You know what else? If you're a Linux developer and you've been spending time on, say, porting Linux to the prehistoric z80 processor or writing device drivers for the long obsolete ESDI (Enhanced Small Device Interface), maybe you should consider spending your time on something that's more productive.
I'm not the only one to make that argument. Ulrich Drepper, a Red Hat developer, makes the same argument in his blog. The only difference between us is that I believe refocusing the Linux community's energy is critical.Now Linux desktop developers do hold a few cards in their hands. For starters, Linux has a lot more drivers for the x86 platform than Apple and friends have.
News source: eWeek
I'm not the only one to make that argument. Ulrich Drepper, a Red Hat developer, makes the same argument in his blog. The only difference between us is that I believe refocusing the Linux community's energy is critical.Now Linux desktop developers do hold a few cards in their hands. For starters, Linux has a lot more drivers for the x86 platform than Apple and friends have.
News source: eWeek
<< dupe >>
Secondly, I get into Linux not because it was an "easy to use Unix". It is a free (libre) unix-like Operating System that is developed by an Open Source community. And these features will not be in OSX in the forseeable future. I don't need Linux to have a 100%, 75%, or even 20% or 5% market share. As long as I get a reliable OS and all the apps I need for my day-to-day computing needs, I am happy.
There is an interesting counter-point that provides an alternative view to this news commentary here on OSNews.
is one of the reasons why linux, in it's current state will never make inroads into the desktop marketplace. There's no direction. Right now, there are probably about 200-300 different little groups of guys all trying to reinvent the wheel, instead of working together and finding the *best* way to create and advance the wheel. One thing that I could see happening is, not that the linux users start switching...but the linux *developers* start switching. You can write open-source software for OS X, and have a decent set of standards and guidelines to go by.
I agree, but this pefect example;
You know what else? If you're a Linux developer and you've been spending time on, say, porting Linux to the prehistoric z80 processor or writing device drivers for the long obsolete ESDI (Enhanced Small Device Interface), maybe you should consider spending your time on something that's more productive.
is one of the reasons why linux, in it's current state will never make inroads into the desktop marketplace. There's no direction. Right now, there are probably about 200-300 different little groups of guys all trying to reinvent the wheel, instead of working together and finding the *best* way to create and advance the wheel. One thing that I could see happening is, not that the linux users start switching...but the linux *developers* start switching. You can write open-source software for OS X, and have a decent set of standards and guidelines to go by.
And to the guy who thinks Linux "lacks direction", I think it's direction is pretty clear, Linus is constantly rushing in new patches, including features which are specifically designed for the desktop. And, just because people are porting Linux to obscure hardware, is not a good example of "lack of direction". Infact, it's the worst one ever. One of the key strengths of Linux and indeed all "free" software is its portability, this is why IBM is so keen on it, instantly a whole wealth of software is available on new cutting edge hardware (i.e. the CELL chip, for example). You can't install Windows or OSX on a PS2 can you, or a CELL for the matter, or a calculator or.... and so on. So no, think again.
Last edited by 20986 on 08 Jun 2005 - 16:32
I never realized how beneficial running Linux on the PS2 or a calculator was to the overall developement of a working, stable and usable linux desktop for the average user. Thank you for showing me the light. Can't get decent stable support for my wireless mouse, can't get decent levels of wireless encryption without compiling it myself from the command line...but thank god above that we can run Linux on a PS2 or calculator. Awesome inroad for the desktop.
Sad.
I'm not *slamming* linux, since I do use it quite a bit and have for many many years. But I can see where frustration would come from.
Are you aware that these performance problems were caused by issues in the kernel which IIRC, have now been fixed in Tiger?
Linux is a kernel. Darwin is a kernel. Both use some GNU tools and OS X also uses BSD and System V tools on its system including the "real" sh shell.
Linux "distros" lack direction and many of them don't want to have anything to do with the LSD which would make distribution of binary commercial apps on linux easier.
Last edited by 18285 on 08 Jun 2005 - 17:08
That is *lack of direction*, my friend. And I won't confuse my lack of something "useful" to say with your apparent inability to comprehend what you're reading.
Knight', have you used Tiger on the Server?
Are you aware that these performance problems were caused by issues in the kernel which IIRC, have now been fixed in Tiger?
Linux is a kernel. Darwin is a kernel. Both use some GNU tools and OS X also uses BSD and System V tools on it's system including the "real" sh shell.
Linux "distros" lack direction and many of them don't want to have anything to do with the LSD which would make distribution of binary commercial apps on linux easier.
Firstly, read this:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436&p=6
"Installed on the machine was the server version of Mac OS X Tiger. "
And yes... it did blow.
I am perfectly aware that OSX is UNIX like and ships with GNU tools. The problem is, the Apple devs have done so much crap to OSX, the UI runs kernel space, which I think's a very BAD idea, even if it adds performance, stability is important to me.
So, you think that 200+ different distros all released for the *same exact architecture* is a valid worthwhile use of time for all parties involved? Not even taking into consideration all those sad individuals wanting to run a linux server on their Dreamcast...or apparently their calculator. So, it's not meant for the average x86/PPC Joe? Then what the hell is Linus putting so much focus into the desktop aspects FOR, which you yourself stated?
That is *lack of direction*, my friend. And I won't confuse my lack of something "useful" to say with your apparent inability to comprehend what you're reading.
To say there is an oppurtinty cost involved in having developers make Linux portable, as opposed to desktop software, would be a true thing to say. Though, minimal, because these people probably contribute to the various desktop related projects too, so I don't see your point. This isn't a "lack of direction", either, maybe it's not the direction you'de like to see for Linux, but, thankfully, Linux isn't just yours, it's everyones, meaning they can do the hell they want with it, and I'de say there are huge efforts being made in both portability AND desktop software. HAL/DBUS, the whole project Utopia, GNOME/KDE, Luminosity, Novel and Mono, Redhat and their whole "instant on Linux" idea, Beagle, F-Spot, I could go on and on.
arguingdiscussion above could be attributed to:Linux lacks one single direction, as it is branching out in many simultaneous directions.
Most of the directions do not hinder advancements in the other directions (that is, people porting to embedded hardware would not be ones interested in programming desktop search functions). Out of the competition (some might term it "chaos", when viewed from certain aspects) for items such as Desktop Environments (KDE, Gnome, et al) come advances from the programming teams to make their product more attractive than the alternatives. And this, in theory, keeps things improving - rather than stagnating. (and some use IE's development before and after Firefox became a 'threat' as an example of this)
Another thing is, portable code has to be very well written. Crude hacks are usually unportable, so most Linux code is extremely clean and streamlined, and the code gets tested in the many very different environments to ensure it's quality, performance and stability.
And last, but certainly not least, Linux is not the product of a single company, with a single focus. Everybody contributing to OSS is free to work on whatever he/ she wants or needs. The mainline (vanilla) kernel is used on a broad range of different systems, the most important (for Linus) being desktops. But even the integration of server technologies like IBM's NUMA-Q architecture, a supercomputer-exclusive technology in the past, also helps dual-CPU Opteron workstations for example. On the other hand, projects focusing on desktop applications, like the KDE project, are not Linux only, and therefore don't include Linux-specific system configuration GUIs.
Linux lacks a user-friendly front end? My wife, my 10 year old, my 8 year old, my 5 year old and even my 3 year old have no problems using my Linux PC. And that is even with fluxbox, which is a lot less "hand-holdy" than Gnome or KDE.
Weak hardware support? You have half a point there. Many vendors don't supply a Linux driver for their hardware. However, Linux has many more drivers across diverse archetectures and platforms that Windows does. And, limiting just to the x86 platform, the reverse of your implied statement is often true. Hardware that Windows no longers support, like my Canon IX-4015 scanner (which hasn't had Windows operability since ME) runs just fine under Linux. So, while hardware drops off the "Supported in Windows" list, it remains on the Linux list. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
There are many other semi-pro trolls posting here in the news. Please don't try to emulate their posts.
That is a big advantage over Windows - I've had old scanners and printers lying about since Windows XP because they are unsupported.
Im sure a lot of you may point out the leaks of the x86 port that will be available very soon after the release, but then Apple doesnt want to care for pirates... U'll surely get sued if u asked for other driver support....
Still, Osx being a major competitor to win could actually mean increase in linux popularity. Peopple would realise there are alternatives. The clear advantage of linux is its openess; and it is absolutely free. The COST of software is always important.
** No flaming intended **
HAHAHA! Anyone can use a computer, does not mean they are using it propertly. Heck ... a 1 year old can "use" Linux, does not mean (s)he is pointing the mouse correctly, installing, and surfing. Usually 3 year olds just pound on keyboards, but if thats "using" Linux, God help all the Linux "users" out there!
Don't make it seem that Linux is easier than OS X! I have used both[suse/redhat and every apple os since os 8] and OS X is no doubt the easiest. I wouldn't have said anything if you just said my wife and 10 year old can use it, because you most likely .. if you do really have a wife/kids ... taught them how to use the internet and check email and so on. But don't make it seem that a 3 year old can use Linux better than others. You sir are blinded by the fluff and the exaggeration ruined your whole point ... in my perspective. Hardcore Linux users will agree with you because they all want to stay the mindset that Linux will be the king of the world. You are entitled to your opinion of which OS, but don't make other feel like crap [linux is not easy] when you say a 3 year old is better in computing than college students trying to learn to use linux for themselves.
Once Linux is set up properly - which admittedly can often be the hard part (although this is only true for n00bs) it is probably just as easy to use as any other OS.
What Windows peeps (and apparently OS X peeps) can't seem to get their heads around is that Linux is just different. That's it. That's all. The minute you can sear that reality onto your brain, is the minute you might actually begin to understand it. If OS X is about 'thinking different' then Linux is about 'think different', think very, very different.'
Unfortunately accepting this appears to often be the hardest thing for many people to do.
GJ
The statement was made that Linux lacked a user-friendly front-end. I stated it wasn't true and provided examples of people who can use the Linux front end. For cryin-out-loud, I didn't say that any of them can administer Linux (much less Windows). And, yes, my 3 year old can use the mouse and keyboard correctly enough to start up UT2004 (he calls it "the shooting game" ). He right-clicks on the desktop to call up the fluxbox menu, navigates to Games, then selects UT2004 from the list. There isn't that much for him to do. He uses both the mouse and keyboard to jump into a raptor, grab the redeemer, fly down and crush some enemies with the craft ("roadkill!" ), and so forth. I think that shows Linux is user-friendly enough when a 3 year old can play his favorite game (or when my wife can log in and check an email for me when I ask for some information while I am at work). I am not saying that any of them are kernel developers.
All my kids are able to start up firefox, click the shortcut to nickjr.com or cartoonnetwork.com and play their kid games. There is nothing inherently more difficult to Linux than there is to Windows. What a person can operate in one, they can do in the other.
Is that enough of an explanation of how Linux can have a user-friendly front end? I have no idea why you argue out a point about claiming that Linux is easier than OSX. No one is arguing that point (except you).
And, no, I won't falsely claim "no flames intended" if I ever attempt to flame anyone. Doubting the veracity of my statements is fine. Attempting to spread innuendo that I amy be so full of crap that I am lying about having a wife and kids goes well beyond normal intelligent discussion and sinks to the level of petty nay-saying.
My bad! I read your post as if you were making "newbies" in Linux feel like crap and that you have kids that can administer and do difficult tasks. I admit, I suck at Linux .. installed and removed Red Hat 8 after a month, I couldn't do much but run the included mozilla. I couldn't install WINE or anything. Tried to learn how to install using RPM, but they would never work. I would try to find sites where they take software and "RPM-it" so I could easily install it. I have now tried Fedora Core 3 and it is much better at installing. I was able to install Firefox for the first time and get Yahoo messenger to work instead of using Gaim .. nothing wrong with Gaim, but I don't want to have to use only the software included.
Sorry if it looked like I was spreading crap, about family, but you really can not believe what people say online. In general, I could say I have a Ferrari and 20 BMW's, just because I wrote I have those don't mean I do. Anyway mad props for you kid playing Unreal2k4. Again sorry.
@raid517
Yes, drawing pictures is qualifies as using a computer. I just thought that the Jensen's kids administered his network and compile code. Seemed exaggerated to me. But Jensen has detailed me on what they do and I do not feel like utter crap not being able to do quiet difficult tasks. Linux is different, yet still the same. You got a sort-of "Start Bar". Only thing different is it's looks and how to install.
I just want to know why can't there be an easy way to install like on OS X, where you grab the application icon and drag it to the application folder, double-click and you have installed and began to run the application?
If you use synpatic the apt-get front end, it is even less difficult to install apps in Linux than it is in OS X or Windows.
The hardest part is not knowing how to do things - and also comparing Linux to other things you are familiar with. When using Linux, you really have to have the words 'think different' burned deeply on your brain with a laser beam - because that is the only way you will ever really understand it. Just because it looks similar to some things you may have seen does not mean that it is similar - or that it should work in a similar way either. Why should you expect things that are fundamentally different to always work in the same way as the things that you do know? After all that isn't thinking different, that's just thinking the same.
GJ
Last edited by 13486 on 08 Jun 2005 - 22:28
raid517, I have used OSX in the stores, and have to say that the work and polish that Apple puts on their interface, and the application requirements (how things will work) they put to those who write apps give OSX a consistent look, feel and operation that isn't quite there with Linux as a whole. And I am not talking just from distro to distro, but even with variance of Window Manager of choice (KDE and fluxbox, for example). Yes, across a corporation, a company can provide a full spectrum of apps that mesh well in terms of UI, but it just doesn't compare yet to Apple (plus Apple has more commercial vendor support by "big names"
No, I don't feel that Linux has a "second rate" UI, but with all the varieties it can get muddled up and inconsistent with very little difficulty.
So yes Mac may attract some switchers. Maybe some n00bs will like it. But a mass exodus away from Linux? I doubt it. Personally as an OS nut I would probably buy a Mac (and don't forget you will still have to do this) and set up a triple boot scenario, with Windows, Mac and Linux. Windows for games, Mac for Video Editing - and Linux for the inner geek within.
Do I see a rush of people running out to buy Macs just because Apple have changed architecture? No! Why? Because the average computer buyer won't even have a clue what this means.
You over estimate the extent of ordinary people's knowledge about these matters - no matter how much hype there is right now within the tech press.
Peeps who spread stories like this should certainly try to spend a little less time in front of their computers and a little more time outside. If you did this, you could try asking the next passer by in the street what they thought about Apple's switch in architecture, and then see what their response might be. If they don't walk away thinking you are a complete nut, then I will eat my hat.
GJ
Last edited by 13486 on 08 Jun 2005 - 20:43
"Enhance Small Device Interface(ESDI)"
Anyway I don't see any reason to worry. What has changed after all? OSX keeps running (only) on Apple computers... which happen to have a different architecture than before. And even if it ran on every x86 machine, we already have *BSD doing that, only that this one isn't free.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.