Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: suselinux on 26 June 2003, 07:12
-
go here to read the whole article at Business week (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2003/tc20030618_7983_tc056.htm)
note the article is really about MS dropping IE for Mac.
Long maligned as a desktop nonstarter, Linux should pass Apple in market share for desktop operating systems on computers sold in the coming year. That means from 7% to 10% of all PCs shipped won't bear the Windows icon.
Cool eh?
(not because were pushing out Apple but because were pushing Windows off the PC)
Mac OSX is still great
-
quote:
Linux should pass Apple in market share for desktop operating systems on computers sold in the coming year. That means from 7% to 10% of all PCs shipped won't bear the Windows icon.
Where are they getting their numbers?? I don't know any OEMs other than Walmart.com and Tiger Direct that ship PCs with Linux preloaded. Perhaps this is from requests? That would be an awful lot of requests.
This is very shocking. I knew Linux was close to Apple in desktop PCs but *damn*. *if* this is true, another aspect of why MS is scared suddenly popped up in my head.
-
No offense guys but if Apple was GPL I would hate to see this happen. As it is... they do seem to have an easier to use product which I think should give them around 95% of the desktop share in a fair world. The 5% of us that want a system slightly harder to use but with more geeky toggles can stick with Linux. Not BSD. I really dislike the BSD license... Considering that Apple is still proprietary I must instead say : ha ha! may be unfair but we're beating you! [sticks out tongue] (http://tongue.gif)
-
Except of course the sample spaces here would have been very small. Coupled with the difficulty of accurately analysing something when you cant see sales figures, I would take this with a pinch of salt.
-
Of course Apple isn't worried about the loss of IE. They have Safari 1.0 which is a much more superior browser.
I really respect the artistic work that Apple does w/ OS X and their hardware, but I will always be a Linux user at heart.
I agree that Linux is going to be the OS that takes out M$, but hopefully Apple will back up the battles.
-
quote:
Considering that Apple is still proprietary
What are you talking about? Apple is not proprietary. Mac OS X is; Darwin and Rendezvous are not. Besides, there is nothing wrong with proprietary stuff. If Apple was to give away their GUI, they'd be sure to be overthrown in no time.
-
Yes it is. Darwin isn't free software. And even if it were, this one piece of software being free (which it isn't) wouldn't invalidate the statement "Apple['s software] is still proprietary"
And there is something very wrong with proprietary software.
-
You always seem to turn up whenever anyone discusses of free software, don't you, flap.
So, you believe that Darwin isn't free because Stallman says so? Didn't you chide me for basing morality on written laws before?
quote:
And there is something very wrong with proprietary software.
No. You cannot force a company to divulge secrets if it doesn't want to.
-
Who mentioned stallman? The APSL is not a free software licence, and Darwin is not free software. The source is available, but you can't really do anything with it without Apple's permission.
quote:
You cannot force a company to divulge secrets if it doesn't want to.
No, not if they don't want to distribute the software at all and keep it private. But if they do publish it then they should be forced to divulge the source code.
-
quote:
The APSL is not a free software licence, and Darwin is not free software.
According to whom?
quote:
No, not if they don't want to distribute the software at all and keep it private. But if they do publish it then they should be forced to divulge the source code.
I have never seen a restautant divulge recipies with their customers' orders, and neither should they if they do not want to. Same goes for software.
-
Well, to tell the honest truth, Darwin is certainly not Free Software, since it isn't licensed under the General Public License or any other license approved by the Free Software Foundation (LGPL etc). I would like to see Darwin GPL'd since the BSD subsystem under OS X is truly excellent.
However, I don't have any objection to what Apple is doing since I care less about looking at things that strictly and more about the software side of things. I like to be open-minded and look at the long term consequences for OS X users as well. Did you by any chance look at the Fink, Darwin and Gentoo merge? Or the upcoming Gentoo OS X port?
And before you say anything hasty, let me remind you that I'm an FSF Associated Member, and I also run a site on Free and Open Source Software. I just choose not to be that narrow-minded. ;)
[ June 27, 2003: Message edited by: Panos ]
-
Well said, Panos. I am not against open source, and there are many advantages to this approach. However, I think that not everything should be given away. What irks me is the dogmatic attitude adopted by many FSF and Linux proponents who think that any other approach is immoral.
The APSL may not be a 'free' licence by the FSF definition, but it has been amended over the years, and it is certainly not a proprietary licence.
-
The APSL is a perfect example of the limitations of an "Open Source" licence i.e. you can look at the source, but that's pretty much it. You can't reuse the code in other projects without Apple's permission, and you can't even really privately modify your own system as the licence requires you to make any modifications public. Its only point is that people might be able to find bugs and tell Apple about them, effectively doing their work for them. This in itself is fine - but the community gets nothing in return.
It's certainly not Free by any definition (except perhaps cost) and is a good example of how Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software. Basically, the Open Source-ness of APSL covered code is useless, and the fact that only the kernel is covered by the licence anyway adds insult to injury.
-
quote:
You can't reuse the code in other projects without Apple's permission
This has been amended.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html)
quote:
It's certainly not Free by any definition
But it's not proprietary (not that there's anything wrong with proprietary software).
quote:
and is a good example of how Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software.
No one made that claim. The point is that not every company can afford to release their software under a free licence.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
But it's not proprietary (not that there's anything wrong with proprietary software).
I'm gonna have to agree with Laukev on this one. Proprietary software is not bad. Free Software is not bad. Companies should not be forced to divulge their source code, period. People (and companies) have right, and no one should be able to take them away.
Also, I had never though of losing IE as a worry, as the title of that article states.
[ June 28, 2003: Message edited by: jeffberg: Mac Capitalist ]
-
For me, closed source is irrelevant. What I mean with this? I dont really care about it. And I do believe that closed source is more of a pull down than anything. It creates more problems than it solves.
On the other hand I do believe that no one should force a company to open up their source. Since I am a 101% Linux user, I do believe in freedom of choice whatever that may be.
The one thing I do mind though, is when one's freedom becomes arrogance and ties me down from being free.
If Apple wants to be closed source, fine be me, as long as when MS goes down, they wont try to pull another Bill Gates on us. If they dont anything of that nature, they will have my support.
At any rate, I believe that Linux is the OS that will replace MS on the front end (the back end is owned by unix and linux, period), simply because the users are free to choose a variety of Hardware to run the OS. Thats what launched MS in its early years.
Apple will be a real competitor when they decide to pull their head out of their asses and do what they should have done decades ago. Make their OS run with different kinds of CPUs and Motherboards. A real hacker (not cracker) wont stand to be locked in specific hardware.
Apple really needs to get flexible on this issue because they do inovate and their products even though closed source, are of really high quality (something rare when it comes to close source), not like MS.
-
Apple tried to use open source whenever possible. But again, open source is an advantage in some situations, but not always. Sometimes, you need the exclusivity of a technology to differentiate your product. Of course, open source can be a benefit for huge projects which don't require anything new, like databases or servers.
Apple porting its OS or making it open source would mean a certain death for the both the OS and the platform. However, it is possible to buy processors and motherboards from Powerlogix and other, and you can even build your own Mac if you like, provided you know where to look.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Apple tried to use open source whenever possible. But again, open source is an advantage in some situations, but not always. Sometimes, you need the exclusivity of a technology to differentiate your product. Of course, open source can be a benefit for huge projects which don't require anything new, like databases or servers.
Apple porting its OS or making it open source would mean a certain death for the both the OS and the platform. However, it is possible to buy processors and motherboards from Powerlogix and other, and you can even build your own Mac if you like, provided you know where to look.
for example...
www.2khappyware.com (http://www.2khappyware.com)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Laukev7:
Apple tried to use open source whenever possible. But again, open source is an advantage in some situations, but not always. Sometimes, you need the exclusivity of a technology to differentiate your product. Of course, open source can be a benefit for huge projects which don't require anything new, like databases or servers.
Apple porting its OS or making it open source would mean a certain death for the both the OS and the platform. However, it is possible to buy processors and motherboards from Powerlogix and other, and you can even build your own Mac if you like, provided you know where to look.
Yeah but do they expect? People locking themselves into specific hardware? I really like the fact that I can choose from a plethora of hardware. Its all about freedom.
They wanna keep their OS closed source? Again, thats 101% fine be me. They have proved they can make a really good product. No doubt. But whats the logic behind locking your OS in a very limited set of hardware. Make it run in as many platforms as possible. Then you got something cooking.
Otherwise its just greed, unless though am missing something here and I would like somebody to explain it to me.
-
Yes, you appear to be missing something here. If Apple released Mac OS X for the PC, they would lose an important sale point for their hardware. People wouldn't bother buying Macs anymore, not because Macs aren't good (the hardware is in fact very good quality), but because of sheer ignorance, and most of Apple's profits come from the hardware, which pay for all the good stuff you get on a Mac and the R&D involved in their innovations.
If they changed their business model, and reaped their profits from their OS instead, they would be in a situation much more similar to that of Microsoft than their current situation (where they cannot be compared to MS in ANY way). They would have to forfeit their hardware -- no more powerbooks, no more competition for Intel and AMD on the desktop. Then, they would have to find OEMs who would accept to bundle Mac OS X with their computers -- and Microsoft has a stranglehold on OEMs.
So, porting to other systems is not an option until they gain a market share high enough to secure their position.
-
::cracks knuckles::
Apple cannot open up the source to Aqua, as well as most of the other parts of OSX. They cannot. If they did, I would take Aqua, put it on Redhat Linux and distribute it. Suddenly OSX is not getting any sales because the sweep of ecstasy about free Aqua with a more mature platform attached. Also the hardware would lose a *lot* of sales. Again, suddenly Aqua is available on ix86, powerpc, SPARC, risc, mips, and more. Suddenly Apple is spending more researching the new version of MacOS (10.4/11) than they are making. I mean, who (other than Apple geeks) would continue to buy OSX when Linux acts the exact same way? I sure wouldn't. Not that I buy Macs today.
I am a very strong open source advocate and fanatic. That doesn't mean proprietary software is wrong. Just because I *don't like it* does not mean there should not be proprietary applications.
It costs around $5 million dollars (can get into billions for sequels and high profile) to make a serious 3D action shooter. Then imagine taking all that research and development and not being able to recoop your losses with sales because you made your work open source.
Let's say our mysterious Game Company X (GCX) becomes popular. It's been 2 years since they released Dark Fire Undercover. They are beginning to see a decline in the amount of users on the online game network. They need to make a sequel. Oh yeah, we don't have any money because we open sourced DFU. Well how do we make a sequel? Can we really afford to just make a revamp of the game content data, even if we keep the original engine? We do have the open source community, but we cannot just _tell_ them to make a sequel. It looks like we are just going to have to coast.
-------------------------------------------------
That is today's view of how open source business works. And for the most part it is the way a lot of OSS businesses would *have* to work. But I believe companies should make money with value-added services, much like Redhat does. From open source we breed new business models, models that will succeed and fail. From open source we produce innovation.
So GCX could sell the game network subscriptions for $10 a month in the U.S. and $15 outside the U.S. They could charge users for support, at $5 a call and $25 for one year of support. They could allow their users to register their game network user name for $5.
They could sell expansion scenarios for $20 a pop, and start a clan-communication infrastructure that requires a $25 registration (per clan).
There are a *lot* of ways GCX could make money without keeping the engine code base proprietary.
This is the way _I_ imagine open source business.
--------------------------------------------------
Ok. Back to Apple.
So, why can't Apple sell services?
They do already. That's not really the problem. They problem lies in a lot of things, including proprietary, licensed code in OSX that they are not allowed to release, calming down situations with some of their customers that think open source is evil.
And of course back to the original point. Apple. Is. Aqua. Without Aqua, Apple is not Apple. Aqua is what I think of when I say Apple. Darwin doesn't come to mind and Rendezvous is only a pandering in the back of my programmer mind.
I think Apple is taking good steps to establish themselves with open source.
Note: Also it's not like Apple was open-sourcing anything new or important with Darwin, we already have all that with Linux.
That was my completely unstable and wishy-washy bantering about Apple, OSX, and Open-Source. It completely unrelates to the current topic however.
-
What we need to do is get Linux an interface like os X. Then we need to make it relatively compatible with most peripheals and games. I hate to say it penguin people but macs run a lot more games than linux does. Anywho i wouldn't mind Linux if it was built more like os x.
Now what are we going to do about windows ? I think one of us needs to volenteer him/herself to suicide bomb redmond.
-
quote:
Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
I hate to say it penguin people but macs run a lot more games than linux does.
You can't blame that on linux. If that's the biggest issue for you, talk to your game developers.
-
Originally posted by mushrooomprince:
I hate to say it penguin people but macs run a lot more games than linux does.
-Grow up
-
quote:
Originally posted by suselinux:
-Grow up
Sower grapes.
Games sell, their the only reason consumers want ghz processors and new video cards, if not things wouldent have progressed much farther than the Pentium II and G3.
As for Linux being a more mature platform than OSX, spare me. I like the linux's, they are fantastic OS's, but they deffinetly aren't the most mature when it comes to desktop use.
Gnome, KDE, et al. are FAR behind all other GUI's, the choice of applications, while enumerable, are mind bogglingly confusing to the common user, this confusion is then magnafied when said user actually tries to install something.
Aqua to linux would be a Godsend, but it's not gonna happen. Linux's monolithic kernel was never a good choice, it makes things to difficult to implement modular non-dependant applications. Not to mention the fact that a kernel update is needed like every other day due to bugfixes and new drivers. Most OS's have these components external, plain as day for all to see, linux has to actually rewire it's entire core. Simple right?
Not to mention the gobledigook system hiarchy, usr/dev/hda01 .... oh, that's my hardrive!!! Ya, simple. Were are all my programs? user/bin ... oh... so how come my icon is in X folder? Or even better, I just managed to install this (after attempting to RPM it (failing) then compiling from source three times) programm, and now I cant find it? No icon on the desktop... oh... you mean they don't apear automaticaly? So what you click isint the Actual program!? ... real easy guys... real easy...
So spare me the bullshit, games sell, simplicity sells, common users buy. I tell linux geeks to grow up.
Even if Aqua somehow prettied up Linux, the very design of the OS works at odds to a simple computing environment.
.... I can hear the natives getting restless (http://smile.gif)
-
Oh no I wasn't calling the OS mature
I was calling those dependant on games Imature
and your attacking the wrong people here
GNU is all the screwy stuff Linux is jsut the Kernel
by the time GNU was invented Our lord and savior Linus Torvalds could only add his divine touch to the heart of the beast. Gnu was already written in stone by then
and Hey I've posted before "I love OSX" give it to me running on an X86 and ill say "fuck you penguin"..........well not to his face.
Linux is as much an ideal as it is an OS
so even if it's not as mature it is much more enlightened.
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
Sower grapes.
yum
quote:
Games sell, their the only reason consumers want ghz processors and new video cards, if not things wouldent have progressed much farther than the Pentium II and G3.
True, although I bought my new video card because I didn't like the lag while dragging windows
quote:
...
Gnome, KDE, et al. are FAR behind all other GUI's, the choice of applications, while enumerable, are mind bogglingly confusing to the common user, this confusion is then magnafied when said user actually tries to install something.
Confusing? I don't really get what's confusing about them. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.
quote:
Aqua to linux would be a Godsend, but it's not gonna happen.
never tried it, but you are probably right
quote:
Linux's monolithic kernel was never a good choice, it makes things to difficult to implement modular non-dependant applications.
I dont see the chalenge in copying come binaries to /usr/bin and making the appropriate shortcuts for the desktop manager... it's the same thing windows does.
quote:
Not to mention the fact that a kernel update is needed like every other day due to bugfixes and new drivers.
I never had to update my kernel, everything I, and most people, need is in Redhat 9.
quote:
Most OS's have these components external, plain as day for all to see, linux has to actually rewire it's entire core.
I got my modem drivers working without touching the kernel. No driver I ever added needed me to recompile the kernel. What's wrong with "rewiring" it?
quote:
Simple right?
That's an opinion. but most people dont have to worry about complex things anyway.
quote:
Not to mention the gobledigook system hiarchy, usr/dev/hda01 .... oh, that's my hardrive!!!
the knowledge of /dev/hda serves no purpose to the common user. Windows also has such devices, take a tour of your registry(which shouldn't exist)
quote:
Ya, simple. Were are all my programs?
does it matter? Most windows users don't worry about where their program are.. c:\progra~1\micros~3\visua~1\vb6.exe isn't easy either.
quote:
user/bin ... oh... so how come my icon is in X folder?
The same reason shortcuts are placed on the start menu and desktop, it's easier.
quote:
Or even better, I just managed to install this (after attempting to RPM it (failing) then compiling from source three times) programm, and now I cant find it? No icon on the desktop... oh... you mean they don't apear automaticaly? So what you click isint the Actual program!? ... real easy guys... real easy...
talk to the program developers about that.
quote:
So spare me the bullshit, games sell, simplicity sells, common users buy. I tell linux geeks to grow up.
bullshit is smelly. games will always sell. linux is simple (for the standard user, it CAN be hard if you make it that way). People can buy linux cheaper than any other OS I can think of. I have grown up.
quote:
Even if Aqua somehow prettied up Linux, the very design of the OS works at odds to a simple computing environment.
i dont get it, but i'm sure i could come up with something if i did.
quote:
.... I can hear the natives getting restless (http://smile.gif)
:D
I know ur not a windows fan, but linux is still far better than windows. Even as a desktop. I got my mom who's never used a computer before to find linux quite easy. She didn't install it (that's easy though), but it was right after the default installation. She picked up on it right away.
I can't compare it to a mac, as i've never used the newest. But I am all for saying linux is mature.
I'm tired of typing...
[ July 05, 2003: Message edited by: Stryker ]
-
I stand behind my MOD
-
quote:
Originally posted by suselinux:
I stand behind my MOD
we are both mods??
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
we are both mods??
Holy crap, I am that dumb.......wow
I ment Stryker when i said MOD
-
quote:
It costs around $5 million dollars (can get into billions for sequels and high profile) to make a serious 3D action shooter. Then imagine taking all that research and development and not being able to recoop your losses with sales because you made your work open source.
5 million dollars is fucking insane. But billions? That don't sound possible. What's even more insane is that the serious first person shooter that cost 5 million is probably nothing truly revolutionary. The games industry has been fucked up for quite sometime, and needs a rebirth.
Could open source work for games? Well it might, but it would have to be adapted. Like maybe engines are true free software, any sound, music, art, movies, or levels do not have to be included for free. BUT, in order to use an open source engine commerically, the source and code improvements must be included.
This way small groups of people with devotion and time could make a good game, and not have to worry about making their own engine/paying big bucks to license an engine. Although the small group idea could only work with a change in the way the games industry works. IE :p ublishers exploting developers, developers being forced to go with publishers, games being made for mass market stuff, those corporate dudes fucking things up, marketing being obsessively important.
The result is that code would not have to be continually wasted(scrapping an engine to make a new one), games less buggy, more stable, and faster. Also, obsolescence would not be as much an issue because a large amount of the small developers would use older, but greatly improved game engines.
To all you naysayers(assuming there are any), could open source/free software work for an OS? Nah, of course not! OS's are different from programs. ;)
[ July 05, 2003: Message edited by: lazygamer ]
-
as far as why the variety of programs goes, the confusion arises when you install a tipical linux distro, you usualy get a dozen programs that do the same think, with no simple de-install method, and no real indication as to the quality or usefullness of the particular program.
And don't say you can choose packages on install, your comon user isn't gonna know what half of them do, or even gonna know which ones are the ones that will suit their needs best.
It's not that you can't learn the linux file hiarchy, it's more like Who wants to?
On my mac my hardrive is just my hard drive, it sits on my desktop or in my dock and thats that. An application is just an app, not something dependant on a million smaller components. Installation is as simople as double click and it ALLWAYS works.
I find myself messing with .conf files too often in linux, to do mundane tasks that are easy in other OSs. I know there are GUI configuration tools, but these are never perfect, or fully fetured.
I dual boot with redhat 9, and luckely Redhat updater does all of the kernel and driver updateing for you. Yet installing something not supplied by redhat is often more than a pain.
execuatbles in usr/bin are often burried under tons of files, why dosn't the system just put them somewere the common user can see them at? Why do tehy expect him/her to do teh grunt work?
Why the hell is every system directory named with cryptic alphanumeric three letter names?
Can you learn it? sure.
Am I, a common every day fool gonna want to? Fuck no.
lukely Im not a common everyday fool and enjoy playing with linux (http://smile.gif) But I wouldent recomend it to the feint fo heart, my grandma, or my girlfriend, they just wouldent take the time to get used to it.
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
as far as why the variety of programs goes, the confusion arises when you install a tipical linux distro, you usualy get a dozen programs that do the same think, with no simple de-install method, and no real indication as to the quality or usefullness of the particular program.
That's a long sentence... Don't choose full install then. Just choose personal.
edit: and there is a simple add/remove programs feature in linux. very similiar to windows.
quote:
And don't say you can choose packages on install, your comon user isn't gonna know what half of them do, or even gonna know which ones are the ones that will suit their needs best.
choose personal, it picks them for you
quote:
It's not that you can't learn the linux file hiarchy, it's more like Who wants to?
I dont want to learn the mac one (http://smile.gif) . Most users aren't even aware that there is a file hiarchy. They just click what they want to open.
quote:
On my mac my hardrive is just my hard drive, it sits on my desktop or in my dock and thats that.
feel free to make a shortcut to "/" on your linux desktop.
quote:
An application is just an app, not something dependant on a million smaller components.
I'm always finding programs for windows that want me to go search google for something like "MSWINSCK.OCX" to run. I've never made a program that didn't include everything it needed to run, that's just dumb development i think.
quote:
Installation is as simople as double click and it ALLWAYS works.
you mean, you couldn't double click an rpm? there are binary installs for linux too. install/upgrade mozilla on linux.
quote:
I find myself messing with .conf files too often in linux, to do mundane tasks that are easy in other OSs. I know there are GUI configuration tools, but these are never perfect, or fully fetured.
again, not linux's fault. i'm sure if the developer thought that everyone would want to change certain settings... they'd include it in the app.
quote:
I dual boot with redhat 9, and luckely Redhat updater does all of the kernel and driver updateing for you. Yet installing something not supplied by redhat is often more than a pain.
now we're back to the developer thing again. perhaps an example of something you had problems installing?
quote:
execuatbles in usr/bin are often burried under tons of files, why dosn't the system just put them somewere the common user can see them at?
because most users dont use those programs directly. most of them are shell programs.
I've never seen someone say, "I want to start an office document, now lets fuck the shortcut that was easily placed on my menu and try to find the actual program"
quote:
Why do tehy expect him/her to do teh grunt work?
you mean, clicking a shortcut?
quote:
Why the hell is every system directory named with cryptic alphanumeric three letter names?
you man like, C:\WINDOWS\system32\CatRoot2\{127D0A1D-4EF2-11D1-8608-00C04FC295EE} ?
most people dont need to mess with those folders, and the ones that do know what they are doing.
quote:
Can you learn it? sure.
do you NEED to? no
quote:
Am I, a common every day fool gonna want to? Fuck no.
good, cause you dont need to.
quote:
lukely Im not a common everyday fool and enjoy playing with linux (http://smile.gif) But I wouldent recomend it to the feint fo heart, my grandma, or my girlfriend, they just wouldent take the time to get used to it.
my mom won't take the time to get used to windows or a mac. i set her down with linux and everything else is too confusing. i got my 7 year old cousin to start up games and a word processor. Why couldn't they?
nothing personal, dont get me wrong. i just dont agree with you. what's so hard about linux?
[ July 05, 2003: Message edited by: Stryker ]
-
and psyjax, i'm working on a distro that will make things much easier than they currently are. such as, /software /config /system /users /policies /network and such folders. I'll probably make my own desktop manager, have your little hard drive icon on the desktop to help the insecure about their hard drive actually being there. Of course this isn't exactly the advertisement for it (http://smile.gif) you seem to have decent thoughts, i'd appreciate any advice you may have.
-
Sounds cool
When can we see a beta?
-
probably late summer, early fall. i'm trying to figure out how to make $PATH recursive... i suppose that'd go in a different thread though.
-
Well, windows is a different story (http://smile.gif) Im talking about what I consider to be the most well designed OS in the world, OSX. It is very reliable, consistently simple, and very modular.
The add/install in linux dosent work with all programms, but sucha think shouldent have a necessity in the first place. On the Mac dependancie issues never occur. Also, makeing a shortcut to "/" has little meaning to the common user. On the mac I don't need to know jack about commandline directory syntax, it's all visually organized. The GUI is true WYSIWYG.
RPMs are double clickable, but dependancies are not allways easely resolved. Often RPMs fail, and then you have to compile from source. This sux.
As far as using personal install etc. My only gripe with this, is that a new user may not like some of the pre-picked software. For example, Redhat favors OpenOffice.or and Mandrake KWrite(?), Each programm works diffrently, say the user dosent like OpenOffice or Mozilla as the default program.. Then what is he/or she to do?
She tries to find an alternative amongst litteraly hundreds, and then there is no guarentee that the installation of her new program will go smothly. Don't even tell me that apt-get is simple, because it does have a learning curve and the comman user doesnot want to muck about with a command line. Worse still, is if a user dosn't have apt and would like to install it, that is a hastle and a half! I hope that they will never have to mess with .conf or bash scripts.
So ya, it's confusing, and overwhelming to a new user. Indeed my mom could easely jump on redhat and send an email, brows a site, type a letter on a preconfigd installation, but should she ever want to configure things diffrently shes out of luck.
Some distros like Redhat 9 include minimal system configuration tools (graphical ones that is), Mandrake includes at least 4! How is a common joe gonna know were the fuck to go?
Im not bashing linux, I don't think it sux, I just think that it's structure as curently implimented is at odds with a simple desktop OS.
Im really excited about your project for a more logical linux tho! What's the distro calld? Can you download any? Is it Gobo?
EDIT: I also know that alot of my gripes are probably things that can be resolved with the software developers themselves. The problem is, that alot of them seem to expect you to have some mid-range knowledge of linux so sadly, again, they make things that arent as simple as they could be.
I think that if linux expands beyond the "geek" community, then perhapse it will grow simple out of necessity. But to start that expansion, they must make steps to simplicity as well. They have done this, and are still doing this.
Mandrake and redhat 9 are impresive, Redhat 9 in particular is lightyears ahead of Redhat 8. The jurney to a simple Desktop OS is not over yet tho.. So I still think it's not the best choice for mr and mrs joe blow.
[ July 05, 2003: Message edited by: psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax ]
-
i'll pick at your post in a little bit, i'm busy atm.
and i'm working on a utility that will make installing from source easy. (usually, if it's like most sourced up packages)
-
quote:
Originally posted by psyjax: plain 'ol psyjax:
Im talking about what I consider to be the most well designed OS in the world, OSX.
you were talking about how linux was immature
quote:
The add/install in linux dosent work with all programms...
try removing mspaint with the add/remove programs in windows. or notepad... it cant be done. what doesn't the add/remove programs work well with? works fine for me.
quote:
...but sucha think shouldent have a necessity in the first place.
i think it's necessary to be able to add and remove programs.
quote:
On the Mac dependancie issues never occur.
can't argue with that.
quote:
Also, makeing a shortcut to "/" has little meaning to the common user.
and on a mac it does? you are telling me that there are no shortcuts for programs? that a user has to navigate to them?
quote:
On the mac I don't need to know jack about commandline directory syntax, it's all visually organized.
as it is with linux, perhaps you just dont like any of the desktop managers you've used.
quote:
The GUI is true WYSIWYG.
something i'm not too familiar with. What are the benefits of this?
quote:
RPMs are double clickable, but dependancies are not allways easely resolved.
install the rpms using synaptic
quote:
Often RPMs fail, and then you have to compile from source. This sux.
i haven't had rpms fail in a long time, not since i got apt-get. compiling from source doesn't suck. it takes about 3 commands to do. and i'm making a tool to make it easier.
quote:
As far as using personal install etc. My only gripe with this, is that a new user may not like some of the pre-picked software.
and everyone just loves wordpad in windows? no reason to go get a better word processor huh?
quote:
For example, Redhat favors OpenOffice.or and Mandrake KWrite(?), Each programm works diffrently, say the user dosent like OpenOffice or Mozilla as the default program.. Then what is he/or she to do?
if i used windows...
i dont like wordpad, i'll go buy a better word processor.
quote:
She tries to find an alternative amongst litteraly hundreds, and then there is no guarentee that the installation of her new program will go smothly.
that has nothing to do with the operating system, doesn't support "linux isn't mature" at all.
quote:
Don't even tell me that apt-get is simple, because it does have a learning curve and the comman user doesnot want to muck about with a command line.
[/QUOTE[
get synaptic
Worse still, is if a user dosn't have apt and would like to install it, that is a hastle and a half!
it comes in 1 rpm, which i have never had failed dependencies with.
quote:
I hope that they will never have to mess with .conf or bash scripts.
most .conf stuff is for serious system settings and server settings... nothing a normal user will have to mess with. programs do tend to have preferences dialogs.
quote:
So ya, it's confusing, and overwhelming to a new user.
my mom never used a computer before, she is a new user. she started with linux, got it right away...
quote:
Indeed my mom could easely jump on redhat and send an email, brows a site, type a letter on a preconfigd installation...
so you agree, it's not hard.
quote:
...but should she ever want to configure things diffrently shes out of luck.
everything she would want to change she could easily... what can't she?
quote:
Some distros like Redhat 9 include minimal system configuration tools (graphical ones that is), Mandrake includes at least 4! How is a common joe gonna know were the fuck to go?
documentation comes with most distros.
quote:
Im not bashing linux...
perhaps, but it sure does sound like it.
quote:
...I don't think it sux, I just think that it's structure as curently implimented is at odds with a simple desktop OS.
ok. i think you are wrong.
quote:
Im really excited about your project for a more logical linux tho! What's the distro calld? Can you download any? Is it Gobo?
thanks. it's calyptos. a website is in development at http://calyptos.com. (http://calyptos.com.) There will be 2 versions. workstation/personal and server. They installations will be different, obviously server will be more complex and have more options, while personal is basicly "click next". "Can you download any?" i dont understand that. it's not released yet, still in it's early stages. what the hell is Gobo??
quote:
EDIT: I also know that alot of my gripes are probably things that can be resolved with the software developers themselves. The problem is, that alot of them seem to expect you to have some mid-range knowledge of linux so sadly, again, they make things that arent as simple as they could be.
any suggestions for adjusting this are most welcome.
quote:
I think that if linux expands beyond the "geek" community, then perhapse it will grow simple out of necessity. But to start that expansion, they must make steps to simplicity as well. They have done this, and are still doing this.
I really dont think it needs too much more growing, it's very easy, user friendly, and complete. Very small adjustments are needed, wait until the next redhat release i'm sure. (or wait until mine, wish me luck)
quote:
Mandrake and redhat 9 are impresive, Redhat 9 in particular is lightyears ahead of Redhat 8. The jurney to a simple Desktop OS is not over yet tho.. So I still think it's not the best choice for mr and mrs joe blow.
again, i disagree. I had my mom read this and she laughed. most of the stuff she didn't understand... which is a good clue that it doesn't matter.
[ September 25, 2006: Message edited by: Stryker ]
-
quote:
you were talking about how linux was immature
As a desktop platform. I was refering to windoze, that windoze is cryptic and illorganized is a point that I more than agree with.
quote:
try removing mspaint with the add/remove programs in windows. or notepad... it cant be done. what doesn't the add/remove programs work well with? works fine for me.
Programms that you install independantly from source, or in odd directories are not necissarly picked up by it.
quote:
i think it's necessary to be able to add and remove programs.
Belive it or not, an Add/Remove utility is not necessary on OSX, since everything is self contained. You drag an app to the trash it's gone. Any files the app may have used is kept in the system->library directory. That's it, no hunting around for obscure files, and no depndancy on a separete program to keep track of it for you. Its consistent, no hastle, allways easy, and 100% guaranteed to work.
quote:
and on a mac it does? you are telling me that there are no shortcuts for programs? that a user has to navigate to them?
On the Mac, makeing an "Alias" as they are called is as simple as clicking on the application icon, and selecting make alias. Put said alias werever you want, anywere, at any time, and it ALLWAYS knows what it points to. Not only that, but you can move around whatver it is it points to to anywere on your hardrive and not only will that application work flawlessly, all of the aliases will too.
But aliases are not allways necisary, considering that programs are totaly self contained in their own folders, or icons. You can drag them to the desktop if you use them often, or you can put them anywere else on your hardrive for that matter, bury them six levels deep in a folder, they will still work, the aliases will still work, and nothing is disturbed.
Windoze dosen't even have this right yet.
quote:
as it is with linux, perhaps you just dont like any of the desktop managers you've used.
I have used KDE, GNOME, WindowMaker, IceWM, and Enlightenment. And I beg to differ, you do need to know at least a little bit about how the files are named and organized in Linux to use any of the window managers.
I recal a case in KDE were I had to actually add a \zip folder under my usr\dev directory, and then add a few things to some .conf files to get it to recognize it. Same goes for my vfat partition. This occured in Redhat 8, but Mandrake 9 and Redhat 9 recognized both with no problem so kudos there (http://smile.gif)
Yet, Im sure I will run into a similar situation down the line.
On a Mac, storage devices, are not kept in an obscure folder. They are universal system icons. and are represented as what they are. I don't need to make folders to representthem or shortcuts to them for that matter.
quote:
something i'm not too familiar with. What are the benefits of this?
WYSIWYG, What you see is what you get.
Meaning that if I see an application icon, that icon IS the application, not some symbolic alias to a grupe of files scattered across my directory tree. I can move that icon around anywere I want, and it is not dependant on a dozen little files in it's directory, and it knows how to access whatever it needs anywere else in the system. If I see a hardrive, that IS the hardrive, not a folder witha funny name under dev.
That sort of thing, it liberates one from having to memorize and get your brains around abstractions. Makes things simple and imediatly understandable.
quote:
install the rpms using synaptic
Never used it. Ill look into it thanks (http://smile.gif)
quote:
i haven't had rpms fail in a long time, not since i got apt-get. compiling from source doesn't suck. it takes about 3 commands to do. and i'm making a tool to make it easier.
Remember, teh command line makes joe blow run in the other direction. And usually it takes 3 commands, unless there is some sort of conflict, and then you have to pass some extra flags, or maybe even open some headerfiles and edit some macros. It can get harry. But a tool to make it easyer sounds fantastic!
Again Im not knocking any of this stuff, just pointing out that it's pretty rough around the edges, Joe Blow dosn't care if it works %90 percent of the time, if he has a hard time once, hes running the other way.
quote:
and everyone just loves wordpad in windows? no reason to go get a better word processor huh?
heh. I use openOffice under windows (http://smile.gif) and on my Mac, the TextEdit app is a fully fetured lightweight word processor. It's actually a pretty darn good program.
I just ment that the stuff in the personal install is pre-picked so you can never be sure if the stuff you get works to your likeing etc.
So it becomes hard for a newb to figure out what he wants in teh first place.
quote:
that has nothing to do with the operating system, doesn't support "linux isn't mature" at all.
As far as I see it, an OS is only as good as the software for it. If teh variety of software does not meet the majorities needs or is to plentifull to sort thrugh the junky stuff, then it becomes overwhelming for the first time user.
quote:
most .conf stuff is for serious system settings and server settings... nothing a normal user will have to mess with. programs do tend to have preferences dialogs.
I had to edit one when X11 unexpectedly keeld out.
...
Darn my girlfriend is on the phone :D
Ill be beack ;)
-
I have been reading this thread and psyjax, I'm sorry, but I wonder about your sanity as of this moment. I have suggested Linux to a lot of my friends and those that have had the opportunity to install it have completely been able to use it. Don't tell me the user interface is bad (tho xfree sucks) because it does not, we have full anti-aliased fonts with alpha-blended PNGs for graphics and most distros come with a theme to die for. Don't tell me KDE/GNOME are hard to use because they most definitely are not. In Windows to add a shortcut on the desktop I right-click, click New and wait about 20 seconds as it loads that crap, and click New Shortcut. Then I add the command line and name options. In GNOME I right click the desktop, click New Launcher add the information and click OK. In Mac it's the same.
Don't tell me application installation is hard. I downloaded apt which took me about 1 minute, double-clicked it, RPM installed it, no dependency problems at all. Went to Redhat->Run Program and typed apt-get install synaptic and then clicked Redhat->System Tools->Synaptic. Then I downloaded massive hordes of software and when I didnt have a certain needed dependency it would tell me and mark it for auto-install. I would then click Proceed and it all goes quickly and easily.
How about games? Linux supports OpenGL completely, and nVidia and ATI provide their own binary 3d-accelerated Xfree driver. A lot of the other 3d xfree project drivers are already accelerated. Bottom-line on driver support is that the number-one person responsible for missing drivers are the companies themselves. The second would be Xfree for not adding the functionality in quick enough. As for do we have any games? You are very very funny. I can play UT2k3, RTCW, Quake3 Arena, RTCW:Enemy Territory, Unreal, Unreal Tournament,
Quake 2, Duke3D, Vendetta (its in beta stages tho), and a lot of games are supported in Wine[X]. I would not be whining if I was a gamer and I had Linux because RTCW:ET keeps me satisfied *alone*. Not to mention Linux has a lot of very-fine games, take a look at Frozen Bubble as a very small example. That thing is tripped out! Talk about high-quality production. Not saying its the most powerful or addictive game but undeniably it's a very well-designed game.
quote:
I recal a case in KDE were I had to actually add a \zip folder under my usr\dev directory, and then add a few things to some .conf files to get it to recognize it. Same goes for my vfat partition. This occured in Redhat 8, but Mandrake 9 and Redhat 9 recognized both with no problem so kudos there
LOL!! WOW! With all-due-respect (to which there is plenty of respect due), you really are stereotyping Linux *to* *death*. If you want to add a Zip *file*, you just open up Ark (Redhat->Accessories) and add your files, click File-Save and save it as a zip. If you are talking about a zip drive, Zip drives are automatically detected, just go to /mnt/ if a link to it isnt on your desktop already. Redhat has a very robust filesystem finding mechanism. And also, if it does not work in Linux it is not Linux's fault it is Iomega's fault for not supporting Linux. Don't tell me they don't want to open source their code because I have a non-GPL kernel module in my kernel called `nvidia' right now and it works just as well as all the other ones.
Hmm how about uninstalling an application. I have two choices. I can go to Redhat->System Settings->Add/Remove Applications, which provides a nice GUI with descriptions and real names (not just package names). Or I can go into Synaptic and get the exact same thing. So not only does Redhat COME with an easy way of uninstalling software, but if I have a distro that doesnt (albeit that uses RPM) I can just use synaptic. I wouldnt be complaining child.
What about the kernel? Isn't it monolithic and very core-centric and unmodular? Any programmer can write a Linux kernel module. Any of them. Of course they may not be able to write a secure or useful one, or may not know how to access kernel internals but that infos all there and developers can learn. I have a basic grasp on Linux kernel concepts myself...
As for it being "monolithic", Tell me how a kernel supported by computing enterprises world-wide, that supports more hardware types than almost any OS available, and has been deemed many times as a great solution for enterprise computing? I think the only thing that Linux is missing that you are truly whining about is Aqua. Trust me, that's coming, but make sure to breathe before you see it in the news because there's still a long way to it.
quote:
Not to mention the fact that a kernel update is needed like every other day due to bugfixes and new drivers.
I have *never* had to update my kernel in my entire life. I *have* updated my kernel, but I have had no reason to. Mostly because I never see or experiences bugs in the kernel at all. In fact, I never even come close to hearing about as many security fixes as I see on Windows and even Mac because I never see any at all. Sure bugs are fixed but none of them are major obviously.
For instance the only time I have ever had a kernel panic was when my hard drive was not plugged in correctly and i was booting from a boot disk. But obviously Windows would have a problem with that too *IF* windows could fit it's kernel onto a floppy disk. Same with Mac, altho I bet Macs *could* get their kernel onto a floppy disk but they dont have floppy disks so oh well. The only reason I have a boot disk at all is because theres something wrong with my hard drive that wont let the MBR work right, I have an NTFS partition but its useless because it couldnt get the XP boot stuff to work right and it just said error loading NTLDR.
Installation? Puh Lease. Not only is Linux the easiest thing to install since putting a candy bar on the counter but it's the fastest. I installed RH9 in 25 minutes on my pretty 1.7ghz processor with a western digital. It took about 20 minutes to get the base XP stuff on my hdd (of course i couldnt continue install because the mbr's fucked and wouldnt get into windows to continue). Also, all my hardware is detected, the only thing I have problems with is my audio card being really quiet on my altec speakers but im not all too sure thats a linux problem. Everything installed perfectly, with no setup at all. It found my mouse and selected it for me. Sure it asked me 'is this right' but i didnt need to change anything, just clicked next.
To date, the only thing that I cannot get to work is my Gravis Xterminator Dualshock. The joystick driver says its supported but I can't get it to work.
As for multiple apps for multiple purposes: in Redhat/KDE, the KDE programs mostly get preference over GNOME ones in the KDE menu. in Redhat/GNOME, the GNOME apps get preference over the KDE ones in the GNOME menu. So it's all a matter of which set of tools you like better (that is *if* you chose to install KDE, otherwise *one* set of tools is installed, just like on Windows and Mac).
How about apps looking differently? Sure this is slightly annoying but I'm sure you've noticed that Redhat includes Bluecurve for GNOME,Metacity,KDE,Kwin,GDM, and even XMMS for fuck sake!! A default install of Redhat, everything looks very similiar. Albeit there are slight differences, especially with Mozilla but please, mozilla doesnt look the same on *any* platform.
im tired of typing too
-
I was gonna be mean and quote all of that
but any way, Right on dude!
I'm one of these idiots who never reads the how to's
I just do it and Linux is great for that, its a very logical system
I think the reason that people see it as being confusing is that everything is so customizable.
so many choices can bog down a person, but the more you get into it the more you learn to appriciate it.
its like cars
luxury cars have always been stereotyped as having the entire dash clutered by switches and gizmos, making it too hard to pick out the clock the gas and the speedo.
and hey, the faster the car, the harder it is to drive :D
-
Wow! this has to one of the fastest threads I've ever seen on this board. Don't have time to read through all the 'arguments'..... So, yes great, I hope it does. OS X in my opinion is great, so is Linux.
Touch
-
Well I would like to point out that Free Software is litterally unstopable. And it opposesses capitalism very much.
Image what we could do if what had a Free Music Foundation, share music and make really cool shit. A Free Porn Foundation ( ;) ), a free internet foundations, a free industry foundations, as these could form we could turn capitalist markets into socialist markets, slowly converting the world.
Thats what we could do.
Because all the things are what people want, if we take them all and make the more innovative, better we could be ahead millions of years. The world would be right again.
Its not going to take effect now, or next year, but if we do what is right for our fellow human, if we share, give and help oneannother we can change the world and convert it into a open and perfect enviroment.
-
That was beautiful (http://smile.gif)
-
Well folks, It's been fun :D
I don't necissarly disagree with any of your response. Although I have not used Synaptic. Im just suggesting that all of the stuff you show as proof of it's simplicity..... may not be what some concider simple. :rolleyes:
I never said it was imposible, or unusable, just not as simple as it could be. And yes, I ment /mnt/zip my apologies. And I mentioned that Redhat 9 did auto detect it, but Redhat 8 didn't
I still maintain my stance that it is not for the common user. There are alot of steps, that may be seen as trivial to you guys who use Linux all the time, that other OS users simply never have to take.
Everything in OSX, I do mean EVERYTHING, can be done quickly and simply, in a consistent manner, with much fewer steps than you mentioned.
To install I ALLWAYS double click on the .pkg and it ALLWAYS installs. To remove, I drag the folder to the trash, ALLWAYS. No menu, no Add/remove no nothing.
I want to download something and install it, it works right away. I don't have to care about some app that manages the dependancies for me to "simplify" what is already complicated. OSX, has no need for this.
And your right, if Aqua or something similar, is ever implemented over linux to the same effect as it behaves on Mac OSX, I will have no complaints. But I use linux nearly every day, and Im not blind, things are not as smooth as they could be.
Infact, I have my OSX powerbook open right next to my linux box. There is a big diffrence in the learning curve and the way the OS's behave. Im not saying linux sucks, Im just saying that it's surely not the best choice for all non-tech savvy users.
-
I have tried synaptic, and while it is an improvement, you have to consider that:
-It still only supports distribution specific packages;
-Some repositories are incompatible (e.g. Fedora);
-You have to search for repositories to find supported packages;
-You have to hunt in a very long and badly organised list of applications to find what you want (e.g. the category 'application' is not the same as 'Applications');
-Synaptic is of little help if you don't know what you're looking for (ie. scant description, long, confusing lists);
-Once the applications are installed, you have to hunt in the very long KDE/GNOME menu to find what you just installed (if it even appears in the menu), which, again, can differ from a distro to another, and can have the same organisations issues as Synaptic;
-If the application(s) does not appear in the menu, you have to use the KDE legacy app finder (which does not find everything), and add the rest manually, searching through even longer lists of applications in /bin, /usr/bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /opt, /home, etc. And you have to know the name of the executable, which is not necessarily the same as the name of the package (is it foo, Foo, foo2, FoO or foo-1.5?). Of course, it can take a VERY long time to add all the one you need, if you have many. And where should you put them? Does foo go in KDE/Applications or KDE/office? And you have to start over for other Window managers, if you have any, because not all of them support KDE menus (you don't have this problem in OS X, because you just have to go to the 'Applications' folder, whether in KDE, GNOME, or IceWM), if you really want to use them instead of Aqua.
-After you resolve all the dependencies, you get litterally hundreds of programs you'll never use (not just a few like Chess.app or Windows Solitaire), which can take thousands of gigs on your hard drive, and through which you'll have to navigate;
-You have none of those problems with an individual package installation (e.g. OPENSTEP, OS X, BeOS)
-Fink (Apt-get) is available for Mac OS X anyway, if you need it.
Incidentally, I installed Red Hat 9 (again) just yesterday. I proceeded to install the hundreds of packages I might need (because you don't really know what you're going to need). At a point, it slowed down my computer, making it unusable and impossible to quit Synaptic, so I had to reboot my computer. First thing I knew, fsck couldn't repair the filesystem (and I had journalised ext3). So, I had to repair it manually, and ctrl-D. When I rebooted my computer, I couldn't log in GNOME anymore, because the panel and the desktop manager crashed.
I think I'll go back to BeOS, and resume looking forward to get a Mac now.
-
It only really bothers me because it seems to me that if u found someone who was intrested in buying a computer, you'd probably recommend windows because "linux isn't mature". That is a matter of opinion, but everyone i've introduced to linux (that hasn't already been infected by windows) found it very easy. Most of the people that have used windows still found it easy. The only time I hear that it's hard is from people over 30 who haven't even tried it. My friend's parents say it's hard, which pisses me off because they've never even seen it used. That's a different subject and I'm rambling... so, i'm done.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
It only really bothers me because it seems to me that if u found someone who was intrested in buying a computer, you'd probably recommend windows because "linux isn't mature". That is a matter of opinion, but everyone i've introduced to linux (that hasn't already been infected by windows) found it very easy. Most of the people that have used windows still found it easy. The only time I hear that it's hard is from people over 30 who haven't even tried it. My friend's parents say it's hard, which pisses me off because they've never even seen it used. That's a different subject and I'm rambling... so, i'm done.
I concure. And trust me, I would NEVER, EVER, Under any sicumstances advocate windowz :D !
Though I have been using it alot lately. Basicaly becaous im incharge of insureing a certain cross platform project Im involved in works fine with windows, and secondly because my powerhorse OSX dual G4 800Mhz box is currently in my mothers posetion.
I lent it to her when I went to college, and now when I ask for it back she's allways got something she seems to need it for ;)
I personally think, she dosn't wanna go back to that old ass 333Mhz rev. B iMac she had been using for like ever.
heh, when I get a good job first thing I'll buy is a new Mac for my mum. :D
Enugh of that tho... ya, Im done.
-
have u tried running linux on a mac? i've heard of it all the time but never heard about how well it ran or anything. Some people suppose it's good and I tend to believe that. If you have, how was it? performance?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stryker:
have u tried running linux on a mac? i've heard of it all the time but never heard about how well it ran or anything. Some people suppose it's good and I tend to believe that. If you have, how was it? performance?
Ya, I ran YDL on my dual 800Mhz... it didn't recognize my vid card so I had shitty video with inverted colors.
And they still havent got the drivers!
For whatever reason the YDL people are incapable or somehow coming up with good nVidia drivers. In any case, it runs just as well as on a PC.
MOL (Mac on Linux) is about as fast as Classic is on OSX....
I dunno what to say, it's just like any other Linux I have used. Similar in most respects to Redhat 8 in layout, and package choice.
-
In response to Fury's post long, long ago on this thread: Dell offers a few "workstations" with Redhat 8/9 installed... (http://www.dell.com/linux)
-
I think its funny that this thread got so long, they alawys seem to when you say apple has faults.
so here's one more
The G5 hype will soon have a 64bit cloud over its head, looking something like this
web page (http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_4699_7980,00.html)
(http://www.case-sensitive.co.uk/images/amd.jpg)
-
quote:
I agree that Linux is going to be the OS that takes out M$, but hopefully Apple will back up the battles.
Yavohl. Unless Apple starts agressively targeting MS customers instead of pandering to an established fan base they aren't going anywhere. And ads aimed straight at Unix users don't exactly make it look like Apple is even brave enough to go directly against MS.
quote:
Apple is not proprietary
Apple *is* at least partly proprieatry. Cough quicktime? This is microsoft tactics apple, and I've seen you all bagging Microsoft because of them. Why should Microsoft users have to download a crap Apple video player just to watch your movies? Why should Linux users have to try and reverse engineer your video format? For that matter consider the fact that according to Apple we should only be using non GUI interfaces. Unless that is we pay Apple millions for using their concept. You cant own a god damn idea, what kind of stupid idea is it to sue a competitior for using it? It would be like the inventors of Unix suing DOS for using the "command line concept."
edit: yeah yeah yeah, VMS blah blah, so Unix wasnt the first. I know that, really ;)
quote:
I have never seen a restautant divulge recipies with their customers' orders,
I have. That said I dont care if there are proprietary apps out there provided they dont try and force me to use there crap products with lock in formats (.mov, .doc) or try and make me use closed drivers for the priviledge of using their hardware. Ie proprietary software doesnt bother me at all - provided I dont have to use it.
edit (http://redface.gif) r be affected by it in any way.
quote:
Companies should not be forced to divulge their source code, period.
They should if they are trying to use closed "standards" to make people use their products. BTW this one is not a Mac flame, but a generic closed format flame.
quote:
If Apple wants to be closed source, fine be me, as long as when MS goes down, they wont try to pull another Bill Gates on us. If they dont anything of that nature, they will have my support.
I myself am suspicious about this. Does Apple simply aspire to be another monopoly or are they more altruistic?
quote:
Apple will be a real competitor when they decide to pull their head out of their asses and do what they should have done decades ago. Make their OS run with different kinds of CPUs and Motherboards. A real hacker (not cracker) wont stand to be locked in specific hardware.
Well said.
quote:
Yeah but do they expect? People locking themselves into specific hardware? I really like the fact that I can choose from a plethora of hardware. Its all about freedom. Make it run in as many platforms as possible. Then you got something cooking.Otherwise its just greed, unless though am missing something here and I would like somebody to explain it to me.
[faust applauds]
And no I'm not saying that the hardware isnt good. I'm saying that I will not have what hardware I can use chosen by someone else.
quote:
And for the most part it is the way a lot of OSS businesses would *have* to work. But I believe companies should make money with value-added services, much like Redhat does.
That's entirely possible with games today IMO. Make a cool Massive Multiplayer game and then all you have to do is have the best (or even just the first) server for that game and charge people for using your server. How much more popular would UO be if you had heaps of geeks churning out new versions that would all work fine on a central UO server? (With md5 checking of course so that everyone has the same version.) Yeah, if the server was open source some dude could easily set up a UO server. But with the amount of power needed for a big game server nowadays, a home hobbyist just isnt going to have the ability, nor is he going to be able to compete with the larger central UO server which has the time to do a good job. And everyone will use the central server because in most games more players is always better.
quote:
I hate to say it penguin people but macs run a lot more games than linux does. Anywho i wouldn't mind Linux if it was built more like os x.
Macs run a lot less games than Windows does, does that make them worse? And I sure as hell wouldnt mind OSX if it was more like Linux. :D
quote:
while enumerable, are mind bogglingly confusing to the common user, this confusion is then magnafied when said user actually tries to install something.Not to mention the gobledigook system hiarchy, usr/dev/hda01 .... oh, that's my hardrive!!
Mac OSX is easier for newbies. Doesn't mean it's any better for the rest of us.
quote:
simplicity sells
(http://tongue.gif) said it yourself
quote:
I tell linux geeks to grow up.
What was so immature? It was a Mac geek, not a Linux one who said we should suicide bomb redmond. Just because we prefer Linux and open source to Macs and closed source we're suddenly immature? Why?
quote:
.... I can hear the natives getting restless
Psyjax! I RULEZZZZ!!! HAR HAR HAR
You're intentionally trying to piss us off and *we* should grow up?
quote:
GNU is all the screwy stuff Linux is jsut the Kernel
Back off on GNU. Where would Linux be if not for their work? How would it have done if the initial rush of developers were deprived of GCC? You want to start a flame war bagging the GNU project go ahead, I'm more than willing to show you why the GNU project was and still is vital.
quote:
Re:flaming KDE/Gnome
Confusing? I don't really get what's confusing about them. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.
Yep, they may confuse someone who is locked into thinking about desktop "paradigms" which always involve a massive block in the center bottom of the screen but those of us who are more free
thinking find them very easy to us.
quote:
Not to mention the fact that a kernel update is needed like every other day due to bugfixes and new drivers.
That's just plain FUD, not to mention that it shows how little you know about Linux.
quote:
Ya, simple. Were are all my programs?
I have no idea where programs on a Mac are kept, you have no idea where programs on Linux are kept. Only difference being I dont claim that the Mac is difficult to use because of it. Maybe you're mistaking different for difficult?
quote:
Even if Aqua somehow prettied up Linux, the very design of the OS works at odds to a simple computing environment.
Know much about OS design do we or are you simply spreading more FUD? What precisely is wrong with the design?
quote:
The games industry has been fucked up for quite sometime, and needs a rebirth.
Yeah remember Descent 2? Starcraft? Or Quake 1 or Doom 2 - how fun was doom 2! And then when doom 3 comes out it's supposed to be a fucking "survival horror." Survival horror sucks, gimme some real action... Modern games (including BF1942 and Warcraft 3 which both suck badly) need a shake up.
quote:
as far as why the variety of programs goes, the confusion arises when you install a tipical linux distro, you usualy get a dozen programs that do the same think, with no simple de-install method, and no real indication as to the quality or usefullness of the particular program.
Hmm let me remove blackbox. Start synaptic. Click blackbox. Click remove. Whoa! Its similar in Mandrake / Hat - big list of programs, click the one you want to change. Mandrake had a button labelled "remove programs" FFS how hard can it be?
quote:
It's not that you can't learn the linux file hiarchy, it's more like Who
Installation is as simople as double click and it ALLWAYS works.
Really? I've seen a lot of "[application] has unexpectedly quit" on OSX.
quote:
I know there are GUI configuration tools, but these are never perfect
FUD
quote:
Can you learn it? sure. Am I, a common every day fool gonna want to?
Oh so we want an OS that aims to fools do we? Apple can aim for fools all it likes, I'm sticking with an OS aimed for me.
quote:
It's not that you can't learn the linux file hiarchy, it's more like Who wants to?
I dont want to learn the mac one . Most users aren't even aware that there is a file hiarchy. They just click what they want to open.
[faust cheers]
quote:
So ya, it's confusing, and overwhelming to a new user. Indeed my mom could easely jump on redhat and send an email, brows a site, type a letter on a preconfigd installation, but should she ever want to configure things diffrently shes out of luck.
Speaking of which how do you think I would go if I wanted to use a different WM on a Mac? Or set it up as a firewall / router? Mac OSX has far more of a problem with configurability than Linux.
quote:
Im not bashing linux, I don't think it sux, I just think that it's structure as curently implimented is at odds with a simple desktop OS.
Maybe we don't want it dumbed down?
quote:
So it becomes hard for a newb to figure out what he wants in teh first place.
You're telling me OSX actually psychically suggests to the user what they should install next? Like "you need a new word processor..." kinda thing? (http://tongue.gif)
quote:
That thing is tripped out! Talk about high-quality production. Not saying its the most powerful or addictive game but undeniably it's a very well-designed game.
Anyone else played Egoboo? Addictive little cow of a game!
[ August 05, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
[ August 05, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]
-
quote:
Apple *is* at least partly proprieatry. Cough quicktime? This is microsoft tactics apple, and I've seen you all bagging Microsoft because of them. Why should Microsoft users have to download a crap Apple video player just to watch your movies?
Hmmm, yup but Quicktime is the defacto standard for many industries now, film, broadcasting etc. It's also fully standards compliant (MPEG), most "other" standards aren't. I wouldn't say Quicktime is crap.
quote:
Back off on GNU. Where would Linux be if not for their work? How would it have done if the initial rush of developers were deprived of GCC? You want to start a flame war bagging the GNU project go ahead, I'm more than willing to show you why the GNU project was and still is vital.
Apple use alot of GNU works. GCC is the default Apple compiler. I use GNU stuff all the time on OS X.
quote:
Oh so we want an OS that aims to fools do we? Apple can aim for fools all it likes, I'm sticking with an OS aimed for me.
Good for you but I don't think the 1000's of developers worldwide, for example ASF developers, that choose to use OS X as their OS of choice would be happy with that statement.
quote:
Speaking of which how do you think I would go if I wanted to use a different WM on a Mac? Or set it up as a firewall / router? Mac OSX has far more of a problem with configurability than Linux
Utter rubbish!
[ August 05, 2003: Message edited by: Zardoz ]
-
quote:
Hmmm, yup but Quicktime is the defacto standard for many industries now, film, broadcasting etc. It's also fully standards compliant (MPEG), most "other" standards aren't. I wouldn't say Quicktime is crap.
Defacto standard? "Why should we have to publish how .doc works? Office is the de facto standard so why don't you just use it?" Jeez, this sounds familiar. It would also be nice if we didn't have to use Quicktime player with it's awful UI and listen to it's constant "please pay for pro version!" whingeing.
quote:
Apple use alot of GNU works. GCC is the default Apple compiler. I use GNU stuff all the time on OS X.
Yavohl. I was talking to suselinux btw. ;)
quote:
Good for you but I don't think the 1000's of developers worldwide, for example ASF developers, that choose to use OS X as their OS of choice would be happy with that statement.
I wasn't the one that said that apple was for average fools.
quote:
Speaking of which how do you think I would go if I wanted to use a different WM on a Mac? Or set it up as a firewall / router? Mac OSX has far more of a problem with configurability than Linux
Utter rubbish!
Alright then lets see you build a beowulf cluster from Macs. Or put the Mac OS on a PDA...
-
calyptos will hopefully solve all these problems that current users of windows have on switching to the "penguin".
it will be substantially easier to use and will be equipped with an alotment of eye candy! :-D
*calyptos.com will be done soon, which will include progress of the OS, features and release dates.
*be prepared we will need beta testers!
-
One step closer
web page (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1210083,00.asp)
Disney funded a GPL project to add full PHOTOSHOP support to WINE
Because it's GPL it was snatched up and put into Crossover office, but is still available for regular old wine.
I say one step closer because so many have said that if PHOTOSHOP support switched from MAC to LINUX, Apple would die.
frankly, I can't see PHOTOSHOP ever leaving Apple,
they complement each other too well, they always have.
BUT all of this does make LINUX all the more desirable for the desktop.
-
*also on the maturity of linux issue.
it must be mature if their are 5 people at major book giant barnes&noble, reading up on linux instead of the 0 windows readers.
-
quote:
I say one step closer because so many have said that if PHOTOSHOP support switched from MAC to LINUX, Apple would die.
NO. apple isnt going to plunge for quite sometime. i have said this before but apple computers are very powerful graphically. *Linux may have good graphical support but apple will still dominate the graphical market for awhile.
-
quote:
it must be mature if their are 5 people at major book giant barnes&noble, reading up on linux instead of the 0 windows readers.
Yah, it shows Linux users can read and Windows users can't. ;)
-
quote:
Alright then lets see you build a beowulf cluster from Macs.
Er, this is actually MUCH easier to do on Macs than on Linux. I even saw read about a story about a grade 6 student (or something) clustering G4 PowerMacs (with instructions, of course). It explained how universities preferred Macs because they were quicker to cluster and get the work done. Unfortunately, I can't find the article. :(
Oh well, here's something else:
http://www.apple.com/scitech/research/hiperformance/cluster/ (http://www.apple.com/scitech/research/hiperformance/cluster/)
-
quote:
It would also be nice if we didn't have to use Quicktime player with it's awful UI and listen to it's constant "please pay for pro version!" whingeing.
Now that's just a matter of personal taste, yes I wish they'd stop the whingeing as well.
quote:
Alright then lets see you build a beowulf cluster from Macs. Or put the Mac OS on a PDA...
OS X Beowulf clusters are happening already:
Beowulf (http://www.stat.ucla.edu/computing/clusters/deployment.php)
I believe that Panther will improve greatly on this point though.
However I agree that some *nixes have more maturity in this field. Universities and research establishments have been making use of them in this way for a long time after all. I think the problem that alot of people have with OS X is that they see still as a Graphic Designers OS, which it ain't just reserved for this no more..... OS X on a PDA, I'd like to see.
-
quote:
Originally posted by suselinux:
One step closer
web page (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1210083,00.asp)
Disney funded a GPL project to add full PHOTOSHOP support to WINE
Because it's GPL it was snatched up and put into Crossover office, but is still available for regular old wine.
I say one step closer because so many have said that if PHOTOSHOP support switched from Mac to Linux, Apple would die.
frankly, I can't see PHOTOSHOP ever leaving Apple,
they complement each other too well, they always have.
BUT all of this does make Linux all the more desirable for the desktop.
It doesn't matter, disney is evil and never would have given a shit if they didn't need Photoshop for editing.
-
quote:
Originally posted by M51DPS:
It doesn't matter, disney is evil and never would have given a shit if they didn't need Photoshop for editing.
You were beat up by a guy in a Mickey Mouse suit as a kid, weren't you?
-
Disney is evil, they treat their employees like shit and use third world slave labour.
-
Faust, great now youve done it. You've killed this topic. And just as I thought it would never end. Christ man what is wrong with you!
(http://tongue.gif) (http://tongue.gif) (http://smile.gif) (http://smile.gif)
One day I'm gonna make a smily farm on a post. Dammit! The maximum image count allowed is 8 *including smilies*