Linux, to be (Like Microsoft) or Not to be? 476
David writes "Stephen Shipman delivers a very articulate and concise view of how Linux fits in server and end user environments. He expresses his view in response to Nicolas Petreley's 'rant' in Linux Journal. He points out the subtle implications of efficiency versus consistency." From the article: "[...] efficiency (as measured by keystrokes) isn't the only metric for ease of use. Consistency must also be taken into account. Microsoft has made a lot of hay (and green) by flogging consistency".
Re:Petreley makes good points (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Petreley makes good points (Score:4, Insightful)
The what? I vaguely recall that being a problem in Win98, but I run Win2k here, and when an inactive application demands input, it stays right down in the taskbar where it belongs - all that happens is that the taskbar icon flashes to notify me. Surely this is the case in WinXP too? It would seem strange for Microsoft to introduce the correct behaviour in one version of Windows, only to take it out again in the next.
What I repeatedly hear from Mac enthusiasts is how quickly a new user can sit down and get right to business, without thinking half as hard where things are or how settings work.
And that's total bullshit. OS X is arguably easier to learn for someone who's new to computers altogether, but anyone who has only ever used Windows before, faced with a Mac, is going to have a terribly frustrating time just trying to resize a window ("I click on the left edge and drag, to make it wider, and the window moves instead! What's with that?"), let alone figuring out how on earth the Dock is supposed to work.
What it comes down to is, people like what they're used to. That means Mac users love Macs, Windows users say they hate Windows but hate trying other platforms even more, and Linux users can't figure out how anyone can find Linux difficult to use. Which is why it is sensible for Linux to behave more like Windows (KDE), or more like OS X (Gnome) - because with greater familiarity will come greater uptake.
Re:Petreley makes good points (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare, say, setting up apache on a typical Linux distribution with configuring IIS on Windows. The difference is night and day. Sure, sometimes you have to dig into the Machine.conf or use a command line tool like httpcfg, but these are rarities, rather than the common case. Also, while there are some GUI configuration tools for apache from various sources, all of them suck rocks through a straw to the point that it's EASIER to look up arcane flags and configuration settings and type them into a text editor than it is to click a button. Typically, it's just a graphical representation of the config file.
OSX and Windows do a damn good job of making the common stuff easy to configure and use with a nice GUI. On Linux, what config applet you use may depend on which environment you're using. KDE and Gnome both have different stuff, as does SUSE, Red Hat, etc.. consistency may be better (not great, but better) within one particular distro, but not across even two similar ones.
This is a hot button, though. Lots of people will disagree, because whatever they're doing works for them. it's that kind of myopic outlook ("it works for me, you must be too stupid") that makes it so difficult for Linux to gain acceptance. It doesn't have to "work for you", it has to "work for THEM", and if it works for you too, then that's even better.
What's a "single user" problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of all the things you could propose as a reason for considering it "single user", that's the oddest. It's hateful and frustrating, and more prevalent in MS WIndows than X11 or Mac OS, but it's more prevalent in X11 than Mac OS, and more prevalent in Mac OS than 8 1/2.
You could have pointed to the single-application-instance shared with Mac OS (which Firefox has imported to X11). Whether it's services, desktop applications, or just logged in users, it takes a huge effort to have two instances of ANYTHING running in Windows.
Their virtual terminal and user switching required years of development work from Citrix, Xerox, Metaframe, and other companies to figure out what parts of the user environment should be shared, what should be duplicated, and what should be switched from instance to instance... and you still can't have two login sessions under the same user id.
For applications that run as services there's been even less work done to get around the problems... so it's actually more cost effective to build "blade" servers or run multiple copies of the OS in virtual machines than to run multiple webservers or other applications in the same instance of Windows.
I mean, I had a 486/50... this is a machine that wasn't powerful enough to run one instance of even NT 3.51... and I was running multiple webservers on different addresses under the same kernel. This kind of thing is routine and easy in UNIX, because it was designed for multiple users (and thus multiple instances of every possible resource) from the very start.
How can you critique this? (Score:5, Insightful)
None of which of course applies in the server domains, where you're better off with less UI. Wildly divergent configuration files are bad, but not as bad as wildly divergent GUIs.
Consistancy is important. (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, plenty of Windows users will be quite happy by going to "file" to print or close an application. "Find" is under edit, not view. That's fine for people who think that way and for them it SHOULD be that way. The rest of the userbase shouldn't have to suffer for it, though.
Myself, I like visuals. The idea of dragging an application window to a printer, OR dragging the printer to the application windows, appeals to me. (To me, drag&drop needs to work by object, not by destination.)
"But writing all those interfaces would be massively overwhelming!" I'm not suggesting anyone does. Just provide a rational, consistant, standard skin that the majority can use, then provide a powerful enough engine that can handle application look&feel and drag&drop events not otherwise handled. Then write a simple UI editing engine. If people want their own UI, give them the tools to provide it.
"Most people wouldn't bother." Probably true, but the Open Source dictum is that some will, and that evolution will lead to superior interfaces.
"How does that benefit company X that sells products?" Easy enough. Every time you're about to release a next major version, look and see whether other skins are doing better than your default. If they are, switch. If that's how everyone sees your program anyway, it won't hurt anyone's ability to use it.
Problem with linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Now let me get to my post. As it stands now, Open source is not ready for average users. There just isnt enough focus on the learning curve. I believe the main reason for this is because of it being free. Developers of open source projects don't hire graphic artists and average joe testers to make sure that their products look good and are easy to use. They put in all the features that they want, and make it intuitive enough for them to use. I know this because I am a developer. I constantly write software that I think is really easy to use, then I hand it off to one of the people here at work who arent so great with computers. I watch them use it and usually they come up with all kinds of reasons why its hard to use that I could never think of, just because I already know how to use it. Until more companies start funding open source projects and sinking real good resources into them I just dont see them coming massivly mainstream. One of the obvious exceptions to my theory is firefox. I installed it for my parents and they had absolutly no problem using it, but when my wife sees me messing with my mythtv box she normally has no frickin clue whats going on, and shes an above-average user.
Companies should start focusing on releasing their products open source and charging for the support. That way, the minority of people like us can get their software for free, learn to love it, and tell our friends and family how great it is. They, in turn, will go get it and buy the support because while I dont mind googling to look up and fix every little problem I come accross, most people out there just dont have the attention span or willingness to do it. Companies will buy the support. Its really a win-win situation.
Good points... (Score:4, Insightful)
By rejecting everything in Windows as "evil", they're rejecting many good things like the UI and configuration consistency. Why should we have to rely on MANY DIFFERENT stuff for configuration, when Windows does it elegantly with its Control Panel? (I'm talking about the first tier, not the registry crap - Control Panel would do as well by using
To configure stuff in Linux, you have an app to configure the screen, another to configure the network, etc. etc. And THIS is the problem with Linux fundies. "Why change it? It works". It was attitudes like this that gave birth to answers like the famous quake 3 under linux [slashdot.org] troll, which originally was a legitimate complaint.
In comparison, Ubuntu (as we saw recently) has an extensive list of things-to-be fixed [launchpad.net] to make it more user friendly (like hardware recognition, boot loaders, package management), and this was the reason to delay Dapper, so they can finish the ones currently being worked.
My theory is that Linux needs a critical-mass of user friendliness to replace Windows on the Joe Users' desktops, and Ubuntu seems to approach that critical mass quite fast. Maybe in 3 or 4 years, it will happen.
Re:Missing point (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, not all applications are for what you call "average user". I wouldn't advocate that our secretary learns how to use Vim, but I also wouldn't use another editor if I could avoid it. And I certainly didn't write Vim.
Rant is about right... (Score:2, Insightful)
If Linux gets to the point where it's better you wont see rants of this nature... you'll see rants like you see on Slashdot daily about how "crappy" it is or how "bloated it is". The flavor of the day is the one that gets hit the hardest and right now like it or not Windows is the flavor of the day.
While Mr. Petreley has some points which could be considered worthwhile reading they are encapsulated in his fanboi rant thus losing any and all credit they might have gotten.
Re:They may have "flogged" consistency, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I think removing "Program Files\AppName\*" makes more sense than hunting for a bunch of different files in
Placing all applications files (minus user settings) in a single directory is what I actually like most about Windows. Unzipping AppName.zip into a new directory in Program Files, then later removing the whole directory is quick, easy and clean. And it doesn't require any special packaging. Obviously, what I dislike most about Linux and BSD is installing and uninstalling software. Package manager packages, tarballs, and the various ideas about what goes where. Confusing and frustrating in my opinion.
Disclaimer: I'm sure a Linux user will soon point out why this Windows paradigm is such a pain.
Re:Petreley makes good points (Score:5, Insightful)
Best UI improvement I've ever seen in the computer industry. I can start something, then keep working away on whatever I was doing before I started it, and when I'm ready, the program I started is up and running behind whatever I'm currently working on.
Having said that, it's not so simple as "everything starts in the background". It depends on whether the program has any open windows already, and what layer they're at, whether the program was started by another program or the Gnome menu, and a whole bunch of other crap. The way it's done though, seems to be very good.
Shipman's response (Score:3, Insightful)
We always hear the smug statement that those that don't understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it badly. Perhaps those that don't understand Windows are doomed to reinvent it even worse. If we don't understand what's useful and what's not in Windows we'll continue to duplicate some of its good ideas and some of its bad ones, and some will be completely out of context with the goals of our Unix-like Free operating systems. If you want Free Windows, wait for ReactOS to finish its code audit and contribute to that; that is the place to really duplicate all of Microsoft's design decisions, for better or worse, in the name of ABI compatibility. Our Free environments should make the best decisions and offer a choice. Everyone likes to pose vi/vim's editing style against more Windows-like editing styles and claim one is superior, citing "efficiency" or "consistency". For some people a text editor should be consistent with the other programs they use. They should run nedit, or the MSVS editor, or kate. I'm in my editor enough that it only needs to be consistent with itself, and as efficient as possible; vim is a good choice for me. Petreley doesn't call for kate to be vim-ized; he simply says that OO.o shouldn't have those garish blue gradients in its toolbars.
Re:Consistancy is important. (Score:3, Insightful)
So some people definitely will bother. I bother in such extent that when given a new Windows computer at work, I always spend couple hours installing things like TXmouse, virtuawin, bash etc so I can get a system that at least slightly resembles my environment. I found out that the time spent doing that definitely pays off for me.
Consistency (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Linux Registry? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They may have "flogged" consistency, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funnily enough the model you are describing works fine on guess what... Gentoo and BSDs. Portage. I personally dislike it, but that is a matter of taste.
Re:They may have "flogged" consistency, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll just point out that that isn't really the Windows paradigm. The Windows paradigm puts a bunch of keys in the regsitry for configuring the app, seemingly half of which are inaccessible to configure from within the app, and 90% of which aren't removed when the app is uninstalled. If everything was truly self contained "c:\program files\app" and your personal prefs in "c:\documents and settings\pyros\application data\app" then that would be very straight forward.
You'd still have software publishers including their own favorite version of a common DLL. Such that even if the system copy gets updated to fix a security vulnerability, the app will still be vulnerable without its own update.
Hopefully you'll notice that my response has nothing whatsoever to do with how anything is done in Linux, and looks purely at the merits of how things are done on Windows.
Linux to be like Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux: An operating system kernel.
Microsoft: A multinational corporation.
Unless the laws of reality turn in on themselves, I do not think Linux is going to become anything even remotely like Microsoft.
Linux got to where it is today by being both better and different from Windows, not by trying to be a cut-rate knock-off.
To play devil's advocate - Linux did get to where it is today by being a cut-rate knock-off. But it was a cut-rate Free knock-off, and it was a knock-off of UNIX, not Windows.
Linux has since surpassed many competitors in many ways, and has killer features that no longer relegate it to being a "cut-rate knock-off", but that's what it grew into when it became more than a hobby, and that's what enabled it to become as popular as it did in the mid-to-late 90s.
Re:Petreley makes good points (Score:2, Insightful)
XP's things aren't the funniest (clinical): Were they not going to consolidate XP into a couple of core types?"
They seem to be breeding like coat hangers in a dark closet.
As for all of the discussions about Windows vs. Linux (and the varios Linux UIs), the game has become cutthroat (for those of you who are athletically inclined), not 1::1. Larger boxes (e.g., are server issues, but that's a different sandbox. The desktop has now become Linux, Windows, and Apple. Although many are claiming to set relatives with a *nix build and they've not noticed any problems, I don't think that's germane to this discussion.. But if businesses get tired of kneeling in front of Microsoft, *poof* here comes Mac, even if it's on a machine-by-machine, group-by-group, division....
I would say Microsoft fears Mac when it comes to the desktop UI until Linux can demonstrate a professional, long-term UI, no matter what some says about what's available now. Remember, you have bias. If we were to assign you the task of defending Windows and your opponent switching from Windows to Linux, what would your arguments look like? I think honest answers on the opposition position make for interesting entertainment, but more imporantly, how well-versed they are about each others' material. (you'd be surprised how little people are able to defend the opposing view because they know almost nothing about it, but use fiat|ukase to make their viewpoint to be the right one.
Re:Petreley makes good points (Score:3, Insightful)
Mmm... that's a good question. I can assure you that, in XP, it happens. The only time I got spyware in my computer was when a a pop-up appeared while I was chatting with MS Messenger and browsing the Internet at the same time (and I was using XP). A window appeared asking me if I wanted to install whatever (I didn't have the chance to read it), and stealing the focus, just as I pressed Enter to send a message in Messenger.
Anyway, from what I've read, this doesn't have as much to do with the OS as with what the programmer decided to do. In Windows, when a program asks the user for confirmation (or shows a warning/alert) it's the norm to show a modal window stealing the keyboard focus. On the Mac, it's the norm to make the app jump in the doc. However, I've seen Windows programs not stealing the focus (IE, if I recall correctly, at least in Windows 2000), and I've seen Mac programs being nasty and doing it.
Re:Problem with linux (Score:2, Insightful)
I installed Ubuntu and it worked great - recognized my nVidia card, loaded and updated fast, etc. I loved it. Then it would hang. The clock also ran 2x faster than it should. Both problems were unacceptable. Went to FC4. Nice, solid distro, except that getting nVidia drivers is painful. Updates suck. I won't go into Mandriva.
The point is, depending on your hardware, one distro may just suck rocks when you load it. Since users think Linux is one big thing, this colors their view. At least with Windows you know what you will get - even if it is painful.
You don't take it far enough... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean its partially true, but its actually even more frustrating then that.
In Red Hat you have system-config*, which is a whole mess of applets to configure A or B. Thats messy. In Suse you have YAST, which last time I looked...well kind of sucked. You certainly couldn't do everything you'd need to from there (although like most of the configuration tool's I'll mention it did something very well). Mandriva you've got DrakeConf. Its the closest thing to a working Control Center I've seen, but still your left with some very fundamental features either missing or seriously lacking (to the point, IMHO, of basically not working).
Why all these distributions insist on focusing their efforts on rebuilding the same functionality baffles me. I mean I "get" the want to be unique thing. Don't want to copy thing. But basic functionality like configuration isn't the right place to show off you 'own product' in favor of standardizing and making a single product thats simply better for the customer.
The control panel style is fine because it allows flexibility for Suse to add custom Active Directory integration applets for their enterprise edition. But all these tools are really one of the best examples of what Linux vendors consistently (insistently) do wrong.
At the end of the day I don't care who founded the project I use to do basic configuration. I just care that it works without having to do a lot of extra fucking around.
Today no-one provides that and I bet idiotic egos will keep it that way for a long while into the future.
At least we've got Webmin...
Re:Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
that is horribly incorrect. Modern linuxes like ubuntu and Mandriva are insanely easier for a newbie than windows. What is a more truthful statement is that,
"Linux is hard for a long time window user that has problems with things being different to use."
same is true for a long time OSX user. but brand new users that have not been tainted by the other commercial Operating systems find linux pretty darn simple now with the really easy to use distros that even allow you to download an install new software with a single click.
Petreley is myoptic yet again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who took Information Systems or Computer Science knows that you develop software to the needs of the customers, you don't just tell the customers what they need. If your customers want a software that is easier to use, or works a bit like a Windows counter-part, you develop it for them. Find a need, and fill it. Quite simple.
Take Linspire for example, their success has been that they made Linspire work a lot like Windows does, so much that they have helped switch people over to it. While critics claim that Linspire is a commercial Linux, Linspire did give away free copies via BitTorrents at times, and the install CD costs $50. Linspire has also helped bring Linux to the masses with their $300USD Linux PC sold at discount stores. What has Mr. Petreley done to bring Linux to the masses, over that be a Mad Prophet of Linux who spouts out negative things?
Ever wonder that Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird are popular because they work a bit like Internet Explorer and Outlook/Outlook Express? Why there are even Windows versions of those software programs to help ween users off Windows and onto Linux where they can use the Linux versions of those programs. Novel Mono helps bring a
No, Mr. Petreley, we will help people decide to convert to Linux by meeting their needs, rather than ranting and raving and yelling at them. Your way does not meet their needs.
Take Mac OSX for example, see how it tried to catch up to Microsoft Windows when Mac OS 9.0 and Copeland failed to do so. See how Microsoft tries to make Windows Vista work like OSX. Linux is not the only OS on the block, as Mac OSX now runs on X86 hardware (Apple branded Mactel boxes) which could take marketshare away from Linux.
No rather, Linux needs to evolve in order to adapt to change. Customers are changing to wanting software that is easier to use, and works like Microsoft Windows. Refuse to adapt to change, and risk becoming a dinosaur. Would Mr. Petreley like Linux to become the next Plan 9 type operating system? Different from Windows, but hardly anyone uses it? Don't focus on the negative, but on the positive. If you are not meeting customers' needs, someone else will.
Besides a registry if done right, need not bite us on our behinds. Make it an OSS database based registry on MySQL, Postgres, Firebird, etc. When I developed software I had a fax program that used a most recently used name and number list. The way Microsoft does a registry is a flat file, which is sort of like using an INI or Text file. If I stored 50 names on a file, it took a long time to load and sort them. When I migrated to a database, I was able to use more than 50 names, and was able to load and sort them faster.
See the bigger picture, learn to grow and evolve.
Re:Petreley makes good points (Score:1, Insightful)
Keep it lean and clean makes patching it even easier given you have less libraries to take into account.
The problem with giving people nice easy to use GUI's is that every Tom, Dick and Harry then thinks he's a competent "webmaster" and runs his IIS server without ever patching it, helping with the proliferation of worms and such.
If you can't even RTF[ine]M then don't run a webserver, pay £5 a month and have someone else host your site for you.
Re:They may have "flogged" consistency, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
And your description here indicates that you understand neither the Windows nor the *nix way of doing things.
Windows: What if one of those windows applications also installs a service that's running on your box? What's going to happen when you delete "Program Files\App Name"? What about all those registry entries? What about the entry in "Add/Remove Programs"? What about dependencies? To me, this is why users shouldn't be deleting program files, and part of the reason why windows asks, "Hey, this is an executable. You really, really, REEEEEAAAAALLLY sure you want to delete it?"
Unzipping AppName.zip into a new directory in Program Files, then later removing the whole directory is quick, easy and clean.
I've never seen this done. Ever. And I wouldn't want it this way. I kinda like having stuff accessible in my Start menu. This is why installers exist - the presence of a piece of software on a system goes beyond just the executable(s) and data files. Software has to be installed into the target system. An engine that sits in the bed of a pickup truck isn't installed, and isn't going to be very useful for moving the truck around.
Linux: Did you install from source? If so, did the source installation come from a ports tree [wikipedia.org] or similar? If so, it created an entry in the package database, which keeps track of how to uninstall the software. If you installed bare source outside of a ports tree, then you're responsible for either:
- Keeping the source code around, so you can do a 'make uninstall'
- Keeping track of what files were added/removed/modified manually.
In either case, you're a proficient enough user to understand how to build from source, you should be able to understand how to administer a system with software built-from-source. Talking about binary packages after all this is a moot point - you use the package manager to uninstall the package. Why would you uninstall something using a different tool than you used when you installed it?or
As a for-instance, my desktop system has approximately 380 packages installed. I don't want to scour the unix manpages, makefiles, or anything else (e.g. if I was running windows, the registry) to figure out how to uninstall a program, even though I'm a comptetent, experienced system administrator on Windows, Linux, and a few Unixes. The package management tools on Windows and *nix make it possible to feasibly maintain systems with hundreds (or even thousands, if need be) of software packages installed. In your example, you think uninstalling means deleting the executables and data files. In both cases, you're missing the point - uninstalling an application should be done through an appropriate tool. When you ask the question, "How do I uninstall a program?" for a common user, the answer always is:
- For windows, it's control panel\add/remove programs
- For *nix, it's the standard system administration tool you've always used for everything else.
Don't go mucking around deleting files. This isn't a Linux-only idea.Confusing and frustrating in my opinion.
What's confusing/frustrating about double-clicking on a package (.exe,
Re:Linux useability? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what Linux is lacking. Does anyone realize this?
You really need to check out Ubuntu or SuSE 10 if thats what you want. Don't call Linux lacking because you weren't aware of alternate distributions.
As far as Windows Update, your not getting anything new from Microsoft without the blessing from GenuineCheck.exe. Go try and update DirectX9b with DirectX9c. You can't without a warrentless system search from Microsoft.
Enjoy,
Re:Petreley makes good points (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, please demonstrate where being a copycat is the sure path to overwhealming success. Even Microsoft Windows 3.1 stopped at monkeying the MacIntosh GUI; it still had many un-MacIntoshlike features (and guess what? I first came to Windows from a Mac, and surprise, surprise, I had a learning curve!)
will come greater uptake.
Listen to yourself, will you? We're GIVING IT AWAY!!!!! Hello??? What is the benefit of conquering the planet, here? To what end? Granted, some support contracts. Like Linux experts have a hard time getting a job now?
Re:They may have "flogged" consistency, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh? Well, in that model, let's say that you make some configuration changes. Where are they stored? Is it in the program installation directory (whoops, now they should be backed up as well - oh, and what about multiple users)? Or is it in the user's appconfig directory so that things like roaming will work (woops, now your uninstall-by-deleting doesn't work too well)?
Oh, and how do you run it, with what command line options? Does it create an easily-accessible menu option that you can move and rename if you want to, or group with other similar programs? How does that get deleted?
Now let's get really crazy and say that there's a part of this program that you want to run all the time. Is there some kind of autodiscovery? If so, and you disable it, does it remember that fact even after you've uninstalled(deleted) and reinstalled the program? That would be frustrating, an uninstall/reinstall should clean up everything. But if not, how is that setting being cleaned up by your deletion?
Should any user who wants to run the program be able to overwrite its files anyway?
Re:I think all the how-ha about Apache is over-rat (Score:3, Insightful)
Exchange? Tough? Only when you have to retrieve a single email message some dumbass deleted two weeks ago and didn't tell you about until today. Or, whenever you need to update Exchange. Or.. well, have you ever seen what happens when an Exchange DB corrupts? It's not fun. I'm sure those things have not gotten better with the latest releases since all they did was make the freaking monolithic DBs have an even larger capacity.
And AD... now there's something just waiting to get fritzed.
Nope, don't regret leaving the Exchange/Windows sysadmin post at all.
Re:Petreley makes good points (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm interested; how do you copy a config for IIS from one machine to another? Programmatically change the config on 20 or 100 IIS servers? FIND a setting that you're looking for without doing a depth-first traversal of menus?
There are good reasons why GUIs are shunned for heavy administration tasks. Sure, IIS may be easier or quicker to set up for a one-off site, but wouldn't it be safer and more efficient to just buy cheap hosting in that case?
BOOya (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Petreley makes good points (Score:2, Insightful)
Riddle me this... (Score:2, Insightful)
I would really love to see some comparisons between systems of all types, where cost and (the holy open source crusaders) don't get an opinion, but the systems are judged simply on usability in their respective environments.
We should whip the grandmother test on some of these systems. Call it what you will, but take the person you know who has the least knowledge about computers, even sombody who doesn't use them casually, and whip both types of system on them and ask them to do something simple like google a receipe for biscuits, or send an e-mail or buy a pair of jeans online or write a letter and save it- and be able to find it again. Remember, were talking un-prepped systems here. Install the OS and however it lands is it. No installing any drivers or packages or what-have-you.
I dunno, just an idea. I'd like to see some perceptions and ideas from anybody who might be willing to conduct such an experament. Arguing which system is better when only experts are arguing is stupid, it's all a matter of taste at that point.
Re:Linux useability? (Score:3, Insightful)
No because you are lying both about how easy things are in windows and how hard things are in linux.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't (Score:4, Insightful)
I can only really attribute the "problem" to Microsoft's dominance in the marketplace combined with the popular mindset, which deems that "ignorance is bliss" and eschews learning to do something very hard, very well in favour of instant gratification with a half-arsed job.
That's why I think it's important for distributions to specialise. At the moment we have Ubuntu and Mandriva for people who want everything easy; Slackware and Debian for server administrators who feel the need to ride the metal; and Red Hat and SUSE for people who would rather pay someone else to do the donkey work. Not to mention hundreds if not thousands of less well-known distributions, catering to niche markets {self-booting mini-CDs, distributions tailored for antique hardware, retro gaming kits, movies on a self-booting CD, Linux on a USB stick and so forth}. One distribution simply can't be all things to all people.
One thing I would like to see would be a GUI front-end to the configure, make, make install process. It's distribution-agnostic, sometimes even architecture-agnostic. Now that processor power is so cheap, the only compelling reason not to compile locally has been mitigated. A graphical front-end would look a little bit like a Windows InstallShield installer. What puts people off source tarballs isn't so much the idea of compilation {though that's where they will inevitably transfer the blame}, as the thought of unresolved dependencies breaking the process. There's no reason why a properly-put-together automake/autoconf package should not be able to detect everything it needs at the configure stage. Linux allows you to mix and match libraries to an extent; so if a particular application imperatively requires newer libraries than are already installed, that need not be a problem. The installer should be able to determine for itself whether it's possible to download and install its own dependencies, and proceed automatically if it is safe to do so.
Of course, probably before the GUI source installer goes mainstream, we will need a reliable developer tool for creating self-installing packages; analysing libraries and creating a dependency database. Although this sounds like a huge effort, it probably will be more likely to succeed than any attempt towards achieving cross-distribution binary compatibility; binaries were never really meant to be compatible, source was always meant to be compatible.
Re:Petreley makes good points (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's not. MS will never make a multi user OS. MS wants one user only per copy of windows. They don't like multi user systems. They don't like thin client systems either. (yes, MS sells a terminal server. They had to get into that cause some businesses wanted to go that route. But they're still doing their best to implant the single user mentality to average users. Their mainstream OS has no such capabilities. Plus, MS terminal server is a joke as you pay both for the server and per user. So all cost benefits are negated)
God forbid if people find out what multiuser systems really do. Imagine that! Joe Sixpack would start wondering why he needs a copy of windows for each member of his family. Or maybe he'd go wild and just use dumb terminals to connect to the main computer. (for the uninitiated: dumb terminal doesn't mean 'command line'- you can have your desktop as you know it, running super fast on a cheap and light machine, like a pII-200MHz 32mb)
MS threw dust in your eyes, pretending they have a multiuser OS, just so they don't get behind in the catchwords race. Before you say "but i can have more than one user on my windows machine", can multiple users use the pc at the same time? Try it. Login to your account, then create another user on that machine. Now try to login remotelly with the new user, while you're still logged in with your previous username. Windows will throw a popup, warning you, that another user is logged in and if you continue that user will be logged out. There can only be one!
And ofcourse, even if MS changes tomorrow and decides to go multi user, there is a single-user culture in windows, that's difficult, if not impossible to change. ie. most windows apps would not work.
FLOSS vital to future documentary heritage. (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux is a great OS for people who want to get to know their computers. It is also a great OS for people who just want to get things done. People "just using" their Linux box are in fact contributing something, even if they never contribute code or documentation or anything the rest of us see.
They are contributing numbers and support. And numbers and support are more important than most people have yet realized, IMHO.
I made (well, am making) the switch to Linux because I am tired of others owning my data (e.g., MS 0wnz my email since only their application can access it for me). The more I think about this, the more I believe that open, unencumbered, and standardized data formats and protocols are vital to our future documentary heritage.
Unfortunately vendors of proprietary operating systems and applications will likely always break standards - and certainly will do so behind closed doors - in an effort to gain every single bit of competitive advantage they can. And that threatens our future documentary heritage.
We are moving, slowly slowly slowly, to an electronic world. We must conserve and protect that documentary heritage now before it becomes endangered. Open source is a great enabler - perhaps a necessary enabler - of this conservation.
The more people we get "just living" on open source systems, the more people who will be "just using" open and standardized systems (as we get them built and out there). And the more people there will be thinking about these issues, thinking about the viability of open source and wondering why they ever considered paying a vendor to hold their data hostage.
Users who are "just users" make open source spread into and beyond the mainstream. And that's where we need it to be to protect our own data and our documentary heritage.
One day, we will wonder how we ever let vendors control our information. That day cannot come, IMHO, until we no longer depend upon them. That takes many, many, many "just users" consuming and loving what a few thousand motivated developers and writers and testers and project managers have done, even if they never actually think about them or make contributions in the expected or desired way.
Re:Petreley makes good points (Score:2, Insightful)
You have just described 80%+ of computer users.
Re:Linux useability? (Score:3, Insightful)
wait for the icon to appear, double click
And this is a good thing?! The Linux approach is typically: if it's supported (and it usually is), it already works. No need to go to the hardware manufacturer's website. If there are kernel updates or third-party drivers that can be installed, your friendly local package manager handles it.
I have a hard time believing that your average user can navigate half a dozen different websites and find the drivers they need for the right version of Windows, but is put off by a modern Linux package manager.