Yes, but Sun and IBM only sponsor development of items of their interest, not really including stuff normal users would like.
India will "officialy" adopt Linux, but likely pirate Windows on and on. Although I would rather see them really embracing Linux because they could grow to be a big force in developing it.
I think once China and India start serious work on Linux it has a chance of growing into a real alternative for the chinese and indian people - it really easy to localise open source software, once the right font support is there.
I just think that to most modern-country people Linux is still no alternative. Developing countries might find it appealing, but they wont buy Apple's hardware in the first place.
Having said that, the indian and chinese will make for a big chunk of the market in 5-10 years (40%+ worldwide) but they're a weak economic force so right now they're not really worth fighting for for a company (Gates is a megalomaniac for doing so, there is _no_ way indian people can afford his software).
I think OSX has great potential capturing more marketshare in the wealthy countries, rhis doesn't mean there will be any big changes "worldwide" though.
I tend to try and avoid getting into debates that read like books. The average consumer simply will compare what Linux vs Microsoft vs Apple and make the best choice as to what meets his/her Value Quotient.
As of now Linux's main draw is low cost OS however the OS for Apple and MS is very small in comparison to total cash outlay for a platform.
So the answer will come down to what each platform offers over the others.
My company uses Citrix but that doesn't mean I want to use Citrix at home so my needs are very different from the Gov of China or India. I don't see a connection there.
Linux will have to offer things that cannot be done on the Mac and PC Platforms ...period. It has to be more than just low cost.
Well, I can't say much more without repeating myself (and you seem to have chosen to ignore the substance of my posts). Look at what it takes to install a font for use with AbiWord -- that is symptomatic of what it takes to do much of anything with Linux.
And this is ready and poised to become the #2 desktop OS? Please. As I mentioned, if it happens, it will be because governments of certain countries (especially India and China) will make it so through law.
Linux is for people who have nothing else better to do.
If you seriously think Linux is a viable alternative for someone like your mom - well, then you've apparently never watched someone use a computer when they have no idea what they're doing.
<strong>Well, I can't say much more without repeating myself (and you seem to have chosen to ignore the substance of my posts). Look at what it takes to install a font for use with AbiWord -- that is symptomatic of what it takes to do much of anything with Linux.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is the substance of your post?
The simple fact is that you agree with me on my main point. You've said twice that Apple and Mac OS X will lose the #2 position to Linux.
I may not have adressed the 'substance' of your posts but that is the thread topic and we agree on it at least.
Your posts I think miss the point. I agree that Mac OS X, which I assume you use and prefer, is a very powerful OS for power users. If you want to do anything digital, be it film, photos, audio and you can afford to buy the best then there is no reason to be using anything else. It gets out of the way and lets you be creative and it has many wonderful tools.
That's why I use it!
But what I do does not in anyway translate into what is popular (in the sense of common, not loved). In effect your telling me that Linux will never be widely used because it is not as good as a niche os like Mac OS X.
Let me use the traditional car analogy to make my point. You are arguing that a incredibly cheap model that gets you from A to B with a minimum of style or comfort will never become popular because it isn't as good as a BMW that only commands a tiny (but very happy) section of the market.
You argue that Linux would succeed if it got its act together but it won't do that because design by commitee doesn't work. I linked to two distributions aimed at the low-end consumer that aren't designed by committee. Go have a look, these are not for the geeks, by the geeks. They even call the main hard drive C: just to make people feel at home. So again, what do we disagree about.
You think that difficulty in installing fonts will hold back the average user, I think you are overestimating the average user if you think that they are all installing fonts willy-nilly on every machine that they use. But the fact is that it will improve, it is improving right now and the more people use, the faster it will improve.
I've repeatedly said that Linux is not better so it would be silly for me to refute your claims that are basically agreeing with me again. The difference is that you think that Linux is below some threshold for user acceptance, and I know that Linux is being installed right now in offices and schools across the globe.
According to the figures that others are bandying about, Linux needs to ship a couple of percent of the total units to beat the Mac. I think this could be done without a single Mac user switching, without a single graphic designer, without a single person who uses photoshop or more than the most basic of Word facilities.
If you are reading this, then you are at the opposite end of the spectrum from the people who will switch first. Just the fact that you paid the premium to get a Mac puts you out of the running. As does the fact that you are actually interested in computers beyond looking at porn, sending blonde jokes via email, writing memos in Word and double-clicking strange looking attachments in Outlook. You are not the market for desktop Linux.
Ordinary people are. People who think that Bill Gates invented the internet. People who maybe don't have a computer at home. Secretaries, cops, teachers, internet cafes and government workers having their machines switched for them by the guys in tech support should be enough for Linux to beat the Mac. And from there it snowballs.
I am failing to see anything contraversial in this. You would think Mac users would have became less wrapped up in marketshare when they noticed that 19 out of every 20 machines are running an inferior OS.
It should have been obvious to you. He says until Linux has the fit and finish of OSX or Windows it won't fly. Operating Systems aimed at the masses are not supposed to be difficult.
[quote] The simple fact is that you agree with me on my main point. You've said twice that Apple and Mac OS X will lose the #2 position to Linux.
<hr></blockquote>
So What? Apple would surely concede #2 provided they remain #2 in Revenue from their OS. None of us really care about total numbers with Linux because it can be downloaded for free and a user can be both a Linux and OSX user. Dubious statistics to say the least.
[quote] But what I do does not in anyway translate into what is popular (in the sense of common, not loved). In effect your telling me that Linux will never be widely used because it is not as good as a niche os like Mac OS X. <hr></blockquote>
No he's basically saying the "Basic Fundamentals and ideologies" of Linux may prevent it's success on the Desktop. Ever heard a Linux fan object to "Redhat Linux" for the fear of Linux becoming fractured? I have.
[quote] Let me use the traditional car analogy to make my point. You are arguing that a incredibly cheap model that gets you from A to B with a minimum of style or comfort will never become popular because it isn't as good as a BMW that only commands a tiny (but very happy) section of the market. <hr></blockquote>
Bad analogy. Linux would be equivalent to a Car that you must tinker under the hood every week to keep running. Cars like that don't last long or make market penetration.
[quote] I am failing to see anything contraversial in this. You would think Mac users would have became less wrapped up in marketshare when they noticed that 19 out of every 20 machines are running an inferior OS.
<hr></blockquote>
You're right. There is nothing controversial about Linux. As a Desktop OS it's prospects are almost nil. It has no proprietary IP that can generate revenue and gross margins necessary to overtake either Apple or MS. Lindows and the other Linux based OS are nice but they won't be able to compete with WMA and Quicktime for formats on the internet.
Apple could always beef up Darwin to compete nicely by having OSX as a front end and Darwin Free for areas where Linux would be beneficial and preferred. Linux has been one of the most overhyped products of the 90's and honestly the momentum is not on the Desktop but still remains Server Based. Meaning only Geeks are really touching it.
Nobody but geeks, tinkerers, tweaks and twiddlers will ever use something like this. Jeez, guys.
My mom, my sister, my friends and pretty much the entire civilized world (myself included) are NOT interested in crap you have to fool around with to get the most basic functions. I install OS X and it works. And for Windows users, God bless them, I'm sure they feel the same way.
There's no nobility or badge of coolness in constantly fücking with your system. That's a common misconception that I'd like to clear up right now.
It's that simple. Sorry if some of you disagree or don't think that's "cool".
Bad analogy. Linux would be equivalent to a Car that you must tinker under the hood every week to keep running. Cars like that don't last long or make market penetration.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How, in the name of all that is holy, can an operating system that you have to tinker with on a weekly basis to keep running also be a highly stable server operating system used by Fortune 500 companies for mission critical apps? One that is used around the globe for embedded apps, like tivo, where a blue screen of death and reboots simply won't fly. How does that make sense?
Is it perhaps because you don't? That you are actually misinformed and don't understand what the strengths and weaknesses of Linux are. You are simply proving my original point, that Apple fans don't even want to understand Linux, but are happy attacking it from a position of ignorance.
pscates gets closer to the truth, but still misses the point:
[quote]
"There's no nobility or badge of coolness in constantly fücking with your system. That's a common misconception that I'd like to clear up right now."
<hr></blockquote>
Geeks **** with their system because they are geeks. They don't have to, they enjoy it. If they didn't enjoy doing it, they wouldn't be geeks. QED
There are members of this forum that would recompile the Mac OS X kernel if they could. What does that prove?
Pay some geeks that know what they are doing to set up a server and you won't have to baby-sit it like it was Windows. It will be rock solid.
Why do you think Apple keeps going on about the legendary stability of Unix?
and as for this:
[quote]
Ever heard a Linux fan object to "Redhat Linux" for the fear of Linux becoming fractured? I have.
<hr></blockquote>
This makes about as much difference as Apple fans whining because Jobs hasn't stuck to the legendary 4 product grid i.e. none.
The whole point of the GPL is that you give away your control of your code. You no longer get to decide what happens to the code you write. And if the authors can't control it, then who gives a flying donut about what some teenage geek on the internet thinks?
<strong>The whole point of the GPL is that you give away your control of your code. You no longer get to decide what happens to the code you write. And if the authors can't control it, then who gives a flying donut about what some teenage geek on the internet thinks?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, and here all the time I thought the point of the GPL was to advance Stallman's socialistic agenda?
Open source is not the same as the GPL -- frankly, there's a reason why the current trend is moving away from the GPL as the license of choice for many open source projects.
But I digress.
PS Call it GNU/Linux, or face the wrath of Stallman!
Well...I may be entering uncharted waters here....
I'm not an OS expert by ANY stretch (I'm a chemical engineer by training), but it seems to me that Linux works so well as a server OS because a server generally (emphasis on generally) does one thing (i.e. serve web pages, ftp server, etc.) The server is not getting a digital camera plugged into it, or an mp3 player, or anything like that. Linux is stable I am sure, but I think the issue here is flexibility.
A consumer desktop OS needs to be able to work with a minimum of user intervention. Someone wants to be able to plug a peripheral into it and NOT have to worry about dl'ing and compiling a driver a la Janie Porsche. Hence the flexibility. Is Linux a good, stable OS? I'm sure it is, but when you run it on a server, you're not going to be doing a lot other than maintaining it. Pardon my ignorance if I am incorrect .
You beat me to the punch. Server are locked into rooms for a reason. I can only imagine how reliable a Server would be with Digicams and Scanner being plugged and unplugged on a daily basis. Imagine a Server with something like Gain on it LOL. It'd be a nightmare.
Hell Linux can continue to grow. I harbor no ill will against it but I do realize that it is an oft overhyped product much like Java and other Tech that simply needs to grow like everything else.
<strong>How, in the name of all that is holy, can an operating system that you have to tinker with on a weekly basis to keep running also be a highly stable server operating system used by Fortune 500 companies for mission critical apps? One that is used around the globe for embedded apps, like tivo, where a blue screen of death and reboots simply won't fly. How does that make sense?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, as someone who works with highly stable servers on a daily basis:
...I'll answer your question. Servers require skill to properly set up, but once you're done, you pretty much just let it do its thing. Once you've configure your web/ftp/dns/whatever server, it's good to go -- it just sits there doing its repetitive chores, needing no intervention from you other than monitoring critical functions (which most admins worth their salt augment with tripwires of various sorts).
Though servers are complex to set up, once everything is set, you don't muck with them much. People who set up servers also happen to know what they are doing (one would hope), and are comfortable editing .conf files in emacs/vi/whatever.
This is in stark contrast to how personal computers are used to do work. The whole "set up and configure" phase has to disappear for end users -- they click the "Install" button, and that's it -- everything should "just work", requiring minimal (if any) interaction from the user to be able to do his thing.
If he wants to install a font he needs for his resume, he should be able to just drag it into a "Fonts" folder and be done with it (actually, it should be even easier than that, but that's another issue entirely). It should not involve having to download a font server like xfs, compile it, install it, configure it, then jump through another set up hoops in the commandline just to get his word processor to "see" and be able to use the font.
You seem to be confusing "stability" (which a properly configured server exhibits) in a very narrow scope that a server needs to operate in with "ease of use" for the extroadinarily wide variety of things a user does on a daily basis.
Sure, to people who don't understand the gory details of computers, servers may seem like incredibly complicated beasts, but in reality, they are quite simple. They do a few things, they do them incredibly often, and once they are set up to do those things, you'd good to go. The average computer user is far, far more demanding in terms of the range and breadth of what they expect a computer to do.
Does that explain why a Linux box makes a great server, but a horrible desktop environment? No? Let me elaborate, then.
While your average techie has no problem firing up a shell and editing a .conf file, doing a make, whatever, the average user is utterly baffled by such things. They don't understand them, they don't want to, and frankly they shouldn't *need* to. I see people with technical experience saying things like "Well, if you don't know how to maintain a computer, you have no business using it!"... and then they promptly hop in their car to drive it to the mechanic, because they have no idea what that "thumping sound is," Failing to grasp the irony of the situation, of course.
The folks with that mentality are largely responsible for Linux. That's cool, if you like tinkering with computers, have an OS that requires it to do your thing. However, these folks are not the right people to build an operating system for computer users who want to work *with* a computer, not *on* it.
If you want to see how ridiculous the whole thing is, check out how many window managers are available for Linux. They all suck, they really do... but you can install and configure as many flavors of suck as you have time for. It gets even more ridiculous when you get into things like holy wars about what widget toolkit should be used for presenting the UI. Dare I delve into the library hell issue? make sure you have the right libc!
The very choice and variety that this mentality breeds may seem like a good thing (and on some levels it is), but it also breeds a plethora of mediocrity, and the most inconsistent user experience on the planet.
Sure, click the shiny "Install" button for Red Hat -- then fall off of a cliff into the commandline to get basic things done. Try using another Linux distro... oops, everything is different! No, sorry, this is not going to fly in the mainstream.
I will grant you, however, that the fact that Linux is FREE, and the fact that it is also largely free of license restrictions makes it very attractive to governments (who consider this type of freedom as a sovereignty issue). It also makes it attactive to people who have no choice because they don't have the money for a commercial OS, or they are using such incredibly old hardware that the current mainstream just isn't an option.
This is why Linux is being pushed in places like India and China, in a big way -- and it is entirely understandable. Who knows, with India's raft of skilled coders, maybe the sheer magnitude of coders will actually make a version of Linux that compares to Windows 3.1 in terms of ease of use.
I'd be happy to see that happed, I just am skeptical, because I've been doing software development for a long, long time, and there are a few truisms I've learned. Design by committee does not work -- let alone a fractured, highly distributed committee. Just "throwing more programmers at the job" does not make the job get done faster -- in fact the interpersonal communication, and lack of clear leadership often hinders it far more than helps it as you add more and more programmers.
The few open source projects that have succeeded extremely well -- Apache is a shining example -- have a few things in common. They have strong leads working on the projects. They have a strong incentive for the projects to succeed (the core developers of the apache team are sysadmins in their day jobs, and are happily paid to improve their code). They have UIs that are designed by geeks, for geeks (.conf, anyone?).
I have yet to see any end-user applications for Linux that shine the way the server-side ones do. That's because the people who are writing these apps are not in touch with the expectations and needs of people who use their computers to get work done. This is also because GUI applications are far more complicated to design than server-side, generally speaking, because they interact with the ultimate challenge: people.
There are some (potentially) promising projects in the works -- AbiWord, OpenOffice, and so on -- but no matter how great people say they are, it just ain't so. Just picking these two products as an example, neither of them have decent import filters for the unfortunately standard Microsoft file formats -- I've seen incredibly simple files get munged when importing them. Do either of them do footnotes or endnotes yet? Last time I checked, the answer was a resounding "no!" -- so much for that term paper.
I could go on, but I'm sure you're bored by now. In short, Linux is not there yet for the desktop, not by a long shot, and given the mentality of the people driving this movement, I can't see it happening any time soon.
It'll take a corporate interest with a cohesive vision to deliver a version of Linux that delivers on this promise of marrying the power of Unix with genuine ease of use. Oh wait, didn't Mac OS X do that already? Ah well, I guess Linux is free... maybe that'll be good enough to garner critical mass in the mainstream, but I'm not holding my breath.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>Is it perhaps because you don't? That you are actually misinformed and don't understand what the strengths and weaknesses of Linux are. You are simply proving my original point, that Apple fans don't even want to understand Linux, but are happy attacking it from a position of ignorance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
PS speaking of Evel Knievel, do you know how many bones he's broken trying to jump those chasms you cited? He's also currently dying of liver disease, because blood in one of his many transfusions from the results of his chasm jumps was tainted with Hepatitus C.
Comments
<strong>
You may be able to make cutbacks to use Linux, but I am not, nor are many others.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can I ask which part of Linux is not better you don't understand?
[ 01-12-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
India will "officialy" adopt Linux, but likely pirate Windows on and on. Although I would rather see them really embracing Linux because they could grow to be a big force in developing it.
I think once China and India start serious work on Linux it has a chance of growing into a real alternative for the chinese and indian people - it really easy to localise open source software, once the right font support is there.
I just think that to most modern-country people Linux is still no alternative. Developing countries might find it appealing, but they wont buy Apple's hardware in the first place.
Having said that, the indian and chinese will make for a big chunk of the market in 5-10 years (40%+ worldwide) but they're a weak economic force so right now they're not really worth fighting for for a company (Gates is a megalomaniac for doing so, there is _no_ way indian people can afford his software).
I think OSX has great potential capturing more marketshare in the wealthy countries, rhis doesn't mean there will be any big changes "worldwide" though.
As of now Linux's main draw is low cost OS however the OS for Apple and MS is very small in comparison to total cash outlay for a platform.
So the answer will come down to what each platform offers over the others.
My company uses Citrix but that doesn't mean I want to use Citrix at home so my needs are very different from the Gov of China or India. I don't see a connection there.
Linux will have to offer things that cannot be done on the Mac and PC Platforms ...period. It has to be more than just low cost.
Lemon Bon Bon
And this is ready and poised to become the #2 desktop OS? Please. As I mentioned, if it happens, it will be because governments of certain countries (especially India and China) will make it so through law.
If you seriously think Linux is a viable alternative for someone like your mom - well, then you've apparently never watched someone use a computer when they have no idea what they're doing.
That'l be interesting.
They'll probably have their minds blown the first time they get to use Windows/MacOS and it's so easy to use . . .
Why isn't Apple totally taking advantage and offering way cheap software?
Hmm.
When Apple finally cracks their last sacred cow, 'Critical Mass', people will paint their bottoms blue and dance naked in the streets...
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>Why isn't Apple totally taking advantage and offering way cheap software?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
...you mean "way cheap" as in how much iPhoto, iTunes, iSynch, and iCal cost?
<strong>Well, I can't say much more without repeating myself (and you seem to have chosen to ignore the substance of my posts). Look at what it takes to install a font for use with AbiWord -- that is symptomatic of what it takes to do much of anything with Linux.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What is the substance of your post?
The simple fact is that you agree with me on my main point. You've said twice that Apple and Mac OS X will lose the #2 position to Linux.
I may not have adressed the 'substance' of your posts but that is the thread topic and we agree on it at least.
Your posts I think miss the point. I agree that Mac OS X, which I assume you use and prefer, is a very powerful OS for power users. If you want to do anything digital, be it film, photos, audio and you can afford to buy the best then there is no reason to be using anything else. It gets out of the way and lets you be creative and it has many wonderful tools.
That's why I use it!
But what I do does not in anyway translate into what is popular (in the sense of common, not loved). In effect your telling me that Linux will never be widely used because it is not as good as a niche os like Mac OS X.
Let me use the traditional car analogy to make my point. You are arguing that a incredibly cheap model that gets you from A to B with a minimum of style or comfort will never become popular because it isn't as good as a BMW that only commands a tiny (but very happy) section of the market.
You argue that Linux would succeed if it got its act together but it won't do that because design by commitee doesn't work. I linked to two distributions aimed at the low-end consumer that aren't designed by committee. Go have a look, these are not for the geeks, by the geeks. They even call the main hard drive C: just to make people feel at home. So again, what do we disagree about.
You think that difficulty in installing fonts will hold back the average user, I think you are overestimating the average user if you think that they are all installing fonts willy-nilly on every machine that they use. But the fact is that it will improve, it is improving right now and the more people use, the faster it will improve.
I've repeatedly said that Linux is not better so it would be silly for me to refute your claims that are basically agreeing with me again. The difference is that you think that Linux is below some threshold for user acceptance, and I know that Linux is being installed right now in offices and schools across the globe.
According to the figures that others are bandying about, Linux needs to ship a couple of percent of the total units to beat the Mac. I think this could be done without a single Mac user switching, without a single graphic designer, without a single person who uses photoshop or more than the most basic of Word facilities.
If you are reading this, then you are at the opposite end of the spectrum from the people who will switch first. Just the fact that you paid the premium to get a Mac puts you out of the running. As does the fact that you are actually interested in computers beyond looking at porn, sending blonde jokes via email, writing memos in Word and double-clicking strange looking attachments in Outlook. You are not the market for desktop Linux.
Ordinary people are. People who think that Bill Gates invented the internet. People who maybe don't have a computer at home. Secretaries, cops, teachers, internet cafes and government workers having their machines switched for them by the guys in tech support should be enough for Linux to beat the Mac. And from there it snowballs.
I am failing to see anything contraversial in this. You would think Mac users would have became less wrapped up in marketshare when they noticed that 19 out of every 20 machines are running an inferior OS.
<hr></blockquote>
It should have been obvious to you. He says until Linux has the fit and finish of OSX or Windows it won't fly. Operating Systems aimed at the masses are not supposed to be difficult.
[quote] The simple fact is that you agree with me on my main point. You've said twice that Apple and Mac OS X will lose the #2 position to Linux.
<hr></blockquote>
So What? Apple would surely concede #2 provided they remain #2 in Revenue from their OS. None of us really care about total numbers with Linux because it can be downloaded for free and a user can be both a Linux and OSX user. Dubious statistics to say the least.
[quote] But what I do does not in anyway translate into what is popular (in the sense of common, not loved). In effect your telling me that Linux will never be widely used because it is not as good as a niche os like Mac OS X. <hr></blockquote>
No he's basically saying the "Basic Fundamentals and ideologies" of Linux may prevent it's success on the Desktop. Ever heard a Linux fan object to "Redhat Linux" for the fear of Linux becoming fractured? I have.
[quote] Let me use the traditional car analogy to make my point. You are arguing that a incredibly cheap model that gets you from A to B with a minimum of style or comfort will never become popular because it isn't as good as a BMW that only commands a tiny (but very happy) section of the market. <hr></blockquote>
Bad analogy. Linux would be equivalent to a Car that you must tinker under the hood every week to keep running. Cars like that don't last long or make market penetration.
[quote] I am failing to see anything contraversial in this. You would think Mac users would have became less wrapped up in marketshare when they noticed that 19 out of every 20 machines are running an inferior OS.
<hr></blockquote>
You're right. There is nothing controversial about Linux. As a Desktop OS it's prospects are almost nil. It has no proprietary IP that can generate revenue and gross margins necessary to overtake either Apple or MS. Lindows and the other Linux based OS are nice but they won't be able to compete with WMA and Quicktime for formats on the internet.
Apple could always beef up Darwin to compete nicely by having OSX as a front end and Darwin Free for areas where Linux would be beneficial and preferred. Linux has been one of the most overhyped products of the 90's and honestly the momentum is not on the Desktop but still remains Server Based. Meaning only Geeks are really touching it.
My mom, my sister, my friends and pretty much the entire civilized world (myself included) are NOT interested in crap you have to fool around with to get the most basic functions. I install OS X and it works. And for Windows users, God bless them, I'm sure they feel the same way.
There's no nobility or badge of coolness in constantly fücking with your system. That's a common misconception that I'd like to clear up right now.
It's that simple. Sorry if some of you disagree or don't think that's "cool".
Linux #2 my ass.
<strong>
Bad analogy. Linux would be equivalent to a Car that you must tinker under the hood every week to keep running. Cars like that don't last long or make market penetration.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How, in the name of all that is holy, can an operating system that you have to tinker with on a weekly basis to keep running also be a highly stable server operating system used by Fortune 500 companies for mission critical apps? One that is used around the globe for embedded apps, like tivo, where a blue screen of death and reboots simply won't fly. How does that make sense?
Is it perhaps because you don't? That you are actually misinformed and don't understand what the strengths and weaknesses of Linux are. You are simply proving my original point, that Apple fans don't even want to understand Linux, but are happy attacking it from a position of ignorance.
pscates gets closer to the truth, but still misses the point:
[quote]
"There's no nobility or badge of coolness in constantly fücking with your system. That's a common misconception that I'd like to clear up right now."
<hr></blockquote>
Geeks **** with their system because they are geeks. They don't have to, they enjoy it. If they didn't enjoy doing it, they wouldn't be geeks. QED
There are members of this forum that would recompile the Mac OS X kernel if they could. What does that prove?
Pay some geeks that know what they are doing to set up a server and you won't have to baby-sit it like it was Windows. It will be rock solid.
Why do you think Apple keeps going on about the legendary stability of Unix?
and as for this:
[quote]
Ever heard a Linux fan object to "Redhat Linux" for the fear of Linux becoming fractured? I have.
<hr></blockquote>
This makes about as much difference as Apple fans whining because Jobs hasn't stuck to the legendary 4 product grid i.e. none.
The whole point of the GPL is that you give away your control of your code. You no longer get to decide what happens to the code you write. And if the authors can't control it, then who gives a flying donut about what some teenage geek on the internet thinks?
<strong>The whole point of the GPL is that you give away your control of your code. You no longer get to decide what happens to the code you write. And if the authors can't control it, then who gives a flying donut about what some teenage geek on the internet thinks?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Gee, and here all the time I thought the point of the GPL was to advance Stallman's socialistic agenda?
Open source is not the same as the GPL -- frankly, there's a reason why the current trend is moving away from the GPL as the license of choice for many open source projects.
But I digress.
PS Call it GNU/Linux, or face the wrath of Stallman!
I'm not an OS expert by ANY stretch (I'm a chemical engineer by training), but it seems to me that Linux works so well as a server OS because a server generally (emphasis on generally) does one thing (i.e. serve web pages, ftp server, etc.) The server is not getting a digital camera plugged into it, or an mp3 player, or anything like that. Linux is stable I am sure, but I think the issue here is flexibility.
A consumer desktop OS needs to be able to work with a minimum of user intervention. Someone wants to be able to plug a peripheral into it and NOT have to worry about dl'ing and compiling a driver a la Janie Porsche. Hence the flexibility. Is Linux a good, stable OS? I'm sure it is, but when you run it on a server, you're not going to be doing a lot other than maintaining it. Pardon my ignorance if I am incorrect
You beat me to the punch. Server are locked into rooms for a reason. I can only imagine how reliable a Server would be with Digicams and Scanner being plugged and unplugged on a daily basis. Imagine a Server with something like Gain on it LOL. It'd be a nightmare.
Hell Linux can continue to grow. I harbor no ill will against it but I do realize that it is an oft overhyped product much like Java and other Tech that simply needs to grow like everything else.
<strong>How, in the name of all that is holy, can an operating system that you have to tinker with on a weekly basis to keep running also be a highly stable server operating system used by Fortune 500 companies for mission critical apps? One that is used around the globe for embedded apps, like tivo, where a blue screen of death and reboots simply won't fly. How does that make sense?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, as someone who works with highly stable servers on a daily basis:
[asgard:~] andrew% uptime
4:37AM up 118 days, 18:10, 2 users, load averages: 0.01, 0.00, 0.00
...I'll answer your question. Servers require skill to properly set up, but once you're done, you pretty much just let it do its thing. Once you've configure your web/ftp/dns/whatever server, it's good to go -- it just sits there doing its repetitive chores, needing no intervention from you other than monitoring critical functions (which most admins worth their salt augment with tripwires of various sorts).
Though servers are complex to set up, once everything is set, you don't muck with them much. People who set up servers also happen to know what they are doing (one would hope), and are comfortable editing .conf files in emacs/vi/whatever.
This is in stark contrast to how personal computers are used to do work. The whole "set up and configure" phase has to disappear for end users -- they click the "Install" button, and that's it -- everything should "just work", requiring minimal (if any) interaction from the user to be able to do his thing.
If he wants to install a font he needs for his resume, he should be able to just drag it into a "Fonts" folder and be done with it (actually, it should be even easier than that, but that's another issue entirely). It should not involve having to download a font server like xfs, compile it, install it, configure it, then jump through another set up hoops in the commandline just to get his word processor to "see" and be able to use the font.
You seem to be confusing "stability" (which a properly configured server exhibits) in a very narrow scope that a server needs to operate in with "ease of use" for the extroadinarily wide variety of things a user does on a daily basis.
Sure, to people who don't understand the gory details of computers, servers may seem like incredibly complicated beasts, but in reality, they are quite simple. They do a few things, they do them incredibly often, and once they are set up to do those things, you'd good to go. The average computer user is far, far more demanding in terms of the range and breadth of what they expect a computer to do.
Does that explain why a Linux box makes a great server, but a horrible desktop environment? No? Let me elaborate, then.
While your average techie has no problem firing up a shell and editing a .conf file, doing a make, whatever, the average user is utterly baffled by such things. They don't understand them, they don't want to, and frankly they shouldn't *need* to. I see people with technical experience saying things like "Well, if you don't know how to maintain a computer, you have no business using it!"... and then they promptly hop in their car to drive it to the mechanic, because they have no idea what that "thumping sound is," Failing to grasp the irony of the situation, of course.
The folks with that mentality are largely responsible for Linux. That's cool, if you like tinkering with computers, have an OS that requires it to do your thing. However, these folks are not the right people to build an operating system for computer users who want to work *with* a computer, not *on* it.
If you want to see how ridiculous the whole thing is, check out how many window managers are available for Linux. They all suck, they really do... but you can install and configure as many flavors of suck as you have time for. It gets even more ridiculous when you get into things like holy wars about what widget toolkit should be used for presenting the UI. Dare I delve into the library hell issue? make sure you have the right libc!
The very choice and variety that this mentality breeds may seem like a good thing (and on some levels it is), but it also breeds a plethora of mediocrity, and the most inconsistent user experience on the planet.
Sure, click the shiny "Install" button for Red Hat -- then fall off of a cliff into the commandline to get basic things done. Try using another Linux distro... oops, everything is different! No, sorry, this is not going to fly in the mainstream.
I will grant you, however, that the fact that Linux is FREE, and the fact that it is also largely free of license restrictions makes it very attractive to governments (who consider this type of freedom as a sovereignty issue). It also makes it attactive to people who have no choice because they don't have the money for a commercial OS, or they are using such incredibly old hardware that the current mainstream just isn't an option.
This is why Linux is being pushed in places like India and China, in a big way -- and it is entirely understandable. Who knows, with India's raft of skilled coders, maybe the sheer magnitude of coders will actually make a version of Linux that compares to Windows 3.1 in terms of ease of use.
I'd be happy to see that happed, I just am skeptical, because I've been doing software development for a long, long time, and there are a few truisms I've learned. Design by committee does not work -- let alone a fractured, highly distributed committee. Just "throwing more programmers at the job" does not make the job get done faster -- in fact the interpersonal communication, and lack of clear leadership often hinders it far more than helps it as you add more and more programmers.
The few open source projects that have succeeded extremely well -- Apache is a shining example -- have a few things in common. They have strong leads working on the projects. They have a strong incentive for the projects to succeed (the core developers of the apache team are sysadmins in their day jobs, and are happily paid to improve their code). They have UIs that are designed by geeks, for geeks (.conf, anyone?).
I have yet to see any end-user applications for Linux that shine the way the server-side ones do. That's because the people who are writing these apps are not in touch with the expectations and needs of people who use their computers to get work done. This is also because GUI applications are far more complicated to design than server-side, generally speaking, because they interact with the ultimate challenge: people.
There are some (potentially) promising projects in the works -- AbiWord, OpenOffice, and so on -- but no matter how great people say they are, it just ain't so. Just picking these two products as an example, neither of them have decent import filters for the unfortunately standard Microsoft file formats -- I've seen incredibly simple files get munged when importing them. Do either of them do footnotes or endnotes yet? Last time I checked, the answer was a resounding "no!" -- so much for that term paper.
I could go on, but I'm sure you're bored by now. In short, Linux is not there yet for the desktop, not by a long shot, and given the mentality of the people driving this movement, I can't see it happening any time soon.
It'll take a corporate interest with a cohesive vision to deliver a version of Linux that delivers on this promise of marrying the power of Unix with genuine ease of use. Oh wait, didn't Mac OS X do that already? Ah well, I guess Linux is free... maybe that'll be good enough to garner critical mass in the mainstream, but I'm not holding my breath.
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>Is it perhaps because you don't? That you are actually misinformed and don't understand what the strengths and weaknesses of Linux are. You are simply proving my original point, that Apple fans don't even want to understand Linux, but are happy attacking it from a position of ignorance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
PS speaking of Evel Knievel, do you know how many bones he's broken trying to jump those chasms you cited? He's also currently dying of liver disease, because blood in one of his many transfusions from the results of his chasm jumps was tainted with Hepatitus C.
Look before you leap.
[ 01-13-2003: Message edited by: moki ]</p>