Linux Needs More Haters 617
Corrupt brings us a ZDNet column by Jeremy Allison, who says Linux could benefit from more "tough love" in order to improve its functionality and popularity. Excerpting:
"As Elie Wiesel said, 'the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.' LinuxHater really doesn't hate Linux, despite the name. No one takes that much time to point out flaws in a product that they completely loathe and despise. The complaints are really cries of frustration with a system that just doesn't quite do what is desired (albeit well disguised). A friend pointed out to me that the best way to parse LinuxHaters blog is to treat it as a series of bug reports. A perl script could probably parse out the useful information from them and log them as technical bug reports to the projects LinuxHater is writing about. Deep down, I believe LinuxHater really loves Linux, and wants it to succeed."
By that note... (Score:4, Funny)
Slashdotters must all be MS shareholders and Vista early adopters!
Probably true (Score:3, Funny)
I "hate Linux", to the extent that I use it as little and as infrequently as possible. I certainly don't like it enough to want to spend time, that I could otherwise spend on real life, telling people why I don't like it!
Doing my part (Score:2, Funny)
It's an awesome blog (Score:5, Insightful)
LinuxHater's blog is aweseome, and I say this as someone who deeply loves Linux and GNU and all that is based on them. His criticisms are very well thought-out, not just stupid name calling, but clear, effective, technical, and explicit complaints about everything that is wrong with free software. He coats it with sardonic and bitter vitriol, yet beneath that tough exterior, there are the complaints of someone who has evidently spent a lot of time poking around the system, down to its gritty internals, and has found everything that could be improved about it.
Even Miguel de Icaza loves LinuxHater's blog [tirania.org]. I recommend that any free software enthusiast spend some good time reading the blog. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll wonder how you can make it all better.
Re:It's an awesome blog (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't agree. Look at Friday's post, no real constructive criticism there. Just HAHA look at the lusers!
Now look at Thursdays, complaining about too much choice. He's ignoring the fact that every desktop distro makes a working set of default choices. Whether you use Ubuntu, Mandriva, Xandros, or whatever, you'll have a desktop environment, browser, music player, etc, etc chosen for you. And just what does he think we're going to do about having too much choice? Tell people they can't code window managers any more? Again, this is not constructive criticism.
Back to Wednesday, again just poking fun.
On tuesday still nothing useful. Google using linux isn't a reason for you to, sure I buy that. But it's not a reason not to either.
Virtual desktops, I dunno about OS X, but he suggests VirtuaWin for windows. UGH! It's incredibly slow, it doesn't guarantee the order of windows after a desktop change, and it doesn't support mouse wheeling. Makes you wonder if he's used virtual desktops for any length of tim on any OS.
Make uninstall, that's what autopackage is for. Enough said. Most of the rest is just arguing that Windows isn't all that bad, which is true, but it's not a criticism of Linux.
Monday, is more of the same. He does a good job knocking down arguments against windows, but very little actually criticising linux. Which is to be expected really, Linux is at least as good an OS as windows, the only place it really lacks is in application support. And if he wants to fix that, he should be arguing for linux, not against it.
Re:It's an awesome blog (Score:5, Funny)
Oh really? Are we talking about the same blogger that writes gems like this one?:
Classy all the way. And what an insight.
Re:It's an awesome blog (Score:5, Insightful)
Miguel de Icaza is not that much of a free software fan, though.
I think of them like the Count Dooku of software development. The guy has a vision, and doesn't care about how to get there, even if it means putting all of us at risk.
Re:It's an awesome blog (Score:4, Insightful)
This was his answer on the question about how Windows was more prone to hacking and viruses whereas Linux was more secure. He does make some goods points but then he loses his audience by being a troll like this.
You can't have it both ways. If you want an audience to respect what you have to say, you can't turn around the next second and just be emotionally illogical and say 'because I say so'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep... sometimes he trolls just to troll. On one post he proclaimed ...
This was his answer on the question about how Windows was more prone to hacking and viruses whereas Linux was more secure. He does make some goods points but then he loses his audience by being a troll like this.
You can't have it both ways. If you want an audience to respect what you have to say, you can't turn around the next second and just be emotionally illogical and say 'because I say so'.
Most modern "viruses" (read: trojans) don't do anything which requires Local Admin privileges in Windows - and hence, Linux equivalents wouldn't need root access. Linux is only one common email program which chmod 700's and executes attachments which look like they're executable away from being just as much of a malware breeding ground.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are many trojans out there that try to "phone home" by sending email, or try to turn your computer into a spambot. They can't do that without binding to port 25, and in Linux, that takes root access.
just one thing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:just one thing (Score:4, Insightful)
It'd be really helpful if more distros complied with the FHS and LSB out of the box.
Re:just one thing (Score:5, Interesting)
do you think it is fair to say that if the next big game was available on ubuntu for example, and for the sake of argument, let's throw the next version of photoshop in there as well, we could see a fairly large movement towards linux distributions on the desktop?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I use linux as my only OS. I don't agree that lack of shinkwrapped apps is the only problem. In fact, I don't perceive the lack of shinkwrapped apps as a problem at all. I'm not into gaming, and as far as the rest of the software that I see on the aisles of retail stores, my usual thought w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Linux desktop users are extremely reluctant to spend money on software and the Open Source movement essentially means shrinkwrap proprietory software gets shunned, dismissed and worse: the zealots will often take its existence on Linux as a slap to the face of FOSS and create a GPL clone to replace it, just to spite them."
Most Linux users want everything for free, yet some of them also want Windows software. The solution is to develop ever more efficient ways to run Windows software on Linux.
The vast numbe
Not that much to complain about (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the reasons I like Linux so much is that there's so little to complain about. Everything just works. Occasionally there's a driver hunt or compatibility issue, getting a scanner to work, but overall, once it's set up and working, smooth sailing.
That was the way Windows used to be. Everything would install and just work, while the Linux tinkerers spent hours chasing down compatibility issues and combing through HCL's. But Vista changed that perception and the very time Linux was making progress in big leaps.
Five years ago if you wanted a smooth install and minimal fuss you picked Windows 2000 or XP. Now you install Ubuntu or buy a Mac. The reality is probably a little more complex but the perception certainly has changed.
Re:Not that much to complain about (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, I think you need to go and read the Linuxhater blog. You may find your experience is not typical.
My current status is: I installed Ubuntu Hardy to try it after giving up on Debian 5 years ago. It's pretty nice, but whenever I take my Thinkpad out of its dock, it crashes. Windows is much better: whenever I plug the Thinkpad into the dock, it crashes.
Re:Not that much to complain about (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the reasons I like Linux so much is that there's so little to complain about. Everything just works. Occasionally there's a driver hunt or compatibility issue, getting a scanner to work, but overall, once it's set up and working, smooth sailing.
I don't mean to offend you or anyone else, but I think you might be a bit overly-optimistic. There are a lot of valid complaints about Linux. Not that I see a lot of constant show-stopper bugs in major distros or anything, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of smaller problems, annoyances, and missed opportunities to do things better.
I'd say Linux does a very good job at loads of things *relative other currently available operating systems* (i.e. other operating systems have their share of problems, too). But computing in general still has a lot of room for improvement. If any Linux developers out there think Linux is perfect and feel like they're running out of things to improve, let me know. I can help you find things.
That was the way Windows used to be. Everything would install and just work, while the Linux tinkerers spent hours chasing down compatibility issues and combing through HCL's.
I'll grant you that Windows was a good desktop OS for its time, back around 2000. At the time, nothing was doing a better job of meeting most users' needs. But it has always been far from perfect, and each version has had plenty of technical/design problems..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with parent.
That said - there is no such thing as a perfect, trouble free OS. Every OS has it's warts.
I am an IT manager - and Linux Geek - that currently works in an all Windows department in our company.
A few things stand out for me:
1) Becoming a Linux geek has taught me so much about computers that the techies under me constantly come to me for troubleshooting tips - not that I am so much better, they are all new guys that I need to "grow" in the company.
2) I constantly, on a daily basis, need to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I use Linux on a headless box to manage my network connections but even that took some doing. The difference in difficulty in setting up a Linux box and a Mac is often quite clear. Sometimes linux is easy to set up. Sometimes it "Just Works" but I think we need to get that up to like 90% of the time.
I'm a big fan of Linux but there's some pretty obvious deficiencies and many Linux aficionados are often the first to pull the so-what-it-shouldn't-be-easy-but-there's-a-way-to-do-it
Pluribo to the rescue? (Score:3, Interesting)
Use the app from this previous article [slashdot.org] to scan a few popular Linux-hating blogs' articles and comments and maybe you've got yourself a pro-active user feedback tool. Maybe.
Spot on (Score:2, Insightful)
I think he's right about LinuxHater and right that we should be thankful for that kind of criticism. Pointing out flaws in a more public manner and in a way that makes it accessible to a larger audience can help shape opinion and get the flaws fixed.
Sure, LinuxHater could try to fix the bugs himself but I think that would be a lot less effective than what he's doing right now.
Tis sounds crazy, but it is true (Score:5, Insightful)
I know lots of smart developers who have tried Linux and ported apps to it, just to expand their knowledge of the operating system and learn how to port stuff and to keep their skills up-to-date. But most of them fallback to Windows. The more pragmatic ones switch to OS X because it is just like a Unix OS, but with far greater usability.
At one point I kept a blog of all the troubles I had with using Linux. Most of the items were really simple things that made it very difficult to use. But often even constructive comments were met with disdain, so I gave up. No sense in complaining to a deaf audience.
This all comes back to the zealous Linux pragmatism where truly constructive criticism is turned into that with-us-or-against-us mentality.
My Linux Experience (Score:3, Interesting)
I count myself in the group of developers that used Linux for a few years, then switched back to Windows.
I had and have one PC at home. To run Linux, I set that machine up dual or triple boot. I was running Red Hat for a while until they changed it into Fedora. I worked with Fedora for a while, but they had a bug with dual booting that they would not only not fix, but called it a feature. I got as far as the version of Fedora that had SELinux in it. Someone told me "Debian is better." I had that as a
OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
OS X is the 'tough love' that Linux needs. I use Linux on the server (although I have a rack of Xserves too) and there's a reason I am happy with it there (unlike OS X).
On the desktop? Well I use a Mac. And I don't think I will ever go back (in the interests of fairness this is being posted from my 'Games and things' XP laptop).
I love the fact Linux is dynamic, and open source. I really do. I don't like the fact that it doesn't seem to 'evolve'. The fragementation of WM's, distro's etc. never actually seems to weed things out. What we never end up with is a 'de facto' solution.
People argue that choice is good. I'm sure it is. But the reason that Windows and OS X still beat Linux on the desktop experience is because they are standardised - there just aren't alternatives. And OS X is a better 'desktop Unix', so as a person who wants that, where else am I meant to go? If nothing else KDE 4 would drive me away... yuck.
I did use Linux on the desktop. For several years. I only tried OS X on a whim.
I don't hate Linux, but I don't think I'm alone. Go to a confernce these days (I'm an academic) and I used to see people booting into myriad versions of Linux as they opened their laptops. These people are now in a minority, as the Apple logo is raised in unison at the beginning of any talk.
Fanboy? Maybe.
Re:OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
Sigh, another heap of bullshit. There are really three simple reasons why Linux have difficulties becoming mainstream in the environments you describe. NONE of those have anything with any of that "standardization" bullshit you seem to believe in.
Reason #1. Linux doesn't generally come pre-installed. If you want it, you've got to install it yourself. Usually after you've already paid for another OS. Don't have time, or can't be bothered? Get your ass into the folder your OEM have decided for you to be in.
Reason #2. All OEMs fall over themselves to get stuff working with Windows - in the case of Apple, obviously they fix it for you. Not so with Linux. In fact there are plenty of OEMs who seems to deliberatly try to make life difficult to use anything but the original, OEM approved OS.
Reason #3. ISVs reluctant to try new markets until it's obvious that they are on the verge of becoming obsoleted. (Don't feed me that "all distros are incompatible" line, it's horse shit). In fact, the way for instance Adobe behaves, one might actually start to wonder if there aren't cheques coming in from certain parties in order to assure that some applications stay off the Linux platform.
These three reasons are basically all there is to it. If Linux had shipped pre-installed, and OEMs didn't put obstacles in the way, I bet we would see a lot more of it. And if some ISVs actually grew some backbone, instead of cowardly assisting with the vendor lock-in, we'd probably see even more of it. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that some people prefer a wm, some gnome and yet others prefer kde on their desktop. Just get your damned libraries in line, and you're home. Anyone with a IQ above that of a log can see that.
Re:OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo. And they already use those applications on windows and OSX. No doubt if Adobe released photoshop for linux, some of those people would switch, although I doubt it's anything like a significant number. But even if it was, say 5 percent of their userbase ( which, since linux accounts for less than 1 percent of the desktop market, is probably a huge, huge overestimate), so what? They already use Adobe products, on windows and OSX. What does Adobe gain by selling them the next version on a different platform? They would have bough it anyway on their old platform.
No, what will get adobe and all the rest to port apps is a large installed base of customers who are chomping at the bit to buy their software. For that to happen, we need OEM linux machines on sale in PC World.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No.
1. Distributions are binary-incompatible across DISTRIBUTION-PROVIDED software. Third-party software usually runs on everything, ex: binaries of Firefox, Adobe Reader, Flash, etc.
2. All distributions have their build procedure published. Supporting a distribution is a matter of following simple build directions.
Of course, being completely unaware of anything even remotely related to development for Linux, you didn't know that, and therefore were repeating the words of your friendly Microsoft marketing pe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Distributions are binary-incompatible across DISTRIBUTION-PROVIDED software. Third-party software usually runs on everything, ex: binaries of Firefox, Adobe Reader, Flash, etc.
In my experience (using Linux since 2003), the opposite is true. Distro-supported software I get through emerge or apt works great! Third-party binary blobs work when the phase of the moon is right and I shout "CTHULHU FHTAGN!". Because, again, Linux does not offer a standard ABI across distributions. It can't possibly do so, really, because "Linux" isn't even monolithic. If some third-party binary blob needs libXYZ-1.2.3 and the libXYZ developers made the stupid decision to break binary compability in
Re:OS X (Score:5, Interesting)
The main difference I've found between commercially developing for Linux and commercially for OS X is that suggestions for improvement generally get the response "that's a problem with [other part of the stack]", where the [other part of the stack] gives the same form of response, and the pointers rarely dereference to anyone who takes responsibility or ownership of the issue.
A fine example currently is asking for modal dialogs to be dismissable on 400 px tall screens of UMPCs ("Please let me scroll the dialog, or locate the OK/Cancel/Apply/Help buttons on screen where I can see and click them"). The echo chamber of "talk to (app | xorg | GTK | Intel | Java | Nvidia | distribution | libc | vendor | etc.)" really turns me off of wanting to help any of them resolve the issue. As a developer on Linux (but with OSI Layer 2/3 stuff, rather than GUI things), I could probably spend a week or two to figure out how all of those pieces interact (without deeply understanding the design philosophy or project plans) and make patches that would work on my current setup, but that would generate significantly more regression testing and QA load than would be required if the patches came from in-house where the developers are already intimately familiar with their own code. Also, as one of the advantages of a package management system is supposed to be that it all gets taken care of for me, I have no interest in maintaining my own versions of app, X, GTK, etc, nor do I want to spend a day each understanding the 32 to 200 KB spec files that build those packages, nor am I interested in waiting 3 months to year before the fix makes it into the non-beta parts of the distributions I might use.
Now, ask grandma to change the screen resolution back to 800x400 (using a dialog the entirety of which she can't see or access) after she experiments with plugging a regular monitor into her new eeePC (or whatever UMPC the banks are giving away these days) and it stays mirrored at the new resolution after the experiment. It's unreasonable to expect that random non-technical user would want or need to understand that the entire stack around the problem even exists, let alone attempt to fix it.
By contrast, if I encounter an issue manifesting in CoreFoo, Cocoa, some kext or library or wherever else on OS X, Apple will offer to take ownership of it even if it isn't directly their problem (and then work on it in the background), other vendors/developers in the stack will at least acknowledge if not fully investigate the problem in the test case(s) submitted, and random other developers in the same space will be thankful for the new knowledge instead of responding with RTFM or its analogues. Granted, fixes in OS X still take weeks to a couple of months to widely roll out, but that's still faster than many distributions update their stable packages.
And then there are (the comparatively few) great OSS people like Tim Waugh, who knows the (printing) stack up and down, and responds with a reasonable fix or workaround within 48 hours, even though the problem is not in his part of the stack, regardless of who's customer you are. Plus, you'll usually get some insights by responding to his "I'm curious about what you're doing with this" follow-up.
Missing the article's point (Score:5, Insightful)
I read the article and I thought, "Well, that sounds like a good idea." Too often when anyone mentions ANY of GNU/Linux's shortcomings (which, to be fair, are far less in number than Windows's), they are labelled a troll and are either attacked or ignored.
So what happens? The comments for this story include gems like "Not that much to complain about" and "Linux + GPL what is there not to love."
Legitimately easy-to-use GNU/Linux distributions such as Ubuntu didn't happen because of the GNU/Linux Yes-Men out there. It happened because the people at Canonical listened to complaints from people like GNU/Linux haters and tried to address the issues.
Or for that matter, flip the situation around. It seems that many users on Slashdot love GNU/Linux and hate Windows. If someone wrote an article saying that Microsoft should listen to the issues of Windows haters to help improve their product, wouldn't you think it was a good idea?
Linux is user friendly (Score:3, Insightful)
it just chooses its friends wisely.
I mean there are always alternatives, you could even use MacOS. (not windows though)
I do have a bit of an issue with some developments. Some supposedly user friendly Linux installations /etc. To control the config file control process you have to edit certain configuration files in a hard to find location.
think they should also be fool proof. Like certain NAS solutions, or maybe even Ubuntu which I'm using right now. There really are machine generated and machine controlled config files in
People, this is counterintuitive! Call me old fashioned but if I change a config file in /etc I mean it. I don't need some clippy like demon thingy to tell me that I can only edit its own configuration. It should be able to read the darn /etc file if it is that smart. If /etc isn't expressive enough invent something else and don't leave old stuff around.
There you go, got your two minutes of hate now?
Don't Turn Blind Eye To Complaints (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux lovers should be grateful that anyone bothers to provide free criticism. Commercial vendors spend big bucks on focus sessions to acquire the same information.
One troubling trait exhibited by some Linux devotees is their insistence on responding to any criticism of the software by touting it's free software/open source roots. Frankly, that's little consolation to someone who's pointing out why they're unhappy with the software. Why should the model used to develop and distribute software mollify users when they see inadequacies in that software?
Of course, linked to that is the really annoying challenge to "Just fix it yourself! You've got the source!" That's an absurd claim. It's either premised on a wish to rid the Linux community of anyone who is not a bona fide developer, or it is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to be a competent developer.
Linux is a great OS and the best desktop distributions have nothing to hide. But, nothing ever gets better when people deliberately turn a blind eye to complaints.
Re:Don't Turn Blind Eye To Complaints (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, linked to that is the really annoying challenge to "Just fix it yourself! You've got the source!" That's an absurd claim.
Yup. I write, among other things, device drivers under Linux for a living. But each time I take a Linux graphical app and try to make some changes to it, it fails. Wrong compiler setup. Wrong libraries. Wrong rpm. Wrong system config. Wrong wrongness.
It's to the point that there are only 3 types of Linux progs that work: the one that comes with the system (and its updates), the simple "./configure; make; make install" and the kind I write myself. Any of that "fix it yourself" is crap.
Re:Don't Turn Blind Eye To Complaints (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem however is that most free criticism sucks. I mean, look around, most of the criticism towards distros is that there are too many of them, arguing that instead There Should Be Only One(tm), ala MacOSX, completely missing the point of Free Software.
Yes, there are a few sane minds among them, like the ones who argue for Free Desktop standards to be more widely implemented, and for the large DEs to standardize it first, implement it later instead of the other way around, but those voices are quickly lost in the noise of those who want Linux to turn into a second-rate copy of a propietary OS.
And then you've got all the morons who believe that the Free in "Free Software" means "Free an in free labor", quickly proceeding to troll $OSS_PROJECT_X's forums about how the developers are so lazy since they hadn't yet fixed the bug he reported *five minutes* after he had filed it, who are the cause that the "go fix it yourself" reply got so popular in the first place.
So what's the best way to deal with it? beats me, but what's certain to me is that the current situation, of having so many people complain about idiotic things, is what's driving developers towards ignoring all non-dev users' requests, and that if we can find a way to deal with that, Free Software would improve at an even faster rate than it currently does.
Re:Don't Turn Blind Eye To Complaints (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but...
Criticism garnered at professional focus groups isn't likely to differ from that garnered in the typical online Linux gripe session.
Gripes from users may strike developers as something less than sane, but all of those people are saying something that matters to them. However silly or pointless a complaint might seem, it is something that may very probably keep someone from using Linux.
In the commercial world, developers are not the only people with a voice in deciding which complaints are addressed and which are not. If management believes a complaint is hurting sales, I suspect it will be addressed, no matter how trivial or inane. Given their nature, many Linux development efforts may or may not mirror that behavior.
(Anecdote: Once upon a time, I led a number of requirements gathering efforts for some software efforts as well as overseeing testing each iteration with users. At least 8 of 10 of their comments were repetitive, cosmetic, silly, etc. But, they established the baseline for the software's acceptability. Whatever I thought, or the developers thought, the users would have rejected the product if we had not addressed their complaints.)
Finally, I think I have a reasonable view of the purpose of Free Software, but I'm convinced that the only users who take that into consideration are already Free Software converts. I.e., judging Linux from a Free Software point of view assures Linux remains a Free Software enthusiasm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and that just highlights the advisability of having someone other than developers review bug reports and feature requests. It's those people who should parse the poorly worded complaints, reroute those that were misdirected, etc., etc.
And, yes, commercial developers only pursue bugs that are believed to promise a net return. The flip side is that commercial developers pursue bugs believed to promise a net return, and that benefits the widest range of users. When returns are based on sales, anything th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And perhaps Free Software is missing the point of the user criticism, too?
When your users are complaining, they're telling you something. I always tell the people I work with - "don't give them strictly what they ask for, figure out what they *nee
The Pleasure of Hating. (Score:5, Interesting)
The 'benchmark' OS he seems to use as the basis of the bulk of his criticisms is OSX, an OS I find really frustrating to use (and I use it fairly often these days). If I were to start an OSX Haters on this basis should I expect the Aqua and XCode authors to read it daily in the interests of improving all the braindead things about both those aspects of OSX? Didn't think so.. Maybe the guy just has a crippling case of Internet Rabies induced by deep boredom and Jeremy's simply being a little generous..
There are, afterall, blogs featuring meticulously prepared images of meals that people hated eating. Perhaps this blog is simply in the same vein; just another masochist whiling away the hours in public.
Must be a slow news day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Jeremy is correct, then the author of Linux Haters has chosen what is possibly the least likely route to garnering interest from Linux developers.
I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be a former Linux enthusiast turned hater after all his complaints were answered with a "Fix it yourself" reply from arrogant devs.
You have to care to hate (Score:5, Interesting)
This is important to learn in life. When you reject someone that loves you, then they hate you. As long as they hate you, they still love you.
Once they don't care any more then it's over.
It discovered this all on my own when going through a bad breakup so that part of the comment particularly leapt out from the page to me.
"I love him so much," yeah, whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
The message is not simply, "Linux needs to improve," but rather "Linux will never be good enough."
Most experienced Linux users probably have it in them to respond to inane trolls with precision and objectivity, but when a troll with a sense of humor, good writing skills, and some domain experience comes along, everybody cowers and plays along. Hey, the popular guy is here, everybody play cool.
Too many Linux users are caught between their love for straightforwardness and cutting-edge technology on the one hand and their lust for popularity and respect on the other. Linux Hater is not here to make you laugh. He's not secretly using Linux and enjoying it. He's the guy who sold you out for cooler friends in tenth grade, idiots.
THE most important thing to make linux easier.. (Score:3, Insightful)
All distros must REQUIRE a graphic sudo dialogue system (a-la osx) in order to distribute a file manager.
File managers are there to manage files, and not just on your own user space. There is nothing more annoying than having to drop to shell level and type furiously to do something which on mac can be done with a few drags and drops.
Most people don't even know how to do that, and all they see is "operation not permitted".
Think about that for a minute... Because there is no option to authenticate (out of the box), joe user is put through the same scenario with his files that you get put through when some company surprises you with a DRM scheme.
Re:THE most important thing to make linux easier.. (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, I bet you have tested Ubuntu.... because your feelings are such....
I have used Mandriva and what I do, is I right click the directory and select "Open as root".
Why I still have to boot into Windows. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll give fair crits.
Let me say first and foremost, that I prefer booting into Ubuntu and using that as my daily driver. Sometimes I just can't though.
Here is a list of short reasons why:
Skype seems to be faster, and work better in w32. My video gets sent at higher resolution, and I can hear the other party better. Dunno why, this is just the case.
7zip is screwed up in Linux. I installed a wine version, AND a native version, only the wine version will start and it flickers and won't let me select a package to extract. Making it unusable.
Random crashes. I mean, probably as many or more as I get regularly in Windows, with the added inconvenience of ctrl+alt+bckspce not being near as good as ctrl+alt+delete, which brings up a handy task menu for me to clean up (usually).
No two sound things going at once. Sometimes I like to put on mp3s, and THEN go kill people in Urban Terror. This is easy and works perfect in W32, but not in Ubuntu, I just get the mp3s, and NO sound in a game whilst they are playing.
TVtime not recognizing my TV card. Dscaler turns on perfectly in Windows. So does TVtime in Ubuntu, but then the screen is blue and there is no menu for me to figure out what is wrong, either.
Joost. Works in windows, not in Ubuntu. I'm sure partially Joost's fault, but still sad.
Civilization 2. Best/funnest version of the game, will not play in wine even though it's like 10 years old.
I like how Windows arranges it's GUI, start button, quicklaunch, then task list, then systray and clock. Less real estate, all the same functionality, but without a top AND bottom bar.
Zsnes. Does not work in any way shape or form, or under wine.
What Linux gets RIGHT however is it's ability to find and install 99% of my hardware without me hunting for hours for drivers, inclusion of most of the software I prefer (firefox, gimp, pidgin, open office, cd burner), Compiz Fusion (blows every Windows attempt away!), and it's open source nature. There is something good knowing the code to my machine is inspected by lots of eyes, not just one corporation, and it's also good to know that if I was knowledgeable enough, some of those eyes could be mine.
Honestly Linux feels "closer" than it ever did. It just needs to solve a few naggling issues before it can fully dominate the world by desktop. Another way it could do so is by being AHEAD of the curve. It would be nice if there was a superior FOSS Skype killer, since skype is actually deficient in numerous ways, including not being FOSS. Speex is a better speech compression algorithm, so it would seem like we have the tools in hand to beat the current corporate paradigm too, and yet it sadly isn't happening.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
i don't know of any packages on officially supported architectures that won't run at all. if you're having that sort of problem, a bug-report would seem to be the way to go.
if i want to call people over the computer, i ask them to download and install openwengo. if the other person isn't even willing to do that, i don't see why i should want to call them.
my 2 minutes of hate (Score:3, Interesting)
My old junker 700MHz Linux box fell to the 'linux curse' where hardware started failing left & right, thus making the OS fail. It happens on every 2ndhand system I install Linux on. So I get a refurbished computer & reinstall linux. Spent over an hour getting the resolutioon BACK to 1024x768 on a Micron monitor. Nothing, NOTHING should ever take that long just to change the desktop resolution. Ubuntu's "desktop resolution" is like a showcase of resolutions you honestly dont want(640x480)
Tbe rest of my time was spent trying to get my account to authenticate in Samba. I have never been so frustrated with one app than Samba. It's just one authentication problem after another.
Implies that Win 7 will be great (Score:3, Interesting)
MS has never brought out an OS that had as many haters as Vista. So according to this logic the next version will be great.
Actually from what I have heard, it might indeed be true.
Linux is for bitches (Score:5, Interesting)
OK. I've got karma to burn, but seriously, check out this website first before starting to flame or mod me down - at the very least it's got a funny picture on the page :)
http://www.linuxisforbitches.com/ [linuxisforbitches.com]
Seems fairly appropriate given the topic at hand...
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not every user is going to be a developer, that's why developers need to listen to the critics, because the critics don't have a developer's hat.
THAT is one of the things that makes OSS great.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Funny)
They could take off the critic's hat and -fix- the things that they complain about.
I mean, isn't that one of the things that makes OSS great?
Yeah, and the other great thing about OSS is that it's as easy to fix kernel bugs as it is to point them out! Yay, you see, anyone can be a kernel developer!
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Often you know what went wrong, but you don't know why the execution path actually gets there. That's where you need the developer.
Re: (Score:2)
grandparent was sarcastic, I think
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Funny)
It's easy to criticise. How about you try fixing it instead?
Re:What kernel bugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Not even close. How are these for corporate sponsors: Redhat, Novell, Sun.
What makes Windows and OSX so popular are applications that are commercially supported. That's it. Look no further. Without applications, your OS, no matter how fancy, is useless. I rememeber when I got my first computer, I turned it on to see C:\>. It was useless to me without apps that I could use (I was also introduced to warez that day).
Now, I know that there are alot of apps for Linux, but the installation and use of them are not as seamless as those for Windows or OSX. What I would like to see, and perhaps this is already available, is a set of agreed upon application practices, written by distribution maintainers, that developers follow that standardize the interface, the population of the OS menus, the distribution of files, etc, so that it app installs are seamless. Yes, it would be a PITA to support each distribution of OS, but quite frankly, that could be automated. And then have app developers actually follow the guidelines.
That would go along way to streamlining apps in Linux.
Re:What kernel bugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What kernel bugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
true, I've found instaling apps in Linux to be easier than Windows once you have a binary distribution that is packaged.
I think perhaps the problem isn't the apps that are out there, but the development of them. Microsoft produces more development tools than there are days to figure out how to use them, and they produce documentation that is really good (assuming you want to be a WinCE or .NET developer nowadays). If I could develop my apps for Linux with the ease I could develop for Linux, there would be more apps and more uptake for Linux.
The mass of boring, specific-solution apps out there dwwarf everything you can get commercially. Windows is built on the premise that it is easy to create apps, and that supporting them is easy even if the original developer leave, you'll be able to find another who can take up their code because they will be familiar with the technology used to produce it.
This, I feel is one of the reasons for Java having so much uptake - it was well documented, and if you wrote a Swing app, you knew your investment in it would be safe.
Of course, momentum and installed base helps a lot, but Windows cannot ever compete with free.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can also double-click a package in some distros, or pick from the list of available packages in a graphical repository browser like Adept. Installing Linux software ia not hard. It actually takes less knowledge than the drag & drop operation which is typical on OS X, when the devs forget to include a directory link to drop the app on.
Re:What kernel bugs? (Score:4, Informative)
Windows application and/or driver installation requires the application/package and a double-click. You then choose a typical install which does literally everything for you or a customizable one. Done.
Here's a better simplification of the process:
1. Open web browser
2. Search (modern browsers, the search bar, older browsers, navigate to google.com) for "calendar program"
3. Find program web site.
4. Find download link and download.
5. Double click EXE
6. Click Next, Next, Next, I Agree, Next
7. Choose "Simple" or "Advanced" install. Assume Simple install for the rest:
8. Click Next, Next, Next, Next, Reboot prompt.
9. Wait for reboot.
10. Configure program.
No Linux distro I have tried has EVER followed as simple an installation process. Fedora, Mandriva, Ubuntu, DSL- Each had its own quirks, almost all of which required shell commands. (In fact, I believe all required it.)
Obviously you've never used any of the distributions you listed. Here's an Ubuntu example:
1. Click System, Administration, Synaptic Package Manager
2. Type password
3. Search for "calendar"
4. Install sunbird (or other desired program)
5. Open program in the Applications menu and use.
If Linux developers could all agree on an install process that was 100% GUI compliant
You mean like this [arstechnica.com]? Most average people would probably see AT MOST two different UI styles, if they happen to install both KDE/Qt and GNOME/Gtk programs, and they're not even dramatically different paradigms by default. If you even look more closely, the linked screenshot consists only of Microsoft applications; way to go, demonstrating there's no such thing as consistency in Windows (ironically, the most "standard" Win32 UI in that screenshot happens to be Notepad).
Re:OH SHUT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
That goes along with the mantra of Linux, as LinuxHater pointed out: if something doesn't work in Linux, convince yourself you don't need it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If an app isn't supported, don't use it. Big hint here: Use Ubuntu Linux. It provides automatic updates.
That's one of the other issues any user coming from Windows or Mac always runs into with Linux: Application X isn't supported or Driver Y hasn't been written yet.
For people such as those here on /. the prospect of making that app work or building a driver from scratch is often an enjoyable challenge. For the rest of the 99% of the world's computer users, it's an instant deal breaker.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For the rest of the 99% of the world's computer users, it's an instant deal breaker.
Exactly. That's why more software companies need to publish software for Linux. Just a couple of days ago, I purchased a commercial software package for Linux. I think the time of Linux is just beginning. :-)
Re:OH SHUT UP (Score:4, Insightful)
This problem of the grizzled old expert using a fresh new Linux distro is a considerable one.
Some of us aren't fully aware of how far away from the CLI the newer distributions
have gotten... even when we are using them ourselves. We're used to old habits
learned a long time ago from before a lot of the current bells & whistles were
created.
We don't bother with a lot of the "shiny and new" stuff because we don't need to.
This can lead us to giving other people a false impression.
If you aren't completely comfortable building from source then it's probably not
a good idea to bother. If something isn't packaged by your distro yet then it's
probably a good sign that it's still a little too raw. It's still a little "too beta".
Free software means that you can see how a project progresses from the very
beginning. You get to see stuff in Linux before you would in other Operating
systems. Not everyone can handle dealing with a project before their is a
proper build. Package managers exist for a reason.
OTOH, anyone can choose to overcomplicate things. Some people excel at this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand that self-contained apps are superior from an end-user situation. I'm just not sure how they cater for dependencies that are required for other apps as well... does it mean apps don't share any dependencies other than the system API's? Each app contains it's dependencies in itself?
As for the sitting in /Applications, linux could move to this I'm sure if it is actually a superior method. I can't see where except for removing an app, but I'm still learning. Otherwise, it could just be a link if t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we had an open-source build system that could target .app, you could have more control. Pass whatever ./configure options you like, and then install the resulting .app easy as pie!
I've really never understood why Linux sticks with the old /bin, /etc, /lib, /usr/{bin,etc,lib,share} conventions instead of switching to a .app-like system. It's just technologically better to support both .apps and an equivalent system for shared libraries, and I can only see one reason to hold back from such basic usabilit
Re:What kernel bugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I would like to see, and perhaps this is already available, is a set of agreed upon application practices, written by distribution maintainers, that developers follow that standardize the interface, the population of the OS menus, the distribution of files, etc, so that it app installs are seamless.
Mega dittos, Rush. I think OSX is gaining a lot of ground because the installation of apps is trivial: drag the thing from the disk-image file to your app folder. Of course its almost as easy in ubuntu, where you select from a pre-defined list. But linux definitely needs a common mechanism. RPMs, apt, and yum simply don't hack it. Though package management seems like a good idea, it quickly locks a user into specific versions that must be compatible with specific libraries. I think the difficulty of installing apps, the difficulty of patching the OS, the lack of standard distribution practices, and the inflexibility of package management systems can make otherwise embracing users a little hostile towards Linux. In fact, I'm starting to feel a little hostile myself and I'm one of those Linux evangelists.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except, of course, this is not how Debian packages work, and therefore you are posting bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Honestly, installing software was one of my biggest beefs with OS X. You have to mount a file as a drive?
These days Safari opens the image file and everything pops up like magic for the user. If the people who designed the program are worth a damn, they have a link to the apps folder in the image and the user basically doesn't have to think about it. Its about as complicated as you describe for synaptic but the search interface is google and not a cryptically hidden program somewhere in the system submenu of the start bar. I think the last time you used OS X was 10.1.
Re:What kernel bugs? (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes Windows and OSX so popular are applications that are commercially supported. That's it. Look no further. Without applications, your OS, no matter how fancy, is useless. I rememeber when I got my first computer, I turned it on to see C:\>. It was useless to me without apps that I could use (I was also introduced to warez that day).
As soon as a post like this appears on /., it's almost guaranteed you'll have a dozen or more replies saying "But Linux has all the packages you could ever need! Just look at any package manager!!!oneoneone" so I'll chime in with what I perceive as being a bit of clarification.
As far as the end user is concerned, provided they're not a hardcore gamer this is quite correct.
But a lot of people own PCs for reasons other than just the sake of owning a computer - and these reasons are quite often business related. Be it "one PC in a business which employs 3 people", "30 PCs in a business which employs 30 people" or "1000 PCs in a business that employs 1000 people", the problem is the same.
Linux apps which do the boring stuff aren't there. The payroll, accounting and small business automation systems which may never sell more than 1000 copies don't exist. Or if they do, they're seldom well maintained examples of everything that can go right with F/OSS. Hell, virtually every single Exchange alternative out there (and today there are many) appears to either work out just as expensive as Exchange or to have completely missed the point regarding "100% full interoperability with Outlook or a client on a similar par".
Consider the business owner's perspective. They want a tool to help them do a job, not a religion. Therefore, reasons which are badly thought out at best (eg. "Anyone can support it!" - right, so who's this "anyone" and how come the Yellow Pages isn't full of such "anyones" offering their services because it sure is for Windows systems?) to downright ludicrous ("You can always pay someone to add the extra functionality!" - right, so my business which turns over just enough money to keep a couple of people employed and is much the same as 100 others in terms of IT requirements has to waste months agreeing requirements with an expensive software developer to get a single system which when all is said and done won't be any better than something off the shelf and will cost a small fortune in both time and cash for added functionality in the future, with the added bonus that if this individual developer disappears off the face of the Earth shortly before something goes wrong, I'm totally screwed?) are plain silly.
Similarly, arguments like "We can't implement 100% interoperability with Exchange because it's proprietary" won't result in a small IT consultancy saying "Ah, poor you. Never mind, I'll just tell my clients that they can't have the functionality". They'll result in the small consultancy saying "I'd like to buy a copy of Windows Small Business Server please".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Businesses need specific software, not free hobbyist knockoffs.
Perhaps.
OTOH, you could rephrase it like so...
"Business needs specific brands of software, not some commercial knockoff"
This has nothing to do with achieving actual requirements. People are just
fixated on brandnames. Thus you can't actually come up with any reason that
the "free hobbyist knockoff" isn't suitable. You just come up with some lame
insult that doesn't really tell anyone anything.
"fix it now" commercial software is nothing trivial
Re: (Score:3)
For Debian, but what about the rest of the world? Well, they use Yum or some other front end to RPM. Now, what does RPM do? package stuff up into directories. Gee, how is that defined? By the developers! Is there a common code of conduct (again, I don't know) for packaging apps? When do you put files into
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It gets even more fun on 64-bit Linux. A
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do agree that Synaptic suffers from "yellow pages syndrome," where it can be hard to find something if you don't already have an idea of where/what it is. Add/Remove Programs attempts to fill this hole, but it would be nice if there was a better selection of index applications for it, there's a lot of stuff that's not listed there.
But all that having been said, you pretty much lost me on "download a windows program." From where? How do you find it? How do you know it's safe? How do you upgrade it later? H
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sure there is. Download a windows program and run it. It just works.
Right, it just works. That is, if it's a standalone .exe and has no serious dependencies like .Net or Java or VB(3-6). Or if it isn't a standalone .exe (requires installation) and it can install into a user directory. Or it installs to a global directory and you're an admin.
Just as in Linux with particular libraries, Windows users also sometimes have to scour the 'net for those special dll's that stopped shipping with various releases of
Re:What kernel bugs? (Score:5, Funny)
Linux is superior to Mac OS X?? *pop* I'm afraid you just blown my Mac fanboism fuse :-(
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You forget that linux is just a kernel, it's not a whole system. No matter how good a kernel might be, if the rest of the system is buggy or incomplete, then people will choose something else. Every six months I try the new release of Ubuntu, and every six months I see serious bugs and limitations within 30 minutes of testing. It's certainly usable, but usable is not good enough. The result is, although I install linux server professionally, I use Windows almost exclusively for my personal needs.
Re:What kernel bugs? (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed.
ACPI support is not finished yet, in terms of completeness.
The Intel X3100 Open Source driver DRI module exhibits issues, which send interrupts to the CPU every time screen refreshes - i.e. 60 times per second, preventing the CPU from idling, and thus eating battery and power.
USB driver interrupts the CPU without any device plugged in to the bus.
yenta_sockets module - same story.
The above may only hold true to the Thinkpad machines, but the laptop (mobile) Linux is just not there yet, given that my Thinkpad has a standard Intel graphics, and standard Intel USB controller. I am sure other notebook machines have similiar issues.
In addition to that Linux starts to exhibit side-effects of "too much choice". There are at least two desktop interfaces (GTK, and QT) so, half of the people only get half of the applications, because their desktop user interface is not supported. Things like that.
It may well be that Ubuntu != all linux distros, but the majority of packages are shared between distributions, and so most of the quirks, bugs and status-quos make it everywhere.
I admire the programmers, who implement newest hardware support in software for Linux though. Like ACPI. But there is more that needs to be done, and I don't have time to learn ACPI right now, so all I can do is complain :-)
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure about the months, weeks or even days. Sometimes it can be hours, sometimes even minutes, it all depends on a bug.
My bug report work flow:
1 - Make sure I'm not the bug
2 - Grab the source
3 - Browse
4 - Figure out (approximately) what point in the code my bug is coming from
5 - Write a bug report like this:
Hi,
Your program foo just killed my cat. No shit, killer pokes aren't funny dammit and you said this would work on a commodore PET! My cat had a seizure and its dead claws are now embedded in my skull as I write this.
As far as I can tell, its fate was sealed somewhere around line 2113. Looking at your commit logs, it looks like someone got ahold of the user "hsimpson"'s password, please ask him to change it.
I would help diagnose this more, but I have to get this cat off my head.
See? Even if I know _nothing_ about the code, I do know _something_ about the bug .. and can usually provide a little bit of information beyond 'its fucked up, fix it' .. which is the gist of the common bug report. :)
Not to mention.... (Score:3, Insightful)
that nobody (outside MS) has that kind of skill wrt windows, at all. And that complaining rarely helps, if ever.
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
They could spent 9 months learning the code, the build instructions, how it all fits together, creating their patch, testing their patch, submitting the patch, then hoping and praying that the project accepts the patch--
Or they could put in a bug report than the project maintainer can fix in 5 minutes, since he's already done all that work.
Which one sounds more efficient?
Of course, the real problem is that (most) open source projects don't read their bug trackers, even if the public is putting in bugs. I estimate around 75% of the time the bug never even gets assigned. This is after expressly asking users to submit bugs when they encounter them. I've given up, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this.
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:4, Informative)
Most bug trackers are smart enough to send e-mail to a developer, or a list of developers.
I think 99% of all submitted bugs are read (or at least glanced at), however the bug trackers are often way behind and (gasp) sometimes those e-mails are just ignored or forgotten.
Sometimes its as simple as a language barrier, sometimes just very busy people .. or sometimes you happen upon a developer who is 300x more sick of the program than you are :)
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
The for-profit model has a built in advantage in that once the people controlling a project decide making a change is a priority they can FORCE the people on the team to do it. OSS is exactly the opposite; if nobody feels like fixing a bug it doesn't get done, or it takes more time. There are strengths and weaknesses to both systems.
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even with all the warts, OS X is what Linux wants to be - and is stumbling miserably in many ways. As long as developers only work on what interests them, Linux will be hindered. Few coders really want to roll up their sleeves and do the dirty work of writing 4,000 printer drivers, GUI front ends to countless mundane command line functions or software ordinary people want to use in daily life. That's what Apple pays themselves to do.
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:4, Informative)
There are far, far less unique drivers needed than there are printers. In many cases, several models from the same line will actually use the same driver, but you have to list all of them because the average user won't have any way of knowing they're all the same. For that matter, there may well be cases where one companies printers simply use the same control codes as another, better known brand. As an example, years ago I had a dot matrix printer from Star Micronix. Even though it was a minor brand, I never had driver issues because I knew (having taken the time to RTFM) that it was Epson compatible and that the standard Epson driver was all I needed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wasn't there a story a few month back about a guy, a normal guy, some French medic IIRC, that wrote drivers for a few hundred, or thousand, who's counting, webcams? He just wanted to get his webcam to work but ended up writing a framework and churning out driver after after driver. Try doing this on OS X (all webcams come with Windows drivers, so no one has to write them of course).
Oh, what is K3B but a front end to a bunch of commad line tools?
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's silly to expect people to take time to learn how to cook before complaining that the Linux stew lacks something.
But it's fair to ignore complainers who just say "it's bad" without giving anything useful.
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:4, Insightful)
They could take off the critic's hat and -fix- the things that they complain about.
I mean, isn't that one of the things that makes OSS great?
And there is the fundamental problem with Linux -- the "geeks only" attitude of so many of its proponents. The lawyer who wants an office system, the granny who has just heard that they can video-conference with their grandchild halfway around the world, the schoolkid who wants to get their geography assignment done -- most potential Linux users will never have anything to contribute to Linux except advocacy, and as long as any requests for help are met with "fix it yourself" suggestions or a pile of technical gibberish (heck, I am a coder, and I struggle to understand most of the supposed support on offer) then they will stay with other systems whose developers do understand the needs of the non-technical user. That way they'll never be more than potential users, and Linux won't even get their advocacy.
... and worse still... (Score:3, Insightful)
(Explanation: many many internet cafe customers at least from my experience here in Athens Greece really want a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not when you are a customer. Yes, Linux is F/OSS. But if you want users, then treat them as customers. If you ignore people, lose bug reports, call them stupid, tell them to RTFM, or tell them to fix it themselves, don't be surprised when you lose them.
This does not run contrary to my statement. Strictly commercial concerns can and often do ignore "[X] sucks because it isn't exactly like [Y]", "I did such-and-such with [X] and it didn't work; therefore, [X] is the most worthless piece of garbage ever", an
Re:Or perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately that's one thing a lot of Linux advocates fail to get: Not everyone has the ability to alter the code to "fix" things.
This is especially important for the types of Linux advocates that are pushing for "Linux on the Desktop" and other non-specialized applications. You are trying to push Linux onto people who can barely turn a computer on without electrocuting themselves - do not expect them to "scratch their own itch."
What we need are fewer self-righteous asshats who can actually put themselves in the position of a novice and try to understand their needs - or at least listen to them without condescending retorts. Windows, for all it's shortcomings, tailors specifically to novice users (ie the vast majority of computer users) and that's why it's so popular. Cry monopoly all you want but until you fix your usability issues you are not going to make much progress.
=Smidge=
Re:first tits! (Score:5, Funny)
For a person who spends his time getting first posts on Slashdot, they might as well be.
Re:first tits! (Score:5, Funny)
Igor! Just the man I was looking. I have fallen badly from a /. comment and now I need some stitching on the left leg. Seem to be missing a patch of skin off my arm too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Would the corollary of that be "Windows is only expensive if your time is worth something" ?
Re:Linux is only free if your time is worthless. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) I consider the vacation time I get at work insufficient, so I often take unpaid time off (management is cool with that). If I were using a Linux system at home and were to spend a significant amount of time trying to fix it rather than doing the things I intended to with my time off, this is indeed time I could otherwise have been paid for.
2) I maintain a few Linux boxes at work. If I spend time debugging problems on them that commercial software would have fixed, this is company money spent on getting OSS to work. Perhaps a commercial product would cost the company $100 out-of-pocket, where debugging and configuring the OSS product would cost $500 of employee time.
3) I consider my free time much more valuable than money earned. I value a non-working Saturday more highly than a working Saturday with double overtime pay. Personally, I consider time-spent-at-my-discretion-at-a-reasonable-standard-of-living my baseline goal, rather than bank balance, with the money I earn at work serving as an enabler of that. If I get a raise, I consider it an opportunity to take a few more days off rather than to get a few more bucks. So, everything that costs me discretionary time, where I feel I'm not getting much out of it, is very detrimental to my bottom line. If it means that I'll spend 50 fewer hours configuring and debugging my system, I'll gladly plonk $200 for Windows at the stupidly cheap rate of $4/hour of free time.