Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Does Open Source Software Really Work?

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the gotta-make-it-work dept.

Linux 499

reflexreaction writes "This article on NewsFactor does a decent job of covering some of the issues facing Open Source Software (OSS). It points to Linux's growth area, non-mission critical projects in mid-sized companies, and its main weakness, the desktop. It also briefly discusses Linux's potential growth into mission critical applications if scalability issues are addressed. Quick easy read. My favorite quote from the article "Linux on the desktop is toast.""

cancel ×

499 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

easy answer ! (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233578)

not at all, unless you don't want it to !

Re:easy answer ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233589)

I rightfully claim this first post in the name of ACs everywhere.

Re:easy answer ! (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233604)

AC ???
Adolf Chitroll ?

Re:easy answer ! (-1)

Ralph Malph Alpha (551824) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233664)

The solution to problems like you is homicide.

Re:easy answer ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233708)

Sorry, what did you say? I was too busy humping your mom's sweet booty.

Re:easy answer ! (-1)

Ralph Malph Alpha (551824) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233737)


First, that was me in drag, not my mum, since I don't even know who my mum is. The presence of a scrotum and oversized rhino-like penis should have given that away, but I guess not everyone's as sexually naive as you are. And sweet doesn't begin to describe my booty's bounties. You do me a great disservice, sir, and next time I expect payment in cash and not restaurant coupons. Please also bring a dildo next time, or at least a wellhung black or polynesian friend so that my time isn't completely wasted on your miniscule but charming lovethang.

LOVE YA, BOY!

second too ? (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233582)

what the Hell ???

Are the others on strike ?
come on !

Re:second too ? (-1)

The_Fire_Horse (552422) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233647)

It's funny you should say that - I got the first post a couple of weeks ago and there was no one else posting for what seemed like ages.
So I tried for a second post - and guess what... the bastard moderators modded me down for my FIRST and SECOND(third actually) posts - what pricks !!!!

Re:second too ? (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233675)

I finally found my 3-times exploit [slashdot.org] ...

Re:second too ? (-1)

The_Fire_Horse (552422) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233732)

you lucky bastard!
This should go into some sort of Hall of Fame, surely - Taco? What do you think!

Wizard's First Rule: (0, Insightful)

Teknogeek (542311) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233583)

People are stupid.

It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.

They'll take one look at a Slackware install, say "WTF this doesn't have AOL", and go back to sacrificing money to the stone idol of Bill Gates.

It's a paradox: we can't get the big names to make Linux software if there aren't enough people to make it profitable, and there won't be enough people to make it profitable if there aren't any big names.

SO MY APE-POOP LOVING FRIEND!!!!! (-1)

L.Torvalds (548450) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233610)

How do YOU feel about the niggeroes suing Open-Source over OSS's use of slave (non-wage) labor?

Re:Wizard's First Rule: (5, Insightful)

Carp Flounderson (542291) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233613)

Nope... the biggest obstacle to Linux is people who say: People are stupid. It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.

Why can't folks like you figure it out that not everyone wants to study the internal workings of obscure OS's. That has nothing to do with stupidity. Do you think most people who use windows even know a definition of "Operating System"? No! Because they don't need to and shouldn't have to! The interface is intuitive enough so that people can quickly figure out how to do what they want to do, move on and be productive. Learning thousands of rediculous shell commands with all their options is not intuitive and makes people become distracted from what they want to use their PC's for. Hacking config files, compiling software, unsucessfully hunting for apps with well thought out user interfaces... these are things that drive away linux users. Look at this story! If it were left in a comment on /. it would be modded into oblivion because nobody here can solve these problems, so they ignore them.

LOOOOOOOOOL! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233662)

LoloLoLoLoLoLoLoloolLOOoloOl!

I am so gaaaaaaaaaaay!

But at least I haven't been trolled by someone posing as a 14 year old Lunix zealot!

LOOOOOOOOOOOL!

Re:LOOOOOOOOOL! (-1)

Carp Flounderson (542291) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233694)

please... you give the original poster too much credit. his gayness is obviously genuine.

Re:Wizard's First Rule: (1, Offtopic)

zephc (225327) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233624)

you mean like:
"we can't make a triumphant video until we get eddy van halen, but how can we get eddy van halen unless we have a triumphant video?" - bill and ted (paraphrased)

Off the horse, sir (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233639)

"People" aren't "stupid" - but not everyone that could benefit from using a personal computer has had the benefit of being intimately familiar with one for years or decades, unlike most geeks. The Macintosh didn't take off in academia because the scientists and professors that took to it were too "stupid" to master the alternatives.

Unnecessary complexity does not appeal to everyone. Most, as is obvious from sales figures, are willing to sacrifice the extremes of utility, security, configurability, etc. in exchange for ease of use. View this as heresy if you like, look down on those "stupid" people all you want, but the fact is - most adults lead complex-enough lives as-is. If I hadn't been hacking UNIX for the past 20 years, there's no way in hell any Linux distro would appeal to me over MacOS or Windows.

People aren't necessarily stupid just because they can't be bothered to learn complex new OS environments for negligible gain (for their purposes, not yours). Most people just want to look at the mummies, and despite the museum curators' infantile protesting to the contrary, not learning to interpret hieroglyphs doesn't make them "stupid".

Re:Off the horse, sir (2, Insightful)

The_Fire_Horse (552422) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233676)

While what you say is fair, I must say that anyone who uses a computer for any length of time (in a business at least), should be trained.

Not Word, or Excel or graphics - but TRAINED HOW TO USE A DAMN COMPUTER

It doesnt really matter what OS they are using, the basic *understanding* is the same.

1. If I type shit in, I need to save it somewhere
2. The shit that I typed in, is saved in what is called a 'file'. This file exists in a folder/directory on the hard disk.
3. Just because I printed the shit out, doesn't mean it is saved
4. I need to make a backup of the file from my hard drive, because hard drives can - and WILL - fail.

People aren't stupid, but if they use a computer - they really need to LEARN the very basics of it.

Managers are NOT excluded.

Re:Off the horse, sir (1)

NinjaGaidenIIIcuts (568607) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233692)

Well from his thinking, who doesn't learn how to use Linux is stupid.

Could be that some alien is watching him, measuring his knowledge, and calling him stupid because he doesn't know how to build a top-notch UFO.

It's all a matter of comparison.

Re:Wizard's First Rule: (-1)

I have nutsack (568415) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233642)

People are stupid.

I agree, dear chum. I often encounter the same closed-mindedness when extolling the virtues of nut transportation satchels. Sure, to some, it's just a sack within which one may store and/or transport nuts. They say "I don't need a nutsack", or "I already have a nutsack, and it works fine", or "get your nutsack away from my child", or "put that nutsack away, I don't care if you drew a face on it, and can wiggle it around so it looks like the face is talking".

Indeed, people can be stupid. However, the best solution is to be tenacious. When someone tells me to get my nutsack out of their face, I just push it closer, hoping maybe they'll see the beauty of it. Perhaps they'll realize that a nutsack isn't just a convenient tool for transporting one's nuts; it's a masterpiece of engineering. Every nutsack is a testament to god's greatness as the creator of this great Earth we call home.

And my nutsack in particular is the messiah [slashdot.org] . One day you will see. You will bow before its greatness, and caress its wrinkled, leathery glory.

Re:Wizard's First Rule: (3, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233681)


People are stupid.

It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.


True, these people are also linux developers.

What I find funny is you guys look at people using MSFT by choice as a problem. Aren't OSS/linux cult people by nature pro-freedom-choice. So if a user CHOOSES to use windows isn't that a good thing? I thought the gloves only come off when they have no choice?

Since when was the Linux crowd about a bunch of pathetic sore losers? Maybe if y'all stop pissing and whining you'd get more credible attention instead of throwing fits like 6 yr old girls.

Tom

Re:Wizard's First Rule: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233701)

arrogant IT people who live in their heads as gods are so cool, where do i sign up to be one? seriously, if i see yet another geeky guy with a shit attitude when it comes towards anyone not interested in how their wonderful computer works but would rather use it to do their job.

Re:Wizard's First Rule: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233715)

Well, since you mentioned big companies and software in the same sentence let's see: Corel .. tried and fail ... The Kompany they are trying to make money but some people is giving them hell about it as alrady has been discussed in /. Loki ... a failure ... Ximian ... I don't know how profitable they are.
I don't know, but if i had a buisiness and i saw these companies failing why would i even want to try and write any software for people that are not used buying software?

Re:Wizard's First Rule: (5, Insightful)

yatest5 (455123) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233716)

People are stupid. It's the biggest obstacle to Linux.

What a truly ignorant point of view. Boo hooo, the public don't understand how to use Linux, that's their fault. No - if Linux wants to successful on the desktop, it needs to satisfy the public's needs. If it's being written by a load of arrogant wankers (which I'm not saying it is) who think the public are 'stupid' for what they want, then it is toast.

On the behalf of the general public, fuck you.

NewsFactor (2, Insightful)

prostoalex (308614) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233584)

As usually, the article comes to the conclusion that it's mostly lack of applications that hampers Linux, more than anything else.

Then it's good news ! (3, Insightful)

mirko (198274) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233602)

10 years ago, people were reproaching Linux with its lack of drivers and now, some whine about its lack of applications...

I guess it'll soon be fixed once people express their needs instead of their "états d'âme".

And BTW, the loudest ones are also the ones that are supposed to pay for apps, so, let's give money to Sun or Ximian or whoever develop corporate stuff and we'll soon have more than enough Office Suites, etc.

Of course, the others who actually work with Linux on a daily basis just didn't remark such lacks and, for example, are happy with the light-weight Ted when it comes to view/edit/print RTF :-)

Re:Then it's good news ! (1)

NinjaGaidenIIIcuts (568607) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233719)

The first rule [slashdot.org] never fails...

Re:NewsFactor (-1)

I have nutsack (568415) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233685)

As usually, the article comes to the conclusion that it's mostly lack of applications that hampers Linux

That's quite an interesting theory. However, I'm not so sure if I can vouch for its validity. You see, I have much the same problem when preaching the virtues of nut transportation satchels.

My satchel, or "nutsack" as I refer to it, certainly has no shortage of applications. I mainly use it to transport my nuts, but as I've elaborated previously, my nutsack may be used as anything from a hat, to a hand puppet. Occasionally, I'll walk up behind people sitting at a bus stop, and drape my nutsack over their head. Yet this has done nothing to increase its popularity.

I often approach people at formal gatherings, and as I reach to shake their hand, I deftly place my nutsack into their palm, so they may experience its leathery texture; so they may briefly glimpse the joy my nutsack brings to women and children around the world.

Most often, they drop my nutsack, and turn away. More than once my nutsack has been dropped on the ground, and trampled beneath the feet of those who are not careful, as I try in vain to retrieve it. Every time my nutsack is crushed beneath the feet of strangers, I wince. I cringe. Nobody's nutsack should take such abuse, and yet I put up with such abuse with mine.

I do it for the benefit of mankind. You must do the same with this "Linux". Just as I am relentless in exposing my nutsack to the public, you must expose this "Linux" to the public. I will help. I will write "Linux" on my nutsack with a magic marker, so that when I am place my nutsack into a child's hands for the first time, not only will he feel the leathery glory of my nutsack, but he will also experience this "Linux" of yours. Hopefully he will ask "what is this 'Linux', which is written across your nutsack, oh great one?". I will respond "Linux, like my nutsack, is the way things will be, upon the reckoning, oh child."

After all, children are our future, and my nutsack is the bridge between generations.

jamais 2 sans 3... (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233585)

I hope it won't be the case as this story really looks trollish !!!

Toast? (2, Insightful)

PigleT (28894) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233586)

"Linux on the desktop is toast."

Takes two to make a desktop work.

I'm running Debian/unstable, blackbox, mozilla, and a few multi-gnome-terminals, oh and emacs21, here, oh and the box is using XFS on LVM just for fun as well.

Do you think the author would know one of these if it bit them on the bum?

People ought to define this idea of "the desktop", because I keep thinking people mean "it's got to be accepted by mass corporations", for no good reason.
If there's one thing I've fought AGAINST it's getting the clueless masses involved in linux in any way; I am so not interested in fielding "mummy, if I click here it segfaults!" on usenet it's incredible.

Re:Toast? (5, Funny)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233625)

I just this week installed Mandrake 8.2 on my machine. If linux on the desktop is toast, then it's nicely browned toast with lots of butter and strawberry jam :-)

Re:Toast? (1)

_Ash_ (126458) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233633)

I am sorry to say so, but I don't agree with you. Ofcourse you can run Linux as a desktop system (I do so too). However, in this context "it's got to be accepted by mass corporations" (or the masses) is precisely what we're talking about.

The so-called consumer level users will not turn to Linux because they are used to very simple configuring. I am sorry to say so, but Windows beats the crap out of Linux for easy configuring. Ofcourse, if you have some experience configuring Linux isn't hard, but if you start using it and have no experience at all you can get quite overwhelmed. When you started using Linux, did you understand all the configuring completely? I don't believe so. I am not saying you will understand Windows configuring the first time you use it, but for most users, it's style of configuring is more intuitive (that's not only my opinion, but also of some ergonomists I know).
Take for example the configuring of USB devices. In windows you plug it in and in most cases it works (yes, I did say in most cases). In Linux you have to rebuild your kernel first. I can imagine most novice users will be scared of that.

And that's why it is, at least in my mind, stupid to "fight against getting the clueless masses involved in linux". When you started using Linux, weren't you pleased with the help you could get on the Internet (usenet, www, whatever)? I was.

Maybe this elite attitude is precisely what holds Linux from breaking through on major scale.

Re:Toast? (2)

PigleT (28894) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233648)

"I am sorry to say so, but Windows beats the crap out of Linux for easy configuring."

You think? Find me someone who's used neither before, and get them to give you an impartial view of the "control panel" systen. Sure I know much of that inside-out on everything from win3 to 2k and back, but then I also know my way around /etc on more than one distro, and I know which I *prefer*.

And you don't address the idea of folks who don't *know* stuff becoming less ignorant - because the real crime here is cluelessness and not *wanting* to learn to use what's in front of you. I say let M$loth keep those cretins to themselves; these are not the droids I'm looking for.

"Maybe this elite attitude is precisely what holds Linux from breaking through on major scale."

When you see that bums on seats is no measure of quality (except perhaps to say "we glossed over all the interesting bits to make life easier for the mythical `luser'"), you'll see why I have no problem with this idea at all.

Re:Toast? (1)

_Ash_ (126458) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233665)

You think? Find me someone who's used neither before, and get them to give you an impartial view of the "control panel" systen. Sure I know much of that inside-out on everything from win3 to 2k and back, but then I also know my way around /etc on more than one distro, and I know which I *prefer*.

Hey, I prefer Linux too. But if I take the average user they rather "click" on things in stead of altering configuration text files.

the real crime here is cluelessness and not *wanting* to learn to use what's in front of you.

Well, isn't the fact that they post a message on usenet a first sign of wanting to learn something? Ofcourse, maybe they should try it for themselves for a bit longer time but still, especially when you first start using Linux (or any other *NIX system, of which, I am happy to so, Linux is the easiest to learn) you can get a bit overwhelmed.

Maybe this elite attitude is precisely what holds Linux from breaking through on major scale."

When you see that bums on seats is no measure of quality (except perhaps to say "we glossed over all the interesting bits to make life easier for the mythical `luser'"), you'll see why I have no problem with this idea at all.


You are right about that quantity is not a measure for quality, and maybe I should have said it in a different way, but still, it is the elite attitude of some Linux users which really offends me. I have encountered lots of the "I do know it, but you, well, find it out for yourself, loser" type of users. Those kind of users are really the rotten apples in the community.

Re:Toast? (2)

PigleT (28894) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233684)

"Well, isn't the fact that they post a message on usenet a first sign of wanting to learn something?"

Sometimes. Sometimes it's also done cluelessly.

"Those kind of users are really the rotten apples in the community."

Quite probably so. Maybe in their case it's because they *don't* know the answers either and just have lousy egos.

"You are right about that quantity is not a measure for quality,"

Sure. It's one of those things I've always said, I'm not interested in count(bums_on_seats) or "linux" having a bigger user-base than M$loth; I'm interested in there being a louder quality signal from the user-base. Yesterday, I read an article on uk.comp.os.linux quoting a cable-modem installing company telling its field-rep "if it's a linux user, they'll know what they're doing, just get the MAC address and let them work out DHCP". That's what I'm proud to see.

The key here is the "sometimes", I think. It's not lack of knowlege of how your OS works, it's the clue to look locally and then remotely for documentation, *READ* the blighters, and try things out. It's not the fact that someone knowing only a little appears on one of "my" newsgroups, it's whether they want to learn or not. And of course it's possible for me to exhibit a lousy attitude on usenet (or here ;) but it generally doesn't happen.

Re:Toast? (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233704)

The "control panel" system has one huge advantage over /etc. (note: I'm assuming configuration is done by editing text files, without a GUI front end to the settings)

In a control panel, every available option is visible. When I want to add a network connection, I get a list of available protocols. When I enter a parameter, my input is checked for validity.

Contrast this with text files. Yes, you do have access to all the options, and yes, for an experienced user it can be faster than having to go through a wizard. But one typo can result in a nonfunctional system. The only way to make sure your input is correct is by manually checking everything, consulting with the manpage on every step.

With the "control panel" system, it's a lot easier to get comfortable with changing the configuration. I don't want to have to remember which options are valid in /etc/whatever. In a control panel system, I only need to remember the general location of an option, as opposed to its exact syntax.

Someone who's used neither before but has a working knowledge of computer technology in general, can be up and running much faster with a control panel system than with text files.

Now, this is not to say the control panel system is perfect. Wizards can be a nuisance for experienced users, some options are hidden in non-intuitive places, etc.

But if the Linux developer community has no interest in making life easier for the mythical `luser', then their presence on the desktop deserves to remain marginal.

Re:Toast? (2)

PigleT (28894) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233723)

"The only way to make sure your input is correct is by manually checking everything, consulting with the manpage on every step."

Actually, no, the answer is to learn to *read*. I go for whole years at a stretch without seeing any obscure error messages, things to which the answer is either "don't do that then" or "oops, quick tweak, goodie". You just have to understand getting your kicks in text-mode.

" Someone who's used neither before but has a working knowledge of computer technology in general, can be up and running much faster with a control panel system than with text files."

You're only a newbie once, or on a slow day, maybe twice.
Thereafter you're a serious user, and you're getting well bummed-out at having to click through reams of cruddy windows to find the one option you lost.

"But if the Linux developer community has no interest in making life easier for the mythical `luser', then their presence on the desktop deserves to remain marginal."

You don't get it. There is no `deserve' about it, and there's no negative stigma about `marginal' at all.

This boils down to educating the user-base, and in particular, those who don't want to be educated are the ones to whom businesses are pandering, and it makes me sick.

Re:Toast? (2)

Arker (91948) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233734)

The "control panel" system has one huge advantage over /etc. (note: I'm assuming configuration is done by editing text files, without a GUI front end to the settings)
In a control panel, every available option is visible. When I want to add a network connection, I get a list of available protocols. When I enter a parameter, my input is checked for validity.
Contrast this with text files. Yes, you do have access to all the options, and yes, for an experienced user it can be faster than having to go through a wizard. But one typo can result in a nonfunctional system. The only way to make sure your input is correct is by manually checking everything, consulting with the manpage on every step.

However these are not the only options. A gui wraparound to a text based system configuration system can easily be even easier to use than a control panel metaphor. It can also be just as fast in the hands of an expert.

Re:Toast? (1)

PigleT (28894) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233661)

I forgot one thing to reply to:

"When you started using Linux, weren't you pleased with the help you could get on the Internet (usenet, www, whatever)?"

Not an awful lot, no. I'd been using linux myself reading TFM (and, dammit, info pages as well) and occasionally bouncing ideas off one or two friends for a few years before I first subscribed to my local newsgroup. The only times I've used the HOWTOs collection recently is when I need a hardware-compatibility check.

And now I'm on a few, on such occasions as I answer apparent newbies, I make sure it's those who exude *clue* not just "I'm a newbie please be nice to me" apologetics - listen and learn, don't whine.

Re:Toast? (1)

_Ash_ (126458) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233679)

Well, I can't deny you're right about that. But still, in my early days I found that the Internet was pretty much bliss if you were having obscure hardware problems and more of that stuff.
But I guess your reply will be "but that kind of questions are precisely the ones I would answer".

Hmm, maybe I'm agreeing more with you then I first thought :)

Re:Toast? (2)

PigleT (28894) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233696)

"But I guess your reply will be "but that kind of questions are precisely the ones I would answer"."

I'm not so (un)fortunate as to know enough be the next AC, but such as I know I'll gladly share by pointing folks in the right direction, if they look interested enough and don't always seek a "just click here" answer.
I come from days when the Armadillo book (Essential Unix Sysadmin) was good reading - but it talked about Solaris. I suspect I'm very server-orientated in approach - the old unix province of Clueful Folks is something I see as on its demise when I was getting out of uni into the job market.

"Hmm, maybe I'm agreeing more with you then I first thought :) "

It's allowed ;8)

Summary (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233682)

You: "Hi, I'm an arrogant twit!"
Others: "Yeah, but that's lame"
You: "Hoity-toity blah blah! I am arrogant!"
Others: "Yes, but why?"
You: "Har har har! All are beneath me!"
Others: "Yes, OK"
You: "Ho ho, I look down on thee and thy! Arrogance!"
Others: "Yes, but that's stupid"
You: "I know more than you! And you! And them! I revel in my knowledge!"
Others: "Yes, I don't understand"
You: "Everyone but me is forbidden to use Linux from here on out! It is but for me! Fear my intellectual might!"
Others: "Yes, but that's nonsensical"
You: "I am the Lord thy God and thou shalt have no other gods before me!"

Re:Toast? (3, Informative)

Matts (1628) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233699)

Take for example the configuring of USB devices. In windows you plug it in and in most cases it works (yes, I did say in most cases). In Linux you have to rebuild your kernel first. I can imagine most novice users will be scared of that.

What distribution are you running? On the majority of "new" distributions (e.g. Mandrake, Red Hat, SuSE - which covers 95% or more of new users' desktop Linux distribution) this stuff is already compiled into the kernel as a module, and it's plug and go, except that unlike on Windows you don't need to insert a driver disk from your manufacturer (it either works or it flat out doesn't - but that's a different argument to whether it's easy to configure or not - thats an issue of manufacturer support for Linux).

Re:Toast? (1)

_Ash_ (126458) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233739)

Right now I'm using Debian/unstable, but when I first start using Debian a couple of years ago, the USB support wasn't compiled into the kernel, so I did it myself.
I don't know if it is compiled into the kernel in Debian/stable right now, simply because I have always been using Debian/unstable and building the kernels myself.

Re:Toast? (2)

Matts (1628) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233752)

Debian is not a desktop or first time user OS. Sure it works great for geeks, but I wouldn't give a debian CD to my mother and expect her to get it working (however I might consider giving her an installed debian system). Debian doesn't automatically configure sound cards. It doesn't automatically configure networking. It doesn't automatically do a hell of a lot of things that other distributions' installers do, and have been doing for years. I don't have anything against Debian, but please don't use it as an example when arguing about the Linux battle for desktop acceptance.

Re:Toast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233683)

..,I am so not interested in fielding "mummy, if I click here it segfaults!" on usenet it's incredible.

WTF?? Segfaulting is because of stoopid users?? Ok, how about that one: I am so not interested in fielding mummy-i-write-my-scripts-in-perl-using-emacs-why-d ont-people-call-me-a-guru?-dumb-asses on slashdot it's incredible.

Hey little dude! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233590)

You know those TV commercials with "Steven" for Dell, and those cow commercials for Gateway? Here's what I'd like to see:

The commercial opens with a distant establishing shot of a verdant country pasture bathed in early morning mists. Cut to a close-up of Steven's smiling face. We see that Steven is animated, his tongue darting out of his mouth and his eyes rolling up into his head. Cut to a medium shot. We see that Steven is fucking the Gateway cow in the ass. The cow turns and looks at the camera and says "moo". Behind a tree we see Teddy, that Gateway ponytail poofster voyeuristically wanking off. Just as Steven is about to cum he blurts out to the cow "Dude, you're getting a Dell", followed by an explosive orgasm.

Puts a new meaning to the phrase "farmer in the Dell".

Very true (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233591)

As many has pointed out so far, OSS myth is fading away. The only place it makes sense and will continue so despite Linux-like trends is the academic OSS, that is, open source software that is developed within academic institutions and is traded between them.

The funniest thing I have seen so far is the programmers diversity some OSS/FS advocates would like to claim. Well, the fact that somebody has an Asian or a European or whatever name does not mean that he doesn't work for an American vendor ah?

oss vs non-oss (1, Troll)

sirius_bbr (562544) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233592)

The main problem of OSS like linux for companies, I think, is that either it isn't up to date or it's not stable (enough). The latest stable linux release (potato) is really old compared to, say, win XP (i'm not saying this one is stable, but at least a lot of people THINK it is). If you want to make linux make better use of your cutting-edge-of-technology-hardware, you'll have to use the unstable release (or at the very least the testing release). I can imagine a company doesn't like to use software that is labeled 'unstable'.
In the end I think it's a matter of who do you trust more, some people who programmed an OS in their spare time, or Bill Gates. Hard decision when lot's of money relay on that software...

Re:oss vs non-oss (5, Funny)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233630)

Oh, but that's just a marketing problem. Instead of calling it "Linux/unstable" call it "Linux CE" (Linux Cutting Edge)...you'll see everyone flocking to Linux from there on!

Availability on cutting-edge hardware (1)

Raedwald (567500) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233688)

Sayeth a poster:

If you want to make linux make better use of your cutting-edge-of-technology-hardware, you'll have to use the unstable release (or at the very least the testing release). I can imagine a company doesn't like to use software that is labeled 'unstable'.

Do large corporations really want to use cutting edge technology? Large corporations move slowly; we were still using HP-UX 10.20 last year. And desktop computers are bread and butter commodity items. I'm writing this on a Pentium I; of course it has a bottom of the range graphics card and network card. Why would it need anything else? I don't think availability on cutting-edge hardware is important for large corporations.

Does Open Source Software Really Work? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233593)

no

MOD PARENT DOWN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233601)

MOD PARENT DOWN -1 TROLL

Bad Logic (5, Insightful)

tapiwa (52055) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233597)

<blockquote>One reason for enterprise is, 'You have the source code; if it doesn't work, you can fix it.' But the fact is, if I'm an enterprise, I don't want to fix it. I want somebody else to fix it," Goldman said. </blockquote

This is a sign of bad logic. Because I want to be able to pay somebody to fix it, I need the source.

The CTO of BigCorp is not going to hack code, but he wants to be able to pay someone *lots_of_money* to fix it so it works for his organisation. The fix might be becuase of a problem unique to his situation... (we've all seen how some programs can break OS), and so not on top list of priorities for whichever co built the software.

With closed source this is more difficult.

An interesting analysis, and a good point (5, Insightful)

Brento (26177) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233599)

"I believe that if you supported the desktop side more and there were more Linux desktop users, you'd sell more servers," he said.

This is exactly how Windows invaded the enterprise: it was easy for businesses to buy into Windows servers simply because they looked & felt just like the desktop OS. Newbie network admins loved Windows over Netware because they could quickly transfer their knowledge into the server room.

Fast forward to today, and Linux is trying to invade from the other side. Suddenly, this guy makes me realize that it's just as if we were trying to get Novell to the desktop - it wouldn't have worked either, even if Novell had a desktop OS.

Does Open Source Software Really Work? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233603)

(Score:-1,Flamebait)

Dear Apple (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233606)

Dear Apple,

I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.

with much gayness,

Father Randy O'Day, S.J.

Dump it... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233608)

And even if you bring Linux in a very stable form (didn't that take something like ~6 years?), you have to do the same with the rest of software that come with a distro. Linux will be losers' choice by 2050...

VERY basic stuff (3, Insightful)

hashinclude (192717) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233609)

It looks like the article is more of a "i came, I saw, I wrote" stuff than a properly well researched article. The major (only?) things the article keeps pointing out is the "Lack of applications" and "No company pushing it"

Linux for the desktop is another matter. Its wide-scale adoption is still treated with skepticism by experts, who say that for consumer-level users, simply configuring Linux to dial into an ISP (Internet service provider) is a challenge.
What about KDE and GNOME diallers? Both work great.

But what hampers Linux the most, according to analysts, is a lack of applications that can run on the open source operating system.
I think what they mean is a lack of Microsoft Office Compatible applications. However, what about OpenOffice [openoffice.org] and StarOffice 6 [sun.com] (though there is a very brief mention)

"All the system vendors are pushing Linux on the server side, [but] there's really no large company that is ... pushing Linux on the desktop," Claybrook said.
Looks like Mandrake [linux-mandrake.com] , RedHat [redhat.com] et al. have been forgotten?

Re:VERY basic stuff (1)

mario (94577) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233742)

well.. no, I don't agree with your comment.

ok, using the KDE/GNOME dialer is not a problem, but configuring an ISDN-card or DSL-modem is simply NOT an easy task for an average user. I know, this sounds like the usual "linux is ready for the desktop"-debate.. But trust me, I know a lot of people who have problems understanding Windows File-Explorer. And the word "desktop" refers to them, not to "4 terminal windows, emacs, gkrellm, my desktop is fine.".

Considering the lack of applications the author talks first at all about *standardized* management tools that fit into an existing infrastructure.
And yes, you can solve lots of these problems using lots of available and good software for linux. But there is no common interface and no common framework. Linux does a goob job if you do a good job configuring, scripting and reviewing software.

Re:VERY basic stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233749)

I was very impressed when using the redhat dialer. It asked me for my country, then ISP/username/password. It must have had a database of ISPs and DNS servers. Neato.

Re:VERY basic stuff (1)

AVee (557523) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233753)

What about KDE and GNOME diallers? Both work great.

True, it's just as easy as setting it up on Windows, and i had to help numerous people to do just that. Joe Sixpack doesn't know and doesn't want to know about DNS, smtp server, etc. Typing the setting over from a nice booklet with all the screenshots in it is to scaring and to difficult for a lot of people. They just want to pop in a cd, with autostart(!), and answer a few question that shouldn't be more difficult then 'what's your name?'. Now try to create a CD that does that job on only 80% of all linux boxes around...
It's not enough if things are easy for you and me, thing should work without the user having to actualy *think* about it or learn something.

The same is true for office. I've had people come to me asking if i could replace WinXP with Win98 on there brand new box, just because so much things where 'so different'. Now try to imagine what a massive shock it must be for those people to switch from Word to OpenOffice Writer.

Make schools use linux desktops and in few years you will have people that don't want to use windows because it's 'difficult' and 'different'.

And what fine experts those are (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233612)

experts, who say that for consumer-level users, simply configuring Linux to dial into an ISP (Internet service provider) is a challenge.

I don't necessarily say that GNU/Linux has a chance on the Desktop, although me and my wive have used it for years and never missed anything (playing takes place on consoles). But this is utter bull. Earth to experts: you should try a recent dist, really

Well, Well!! (1, Insightful)

ScottKin (34718) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233614)

Can you say "vindication"?

I'be been saying this here for the last year, and I get modded-down or left in neutral, on top of getting diss'ed by Linux fans.

NOW will the Linux community wake-up to reality, or continue to delude itself that Linux is great for the desktop today?

Linux: Great Taste for Servers, Less Fulfilling on the Desktop.

ScottKin

Re:Well, Well!! (1)

Art Tatum (6890) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233686)

I think where we run into trouble often is that people like you say, "Linux sucks for the desktop!" Then people who enjoy using a UNIX enviornment as a desktop feel, for some odd reason, like this is a personal attack on their preferences.

The truth of the matter is that Linux is already on the desktop and will continue to be on the desktop. Just not everybody's desktop. And hey, that's alright! For me, it helps me to achieve my tasks of digital audio recording and music production better than the competition, and I'm in love with UNIX environments, so it's what I use. If nobody else wants to use it, that's cool.

There, wasn't that easy? Alright, let's tackle that middle east problem next....

Re:Well, Well!! (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233740)

Wake up to what reality?

Linux works just fine on my desktop, thank you very much, and frankly, that's the only one I care about.

I don't understand why the pro and anti linux on the desktop groups bother flaming each other. They're not going to convince anyone to change their minds. It just wastes time, effort, bandwidth and storage space, and needlessly gets people's backs up. Use what works for you; what do you care what other people use?

Cheers,

Tim

some people like toast (2)

danny (2658) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233615)

I've been using GNU/Linux on the desktop for eight years now, and just this month I switched my mother and her partner over (from Windows 3.1).

My estimate is that maybe 0.5% of Internet users are running GNU/Linux on the desktop. That's not a huge percentage, sure, but it works out at something like 2.5 million people - some people like toast!

Danny.

Why do programmers choose windows? (5, Insightful)

nordicfrost (118437) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233616)

At work, a newspaper, the desktop publishing system is being changed. They have used Sun SPARCstations in the past, but changed them for Dells when they got too expensive. The Dells Intel structure isn't very stable with Solaris and crashes quite often it seems. Now, even worse, the Solaris is being phased out and Windows is in (!) with remote X windows. Is it just me or is this a perfectly stupid descition?

It turns out that CCI, the DTP company, don't want the clients to run on Solaris, but on windows. That sounds fucked up. Why can't they port it to Linux, which is somewhat native for the app? And easier to deal with in a crisis?

Linux on the Desktop is only beginning (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233617)

I use Linux on my Desktop. Have done since 1996, in fact.

But recently, I've noticed doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers and programmers using Linux on their desktops (I'm in Europe, and therefore there is a chance that the situation in America is different). The "Desktop" is not one market. Linux is already satisfying lots of desktop needs.

It's like AI - every time one of the problems in AI is solved, someone says "that's not AI"...

Re:Linux on the Desktop is only beginning (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233698)

Pharmaplus [in Canada] uses linux for their accouting systems, Win98 for their main cashes and WinNT4 for their postal outlet terminals.

Beat that.

Tom

*Spit!* *Sputter!* (1)

tooloftheoligarchy (557158) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233618)

TOAST?! PATHETIC?! I'm outraged. Well... OK... they have a good point -- actually the point about enterprise management is a good one too, since I'd guess most admins just use scripting to do their management and nobody's ever taken the time to do it in a uniform way. But, yes, open source does work. (It'd better, otherwise I'm out of a job...)

clarity is the key to success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233623)

I'm not a regular Linux user and the reason why is that to me it is very unclear what applications I can use for which purpose(s). One of the reason why the Wintel platform stays popular is that you know what the basic applications are and what they are used for. This easily counters the 10 crashes/day OS.

So what I think is needed for a "good" Linux desktop is an installation that will only install 1 version of the most essential applications (e-mail, browsing, office apps), instead of needing to choose from the hundreds that are out there.

As ever KISS rules.

DDD

Re:clarity is the key to success (1)

hazyshadeofwinter (529262) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233693)

Ever notice that the "important" windows apps are (almost) all MS products? IMHO, this is one of the advantages of linux... *choice.* That being said, it wouldn't hurt for desktop-oriented distros to include a newbie's guide to the tons of apps included, with some sort of quickie comparison between them.

Open sores from Anal Cox (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233628)

Great gashing ass wounds batman! Looks like Open sores is ganking much ass cock.

And the oxymoron of decade is... (0, Flamebait)

m0sh3 (556502) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233629)

LINUX USER For all of you that dream about masses accepting Linux as their work environment and in the same time flaming them for not being geeks like you. People want to `#less INSTALL` and `#less README`, they want to `$more WORK`. And they don't want to RTFM not because they're lazy, but because they don't have time to become hackers, they have another goals in their lives. Until you will understand this you can dream and dream, until Sun becomes black hole, because with attitude you have right now, there can never be LINUX USER, there can be only LINUX ADMIN. That's my 2 cents after trying for half a year to get help to migrate from Windows to Linux. I finally got the idea, but not because someone knowledgable had desire to help me, but because i had to postpone my actual work and become linux hacker, because this OS really worth it.

Re:And the oxymoron of decade is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233703)

I think that the question was if OSS works on corporate enviroments

I changed our workstations two years a go to diskless ltsp stations (RedHat and upgraded three months a go to Debian) because I grow tired of my technicians to spend so much time for administering the NT workstations and haven't had problems since.
We use StarOffice 5.2 for office apps, Mozilla for browsing and mails etc. Everyone is happy with the system and my administration for the +30 workstations is about an hour a week.

The point being, yes for Corporate market Linux is ready fo the Desktop, your users do not need to be Linux gurus, because they don't be Windows gurus either. They don't actually give a damn about the OS they are using as long as it provides the tools they need.



(Linux user since 1993)

Re:And the oxymoron of decade is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233717)

Probably now you know what *exactly* Open Source is about: egotism.

* I do it because I want/need it.
* For me to be able to do it, I need the sources and the ability to change them.
* For an environment where I can have access and the rigth to modify the code I need to give same rigths to others, thus GPL.

Everything else is out of scope.

For instance:
The luser: Under an Open Source OS (like linux) I have to be the admin, while *I* only want to be the user.
The hacker: You know, Open Source is about egotism. I can't be less interested on *your* interests; I'm only interested on *my* interests, and *I* want and expect to be the admin of my system... but, hey, I give you the rigth to do the same.
The luser: Hey! I don't really have an M$ Office-like office suite, what're you going with this?
The hacker: I can't care less; *I* have more than enough with LaTeX and vi but, hey, I give those to you to do with them whatever you want. If *you* feel that this is not enough, well, you're free to do it your way (after all, that's exactly the case with TeX). And you know why? Coz that's Open Source

Support!! (1)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233631)

Support, this is one line which critics want to rant on and on. Who will provide support, who will take responsibility. But what they conviniently ignore is the all proprietry software like M$ etc state explicitely that they are not responsible. As for mission critical applications, if you can trust M$ you can definately trust Linux. As for the proof you have more worms floating around on the information superhighway than in medical textbooks.

Re:Support!! (1)

Hanul (533254) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233667)

Microsoft may not be "responsible", but they give support for certain features, e.g. that for a certain period of time kernel features are not touched, so that your application will run in that time frame. Also, they patch the system, also in a improvable way, on a regular basis. Red Hat or SuSE patch they distribution only in the range of 10% of known bugs. They tend to fix some bugs in the next distribution round. But even then only about 30% of the bugs are fixed. I know this from speaking with people who work there. Also, you have the "feature" of Linux to break combatibility with new kernel releases.

The article states

"There are different reasons why people advocate open source. One reason for enterprise is, 'You have the source code; if it doesn't work, you can fix it.' But the fact is, if I'm an enterprise, I don't want to fix it. I want somebody else to fix it," Goldman said.

That's a main concern for big customers, they want a support contract, which they can rely on.

The article states further

"The system vendors -- IBM, HP (NYSE: HWP), Compaq (NYSE: CPQ), Dell (Nasdaq: DELL) -- who sell Linux all support it. They resolve Level One and Level Two problems. If problems come up that they can't solve for the customer, they turn to Red Hat (Nasdaq: RHAT)," Claybrook explained.

This is true to some extent. The big vendors support Linux, but since they are neither the owner nor the main developer, they can't do anything in the end. If, say, there is a critical kernel bug, they will turn to the open source community to make it known, but they will never be responsible to fix it. Maybe the bug will never be fixed, so the customer is left on his own. At least this is what the support contracts of IBM and HP say . The support contracts say, that there is support for installation, configuration and _troubleshooting_, NOT for fixing the problem. That is the part of the community.

Re:Support!! (1)

bdeclerc (129522) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233751)

If, say, there is a critical kernel bug, they will turn to the open source community to make it known, but they will never be responsible to fix it.


Bull! A Red Hat "2.4.x" kernel usually contains a whole bunch of changes and bugfixes compared to the standard "2.4.x" kernel, even if Linus hasn't got round to adding the fix to "2.4.x+1", that's the beauty of open source.

If IBM has to provide support for Windows, and there's a bug in there, they will refer you to Microsoft, who, unless you're a huge company, will completely ignore you.

In the worst case, where the problem you have is specific to your system, and noone else has the problem, you can *pay* anyone you want to fix the bug for your specific configuration. You then use your own patched kernel and sleep happily.

Try that with Windows!

"the problem with linux is..." (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233634)

If your comment starts with "the problem with linux is" then *you're* the problem because Linux doesn't have a problem it is made by geeks for geeks give it or take it but don't put marketing into the equation because it isn't code and linux is code under the GPL so don't give me crap about linux not ready for the desktop because linux doesn't care linus doesn't care no one cares except those who don't understand what that this is all about empowering users to a new paradigm that cannot be put side by side on a scale with proprietary alternative because linux doesn't fit on a scale it is code to be runned for a direct purpose that goes beyond mere comparison with alternatives and microsoft and stuff I just doesn't make sense to force the issue like some people are doing since no one can claim that linux was designed to take over the world initially while it may be on that path currently it remains to be seen whether OSS can compete in an arena controlled my money and dominated by people who have been top company execs for ages so they know their ball game and they know their turf unlike linux which is like the new kind on the block heck linus doesn't even wear a mustache so how in blue hell can anyone claim that you can compare apple and oranges while keeping a straight face and claiming purported weaknesses on the desktop but doing ok in mission critical application were scalability issues need to be addressed so I think that the point is moot and that the article is too quick and too easy to read compared to the stuff I write because when I write it never stops to be interesting especially when I write about linux and issues facing open source software because not everyone knows how to discuss these things without a single period or coma amen.

Solaris isn't very big on the desktop either (1)

shermozle (126249) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233640)

But nobody ever says that's a problem for using it on servers...

A challenge? (1)

Jinky (565098) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233641)

"Linux for the desktop is another matter. Its wide-scale adoption is still treated with skepticism by experts, who say that for consumer-level users, simply configuring Linux to dial into an ISP (Internet service provider) is a challenge. "

Shit..what are they talking about? It's a challenge for almost every consumer level user on Windoze, Mac, or whatever else they might be running. Rather thought that was funny there :)

Who are these people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233643)

Linux on the desktop is here and now for anyone with half a clue and I am really sick of hearing this lame arguement. Try RH 7.2 with Ximian Gnome and compare it to Windows XP. Spy and bloatware aside, Xp cannot manage my desktop system the way RH and Ximian can. Let's see, XP can do an update and fix (maybe) this weeks security blunder or apply a new DRM bit of code to break my media apps. That is great, RH and Ximian can update my entire environment, apply security patches, install new software, a new kernel, etc. All of this does not cost me anything. I also have better software, utilities, and way more options than windows. Some one with half a clue needs to show these people a working and functional linux desktop. Windows does not come near linux in terms of flexibility, manageability, or freedom and never will.

to all you geeks (0, Troll)

Interfacer (560564) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233644)

Hi there, only a few % of the computer using population are linux geeks who just like to use complex systems for showing of, and for looking down a users. i am an experienced programmer, but is still want to be able to instal an os by insterting the cd and clicking a few times. i don't want a 20 yr old text interface with lots and lots of options that are of no direct relevance. i don't want to use command line strings to configure every card in my pc, i want my os to automatically detect everything that is in the case. wtf should we need the command line anymore? also if you put the basic gaphics thing in the kernel, everything would look the same, and you would not have this Xwindows Gnome KDE crap. if linux would have a user friendly install interface and proper GUI i would use it.

Re:to all you geeks (1)

Jinky (565098) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233654)

Have you even taken a look at any of the new linux installs? Mandrake is just as easy as any Windoze install, and Redhat is about the same at this point. Getting some proper info before posting would be a good idea.

Re:to all you geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233660)

You are a fucking idiot. Try a recent version of SuSE, RH, Mandrake, or even one of the Deb derived (not the real Deb, that would hurt you!) distros. If you want to be a moron and not understand how things work, many of the new distros will let you do just that so you can revel in your stupidity and laziness.

Re:to all you geeks (1)

Interfacer (560564) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233690)

have you also gone back to living in a cave and walking on all fours? wait: there's this new thing they call fire. but didn' life used to be great before we had all this 'wheel' nonsense? what i am trying to say is: why not improve user friendliness? going to all graphical would be so much easier. there is nothing wrong with being able to config everything, but it would also be easy to not having to do that.

DDT (1)

Art Tatum (6890) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233672)

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
Well, DON'T DO THAT!"

You know what my professional opinion is? DON'T USE LINUX! Sheesh, how hard was that to figure out now?

Re:to all you geeks (1)

hazyshadeofwinter (529262) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233677)

> is still want to be able to instal an os by insterting the cd and clicking a few times.

Me, I wanna click a few times, and then play Pac-Man while the install finishes. When linux can do this...what? Caldera already does? Oh.

Re:to all you shills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233725)

>want to be able to instal an os by insterting the cd and clicking a few times

Yeah Mandrake does that w/graphical install. Has done for years as do all the major distros.

>i don't want a 20 yr old text interface with lots and lots of options that are of no direct relevance.

Don't use it then - use the GUI

>i don't want to use command line strings to configure every card in my pc

Okay use the automatic hardware detection (eg - new sound card - I had to wait ten seconds while Linux set it up. Windows was a pain and took me *much* longer - why should I have to be a windows geek to set up a new sound card?)

>wtf should we need the command line anymore?

Don't. Use the GUI you pratt.

>if linux would have a user friendly install interface and proper GUI i would use it.

No you wouldn't.

>also if you put the basic gaphics thing in the kernel...

...you get a less stable system.
Users don't need to worry about where the "gaphics" (sic) thing is. It just works.

Commander Rockwell (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233651)

The Jews Go Nuts

Only by degrees did the Hebes belatedly psych themselves up to sufficient hysteria. In a convulsive, screaming lunge they fell on Commander Rockwell. But he had the psychological advantage of a larger-than life personal courage. In an utterly one-sided battle too incredible for anyone who has not actually witnessed or fought through such a moment, he bashed and throttled his way into the shrieking crowd. The grasping, spitting devils fell on all sides, as the lone hero of the White race cut a path of blood and broken bones across New York City. They never knocked him off his feet and he never tired of splitting enemy jaws.

Alarmed and inspired by such Herculean bravery, a squad of policeman crashed into the howling throng swinging night sticks. Kosher casualties mounted rapidly, as the cops obviously relished their sport. They blazed a path of splattering gore to the ever-battling Rockwell, and escorted him over the blubbering bodies of fallen Jews. He emerged with only a few cuts and minor bruises. Even his uniform was in relatively good shape.

No open source, please, we're British (3, Funny)

DarklordJonnyDigital (522978) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233655)

Open source is a really nifty system. The programmers get buckets of free help, beta testing and distribution, the users get limitless free-as-in-beer [megatokyo.com] software and Bill Gates gets one less ivory back scratcher every time a thousand copies of Linux [linux.com] are sold. Everyone's a winner.

Still, a couple of programmers I've spoken to say are actually against Open Source. They argue since they spend hours coding, debugging and maintaining a program, shouldn't they be allowed to make an honest buck in return? I guess that's their decision, and ya just gotta respect it - some want the money, others just want to help create nice software for everyone.

And what if you don't like b33r? What if you're a teetotaler, a recovering alcoholic or a PHP hack [aagh.net] ? Can I create software that's free as in Coca-cola instead?

Re:No open source, please, we're British (1)

Hydrogenoid (410979) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233754)

Pfff...
You can't make open-source software that is free as in Coca-cola, since it is closed, contrary to beer, whose making process is well known...
Now, OpenCola [thinkgeek.com] is the solution to your beer problems...

Myth of the "Poor" Nigger (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233666)

I hate it when some so called "poor" nigger is loading two shopping carts full of bullshit into the 10 items or less line. The "poor" nigger invariably pays with food stamps. The USA must be the only country where "poor" people die of obesity. Some fucking fat nigger that never missed a meal claims they are "poor" while they are stocking up on free ice cream, chips, coca cola, doughnuts, and fried chicken. Have you ever seen some "poor" nigger use food stamps to buy anything healthy? Niggers make me sick.

Nigger Laughs [206.244.69.51]

Mmmmmm.... toast (1)

squidinkcalligraphy (558677) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233689)

what's wrong with toast? I have it for breakfast every morning... If the linux desktop is like toast, then a lot of people use it every day... lord knows I do

Linux on desktop (1)

DrunkenPenguin (553473) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233730)

There is one thing I've always wanted to know! What exactly is preventing Linux from becoming an excellent desktop OS? What is the reason why that can not happen? Did anyone say "this is not going to make it" when M$ released Windows 3.1? That exactly is my point - Linux desktop development has not stopped here. Recent versions of KDE and Gnome are a solid proof of that. We should also not forget the Enlightenment [enlightenment.org] project. Greatly improved Enlightenment E17 will be released in near future. I bet some people will not believe their eyes when they get to see it.

Desktop isnt a weakness (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3233735)

There are many many people who prefer a linux desktop to a windows desktop.

If people are afraid to try somthing new, or a proprietry application isnt available doesnt mean its a failing of the free software movement.

Gnome is a beatiful thing.

Another obstacle. (2, Interesting)

Stillman (185591) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233736)

Something I see a lot of at work:

Some of our larger clients, the ones with hundreds of desktops, who on the surface would benefit most from moving to linux, are hamstrung by the applications they use.

Typically in a larger organisation, the "desktop drone" is running a piece of client software which interfaces with a piece of server software.

Inevitably two things are true...
1. It's windows - client and server.
2. The developer has no interest in porting to linux.

This, in addition to the old "no replacement for exchange server/outlook" chestnut, is the major reason large organisations don't move away from windows.

Drives me nuts.

Ed's fav. quote - 'Linux on the desktop is toast' (1)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 12 years ago | (#3233746)

From the provocative-comments-boosting-pageviews department :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>