[Martinus]

Originally posted by Zarax


I know it's a LOTR reference, I just tried to adapt it to a certain thing...

@Clave: Paid support is when:

a) you don't have time to fixing it alone

b) you don't have the skills to fix it

For most other cases community support will give you enough solutions most of the times, except for stuff like hardware/drivers issues.

[color=66ff00]c) you're not actually allowed to fix it thus making you reliant on the support service and taking the power and initiative away from you.
[/color]

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Zarax

Face it, the linux community is blatantly raped by IBM, but why admit it when you can blame Microsoft?

Yeah. I hate how IBM contributes code to the Linux kernel. Especially how 337 entries in the Kernel 2.6.11 changelog are from IBM employees.

Oh, and I hate how they give Linux more versaility by, say, contributing another journalling filesystem.

Damn IBM.

[Zarax]

Originally posted by Maeglamor

[color=66ff00]c) you're not actually allowed to fix it thus making you reliant on the support service and taking the power and initiative away from you.
[/color]

Only if you want to fiddle with the source code, any oher kind of workaround has no such limitation.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Zarax


AFAIK MSFT uses SCO's UNIX derivative components for its networking system, and not BSD.

From Wikipedia:

Microsoft Windows has used BSD-derived code in its implementation of TCP/IP and bundles recompiled versions of BSD's command line networking tools with its current releases.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Zarax


Only if you want to fiddle with the source code, any oher kind of workaround has no such limitation.

[color=66ff00]Ah, there you see is an important distinction. In a closed source OS you rely on hacks to fix a problem that they're not willing to help you with. In an open source OS the user can actually rectify the problem themselves and can in fact tweak any part of the OS that they don't think is up to scratch.

Money instead of being used to fix problems, can be instead used to create functionality.
[/color]

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Zarax


AFAIK MSFT uses SCO's UNIX derivative components for its networking system, and not BSD.

Well that explains the BSD License and copyright in the Microsoft socket stack.

For the lazy, run a strings search on, oh say... ftp.exe. Et voila!:

@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.

Hey look! The BSD License header. *GASP!*

Do you actually have any touch with reality, or do you live in some happy fantasy land deep within Balmer's colon?

When I sell a client an IBM machine loaded with Linux (SuSE for preference) that client doesn't pay IBM anything except the original material cost of the machine. Where do you get this fruity idea:

"we give linux for free, of course you have to buy our servers and pay $700 for evey machine per month plus our embedded consultant fee"

I guess having a consulting arm is bad or something. But its not the only way to get an IBM machine with Linux on it. Hell its not the way most companies go. But again, we're clouding your blue-sky fantasy world with facts.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Maeglamor

[color=66ff00]I don't think that's a good analogy.

Linux irrespective of which flavour is entirely transparent, you can take any bit you like and use it, as such all of the tanks are the same but the addons are what make them different. Any tank can have a 70mm or 90mm gun depending on the whim of the user. Some distros promote one type of build over others but there's nothing to stop you chopping and changing. It's fair to say that the way the tank is built changes from distro to distro but they're all building a pretty much identical base tank. Ubuntu and Fedora are like buying a pre-built tank with clearly defined options whereas Gentoo, Debian and linux from scratch are akin to buying a kit and building it from the ground up yourself. The thing to remember is that all of the tank parts are available to everyone for the most part so you don't have to settle on just one set of addons.

I can use the package system from debian if I wish or the ports system from gentoo to install programs in any linux build. You can choose any firewall you like, any interface you like.... It's more like asking would you like your M1 with a stereo, furry dice and mats or just the furry dice and mats.
[/color]

Fine, you know more about it than I do, for sure. But you all seem to have missed my original point:

While Linux works great for tinkerers and those with time to delve into it, that description does not fit the average Joe Schmoe off the street. Therefore, IF the Linux community makes it a goal to enroach on Microsoft's hold of such computer users, something needs to change. If not, no problemo.

Kapiche?

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Fine, you know more about it than I do, for sure. But you all seem to have missed my original point:

While Linux works great for tinkerers and those with time to delve into it, that description does not fit the average Joe Schmoe off the street. Therefore, IF the Linux community makes it a goal to enroach on Microsoft's hold of such computer users, something needs to change. If not, no problemo.

Kapiche?

[color=66ff00]What Linux experience do you have? What distros specifically?

I get the feeling that you've inadvertantly made things difficult for yourself.
[/color]

[Sesquipedalian]

Even if he has, that's not the point.  What Sandwich is saying is that Windows owns the market because of the vast legions of newbs out there.  Windows is newb friendly: a lobotomised monkey can do the simple tasks most  newbs want to do when using Windows, and it takes a certain degree of sophistication to reach the level where one moves past the vener of ease-of-use and discovers the suckiness of Windows.  Linux is not nearly as newb friendly:  It takes very little time before a Linux user reaches the point where he needs to become more sophisiticated than a lobotomised monkey to do what he needs to do.

In short, if Linux wants to make any real inroads on Windows marketshare, they need to make it lobotomised monkey friendly.

[WMCoolmon]

I can actually see where Sandwich is coming from (Red Hat ??, Red Hat 6.2, Red Hat 8(?), Yoper Linux, Gentoo Linux, (K)Ubuntu, and a quick test of Symphony OS)

With Linux it's sort of an all-or-nothing affair. You can either accept what's given to you, or you can dig around for absurd amounts of time to change the settings to something more intuitive or useful.

Even at the lower levels you have the same thing...my infamous Gentoo install started minimalistic, and ended up being fatter than Yoper with far less than 1/3 of the programs. There was a lot of source, but there were also a crapload of features I didn't care to have that I had to put in because of dependencies.

To fix that, we're talking LFS.

Help is...sporadic. Occassionally it'll be fast and painless, other times I get the impression that nobody knows any more than me.

In addition the distros seem remarkably frail. Ubuntu seemed pretty good, 'til I tried to install Kubuntu and it failed due to 1 insignificant package. Solution? Delete that package from the cache, and make apt get it from the internet instead. To a beginner user that would've totally stonewalled the installation, even though it was remarkably simple to do.

Really what it feels like most Linux things are lacking in is organization and design. Foobar and Winamp easily outclass anything under Linux, because they do their job and do it well and do it far better than anything else under Linux. I've never had to repeatedly try to recompile a plugin for either; they've worked when I dropped them in the plugins folder. Although they support pretty much all the formats I'd want to play with them.
There's also none of this "flexibility" of being able to choose your backend. They work. Period.

That's pretty much all I'm looking for. Something that works efficiently. But I find myself continually rebooting back to Windows simply because I can play my music on it without hassle, whereas on Linux it'll crash or fail to play on a random basis, then I'll have to spend a half-hour trying to fix it. Sometimes, hell, it isn't even something I did; it just breaks for no apparent reason.

Maybe I'm just using the wrong programs. Maybe there are better ones out there. But I have to ask myself, why are the 'mainstream' ones so frustratingly limited or difficult to use, when on Linux I truly do have a choice between a half-dozen different ones that will do what I want; I just have to choose between the bells and whistles.

Firefox and Thunderbird have shown what intelligent design (pun definitely not intended) and organization can do. Categories are descriptively labelled for what they contain. Important options are up front. And they do what they're meant to do superbly.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
In short, if Linux wants to make any real inroads on Windows marketshare, they need to make it lobotomised monkey friendly.

Not just lobotomized-monkey friendly...time-friendly as well. Good support is great; not needing it in the first place is even better because you can spend more time doing stuff and less time getting to the point where you can do stuff.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]I've never got to the point where Gentoo is more trouble than it's worth, I had to install it about three times initially but I learned a hell of a lot about Linux in the process.

The first distro I ever tried was Fedora on Kazan's recommendation, it was as easy as installing windows and worked pretty much straight away. It was a bit too fat for my liking though so I went with the minimalist Gentoo.

I do admit that I have a tendency to enjoy learning linux so it has perhaps skewed my views, I don't think I'm any smarter than your average person so I don't think that Linux is beyond most of you.
[/color]

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Even if he has, that's not the point.  What Sandwich is saying is that Windows owns the market because of the vast legions of newbs out there.  Windows is newb friendly: a lobotomised monkey can do the simple tasks most  newbs want to do when using Windows, and it takes a certain degree of sophistication to reach the level where one moves past the vener of ease-of-use and discovers the suckiness of Windows.  Linux is not nearly as newb friendly:  It takes very little time before a Linux user reaches the point where he needs to become more sophisiticated than a lobotomised monkey to do what he needs to do.

In short, if Linux wants to make any real inroads on Windows marketshare, they need to make it lobotomised monkey friendly.

EXACTLY!! *hugs the lobotomized monkeys*

Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]I do admit that I have a tendency to enjoy learning linux so it has perhaps skewed my views, I don't think I'm any smarter than your average person so I don't think that Linux is beyond most of you.
[/color]

Trust me - the fact that you post regularly on forums (especially using your own customized colour tag) means that you're lightyears ahead of most computer users.

Example: I started the download for the trial version of Panda Antivirus for a person here at work (who I have converted to Firefox) and went back to my office. When it finished, this person came in to my office and told me it was finished, should they click on the "Clean Up" button to scan their computer?

Those of you who don't know, Firefox's download window has a "Clean Up" button that clears the list of the files you've downloaded.

I am positively sure that 99.998% of the people on HLP would not think for a moment that "Clean Up" meant "scan for viruses". But this person did. Why? Because they are not computer-literate. They click on the icon to check email, they use MS Word to write documents, and they use a browser to surf. That's basically it. The computer is a tool, nothing more. How many of us research about a hammer we would use? What kind of wood in the handle made of, how much force can be applied before it breaks, how heavy is the head, and what metal is it composed of, where is the most optimal place to grip the hammer... no, we just use the danged hammer as the tool it is.

Now a carpenter would likely know such things, because knowing the tools of his trade is important. If he can use the hammer a bit more efficiently through knowledge about it, he'll go the extra mile and save himself time and effort in the long run.

But most people just want to smack that nail and move on.

So it is with the general public and computers. They just want to send that email, to write that document, or to check that web site, and move on.

Maeg, I know that you're FAR more computer-savvy than that.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]I guess when you put it like that there's not much arguing.

As someone once said, a computer is the most complex piece of hardware you're ever likely to have in your home. I do think that Joe public should come to this realisation but they've been sold on this idea that anyone can use a computer with no training.

I guess it's keeping tech support in business though. *shrugs*
[/color]

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sandwich

I am positively sure that 99.998% of the people on HLP would not think for a moment that "Clean Up" meant "scan for viruses". But this person did. Why? Because they are not computer-literate.

That's not computer literacy, that's sheer laziness.  There's a bloody tooltip on that button, it's not exactly advanced and it's an illustration of the (supposed) point of common interface features like, well, tooltips.

Sorry, I just get annoyed at these people who sit around like idiots rather than press a clearly marked and bloody obvious button.  It's almost as bad as buying a game, wondering why it's not working, and then only checking the min. reqs on the box when asked to despite already knowing that they are on the box.

[Singh]

[caveman speech]
Singh use linux once.

Singh not sure what it was...

Singh only see 'red hat' and cute penguin

Singh try to install linux to father's computer, think it better than windows....

Linux did not like Singh...linux only show error after error and lot of coding-thingys...

Singh too young at time to know that it was something called 'c'.....

Singh try to remove linux.

But Linux not happy...linux complain....thrash everything....

Father's Computer ended up spoilt....

Singh pay the price...

Singh promised to use Linux no more...Linux was...EVIL!
[/caveman rant]

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by aldo_14
That's not computer literacy, that's sheer laziness.  There's a bloody tooltip on that button, it's not exactly advanced and it's an illustration of the (supposed) point of common interface features like, well, tooltips.

Sorry, I just get annoyed at these people who sit around like idiots rather than press a clearly marked and bloody obvious button.  It's almost as bad as buying a game, wondering why it's not working, and then only checking the min. reqs on the box when asked to despite already knowing that they are on the box.

No, aldo, as much as it annoys the piss out of both you and me, it's computer illiteracy, plain and simple. Or do you have reason to think that computer illiterate people, who have trouble figuring out that a computer has to have electricity to work, somehow comprehend and look everywhere for tooltips? Please.

As Maeg said, computers are complex things. However, look at Picasa, for example. If Linux distros managed to hide their Hyde (no pun intended) faces under a Picasa-like Jekyll - an interface that's easy to use, intuitive, simple, and just works - how long do you think it would be before they started making real inroads with the "My coffee-cup holder on my computer broke" crowd?

One thing that I haven't really touched on is the naming of Linux applications. Obviously, most of them are 3rd-party apps, but still... Did anyone except for OpenOffice pick up on what MS did with Windows XP?? No longer is the sole gateway to the internet a little blue "e" on the desktop with the words "Internet Explorer" in 2pt font. No, now they have, in a very prominent position at the head of the Start menu, two items: "Internet" and "E-mail". Under those simple descriptions you get some details... Firefox, IE, Thunderbird, Outlook, whatever. But the prominent title is task-oriented, not application-oriented.

Same with OpenOffice. Their word processor's name? It doesn't even have a name. It's invoked by "Text Document" in the program menu. Same with their "Excel" ("Spreadsheet"), etc.

Yeah, branding is great - when you're recognized as King of the Hill... or at least in the same scope as the KOTH. But if you're trying to make inroads into a market where there are clear leaders, you can't afford to cryptically brand your products; simplicty and clarity rule. iTunes (uhh... music?). iPhoto (pictures). Picasa's name is a bit cryptic, although it does immediately bring up associations of Picasso, the famous painter. Microsoft apps have been King of their respective Hills for quite some time, and yet some of them are still named clearly - like Word. All the rest are actually Xeroxes, Kleenexes, and Googles... brand names that have become so popular that they ARE the definition: Excel, PowerPoint, etc.

Anyway, I didn't intend to post such a long thing again. I was just gonna link to this /. article relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Fury]

Speaking of linux (again), does any of you know how to set-up firewire networking between two computers? It's simple enough to set up in Windows, but I haven't even managed to get linux to recognize firewire as a network connection, let alone make a working network.

[Clave]

No idea, sorry...

I am an outsider, and Sandwich summed it up perfectly imo:

While Linux works great for tinkerers and those with time to delve into it, that description does not fit the average Joe Schmoe off the street. Therefore, IF the Linux community makes it a goal to enroach on Microsoft's hold of such computer users, something needs to change. If not, no problemo.

We have 8 PCs, 2 Macs, and some laptops on our network.  We used to have a Windows server, then switched to Linux.  This created some fundemental issues for me:

1.  All the files on the server show a creation date of Jan 1904.  When asked, the IT wizard replied: 'Oh it does that, you can't change it, it's your fault for using a Mac'
Well, frankly he can DIAF, because a) I started the whole ****ing department while he was still in grade school.  and b) Windows DID show creation dates for files...

2.  Nobody in the whole company knows how to do anything on the server, except him.  And I mean literally nothing.  If it crashed, we could not restart it.  We can't add new users, do virus scans, delete corrupted files, nothing..  I have a BIG problem with this - what if he gets sick? or gets stuck abroad on holiday? just simple things like that can totally trash days of work if there is a server problem.  He puts far too much faith in remote monitoring for my liking...

3.  There are too many unexplained problems with individual files: Icons go missing, the file type is mysteriously changed, or it changes size for no good reason... it's the sort of thing that in the long term is going to screw up good work.

4.  Finally, the Golden Rule: If it ain't broke, don't fix it - Windows was not perfect, BUT it was working, and it was (semi) understandable to me.  The trouble with 'gurus' is that they don't have to actually USE the friggin stuff they install, day in day out, like I do, and I suspect many other users, who suffer the needless irritation of being connected to something they have no control over.

Now if he had put something useful in, like 1000 baseT ethernet, I might have forgiven him, but right now, it's just bleh...

[karajorma]

I think your problem is more with the IT guy than the operating system.