-
Website
http://linuxologist.com/ -
Original page
http://linuxologist.com/linux-general/things-we-could-learn-from-windows-and-mac/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Do you have a link to a bigger picture of the animated distro-girls?
hopefully the author replies asap.. ^^
The original designer of the anime girls posted it there...
There are projects doing this, the big ones like KDE. But the central issue here is about individuality and social organization.
Fundamentally, comparing linux to Windows or Mac and pointing your finger to the ui saying "look, a unified interface" misses the point in a big way. The goal of linux is not to be a clone of Windows, and the tradeoff between unity and anarchy is what effectively gives us both, at the cost that the whole desktop will never be completely unified. KDE is working quite hard at making this happen, but it will and can only collected kde/qt apps under that umbrella.
We have a ton of music players, each of which takes a different direction and comes up with different features. You can idealize this and say we should throw all of them out and just everyone work on one, make it really great. But the one player will not have the sum of the features of all the others, nor will it develop that cumulative feature set at the pace that all these separate projects can do in parallel.
Personally, I find the prospect of linux being more like Mac a ghastly one. Taking Windows/Mac as a standard asking why linux isn't more like it is one way of looking at it. But you could just as well go the opposite way. If you ask me things are more as they should be on this side than the corporate side.
The organic change however is what keeps the herd vibrant but unwaveringly moving forward. On the other hand you have something like the clones of Microsoft. Their colony has not moved forward in 2 years as Vista has been a marketplace dud. Vista is an evolutionary dead end and the whole community suffers because of it. Will Windows7 fare better? You won't know because it is not seen on the plains of computer landscape yet.
What you decry as a waste is really progress. Embrace it. Find a project, make it better. Fork it if you have to. FOSS is an evolutionary process.
Think about an Ubuntu user that has never used Windows. I'm not asking you to consider it as if it existed, I'm asking you to imagine it. Well, when he needs to install an app, he'll click in the start button and go to add/remove, just to find out that it doesn't really add anything there...
GNU/Linux gets the job done pretty efficiently, once you know your way about it.
Remember though, it's not always that simple on all Linux distros.
Microsoft and Adobe are blowing it by not creating apps for Linux.
Why do you think that people use VMs to use their favorite Windows apps on Linux??!!
Although I enjoy using OS X and the CLI, installing things such as MySQL, PHP or PostgreSQL on Windows is easier to do on Windows.
Until Linux becomes as easy to use, easy to install applications and has the amount of apps that Windows has, it won't become a platform for the massess.
Every time I hear a new version of KDE is out, I laugh.
Stop wasting time on a desktop manager and create apps that rival Adobe and Microsoft apps.
Linux is the Mac OS of the '90s, not enough apps.
Until then, I will continue to use OS X and Windows if I have to use it on my work PC.
What would it be like? Well, there would be dozens if not hundreds of customized versions of Windows and OSX, all made by different people with different ideas of what to do with them.
With Linux everything is as it should be, there is no need to worry. Yes it would be nice to unify some of the projects out there, but that requires a great organizational effort, which requires an enormous amount of time. Not everyone has that free time to work for little to no money. I wouldn't sweat it ... I think Linux is doing great.
Plug in a usb mouse or flash drive in to a linux system and the device will function instantly.
XP on the other hand can take up to two minutes. It is hardly transparent as a "found new hardware" system tray icon flashes up.
This is just native support for simple devices. As for devices like onboard sound, realtek ac97 has been around for years, yet still no native driver support for windows. Linux on the other hand supports far more hardware natively than windows, one of its major selling points.
Every single windows installation ive done (i do a lot through my work every day), have required additional driver installations. With linux ive only ever needed to install a driver a couple of times, which has actually turned out to be easier than windows. In linux its done in two clicks, in windows its four or more to get to the device manager, before you even install the driver.
As for the desktop management you're wrong again. Mac or the asus eepc system that uses xandros is far easier than XP. Every single noob ive shown an asus eepc to has never had a problem as its laid out so simply. Mac usage is a bit trickier but showing a noob how to use XP is the hardest task of all. Any IT technician can testify to this.
Network connections are also far easier on linux as well, two clicks and a bit of typing and you're done. I really fail to see your point at all. Every single point you listed on windows "as something that linux should learn from XP" is already done to a far superior level on most linux distros.
There are things that Microsoft does well, that the community struggles with.
There is a point at which choices become too great. The number of linux distros has reached that point. I don't think we'd be better served by having a single distribution, or limiting the number of programs performing the same function to one. But we could be better served with fewer choices than presently exist.
And to those who feel smuggly superior for using any platform: take a step back and try to figure out where your value as a person comes from. You won't find it in your choice of computing platform.
i dont see diversity as a disadvantage. the more projects, the more people, and as with everything else in nature the fittest will survive. as Linus T. says "linux is evolution, not inteligent design".
OMfG >_<
Linux needs GUI's. For example Conky, an amazing program, it really is, but you need to edit a file. I like it, but my mom wouldn't edit one. She would want a gui where you can configure it. Same goes for xorg. It's far to complicated to get a beamer attached to a laptop in linux.
But linux, I love you!
Look at all the different tools that you can have from a new distribution. You have PCLinuxOS to show off Compiz on a live CD, you have Ubuntu (or Fedora) for the brand new user, you have SLED or Red Hat for enterprise solutions, Gentoo for the uber nerds that want everything optimized for their machines, Asterisk for Linux phone systems, Backtrack for *testing* wifi networks, and all this is possible because of the openness. Heck, I use Sidux because I want really, really new versions of software that are optimized for i686 and don't want to compile a bunch of stuff myself.
Unlike Mac or Microsoft, "Linux" is not out to make the best desktop experience. It is a Kernel, and a great one at that. If ubuntu wants to have a unified dock, there is nothing stopping them, but I assure you, the Ubuntu desktop would be forked, and you could have all those docs again.
For the most part, when things are going well on the Linux side of my computer, I only dump into Vista to watch movies on Netflix' site, or to play certain games (most of which I haven't even tried getting running through Wine). It does everything most users will want it to do, and for the most part does them well.
When things go wrong, though, it can be pretty disastrous. The drivers for broadcom wireless are pretty flaky sometimes (obviously not to be blamed on Linux so much as whatever issues are causing the firmware to be closed), though when they perform well they often perform better than under Windows. Suspend support? Not much of a chance the system will come back without errors.
I have complaints about a few applications, but the solution is always to use something else. That is why I think the variety of applications, even things as seemingly essential as desktop environments, is very important. OpenOffice.org is the application suite many people point to as a viable alternative to MS Office. I don't even see it as a viable alternative to Office 2000, never mind the 3 versions MS has released since. However, many of the apps specialized to perform the same functions for individual document types in Linux are great alternatives to OO.o, and I appreciate their continued availability and improvement.
I may find myself going back to Windows for stretches at a time when Linux becomes unstable after my (sometimes ham-fisted) tweaking, but most of the improvement I've seen since first using Linux in 1996 has been a direct result of people deciding to work on something different, not working on what's already available to improve it, or because alternatives have been available and compete with one another (usually in a more or less friendly manner).
Linux is evolving slowly. Much slower than a commercial OS. Yes. It is not the same thing to come from work, tired and start compiling on your own than go to work and brainstorm with other software programmers and what to do next because you have a deadline. Is it?
Yes, less distros and concentrated effort is a great idea and it would work.
As for comparing the windows os and the Linux os, is not possible. If Ubuntu (user friendly not necessarily predominant, free tech support) would be a commercial company and Ubuntu would be pushed on all the OEM systems to the end-users, it would be accepted and more companies would release Linux software.
Yes, Linux will have more users when Wine will find a way to let users install any application and have it work with no glitches and when you will not need to lift the hood to fix the resolution or who knows what problem.
Not all end-users are stupid. Some of them simply are focusing on something else and do not have the time to learn about computers. If you have a marketing career or you are a doctor, why would he have to learn what permissions are and RW RW RW R- and compiling to install maybe an Intel WIFI Link 5350 driver?
I am not saying that the HW support is not good for Linux. (Have you seen Puppy? For its size it is amazing!) but there are those rare cases when you need to get some work done by urself.
Tell that to the wifi card in my laptop that refuses to play nice w/out jumping through ridiculous hoops. Driver support sucks, get over it.
Ummm, because if there was The One Big Dock That Was The Be-All, End-All of Docks it would be so bloated as to be unusable.
Your point has been brought up before. And my response was, is and will continue to be "who are you to dictate what any given developer chooses to do with their time?"
It would be different, if ummm, you where, I dunno, paying them or something. That's how the Steve's (Jobs and Ballmer) get their OS's done.
Oh, wait...finite resources. Gotcha.
i'd rather have a bunch of reviews from people i trust on a big variety of competing programs than just one program that somehow is meant to be an amalgamation of the pure awesome, which is a pure improbability. somebody has got to be pissed off by something.
different people, different solutions.
of course you could do some community plumbing, file some bug reports, care for the issues, be a system daddy. but that would be too much to ask for something that's free, right?
Yes I realize that a lot of drivers are included out of the box now, but that seems to be more true for desktops than for notebooks, and I'm downright tired of *wanting* any flavor of linux to work sooo bad and then giving up because I just wasted an evening trying to get my resolution to display right and a wireless network adapter to see my network.
but seriously, there are no dumb people. this is not about stupidity, this is about helping users to focus on tasks, and trying to confront them with system internals as little as possible. unfortunately, not everybody cares about computers as much as i do, and the older i get, the better i can understand that.
No, actually, agree very much :)
Another way of looking at the matter is to consider just how much tinkering is necessary to keep a system tuned and responsive. Under Windows the registry needs at least monthly (and I would recommend weekly) attention to purge it of accumulating trash. Under linux, you may need to clean out your personal directory of older program-, interface-, and release-specific files once every year or so.
Presently, the only significant differentiators between Windows and Linux lie in the public assumptions that Windows is "easier to install" and some software publishers decisions to produce only Windows and Mac products (e.g. Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom).
"not just impress fellow Linux users, but will impress anyone."
Hell Yes. 99% of the pro-linux texts I have read in my life and 95% I have read in the last year are targeted to yet linux users or software developers with a looot of free time. See the tipical "N reasons to use linux" writings; always N-3 "reasons" are things like "freedom ... the big brother ...", "you can modify a program if you don't like it", "the console is powerful". 90% of computer users don't give a shit. 90% of computer users want crazy icons in messenger, instant porn, quick and easy ofimatics compatible with the last and most sucking version of microsoft office. They want to spend 1 hour a day or less at spare time and 8 hours a day working with the computer, and switch it off. While linux couldn't do this, its OS share will remain at 1%/2% just right now.
"We’ve got Avant Window Navigator, Cairo Dock, Kiba Dock, KsmoothDock, Engage Dock and SimDock, just to start with."
And Hell Again Yes. Instead of joining efforts we as community are just replicating efforts one time, and another, and another, and another. This drives me nuts. The same with window managers. The same with many many kinds of programs. Since the source is open we precisely can collaborate. More emphasized: COLLA-FUCKIN-BORATE (please). This is not understood by so many foss developers. amsn, gaim, kopete, ... all and each enough for me but all unpleasant for live messenger users. yes, I also hate them for their stupid priorities in life, but if you truly believe in free software you will do your best to make software that regular people become pleased to use. not only software for computer nerds.
Yes, I have done my part to show the problems that I have encountered, explaining in detail what happened, when and how, and details about my hardware. I simply don't see the need to repeat all of that here in a simple comment.
But you can go on ignoring the problems that Linux has, and bash people like me who voice our opinions on those problems - and if enough of the Linux community does the same as you, then very little progress will be made. Thankfully the progress that Linux has made shows that you are in a minority. Just because I don't like Linux because of the problems I've had - doesn't mean I can't keep an open mind, obviously many people have had great success with Linux. So I 'play' with it from time to time, and yes after 20 years of experience I throw in my 2 cents worth on what needs to be fixed in Linux, because I do hope to see it be successful on the desktop.
Sorry I'm not a fanboy who ignores problems with my favorite OS. As I stated before, I like the Mac OS - but that doesn't mean I don't see plenty of room for improvement with it as well.
I want my kids on the wallpaper a few icons to the left and a few to the right and I want every task bar to disappear from sight when Im not using it.
When I use a desktop, you cant tell if I have KDE or Win XP on.
That's how I like it.
I dont need distractions like an animated task bar like im some retard.
I dont like the 3 color choice to max/min windows in Mac and sure dont want a top taskbar...I like MY desktop like I like it.
I like VLC becomes its simple and it works. I love amarok because fo the same reasons. A word processor is a word processor.
I like Ubuntu but HATE the wallpaper and color scheme yet it doesnt matter because I switch taht as soon as I can.
I use XCFE on old machines and love KDE 3.59 and am thrilled by the new approache and innovations of KDE4.x.
My desktop is made specifically for me. I like my fonts a certain height and a certain style. I like it to look like I want it to. That's why I use KDE.
I want solidity of the 3.59 line and the innovations and boldness to not be content of the status quo of 4.x.
But you know what? I've used Gnome too quite often and its just a desktop. My Firefox works the same and my Open Office does as well.
As for hard to use. My parents are in their 70s and both use Linux on their machines. One is a total newbie and the other used free software on Windows for 10 years so the switch was painless.
Ive seen enough people recently use the Linpus Lite dummified version of the Acer One netbook to know that you dont have to be a genius to use it.
I think all distros should come with a dummy mode and a more advanced one. The Acer uses XFCE which you can access if you choose.
What apps do I miss by using Linux? I can't think of one, so I have no need for another OS. I have long abandoned other OS's and don't tell me I don't really use a computer. I have long used Linux as my only OS and am quite satisfied with it, having spent in excess of 38 years with computers large and small, even installing Linux on SPARC servers and mainframes.
For your info KDE is more, much more than a desktop manager, If a new version of KDE makes you laugh, it certainly makes me smile.
Probably the 1.5 millionth time I've seen "Until" in a sentence referencing Linux.
Despite all the rubbish articled about Linux, guys are still coding and producing for a world class OS that is Linux.
I would imagine 5 years down the line with Windows 7...8...9, things would have changed drastically that I would feel really stupid in front of Windows machine.
Asus alone, with their Eee PC models, outstrips Apple's total laptop sales.
So, I guess you are just suffering from misleading marketing information supplied by a willing opposition...
I'll tell you what they'd be like - they'd be disasters and would never have new releases, because people would be bickering too much to produce anything worthwhile.
Too many chefs in the kitchen. Ever heard that expression?
If I want a great recipe and have these two choices, I'd definitely go with the second choice:
1. Get all the chefs in the world to collaborate on the perfect recipe.
2. Get all the chefs in the world to make their own recipes and occasionally swap recipes and share what works for them so they can improve their own recipes or improve others' recipes.
Linuxers doesn't care about Windows, Mac, Hardware vendors, or even endusers, there are lots of DIFFERENT reasons for both individuals or organizations to create Linux, we do not need the vendors to create drivers, we need the specs of their hardware in hands of the gurus who had been making this possible.
Maybe one of the problems of Windows (not macosx, which I do not care about), it is that you depend on the quality of your graphic card driver because the graphical subsystem of Windows lives in the Ring-0 of the kernel of the Operating System, so, to run a web server, or a mail server, or whatever, you depend on a graphical environment up & running...
The world must learn, the future is computer related. Linux is a concept, about freedom. The future doesn't need to be easy, it is IT, learn fast & be updated or die..
Distributors must care about users if they want widespread adoption.
And it is good to have different options, it is good to have KDE3 as it is to have GNOME (I prefer KDE if I have the choice, but it is good to have different alternatives), the upcoming KDE4, or even Blackbox.
It is choice of the distributors how similar to windows its flavor of Linux will seem to the final user.
I hope Microsoft to learn from the design of Linux, I would love to use it's software because it is a great company.
I totally agree with you that we have a lot of talent at waste. In fact, the amount of man power we have as a Linux community is far greater than Microsoft or apple.
But it is often arguable that such a huge community may not be able to work together and it would become very hard to have one's say.
Keeping manpower aside, I think Linux needs to start innovating and become more than an O.S that just "keeps up".
I am hosting a GUI contest and lets hope that it helps shape the future of Linux.
with windows xp, if i want to install something, I double click and install
but on linux you will see something called installation instructions (something almost never seen on windows )
(flash for windows xp (download, close browser, then double click to install)
(flash for linux
1. Click the download link to begin installation. A dialog box will appear asking you where to save the file.
2. Save the .tar.gz file to your desktop and wait for the file to download completely.
3. Unpackage the file. A directory called install_flash_player_10_linux will be created.
4. In terminal, navigate to this directory and type ./flashplayer-installer to run the installer. Click Enter. The installer will instruct you to shut down your browser(s).
5. Once the installation is complete, the plug-in will be installed in your Mozilla browser. To verify, launch Mozilla and choose Help > About Plug-ins from the browser menu.
in the time it takes to do the linux flash install, I could have reinstalled flash on windows xp at least 10 times in a row (stupid to do)
in windows. microsoft has spent a lot of time making everything GUI based, while most open source programs for linux are command line based and most basic functions require command line
when nmap released a gui version of their program. they almost instantly god millions of new users of their software
windows is just simpler to use. while linux may be more stable, windows is just more user friendly.
what is even more of a turnoff is that most linux apps have "install instructions" well if you could make install instructions then why cant you write that in a script to make the install automated
in windows, you can compile your own installers to take a 10 step install process and make it into 1 step, double click to install, why cant they do it in linux? it takes just as much time to write the script as it takes to write the install instructions
I dual boot windows xp and ubuntu and love both of them but i do find windows xp to be more user friendly
First, you say that we need to work on fewer distros, but who chooses which are most important? Damn Small Linux focuses on being able to be run on older hardware. It actually boasts that you can run it on a 486 processor. That is impressive, and has come in handy many times. But I wouldn't want that as my OS on my AMD FX2 with 2 GB of memory. And you would have to do serious work to get Ubuntu, Red Hat, openSUSE, etc. to run with those hardware restrictions. But while DSL is great, when I have a major system problem, I turn to the SystemRescue CD, which has a lot of great tools on it. And like DSL, it also runs on a lot of hardware. Sure some of the distros seem to overlap, but they aren't all designed to be the same thing, and that is one of the nice things about Linux, even if it is a hurdle for newbies.
Second, you are forgetting the strength of open source software. Yes, there are several docks available. But if someone likes a feature from one, they can go to the source code and take it for themselves. Even then, each dock may be trying to accomplish different things. Sure, they all seem to accomplish the same thing, but (going back to my earlier point) some are really fancy and require 3D acceleration, some are really basic and don't need as strong of a video card, and some sit in the middle.
In short, Linux is great about providing the right tool for the right job. If you want to put a nail in a wall to hang a picture, you don't pull out a sledge hammer to drive the nail. If you want to drive a fence post, you wouldn't use a ball-peen hammer. If you want to tow a boat, you probably wouldn't buy a Harley-Davidson. If you wanted to hop into a vehicle to run to the post office, you probably wouldn't hop into a Mack truck.
so we got all thses liberal a-holios shoving thier kind of diversity down our throats trying to implant all kinds of microchips into our kids in school and causing hassles like having to take them god damn kids in for shots or else. they wont let you register them for classes in which case some bich from the department of whatever come and tries to take them away since there not in school.
then this guy here goes on talking avout how everything evolves even computer sofware? which don't make no goddam sense if you even think about it a little i think you just like using big words and try to get everyone thinkin that evolution is real just by saying it agin and again on the internet. evolution evoltuion evolution yu see what im trying to say/ maybe you need to get your butt in church and forget all that college nonsense.
right on!!!
You TRY them, and choose the one YOU like most! With the Add/Remove Apps and Synaptic software libraries, Ubuntu allows you to choose as many apps as you wish, and simply click "Apply" You then open each new app, decide which you like best, and then simply Uncheck the ones you no longer want, and click "Apply" again...honestly, how simple, and border-line lazy, can Ubuntu be. I'm really really really tired of all the "Linux is not user-friendly enough" and "I don't know how to install apps in Linux" complaints!
Linux Distros, and software for those distros, enable people to have choice, and create their own personalized OS based on their needs/wants/personality. XP allows you to change your basic color scheme from blue and green, to the silver look, and thats all the choice you have. With GNOME, you can personalize every single aspect of your desktop. You can simply drag and drop toolbars to all positions on the screen, change the fonts and colors to any combos in the visible light spectrum. Honestly, how can anyone with a personality NOT want to use a Linux distro, or not want the choices of different distros and software. After all, software is supposed to do 1 thing, and do it well. I surely don't want huge bogged down OS's or software packages with a bunch of garbage I'll never use, which will simply take up space on my hard drive, and even more importantly, introduce even more security holes to my system that I would not have, if I am able to choose different pieces of software.
For commercial software companies, Linux is very segmented, every distro has different package formats and configuration differences and it is fast moving target which impossible to catch. So dont expect Photoshop on Linux in your lifetime.
Also, as for learning permissions. Most distros (and ubuntu included) have GUI's for setting directory and file permissions in plain english. And the NEED to have file permissions is for security of your system, (the system's security from family members, friends, employees who may knowingly, or unknowingly fudge up your system by editing/removing important system files), and also from the outside world, ie, hackers who would knowingly gain information to your private files. The permissions also help with simple privacy. I may have files in my home directory that I simply do not want anyone else on my system being able to read, edit, or execute.
The UNIX security model has been adopted by many many OS's, including Mac OS X, if you were unaware of that!
Average computer users fail to realize linux has been used in space missions, and is the most widely used OS in embedded devices including their cell phones and even TV's.
They also fail to realize the free software movement of linux, apache, mysql, php, perl, and python are the backbones of between 60 and 80% of the world's web pages and web servers, not to mention company and industry internal servers.
It is the automation of installing software, and auto-run features that causes Windows to be such a terrible security model. This is the reason spyware and adware are so prevalent on Windows as opposed to OSX and Linux. The uninformed crowds argue Windows is attacked by hackers because of the mere number of users that windows has, but it's really because software devs (spyware, virus, and worm devs) can write software to automatically install itself onto Windows machines. This is why Vista now prompts you a couple times to say "Are you sure you want to install this software?"...something they learned from UNIX-based OS's (OSX and Linux)
By not allowing installations to be automated, makes sure that mal-ware is not allowed to freely install itself onto your system. It also makes sure that the user trying to do the install indeed has the rights to install software on the system, or into any specific directory. Correctly set-up Linux systems will only allow users to install software into their home directory, so even if it is mal-ware, it cannot affect the entire system, only that user's home directory.
Being different is ok, but if you need
to be like windows and mac to gain
acceptance then thats ok too.
for me, the advantages outweigh the issues. but that goes for ubuntu only. the issues you mentioned have been described out of context. you don't seem to care enough to state the distro that you are using.
you said "i really would like to use it, but it's not ready". with that kind of attitude you will never be able to use it, that is what i meant.
To my mind, a good dock would be a solid one that performs well and can be extended and customized to everyone's liking.
I'm never trying to dictate here, more to motivate. Choice is good of course, and people are free to do as they please, but personally I find it frustrating that I am stuck with choosing between program x and program y because each has a feature I want, but not both, and I am no coder to try to borrow needed code from one a program and splice it with another.
Basically the point I'm trying to make is if it makes more sense to contribute to an existing project instead of starting your own, why not do that?
You see a lot of distros that fork from main ones that are identical aside from software loadout. What's the point of that? It might cater for a handful of people that want exactly that, but for the community as a whole it contributes to fragmentation.
Separate projects and forks are fine, but as long as they're done for a very, very good reason and will really offer a different experience for the user.
Linux is really improving at being an OS that's getting friendlier to the average user (thinking of distros like Ubuntu, Mandriva and OpenSUSE), and that's the kind of user that likely isn't going to be willing to learn C and Python just so they can get a program the way they like.
If you can though, by all means go for it, that's what Open Soruce is about, totally. Just what I'm vouching for is a little more collaboration - for project leaders to be willing to accept input from users if it's practical and has some enthusiasm behind it, and for individual developers to be willing to contribute to a larger whole when it makes sense. I see a lot of distros started just to make a name for themselves, that don't really offer anything new.
My article was geared at the desktop market, that's all.
Sorry!
it is hard to stick a thousand people in a room and have them all work together
many different copies of linux have many different features, from the resource hogging effects to lots of networking tools
if they all focus on just a few distros then we will have a linux version of windows vista and it will be slow due to it being bloated (like with vista, things that loaded instantly in xp now take a while to load in vista because instead of just loading the settings window. it has to also load a crap load of eye candy along with it )
People should realize how quickly an OS becomes bloated, and how slow it becomes because of it. Users should not have software on their computer that they will never need to use. Ubuntu is even getting close to being over-bloated with too much software included with the default install.
In fact, OS's are becoming less and less important, and browsers becoming more and more important, with Google leading the way via the Virtual Desktop and cloud computing. The idea of a desktop OS is becoming ObSolete.
I saw the concept of dock for the first time in NeXTstep back in the 90's but it's sun looking glass that showed the world about compositing and dock, apart from the additional visual effects, it seems to me that "expose" was a feature of windows 3.1 and I'm not sure but it could have been a part of gem on ataris or was it on the amiga.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with your posting here but it seems to me you are lacking a grasp on some knowledge of the situation.
Tell ya what go load Linux 0.9.2 vs 2.6.27 an you tell me whether the kernel has not evolved over time. But then I am not suggesting that there was some divine interventionism going on, just incremental improvements.
As to your desire for choice on what gets put in your child's bodies; I am right behind you 100%. Oh, but please sign here, that you take full fiscal responsibility for 3rd parties in the event of communicable disease exposure. Your rights cease when they interfere with mine.
Secondly, the beauty of linux is the Choice.....the Power to choose what u want on YOUR notebook or desktop. For all wanting to converge the desktops, pliz read more aout the desktops.....each has its own niche......XFCE cater for those who have old computers or just simply want a fast and simple desktop, we have others KDE GNOME and a concotion of others.
But i think the bottomline is if u like Linux then there is some of Open-mindedness about you.....not willing to sit around and let one limit your options while still paying? C'mon who is being taken for a ride now?
Linux doesn't have that luxury. It assumes that the Linux OS of choice must run on any hardware, which is where freedom of choice comes in. Lets see if OSX can run on a Dell Latitude and work perfectly out of the box. I bet you its going to come across sooooo many driver issues assuming it even comes up at the boot that people will give up within minutes. I think in that regard OSX will fall hard on its a$$.
So you MAC fan boys out there are nothing but slaves to the OS, not to mention the exorbitant prices you pay for your ignorance.
2.) Stop worrying about everyone else.
3.) Enjoy.
Apples does NOT manufacture most-if-not-all of the components their systems. They use the same motherboards, video cards, hard drives, processors etc etc as every other PC out there. This was already the case pre-Intel processors, but the switch made Macs and PCs virtually the same, minus the over priced aluminum brushed case and other unnecessary things like that.
The reason they "just work", which is a relative statement depending on who you talk to, is because they pick and choose the hardware they want (not manufacture themselves) and cram it into a case/chassis they have designed, which is what makes the driver support easier to deal with in OS X vs. Windows or Linux which needs to work with pretty much everything.
Because of this OS X is already running on everything from newer netbooks including the eeePC, MSI Wind and Dell Mini 9 to lots of different desktops with very little modification needed. There is even a company called Psystar who is in a legal battle with Apple right now for putting together their own computers with similar configurations to Mac desktops and pre-loading OS X Leopard on them for about half the cost. You can also buy a USB dongle that does the EFI/BIOS emulation for you making the install of OS X on "non-mac" hardware easy breezy.
Enlighten yourself and stop being so angry -
http://wiki.osx86project.org
http://www.psystar.com
http://gizmodo.com/5049756/review-efix-dongle-p...
*note I am not a mac user
not cool considering that apple is so quick to stop supporting their old hardware and software that mac fanboys get into the habit of going ape **** over the new mac or the mew macbook (while pc users will just upgrade)
while windows may not be the most stable o, at least microsoft waits a few years before dropping support (while with the mac os, if you don't upgrade, you wont be able to run new software
windows xp was released in October 2001
mac os 9.2 was also released in 2001 (a little bit after xp)
but google any new games thats for windows xp and the mac os, you will see a familiar sight
"Mac OS X 10.5.3 Leopard or higher"
apple has found the perfect way to force people to give them money.
most people rather spend $100 for a new os than give up a $3000 computer
so apple's plan is to release new os as fast as possible and then drop support for the old ones as fast as possible so users will be forced to buy the new os (which may only have 1 or 2 new features that are in most cases useless to most users)
apple has the worst track record for system requirements. just about every new program will fail to work on a mac thats only a few months old
and even worst, apple will drop support for older apps that they profit from so users are forced to buy new software also
it is like apple has brainwashed their fanboys into being smug and happy to give so much money to a greedy company
poor software support is a choice of the company kinda like how direct x 10 is for vista and not xp, while they could make it for xp but then there will be no benefit for a gamer to get vista as vista has lower gaming performance because the os is more of a resource hog
but apple takes it to the next level by making almost everything require a hardware and software upgrade for no reason other than to increase profits
while they may have a good os. I feel that the company is not treating their customers right
I use windows xp, and ubuntu and sometimes the mac os, I find all to have certain benefits but for me when it comes to longevity in support. nothing has beat xp for me yet
I'd suggest qualifying that statement. Driver support by the kernel is quite good and improving constantly. Driver support by the various hardware companies, on the other hand, sucks ... get over it (or so they'd like to tell us)!
I bought a Netgear WG511T wireless card, made sure the atheros driver was installed (a simple apt-get install command IIRC, it's been a couple of years), and Network Manager picked it up instantly. It just worked.
It is more important to empesize how Linux is unique, and what Linux do in different ways than the others.
I think one important reason why people love Linux on the desktops, is that they work efficient on this platform. There are a lot of tasks that you can do with few keystrokes on Linux, and you can do what you want in fractions of a seconds, instead of using much time on clicking around and getting confused. Linux should try to do what Linux do much better than the others.
I love Kde3, where there are a lot of shortcuts and smart ways to work. In the file dialog, i can just use any protocol to access files on remote hosts. To use scp, i write fish://username@host/folder, and you can quickly navigate around with name complation of the folders.
I am just shocked by kde4. Here, some of the real smart things that makes it possible to work fast, are just removed. Instead there are a lot of trendy graphical interfaces. I guess kde has totally lost the target group of users.
Those people that wish fancy grapical interface etc, they don't need Linux. They can use OS X.
Linux should not learn from the others. Linux should learn from the smart things that are done in the Linux-community. The others should have a lot of things to learn from Linux.
Point taken - doesn't make the situation any less than what it is though, which falls somewhere between inconvenient and downright infuriating depending on the hardware. If any OS, be it Linux, Windows or OS X wants to be end user friendly and convenient, then installing drivers via apt-get in a terminal won't cut it. If you do not want your beloved OS to be user friendly for the masses, then by all means continue fighting the good fight of command line installs.
The stance that "stupid users should just stop being stupid and learn the terminal!" just isn't going to cut it. These are the types of issues that need to be addressed by the Linux community as a whole if Linux is truly going to become a mainstream desktop OS, which if you read my entire comment, I really want to see happen. Personally I am more than comfortable using a command line when I need to, but it doesn't mean I want to and it doesn't take away the convenience of having a disk that comes w/ your new hardware that you put in the drive, click 2-5 times and call it a day. Maybe that means exerting more effort to get more hardware manufacturers on board to provide drivers for 'IX like they do for the other major OS's, I don't know. I do know that there will always be issues and room for improvement on any platform, even Linux.
Debates like this is not about killing the free and open spirit. debates like this should be about making this thing useful to the people who might want a free software especially the poor from LCD's and emerging markets of the world. If we ensure that the GPL is not watered down in newer revisions, and don't seek to protect commercial work (for which protection already exist) then there is no fear of the free and open concept dying.
One of the point I disagree with is that we should focus on "ONE" thing, now choice is good always good. Nevertheless, the point of selecting a few and them focusing on them has a whole lot of merit. To this end someone like Linus Tovald whom I consider the "GODFATHER" of Linux with his presence and respect should be allowed to select 5-10 (non-commercial backed) distros and use them and the focus for consolidating developmental efforts using a 5-7 year cycle. The end result would be 5-10 solid, stable distros in addition to the SuSe and RedHat/Fedora etc that would continue. If the GPL is not watered down then anyone can pickup where they left off or start to branch from one of these new distros as usual.
I love Linux but and became a watcher because a friend of mine rescued a virus damaged Thesis from my diskette with linux and that same day say him map his entire drive with just a few clicks of the mouse back in 1988 something that took windows another 6 years to do (and not as well). the big problem is that my resources prevent me from having a machine for just Linux, my time prevents me from fooling around to learn enough to be cool with a dual boot and in any case the is not very comfortable even though she sees lots of positives. Where am I after all this time? Just a Linux watcher & partially because everybody is busy "re-inventing their version of the wheel"
i don't think this post was an attack but a reality check. The Linux community must stop being insular and see the potential that is there.
2) No one is worrying about anyone else. Just shedding some light on the ignorant ones.
3) I for one am enjoying the fact that Linux just works.
The main thing that bugged me was some of the community, people that thought that the user should do everything by themselves, cause that was the way to go. I'm happy to see that changing with distros like Ubuntu.
The number of distros is amazing, but also frightening for the new user. I'm happy that there's a distro for every user. I'm used to Debian/Ubuntu/Mint, but others might like SUSE or Fedora or Gentoo, etc. but this confuses people, especially cause when you buy a computer, usually, you get an OS already installed in it. I might be wrong, but the only distro I know that comes installed in a PC is Ubuntu.
I beleive that Linux will only get more popular as time passes, cause some distros are addressing key issues like easy of install, compatibilty, but it still has a long way to go to.
Windows is for the average user, a little more involved but not that experienced.
Linux is for people who can actually effectively use a computer, and who like all the customizing and interaction.
It's really no use comparing them. They all exist for differrent groups of people, and for now, the people are okay with that.
Free and Open Source Software is an ecosystem of great diversity. That's its strength.
You are proposing to replace the rain forest with a pine farm.
Small teams work better and produce more than large teams. There's a reason Vista was years late to the market and eventually lost every interesting feature that was promised when it was started.
Lots of small projects working to standards is a good thing. The Linux community has Freedesktop.org to create the specifications.
I am aware of all those links you sent me and let me tell you that I have tried installing OSX on non MAC systems and eeePC and Pystar have to try very very very hard to get it working on their hardware. Other companies like Pystar can put MACS on their systems coz they have a whole staff dedicated to figuring out how to get OSX working. I was wondering if you have tried putting OSX on a Dell of your choice at home. I have and it sucks and I am a Programmer and despite my trouble shooting efforts that lasted for over a month it was all in vain.
The point of my post is not whether another company can install OSX on their system. Of course they can. They will probably need to hire kernel hackers to do that (maybe not) but the point is whether a DIY person like myself can install OSX at home.
Linux provides me with that freedom OSX doesn't, its that simple. Next time try installing OSX on a custom built system of your choice and then get back to me.
I think you need to enlighten yourself before you reply to other people's posts..
I still use Windows but because I have to. As a pro photographer Carbonite, APC tools and Adobe are everyday needs for my professional PC. My personal laptop has been Linux for years.
Someone said Windows has easier to install apps, now that made me laugh!!
I would to reseaching about the Linux for my assignment at school. so i would like you to help me to find the result, i hopefully you could help me, thank you very much.
best regard
1.) UI configurability. - Mac and Windows have the ability to look like Mac and Windows, which is partially good from a support perspective because a support person can tell the newbie user to look for the start button. In Linux window managers the possibility for configuration is nearly endless... which is great if you love to tweak the look of your machine and get the "wow" factor from someone looking over your shoulder. If you like the mac interface, customize your linux window manager to mimic the mac interface. If you want it to look like windows, use KDE(sorry, that's an out of date shot at the KDE folks ;) ).
2.) When you say "collaborate" and then in the next section you say "do something new", you realize that the two are somewhat contradictory. Sure there's lots of distributions which seem similar. However, as software decisions are made by the leadership on a project, those who disagree may be more inclined to branch the software on their disagreement in order to prove it's efficacy. Take for instance Compiz and Beryl. Beryl was a branch of Compiz in which the two worked on seemingly similar concepts that they probably could not have done in the same project. Eventually they merged back together, but in the end they benefited from the unfettered ability to try new things. Ubuntu is as welcoming as it is to the new user because it was not under the Debian umbrella. If they were simply committing to Debian, trying to install an Nvidia graphics driver would result in your system telling you that the new driver "taints the kernel" all the time. Don't get me wrong, the Debian folks have, in my opinion, built the strongest distribution for customization and a base for new distributions... but the practicality of their strong free software stance holds back their penetration into the new user market and promotes the idea that you have to be a zealot or a programmer to use Linux.
So, you see, while it may push things forward faster if we all joined hands, picked a "best of breed" and set out to kill the butterfly, it would kill the innovation that is happening all the time in the open source world. And usually, the innovations that are really good end up getting roped into the other distributions anyway. And Linux is already ahead in some things. Ideas are tried and either accepted or discarded far faster in the Linux world than they are anywhere else, which is why Aero and Leopard look so lame in comparison to what Compiz can do.
In the end, it's your computer who should follow your commands, not the other way around. Look at it through this analogy. If you want to jump off a cliff, Windows will prompt you at every step, "Are you sure you want to do this?" A Mac will simply say, "Sorry, I can not allow you to do this." Linux, depending on the distro, might suggest a parachute. Other than that, it assumes you aren't going to do anything you actually don't want to do.