop platform, it needs to slim down and streamline its offerings."
He doesn't say "default options," he says "offerings".
Re:Red Hat is 2 CD's now??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly am I missing? (Score:3)
However, when I use my computer to produce a document (database, word processing, web pages, graphic design) I'll use Windows or a Mac. Why? Because every time I print, the color matches and the text is where it should be. I find that using Linux, while more fun, slows my productivity by at least 50%. Why? The applications are simply sub-par. They work, but barely. If you don't believe me, then show me the nicest GIMP art, compared with work done in PSP or Photoshop. Compare a web page produced in flash or dreamweaver, to one created with jed. I realize the relationship of good users to good end results, but don't you think the better designer would use the better tools? Could it be that they don't use linux because the applications aren't good, rather than the popular notion that they just don't know about linux?
Re:Debian - increased granularity (Score:2)
The conflict between these two packages sounds like something you'd find in an unstable branch, maybe as one program requires certain gtk libs, and the other requires newer ones. In most cases it's possible to work around that (the ultimate example being that libc5 and glibc2 libraries can exist on the same system with simply apt-getting. Only if you want to develop for both do you need to take the road less travelled), but maybe the person developing the gimp packages (and therefore the one probably on the gtk packages as well), hasn't had the opportunity to work out the fixes yet. In any case, all that would fall into an unstable branch.
By default the /etc/apt/sources.list only has the version that you installed set up for apt-getting eg, you can only get potato updates with a potato install unless you modify sources.list. And that branch will be 'stable', so you'd never see the above problem. Maybe in that version xsane and gimp can live happily together. Now, knowing how much the average user generally chances preferrences from the default, the chances that they will add anything new to sources.list is low, so they will not see that problem. Anyone that does add it probably is in a position that they know how to deal the above apt-get problem.
I really think that the above is a non-problem for considering the ability of average users to use debian. They *aren't* going to be adding packages alot and will probably be happy with what they install initially. If they do start adding packages, it would be expected that by that point they'll have some familiarity with the system to be able to handle the slight problems as the above post suggests.
Re:less is more (Score:2)
Package selection in mandrake is horrible, you either stick with the very crude selection mechanism, choose to let the install intelligently reduce the amount of packages or accept to browse through thousands of poorly documented packages with very cryptic descriptions. Neither is really an option so most users will choose to install everything out of fear of breaking dependencies. I foolishly tried to install 60%. Of course X wouldn't even start and I gave up on mandrake eventually.
Of course there are people who do need isdn apps but that's no reason to include every isdn tool known in a default installation on a computer that doesn't even have the hardware for operating an isdn connection.
So, my point is that most of the packages installed could hardly be described as essential. I just want the stuff needed to run such things as a browser, a texteditor, X, KDE and Gnome apps. I don't need a 100 Mbs of mostly badly desiged themes and other bullshit. I'm sure it can be done efficiently in under 500 megs but I'm not willing to spent much time figuring out what packages to install and what packages to leave behind. The installations are not particularly helpfull and given their immaturity it is usually not a good idea not to use the default settings since most likely your particular choice of settings has not been properly tested.
Duh, it's a machine (Score:2)
Re:My wife said this months ago... (Score:2)
most distributions do not even care to tell you what are installed. e.g. vi. It gets installed by all distribs. Yet no installer tells me it is installed. Without this knowledge, I'm going to install another editor.
That's where all the bloat comes from.
If I'm told exactly what software are installed by default, are compulsory and stuffs, and what exactly goes in a package, I can choose what to install more precisely - thus preventing bloat.
Also. The way Linux distributions group the apps in their installer does not make much sense. I'd hail the Windows way here - divide the applications into groups and groups of groups. So, e.g. all text editors would go to the same group. All mail clients would go to the same subgroup of "internet apps". All browsers would go to the same group, etc.
AFAIK no distribution so far does this for me. That's why I'm forced to install stuffs that I don't need.
While I agree with you that choice is good, but this choice SHOULD be given WHILE you're installing, NOT AFTER you've installed everything.
Re:2.5 Gigs? (Score:2)
Re:large audience create too much conflict (Score:2)
Onwards...
The tools provided with each "distro" of NT differentiated the server and workstation versions. Yes, they're the same under the hood, aside from a few registry settings. The author of the article wasn't saying there should be a "consumer" kernel and a "server" kernel. (s)He was saying that the tools installed in addition to the kernel should be more specific to the task at hand.
Re:Zzzzzz-DNet (Score:2)
No, *I'm* not proposing this. The ZDnet article is. Read it. The guy's big problem is that there are so many choices. He didn't pick a newbie distribution, he picked a distribution famed for having lots of applications and said they shouldn't have done that! Who's being outlandish? The bottom line is that the author's solution is to eliminate all the choices.
> It is just one obvious solution that any distribution could choose its own default applications
But that already happens. For the most part, you can usually choose something like "Server" or "Workstation" and a bunch of defaults are selected. Under Debian for example, you are *not* forced to decide whether or not to install every single package. In many cases, multiple things that do the same thing (mail clients, for example) get installed by default. Debian has a ranking system in the mime-package to determine what the defaults are. Having several popular mail clients installed by default is a bonus. You can try a new one without going back to your installer.
I'm *not* saying that there aren't things that can be done to help Linux on the Desktop, I'm just saying that this crap from ZDnet is nonsense. The author noticed that there's a lot of apps under Linux (used to be that there weren't any), and so he came up with this hook that "there's too much!"
And so is his conclusion that there needs to be a Newbie distribution? No, he wants *all* distributions to get rid of all these choices. He wants Debian to forget about the whole Free Software/GNU thing and concentrate exclusively on the Lowest Common Denominator.
He made 2 points, not one, and badly at that. (Score:3)
Well which is it??
How can something like a software distribution be too big anyway? (BIG in this case meaning number of apps, not disk space used)
Many of the applications are not installed by default, and if it had fewer apps they'd be complaning that there weren't enough.
So without even meaning to, basically this one article has proclaimed linux to be number one because it has TOO MANY APPLICATIONS!!!!!
Hooray! Linux has finally made it. We have too many applications!
Rich...
Re:16 Version of Solitaire (Score:2)
Wrong view (Score:2)
Occasionally I had to deal recently with one distro by hand... That was necessary for some very fine tuning. So I know what goes on such thing like RedHat or Mandrake. Now tell me if I can find this on Windows:
A few window managers for different tastes and skills.
Several programs that practically cover the whole Internet set of "classical" services. Also with an offer of variants for different tastes and skills.
Several "non-standard" Internet apps.
Several languages for development. It seems that now only BASIC is the big missing player here. Everything else is already there. Together with several development tools.
Several instruments for document processing. Only one thing is still missing. A good, professional Office set. But it seems that soon OpenOffice will fill this hole. Anyway, no talk about "l-i-n-r-f-t-d". StarOffice does its job quite well. After propper install.
Several graphic tools. Here there seems to exist a few clear missing zones, specially on vector graphics and 3D.
At least two DBMS systems go - MySQL and Postgres.
Several mathematical tools. Some quite advanced.
And many more...
And this goes, on Mandrake, in two disks. Bloat? Yes. It is bloat. But not because it goes on two disks but because of the apps classification and organisation. That's the real problem that we face. Till now, the way packets are classified/organised is quite raw. And it is an headache for users to get into that HUGE tree and look for each app they will install. Here we need clearly another approach. Maybe to divide the tree over a few separate trees to allow a better visual approach.
But anyway, the article is wrong from start. To install Mandrake you don't forcefully need the second disk...
And what concerns one smart guy talking about notepads on Windows. I don't want IE. Not it's not that I don't like it. I DON'T need it! On a computer without Internet connections IE is the same as an elephant in my bathtube. And that's the property of Microsoft. Everytime you'll be sure to find tiny notepad and heavyweight IE after every install... And many other things... On Linux I can't get rid only of one single thing: the kernel.
Re:less is more (Score:2)
My problem with linux distributions (and not only mandrake) is that you don't really have much choice: either manually select packages you don't know (misstakes are usually fatal for succesful completion of the install) or accept the very crude selection mechanism provided to you.
Re:less is more (Score:2)
I don't believe they are requiring 2.5 GiB. :-)
No one expects you to install _all_ the CDs. You have the coice, that's the difference.
Unix is the choice-OS. Most of the djihad discussions can be answered by the sentence "You have the choice!". Which window manager is the best? Which editor should be installed? Is KDE better than GNOME? How about CDE?
Re:Red Hat is 2 CD's now??? (Score:2)
I need several CDs before Win2K is useful.
Once again, ZDnet must be on crack... (Score:2)
Take Windows, or office. Sure, they're one 'package', but think about the options you get when installing them? Let's look at Windows ('cuz it's smaller than Office)....
In the Add/Remove programs for Windows Setup, you have the following 'packages':
Accessability
Accessories
Address Book (why isn't this an accessory?)
Communications
Desktop Themes
Internet Tools
Multilanguage support
Multimedia
Online Servies (also not an accessory, nor an Internet Tool)
System Tools (somehow, this is differnet than acessories)
Web TV for Windows
Now, in each of those, you have the following 'sub packages':
Accessibility - 2
Accessories - 12
Address Book - 0
Communications - 8
Destop Themes - 17
Internet Tools - 5
Multilanguage Support - 5
Multimedia - 9
Online Services - 4
System Tools - 10
Web TV for Windows - 2
Now, in Accessories, there are 3 screen savers
That's a total of 85 packages, just for Windows.
Wanna do Office?
So, what's a packages? In RPM terms, KDE is not a package, it's multiple RPMs. Hell, the Kernel isn't even a package, because it has several RPMs (source, headers, kernel, pcmcia, and etc.)
So, saying that Distro A is 'bloated' because it has more packages that Distro B is just stupid. The best they could complain about is that the package management system has been implemented with packages that are too small or too fragmented.
But, when you start bundling these things into one, you get yourself into the DLL HELL that is Windows.
Re:how so? (Score:2)
Bryan R.
Re:Some distors have to appeal to a large audience (Score:2)
funny... (Score:3)
then later, they say that the linux distributions are too big... that tehy come with too much stuff, i.e. applications.
message to ZDNet - make up your mind... does linux have too many applications, or not enough?
this is just childish now... "Hey, there are just too many applications on this distribution... we dont want ALL this... you suck!!! give me less choice!!!"
tagline
Re:how so? (Score:2)
Stop bragging about the number of packages! (Score:2)
Debian - increased granularity (Score:3)
The packaging is done with a finer granularity. They often choose a minimal number of packages to, say, have a working emacs. Then you can apt-get all the elisp you need to increase its function.
The same with tetex. There are, I think, three packages that are necessary. Then you can add docs, fonts, and postprocessors to make it tetex on 'roids.
But it is really about choice and flexibility - the linux way. And I think this applies especially to Debian. Of course, flexibility also means more knowledge is required to achieve the functionality you desire.
it's not the size, it's knowing how to use it! (Score:2)
I will be the first to admit that linux is very intimidating to the newbie. However, if you want to talk bloat, Windows won't be any better!
I think the real problem for new linux users is that linux has so many things that can be configured, changed and optomized (isn't that why we love it?). The Linux-Mandrake install does a nice job of walking you through the install, but there are always a few things (like xvidtune) that most newbies won't know about. It's not a bloat issue, it's a knowledge issue!
If you're worried about bloat, go to http://qnx.com/ [qnx.com], and download their operating system on a floppy! By the way, you won't be able to configure too much!
The next generation search engine -- TRY IT!
Oh, they're so right. (Score:2)
--
Re:less is more (Score:2)
And though I've never installed Mandrake myself, I'm sure it can be done in less than 2.5 GB!
-
Comment removed (Score:5)
Seems like an opportunity... (Score:2)
To take over the desktop market, you have to give users less choice when installing. They only want choice on the flashy stuff later.
don't forget text manipulation tools (Score:2)
And lets not forget text manipulation tools. One of the big reasons people use linux is for the text manipulation tools. If I just wanted the applications listed above, I'd use windows. As I'm sure many other people have pointed out, the unix philosophy calls for many small applications that do one thing only and do it well. For example, take WMP7 for example. How many applications are all rolled into one, huge program here?
- mp3 player (mpg123)
- graphical interface (xmms)
- playlist manager (perl script)
- ripper (cdparanoia)
- encoder (lame)
- id3 tag manager (id3ed)
- streaming audio (?)
- streaming video (?)
- movie player (?)
I'm sure there are others (I haven't used WMP7 that much), but the point is that it's probably at least eight or nine applications rolled into one, big windows program. It's just a difference in structure that's all. Most people who run linux should expect differences from windows.
Re:Are you an idiot? (Score:2)
The overall viewpoint of the ZDnet article, from the catchy headline to the final tag, was "Linux offers too much". There was no moderation, no sense of compromise, no notion of different distributions for different purposes.
> This was all that was being stated.
Then why mention Linux-Mandrake, Debian and SuSE?
Linux-Mandrake started off as a "Redhat doesn't have enough" distribution. And he complains that they have too much for a newbie.
Debian was created on the principals of Free Software. And he complains that newbies don't care about GNU.
No where did he make the sane and rational argument that there should be a *different* distribution geered towards newbies. He never even acknowledged that the distributions he was looking at were marketed to specific audiences. His parting shot was directed at all distributions: slim it down.
Re:Not so funny ... (Score:2)
Linux is a Real OS with Real Software necessitating Real Choices by Real Men. Morons need not apply.
This is not to say that I oppose usability imporvements. They are good and needed. I'm an old mac hand--Linux has a long way to go. But dumbing-down distributions is not the way to do it.
Re:Some distors have to appeal to a large audience (Score:2)
apt-get the bloat.. (Score:2)
The reality is that you are getting lots of software at a great price. Even if you pay $80 (Redhat delux) for a distribution, you get server software for ftp, http, telnet, maybe ssh, finger, etc, as well as office tools, like Star Office (okay here is bloat), and you also get multiple window managers.
Now how much would you pay for ALL that and windows NT? hmm lets see NT 4.0 ~$289 full version, you get one window manager, NO server software and NO office app. MS office add atleast another $300, server software could be over $1000. Hmm I know tough choice here.....
I'd prefer a large distro, so I don't have to download a lot. Some of us don't have the bandwidth to waste on downloading..
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Nonsense (Score:3)
So now, Linux has a problem because there are just too many applications that run on it (and come with it)? What happened to 'linux has a problem because nothing runs on it'?
In other anti-news, tiny momNpop stores with limited selections in town are thriving as Wal-Mart superstores crumble un-noticed in the distance. It seems that consumers hate having too much to choose from. Everywhere, mega-malls are shutting down and becoming ghost towns. Single screen theaters are spronging up everywhere while tumble weeds blow through the lobby of the cinema 128. Customers pay a premium price for simple, no frills Yugos while Cadilalcs sell for a paltry $1000.
In the U.S., many citizens are calling for an end to the two party system. "There's just too many choices!", said one man. "Why can't we just have one party and a ballot with just a yes box?", said another. Some are going even further. "Deciding to vote or not is just too much! We need a dictator for life like in Cuba", a sentiment supported by many people wearing identical, 'one size fits all' suits as they exited the polls.
Make Linux... (Score:2)
As much as I hate this, this is infact what it will take. Once people see that Linux and Windows are similar enough they will not care to pay Windows pricing.
Once Linux has infiltrated the desktop market, it can slowly show its strengths over windows and take over the market all together. We must simply break the mold slowly.
Kernel of truth in the stupidity. (Score:2)
However, when I first decide I want a pager (or suchlike), I find the choice Debian offers me pretty daunting. Sometimes I just wish Debian could recommend one for me, the same way it recommends exim among the MTAs. Now, Debian offers a priority system, so maybe I should choose the one marked "optional" rather than the ones marked "extra". But while offering a big choice is good, it would also be a good thing to offer a way of *reducing* that choice in favour of judgement calls made by people who know the packages better than me. Hiding packages marked "extra" might be enough.
I also agree with the person who pointed out that the granularity at which Debian packages offer is finer than that at which we want to choose them. In general, I don't care about, say, xserver-common; by itself, it doesn't do anything for me. I'd like Debian to arrange for it to be installed if and only if it is needed by packages I do care about (like task-x-window-system-core) without ever bringing it to my attention.
All of this requires lots of tricky infrastructure. It's not through laziness or stupidity that Debian doesn't already do this; it's because they already have enough problems to solve!
--
Not too big, but the installs still need work. (Score:5)
There's absolutely no harm in packaging as much stuff as possible on the CD. You just have to make the installs easier to manage for the newby user.
That goes beyond nice pointy-clicky interfaces. RedHat (as far as I remember) has the choice between Workstation, Server and Custom install. A good first step. But what you really need is a bunch of tasks, not arbitrary classifications that nobody understands, and not a huge list of applications to choose from.
The install should ask you what tasks you need to perform with your computer:
And should should then install a nice set of applications based on those choices. On top of that, maybe a little guided tour/tutorial that explains what the applications are.
Re:Damned if you do, damned if you don't... (Score:2)
xterm
eterm
konsole
aterm
kterm
gnome-terminal
Also, there seem to be ALOT of different versions of solitare, one for every toolkit. If you are installing Gnome or KDE, why would you need a tk one? Only reason I can think of is of the gtk+ one or the qt one sucks! The distros need to decide which terminal they want or which MUA they want or just choose a freakin standard. If I don't like it, I will do one of two things, first, download the one I want and install it, or pick the distro that has the one I want. I have, personally never understood terminal emulators that have pixmapped backgrounds and stuff like that. The pixmap makes things hard to read! :) one thing I do like is transparent terminals. Just change the frame in sawfish or your wm de jour and resize it and fit a couple terms on the desk to do anything you want (I seen a couple screen shots of someone running a script in the window that was checking his e-mail on various servers...much better then the panel or kicker e-mail checkers....). I do like that there are alot of apps on the disk, but lets be honest, how many solitare games do you need? How many versions of minesweeper do you need? One of each is enough for anyone.
Will the Mac users at ZDNet please stand up? (Score:2)
Macintosh users have no right to gloat either--using the Mac OS isn't much easier than using Windows. The Finder and Chooser may sound intuitive, but just try to find a running Mac application after minimizing it, or choose to eject a CD from the CD-ROM drive by pressing the Eject button (silly me).
First of all, there's no such thing as minimizing an application in Mac OS. You can windowshade individual windows, and you can hide applications. Running apps show up in the Applications menu under Mac OS 7-9, and in the Dock in Mac OS X. Not exactly rocket science.
Second, what Eject button? Only the most recent Macs have a keyboard eject button for the CD. Older models let you simply highlight the disk and select Eject from the Special menu (and no, it no longer leaves the ghosted icon on the desktop, and hasn't for at least two years). Again, not the world's toughest job.
Yes, there are flaws in how Mac OS has become more complicated and less differentiated from its x86-based bastard twin, but ZDNet really ought to investigate these things a little before posting rude and inaccurate comments on them. (Oh, who am I kidding. Ever since Jason O'Grady went to work for the big Z last January his PowerPage [go2mac.com] site has gone from a once-valuable PowerBook resource to a constantly-broken, never-informative, ad-driven puff piece and is the only Mac site running on Windows [netcraft.com]. But I digress.)
As for whether Linux is too bloated, I think companies whose operating systems barely fit on a 1.1GB Virtual PC partition with an office suite shouldn't throw stones.
--
Re: (Score:2)
Re:16 Version of Solitaire (Score:2)
Re:Zzzzzz-DNet (Score:2)
Does this have something to do with what the definition of "is" is? It's not that there "is" too much, but that they "have" too much? Please clarify.
> Current distros are mashing everything together
First he selected "Linux-Mandrake", which prides itself on having everything and not being the newbie distribution. Then he complains that Debian is more worried about Free software than the newbie market. Duh! Kinda like being surprised that a Republican wants a tax cut.
He most certainly does *not* say that there needs to be a newbie distro. He told all the distros to slim it down.
Mandrake 7.2 and package bloat (Score:2)
I wanted to pull pictures off of my digital camera and was doing an 'rpm -ivh gphoto...' and I was told by the package manager that the mdk version was already installed (sans icon tho). I see this as incredibly convenient considering I'm on a 56K dialup and don't want to download large files for packages.
My fiancee (who used to use Windows) is now an avid Linux user. Installation and configuration were no more difficult than installing Windows. I see the article as yet another "moron with a mouthpiece" - (i.e. it LOOKS too complicated and I'm not even going to expend any mental effort whatsoever investigating it).
My $0.02
He's kinda right.. except where he's wrong. (Score:2)
Not to say there isn't a "custom" install for all of them. I swear.... on redhat, the custom install made me deselect so much. It was a bit overwhelming. especially after i broke a dependency, clicked back and had to start all over again.
And BSD people, BSD/OS and freebsd is guilty. Perhaps not as much as redhat. Bsd/os, to install X requires an extra 300+ megs. FOR WHAT? My X server compiles to only a few megs. crimey. ANd it won't let me do a "custom" install.
The only agreement i have is that yes, unless you read the 3 pages on compiling a kernel, you are lost. But how many times do you do that? Not often. As for device driver installation, modules are and aren't the most intuitive thing. Somteims they work, sometimes they don't. And recompiling them or the kernel instead isn't as simple as the silly, configure file-less clicking of windows. Yeck.
My $0.02 EC
---
Corel, Corel... (Score:4)
For those of us that want everyting it is there and ready...
My other personal favorite is when they say "Linux is not ready for the desktop yet because of X." Yeah well no shit. They are working on it. Instead of whining about it, do something, that is the wonder of OpenSource...
Just my worthless
!Bloat (Score:2)
Hard drive space being really cheap and all it's not that big of a deal if your distro loads some programs that you won't use much. It's comforting to know that they're there if you need them. My suggestion would be to install a distro (e.g. Mandrake) that's designed with the desktop user in mind. This will give you a mix of programs that is most useful to the desktop user.
I'm in no way saying that the other distro's aren't any good, just that they might not be the best choice for the newbie desktop user. If I were installing a web server I'd probably use Slackware or Stormix. If I were wanting a geeky machine to play with I'd try Debian. And If I owned a lot of stock in hard drive companies I'd encourage the use of SuSE.
_____________
Re:don't forget text manipulation tools (Score:2)
Todd Volz (Score:2)
Your article has too many words. Couldn't you just sum it up in a few sentences?
Yes! Source RPMS are *nice*...kinda! (Score:2)
I use Balsa [balsa.net]. I like Balsa. However, the precompiled packages don't always play nice with my system; something about libmutt being goofy or whatever. Solution: grab a source RPM, rpm --rebuild balsa-1.0.1-1.src.rpm, and kaboom! Ten minutes later, I not only have a working version of Balsa tailored to my system, but a binary package stored on my system in case I need to reinstall that version later for some reason!
Another story:
Ghostscript is a nightmare. Compile it from source? Yeah, right. However, there's a GPL driver for my printer that I prefer to use that has to be compiled in. Solution? Grab a source RPM, do the prep stage, perform some magic, edit the spec file, and kabang; not only will Ghostscript compile and work, but I can produce binary and source packages to distribute so that other people who can benefit from the driver don't have to go through hula hoops themselves!
Well, uhh, I can't distribute the particular packages I have at the moment...err...licensing issues...but I plan to do the same thing with GNU Ghostscript today, so I'll make that available for you HP, Epson and Canon users out there looking for a better ghostscript driver:).
Of course, there are times where one will run into dependency problems, and this is where something like Source
Re:how so? (Score:2)
I do apologize, then, but the focus of the article was discussing the new Linux user and not an experienced user such as you sound. No disrespect meant.
LINUX IS NOT READY FOR THE DESKTOP OR THE AVERAGE USER
But it doesn't have to be. I hate to bring it up again, but Corel has proven this. It is even possible, IMHO, to produce a distro that is almost exactly Windows like, right down to the installed apps. It is my belief that the distro makers are headed in the wrong direction. Some, like RedHat, appear to gear themselves towards servers, and that is fine. But, when you have Caldera, Mandrake and others installing over 800 packages, that is a little much. I will agree with you that it is a lot easier then installing Slackware from back in '96.
Remember, if they are so hellbent on saying Linux needs this or that, they are quite able to fix it...
Who, the reviewers? The editorial writers? The average user? I disagree with you here. It will come down to those select few who are able to create their own distros to do this.
Bryan R.
Re:Take a reality pill guys (Score:2)
His complaints with Linux (based solely on SuSE) consisted of:
a) "Which one of these ten text editors do I install?" Ditto for every other category. The enormous selection of packages is a Good Thing(tm). Having to choose amongst them at install time is a Bad Thing(tm).
b) "What do you mean you don't know anything about Yast! I thought you knew Linux!" Okay, the LSB should solve a bit of this, but until then...
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Why the hell do I need 5 text editors?
You probably don't. I know I don't. So we should both just choose our favorite and install that. Now if the question is why does the distro need 5 text editors, just look through archives for one of the many text editor flamewars, then try to decide which 'one true text editor' you will include in your (theoretical) distro. It will probably take 5 to satisfy the majority of the users.
The packages are there to offer choice, not to fill up your drive by installing all of them. Just like an extensive menu at the restaurant doesn't mean you have to order one of everything. I don't know of any distro that just installs every last thing without being told to (Other than the single floppy router distros that is).
If some people are saying "Too few!" and some people are saying "Too many!" that doesn't mean they are the same people.
That's true. I was mostly ranting about the 'too many' crowd who act as if they don't get a choice about what to install. It seems like an especially silly reason to complain.
All OS's contain bloat in one way or another... (Score:2)
It would become a nightmare if a distribution was split up into mini distributions, based on usage needs. With questions propping up like,
person 1 - "I have a problem with XYZ Linux"
person 2 - "is that Enterprise or desktop distribution?"
Linux has enough distributions as-is, it doesn't need subdistributions furthering the fragmentation.
Seems to me the story was just trying to create controversy, by singleing out Linux. When not encompass the whole spectrum of OS's and their relative bloat? Or would that be considered too much good journalism?
Then there's something to be said for apps tucked away out of sight. I used to love going through DOS (and later on Windows), finding programs they'd left in obscure places, and finding out what they did. After trying out Linux, I found myself doing the same thing. It's just something fun to do, exploring.
Cheers,
leroy.
We should have some choices (Score:2)
1. Minimal should install the basics: the default text shells, X-windows, Netscape, text editors, the default window manager, no dev tools, no servers, no KDE, no Gnome
2. Normal should add: an office productivity apps, a simple web server (not apache), KDE/Gnome. Basically the same stuff you get in a default windows installation.
3. Developer: adds most common languages and development tools, gcc, jdk, perl, etc... - all the window managers, apache with all the common extensions already added in (PHP, mod_perl,
4. Server: DNS server, apache with PHP et al, sendmail (or variants thereof), samba, dial-in, VPN support, etc...
5. Custom: anything you want.
Re:But do we want another Windows? (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point. If you're too dumn to install Linux, that isn't a problem for Linux. It isn't a problem for you either, if Windows does what you want. If Windows doesn't do what you want, then you're going to be motivated to go out and make something that does, work for you. Too lazy? Too dumb? No problem. Use Windows.
Why would you 'love to use Linux'?
Face it, guy, if you can't make your mouse work, that's your problem, not Linux's.
Not so funny ... (Score:2)
Ugggh
is everyone going to have to say the same thing about the too many applications so why are you complaining about lack of applications. The point is that Linux distros will come with multiples of everything. THere are what like 10 text editors?
What needs to be done is have a home user distrobution and a full distrobution. The home use distro will have one one of each basic program. Only one GUI (pick KDE or Gnome and stick with it). And the kicker is that it should NOT have any of the source or docs. Make it so that you can change everything without needing to recomile anything. Now I'm not sure if thats possible but if it isn't then Linux is screwed on the home pc, because Ma is never ever ever going to compile a damn thing.
Re:ZD Net wouldn't know (Score:2)
---
Re:Take a reality pill guys (Score:2)
Convenience? (Score:3)
1) This is a redundant argument, as very soon most Linux packages, Microsoft OSes, etc etc, will be distributed on DVD-ROM. 6G should be enough for a while.
2) Anyone who complains "i dont have the time to download 600 Megs" is a complete blithering idiot. READ THE MANUAL. Download the install disks. Do a remote ftp install. Get only what you want. You can get by on 100M if you need to.
apt-get (or equivalent) the rest.
3) Isn't ZDNet turning into something more akin to an agony aunt column for a bunch of journalists thinking they're techies because they stole a copy of RedHat 6.0 from the office and managed to kill their machine at home with it?
Fross
Good points but a little off-base. (Score:2)
A) This is an example of the "good type of freedom" that multiple distros offers. Each one can tailored to different segments of the market. However, I think the main problem is that there is no "minimalist" distro aside from Stampede. (There's Slack, but they have a more stability rather than performance slant.) And of course, Stampede isn't exactly ready for prime time.
B) Everyone using seriously using Linux has broad-band access. While its fine for some distros to offer huge software bundles, I really think it makes more sense for the distro makers to concentrate on the core system, and leave software collections to $4 cheapbytes CDs. It would also stop the bastardization of software by distro makers. Suse and Mandrake have uglized versions of KDE, and I have not found a way to get rid of the decorations and menus.
C) I'd hesitate over all his statements about "preconfigured." The problem with many distros today isn't that stuff doesn't work "out of box" but that any changes in configuration require the user to go "against the grain" of the preconfigured system, which makes configuration harder. For example, I keep mentioning Mandrake and its inane SysV wrappers. While it may make it easier to work things out of box, it just complicates things when the user needs to do something themselves. Distro makers should not try to fix things with kludges on top (its obscene the number of kludges contained in Linux, particularly in distros like Mandrake, RedHat, and Suse) but reform the core system to make it cleaner and more coherant. Here's where the LSB could really help. If they made a good, clean core organization (without being weighed down by stupid *NIX legacy issues) while Linux is still small enough, and I am certain that distro makers would adopt it.
Re:Debian - increased granularity (Score:2)
Problems like these are part of the reason for the new testing distribution - most of the in-transit problems associated with being on the bleeding edge are sorted out, while your system is also not too outdated.
In contrast, the unstable distribution will remain just that - unstable. New packages might prompt particular dependencies that are not yet ready. Old packages may break if one of their dependencies is updated. So on, so forth.
Re:Not too big, but the installs still need work. (Score:2)
My opinion (Score:4)
So what exactly does he suggest? That we whip out "Debian Lite" and "RedHat Lite", costing $30 each? NO! The distribution's cost is for the support that comes with it, so the Lite version would cost exactly the same as the full one (not counting Enterprise licenses and the like, of course).
He claims Linux gives the user too many options. In other words, to simplify matters the "perfect" distro would give as many options to the user as MacOS or Windows does.
What these people don't usually get (and I'll be writing it in bold) is that Linux is NOT MacOS or Windows. One shouldn't expect a perfectly smooth transition because one isn't possible!
Is it so hard to understand that a perfect transition from Windows to "something else" can only be achieved if the something else is Windows itself?
The virtues of Linux come from variety and configurability. The user, no matter how much computer illiterate, must learn at least what the basic distributed programs do. The user must take a couple of hours out of his life and press '?' to read a paragraph about each RPM (or
This is only my opinion, of course, but I would personally NOT make a Windows equivalent distro of Linux. Even if I or someone else did, complaints would still exist and it installation wouldn't be that much easier anyway because we're talking about a different OS.
Now take a look at these quotes from the article:
And then there's Linux--chock-full of these kinds of peccadilloes and proud of it.
It seems like he's trying to piss us all off. Linux is designed for power and flexibility. If you can't handle it, either ignore the extra features you don't understand (and Linux will still run fine) or shut up about it.
Add a peripheral (or just sneeze, for that matter) and you'll spend a good chunk of time trying to figure out how to recompile your kernel.
Yeah, right. It takes about 2 minutes to teach someone how to recompile a kernel. It's a matter of "make menuconfig; make dep; make clean; make bzImage; make modules; make modules_install" with slight variations.
Yesterday I installed an USB intellimouse in my box. I didn't have USB support, but it took about 1 minute to choose the USB+HID support in the kernel and about 2 minutes to recompile it (I didn't make clean). After that, I edited XF86Config and changed "ms" for "imps2" and changed the
That stuff isn't intuitive, but it can be taught in a matter of a few minutes and is all over the place in HOWTO files.
And there's also KUDZU, which already setup GPM automatically for me the next time I restarted. On the near future, X will already detect USB mice easily.
Now in Windows I had to reboot, see that message that no mice were detected. Then I:
1. inserted the CD that came with the mouse.
2. inserted the Win98 CD
3. restarted
4. inserted the CD that came with the mouse. some software installed.
5. restarted
6. I saw that the software was installed but the driver wasn't, DESPITE STEP #2!
7. reinstalled the driver that supposedly was in the CD that came with the mouse.
8. restarted
9. that INF file wasn't the USB mouse driver, but didn't call any installation program either. I still haven't figured that out and don't want to.
10. inserted the Win98 CD and installed the REAL, correct driver.
11. restarted. it worked.
SEE? The Win98 setup process takes forever and what's worse: you don't know what goes on.
Even something as simple as changing the desktop resolution in X can be quite a chore, depending on the distribution.
False. The distribution has nothing to do with it. Edit
Let's face it, for all but hackers and pros, Linux is too much of a hassle to be of much use on the desktop.
False. You just didn't have anything to write about and spreaded anti-Linux propaganda.
Linux IS harder than Windows to use, OF COURSE. But you don't have the feeling that you're banging your head against a wall when you're installing drivers for a MOUSE!
Once users realise there's something called a "kernel" that holds drivers and there are "configuration files" which you can change with "text editors", everything's fine.
One just can't expect such a major change to be done without some effort on the user's side.
Flavio
Re:how so? (Score:3)
Yes, that's the type of mentality that will get Linux quickly adopted by the common user. If the article was read in full, you would have seen that it discusses the average users response to a typical install of a Linux distro. To be a first time user in any of the distros out there is a daunting task, as all of the pre-installed software is overwhelming. Load up Mandrake and take a look at your KDE/GNOME software selection. Yikes. That is one area that, IMHO, the soon to be late Corel Linux did correctly, and that was to limit the software that is installed, unlike other distros that, for example, believe CVS server should be installed on a desktop system.
My idea of a perfect distro would be one that you download the ISO and it installs the X, a desktop, and the tools need to either
1) install my software via packages, or
2)compile any programs that are needed.
What is that, a 150MB install? It would be even better to have the iso be desktop specific, be it GNOME or KDE. I know that you can take the time to sift through all the packages and make sure that dependencies are maintained, but hey, I'm lazy like that.
Bryan R.
Re:And now that I've READ the article... :) (Score:4)
> and I'm FAR from the only one.
The interesting variation here is that there is no need for you to know that things are being compiled.
Maybe installation takes a little longer, but the package gets built according to your local preferences and installation. This is just a packaging issue.
Whilst I don't recommend this is the right thing to do with large packages like KDE, Gnome, etc. this *is* the right thing to do for plug-in modules (think kernel drivers, X graphics drivers) which have a closer dependency on the app into which they insert.
For many things, source could become the default method of distribution, as long as it is wrapped nicely by dpkg and/or RPM who cares?
Re:Zzzzzz-DNet (Score:2)
Every time I've come across a distribution problem of late, the Debian zealots come out, apt-get this, apt-get that... "and it automatically gets whatever you need..." hey, GUYS, doesn't this sound like That Other Operating System[sic]? I much prefer that RPM *tell me* what I need, and then I can go investigate getting it, and decide if I want to bloat out that many terabytes or not. This is freedom. Oh, and if the server is down, I can go hit another mirror without having to edit some configuration file somewhere and then have to remember to change it back.
Oh, and the other thing. Perhaps things are too big because folks are too fscking LAZY to sit down in custom mode and rip out everthing but what they need... I've got a fairly complete RH6.2 on this little laptop here, KDE, Mozilla AND Netscape, Emacs, and a full-out set of kernel sources and the stuff to compile them, and I'm using right on a gigabyte for system. At the other end of the spectrum, I once managed to strip down a system (using the same Red Hat 6.2) to 78mb, INCLUDING Apache, Samba, Linuxconf-http, SNMP, and raid-utils. Now, compress this down, put it on a flash-IDE chip, add a custom copy of LiLo... :)
Then of course, there's tomsrtbt, Dualix, the Linux Router Project, hal91, and all those other 2.0.3x-based systems that manage to fit on a single floppy, or maybe two or three.... or better yet the Slackware boot/root/net set, a very USEFUL Kernel 2.2 floppy-based setup... or, for a more complete system, Zipslack....
Linux as bloatware. Feh. Debian as the one true way. Humbug, I say, HUMBUG! If you see the Buddha on the road, *tac-nuke* his ass. Before it spreads.
--
Warp Eight Bot, equal opportunity abuser (wearing his OpenBSD Polo today)
Being a distro bigot is so passe'...
Re:Zzzzzz-DNet (Score:2)
Uhh, actually yes... Red Hat Linux 7 [redhat.com] is two CDs which are all RPMs. Both CDs are required for a full installation. There are even more CDs for the SRPMS and the Powertools.
Speak not from whence you know not...
--
Numbers of Applications and Their Size (Score:2)
My concern wasn't the fact that I had too much in a distribution, it was that I didn't know what I had or where anything was.
It would be really nice if along with a commercial distribution came a piece of paper which would list standard application categories such a Word Processors/Editors, MultiMedia, Spreadsheets, Online Help, Browsers, Chat Programs, Development, System Administration, etc. Then under each category list each software applications's name and purpose, how to invoke the program, where the documentation quick start is (info/man/howto), and if applicable where to get a printed resource like a book from O'Reilly. It would be important to notate whether the user would have to use X to run the application.
This list ought to come in printed format because new users may not know HTML, won't know how to invoke a browser, may not know how to type a file to the screen, and most certainly won't know how to print the information.
From this standpoint Linux distros do require you to have a base set of knowledge before you can gain more knowledge. I read this article as a cry to lower the barrier of entry for the uninitiated.
Remember, once people get a simple distro installed, it doesn't take long at all before the light comes on and they start craving everything. Perhaps that is how entry to the Linux desktop market should happen.
Clearly, mortal users do tolerate large multi-megabyte applications, however whether obtained separately or not isn't the point.
Help! (Score:2)
Help me! Help me! There's just TOO much software out there for Linux! And a large amount of it is included on the CD I just bought/burned, so I don't have to hunt around for hours on the web to find what I need or pay a couple of hundred dollars for each program! Whatever shall I do?
Quite an about-face, isn't it? It seems like just yesterday "they" were complaining that there was no software available for Linux. Now there's two desktop environments, at least one of which is usually included by default, and a load of other software targeted for a wide variety of users. Even the older Red Hat distros (5.1 and 5.2) I used before I switched to Debian had nice HTML indexes with descriptions of the packages included on CD. Debian's in-dselect descriptions were very useful when deciding what to include in my first install of that.
I'll admit the defaults probably need a bit of work. Well-designed defaults should (ideally) install what's generally needed by a user new to Linux. And a good selection program should be available for people customizing their install. But complaining that there's a huge variety of useful software easily available? That's a bit much, don't you think?
-RickHunter
Requirements for the Desktop and Linux (Score:2)
Automatic network/Internet configuration
don't most distros already have that? I think most commercial/newbie friendly distros already are up to bar at this point with Windows. Maybe easier setting up of smb shares would be useful here but maybe that is already done in some distros
Tough, preconfigured security for network/Internet access
Right. But what does that mean exactly? Lot of closed services. If you rstrict to much unexperience users will be frustrated.
A conservative roster of applications, including an email client; a Web browser; office tools such as a word processor, a spreadsheet, and presentation apps; an image editor; a media player; an HTML editor; Telnet, FTP, and other network utilities isn't that what the DE's are trying to do? I mean if I look at either gnome or kde they offer pretty much all those features. Does Windows offer a complete Office suite at no extra cost? No ( I'm not saying those apps shouldn't be included in a distro).
A single window manager that integrates the best of existing desktop environments into a pared-down, easily configurable workspace
New users at first won't care about which WM they are running, at least I didn't care at the beginning.
You install the DE of your choice, WM doesn't matter that much for a new User.
A modicum of accessories such as a calculator and an address book same as two questiosn above
User-friendly network administration tools what?, come on, we are talking about mister J. Random User here, he won't have to administer a network.;-)
The Article has some valid points tho.
Re:Convenience? (Score:2)
a) it's a sysadmin's job to know this. that's what he/she's there for.
b) it is not necessary to know all the components that are *not* needed. it is simply necessary to know the ones that are. extracting say ftpd from a filesystem with 100 packages as opposed to 10000 packages is no difference. this gives a stronger approach to building secure obxen, you don't install something unless you know what it is and that you need it. ie RTFM.
but this really is getting offtopic.
Fross
The solution is here; notice it! (Score:2)
I don't think I'm being unreasonable. All I want is an OS that is easy to use and works the way I want it to, without my having to go under the hood all the time. The fact that I know how to edit the Windows Registry and the Macintosh extensions manager doesn't mean I like doing it.
So, Linux vendors, hear this: If you really want to give Windows the boot, your OS has to be slick, quick, and slim. Because, after all, too much is...just too much.
Well, gee. There is an operating system out there that's slick, slim, capable, easy-to-use, easy-to-configure, and "just works" without editing configuration files, if your hardware is supported. Drumroll please.... it's the BeOS! [be.com]. So why didn't he try BeOS? Perhaps because nobody pays attention to it? Tell ya what. Next time you complain about Linux, try BeOS. It'll make your life easier, and happier.
Can you make everyone happy? (Score:2)
Hmm.. the example this article used was Mandrake, which is what I last installed, so I guess I can offer a comment.
First of all, yes, it does come with 1000 packages or whatever. That's a lot. Maybe very few users will even use 10% of them. But hey, it fits on the CD! It'd be downright criminal to leave blank space on the disk just because filling it up would be "too much".
But there must be an easier way to present all this stuff. Does it all need to be in your face at install time? My concept is a minimalist installer than presents you with a few simple choices corresponding to what people are _most likely_ to want to do with the machine. e.g. "Gnome or KDE?" "Install gcc? (y/n)" But not too much. Ideally this would leave the user with a fairly concise desktop environment, maybe at the Windows level of applications, a couple of dozen accessories. No servers! No games! No bloat!
Then, anything you wanted from the rest of the packages could be installed after you have a working setup. Thus, it could be presented in a far friendlier fashion than an endless list of packages with one-line descriptions. You could have a helpfile type thing for the user to browse, with a decent page of info about what the hell each package was. Screenshots even! All the packages would be arranged into categories, of course. And a clickable link which would install it (letting you know about dependencies etc. of course). It could even connect to the distributions site and check for a newer version of the package.
This would I think be very comfortable to use for "experienced" users (who are used to finding new software on the net and downloading/installing it), and not too scary for beginners.
Re:16 Version of Solitaire (Score:2)
So here's your choice. Keep linux on the "bleeding edge" so it remains elite, or make it usable for the masses. Judging from your attitudes, it looks like I'll be using Whistler and other hated Microsoft products for a long time.
Good. You stay in your comfortable little world, and you'll probably never realize what you're missing.
Re:Debian - increased granularity (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I am only a recent convert to the One True Distribution, having previously been an inhabitant of SuSE and Slackware Lands.
Debian is indeed a fine, fine distro. And a model of what is required for high-granularity packaging, with all the benefits that brings - Especially for the net-connected with their I-want-it-now update needs. But I'd venture to suggest that it's not the ultimate in user interaction and consistency when it comes down to the how of selecting, installing and configuring packages.
For instance, as a relatively new user with much more experience of rpm or tarball-extraction, I'm still struggling with apt-get's Maze of Twisty Turny Dependencies. Fr'instance: how the hell do I get gimp-1.1.29 installed with xsane? apt-get is forever telling me I need to de-install gimp to install xsane; I *can* replace it with gimp1.1-xsane but only for gimp 1.1.17. This is for 2 packages I *know* can integrate, cos I've done it on SuSE (rpm -i gimp, rpm -i xsane, RTFM & create links in ~/.gimp-1.1/modules as needed, et voila bob's yer uncle).
Presumably I can override dependencies and prevent removal of shiny new gimp, and I dare say that if I could bring myself to launch dselect again there'd even be a psuedo-menu based system for letting me do that, but why should I? This example leads me to believe that we, the great unwashed Debian User masses are at the mercy of the Fickle Masters of Packaging and their dependency whims...
This is a trivial whine in the grand scheme of things, but like the man said - You want Linux for the masses, it's got to be damn-fool-proof. In this case, I'd venture to suggest that this means that both a more friendly interface is required (dselect? Just Say No. Especially to das bluddy awful dependency correction), and an independent (of the packagers) comb-through the thousands of .deb out there to validate dependencies before burning to CD.
Unreasonable users (Score:2)
There's so much wrong with this statement I almost don't know where to start. Let's start by saying Yes! You are being unreasonable and now I'll tell you why. All you want is an computer that does what you want it to do, but you have no means or desire to create it for yourself. I am reminded of revolutionaries who just want a society of peace/freedom/equality (take your pick) but have no plan how to get there. If you know the way, we'd all like to see the plan, alright, but until then take what you're given. After all, it's not like you're paying any of our bills.
Re:how so? (Score:2)
Yes, it is a daunting task. Like I have mentioned time and time before, LINUX IS NOT READY FOR THE DESKTOP OR THE AVERAGE USER. If you want to use it, learn it. It is a hell of a lot easier than when I first picked it up in 1996..
Remember, if they are so hellbent on saying Linux needs this or that, they are quite able to fix it...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't... (Score:2)
Well most distros come with several applications of the same type (e.g. several MUAs). And I'm glad it does, I wouldn't want to be stuck with whatever crappy mail client my distro's maker decides I should have. Windows people are so used to having things shoved down their throats that, given some freedom of choice, they run screaming "this is too much". Well it's not!
--
Re:how so? (Score:2)
I agree. But although the README file for the kernel calls Linux a `Unix clone', I'd beg to differ. John Maddog Hall said that Linux is the standard Unix. And I'm inclined to believe him. Linux improves Unix beyond what most Unixes are.
So many `standard Unix' elements have remained stagnant for so long. Linux has improved, and replaced them, maintaining backward compatibility. Its quite clear that Linux developers know that while Unix principles are good, previous implementations have been poor. And they're willing to throw out the legacy junk for the sake of improvement, while maintaining backward compatibility.
DevFS. The XFree86 teams new rendering system for X. GTK and QT. KDE and GNOME. Simple Directmedia Layer. All these things replace what's commonly regarded as the Unix `standard' way of doing things. Regular
Linux uses much Unix philosophy. Linux is Unix compatible. Linux implements many of the features of Unix. But Linux is, in terms of philosophy and community, not Unix. And its more than beards versus goatees.
Unix is designed to be...well...Unix. Security.
Unix systems are locked down more by default. But Unix rwxs permissions suck, compared to POSIX ACLs [most secure versions of Unix OSs use them, and I wish Linux would too]. Far too many daemons run as root due to a lack of a fine grained permission system. The idea of all system administrators logging in as root isn't particularly well thought out. Default Unix permissions are goold, the default permission system is terrible.
Small program to do specific task.
Indeed. But Linux also has a heap of friendly big programs to tie all those little apps together. There's nothing wroing with this approach for Joe Blow.
Very focused on the developer/researcher/other academia nut.
I guess the thing here is, one persons unbloated command line firewall can be another guys icon filled desktop system. It has that flexibility. The mentality of most Linux interface developers is to maintain that sleekness and keep the small components while providing something friendly for people to use. cdparanoia + bladeenc + GTK + GNOME + more = GRip. That program Joe Blow clicks on to turn his CDs into MP3s. But Dave Digital Audio engineer still has the freedom to use those individual parts, and the beauty of the system is, that if Dave doesn't like bladeenc, he can substitute another encoder without too much difficulty. Even if he had the source for RealJukebox, it would be a much more odfficult task, due to the monolithic nature of the app.
Unix and Linux are trying to simplify their complex backgrounds, where as the commercial OSes are working from a simplier standpoint, giving out more hardcore details to those who know to look for them. Personally, I believe that's the smarter thing to do.
Firstly, most Linux distributions are commercial, in that they are given away to generate revenue to the distributor. The opposite of Open Source is closed source. The opposite of commercial is noncommerical. Whatever the status of a project, they have no bearing on eachother.
Secondly, I think its harder for a large, unmodular system to break itself down into little parts than it is for a small moduler system to create larger, friendlier apps. NT has proven itself [via WinCE / PocketPC / NT Embedded] to be much less down-scalable than Linux. Windows 2000s recovery console [command line only mode] is only minimally functional, and you'll never have the opportunity to take it to Linux's level. Finally, its much more difficult to replace components of such a large system as NT / 2000. For example, integrating IE into Explorer was insanely unstable until they got it right (and yes, they did, eventually after IE 4.0, 4.01, 4.01SP1, 4.01SP2].
Re:Not so funny ... (Score:2)
Its entirely possible. And you're right, if it weren't, Linux would be screwed on the desktop. But it is.
I have the skills to compile apps, but I generally avoid it and if I find something I like which is not packaged, I get it from rpmfind [and debian users have it even easier with apt].
The only thing I've compiled on my main system, being used at least ten hours a day for regular Joe Blow stuff [StarOffice, Napster, net surfing, email, etc] is Open Media System and Xine, for playing DVDs.
Take a reality pill guys (Score:4)
It was good for me, because my connection at home is 28.8. It is bad for me because when I want to install, I have to go through thousands of packages to find out what I want. Linux needs a desktop standard. This means, a core set of applications. You pop in a CD, you click the giant OK button and it is all done. If you then desire, you can use the other CDs to install your favorite app. If I tried to install SuSE, I would have to insert CD 2, insert CD 3,
I gave a friend SuSE, and that turned him off about it, he wouldn't even give it a try. I am sure that if we came up with a desktop standard for linux that it can be done in a very good 300-400meg for very useable system. I am not asking for a core system with no X, no network, etc, etc.
We must remember that bigger is not necessarily better, more is not necessarily better. KISS is good. Keep it Small/Simple Stupid.
I use BSD as well, and this is why I love NetBSD and OpenBSD. They are very small, whenever I install it, I install just the standard (1 CD). If I then use I can install applications via the ports collection. Let's not let our Linux pride blind us. Happy Holidays.
Cheers
Re:funny... (Score:5)
- MS Windows - 1 CD
- Visual C++ & MSDN docs - 3 CDs
- Paint Shop Pro | Photoshop - 1-3 CDs
- MS Office - 3 CDs
- Various Drivers for my hardware - 3-5 CDs
In addition, there are a bunch of things that I'd have to download right away. Let's think about those:- ICQ
- AIM
- WinAmp
- PGP
- Putty
There are probably some others that I've forgotten but it's pretty obvious which is easier to be productive at. I'd estimate that this whole process would take me at least 5 or 6 hours by the time that I got everything installed, setup with my ISP and so forth. My last Mandrake install from 2 CDs took me only about 2 hours from inserting the CD to the point where I was using the Linux equivalent of all the programs listed above and that's mostly because I have a slowish CD reader._____________
less is more (Score:4)
The problem is redundancy. For each type of application there are more than one implementation. Take editors for example, the average linux distribution will install at least half a dozen (and probably more) without even asking. Then you usually get both KDE and Gnome, half a dozen xterm apps, a bunch of shells, a bunch of filesystem browsers (all of them crap IMHO), and a zillion other apps. Not to mention apache is installed, an smtp server is launched, you can telnet, ftp and god knows what to your machine while all you wanted is a stupid firewall
I don't want all that, I want a tailored system that only includes what I need, configured in a simple way and preferably not running all sorts of server apps I won't use anyway. In the unlikely case I want to use emacs or vi, I'll install it myself. What the hell am I going to do with programs for faxing and ISDN? I don't have even have a modem! Why waste diskspace on useless apps such as Xroach. It's only a few kilobytes, I know, but all this bloat apparently manages to sum up to about 2.5 gigabytes.
None of the linux distributions I know off meet these requirements and I doubt any distribution will meet them anytime soon. Debian is too complicated, Mandrake is too bloated, Red hat too buggy, Corel is too annoying. It seems that all the parts for making a nice OS are available but nobody has managed to put them together in the right way. Perhaps we do need MS Linux
Re:Zzzzzz-DNet (Score:4)
So you honestly believe that we need to agree an a single email client and everyone should be expected to use that one client? Expecting a user to choose his email client, after all, is just expecting too much of them.
Aside from a few ease-of-installation issues (which, in general, should be solved by OEM-installation), the majority of the article was basically saying that there are too many choices and too much software.
So how do you propose Debian, solve this problem? Delete all-but-one email client, browser, hex editor, text editor, etc. I guess it would settle the KDE/Gnome holly-war once and for all, as one or the other would be forced into extermination (for the good of Linux). The divided vi users had better all agree on a single flavor (elvis, vim, nvi, etc) lest they be ousted by the stronger emacs/xemacs faction. But one way or another, there's no room for a vi and and emacs. Better still to oust them both and replace them with a notepad clone.
It's just silly. The strength of *nix is that pieces are small, interoperable, and interchangeable. And MTA is an MTA, and one can replace another. Some might be fine with a simple, easy to configure MTA, but others might need more complex options.
Should exim be the One True solution? If the big standardization purge came a few years ago, a program like exim would have been verbotten as it did something that was already being done, and we wouldn't want to confuse newbies by introducing a choice.
My wife said this months ago... (Score:3)
Why can't we just have a distribution that has a cohesive and simple feel. Most users don't care that they can use one of a hundred editors, they only care about using one editor. Maybe two on the outside. Look at windows default install...it's pretty bare, but it does have the basics there.
I think something like helix goes a long ways into this area, but it still needs to be worked on. I've been arguing this on our LUG mailing list for a while. Just a single desktop environment is all that is needed. Don't put in a lot of extra stuff. a word processing app, a little editor, a calculator, a mail app, a spreadsheet app, an icq app, etc. Not 8 mail apps, 3 spreadsheets, 6 icqs, 3 aol aim clients, etc.