Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
HP Propelling Linux Into Truly 'Big' Time
xyle_one:
I have, but seriously, come on. Is it so much to ask that as a contrinuting member to a community, that you at least put some effort into it? I didn't feel that I should have to be the one to make his thread worthwhile. Instead I chose to be a dick about it. I feel much better about it that way to be honest.
ksym:
--- Quote from: Siplus ---I thought MS was no longer allowed to lock-in a vendor to only one OS. If this is right, then surely HP and other companies could benefit to selling Linux, as it would limit the support calls. Contrary to popular beleif, linux is easier to use because of the lack of usability problems (virii, spyware, corruption, ect). They would probably have fewer support calls
Granted, they probably don't pay a lot for support staff, given they are in India now, but still...
--- End quote ---
BAH!
You are so TOTALLY wrong!
While Linux does not have viruses/spyware, the rest of the cake is full of bullshit, however.
Ever wonder why many people try Linux, and switch back to Windows? That is exactly because the limited feeling the OS gives ya:
1) all software must be installed from a centralized repository.
One can't just download .zip/.rar, unpack and run it, like in windows.
2) Lot's of things are modifiable, that's good, but when something WONT WORK you are screwed: all Linuxes are different in OS-design, and it is very difficult to even guess where the problem is ... unless the user is a self educated GNU/Linux expert like me.
3) Plug&Play is very different ... when user plugs in a device, it either works or doesn't work. No "install device" dialogs or whatever.
And every GNU/Linux distro has it's OWN scheme on how the actual plug&playu works, so there is no consistent feeling bout this ...
All in all GNU/Linux leaves most of those retarded end-users feeling kinda helpless, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS.
Enterprise customers, eg. the workers of some large corporation, have their Linux desktops configured by and admin or two. But individual cumstomers have no such support whatsoever, and calling to some fucking "Lai-nux Support" is as stupid calling to some Microfuck "pay to listen while we talk shit" support ;)
What I meant to say, is that while users won't call the help-line for some "how can I remove viruses/spyware" or "how do i reinstall my OS" type of questions, they will be SPAMMING the poor helpdesk guys with questions like: "HOW CAN I INSTALL SOFTWARE? WHAT THE FUCK IS .tar.gz??", "WHY WON'T MY USB-PRINTER/SCANNER WORK??", "WHY CAN'T I OPEN MY Microsoft FORMAT DATA??", "I WANT !"... blah blah
Linux won't be getting anywhere on the Desktop markets, becayse that's the piece of the cake where all the technology-handicapped retards expect to be served with graphical abstractions of computer-system, in a way that should not even act like the computer systems really do.
Sad but true, Mac OS X and Windows do far better in this sector.
WMD:
--- Quote ---1) all software must be installed from a centralized repository.
One can't just download .zip/.rar, unpack and run it, like in windows.
--- End quote ---
Sure you can. Not much software is packaged this way, but it's been done. Mostly with proprietary software.
--- Quote ---What I meant to say, is that while users won't call the help-line for some "how can I remove viruses/spyware" or "how do i reinstall my OS" type of questions, they will be SPAMMING the poor helpdesk guys with questions like: "HOW CAN I INSTALL SOFTWARE? WHAT THE FUCK IS .tar.gz??", "WHY WON'T MY USB-PRINTER/SCANNER WORK??", "WHY CAN'T I OPEN MY Microsoft FORMAT DATA??", "I WANT !"... blah blah
--- End quote ---
Get the users, and the software comes. And then users can download and click their software just like they want. And enough with the "printer doesn't work!" and "Office documents don't open!" stuff. They work. Simple as that. And if they don't, that's Hardware Manufacturer X's fault.
--- Quote ---Linux won't be getting anywhere on the Desktop markets, becayse that's the piece of the cake where all the technology-handicapped retards expect to be served with graphical abstractions of computer-system, in a way that should not even act like the computer systems really do.
--- End quote ---
Linux provides nearly all the GUI that it can, as the OS. Windows doesn't provide the software installer, the software does. On Linux, it will come from the same place.
ksym:
--- Quote from: WMD ---Sure you can. Not much software is packaged this way, but it's been done. Mostly with proprietary software.
--- End quote ---
Sure one CAN create self-installing packages, but the creation of such packages is MUCH HARDER for GNU/Linux than for other systems. The developers need to constantly add new ABI tests to their installers, in order to make the software compatible with the distros they support.
Ever heard of glibc breaking backwards compatibility? Yeah, that happens quite often (about every 2 years or so), and this makes binary packaging really hard: only way to be 100% sure the software can be run in the target distro, is to compile it from source, but this won't work for proprietary software.
This means, that the software developers MUST synchronize their update cycle with the distributions they wish to support! They must also build multiple binaries from their source, for every fucking system ABI layout their supported distros might have.
Like ... tail wags the dog. Sad isn't it?
--- Quote ---Get the users, and the software comes.
--- End quote ---
Linux has enough users to attract developers to make software for Linux ... BUT, most developers become frustrated with the inconsistent ABI and lack of standards. Without a stable and backwards compatbile runtime environment, ISV's are forced to suck the cock of the people who happen to design the distros ...
--- Quote ---And then users can download and click their software just like they want. And enough with the "printer doesn't work!" and "Office documents don't open!" stuff. They work. Simple as that. And if they don't, that's Hardware Manufacturer X's fault.
--- End quote ---
If a particular device won't work in the way user would want it to work, the fault is not only HW manufacturers: the target distro might have fucked up some plug&pray magic in the userland level, and nothing happens when user plugs in a device. Simple as that.
And because GNU/Linuxes have NO standards for plug&pray, then who can be blamed? The HW manufacturer, even if the driver would work? The distro developers, who make their own quick-n-dirty scripts to invoke some retard-proof plug&play magic?
In GNU/Linux no one can't be blamed for the things that are not standardized. And since nothing is standardized, the only thing we can bitch about is the reatarded system design most distros have these days.
And that ain't really no-ones fault, it's just the way how things work with OpenSource /,,/
It's better to do it all yourself than let some other guy decide how things should work. Since money can't be used to enforce standards, we are the kings of nothing ;)
--- Quote ---Linux provides nearly all the GUI that it can, as the OS. Windows doesn't provide the software installer, the software does. On Linux, it will come from the same place.
--- End quote ---
In Linux there are NO standard installer ABI's. That is why I am trying to make this sandboxed binary runtime platform ... but nobody seems to care, since they are occupied on wanking on their favorite distros, and their Godly package managers (AAAAAH APT IS SO SEXY IM GONNA CUM LIKE A HORSE!)
There are package managers in Linux, but they are always integrated tightly with the distribution spesific system layout (and with the runtime convetions of the system), and so they are not suitable for universally installable packages ... heck, there is NO commonly accepted universal runtime standard, and that is sad.
LSB would be a very good (reference) runtime ABI for programs, but those fucking OSS-software developers won't bother releasing their software compiled with LSB conventions. And that's their fault ...
So this leaves end-users with two options:
1) To either stick with the distro-provided package management and package list, and never even try anything new
or
2) become a self-learned GNU/Linux "guru", who can compile and install
software from source-archives.
Oh yeah, and those external RPM/APT repositories WON'T COUNT. They are mostly monolithic collections, and so the dependencies and runtime conventions go with the repository. It is very common to fuck up one's package management by mixing different repositories with alike contents ...
Actually we have no Linux OS. We got multiple OS's, who just use the Linux kernel and GNU-userland. Everything else is decided by the distro developers, who create their own standards and solutions. So basically, we got no stable runtime, no stable ABI, no nothing.
Refalm:
We need more Linux distributions using Synaptic or Linspire CNR.
And programs distributing through installers like the ones that Firefox and UT 2004 uses.
It doesn't matter if a package management program is integrated in some geeky distro, as long as it works, it's easy to use and updated with the best of the best in Linux applications (and possibly more).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version