On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Pardon my heresy, but I don't think Linux will make it as a viable
> > alternative desktop for the masses (no offense intended) for the
> following
> > reasons:
> >
> > 1) the Linux community is too decentralized.
>
> This one I can agree on ;-)
One of it's strongest points. What is decentralized is hard to stop. At
the same time the community backs it's leaders almost completely. If Linus
makes a choice the people will follow him because he is a smart leader. If
he is proven wrong he will admit it and go with the new way and give
credit where credit is due. This is one reason Linux is so
successful. Very decentralized but with strong vortexes of leadership. If
you don't like what the leader decides then your free to do your own
thing. If you prove them wrong then they usually will recognize your
proof.
> > 2) there are no such things as standards, even defacto standards - Cut &
> > Paste is an example - there is not even any social pressure for
> developers
> > to adhere to a standard.
>
> I think what you are refering to is there are no "cattle" developers.
> Standards are only standards if everyone follows them .. who's to say my
> standard is the right one. In the same respect that MS or APPLE follow
> standards so does linux ... but Linux goes one better ... name and prove
> ANY other operating system that actually follows the RFC's for its tcp /
> udp stack. No time to get into ALL the *relevant* standards that ARE
> followed .. this is just one example.
>
Anyone who thinks there are no standards obviously haven't followed
Linux. It all began based on public standards. A free version of those
standards. Where there were not yet standards new standards have been made
and submitted to the proper authorities as new standards. I have used
pretty much every WM for X and it's been a steady progression. KDE & Gnome
have both comitted themselves to standardizing cut&paste, drag&drop, etc
and are working towards making their components work across both. Jabber
has created one of the best references for XML in a real-world product and
they are setting the standard for interdevice communication and instant
messages. PHP and Perl are open specs that anyone can add to or make their
own version of. Both have completely been rewritten at least once to make
room for better versions.
> > 3) window managers make things too different - a nightmare for the
> corporate
> > world, even though you're running Mandrake (or Debian, or whatever) your
> > window manager makes the environment foreign to anyone that doesn't run
> that
> > window manager.
>
> As a person in the corperate environment, I can also agree with this ... at
> the very low user level. Linux is Linux thats it .... its applications that
> people are confusing with the actual operating system ... if you are in an
> X session and alt to a console it doesn't make ANY difference what window
> manager you are using ... its all command line anyway ... lest we forget
> this is UNIX .... maybe its time to teach more people right from the get go
> that the little pretty pictures aren't what make an Operating system.
If your company doesn't want to support more than one WM then don't. If
you do it isn't that hard to do, I know because I do it, and each user can
set their own prefs. Using NFS/NIS users only have to set things up once
and it is shared across all the machines they have access to. Windows and
MacOS can't even begin to touch that without a lot of weird voodoo.
> > 4) Linux developers work for free and are not subject to the same QA that
> > Apple is subject to.
>
>
> WAY off on this one. As a developer working on an open project you are
> slammed harder than anyone else to make something that exceeds
> expectations... you think people who pay for things can be demanding ....
> try coding for free LOL and not only offer it for free...but give people
> the means to contact you PERSONALLY so they can reach you whenever they
> want. Its an awsome and exciting thing ... if you code because you love it
> ... not *just* because it feeds you plus its not just an installed base of
> 10 people who you had to sell your software to .... becasue its free 10's
> of thousands of people (including smarter coders) will be sending you
> *feedback* before you know it, if there are ANY problems they are usually
> pointed out pretty quickly. This is the only real way to get the QA
> corperations make it LOOK like they have. (isolated testing by a team or
> teams who punch a clock) In the same respect this is how projects are
> guaged to live and prosper of die off. I guess for some it is pretty hard
> to comprehend loving something so much you would spend all your free time
> working on it with the only goal being to make it better than everyone
> elses .... especially when you give it away for free.
Right on. As a sysadmin I can say I dread when I have to use commercial
software. It is buggier, harder to setup, and has much stricter
requirements than opensource software. As a developer I can tell you our
company tries hard to live up to the standards of opensource software and
hope to release the majority of our code as opensource at some stage.
> > 5) Linux developers work for free; consequently their incentives to
> create
> > and contribute are different
> >
>
> You Bet~!!! They do it becasue the live/love it! Coding is to an
> opensource coder what crack is to an addict .... provided the addict had
> the means to create a new strand of crack that every other addict could try
> for free and help with the betterment of the next version of crack ... I
> guess if you dont do it like I said its hard to comprehend (coding NOT
> crack sorry for the bad analogy)
Exactly true. I love coding opensource software. It makes me feel good and
I don't want to hear anything bad such as horrible bugs exist etc so I do
it right the first time. Besides a lot of the work is paid. I do have to
eat and pay rent. What does the company care what the license is as long
as their systems work?
> > 6) Linux users in general would probably balk if they had to actually pay
> > for software
>
> Up until 92-93 EVERYONE had to pay for it .. unless they developed their
> own ..... you're probably right though ... why the hell should I pay for
> something I could do better myself ... or that someone else is doing that I
> could help by giving new ideas .... lets not forget ... its not just code
> that makes great software ... its the suggestions and comments of people
> working with the labours put into code that make the software awsome.
I don't buy commercial software. Period. However I do buy Playstation
games, movies, cds, etc. If I like a bit of commercial software I find an
opensource replacement or write it myself. Why should I pay someone else
to let me borrow their code under very limited rights when I can write the
same thing better and give it to the world? :) However my company does
sometimes buy a full version of Linux and similar products in order to get
extra support or just to donate to the cause.
> > 7) the average computer user is *required* to make *a lot* of effort
> > understanding how to "operate" the machine. The complexity is not
> > sufficiently hidden from them when needed
>
> Time for a change
Users shouldn't have the workings hidden. That makes them
clueless. Allowing them to see the workings is like allowing people to pop
their hood and change their own oil. You can pay to make it easier or dig
right in if you like.
> > 8) there is a certain amount of elitism within the Linux community in
> > general which distains the stereotypical "aol/microsoft" user (no
> offense,
> > just an observation)
>
> Only to the missinformed. I do not rant how much I love Linux and hate
> windows without justification. MOST of the time windows users complain
> about linux and say how much they love windows without really giving ANY
> other o/s a try. Windows users yip about Linux users becasue they are Linux
> users ....Linux users hate windows because they have used both and come to
> the conclusion that windows (and other O/S's) really do suck <---couldn't
> think of a better word =o\
Maybe a little but usually we're willing to bring anyone who is interested
up to our level. We just tend to dislike people who aren't willing to
learn. Ask questions, read the manual, whatever but don't just sit there
and act helpless. You have the power so use it. :)
> > 9) Linux is inherently a programmers/developers environment and
> > *specifically* geared to those kinds of folks
> inherently You Bet .... geared towards? I dissagree .... Linux is out there
> for anyone to try and most distributions make it preety easy considering
> this is a UNIX. I work in HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, Linux, openBSD, and FreeBSD
> mixed environments (yes commercial AND free UNIX) UNIX was never intended
> to be easy to install ... if you have ever had ANY experience with the
> BSD's you'll know what I mean =o)
Everyone is a programmer. It's a basic skill like reading, writing,
adding, subtracting. That doesn't mean everyone is an English professor or
has a PhD in Mathematics. It's part of being a computer. Making a computer
hard to program is like making a book hard to read. It just doesn't make
sense. That doesn't mean you hafta read the book though.
> > 10) talk like what I'm doing here is not well received by the Linux
> > community in general
>
> I'll go with this one too .... although I know things are changing. I love
> a good debate (notice no flaming or whining ... I'm just responding =o))
> everyone has view points and this type of communication is essential to
> everyone who wants to support the O/S. Hell, no code gets written or
> perfected without LOTS of debates (read some of the kernel comments in the
> source sometime) and nothing progresses without active communication
> including ALL sides ... I too am really tired of Windows versus Linux
> flames ..... its a juvenile display of "mines bigger than yours" that will
> never get solved without open minds ... another big part of open source. I
> have worked on the implementation of Linux Opensource in Enterprise
> (contributor to some opensource projects as well) and it's the "mine's
> bigger than yours" debates that people read off the net that have made my
> job so bloody hard at times. But it's all about ethical business and doing
> it becasue it's right .... not just becasue it's a preference ...
> eventually this gets recognized and we get passed the *little* debates.
>
> I am taking a different stand on the subject ..... I love open source and
> what it does for everyone...I love Linux too ... I do NOT want to see Linux
> on everones desktop .... some people just aren't ready .. and as a UNIX it
> will never be a Windows Killer and why should it be ... I totally believe
> it is better in every way ... for me. If you want something to be "The
> Windows Killer" get the newest version of Windows and Kill the old one.
>
> If you are looking for an almost litteral replacement ofr Windows with a
> Unix/X windows feel use a MAC (its where the windows Idea came from anyway)
> in my experience it is a closer replacement to Windows but way more stable
> (yes I like MAC's too) G4's are sweet ... anyway .... if you are looking
> for something (IMHO) *better* than windows and you are willing you get a
> little intimate with what your machine is actually doing .... I'm guessing
> if you're on this list .... you already have the solution installed.
I for one appreciate everyone who (without flaming) throws in their two
cents. I hope you find specific things about Linux that bother you and
tell people. That is how Linux evolves and is why it will win. I am at
least as good at Windows and MacOS as Unix but out of all the OS's I've
used Linux is my favorite. I hope you catch the GNU/Linux infection
too. :)
