Yet Another Call for Linux Standardization 533
An anonymous reader writes "Newsforge has an article Commentary: United We Stand...the Division in the Linux World, in which David Meyer argues that UnitedLinux will provide standardization for the Linux community that will allow it to win the desktop market from Windows. The article has a number of supporting comments, but then this one particular negative comment that disagrees with David. This particular comment offers an alternative view on the need for standardization. This aternative view that is put forward simply argues that 'Over what is almost twelve years we have pulled ourselves up by the bootstraps. We have done this using a development model that allows us to produce software that proprietary vendors cannot compete with', and then summarizing that 'the Linux community does not need to set up businesses with the specific intention of trying to "win" users from Microsoft; all we have to do is continue to develop software in the same way, and the users will make the switch all by themselves'."
They already do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They already do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They already do. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sad seing such an Insightful comment only scoring 0. Unfortunately I just used my last moderation point.
Re:They already do. (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that in order for us to get anywhere we've got to start innovating, not immitating. In order to do that we've got to stop looking up so much and just do what we already know is right. Nose to the grindstone.
Re:They already do. (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if you introduced a totally new car control system that made total sense and was really easy to use. People's first reaction would be 'Where's the steering wheel' and their second would be 'This sucks, there's no steering wheel, I'm not buying it'.
Sad, but a fact of life.
Re:They already do. (Score:3, Insightful)
As a developer, I would like to know that I can count on certain libraries being included in the distributions for which I write code. I would also like to feel confidant that the libraries will stay backward compatible so that I don't have to keep rewriting / recompiling my products for new versions.
This doesn't mean that all distributions will be the same. It only means that there would be a 'Lowest common denominator' that programmers could count on. This is 'working smarter.'
Re:They already do. (Score:3, Insightful)
Preach it brother. :)
This is a serious problems with libraries, that seems to be especially bad in the free software world. Sometimes the changes are just trivial silliness: add/remove a param from an initialization function and recompile. Obnoxious, but not the end of the world. Other times the changes are deeper and require a fair amount of work. The frustration is that there is no standard about what can change in major, minor, and patch revisions.
A simple set of rules that govern:
- When an API function can be removed. Major after deprecation marking for full revision.
- When a param change requiring a cast may be
made. Compile visible, but not link visible. Minor
- When a param change requiring relinking can
be made. Major
- How internal functions are named. I prefer a trailing underscore.
- When external structs can be changed. Major.
- yadda, yadda, yadd
The dev branch of a library would not be subject to these kinds of rules, and dist maintainers should never use such a branch.Re:They already do. (Score:3, Insightful)
If new elements are introduced to the computing environment (e.g. use of database instead of files ) then we can make brave new designs for those parts, but other than that, to much novelty will only alienate the users.
You should also know that Xerox Parc, Apple and finally MS have done a lot or usability research in this field, why throw all that out the window.
Re:They already do. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's the apps, stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)
When Gentoo [gentoo.org] gets a graphical front-end for the portage system, compilation will be a long-lost memory for most users. Gentoo standardizes the compilation/compiler option configuration process - for any program, just emerge (name of program to build). It has some bugs now, but fewer than you'd expect. I think this would be great for end-users - power users and sysadmins will want to muck with every individual compilation.
It also does dependency checking better than any packaging system I've seen so far - except maybe Debian.
The fact that it's source-based will probably keep it from mainstream use, but the spin-off distros could be incredibly promising.
Re:They already do. (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux isnt successfully competing against MS due to quality or features. It's competing on freedom, price and by levelling the playing field, something which can harness the interest of every vendor in the buisness. They all gain (well, except MS). How would Apple gain the interest and cooperation of IBM, Dell, HP, Oracle, Sun etc?
They cant, of course.
Standards (Score:4, Insightful)
- Why is there still no standard model for adding and removing apps? The number of competing models for package management alone is sickening.
- Why do we still have to choose between a bunch of different desktops, ALL of which are mutually incompatible?
The lack of standards in Linux is even worse than the closed-ended standards on other OSes (coughWindowscough) because it makes almost any attempt to converge standards nearly impossible. We've had this for 12 years, and nothing short of wiping the slate clean is going to make it any better.
This is fine for people who don't care about such things -- who are just going to dump RedHat on a server somewhere and deal with it as little as possible. But for people who are going to be managing many different systems, not all of which are going to be homogenous, this is insanely annoying. It means that people have to learn four times as much to do the same things.
We need ONE standard desktop -- KDE, Gnome, I don't care. Pick one and use it. The others can be gravy, but we need a sanctioned interface. Not just to make things easier for end users -- and believe me, it does -- but to insure that more de facto standards do not muddy the waters any further.
And yet any discussion of such a thing in "serious" Linux circles is treated with jeering and derision. "GUIs are for wimps!" Face it -- GUIs make your life easier and anyone who tries to argue this down is blowing smoke up the wrong sphincter.
Linux users and advocates need to lose the elitism that used to preserve them, and is now working against them.
Posted as Anonymous Coward because karma can go fuck itself.
Re:Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
So... Who, exactly should get this authority to decide? And how, exactly, do you propose stopping people from happily continue development on all the other desktops?
Re:Standards (Score:4, Informative)
- Why do we still have to choose between a bunch of different desktops, ALL of which are mutually incompatible?
Out of all the duff crap in your post, this is worst. There's nothing stopping a KDE user from loading Gnome apps or vice versa, you just have to have the appropriate libraries loaded.
Re:Standards (Score:2)
- Why do we still have to choose between a bunch of different desktops, ALL of which are mutually incompatible?
If you add that every installation is different and decide that this should also be more uniform, then you've essentally made every distro identical. This is great for the poeple that like RPM, KDE and a GUI installer (assuming those are chosen as the "sanctioned" standards), but this is horrible for the large groups of people that dislike all of those. The various Linux distros all offer their unique solutions to each of these issues to cater to specific sectors, and if you smooth out the differences, then all the reasons that certain people use Linux go away, forcing them look for a system that gives them the flexibility they once had in Linux. This is exactly the opposite effect that I think you had in mind.
If you want a completely sanctioned system, always use the same distro and use only their packages. After you find out how inflexible that is, come back here and post about how good it is that we have umpteen different distros to serve different purposes.
Re:Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a few different of which two or three are very widely used. Of course having more than one is a litle unfortunate, but there are actually multiple of those which are quite good. Even with multiple different aproaches, it is still better than what you see on other systems. On other systems you basically have one installer program for each application which is a lot more than an installer program for each distribution.
different desktops, ALL of which are mutually incompatible?
They are all built on top of X11. And they are not all incompatible, I frequently mix applications from different environments. Only a few applications are dependend on a particular environment.
The lack of standards in Linux is even worse than the closed-ended standards on other OSes (coughWindowscough) because it makes almost any attempt to converge standards nearly impossible.
I completely disagree with that. With Windows you don't get any kind of standard. The MS way of compatibility is not achieved through standards, but rather by having only one implementation. And they can move it wherever they want. Yesterdays version of Windows is not necesarilly compatible with tomorrows. And if MS dislikes you, your applications will be the ones to suffer the most. And finally tomorrows version of Windows will be incompatible with todays competitors.
KDE, Gnome, I don't care. Pick one and use it.
Sure, a lot of people do that. They just don't pick the same. And who do you think is in a position to deside which of the two people are allowed to use? We are talking about freedom here, people cannot come and tell me I must use gnome or I must use KDE. I often alternate between gnome and KDE, whenever I upgrade I use the one giving the best performance and stability in that particular distribution. Or I even use twm if I get too tired with the whole thing, in fact KDE and Gnome are becoming too much bloatware for my taste. I liked them better in the old days, if they would just have worked on the stability rather than the bloatness it would have been so much better today.
Face it -- GUIs make your life easier
Sure, I sometimes want to use a GUI. But I don't need the entire desktop environment concept known from Gnome and KDE. Give me a Window Manager and nothing more. All I need is a nice way to manage the Windows on my screen, and of course a way to open new xterms.
Re:Standards ; we need them - Linux though? (Score:5, Interesting)
We need a Lindows type OS, that has a nearly flawles, Windows-like interface, and easy to use device support. We also need massive support for everything that is cool on the Web for home users to tackle learning Linux.
I'm not a computer dummy, but I had trouble getting my scroll button on my mouse to work in Mandrake 9.0. I set it to where it SHOULD have worked and it didn't. Then I rebooted, and all the sudden it worked. Nothing told me I had to reboot, and I assumed I didn't because I was switching between mouse selections and other features were changing so how was I to know that the scroll button needed a reboot?
If I were in Windows, they would have told me to reboot as soon as I picked another mouse. This is just one example of less than thrilling support for my hardware. My soundcard and NIC didn't work either without tinkering.
Thanks for letting me rant. I want Linux to kill Windows [to the point where it is affordable and stable], but Linux cannot do that yet. Standardization will help that, but Linux is not meant to be standard for everything! Contradiction, eek!
You need non standard versions of Linux for people who don't want it for Desktops. Period. Trouble is, those people are the ones driving its development, so we won't see a standard Linux anytime in the next decade.
Re:Standards ; we need them - Linux though? (Score:3, Insightful)
Please try to keep that perspective in mind before you 'bitch' at 'users'. We want people to use linux? then we will get users! If something is not obvious, then we 'developers' made a mistake.
Otherwise we'll forever have linux stuck in the 'By technicians, for technicians' era.
Re:Standards (Score:2)
There IS a standard, it's called bash, and is the default shell on every linux distro (at least the one's I've used). All your favorite window managers and desktop environments are your aforementioned gravy.
On the other note regarding KDE/Gnome, these seem to be slowly approaching some intermediate common asymptote, so what you're asking for might not be too much of a problem in the future.
FWIW, I actually like what many distros have done lately by standardizing the menus across KDE/Gnome/others. Some might not like seeing a KOffice item in a Gnome menu, but it's nice to have the software that you installed be standardized across the available desktop environments.
FInally, I agree with you that GUI's help out. But my original comment was about commands working on the command line uniformly across all linuces (neglecting some distro-specific shell scripts which depend on certain files existing in certain places with a certain layout, but that's a whole other story, or maybe that's your original point to begin with). But regarding uniformity, any linux you get setup will have a standard CLI-based interface to let you DO things.
NO, NO, NO... (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it amazing that people clamor around the concept of one type of LINUX, but yet will buy a specific VCR, Refrigerator, TV, car clothes.
Why is this? Because a specific vendor has said that there should only be one user experience and not multiple. Why did this specific vendor do this? Because otherwise there MIGHT even be competition. And as a result a whole slew of minions argue along and fight into the hands of that specific company.
What we need to do is convince people that there is choice and that people can choose. Just like you can choose a VCR and TV. Interesting, is it not. You will spend hours deciding which TV you should get with the feature set, but spend one minute on the OS....
Tells you something yes?
Missed the point, missed the point, missed .... (Score:5, Informative)
To use your analogies:
Different TVs, but they all can view the same channels and use the same antenna connectors.
Different VCRs but they all use the same tapes and work with any TV.
Different cars, but they all use the same gas and standardised oil grades.
Differnt refridgerators, but they all use the same electricity.
That's the kind of similarity you need to standardise in user space.
Re:Missed the point, missed the point, missed .... (Score:5, Insightful)
=>Different TVs, but they all can view the same
=>channels and use the same antenna connectors.
PAL vs. NTSC?
=>Different VCRs but they all use the same tapes
=>and work with any TV.
Beta vs. VHS, region coding?
=>Different cars, but they all use the same gas
=>and standardised oil grades.
Regular, unleaded, diesel?
=>Differnt refridgerators, but they all use the
=>same electricity.
115V, 60 Hz vs. 220V, 50 Hz?
We're really delving into economics and economic network externalities (which have nothing to do with packets).
I recommend this [barnesandnoble.com] as a non-technical, yet excellent analysis of WTF is going on.
The do-it-yourself spirit that has me pondering ordering 4 Lindows boxen off of www.wallmart.com and IABCOT in my basement to support some research for school simply Does Not Translate into a general prophecy that Linux will rule.
The sheep remain sheep, and will not forget that BeelzeBill is their shepherd, and they shall not want (too frequently).
Linux standards development will continue along its present, Darwinian lines. For example, we gripe about Gnome/KDE, but I haven't heard much about alternatives to X. You can say all you like about Bluecurve, but that's the general direction that things, over time, are likely to go.
Re:NO, NO, NO... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NO, NO, NO... (Score:4, Insightful)
The same thing happens every time some jackass brings this point up.
Linux advocates: What, oh what, does the common user want in order to switch from big, bad Microsoft?
Common users worldwide: We want one, simple means of installing software and a standardized GUI.
Linux advocates: No, that's not it. What, oh what, does the common user want in order to switch from big, bad Microsoft?
Keeerist, if you don't want to hear the answer, then stop asking the damned question. The responses are pigfuckingly obvious to everyone but you. The common user wants one easy means of installing software and a common GUI. Now, please, tell me I'm wrong.
Re:NO, NO, NO... (Score:3)
Then why switch?
Of course you can build a "standard" UI on top of Linux. But that would miss the point of using it over Windows or Mac. There's a reason why an airplane has a different UI from a bicycle.
What users want (Score:3)
And that is what standardization is about. Not about forcing a single choice but about having a single default that can reliably be trusted by users who haven't learned enough to change the defaults.
Re:NO, NO, NO... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the install problem has more to do with all those compressed tar files floating around on the net. Users simply don't realize that they are supposed to be used by developers and not end users. And after trying some of those they tell all their friends how difficult it was.
So I would say that most of the problem is in user perception, even though a standardized GUI to pop up when a user doubleclicks on that install package would not hurt. But the main problem is education.
Re:NO, NO, NO... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then let THEM write it. My software works, installs fine on literally hundreds of thousands of Linux, Unix, and POSIX-compatible machines that it is available on, and is in every single Linux distribution, and the BSD ports tree. I have yet to hear one complaint that it didn't install like they expected it to.
If someone wants to make it install LIKE WINDOWS, then they'll have to write it and contribute it back to the project.
If the user wants one common GUI, let them choose one at install time. Forcing all Linux distributions to use that single GUI or recommend it standard (GNOME, KDE, blecch) is death to Linux. We are not trying to mimic or emulate Microsoft, so stop it!
The users have to educate themselves, mature their behavior, and learn a little bit. This is not Windows, so stop trying to make it like Windows.
The users need to pick one. (Score:3, Insightful)
The users need to pick one. I picked one. They can, too. What? Are they afraid the might be the wrong one? But they aren't afraid of having us pick "the one" for them? Then they should hire one of us to pick it for them. Sheesh. Why is this so hard?
What most users want is for it to work exactly the way they are used to computers working, only better. Well, some don't care about the better part. Actually most don't give a rat's arse if it's better. They just want it to be easy and simple and do what they are doing now, which has been pretty much molded by their past with Microsoft Windows.
The real issue being raise regarding standardizing Linux isn't about what users want, anyway. It's about what developers want. It's about what lazy developers want, which is to not have to figure out anything about a different distribution. If two distributions are identical, or if there is only one, they probably don't care.
Re:Standards (Score:2)
Right now there is basically only three app add/remove standarts - deb, rpm, tar.gz, deb being the best, but the most unsupported. Pretty much every distro has RPM, even if its not the primary packaging format(slackware, for example, has rpm installed by default, and, although it's labeled "unsupported" and dependancies don't work, I use it all the time, never had any problems). So rpm is pretty much the standard, with deb and tar.gz being the alternative. If your distro doesn't have rpm, install it and no problemo.
About desktops... how are they mutually incompatible? you can't run QT programs from Window Maker, or GTK programs from kde? So you have to install a few more libraries. I for example can't stand qt, and love gtk and other people have opposite preferences. If one is accepted as the standard and everyone stops supporting everything else, then someone is always gonna be pissed. X Windows protocol is the standard and thats good enough. And just because some people like GUI doesn't GUI has to be adpated as the standard. I use CLI for many things(nothing beats MC at file management) and like it.
Variaty is always good. Windows has alternative desktops that are very very good(Talisman for example) but nobody uses them and know about them, simply because the regular windows gui is the standard. Users have to be given alternatives always.
Re:Standards (Score:2)
Oh, I give up. AC, that is one finely crafted troll. You managed to cartoon and press every Slashdot hotbutton. It's not often you see that level of study and dedication anymore. Congrats.
Re:Standards (Score:3, Interesting)
To paraphrase Clinton, "That depends on what your definition of "we" is".
We (experienced Linux users, those who love to tweak, try different things, find the desktop which suits them best) do not need, and in many cases don't want, a "sanctioned" interface.
Who is going to "sanction" it for us, anyway ? Using what we are "sanctioned" doesn't sound much like Free Software to me.
Your point makes more sense if you consider new Linux users, or perhaps a corporate desktop use of Linux.
They might appreciate a standard desktop, in which everything works the same way, and learning/training is simpler. But is this so difficult to achieve ? Pick one of KDE or Gnome and stick with it.
Let everyone else use what they are most comfortable with, and stop whinging.
One things that always gets me about the "corporate desktop" is how much functionality is actually required to use the desktop. People talk as if using the desktop itself was the aim of the exercise. It isn't. The aim of the exercise is (just) to use the desktop to get at the applications to manipulate the information/data in question (documents, spreadsheets, code, video, sound, whatever). The way some people talk, you'd think they spent several hours a day moving and resizing windows, changing fonts and colours, and stuff like that, instead of working.
Yes, some more standardisation would be useful re. file management, drag and drop, standard keystrokes, etc. But stick to either KDE or Gnome (2.0) and a surprising amount of this is already achieved.
Perhaps the problem is that some of Linux's best applications are KDE/Qt applications, and some are Gnome/GTK applications, and if you restrict yourself to just one subset, you're missing out on some of the best programs.
But then, if we concentrated just on developing the one great spreadsheet, the one great word processor, the one great cd-burner, I'm sure we'd be missing out, too. Where would the innovation and the new ideas come from ?
Competition - it's what a large part of the Western economy is based upon.
you are missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Sanctioned by who? You? God? Bill Gates? And how is that going to be enforced? Do you go out and shoot developers that develop software you don't like?
The different interfaces are there because different people like and use them. Under Linux, if nobody wants to use a desktop anymore, nobody will be using it. That's what real choice is all about, and Linux is structured so that people really do have a real choice, unlike Windows or Mac OS X.
Why is there still no standard model for adding and removing apps? The number of competing models for package management alone is sickening.
I see four major "models": Debian, RedHat, Slackware, and Gentoo. They are different, they are managed differently, and they serve different purposes. Even if, say, RedHat and Debian used the same binary format, the packages still wouldn't be interchangeable because they are maintained and kept consistent in very different ways. I'm glad that both Debian and RedHat (and other distributions using RPM) are out there: it gives me meaningful choices. If ever one system or the other turns out to be inferior, it will go away.
Welcome to the free market of ideas. This kind of competition has created package management that is lightyears ahead of anything on Windows or Mac OS X.
Why do we still have to choose between a bunch of different desktops, ALL of which are mutually incompatible?
Gnome and KDE are fairly similar, and even untrained users have no trouble switching between them (even if they have a preference for one or the other). And applications from one desktop usually run fine under the other and major functionality (window management, clipboard, selections, etc.) continues to work.
Why do you "have" to choose? For the same reason you "have" to choose between a hundred different models of automobiles. It's a free market. Windows and Mac OS X, with their centrally planned architectures and take-it-or-leave-it attitude, are the exception, not the rule; let's hope that the industry will get rid of those exceptions since they have stifled innovation. You sound like one of those Russians whining on about the good old days when Stalin kept things running.
Linux users and advocates need to lose the elitism that used to preserve them, and is now working against them.
Linux is modular. That's good. And because it's modular, people put together a wide variety of different systems out of it. That's good, too. And those different kinds of systems survive depending on whether people use or don't use them. And that's as it should be. People who use Linux want to get away from the Windows one-size-fits-all model.
Another way you can think about it is that you can't compare Windows, MacOSX, and Linux. Windows and MacOSX are both kernels and GUIs. Linux is just a kernel. If you want to compare them properly, there are many different operating systems in the "Windows" sense: Linux-KDE, Linux-Gnome, Linux-GNUStep, Linux-XFCE, etc. And being different systems, you should have no more expectation that Linux-KDE and Linux-Gnome are compatible than that Windows and MacOSX are compatible.
Re:you are missing the point (Score:3, Informative)
windows "package management" is hideous, adding and then removing a program in windows always leaves heaps of shit in the registry that then causes problems later on. I've never "uninstalled" a program and then searched the registry for that program and had the search come up clean, in fact, I've never had it return less than 20 hits. OS X does do a nice cute job of installation and uninstallation, but Macs have always done that, and just because they have the best package management around, doesn't mean they have the desktop market wrapped up... far from it. Linux package management is good enough right now, and its much better than windows... how do I find a dvd player for windows?? Oh I go to compusa and pay $50 bucks for one.. and then I get it home and it tells me it won't play out to my tv, and it needs a faster processor... Or, in gentoo, I type: emerge search dvd
and it spits out all the software it knows about that has anything to do with dvds, and I type emerge ogle-gui and it downloads the program and installs it... and it works, and then when I'm done with it, I type emerge unmerge olge-gui and it goes away...
Re:Standards (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, being honest -- if one package manager was so much better than the others, all of the competing package managers would try to clone that one. Natural selection doesn't seem to be working particularly well among open source programs. (How many things pop up in one version of Gnome/KDE that is copied by the next version of the competing desktop?)
However, any modern distribution is pretty consistent by itself; the whole inconsistency argument has been weak for quite some time. If you install everything from source, then you'll have to deal with it, but those who pop in the CD, install everything they want, and then go have a nicely working system.
Re:Standards (Score:2)
I cant answer that, because I have never actually managed to get gnome to install on anything, and I have only ever got one version of KDE to install. I have had more success with fvwm95, but I think that is more intent on copying something else.
I think bug-free is more important than standard, and I'd rather be able to chose between two lame ducks than be forced to use one.
If there was a window manager called "Donald" I'd use it if it worked.
Re:Standards (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why Corporate Management that determines purchases (or even what is installed if it costs nothing) would rather pay up the wazoo for Windows and closed source software. They see the future dollar signs and prefer standards because they see infrastructure. They put their butt majorly on the line betting on Open Source software. While they very well may hit the jackpot, they may choose unwisely and end up losing their livelihood for the choice.
On the Windows platform they see less choice (in other words, less chance to screw up the decision) of what to install on their company's computers. Go with a big enough name (MS, IBM, etc.) and even if it isn't the best choice out there, they will know exactly what they're getting.
Standardization in Linux goes against, I'm sure, much of what innovation is fundamentally about (that is why standards can be updated, after all, of course, backward compatibility is always a good side effect). Of course, standards can always also be replaced if they are no longer relvant. The point is that corporate america moves slowly and cautiously to make decisions. They do not move or think at even remotely the speed technology moves forward. Create standards and move technology forward within them and you have the possibility of widespread corporate adoption.
Of course, on the other side of the coin, Linux is not a business. It is publicly perceived as "competition" to commercial software. While some distributors of Linux would prefer to see Linux become big business, it's clear that developers and the majority of the Linux community don't care (though most likely dislike the concept of the commercial pollution of it).
If this is the case, it doesn't explain the elitist attitude of many Linux people. At the same time as many berate commercial OS's and the companies that make them for "forcing" everyone to use their OS, they don't actively see that Linux becomes actual competition to them. While commercial software is making all the dirty deals to ensure their money keeps flowing in, it seems as though Linux folks are content to sit on the sidelines and just bitch about it.
The "choice" is not available to the regular consumers out there (and this is complete BS, many have no idea how to replace their OS, that doesn't mean they don't have the choice to... you can buy Linux in a nice fancy box distro with a manual and CD in any bookstore and even Wallie world) because the same Linux zealots that sit on "high ground" and laugh at every security hole found in Windows don't actually bother to go and make sure that Linux gets pre-installed on these name brand PC's that are selling in actual stores (let's face it, it's probably like 99% of people that buy their computers online, excluding Dell and Gateway, (probably in parts) are geeks, not Joe Sixpack, putting pre-installed with Linux computers online is no risk for any of the computer manufacturers... if they sell five total, oh well, now ship 10,000 to a retail chain and you really have a vested interest in moving them).
This is, of course, purely in the realm of desktop OS's. I think Linux can only continue to spread in the x86 server market and will eventually be the overwhelming majority of OS's powering machines there.
is it really about the development model? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple didn't come up with a great UI through "development models" and "standardization". They came up with the interface based on interface design theories and tons of usability tests. That is, they got ordinary people to use new interface designs, did analysis, and figured out what works and what doesn.t Yes, until Aqua, they did have standardized UI guidlines, but that was only the end result.
The way I see it, you're not going to get a good easy to use system until ordinary users start using Linux and provide feedback to the development communities. Programmers have a different sense of what "ease of use" is, and unless they start tayloring to end users, there aren't going to be any changes.
Aqua human user interface guidlines? (Score:2, Insightful)
But, it's actually a strength, too (Score:5, Insightful)
GNUH/Linux's lack of centralization is an amazing strength as well as a weakness.
You can run GNUH/Linux as it allows Linux to be used for almost anything. Super-computers run it. 386s run it. Palm Pilots runs it.
There's no official distribution because it's part of the principle, people.
But, there is a problem with lack of standards. When someone develops a new Web browser under one distribution, there's often no guarantee it will run on other distributions (the fucking devil might not even run on a different version of the same distribution!).
This is why we need standards. Bottom line. End of story.
But if Linux continues to exclusively dominate the backend servers, we may see only server-side protocols, software, and development environments (as well as languages) become standardized, while the desktop side continues to lose out to Windows because Microsoft is proprietary and doesn't support open standards.
Re:But, it's actually a strength, too (Score:3, Insightful)
That is not due to lack of standards. You might have to compile it statically because the right version of the needed libraries are not available. But that is about it. The ways to perform communication across the network is well standardized, the only problem there is the servers (not Linux) not respecting the standards. And developers could take the time to test their application against a raw X11 system without bloatware.
Diversity (Score:2)
However, it also causes confusion and makes systems hard to understand and makes software vendors' job more difficult. I think it is a tough call between diversity and unification, what call would you make?
it will never work (Score:2, Insightful)
What should be done is compatability between the variations, not standardization.
We have standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux isn't a product, it is a process. Locking things down where it isn't absolutely necessary will stifle that process, and, in the end, Linux itself.
Re:Errr, not really. (Score:2)
Re:We have standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if you can make god (any god) make that statement, then more power to you! That's about what it will take to have any effect.
You seriously suggest saying to the gcc developers that they can't continue improving the compiler and strive for better standards-compatibility? And you are seriously suggesting somehow outlawing the use of a better/faster/more correct compiler by distributions?
If you need to run a number of older programs that just won't compile under a new compiler, then either: 1) install an older compiler (and its libs) alongside the new one; 2) give feedback to the maintainers of those packages so they can correct the problems in their code; or 3) install an older version of your distribution that uses the compiler these applications need.
Lets not forget why opensource is sucessful ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux, on the other hand, has at least five major distributions -- in addition to Red Hat and Caldera, there is also S.u.S.E. (from Germany), Slackware and Debian (a completely noncommercial version). Each distribution differs from all the others, has different setup procedures and requires a different approach when installing new software. Linux outsiders may watch this whole spectacle with some perplexity.
Corporate America, not to mention the individual consumer, shies away from such variety, with its potential for confusion. Yet at the same time, the diversity is a major source of Linux's strength. It's the beauty of anarchy. It's the beauty of freedom. The distributions that do not do a good job keeping up
It's an advantage because you have more choices and competition. The distribution vendors are fighting to make distributions better, and that competition helps a lot, it really drives them. There is very little proprietary work in a distribution. It's very easy for someone to come out with a free version of Red Hat, so the distribution vendors have to be constantly making themselves better. If they don't, people will migrate to whoever is best technically.
The success of OSS comes from - in some amount - diversity. So lets try and keep a balance between unison and competition.
It is just another evolutionary step (Score:2, Interesting)
Too much corporatism may indeed have a negative impact on the community, since it may disenfranchise the programmers that now give so much time to the community. It is something we (and the companies involved) must be careful of.
Then again, properly set up it will be a powerful tool that allows the community to do what it does best: create good software.
For example, Linux needs its own 'usability lab'. How that is set up is another question; maybe the traditional method does not work. United Linux could provide a forum for doing such work. That would be good.
Bottom line, I'm not afraid of United Linux. If it works, it works. If it does not work, we will try something else.
As for 'winning' the desktop: do we need that? I guess the answer is 'no, but it will happen anyway'. We will create more new software, and that software will increase desktop use. As long as people are working on it the quality of the Linux desktop will improve, and eventually it will become compelling for the wider public.
Oh, come off it (Score:2)
Believe it or not, there are living, breathing applications out there on the Linux side of things that work fine when you play around with their configurations excessively.
Run the app on your cellphone, Palm Pilot, Sony VAIO, or whatever, and it works the same way time after time.
I don't know the answer to this question, but I will pose it regardless:
Should we spend all this time developing standarized rules and laws that we all must learn and follow, or should we simply just start writing correct code that adheres to standard filepaths and
Re:Oh, come off it (Score:2)
Linux DOES have to target Windows users (Score:3, Interesting)
There is only one answer: SOMEONE needs to convince me that I can be just as happy and productive in a Linux environment. To switch though, I also need some incentive (in this case that would be that Linux is free).
The idea that "users will make the switch all by themselves" is absurd and unfounded. Does the comment author believe that the BILLIONS of dollars Microsoft puts into marketing is wasted?? I don't think so.
Re:Linux DOES have to target Windows users (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Use 2000 forever and M$ goes out of business.
2) Upgrade (downgrade) to XP.
3) Learn to use Linux.
I know #3 will take some effort, but at this point it is almost equal to option #2. I'd put money on the prediction that, as Linux grows, M$ product quality will either get worse or the price will go up. Their shareholders aren't particularly excited about the prospects of MSN and XBox in a post-MS-monopoly marketplace.
No matter what you choose now, #3 will eventually become the best choice. Personally, I'm going to try to use Win98 forever, or at least until I can play recent games in Linux.
Re:no, it doesn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it does: OSS exists only because of contributions.
There's not much in life for free, so if someone's dumb enough to actually give me something for free, I won't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Anybody is free to use free software. But if they want free software to work differently from the way it does, nobody has an obligation to fulfill their wishes; if nobody else volunteers, they either contribute the changes or pay for them.
My own standards! (Score:2, Funny)
standardization is a problem (Score:3, Redundant)
Anyway I decided to try out suse and debian. Boy, what a difference. Every single file was in the wrong place on both systems. Suse was truly awefull in yast overiding any changes to my system files. I am aware of the
Redhat tries to have psuedo files
I understand *Bsd users perfectly in regards to defragmentation and quality problems in linux. In regards to quality and I refering to cutting edgeness and bugginess compared to other unix's including bsd. I am not saying its unstable.
I like how *bsd simplier and everything system related is configured from
I got tired of hacking my systems for weeks on end trying to customize it so I switched back to Windows2k. (shudder) I am waiting for freebsd 5.0 to come out and will likely use it when its ready. The early 5.0 dp-2 release does not like my usb hardware for some reason and still needs some work in regards to threading, java and nvidia opengl driver support.
Re:standardization is a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been using Linux for 5 years, and over they years I tried several distributions (Mandrake, RedHat, Debian, Gentoo) and I don't remember having to edit a config file that was not in
Now, regarding *BSD. A couple of months ago, I went in a cybercafe and wanted to chat with friends on irc. However as soon as I tried to connect to an IRC server, it would disconnect me for 'having an open proxy'. I asked the manager. He said he was aware of the problem but didn't know how to get rid of it. I told him they probably had an open proxy. He asked me if I was familiar with unix. The next minute he had me logged as root on their FreeBSD NAT trying to find the problem
I ran 'netstat' and found out that they had Squid running, and that me getting kicked from IRC was probably to due to the fact that it was poorly configured. I immediatly looked for a the config file in
Disclaimer: it was my first and only time doing 'administrative tasks' on a *BSD system so it could be a bad example. I do not mean to troll, just giving one example that is opposite to the parent poster's experience. Are Linux distributions so bad at having all config files in the same place, and are the BSDs better are it?
Barriers of inconsistancey (Score:2, Troll)
This is not a troll, but as a devloper for linux these are REAL peeves
Users Want Better Stuff, Not a Development Model (Score:5, Interesting)
In all probability, Linux will never replace Windows, or even the Mac, on the desktop. It can, however, carve out a viable slice of the market if the Linux community delivers attractive, innovative, easy-to-use software with capabilities that users want but cannot find elsewhere. By and large, this hasn't happened yet.
And, it will not happen if too many Linux developers continue to imagine that their development model is what they're selling. It isn't.
Re:Users Want Better Stuff, Not a Development Mode (Score:3, Insightful)
The point you are missing is that MOST Linux developers are not selling anything. They are just developing software for their own needs.
This tends to create a system that is more developer friendly because it meets the needs of developers well. The theory is that a very developer friendly system will ultimately be a very good platform for developing any software.
I'm not sure how successful this has been, but that's what we have. Don't ask Linux developers to be salesmen, they won't like you very much. Now, there are those who are trying to sell the wares these developers have created, and it may be that they will speak for users and be able to leverage this good development platform, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out.
So far, there's some indication that it's worked well in some areas, for example server software and appliances, and less well in others, such as desktop software.
Re:Users Want Better Stuff, Not a Development Mode (Score:3, Informative)
And they won't be. I think you're missing a fairly crucial point which is that the desktop Linux effort only really started in '96 with the launch of KDE. In '98 KDE1 was released, and that's when the ball started rolling. That means the linux desktop has in effect been in existance for 4 years now.
In that time, KDE and GNOME have gone from ugly, unstable and primitive desktops into powerful, beautiful and yes, in the case of GNOME2 even usable desktops. Not only that, but a truckload of applications have been developed, installation of the OS has become childs play and an open standards effort has been started to unify the interfaces between desktop components.
That's a lot of progress.
And, it will not happen if too many Linux developers continue to imagine that their development model is what they're selling. It isn't.
Given that Linux has never been marketed as such, it's only ever grown through word of mouse, I think there is sufficient interest in not just the technology but also the development model.
Business in particular is keen on the idea of ridding themselves of vendor lockin, being in control and being able to easily maintain old software if the original vendor/maintainer no longer carries on.
Re:Users Want Better Stuff, Not a Development Mode (Score:3, Interesting)
Whew, that's a relief, because you know what... Linux wasn't created to replace Windows! .
Let the users complain all they want, Linux doesn't exist to compete with Windows, nor is the goal of Linux to supplant Windows on the desktop.It may be the goal of some Linux companies to engineer a Linux version to compete with Windows, but this is not the goal of Linux.
As a Linux developer (and not a Linux Distribution employee), I really don't care what the Windows users whine about. If they don't like it, they can go back to Windows. Linux wasn't created by whiners, and I don't work for them.
If the users can't use it, or it's not too easy for them, there are plenty of other operating systems they can play with that might be easier. I'm sick of hearing this topic come up over and over and over. "But for Linux to be successful, it has to make it to the desktop...". Linux is already successful, even if I am the only person in the world using it.
It's MY job to make the software, and make it work.
It's someone ELSE's job to make it work like Windows.
Here's what it'll take to fight Windows: (Score:4, Insightful)
2. Copying the Windows registry paradigm for system and program information. One should not only be able to install programs and have their components registered, but also cleanly uninstall and/or install over existing versions in the same way. You can also standardize automatic upgrades for existing programs and kernel patches over the 'net using a similar tool.
3. GUI the hell out of every system tool there is and make sure that GUI is strictly standardized with integrated help and unified. It's getting there but it's not there yet.
4. Include copies of software with each distribution compatible to at least some extent with their Windows equivalents (e.g. XMMS, OpenOffice) though this is pretty frequent these days.
5. (Most important, and likely most difficult) Get all current developers to start working under this framework to the greatest extent possible. Whether it's open source, closed source, free software, or whatever else, a common framework is critical no matter who is developing.
That, to me, is what's essentially different between Windows and Linux on the desktop. It's a chicken-and-egg to get more developers of Windows-only software, but the only way to get them on the bandwagon is to cut a standard here and today. This is a lot more ambitious than, say, POSIX compliance. But this is what it's going to take, not just copying the binary into
Re:Here's what it'll take to fight Windows: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is by far the worst idea I've ever heard. The Windows Registry is one of the worst parts of windows. Registry got corrupted? Reinstall!
One thing I hate the most -- reinstall the OS, it clobbers your registry, and then you have to reinstall all of your apps, too. I like that each program has it's own plain ASCII config file in Linux. That way if I reinstall my OS, my apps don't lose their configuration. Hell, I even have a seperate
Linux has nothing to gain from a 'Windows Registry', except for a Single Point of Failure that would be a huge pain in the ass, all around.
Re:Here's what it'll take to fight Windows: (Score:3, Informative)
There is: the etc/ directory is for global configuration data. /etc/skel/ is for the default user config. The user's home directory (aka ~ aka $HOME--often /home/username) contains his/her data and config files. lib/ is for shared libraries. shared/ is for the program's data. bin/ is for the programs executables. I believe the "shared" directory is a new concept (at least to Linux), everyone used to put their data into lib.
The users config files are usually named as a dot, the program's name then "rc" tacked on the end. If the program's name was bar, then it'd be ".barrc" in the home directory. Realise that anything starting with a period in Linux/Unix works like a hidden file in DOS/Windows--ls/dir won't display it unless you use the "-a" option. So looking at a listing of your home directory, you'll only see the data files instead of the clutter of all your config ones too.
If you wish to backup your general settings in Linux, storing /etc, /usr/etc, and /usr/local/etc should do it. The problem is not all programs written for Unix/Linux will conform to this standard. For example, Jed and lynx put their configuration files into the lib directory. Just like some Windows programs store their settings in ini files under the C:\Program Files directory...
Having three different places (/, /usr, and /usr/local) for everything may seem strange, but there is a reason behind it. Everything in /etc, /bin, /sbin, /lib are supposed to be the basic critical programs and system settings. /usr is for the programs used by most everyone in your organization and is often mounted read only from the network. /usr/local would be mounted on the computer's hard drive and programs added for the user(s) of that specific computer.
You may think the registry is a good idea, but it is just a poorly designed clone of the Unix way. Same goes for the "My Documents" folder vs the /home directory. Just proves the old saying "anyone who doesn't understand Unix is doomed to reimplement it poorly."
"the same" != "united" (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft users are an interesting lot. They have systems that they have NO control over. They have systems they have to reboot every sixteen minutes. They freely pay Bill Gates obscene amounts of money for buggy programs that they can't use when they upgrade to the next operating system. It's almost laughable. But they are united, "
Using the same OS does not make these people united any more than driving a car makes all automobile owners united.
wait (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong...windows users are not united as a fan base, that's for sure (compared to Apple users, as an example). But using cars as an example of your point is way off, sorry.
Try something like "...any more than coughing up blood makes drunks united."
Re:wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Mac users are like Mustang owners. So are Linux users, though Linux users are more like "muscle car" owners, each with their favorite version (distro).
Windows users, on the other hand, drive a Chevy Lumina, or a Ford Escort. They don't band up.
Re:wait (Score:2)
I was not as clear as I might have been - apologies for that.
Actually using cars as a broad category is a rather good analogy. There are many more Windows users (as in Joe and Jane Desktop who just want to send email) than there are people actively involved with and enthusiastic about Windows. In both cars and operating systems, the overwhelming majority just want to get point A to point B and aren't terribly concerned about the particulars of how they do it. The subcategories - administrators, developers, etc. - can be the analogs to the Porsche/BMW/Saturn car club members.
Nutshell version: the enthusiasts in both worlds are the minority, and there is no relationship connecting/binding the point-A-to-point-B crowd; describing them as 'united' is inaccurate.
How is that for a reality check?
not mutually exclusive (Score:3, Insightful)
Defining a standard will therefore enable distros to concentrate their efforts while being able to keep their own way of doing things.
Of course, if the standard lifts offs and everybody accepts it, then the distros will start dropping old features over time.
But even with a standard, it remains open source. So theoretically anybody could try to propose a new standard (as long as it is backwards compatible).
Well first off. (Score:2)
We all know that Dell has backed off a couple of time, well they never_truly_supported the Linux they did sell for a short time.
Linux division shows its ugly head at perhaps the worst time.
I disagree. This division is not an ugly side to Linux, rather I believe that is what keeps the choices available. Hell look at how many freaking car models we have, granted you have five similar with different names, the choice is still there.
But they are united, and most don't know the first thing about Linux. Why is that?
Well I will say because there are about ten different "Hacker" magz out there that teach them a new trick every month on who to make their system that much faster, and it would be detrimental to dump all that knowledge to learn a new OS.
Red Hat, Lycoris and even Debian need to get on this group.
Now I use RH 7.3, and I know there is now way in hell you'll get a Debian group to admit that RH is an equal-it's not.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
And your point is...? (Score:3, Informative)
I believe the Linux wave is going great. Linux software is farther ahead than it's ever been (since it's been given time and hard work), and we're gradually coming to accept a certain number of features as "standard" for any given distribution. Making his comparison to Microsoft, he seems to suggest that all the distributions should "unite together" and make one big distribution. But then... where's the choice? Where's the variety that shows us alternatives and suggests ways to improve our systems even more? There is no one solution, and I'm happy that all these distributions exist, as it allows me to find my own solution based upon the work of a dedicated group of people. Without Mandrake and Suse, who's to say Red Hat Linux is the right solution? Likewise, without RH and Mandrake, who's to say Suse is the right solution?
The only thing I can think of, and something he didn't touched on, is the rippling of changes back to the original maintainers. There's nothing more frustrating than adding a component to your own custom system and thinking, "How did Red Hat put this all together?" Of course, you can always grab their source and figure out how they did it. I find a lot of these changes that the individual distributions make are bug fixes or feature improvements (patches so the software installs properly, or extra data to allow better integration into GNOME/KDE menus). It frustrates me that these changes don't make it back to the original package maintainers as often as they could. I would love to see the pam_stack module make it back into the Linux pam distribution so it can provide base level authentication services without the need for lengthy post-package patches and other tweaks.
Granted, there are some modifications that come with the territory. I see no reason for maintainers to have to adopt the Blue Curve theme that Red Hat uses to dress KDE and GNOME like each other. But at the same time, it would be nice to be able to pick and choose software packages and not have to worry about re-doing common work that all the distributions have already done.
Anyways, back to the article. I think this guy spouts a whole lot of nothing. There is nothing wrong with the way things are going with Linux and if there is, we'll get there soon. But keep in mind that Linux users are not Microsoft any more than Windows users are Microsoft. I use Linux because I feel comfortable and secure using the environment. I built my own server system from scratch because I wasn't happy with the choices offered by the different distributions. And that's the luxury of using an open system, to pick and choose exactly what you want.
Factions within Linux that won't go away (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows installers can copy quite fine with the fact that the system directory on Windows 2000 is \WINNT and the system directory on Windows XP is \WINDOWS. It shouldn't be hard to write Linux installers that can do the same thing - even just looking at environment variables should leave you right 9 times out of 10?
Debian can produce a LSB-compliant distro, but they may choose not to. Or not for a while anyway.
2. Has anyone suggested to Richard Stallman that Free software is renamed Freedom software, so people instantly have a better idea of what it's about?
Re:Factions within Linux that won't go away (Score:4, Informative)
a) RPM already has at least two ways of being upgraded dynamically - urpmi and apt-get. It just needs a consistent well-maintained high-quality upstream pool-set
b) Debian supports RPM packages just fine.
c) The standards (specifically, the LSB) say nothing about requiring RPM to be the system's native package-managing system.
d) Debian already strive for LSB-compliancy, at least where it makes sense. This is why we've had
"the system directory on Windows 2000 is \WINNT"
Well, only *if* you install it that way.
And one for thought: which is more important, adhering to a standard for the sake of it, or knowing what you're doing? (A specific example of the latter: given an IP#, I expect you to be able to trace through DNAT, netstat -p or similar and through
Re:Factions within Linux that won't go away (Score:2)
*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Not one of these statements is true (except perhaps the control over the OS statement, depending on how you define control).
I never have to reboot W2k or XP, except during the occasional (hehe) patch.
I know people that still use Office 97 on new operating systems. In fact, MS catches a lot of flack for maintaining backwards compatibility. And now we're claiming that they don't?
Microsoft users are not united. We are just customers that use the (arguably) best (or only) tool for the job (exchange, 2000 for desktop PCs, office, etc). There is basically no sense of community for MS users that I have ever stumbled across. Microsoft developers have a few hangouts, but most of us just hit MSDN when we need info.
Most (if not all) of the Microsoft users I know of (developers, admins) not only know of Linux, but have used it when appropriate. Given that UNIX is still quite pervasive, finding the robust, free version isn't that hard. Could it be, perhaps, that they only use Linux where they feel it is strong (webserver, etc) and that is the reason it isn't as popular as zealots think it should be?
As for standards... people seem to forget that Windows is top of the heap, and the Windows environment is the least standardized environment I have ever seen. Every app has to be skinnable. Every save dialog and open dialog customized beyond recognition. Just go to the Interface Hall of Shame [iarchitect.com] to see what I mean.
Silly UL (Score:2)
Okay, so anyone releasing software will have an rpm version for Red Hat that will with any luck also work on Mandrake. And if the software is free and good it will quickly be ported to Gentoo and slowly to Debian. You can see how UL would wish everything would fit their own scheme, but it ain't gonna happen. So what's the noise about?
All we're lacking for widespread desktop acceptance is KDE 3.1 and strong programs in a few areas like household/small business accounting and desktop publishing - and having a few different Linuxes to port those to when they appear isn't gonna be the stumbling block.
Pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
"Microsoft users are an interesting lot. They have systems that they have NO control over. They have systems they have to reboot every sixteen minutes. They freely pay Bill Gates obscene amounts of money for buggy programs that they can't use when they upgrade to the next operating system. It's almost laughable."
Nothing in these statements is true. Please stop using the argument that Windows is unstable (beginning with Win2K). If you are using supported hardware it's as stable as Linux and dare I say MORE stable than Linux/XWindows. (Random X crashes do occur on occasion)
Please define "NO control over". If you're talking about being able to swap VM in the kernel then yes. If you're talking about being able to choose what apps to use or themes or such than no.
My father still uses a Windows 3.0 app on his XP machine with absolutely no problems whatsoever including printing! That's one thing Microsoft has done right, being able to use most legacy apps.
I totally agree that Unification is necessary to an extent but get your facts straight before you start bashing Windows.
Re:Pathetic (Score:2)
Re:Pathetic (Score:2)
I must beat on XP or something. On a Dell Inspiron 8000, XP crashes about weekly. Too much for me. I noticed that you specifically left out Window 9x. I'd run XP on my desktop also, instead of Windows 98, for those apps that don't have Linux replacements, but the licensing costs are too much.
-BrentRe:Pathetic (Score:2)
standardization and usability go hand in hand (Score:3, Interesting)
How important you consider usability to be for Linux I guess is up to you the individual. But accept that without a 'standard' GUI you can't have a good user experience.
Diversity Helps (Score:2)
That said the only way that there is going to be a truly United Linux is if Linus takes the kernel closed source and tries to go down that path.
The United Linux organisation is just a business group, trying to drum up business for their product. Nothing more and nothing less. As a sys admin and software developer I can tell you now that I would much rather have a range of specialised tools in my pocket than a all-in-one that attempts to do everything but does nothing well.
Standardisation is important...... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have only a limited amount of time to make my product compatible with the os. If i have to support all of them i would have to make more money of my customers just to cover the costs. This would make my product not very attractive to users, and i will probably not sell enough of it to support my efforts. So i decide not to port it yet and wait for better times. The other option is to choose just one distro like so many other vendors (Red Hat anyone?). Making that distro the de-facto standard, not because of the fact that it is the best but because that is the one on which most commercial software runs.
So standardisation is good. It attracts commercial software for all distro's which will attract new users who will make Linux to be able to reach new heights.
Now, i know that OSS could compete on alot of levels with commercial software so it would not be necesary to have commercial ones but not all of them are as good as the commercial product. For alot of software there simply is no OSS alternative which could be viable. Not yet anyway. (e.g. Visio (Kivio comes close but that's it), Dreamweaver, Video-editing software (professional versions) etc. etc.)
A standard exists (Score:2)
make
make install
This allows users to update their systems without waiting for packages to become available and gives them the power to choose how the software will interact with the rest of the system. There also exist nice wrappers that automate the process such as Gentoo's emerge that automate and hopefully soon Debian's apt-build.
Superior product always wins in marketplace (Score:2, Funny)
After all, that's why we're all running OS/2 these days, right?
POSIX? (Score:2)
sounds familiar (Score:2)
"all we have to do is continue to develop software in the same way, and the users will make the switch all by themselves'."
That sounds familiar. I'm betting that's Apple's thinking. I'm afraid it's not getting them any further. I think that if Linux users believe that Office clones are all they need to overcome Microsoft, they are vastly deluded. A world of home-grown dll-dependent apps and simple VB programming is out there that locks these companies into using Microsoft the same way that dynamic libraries are needed by some RPM packages. These are the "character" of how business is done at these companies.
Stop cloning and come up with your own real innovation. Somewhere someone needs to put something truly innovative into OpenOffice or one of the desktop environments that is a generation ahead of Microsoft or Apple. *That* is when the real threat from Linux begins.
Standardizing Linux is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Standardizing Linux is the wrong way to go about bringing Linux to the corporate desktop and the end user. But that's not saying standards are bad. Instead, the approach should be that we offer the different alternatives to what will be a standard, and then let the decision of which will be that standard for those end user be made by those end users. In other words, let the strong survive. Let there be a system that does get chosen for the new age of desktop computing, and let it be based on Linux. The semantics there is important. It should be based on Linux, not assimilate it.
Distribution choice is a good thing. But if a group of people making a few different distributions want to make changes to theirs to make sure they are the same as each other, let them. That's their choice. But corporate IT decision makes are going to be asking questions like "what is the difference between this distribution and that distribution?" So what will the answer be? Are we going to be able to say what the difference is, or will be end up confusing them more by saying "Oh, they're just alike; flip a coin to decide."
Of course, making sure that programs can be installed on, and run on, a wide range of different distributions is a good thing. But part of the responsibility to achieve that lies with the developers of that program, such as being flexible as to where files are found, what library versions can be used, etc. Consistent interfaces help, but we also need to be able to change and adapt to make things constantly improve, and when there are new things to adopt, new decisions have to be made, and choices have to be available to decide from.
Just don't move towards the notion that a single standard shall define Linux, and no other can be Linux. Linux is a class of systems that have diversity and can adapt. That is as much a part of the power of Linux as is its strength in security and reliability.
Business decisions are all too rarely made on the basis of long term planning. Regardless of the intent, those decisions will be constantly made over and over as the years go by, and as many projects fail. The needs will change, even if they are clouded by uncertainty. Linux, too, will fail, if it loses its ability to adapt.
the real focus of Linux... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course all that depends on the individual vendor's implementation.
Linus himself did not create his kernel to compete with anything; everyone else re-created it to do that. Linus has gone on record as saying he does not really care what happens in user space; he's not interested in anything there.
Let us not forget that distro != Linux.
My next argument is that Linux distros *do* need to standardize on the UI if they want to get $LARGE-BUSINESS-ACCOUNTS. Excuse me, but have you ever tried to tell your management that they don't need to standardize? Bear in mind that in the US business place, MS *is* the standard, mainly on the desktop and 3/4ths on the back-end.... any change will probably freak them.
Leading right back into my previous paragraphs.... business management doesn't really give a crap about obscure (for them) technical standards as long as they can do their jobs effectively (again, the UI thing) which in turn puts paychecks on the table. I feel that this sucks, myself, but that's how it is, and I *do* need to pay my rent.
At the end of the day, the *real* focus of linux is a 32 and 64-bit multitasking, multiuser capable kernel licensed under the GNU GPL, with supporting libraries and tools from GNU. That's all.
Anything else is up to the rest of us.
We might want to look into a different model (Score:5, Interesting)
Next, have several distros aimed at different kinds of users. Everything should be graphical from the very start. The installer should never bother the user with manual partition creation and the like. Just a simple question: You have an 80 gig drive, how much of it do you want to leave to your old os, and how much for linux. No more should be asked, ideally. A basic package set is installed for all of those distros, and a set of packages that is target-specific, as in productivity apps. All hardware should be auto-detected, and the smart installer should download the drivers automagically. Most Windows executables should run directly as if they were linux binaries (transparent Wine). There should be a simple, complete configuration utility, which should also include package management. Network access should be transparent. The installer should also install software according to hardware installed. For example cd-burning software will be installed if the system has a burner. Video-editing if firewire ports are present. Hardware detection at boot and periodical software updates according to software package completeness (if the package development has just started, and the package is still buggy, it will be checked for updates more often). Direct importing of emails and address books from existing Windows partitions without user intervention. In short, the user would be ready to start working immediately after installation(which consists ONLY of popping in the cd and selecting partition size then waiting for setup to complete). The smart installer should also handle windows installer programs.
This is a short summary of the features that would lead to rapid adoption of linux on the desktop. It must be made transparent, as non-intrusive as possible, yet easy to customize and all possible options easily available to power users (interface complexity as a setting in the control panel). It must handle everything automagically, so the user never needs to do anything related to the os, only related to the work they are doing.
I realise that this is far off, but one step at a time we could develop a system that would work for average users as well as power users.
Generally, we need to take the following steps:
- The setup program
- The smart installer
- Transparent Wine and windows app integration
- A central driver repository
- Central package database
- Minimal user interaction when not absolutely necessary(of course available as a setting)
- Interdistribution compatibility
- A method of retrieving settings and data from old os
If we handle those issues, we might actually have a better os usability than windows. If we have something easier to install, free(both ways) or at least free as in speech and very cheap, with better usability and better responsiveness, fast automatic bugfixes, better stability and better application base, we have a winner.
Please get a clue (Score:3, Insightful)
- Why is there still no standard model for adding and removing apps? The number of competing models for package management alone is sickening.
- Why do we still have to choose between a bunch of different desktops, ALL of which are mutually incompatible?
1. There are many standards actually (RPM, debs, etc.). RPM, used by RedHat, Mandrake, Caldera and pretty every distributor that count beside Slack and Debian, is currently the dominant one.
2. Wrong. Desktop are actually COMPATIBLE ! You can run a Gnome application in KDE and vice-versa. Some aspect of the DE are not compatible, like themes for example, but could you use a Winamp skin in WMP ?
Another "too many choices is bad" armchair advocate trolling. Please go get a fscking clue.
Bless him! (Score:3, Interesting)
Bless that guy that wrote this! Too many people are obsessed with making Linux (and Unix in general) the "Anti-Microsoft" operating system. I would much rather use a real OS than an alternative OS. What is this strange desire to make Linux an alternate operating system?
What the... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft users are an interesting lot. They have systems that they have NO control over. They have systems they have to reboot every sixteen minutes. They freely pay Bill Gates obscene amounts of money for buggy programs that they can't use when they upgrade to the next operating system.
Not a single assertion in that quoted text is true. I stopped reading after that point, as someone so obviously out of touch with reality couldn't possibly have anything _useful_ to say.
As to the issue at hand... I always find it most entertaining that so many of the people who extol the benefits of standardisation for things like network protocols think standardising the OS is a bad idea. The same arguments that make standardising on something like TCP/IP a good idea also make standardising the functional basics of an OS a good idea (and if you don't consider the interface to be a piece of base OS functionality, then I think you're well and truly our of touch with the "common user").
No one needs to convince me, they need to help me (Score:3, Interesting)
The posts about "lowest common denominator" are right now, and here is an example. When you want to change the host name of your machine, you run the command "hostname" as root followed by the new name. Ta dah, its set. This works, as far as I know, on all Linux distros. On Mac OS X, you use the hostname command, and it doesn't stick on reboots. Why? Because the Mac uses a differnt configuration file and its not documented under man hostname.
What do I want as standards? I want you to be able to add new ways of doing things, with new features and better usability and nicer functionality, but I still want my old commands to work, even if their deprecated. Or at least point me in the right direction.
That is what "standardization" means to me...a unified method of handling user interaction. I don't care if you use Gnome or KDE, I just want to be able to access all my apps from each. I don't care what you write your programs in, I just want to be able to use keyboard shortcuts for "cut" and "paste" and "save" that are the same. I just want my window themes to apply. I just want the widgets to look the way I set them. I just want the "Okay" button to always be on the right. Or the left. Whatever.
Please, standardize. Look at the Apple Human Interface Guilelines, and make something better, something that projects and apps can put a sticker on their website proudly saying, "I'm usable!"
That's all I, a Linux newbie, ask.
Re:Yeah, and America needs more weapons *sigh* (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't you just type the relevant information provided by the cable company into your distribution's networking options? Though it would have been nice if there was an easy way to enable NAT -- I seem to remember that being a pain.
- Swap files. They work. People don't have a lot of RAM (well, geeks do, but most home owners have 64 or 128 MB). But they like pictures and video, so let's swap out some of their 20GB hard drives.
I can't remember the last time that an installer didn't at least recommend making a swap partition.
- Some blue screen type of application to let them know when their video drivers are corrupted or something bad happens.
I agree here. Most people are using X, and so if you have a kernel panic or something else bad happen, you don't see anything. Also, if X locks up (usually due to buggy graphics drivers), I often have to telnet in to kill off X and restart it
(Someone suggested that I set up my reset button to kill X
- 24 hour free tech support via phone or on-site service for $0.99/minute. People need to learn Linux. Most aren't born with command line powers gifted from God.
- Record hardware configurations and errors that occur (ala "TalkBack" in Mozilla). Users can then call in to 1-800-LNX- HELP or whatever and get some assistance based on their computer's unique ID number.
Tech support costs money -- lots of it. "Linux" isn't a corporation that can pay for it. The distributions, however, can. (And I'm fairly sure that they do.)
Re:Yeah, and America needs more weapons *sigh* (Score:2)
Re:one thing at a time (Score:2)
Many people think that "refocusing" on the server would have the result of increased developers working in that area. But each developer has his or her reason for being there and working on what they are working on. some are paid by a company to do what they are doing, others are scratching an itch, still others are sticking it to microsoft, and some are probably wanting to stick it to apple.
to assume those developers would switch to a "server" focus simply because everyone else says they should denies the reason they are doing what they are doing already (after all everyone already says if you're interested in desktop development you should only focus on Windows, it's got the bigger market share.) If you take away those developers projects, some will probably move to server focused projects, but many more will probably just find another desktop development project.
The end result would be a loss to linux.
Apps are the answer. (Score:3, Insightful)
Huzzah for the song of freedom! (Score:3, Interesting)
Damn right poeople are warezing Photoshop. For most people, the gimp is probably enough - and they just don't know it yet.
When gimp can do true CMYK what-you-see-is-what-you-print color-matching as well as Photoshop can (which is pretty damn good, but needs work), it will be a professional product. But I'm not exactly holding my breath, because, as Eegon says, "print is dead." Long live the Internet.
People who think Linux will never be able to compete with Windows until every damn niche market has been filled have forgotten what ordinary people do with computers. Average Joe Enduser (no offense) will probably never touch Maya in his entire life. I don't see why Linux needs a Maya clone. It's a niche - and free software may fill it one day. It may never be filled. Until it is, most people won't give a jot if some freedom-loving hacker making Lego movies has to suffer with POVray. In fact, most hackers probably don't care already . . .
After letting my non-technical friends test-drive some Linux software, they wanted Linux. They love ee (electriceyes), gimp, logjam, and Mozilla - because they see these programs as better at doing what ordinary people need to do. In two weeks, I'll be putting Linux on their machines just so they can use these four programs. And that's all I have to say about that.