Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Pyro MX on November 23, 2009, 11:54:02 pm
-
2011 won't be, and 2012 probably won't be either. For all of those with a little sense of humor, I present to you the diagram illustrating the concrete, flawless, irrefutable truth about the GNU/Linux operating system. Free of techno-babble and complex mathematical equations. Black on white, sans-serif, big fonts.
(http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/4720/gnulinuxcircleofhell.png)
-
its getting closer, all it needs is to stop being actively hostile to the user, and get all of those 0.999s to 1.0s.
it's so infuriating because it's like 94% there it just can't quite get that last little bit done.
I have switched to kubuntu as my primary OS, and got my non-CS nerd sister into it also, but that never would have happened if she didn't have a CS nerd older brother to fight it into submission for her.
-
It's been "the year of Linux on the desktop" for over a decade, there's no reason to assume 2010 and beyond will be any different :P
-
I only ever installed Linux once, never got past installing the Graphics Drivers. I could have done it if I'd had the time and energy, but, at the time, I was really not in the mood for typing away into a console and fiddling around for ages just to get it working.
That said, it's more a question of the lack of proper support from the manufacturers than Linux itself that was the problem there, but still, I don't have time to tweak with stuff like I used to, I'd much rather just plug-in and go as soon as possible.
-
That said, it's more a question of the lack of proper support from the manufacturers than Linux itself that was the problem there
This isn't quite true. The hardware vendors are hesitant to support Linux because it's in a constant state of development flux. There's no guarantee a driver they release one day will work the next. One solution to this, and the one the community wants, is for vendors to release open source drivers or details on the hardware allowing the community to write their own. However, for various reasons, many hardware vendors aren't willing to do that.
Stuck in the middle of this political posturing and buck-passing are the users who have to deal with having no drivers, closed drivers that do the job, but will die with the next kernel update or poorly crafted open drivers developed from attempts to reverse engineer the hardware in question. It's completely unacceptable in a modern desktop OS.
-
That makes sense to be honest, there's always legal wrangling over Open-Source stuff when it comes to commercial products :(
I tend to think of Windows as a big American car, it's large, not exactly economic, but has low, time-cheap maintenance and gets where it's going on most surfaces, whereas Linux is more like a Kit-Car, it's faster, leaner, can be much more specialised towards a specific kind of use, but it far more maintanance-time heavy, and can have trouble running on some surfaces without considerable work.
It's not a perfect analogy, I know, but close enough ;)
-
i filled up a cd case looking for the right distro and im still running windows. i figure il try again in a couple years.
-
Hardware support has been fine for me with Ubuntu; better than any version of windows: most devices work out of the box; proprietary drivers just require a few restricted drivers clicks.
The only reason I have windows on my desktop is for games; conversely I only use Linux on my laptop.
-
This isn't quite true. The hardware vendors are hesitant to support Linux because it's in a constant state of development flux. There's no guarantee a driver they release one day will work the next. One solution to this, and the one the community wants, is for vendors to release open source drivers or details on the hardware allowing the community to write their own. However, for various reasons, many hardware vendors aren't willing to do that.
To be honest I find that attitude to be one of the major problems I have with the open source community. If something they want isn't open source they just wail and complain that it should be and that all the fault lies with the big company for not making it open source. It never could be a problem with the OS unless the OS happens to be one that isn't open source.
If you've written up your API well enough and don't make major changes to it every five minutes there is no reason for drivers to break with every update. Hell when even ****ing Microsoft can get this right (I've heard surprisingly little in the way of complaints about drivers not working in Windows 7) then the Linux community should hang their heads in shame that they can't.
Linux will NEVER be a desktop OS for the masses. If the community hasn't managed to make it possible in the last decade then they never will. And to be honest I suspect many in the community don't particularly want it to be one as they are comfortable with what they have and dislike change.
I've been using Windows for over a decade now and I've seen it improve drastically since I started. I've had XP for over 6 years and I don't think for a minute that my life would have been made any easier had I been running Linux. And when all is said and done, the purpose of an OS is to quietly do its job and let me get on with using the computer for what I wanted to use it for.
-
To be honest I find that attitude to be one of the major problems I have with the open source community. If something they want isn't open source they just wail and complain that it should be and that all the fault lies with the big company for not making it open source. It never could be a problem with the OS unless the OS happens to be one that isn't open source.
Because when their drivers don't work it should be the fault of the community that they aren't able to reverse-engineer the hardware to get the specifications right?
If their closed-source drivers don't work or that they are just aren't available, then yes, there's reason to complain. Otherwise, there isn't. Nvidia managed to build up very fine drivers over time (and no, they don't break with each kernel upgrade which, by the way, isn't updated every day either). I've been using them for years without a hitch. I'm for the one who don't mind using closed source software on the OS, just like many others do. Saying that the community acts this way, well... I don't know why then the most popular distro offers a proprietary driver manager to get them for you when something doesn't work. I don't know which API you're talking about that changes every 5 minutes, though. While it's true they evolve at a much faster rate in some cases than some closed-source counterparts, it doesn't mean every change committed to the code base gets implemented and standardized throughout the distros in the same time frame.
GNU/Linux development is different - that doesn't mean it's automatically bad.
-
Because when their drivers don't work it should be the fault of the community that they aren't able to reverse-engineer the hardware to get the specifications right?
If the company managed to make a driver that worked for Windows and couldn't make one work for Linux that logically gives at least two obvious problems.
1) Problem is with the companies programmers (Hiring bad Linux coders and good Windows ones).
2) Problem is the OS.
What I don't like is the assumption that it must always be 1) and can never be due to 2).
If their closed-source drivers don't work or that they are just aren't available, then yes, there's reason to complain.
Complain, yes. Insist that the company has to open source the driver rather than simply fixing the damn thing like Windows and Mac OS X users generally complain, no.
GNU/Linux development is different - that doesn't mean it's automatically bad.
Linux is perfectly fine for what it is. An OS for computer techies. If you really think that it's going to become a desktop OS any time soon though you're participating in the same delusion that the community has been involved in for over a decade.
-
It already is a desktop OS.
If you refer to the fact that it's going to become as popular as Windows on the desktop, then no, I don't believe it will anytime soon (hence the diagram).
Because let's face it - the day it will happen:
A) People will be aware of other software ecosystems than Window's or Mac's (then again, you find more software on both Mac OS and Linux than Windows)
B) People will have made the effort to transition between an OS that they have used for more than a decade and a new one
C) Stores will have given people the choice of the operating system when they buy the computer
D) People (devs and users) will have learned something else than Windows and Windows-related stuff at school. (Kind of relate to point A)
But because some stuff doesn't work on the OS? I don't believe it's the case. Build "Linux-certified machines" with the working software and hardware and support, and you have a perfectly working and productive desktop OS.
-
At the risk of sounding like an even bigger tool, I have no desire to use Linux simply because I don't have to. What I want to do works with what I'm doing now.
They could roll out a perfect system tomorrow and I probably wouldn't move. There is no real point to. This works just fine and I know it.
-
The OS you use doesn't matter - as long as people has the choice.
-
They could roll out a perfect system tomorrow and I probably wouldn't move. There is no real point to. This works just fine and I know it.
If they had a perfect OS tomorrow I'd move. But if they only had something as easy to use as Windows I wouldn't. What's the point? I already know Windows.
For Linux to make any major dent in the desktop market it needs to be better than Windows and Mac OS X by a significant amount. And at the moment it isn't. It has some large advantages and some large disadvantages. Overall it's not worth the effort of moving yet. Especially once you factor in the lack of commercial software and games compared to Windows.
-
the Linux community has to accept that the command line interface must be abandoned* in the desktop environment, the moment they truly accept this the OS will improve dramatically.
(*will never happen)
-
I'm a real fan of the Ubuntu based desktops (I use Linux Mint myself). They haven't abandoned the commandline entirely, but there are graphical ways of doing most things now.
Plug and play in my experience has been excellent.
-
The OS you use doesn't matter - as long as people has the choice.
epic truth.
-
Not having to tweak the config using the command line is sure a must-have for the general user. But they better let the option there. Because no matter which OS, something, somewhere at some time will need extra configuration that ain't available in GUIs. And in some cases, it's way faster to make your way trough the terminal rather than going deep into poorly designed configuration panels (which are present in any OSes).
But to go back to the circle of hell up there :P, "lack of commercial software and games" directly enters in there. Companies will not spend money on developing software on alternate operating systems like GNU/Linux because in their views (I generalize here, it's not the case of all the companies), there isn't a market for them to make money. But how do you want to make the market grow if it doesn't have support? It's a vicious circle! You never get out of it. It's not so much a question of usability here, give your mother a completely installed GNU/Linux system like you would have with a Windows system, show her where the buttons are and some "basic training", and it shouldn't be as difficult as making the transition to a Mac (and I speak with experience here :P). It's not in the mechanics, it's in the software used. What are the OSS counterparts of what you usually find in Windows or Mac OS? Are there such counterparts? That is where it matters. It is possible to un entirely on non-commercial software, but it requires adaptation. And in some cases, due to the environment and other variables, it's just plain impossible.
So is it about the desktop not being user-friendly? 'Don't think so. But lack of commercial support? karajorma nails it right here.
-
It's not just the lack of commercial support though, although that is a big factor. The simple fact is that I have tried Linux before, run into issues getting it to work with my PC and simply uninstalled it because it simply isn't worth the hassle.
If it was easier to get Linux up and running then more people would be willing to try it out as a secondary OS. But when even people like myself who are quite computer literate think that it is too much hassle to get it up and running then that is a problem with the OS itself or at least with the perception of the OS.
-
If it was easier to get Linux up and running then more people would be willing to try it out as a secondary OS. But when even people like myself who are quite computer literate think that it is too much hassle to get it up and running then that is a problem with the OS itself or at least with the perception of the OS.
Exactly. Vista had me almost convinced to make the leap, but when it's more work to set up the new OS and maintain it than the current one, it doesn't make much sense. And with both my systems running 7 now, the only need I'd ever have for Linux is as a recovery boot disc.
-
By "too much hassle" you mean you looked at the website and it seemed too hard so you gave up straight away? Which distro are you trying?
-
By "too much hassle" you mean you looked at the website and it seemed too hard so you gave up straight away?
QFT
Ubuntu and Ubuntu based distros (Kubuntu, Mint, etc.) are really easy to install. They have installers that are just as easy to use as a Windows one. Some distros, like Mint, even have lots of standard drivers and data already installed. My laptop worked immediately; so did my wireless card; and my HP printer was printing within a minute of my plugging it in for the first time. My MICROSOFT web-cam worked immediately upon plugging it in, no driver CDs needed.
I use Mint for general use just because it's easier and more intuitive to work with than Windows.
-
I'm just bothered by a program in Linux deciding to break itself the moment I change something in the configuration (through a GUI even, lol i'm following proper procedure, hello...), while the Windows offering never screws up... but then there's a program I need Linux for because it never works right on Windows with all the stuff I use and refuse to delete...
Oh and the fact that there's no installer-for-idiots :lol: I can never seem to manually compile and install ANYTHING in Linux without having to install, like, a million dependencies first, and even after I install all of them, the compile script most always fails with some arcane error I can't understand without having to be some in-deep techie with 100 years' Linux experience or whatsoever.
I'm dual-booting over here but right now I don't have much of a reason to use Linux more (i.e. I do use it in some way). I'd gladly make the shift if I could just get off my lazy arse and go figure out how to do even the simplest C++ without the compiler insta-error messaging or learn Blender/Gimp for FS asset creation... Both of which still look as complicated as Max and Maya and Photoshop... XD
Which leaves Windows for just... gaming, surfing (since Flash is broken for me), print/scan, FSO code SVN compiling, and general bickering around in a 100% MS-biased school environment (which pisses me off anyhow, still I don't have a choice but to accept that I alone cannot effect change of any sort).
Heck a classmate told me to just "go use Windows" and while I resented that remark deep down, I really didn't have a counter-argument. Unlike the remaining 99.99999999999% of the population where I'm at who only knows their Windows and Macs, I'm all in for Linux; but it can be a real :mad: to deal with things Windows people consider a piece of cake.
-
I think that the reason for not disclosing the driver code by the hardware manufacturers comes from that they have invested money to write and test the drivers. Not to mention the algorithm and memory structuring design. Of course it is possible to reverse-engineer this with proper equipment, but that means lots of time and money being spent for the equipment. Also, I don't find Linux developing principle to be very useful for paying you grocery bills - probably something that quite a lot of Linux programmers find out during the years if they are not lucky enough to find a specific application.
I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I do have worked in Linux environment (checking driver code, followed some people's struggles with Linux in their home computers) and following problems are pretty much evident:
- Different distros are not compatible
- Program instabilities and "features" that you need to know. As in "Oh did we forgot to mention that in the manual (that was last updated 3 years ago)?"
- Useful programs not working - this is related to distros not being compatible.
- Linux developing field looks like a big mess. Like if some OS module breaks, who do you actually ask for help if it is acute?
- Poor user interface design of programs, in worst cases there isn't one!
- Non-existent user support, the standard three answers being:
1) It worked in my box
2) You have a wrong distro
3) You don't have the brains to do that, do you?
- It is partially based on antiquated operating system
- Advertised real time Linuxes are not actually that real time
- "Free" software and operating systems have turned out to be ****ing expensive in terms of personnel time required, which no company wants to waste if the employee could do something more useful, like work.
-
There there, we're not on a tech blog. We don't get flamed for having opinions on an operating system. I do have some something to reply though, for the sake of discussion :P.
-Compatible distros? You mean an unified package management system? If it's the case, then a standard in package management system could probably help. (At least in binary distros, not source ones). Otherwise, having different distros with different mechanisms, except that it requires the user to actually make a choice, it's not a big deal.
-For non-updated manuals, that depends on the program you are using. And this can happen even in other OSes.
-See first point.
-"Poor user interface design". That one, I'm a bit tired of hearing it. While you indeed see some atrocities in some programs (just like on any other OS), the user interface design is quite fine with the desktops available (GNOME, KDE 4 and Xfce, to cite what I've been working with throughout the years) - way better than Mac OS's or Windows' if you ask me.
-Non-existent user support? I asked help for years on both the Ubuntu and Gentoo communities and a lot of times and ended up with an answer to my questions. Not counting here the times I found the answer just by searching for it on the forums, documentation or Wiki. And that is also true for a lot of users. Sometimes, people are expecting an answer to a question that was malformed or asked in a rude manner. And then they get pissed off for not getting answers. But do we hear about it? No. we only hear that the community is being a *****. I don't say here that everybody had an answer to what they asked. But saying there's no support? Plain false.
-Linux is antiquated? Clarify.
-"Advertised real time Linuxes". Do you mean "mainstream"? If it's the case, then yes, some abuse that term.
-Implementing a different technology or switching to a new one is sure to cost money, especially if the company doesn't have the expertise to do such and implementation or that the employees need formation on it. While it may cost a lot on the first shot, it may pay big time on the long run (http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/03/french-police-saves-millions-of-euros-by-adopting-ubuntu.ars).
There. See? No flame-thrower here. And they only have water in them anyway. :P
-
Xfce + Compiz on Xubuntu was cool, only I didn't know what emerald was for other than to get compiz-fusion to work or whatever.
That said, any way to add an entry to a command-line terminal in Nautilus (like how Thunar in Xubuntu does it)?
And I kinda hope that "real time" part is not about the kernel when talking about audio >_<
-
I think "Linux" fits excellently for these two groups of people:
1. people who, from day-to-day, use the same standard set of tools, not much interested in experimenting with anything else
2. people who like to try out and tinker with all and everything out&in there
In group 1, life is going to be easy once you've seen through the trouble of setting up everything in the way you like it.
Since there's no need to wander away from a release known to be stable, the needed maintenance effort (for desktop use) is pretty much 0.
People in group 2. don't mind the hassle that follows from using bleeding edge distros and packages - that's what they're into anyway.
The "tragedy" of Linux is that most people fall close to the middle point between those two groups, where Linux is at its worst -- people who like to try a little bit of this and a little bit of that, but are not much interested in how any of it works. So yeah, I agree that the "GNU/Linux on the desktop" year probably never comes (not that it'd matter to me).
-
For compatible distros, I meant that I would like to see drivers written for peripheral card that work in Fedora something point something, but don't in Ubuntu something point something.
The manual stuff is true in other OSs, but it would be especially important to have them up to date in Linux that comes from millions of contributors.
I meant that the user interface is atrocious especially in Linux world. Sometimes ASCII screen seems to be A-OK, but for some reason I seem to recall that bad user interfaces by Microsoft were one of the reasons Linux started to gain momentum. Yes, this was once given as a reason to migrate to Linux. Unfortunately, I find out that the Linux software and operating system UIs aren't any better.
My experiences of the user support is that it is non-existent. This is partially related to distros being incompatible, but if they are, who are you gonna contact? Also, lots of primary peripheral device functions are still lacking under Linux, like USB for example. In best cases, the peripheral card (I'm not going to details about this one) manufacturer provided drivers for a specific Linux version (yes, it didn't work in newer versions), half of the card functionalities missing - yes we only found out that later when the primary job of the card was implemented.
These features were advertised, but not implemented. So, in this case it was about transferring responsibility of the hardware developer to the actual user. Surely that Linux was cheaper for the hardware manufacturer, but turned out to be really expensive to us, and we would have gladly paid the extra hundred bucks to get the Windows CE version and stabile developing platform that follows. Guess if we are going to use open source software again any time soon?
Linux being antiquated is matter of viewing things. I thought we wanted to get rid of the damn console, but in Linux everything seems to be built on top of that. Yes you don't see this when normally using it, but try developing stuff for peripheral cards...
Ubuntu probably counts as mainstream, but it definetely is not a real time system as advertised.
-Implementing a different technology or switching to a new one is sure to cost money, especially if the company doesn't have the expertise to do such and implementation or that the employees need formation on it. While it may cost a lot on the first shot, it may pay big time on the long run.
And then there is the Limux project, where the cost savings don't seem to happen:
http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/
It is a question to me if the projected cost savings really happen. The French police has been able to cut costs with Linux, but how about their computer support? Sometimes changes cause costs to move from one department to another. I'm not saying it did in this case, but being employed by the state I'm suspicious about the government cost saving programs - they usually turn out to be money wasting programs.
Though the economic downturn may simply force a shift from Microsoft licenses to open source software. However, specialised software that I use is most likely never going to be free for any operating system. I'm not sure about what is the price of WinXP & Office -combo for corporations in large numbers. It is much less than the home user pays, of that I'm sure and it is odd that French report such high savings.
Disclaimer: I do think that Linux could work as a home computer operating system, but it is absolutely horrible when it is being used as a hardware development platform. Millions of dependencies where you must get the right version of something (not updated version, the RIGHT version) only to find out that something else breaks couple of hours later.
-
- Non-existent user support, the standard three answers being:
1) It worked in my box
2) You have a wrong distro
3) You don't have the brains to do that, do you?
you forgot
-you don't want to do that
and
-hey guys, I fixed it (abyssal hole where explanation on how should be)
and my personal favourite
-me too
-
I think Linux would advance greatly if there was a standardized installer that could download the dependencies of a program and compile it with no input from the user.
Of course, that could end up miring the user in dependency hell (dependencies of one program conflicting with/stomping those of another), which Windows has largely been free of since Windows 98...
-
Linux will NEVER be a desktop OS for the masses.
Never say never. May I remind you that while the current open-source efforts at linux distros are failing miserably, there is always a chance some genius will come up with a better solution. People look at this as an Option A or Option B situation: either linux works or it doesn't. People forget that there is always Option C: Something completely new that no one else has even considered.
-
Considering how long it's taken Linux to fail completely at this task but at least be considered for it, I don't believe that Option C can be realistically considered.
-
I may not be forwarding the conversation here, but I like using Ubuntu because it does what an operating system is supposed to do: run software. I have never had any problems with Firefox, Blender, Gimp, Pidgin, or anything else available through the package manager.
Windows, on the other hand, is plagued by the system registry, DRM'd commercial software, constant security updates and patches, and malware vulnerabilities. If I truly had the choice in which desktop environment to use, I'd use Linux.
Unfortunately I don't truly have that choice, because there definitely exist some problems in low-level tinkering. Installing FS2 Open was a nightmare in Linux, but in Windows it was as easy as installing from the disc, installing OpenAL, and downloading and running a different binary. Software support is also really spotty; I can't use Skype on Linux, for example, and developers large and small almost never code for cross-platform use.
My compromise is that I'm running Mac OSX. :p
-
Considering how long it's taken Linux to fail completely at this task but at least be considered for it, I don't believe that Option C can be realistically considered.
Once again, you can't not consider Option C because by definition Option C is something you haven't thought of yet.
-
Installing FS2 Open was a nightmare in Linux, but in Windows it was as easy as installing from the disc, installing OpenAL, and downloading and running a different binary.
Funny that my experience is the exact opposite of yours. :) Initially there was the problem with case-sensitivity of Linux filesystems (files copied over from Windows side needed to be renamed to get it to work), but that's about it. And the last time I tried to install it under Windows.. Couldn't get the damn thing to stop crashing. Dunno, maybe I was using a wrong version of the launcher (no need for that on Linux side), or possibly something went wrong with the OpeanAL install (its kind of confusing without apt-get :D )
-
Running linux is like the equivalent of going to church in the open source community. Of course, the vatican of the open source religion is obviously slashdot. :)
Now on a more serious note, linux distros AS THEY EXIST TODAY will not become mainstream OSes because of a lack of direction as far as user experience and interface goes. It basically just tries to ape windows xp and 2000 in appearance as much as possible and there is no vision for it. The Option C, imo would be a company like Google coming in and doing something with linux to make it their own, the same way apple did it with OSX, but in a more open freeish kinda way.
-
I wouldn't trust Google to do such a thing. It would spy on you and report the contents of your hard drives to Google whenever you made a file search.
Seriously, Google is creepy. Big Brother Google is watching you. He might have thinkpol, he might not, but either way he's watching you and logging every search you make, the search terms, the date and time, your IP address, and the ID of your Google cookie that won't expire for 40 years.
-
Once again, you can't not consider Option C because by definition Option C is something you haven't thought of yet.
To the contrary. All realistic options left have been considered because they pay people to consider that, and most of the unrealistic options too. They're called "contingencies".
More directly, Option C has been considered and rejected as a realistic option due to the logistics of setting up a workable operating system. The days of the lone genius creating masterful software for the masses are dead and done. Option C is the open-source community abandoning Linux or somebody dropping by to seriously try and take on Microsoft on Microsoft's home turf.
...you see how silly it sounds now?
-
Now on a more serious note, linux distros AS THEY EXIST TODAY will not become mainstream OSes because of a lack of direction as far as user experience and interface goes. It basically just tries to ape windows xp and 2000 in appearance as much as possible and there is no vision for it. The Option C, imo would be a company like Google coming in and doing something with linux to make it their own, the same way apple did it with OSX, but in a more open freeish kinda way.
The interface and user experience are both defined by the distros and their respective desktop environments. If you think that desktops environments like KDE, Gnome or Xfce tries to imitate Windows XP/200 in appearance or user experience and that they have no vision, then I'm sorry, but I think you need a new pair of glasses. To my knowledge, having tried around 4 different desktop environments (one of which isn't really a "known" environment since I chose the components manually), none of them were imitating the Windows look and feel. Just take a look around : KDE 4.3 (http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.3/), Xfce 4.6 (http://www.xfce.org/about/tour), GNOME 2.28 (http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.28/). All these environments have pretty clear goals and visions in terms of design (and that's counting the application that are developed for each of the environments). Because you don't understand the way they work doesn't mean they don't have any direction. You have to take into account that people have been using Windows for years - having a different thing in front of you is certainly uncomfortable for a certain period of time. And it is definitely hard to make the effort.
And now for distribution-specific : Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/910features) and OpenSuse (http://en.opensuse.org/OpenSUSE_11.2#On_the_Desktop). Read on a bit to see what they have to offer.
As for dependencies, you know there's an invention called package managers. While they are not unified in formats, they sure manage the dependencies well, whether it's a source or binary package manager. And you tend to forget the advantages. First of all, all the applications are maintained in a central place. You remove, add, update and reinstall every component on the same place. No need to have around 5 update managers for every single application. Secondly, if one or more programs share a library, it doesn't have to be re-installed for each application. Let's take the example of Firefox and Thunderbird. Both rely on xulrunner and proably a couple more libraries. When you install these two programs on a GNU/Whatever distro, both the programs share the same library. Install these two on Windows, and you'll install all the libraries twice. the result is a smaller system in terms of disk space (depending, of course, of the quantity of applications and libraries used). Speaking of installing programs, most of the times, no need to go around tons of sites to download the software you need to build your desktop. Go to your package manager, search your components and install them. Your system is starting to have a lot of stuff installed? Uninstall your unnecessary apps, "depclean" the whole thing and hit the "repair" button when necessary. And read before you uninstall something important (like I've seen and done some times :P).
Finally, it's not like Windows is entirely free of "dependencies" - while it certainly make less... visible use of them, applications sometimes require different versions of the .NET framework. Also mentioned above, Freespace relies on OpenAL for the sound. Some OSS also install components like GTK+ or Python (when they're not directly bundled in the app itself). Also note that some software is available in distribution-independant packages (I'm not necessarily talking about compiling the source - some offer binaries with the dependencies inside).
Speaking of the command line, while it's not the thing people like to learn, it is a very powerful tool. I don't know why people try to exterminate it at all costs. On what you'd call your "everyday" desktop, you'll probably won't have to rely on the CLI to do your stuff. With the new Xorg versions and the xorg.conf progressively disappearing, chances are, you won't have to rely on it. However, when developing applications or working with servers, it's a very, very nice tool to have. It also provides a backup if one application freezes the current display (switch to a virtual terminal, kill the process that is freezing the GUI, go back in and enjoy). As for myself, I constantly use it - after about 5 years on GNU/Linux I found the CLI to be a very powerful tool. And I certainly miss it when I work in Windows. Even Mac OS makes use of it - some options that aren't available on the GUI are set using the terminal.
-
I use Windows because it works with my programs. I only care about the OS in terms of how it runs programs, and I don't want the OS to be something that I "use" as such. :p Even if there was any advantage to Linux, I probably wouldn't switch because of the inferior program compatibility.
I have only used Linux on various university and work computers and they all had a variety of annoyances (chopped up fonts, permission settings and sudo needed for simple things, mouse cursor has to be in window to scroll with keyboard, etc.), but it's possible that they were just badly configured. My brother recently tried out Ubuntu, more as a fun exercise than anything else, and says that the basic OS install is fairly smooth but getting small programs working (he was trying Hamachi) is a huge waste of time, especially if you need to compile them.
From my point of view, the one thing Linux might be good for is running Wine. Wine may run some old games that don't work on modern video card drivers or DirectX versions, and there isn't really a working port of Wine for Windows right now.
Linux is perfectly fine for what it is. An OS for computer techies.
For all they say about this, my impression is that support for modern hardware is lacking, both from hardware companies as well as third party developers. As far as I know, there are no Linux versions or equivalents of Rivatuner, nHancer, the Logitech mouse and keyboard profile utilities, and many other small system tools that I rely heavily on. I believe things like SLI and CF are also spotty on Linux.
Speaking of the command line, while it's not the thing people like to learn, it is a very power tool.
I honestly don't see what CLI is good for in regular usage, given an always-open file manager program, a high sensitivity mouse and disabled GUI animations. I occasionally use it on the school machines because you seemingly have to in order to get simple things done. In Windows, I have only ever found it useful for special batch processing jobs (such as with nvDXT), which I might need to do once in 6 months. If I need to change some obscure OS or program setting, it's going to be somewhere in the registry or in some ini file.
-
All realistic options left have been considered because they pay people to consider that
And sometimes those people are wrong.
Linux is perfectly fine for what it is. An OS for computer techies.
No, its a piece of sh!t that's on fire. And it's starting to stink. The requirement of a command line is the most idiotic things in linux and it is also the one thing that braindead community will not give up. I AM A PROGRAMMER AND I HATE THE COMMAND LINE. Linux isn't being accepted by the masses because the driver support is bull****, the GUI is crap, the whole thing doesn't work out of the box, and Ubuntu yells at you for using proprietary software, which is just as annoying as vista's security features! Not only that, but WINE isn't perfect and there are practically no games that work on linux, no thanks to the fact that openGL is a piece of crap in its own regard. The entire open source community right now is full of crap, crap, and more crap, and that's why its not getting anywhere. Does windows suck? Sure, windows sucks too, but it sucks less and in a more friendlier way, so people will default to the least-sucky piece of software.
For that matter, all software in existence except for possibly notepad++, Onenote and a few others, all suck horrendously in their own lovely ways. All we're doing right now is arguing about which version of Suck we want to use.
-
Thank you blackhole.
I had a paragraph written here to reply. But I erased it all. You know why?
I am braindead, an asshole, and I'm full of crap. Since that has been established, I am therefore not qualified to program anything. And certainly not to discuss such matters. I'll just stop all contribution to whatever is remotely open-source since there is apparently no way that it is ever going better. All we do is bull****. Are our efforts are worthless. End of discussion.
Now go figure why things progress slowly and why things don't work the way you want while you continue to suck the motivation out of the developers who make the effort to make things better.
-
I am braindead, an asshole, and I'm full of crap. Since that has been established, I am therefore not qualified to program anything. And certainly not to discuss such matters. I'll just stop all contribution to whatever is remotely open-source since there is apparently no way that it is ever going better. All we do is bull****. Are our efforts are worthless. End of discussion.
Now go figure why things progress slowly and why things don't work the way you want while you continue to suck the motivation out of the developers who make the effort to make things better.
You guys wanted to know why linux wasn't working. I told you. If that makes you depressed and emo, I'm sorry, but that's none of my concern. The issue of "how do we make open-source software not suck" is not under the topic of this conversation. You can hate my guts, I don't care, I'm trying to point out whats wrong, not make everyone like me. I will leave the compassion and love for people with souls.
-
Well, I think blackhole did a nice job of taking this thread out of adult discussion territory. I'll leave it open for now, but unless the adults start behaving like adults (i.e. blackhole), it's headed for a lock.
You have a responsibility to present your points in a civilized and respectful manner.
-
As far as Linux becoming a standard desktop:
Does Chrome OS count? (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html)
-
For that matter, all software in existence except for possibly notepad++, Onenote and a few others, all suck horrendously in their own lovely ways. All we're doing right now is arguing about which version of Suck we want to use.
I like how you missed a big part of open source software being open source so you can improve things that make you unhappy but clearly you're too busy being a "PROGRAMMER".
-
I think I'll rephrase what I said earlier, since I forgot to put up the [sarcasm] tags. I wasn't acting depressed or emo. I was merely citing your (blackhole) words and interpreting your argument.
What I was pointing out is, support doesn't come without users. And that is valid for both commercial and non-commercial. And you certainly won't see getting it better acting that way. And since there are not a lot of us, well, commercial support is sure slower to come by (in terms of hardware drivers or proprietary applications), if it ever comes at all. Is it the fault of the community or the OS itself? I doubt it. I think it's more a question of market share.
Now, for the CLI thing and how it can be used more than an "open file manager" :P, well it really depends on how you use your computer. You can use it or not use it at all, it's pretty much up to the user. For myself, I use it to manage pretty much everything system-wide. Installation, startup scripts, processes, configuration, etc. etc. For example, it will be faster for me to type "eix firefox" to search for a program instead of launching an UI like Synaptic or Yast or whatever software you use to manage your programs. That's more a question of taste, but the CLI is very useful for some people.
-
I think I'll rephrase what I said earlier, since I forgot to put up the [sarcasm] tags. I wasn't acting depressed or emo. I was merely citing your (blackhole) words and interpreting your argument.
I know that. I was simply giving an equally absurd sarcastic response to your sarcastic response. But hey, you know what, if we're all just completely misinterpreting one another, how about I just run off before everything actually does explode.
-
As far as Linux becoming a standard desktop:
Does Chrome OS count? (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html)
Or we can keep fighting. I personally am curious.
-
Because you don't understand the way they work doesn't mean they don't have any direction. You have to take into account that people have been using Windows for years - having a different thing in front of you is certainly uncomfortable for a certain period of time. And it is definitely hard to make the effort.
What I think has actually made Windows programs so successful is that there are cases where one doesn't even need to know much about the program before he uses it. In best cases, I have never needed to read the manual or the help file. Compare that to CLI interfaces in Linux world, no, I don't think the CLI "ease of use" counts. I used to be quite good at DOS, and I'm wondering what might be so wonderful that I would need to relearn the same thing all over again?
DEVICE=C:\DOS\HIMEM.SYS
DEVICE=C:\DOS\EMM386.EXE /NOEMS
DOS=HIGH,UMB
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\MOUSE.COM
DEVICEHIGH=C:\DOS\KEYBOARD.SYS
...
And what a joy that all was!
I'm always little bit perplexed what is so important for programmers in getting programs running quickly by minimizing the human time (this especially plagues Linux groups). In the long run, it saves maybe one second from carefully iconized desktop. I can easily run parallel two different ray-tracing softwares, CAD software and MATLAB in the same monitor and access all the necessary stuff from shortcuts and taskbar. However, I'm all for getting those softwares to start fast once I have instructed the computer to do so. 2 seconds would be a good time, but the starting time of OpenOffice (and other softwares like CAD) is counted in minutes, rather than seconds. That is what I consider wasting of user's time.
Bottom line is that CLI is good for server use, but not very useful anywhere else. It is odd how little I have needed to do something like searching a file from command line (not at all) once I got to GUI. I admit that sometimes I do have considered some kind of batch to convert all .BMP files in directory to .PNG, but because there is only a couple of images it hasn't been worth the effort. There CLI could do it, but then again a little bit more energy focused on it would yield even more useful tool in GUI.
The bad sides of CLI (no need to do that in GUI, 'cause we have the CLI!) will swim up and bite the programmer in the ass once he starts to utilize specialized peripheral devices.
As for dependencies, you know there's an invention called package managers. While they are not unified in formats, they sure manage the dependencies well, whether it's a source or binary package manager. And you tend to forget the advantages. First of all, all the applications are maintained in a central place. You remove, add, update and reinstall every component on the same place. No need to have around 5 update managers for every single application. Secondly, if one or more programs share a library, it doesn't have to be re-installed for each application. Let's take the example of Firefox and Thunderbird. Both rely on xulrunner and proably a couple more libraries. When you install these two programs on a GNU/Whatever distro, both the programs share the same library. Install these two on Windows, and you'll install all the libraries twice.
A-ha! I knew it! I think placing all the libraries to same place would account to a fault in design (worse, in this case it is done with purpose). The system will not be fool proof. One cannot assume user has the required library already, or that the same library version is not tampered or updated. I don't care whether that 20 Kb of extra space required is used if it ensures that the program that I need to use works. If I would like to make sure that programs work and that there are no problems because of libraries, I'd do exactly as Microsoft has done.
However, updaters could really utilize Windows' own updater, but for some reason everybody seems to lean on writing their own ridiculously bloated and slow Java Virtual Machine updaters. Why can't the programs themselves check if there are updates and leave it at that?
Finally, it's not like Windows is entirely free of "dependencies" - while it certainly make less... visible use of them, applications sometimes require different versions of the .NET framework. Also mentioned above, Freespace relies on OpenAL for the sound. Some OSS also install components like GTK+ or Python (when they're not directly bundled in the app itself). Also note that some software is available in distribution-independant packages (I'm not necessarily talking about compiling the source - some offer binaries with the dependencies inside).
Windows .NET Framework is really annoying. I wish they had never done that, but this kinda makes my point. I never end up having the right version for that particular software, and this actually lead me to delete the ****ing Framework from HDD and ban all programs from entering my computer that require it. Note that this is only one Framework / package / module whatever you call it. In Linux it usually turns out to be ten times worse.
Was that all I wanted to reply? Guess so for the moment.
-
Well, I think package management and dependency tracking is one of the strongest points in Linux.
I mean, when I was still using Windows, I just had to accept that sooner or later the install will rot to the point requiring a reinstall, and not much could be done about it. I hated that, it meant I couldn't actually *use* all the possibilities Windows GUI offers for personal adjustments and tweaks - not without wasting my time, since I'd need to redo them all again after awhile, and then again.. Same thing with performance tuning - takes too much time, considering the tweaks will be lost anyway.
-
Now, for the CLI thing and how it can be used more than an "open file manager" :p, well it really depends on how you use your computer. You can use it or not use it at all, it's pretty much up to the user. For myself, I use it to manage pretty much everything system-wide. Installation, startup scripts, processes, configuration, etc. etc. For example, it will be faster for me to type "eix firefox" to search for a program instead of launching an UI like Synaptic or Yast or whatever software you use to manage your programs. That's more a question of taste, but the CLI is very useful for some people.
I was simply describing what I do myself. I always have a file manager open (the Windows explorer is useless, but that's what we have programs for), which is effectively my desktop, and I can zip around the Windows GUI quickly because of a fairly high mouse dpi setting and the fact that all interface animations are disabled. With that setup, all of the things you mention can be done just as quickly through GUI-based utilities.
I basically agree with what Mika said about this. You might like CLI out of personal preference, but there is very little actual advantage to it these days.
I mean, when I was still using Windows, I just had to accept that sooner or later the install will rot to the point requiring a reinstall, and not much could be done about it.
I'm on a 5 year old XP install and have no problems. It can work indefinitely as long as you maintain it the right way.
-
I don't think I actually said that GUIs should be replaced or dumbed down in favor of the CLI (if that is the case, then it's not what I've been trying to point out, believe me). I said they shouldn't drop it, that's all. Using GUIs myself most of the time, I don't know that I'd do without them. I still do like to manage stuff on the CLI. Is it how it should be done by everybody? No, since as it's been pointed out many times, there's a certain paranoia about it.
About dependencies, no, you cannot determine which dependencies each user has. This is why package managers exists - to pull down the necessary dependencies. And yes, it is possible to have more than one version of the same library installed on the same system. How the API changes across versions and how fast the changes are implemented, that depends of the library you use. But should you use any, keeping up with the APIs is a necessity. Don't like the libraries? Well build your own, nothing stops you from doing it. To package the program well is both the job of the developer and the package maintainer. If you don't like that whole system, well, have the dependencies bundled within your application and distribute it that way (I know Firefox, songbird, Flash and Skype who does it that way). Is it more complicated? Well, with my experience I'd say it has been easier for me to setup all my stuff using the same centralized service. Developer-side, I have access to way more libraries "out-of-the-box" than I'd have with Windows if I have do develop stuff. Is it the case of all developers, however? Probably not. But which system is better? It depends what you're working with. A bad system in itself? I don't believe so.
I'm not quite sure everybody can use Window's updater (enlighten me if I'm wrong here). I think that the Microsoft Update service is available to only Microsoft and some others who have the right to distribute updates on it (I sometimes saw some peripheral drivers popping in). I'd be really surprised to see Firefox come up in MS Update :lol:. But is Windows' update mechanism itself available to all applications? It would sure help clean up all these updaters.
There's something I's like to point out too. When you buy a computer from your everyday computer store, they are not designed nor built to support OSes other than Windows. So of course, there's a risk that the hardware on it could not work. That situation is nearly absent if you buy a Mac, because they control the hardware their OS runs on. So it's practically impossible to buy a Mac that doesn't work out of the box. But ask for a computer setup that has hardware known to work on Linux? Unless you choose the parts yourself, good luck. And that is a problem. And it's not like there's no hardware out there that is supported by the operating system itself.
Speaking of Skype, I stopped using it recently so switch to Ekiga and a real phone. I don't know what happened at Skype, but they literally left the program without any updates, not even bugfixes, for about a year and a half. I don't know how many people are working on the Linux version of the client or how they do their development, but they certainly did not managed it very well. And on any program, especially if you pay for the service, you expect the company to deliver the goods. And Skype simply didn't. They also ended up on a pretty bad time to let the app dead. Pulseaudio seemed to make their stuff crash on some distros. Was it the fault of the distribution or Skype? Difficult to say (I certainly would have waited more before integrating the Pulseaudio technology into distributions), but they didn't seem to put effort to work with the community either. As for myself, running on a 64bit system, I had to use 32bit versions of the alsa libraries, which worked, but what annoyed me was the apparent lack of interest from Skype to pull up their sleeves (which, I think, they finally done now). It worked, but for what I paid for, I got less than the Windows or Mac counterparts. That drew may away from the service. What I did? Went up with a service using the SIP protocol and chose the programs and hardware myself. Works perfectly well, I can communicate with everybody, and have all the features I need regardless of the operating system I use. Did I ask anybody to make their software open? Did I need to contact support to setup my stuff? No.
I run a couple of commercial programs on my GNU/Linux box. Flash, the Nvidia driver and VP UML (which I no longer use, because I didn't quite like the way it worked regardless of the OS). I also use to run Adobe Reader, which also worked (but I had a better equivalent). Nvidia drivers runs flawlessly, and while I won't brag about the performances of Flash, it also works. When I was using Ubuntu, I got Wine working and played some of my games with it, but when you have a Windows partition for that matter, well, no need to duplicate the environment :lol:. I also need the Windows platform to test if my stuff works on both OSes. The point is, it is possible to make good cross-platform software. Whether it's a library or a program. Webkit, for example, is being used by Apple, Google, KDE and other applications related to the Web. OpenGL is used by ID software (and our very own SCP), and they make pretty decent games. More recently, World Of Goo was released on the Wii and PC on Windows/Mac/Linux.
Is commercial support lacking? Sure, there's no denying for that. Having the Adobe's creative suite run on Linux would sure be a blast. Having more games developed on it? Anytime. Having more 3D modeling tools, better drivers, better support, of course! But that thing doesn't come with magic, and certainly not by leaving the boat and continuously hammering on the assumption that developing on the GNU/Linux platform is impossible. People complain there's no commercial support of any sort, but it seems way easier to point fingers at the OS itself instead of making efforts. Is it easy to do such a leap? Heck no. It can be freaking hard. Especially if what you previously develop relies on libraries that are not cross-platform and that you don't have the expertise to do such a thing. But the community itself cannot do it all by itself. And I certainly won't blame it or the distributions whatsoever for the generalized lack of commercial support. Are the distributions flawless? Neither. But there is a need for cooperation between the two, and I don't think it's happening very much.
And finally, I can work indefinitely on my GNU/Linux install as long as I maintain it the right way. Just like I can on Windows XP.
-
Package managers would work much better if (a) they were standardized across all distributions (Windows does not have two competing installer formats each only compatible with certain versions of Windows), and (b) independent developers actually used the damn things instead of releasing everything as source. A lot of people making software for Linux still think it is reasonable to expect users to compile it. And until that is no longer the case Linux will not have a chance of breaking MS's domination.
Only tinkerers and developers need or care about source releases. The average user does not want to compile your software! He expects to download it, click on it, and watch it go.
-
And just out of curiosity, did you have to rely on compiling almost everything you needed in order to run your system? Or you stumbled upon exceptions?
-
Who said anything about simply "running my system"? Who cares if my system "runs" if it can't do what I want it to do without having to compile software, and its dependencies, and its dependencies' dependencies? There's a lot more to a computer than the core system components. I guess if all you want to do is surf the web you won't ever have to touch gcc but I do a lot more than that with my computer.
-
That's not what I meant. I ask if you had to compile a rather large number of application or essential stuff without which your system would be non operational. The reason I ask this is simply because I hear this often, often from people who never touched the operating system, or used a distro 5 years old. And you'll understand that I have a tendency to believe that things are often way generalized on this subject. Pardon my skepticism.
I've been running on Linux for about 5 years, and except that I run now today a source distribution (which means everything is compiled via a source package manager, nearly the same as with a binary distribution, but with sources), my last 2 years with Ubuntu and my short experience with Fedora required little or no compilation at all. I too, do much more than browse the Web. It'd be easier to say the only thing I don't do with my box is gaming. Right now on my system, the only thing "compiled by hand", is fs2 open.
-
I'm on a 5 year old XP install and have no problems. It can work indefinitely as long as you maintain it the right way.
I always thought that software installs on Windows are scary. Because you never know what the installer will actually do before trying it out.
And the more software you have installed, the scarier it becomes - if a particular install has a side effect on something already installed, you won't find it out until you run the software (maybe months after the offending install was done - so you can't even guess the cause it broke anymore).
I don't know how XP manages these issues, though, maybe it's saner than it's predecessors.
-
I'm on a 5 year old XP install and have no problems. It can work indefinitely as long as you maintain it the right way.
Seconded^3. I have had three computers running Windows XP for five years, two at work and one at home. At work the user support continuously updates stuff (even the stuff that is totally unnecessary, like MovieMaker, since I never use them) but the machines still work for years. I don't know what is it that causes the whole thing to break apart with some people and not with some people. I would have thought continuous updates would break the thing apart, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
I'm not quite sure everybody can use Window's updater (enlighten me if I'm wrong here). I think that the Microsoft Update service is available to only Microsoft and some others who have the right to distribute updates on it (I sometimes saw some peripheral drivers popping in). I'd be really surprised to see Firefox come up in MS Update . But is Windows' update mechanism itself available to all applications? It would sure help clean up all these updaters.
Don't bet on it: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/jul09/07-20linuxqa.mspx
I recall having read that Microsoft originally intended the Windows Updater to be used this way, as it is with Windows Installer. I don't know at which point did the functionality change, or if it has changed. I have found out that the least annoying updaters in Windows world are those that are bundled with the start up of the program, given that the updates happen around four to five times / year maximum. No extra updaters are needed for that stuff.
Don't like the libraries? Well build your own, nothing stops you from doing it. To package the program well is both the job of the developer and the package maintainer.
Yeah, as I said before the effect of Linux tends to be that the responsiblity of hardware manufacturer goes to the software developer. We were not expecting the need to write our own libraries (nor was there money or time allocated for that in budget), as the hardware vendor was supposed to that. We expected to be able to work and further develop the hardware that the library and driver controlled.
In our world the small saving of the hard disk space means nothing if it causes the program not to work.
Having more 3D modeling tools, better drivers, better support, of course!
Call it a hunch, but I don't expect to see many 3D modelling tools launched for Linux. This is reiterating my first post, but my feeling is that these software programmers usually tend to think their software is worth of some money, and will not work for free. General Purpose License is not always a good thing. This is especially the case in my working area, none of the softwares related to my work are available for Linux.
-
blender is a competent 3d editor...
-
I think you were referring to the General Public License?
Yes, Blender is indeed a wonderful app. But the expertise in the industry seems to lie elsewhere. And as much as I'd love to see Blender get adopted more than it is actually in the industry, having diversity (in both free software and proprietary software) is the key. The more people are able to work, the more people you get. For SCP related-stuff, good thing Water built a cob export script. I don't know what I'd do without it :P!
-
Ummm, Blender is not something which I would consider using to design something that is going to be manufactured.
It would be nice to clear up what I meant with 3D modelling, so might as well do that right here: CAD software.
-
CAD is CAD, when you mention 3D modelling, 90% of the people will think, oh, polygonal modelling software.
i'd kill for cinema4d to finally get proper true nurbs surfaces.
-
I really haven't used a 'proper' CAD program, and I haven't done a lot of 'improper' CAD work either (I've used truespace a few times to design things I build, it wasn't fun, but it was better than doing it by hand). why exactly do you think blender is deficent for that purpose (I actualy have hardly used it, so I'm not advocating it, just wondering why you think that)
-
because per default, blender, as do most 3D modelling packages uses polygons as its way of storing surfaces.
-
I don't think that CAD programs have the same uses as programs like Blender. It's not really a defect, rather a different kind of modeling tool.
-
indeed. different programs for different fields. cad programs are more for conformity to real world sizes.
3D programs the like of blender are more for modelling for photo-realistic (or unrealistic) rendering, not for making molds for example.
-
Ah, you already seem to have mentioned some of the things which make it problematic. I would add on top of that software robustness and accurate, correct calculations. And support for some physical quantities as moment of inertia, boolean operations on general 3D shapes and such.
-
Blender does have a physics and game engine enbedded in it. Although I've never fiddled with it. General features of the physics engine are listed there (http://www.blender.org/features-gallery/features/) under "physics and particles". And it does support boolean operations on 3D shapes.
-
Correction: It does have some physics in it. But not all the necessary stuff for mechanical design. I'm not sure about general 3D shapes, it should be pretty much NURBS based to do that. Given that it doesn't open any of STEP, SAT, IGES, SolidWorks or CATIA formats, I don't think it does NURBS too well. I haven't been dealing with basic polygons that much myself, it is a completely different world. Would be interesting to see if STL files (triangles) gain popularity in CAD data exchange, but I haven't seen any being utilized in my field of work.