On Sunday 25 November 2001 06:45 am, you wrote: > On Sunday 25 November 2001 04:26, Andrew Scotchmer wrote: > > There is nothing I would like to see than Linux becoming the main OS on > > the PC market. I wish it well and hope that it's popularity grows from > > strength to strength in the future. Unfortunatly after my vacation into > > the world of windows I have to admit I doubt that such a dream will > > become a reality. This I beleave, is because of the many distro's that > > are currently on the market each competing for a bit of the pie. Unless > > there is a > > standardisation in the Linux world we will not attract the home user in > > any significant number. > > Great idea! But why stop there? ake the concept to the auto industry and > stop them from making all those different models of cars and SUVs and > things. One factory, one model for everybody. According to your reasoning > this will expand the market for cars enormously. > > > I know that the software I want to run wil be compatable with it. > > As long as you only want to run windows software, sure <shrug> . > Deliberately non-linux example: Mac users will tell you that MS-Office for > Mac is superior in many, many respects to the windows version. Of course, > it doesn't run on windows so if you wanted to run it, you're out of luck. > Linux example: I regard Galeon as the king of browsers. It doesn't run on > Windows. > > I'll confess that I still miss Paint Shop Pro. The GIMP is just as > powerful, but I just don't like its interface. But for the difference in > price I'll happily adapt. > > >If I > > have a problem I can ask a friend who may know the answer or may know > > others that do because we all run the same OS and are comfortable with > > it as it has remained unchanged now for a few years. > > Try to make some new friends who use linux, then. Subscribing to this list > is a good start. <g> > > > Now lets look at Linux. I run Suse 7.2 which although similar to > > Mandrake 8.1 is also very different. What works on my system may not do > > so on another vendors distro. Many times have I tried to install the > > lastest piece of software only to discover that this library file was > > missing or such a file needs updating and I have to go hunting the > > internet for the needed file in order to run the program. > > Correct. And yes, it is a pain in the backside. But have you noticed that > when you install a new app on win9x it can simply replace those other > files without asking your permission, without even telling you about it. > And suddenly some other app mystriously stops working ... I've been told > the situation is slightly better on Win NT/00/XP. At least the linux way > puts me in charge of what libraries are on my system. This takes effort, > true. > > > My point is that until Linux becomes more standardised and unified then > > it will never overtake the windows OS. > > So? Who declared this a race? This isn't about one big corporation trying > to grind another into the dust, it's about a community of programmers and > users working together to create something that doesn't suck. If people > want to join, cool. If not, their loss, not ours. There are enough of us > to keep going. When Torvalds spoke of "World domination" that was a joke, > not a declaration of war! > > Sure slagging off MS is fun. Nothing like a common enemy to tie a > community together. But the real object is to make non-sucky software that > is free. If you can program, go for it. If not, send in bug reports, > design icons, write a FAQ, help a newbie. There are lots of ways > non-developers can contribute to the community. As things get increasingly > non-sucky, more people may want to join. Cool. Some others may wat to > leave. Also cool. But the important thing is the software, not some > nebulous "market share". There *is* no market in the classical sense, even > if some people manage to make money out of the phenomenon. > > >Although Microsoft is slagged a > > lot (and rightly so) at least each version of it's OS is around long > > enough for people to become familiar with it and know what it can do > > without the hassle of constant upgrades or installations. Although I > > have only had my distro for a few weeks already there is a stream of > > updates that I am told needs to be downloaded if I what to stay up to > > date. > > Very much unlike Windows Update that alerts you to the urgent need for > updates every time some pimply-faced youth wites a new virus. Very much > unlike the outrageously expensive office suite that needs upgrading > whenever MS needs more cash to keep the shareholders happy. Very much > unlike the constant stream of disk utilities, virus signatures etc etc > that a windows sytem requires to keep going. Yeah, right. > > > Why can we not have a unification of the distros. > > Why can't we have one kind of car? > > And if all the distros unite into the one true SuRedDrakeTurboEtcEtc > Linux, there will be absolutely nothing to stop me from disagreeing with > the lot of them, grabbing the source code and bringing out MicheLinux V0.1 > Distros are here to stay, and they will not be reduced by "uniting" but > by attrition. Example: I'm told that in the mid 90's a distro called > Yggdrasil was quite popular, now it is gone and mostly forgotten. Very > Darwinian, really. > > >Granted each will > > vary slightly but the main OS will remain the same > > It *is* the same. The kernel is the same for everybody. bash runs the same > for all of them. Xwindow is the same across all kinds of Unix machine. So > all linux machines run the same OS (= kernel) the same CLI interface and > the set of GUI services. The only thing that remains is whether you run > Gnome or KDE on top of that . And the differences between them are trivial > from a user's perspective (not from a developer's, of course) > > So what is your problem, exactly? > > BTW, I am still using the kernel that the 8.0 installation installed for > me. There's been no reason for me to change it so far. Don't just tamely > upgrade everything you read on the screen. Take charge of your machine! > > >thus allowing users > > to become familiar with it before it becomes out of date and an upgrade > > is needed for some software. > > > >This may also encourage software > > manufacturers to produce drivers and programs for Linux because they > > know what they are dealing with, > > Ah yes, the poor manufacturers who last year had to write win2000 drivers > and now have to do it all over again for XP and do it without a murmur. > Too many changes, too fast! > > >what the people are using and that it > > will remain so for the next year or so as with windows. > > So you are saying that stagnant is good? > > > Sorry if this has gone on a bit and I apologise for any uncertainty in > > my message (I am not a brilliant writer) but I do feel that the many > > distro's that are available is actually hindering the progress of this > > marvelous OS and that they are the reason for it's failure in attracting > > newcomers. Why can they not just all sit round a table and decide that > > this is the kernal for the next year or two and this is what we will do > > with it. > > If you have visited Windows Update once a month or so (and you should > have) you will be astonished how often you have updated the windows > "kernel". It only *looks* like nothing ever changes. Take a look at your > c:\windows\system folder. When you installed windows all those files would > have had the same datestamp ... > > >Or is there more similarities with microsoft than they care to > > admit in that they only care for the money and the prestige of being the > > most popular. Come on guy's this is open source, this is a community > > that exist beyond the realms of finance. it is about sharing and unity. > > Precisely. Which is exactly why things are moving so fast. When the > community feels like slowing down the rate of progress, it will. This may > happen sooner than you think. The "catching up with MS" phase is almost > over IMO, so perhaps people will now start to feel free to come up with > truly innovative ideas in apllication and interface design. > > If you like living on the edge you can fire up the old ftp client and > download stuff as fast as Mandrake can produce it. Or you can play safe, > wait for the next point release, and reinstall an entire working system > in-between, replacing nothing but security updates till then. You are in > charge, not Mandrake (or Suse, in your case).
Very well said Michel! I'm extremely new to Linux (hell...I'd never even *seen* Linux on a computer til 8 months ago!), but I find the diversity itself is the definition of 'Innovation'. M$ doesn't really change anything with their OS, except to try and make things 'prettier' (which IMHO they truly screwed up with XP). Also, I've been keeping up in the XP NG...naturally there's been a lot of complaints, but too many of them are answered with 'change your hardware to make it work right'. How come M$ can have people do this and no one bitches, but when someone from the 'other side' finds out that their modem isn't supported, all hell breaks loose and the Linux world is shit? I'm finally at a place where I don't actually mind the status quo. Linux, and all the distributions are like having vanilla ice cream (the kernel), but a cupboard *full* of different toppings! John -- If you can't use Linux, you deserve to stay with M$
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
