Linux on the desktop - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux on the desktop - Linux ; "JEDIDIAH" stated in post slrnfqpt76.i0s.jedi@nomad.mish net on 2/8/08 5:33 PM: > On 2008-02-08, Snit wrote: >> "Gordon" stated in post >> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM: >> >>> Snit wrote: >>> >>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 149

Thread: Linux on the desktop

  1. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    slrnfqpt76.i0s.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 2/8/08 5:33 PM:

    > On 2008-02-08, Snit wrote:
    >> "Gordon" stated in post
    >> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
    >>
    >>> Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux
    >>>> model for it to
    >>>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    >>>> product away.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
    >>> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the problem -
    >>> they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that there's been
    >>> NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said to the OEMs -
    >>> Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe Public don't KNOW
    >>> about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has denied them that freedom.

    >>
    >> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
    >> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
    >> that you cannot even get low end.


    > Oh yeah... because they are just "doing so well".
    >
    > They started out with a commanding lead. Hell, they pretty much
    > invented their part of the industry. What happens? Someone with a pretty
    > trademark (pretty to an MBA that is) comes in and steals all of their
    > thunder overnight.
    >
    > Having dramatically better product didn't help.
    > Having dramatically better product for more than 10 years of
    > Microsoft and IBM sandbagging didn't help.


    What other computer hardware vender does better than Apple? Only one other
    desktop OS vender does ... and even then Apple, for having such a small
    slice of the pie, does *very* well. By any measure they are an amazingly
    successful business.

    >> Even in Apple's darkest days they were well above the 1% Linux has been able
    >> to achieve by *giving* their products away and letting it run on just about
    >> any hardware (ok, not hardware such as a wrench, but you get the idea!)

    >
    > Linux never started out as "the industry". Apple did.
    >
    > They aren't some scrappy underdog that has fought to scrape
    > out a niche for themselves. They are the previous market leader
    > that got their asses whopped. They are a has-been that's trying
    > to get back on top.
    >
    > That's nothing compared to Linux. It started from nothing.
    > It was never a consumer product even if you consider the
    > progenitors it is decended from.
    >
    > Apple's position still remains precarious. It probably will
    > deteriorate again if Jobs loses interest. At this point they
    > haven't even built back up to the position they were in 20 years
    > ago.


    They are much, much larger now than they were 20 years ago. And, again,
    Apple does not give away its hardware or its (current) OS. Make what
    excuses you will, but it does not speak well of desktop Linux that it cannot
    even get 1% of users by being *given* away and making it so it will run,
    more or less, on just about any hardware.

    That is simply not a good sign for Linux on the desktop. Maybe - hopefully
    - it will get better and start to earn a bigger user base... and it *has*
    gotten *much* better even over the last few years... but it also still has a
    *long* way to go.


    --
    Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
    --Albert Einstein


  2. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    slrnfqptel.i0s.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 2/8/08 5:37 PM:

    >>> Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
    >>> 2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are as
    >>> high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
    >>> "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.

    >>
    >> So now, as you suggest, is not "during the high days of the MS monopoly."
    >> During that time Macs actually *did* cost more than comparable PCs and yet

    >
    > Apple's STILL cost MORE than comparable PC's.
    >
    > They are 2x more expensive on the low end.
    >

    Well, not according to the vast majority of price comparisons, but let's
    just pretend you were right... that only makes it that much more impressive
    that they have about 10% of the desktop market and that much more of a bad
    sign that even with a free product that runs on almost all hardware Linux
    struggles to get 1%.

    Think of it this way: the number of Windows machines you see compared to the
    number of Macs is pretty close to the number of Macs you see in comparison
    to the number of Linux machines (on the desktop, remember).

    Linux.
    Free.
    Runs on almost anything.
    Cannot get more than 1% of the desktop market.

    What other product has such a bad track record?

    >> Apple maintained a 2-3% market share (so you say... I would love to see
    >> where you get that figure in terms of desktop share). Now, when MS is no
    >> longer in its "high days" of its monopoly, Linux struggles to get 1% while
    >> *giving* away free products that, unlike Mac OS, can be run on almost any
    >> hardware.

    >
    > That may comfort you


    Comfort? Er? Why would it comfort me to see an OS I would like to do
    better struggle so much? Remember: I am in no way against Linux - I *want*
    it to do well. Why would I not?

    > but in truth the only place that number can come from is out of your ass. One
    > problem with Linux is that it isn't conventional. You can't count boxes and
    > know what the market penetration is.
    >
    > This Vista box won't be counted as a Linux box. It is though.


    Um, no, Vista is not a Linux distro.

    > The same goes for the "MacOS" box in the family room.


    OS X is based on the BSD family, not Linux.

    Remember: I am basing the numbers on what the BBC says. If you want to
    claim they are wrong or not representative show other figures... but do not
    make absurd claims that Vista and OS X are "really" Linux. That is just
    whacked.

    And, yes, I expect you to back pedal and claim you merely meant that those
    boxes *could* run Linux if people wanted them to... but here is the rub:
    less than 1% want to... and that is when Linux is given away for free.

    Linux.
    Free.
    Runs on almost anything.
    Cannot get more than 1% of the desktop market.

    >> You keep trying to tell me that ho many people use PCLOS and what grand
    >> reviews it gets. Care to re-think that?

    >
    > You're the one that needs to put some thought into his position.


    So where do you think I am wrong.

    --
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
    --Aldous Huxley


  3. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "Rick" stated in post 13qpi2ga92df49d@news.supernews.com
    on 2/8/08 2:23 PM:

    > On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:21:31 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:35:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> <http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/...valds-part-ii/

    >>
    >>> -----
    >>> Linus Torvalds: Well, I don易t know about broader adoption, but the
    >>> Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I
    >>> have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop.
    >>> ...
    >>> But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don易t even
    >>> want to; it易s not what I易m interested in. I易m more of a desktop
    >>> guy. I易ve always used Linux as a workstation person.
    >>>
    >>> So 〝 and I think I see that as not just me. I think a huge amount
    >>> of the developers see Linux the same way because it turns out that
    >>> while, yes, maybe servers is a huge market, when you actually look
    >>> at developers, what developers interact with all the time is their
    >>> workstation, their desktop and that易s the area where you really eat
    >>> your own dog food and where you really end up seeing the fruits of
    >>> your labor.
    >>> -----
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ------
    >>> The BBC had to prioritise building the service around PCs because,
    >>> according to BBC figures, around 90% of computers use Microsoft's
    >>> Windows operating system, he added.
    >>>
    >>> Macs account for 9% of the market while the open source system
    >>> Linux accounts for 0.8%.
    >>> -----
    >>>
    >>> If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is
    >>> not doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he
    >>> struggles to get 1% of the user base.
    >>>
    >>> His explanation (from the same link as above):
    >>> -----
    >>> The desktop is special. Everybody has a different idea of what the
    >>> desktop is going to be. You have lots of people coming from Windows
    >>> who just 〝 they know what a desktop is supposed to be - Windows,
    >>> right?
    >>>
    >>> You have people coming from Mac and they know what a desktop is
    >>> supposed to be and it has to have that menu bar at the top and if
    >>> you don易t have the menu bar at the top, it易s not a desktop, right?
    >>>
    >>> So, everybody has a different idea. Everybody also has different
    >>> hardware. The desktop is also where all the hardware really exists.
    >>> Servers have 1% of the hardware that the desktop has in terms of
    >>> different drivers and things like that. You don易t find webcams on
    >>> servers generally. You don易t find oddball IDE drives on servers.
    >>>
    >>> So, the desktop is just much more varied and, at the same time, the
    >>> desktop is also the thing where people get really upset if
    >>> something changes, so it易s really hard to enter the desktop market
    >>> because people are used to whatever they used before, mostly
    >>> Windows. And if you act differently from Windows, even if you act
    >>> in some ways better, it doesn易t matter; better is worse if it易s
    >>> different. -----
    >>>
    >>> While there is some truth to what he is saying he is simply missing the
    >>> big picture. I know I would jump ship if an OS came along that handled
    >>> my desktop needs better than what I currently use. When talking about
    >>> Linux distros Linux folks seem to get this - they talk about jumping
    >>> from distro to distro to find the one you like (the distro dance).
    >>> Sure, a number of people will just stick with what they know - Windows.
    >>> But look at Apple: they do not sell to the low end of the desktop
    >>> market and they still have managed to get 10% or so... and Apple
    >>> insists you use their hardware, clearly a big impediment to their
    >>> getting a bigger user base. All Linux distros *together*, most being
    >>> *given* away and running on almost any hardware (to at least some
    >>> extent) is - if the BBC is to be believed - at less than 1%.
    >>>
    >>> I have been talking about usability / UI issues... *that* is a huge
    >>> part of what keeps Linux from being adopted - that and the lack of
    >>> strong support from major software venders (Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.)
    >>> Other have been noting that the fractured nature of Linux also plays a
    >>> role - and it surely does: with Linux at less than 1% it is a big
    >>> detriment to have people who use it have obstacles to helping each
    >>> other.
    >>>
    >>> For Linus to focus on Mac users only considering the a desktop to be a
    >>> desktop if the menu is at the top is just silly... most Mac users
    >>> *also* have some experience with Windows... and many Mac users, myself
    >>> included, understand the pros *and* the cons of the menu at the top.
    >>> Heck, with greater screen resolutions and (especially) dual screens
    >>> becoming more common the pros of the menu at the top might not counter
    >>> the cons. It simply is not a big deal with today's computing hardware.
    >>>
    >>> And his comments about Windows: again he is wrong. As he notes the Mac
    >>> is very different and many people who use the Mac quickly learn to
    >>> prefer it... imagine if Mac OS were free - it would easily double its
    >>> user base (or more) very quickly. There are good reasons why Apple
    >>> does not do this - market share / user base is not the be all and end
    >>> all of success... but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux
    >>> system and the Linux model for it to have so much trouble breaking into
    >>> a large market where it *gives* its product away.

    >>
    >> Pretty much true from what I can see. Notice the less than 1 percent number
    >> for Linux. No matter where you go, that number keeps popping up. Except on
    >> Linux blogs of course where you will read that Linux is taking over the
    >> desktop.
    >>
    >> There is some truth that Microsoft stifled Linux but then Linux is free,
    >> totally free. if Linux were a decent enough desktop alternative to Windows it
    >> would be destroying Microsoft.
    >>

    > It would be in a truely unfettered market, byt Microsoft has had a
    > stranglehold for decades that is only now just barely loosening.
    >
    >>
    >> It's not. And there is no indication that this will change in the near
    >> future.
    >>

    > Vendors need to port some apps.
    >
    >>
    >> The bottom line is that when something free can't take over a commercial
    >> products market, at least in a decent way, then something is seriously wrong
    >> with the free product.
    >>

    > Or something is seriously with the market place.
    >
    >>
    >> The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix it.
    >> Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.
    >>

    > Break up Microsoft 10 years ago.


    Linux.
    Free.
    Runs on almost anything.
    Cannot get more than 1% of the desktop market... the only market
    Linus really cares about.

    --
    One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.


  4. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "Linonut" stated in post
    4d1rj.93692$L%6.12167@bignews3.bellsouth.net on 2/8/08 11:42 AM:

    > * Gordon peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look at how
    >>> well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific hardware... hardware
    >>> that you cannot even get low end. Even in Apple's darkest days they were
    >>> well above the 1% Linux has been able to achieve by *giving* their products
    >>> away and letting it run on just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as
    >>> a wrench, but you get the idea!)

    >>
    >> Macs already had a niche market because there was no desktop publishing
    >> software available for PC's.

    >
    > Not to mention that Mac is advertised on TV.
    >
    > (IBM advertised Linux on TV, but for servers.)
    >
    > Snit doesn't realize that people:
    >
    > 1. Need to know about a "product".
    >
    > 2. Need to download the "product" (and it isn't a small package
    > download, it is a download that can be gigabytes in size).
    >
    > 3. Need to know how to burn an ISO image of the "product".
    >
    > 4. Need to feel comfortable about potentially voiding their warranty.
    >
    > 5. Need to feel comfortable about fixing computer problems, should
    > they occur.
    >
    > Each item is ever more restrictive.


    Ah, the silly claim game!

    Linonut does not realize:

    1. The sun rise in the East

    2. Squares have four sides

    3. Carpet is found on the floor more often than it is found
    on the ceiling

    4. Water runs downhill

    5. The world is not run by a secret society of eggs.

    How did I do?

    > None of these items would hold /if/ Microsoft didn't have the
    > stranglehold they have over most OEMs. The situation is changing, of
    > course, but will take time to become more open and effective.




    --
    Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
    --Albert Einstein


  5. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "Moshe Goldfarb" stated in post
    1duatfc61o3uj$.13bbzznn52fv1$.dlg@40tude.net on 2/8/08 11:21 AM:

    > On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:35:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> -----
    >> Linus Torvalds: Well, I don靖 know about broader adoption,
    >> but the Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first
    >> place. I mean, I have never, ever cared about really anything
    >> but the Linux desktop.
    >> ...
    >> But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don靖
    >> even want to; it零 not what I雋 interested in. I雋 more of a
    >> desktop guy. I靶e always used Linux as a workstation person.
    >>
    >> So * and I think I see that as not just me. I think a huge
    >> amount of the developers see Linux the same way because it
    >> turns out that while, yes, maybe servers is a huge market,
    >> when you actually look at developers, what developers
    >> interact with all the time is their workstation, their
    >> desktop and that零 the area where you really eat your own dog
    >> food and where you really end up seeing the fruits of your
    >> labor.
    >> -----
    >>
    >>
    >> ------
    >> The BBC had to prioritise building the service around PCs
    >> because, according to BBC figures, around 90% of computers
    >> use Microsoft's Windows operating system, he added.
    >>
    >> Macs account for 9% of the market while the open source
    >> system Linux accounts for 0.8%.
    >> -----
    >>
    >> If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is not
    >> doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he struggles to get
    >> 1% of the user base.
    >>
    >> His explanation (from the same link as above):
    >> -----
    >> The desktop is special. Everybody has a different idea of
    >> what the desktop is going to be. You have lots of people
    >> coming from Windows who just * they know what a desktop is
    >> supposed to be - Windows, right?
    >>
    >> You have people coming from Mac and they know what a desktop
    >> is supposed to be and it has to have that menu bar at the top
    >> and if you don靖 have the menu bar at the top, it零 not a
    >> desktop, right?
    >>
    >> So, everybody has a different idea. Everybody also has
    >> different hardware. The desktop is also where all the
    >> hardware really exists. Servers have 1% of the hardware that
    >> the desktop has in terms of different drivers and things like
    >> that. You don靖 find webcams on servers generally. You don靖
    >> find oddball IDE drives on servers.
    >>
    >> So, the desktop is just much more varied and, at the same
    >> time, the desktop is also the thing where people get really
    >> upset if something changes, so it零 really hard to enter the
    >> desktop market because people are used to whatever they used
    >> before, mostly Windows. And if you act differently from
    >> Windows, even if you act in some ways better, it doesn靖
    >> matter; better is worse if it零 different.
    >> -----
    >>
    >> While there is some truth to what he is saying he is simply missing the big
    >> picture. I know I would jump ship if an OS came along that handled my
    >> desktop needs better than what I currently use. When talking about Linux
    >> distros Linux folks seem to get this - they talk about jumping from distro
    >> to distro to find the one you like (the distro dance). Sure, a number of
    >> people will just stick with what they know - Windows. But look at Apple:
    >> they do not sell to the low end of the desktop market and they still have
    >> managed to get 10% or so... and Apple insists you use their hardware,
    >> clearly a big impediment to their getting a bigger user base. All Linux
    >> distros *together*, most being *given* away and running on almost any
    >> hardware (to at least some extent) is - if the BBC is to be believed - at
    >> less than 1%.
    >>
    >> I have been talking about usability / UI issues... *that* is a huge part of
    >> what keeps Linux from being adopted - that and the lack of strong support
    >> from major software venders (Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.) Other have been noting
    >> that the fractured nature of Linux also plays a role - and it surely does:
    >> with Linux at less than 1% it is a big detriment to have people who use it
    >> have obstacles to helping each other.
    >>
    >> For Linus to focus on Mac users only considering the a desktop to be a
    >> desktop if the menu is at the top is just silly... most Mac users *also*
    >> have some experience with Windows... and many Mac users, myself included,
    >> understand the pros *and* the cons of the menu at the top. Heck, with
    >> greater screen resolutions and (especially) dual screens becoming more
    >> common the pros of the menu at the top might not counter the cons. It
    >> simply is not a big deal with today's computing hardware.
    >>
    >> And his comments about Windows: again he is wrong. As he notes the Mac is
    >> very different and many people who use the Mac quickly learn to prefer it...
    >> imagine if Mac OS were free - it would easily double its user base (or more)
    >> very quickly. There are good reasons why Apple does not do this - market
    >> share / user base is not the be all and end all of success... but clearly
    >> there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
    >> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    >> product away.

    >
    > Pretty much true from what I can see.
    > Notice the less than 1 percent number for Linux.
    > No matter where you go, that number keeps popping up.
    > Except on Linux blogs of course where you will read that Linux is taking
    > over the desktop.
    >
    > There is some truth that Microsoft stifled Linux but then Linux is free,
    > totally free.
    > if Linux were a decent enough desktop alternative to Windows it would be
    > destroying Microsoft.
    >
    > It's not.
    > And there is no indication that this will change in the near future.
    >
    > The bottom line is that when something free can't take over a commercial
    > products market, at least in a decent way, then something is seriously
    > wrong with the free product.
    >
    > The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix it.
    > Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.
    >

    Linux.
    Free.
    Runs on almost anything.
    Offered as an option by the biggest OEMs
    Less than 1% of the only market Linus really cares about.

    All the fault of MS, no doubt!

    --
    "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
    - Anatole France




  6. Re: Linux on the desktop

    On 2008-02-09, Snit wrote:
    > "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    > slrnfqptel.i0s.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 2/8/08 5:37 PM:
    >
    >>>> Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
    >>>> 2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are as
    >>>> high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
    >>>> "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.
    >>>
    >>> So now, as you suggest, is not "during the high days of the MS monopoly."
    >>> During that time Macs actually *did* cost more than comparable PCs and yet

    >>
    >> Apple's STILL cost MORE than comparable PC's.
    >>
    >> They are 2x more expensive on the low end.
    >>

    > Well, not according to the vast majority of price comparisons, but let's
    > just pretend you were right... that only makes it that much more impressive
    > that they have about 10% of the desktop market and that much more of a bad
    > sign that even with a free product that runs on almost all hardware Linux
    > struggles to get 1%.


    Like I said before...

    This 1% number of yours only exists in your imagination.

    >
    > Think of it this way: the number of Windows machines you see compared to the
    > number of Macs is pretty close to the number of Macs you see in comparison
    > to the number of Linux machines (on the desktop, remember).


    Outside of the Apple store and Frys, I DONT SEE ANY actually.

    Once you put it that way it's actually kind of pathetic.

    It used to be that there were at least a few professional niches
    left for Apple.

    [deletia]
    >> know what the market penetration is.
    >>
    >> This Vista box won't be counted as a Linux box. It is though.

    >
    > Um, no, Vista is not a Linux distro.


    Whoosh!!!

    [deletia]

    --


    The average IT manager is a less effective mentor than a
    Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  7. Re: Linux on the desktop

    On 2008-02-09, Snit wrote:
    > "Moshe Goldfarb" stated in post
    > 1duatfc61o3uj$.13bbzznn52fv1$.dlg@40tude.net on 2/8/08 11:21 AM:
    >
    >> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:35:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>

    [deletia]
    >> The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix it.
    >> Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.
    >>

    > Linux.
    > Free.
    > Runs on almost anything.
    > Offered as an option by the biggest OEMs
    > Less than 1% of the only market Linus really cares about.


    ^^^ a number pulled from your nether regions that has no
    basis in any sort of actual fact.

    >
    > All the fault of MS, no doubt!
    >


    You could have put a fork in the PC marketplace 3 years
    before the first line of Linux code was ever written. How are
    those (quite necessary) ports of key Microsoft applications doing
    for you over there in lala land?

    --


    The average IT manager is a less effective mentor than a
    Spongebob Squarepants cartoon.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  8. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    slrnfqq2bf.vb2.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 2/8/08 7:01 PM:

    > On 2008-02-09, Snit wrote:
    >> "Moshe Goldfarb" stated in post
    >> 1duatfc61o3uj$.13bbzznn52fv1$.dlg@40tude.net on 2/8/08 11:21 AM:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:35:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>

    > [deletia]
    >>> The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix it.
    >>> Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.
    >>>

    >> Linux.
    >> Free.
    >> Runs on almost anything.
    >> Offered as an option by the biggest OEMs
    >> Less than 1% of the only market Linus really cares about.

    >
    > ^^^ a number pulled from your nether regions that has no
    > basis in any sort of actual fact.



    ------
    The BBC had to prioritise building the service around PCs
    because, according to BBC figures, around 90% of computers
    use Microsoft's Windows operating system, he added.

    Macs account for 9% of the market while the open source
    system Linux accounts for 0.8%.
    -----

    Your counter evidence?

    >> All the fault of MS, no doubt!

    >
    > You could have put a fork in the PC marketplace 3 years
    > before the first line of Linux code was ever written. How are
    > those (quite necessary) ports of key Microsoft applications doing
    > for you over there in lala land?


    What? I admit you lost me there.

    --
    Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
    Feel free to ask for the recipe.




  9. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    slrnfqq23o.vb2.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 2/8/08 6:57 PM:

    > On 2008-02-09, Snit wrote:
    >> "JEDIDIAH" stated in post
    >> slrnfqptel.i0s.jedi@nomad.mishnet on 2/8/08 5:37 PM:
    >>
    >>>>> Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
    >>>>> 2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are as
    >>>>> high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
    >>>>> "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.
    >>>>
    >>>> So now, as you suggest, is not "during the high days of the MS monopoly."
    >>>> During that time Macs actually *did* cost more than comparable PCs and yet
    >>>
    >>> Apple's STILL cost MORE than comparable PC's.
    >>>
    >>> They are 2x more expensive on the low end.
    >>>

    >> Well, not according to the vast majority of price comparisons, but let's
    >> just pretend you were right... that only makes it that much more impressive
    >> that they have about 10% of the desktop market and that much more of a bad
    >> sign that even with a free product that runs on almost all hardware Linux
    >> struggles to get 1%.

    >
    > Like I said before...
    >
    > This 1% number of yours only exists in your imagination.


    Well, I was being kind:


    ------
    The BBC had to prioritise building the service around PCs
    because, according to BBC figures, around 90% of computers
    use Microsoft's Windows operating system, he added.

    Macs account for 9% of the market while the open source
    system Linux accounts for 0.8%.
    -----

    >> Think of it this way: the number of Windows machines you see compared to the
    >> number of Macs is pretty close to the number of Macs you see in comparison
    >> to the number of Linux machines (on the desktop, remember).

    >
    > Outside of the Apple store and Frys, I DONT SEE ANY actually.


    And just think: Linux has about 10% of the share OS X does.

    > Once you put it that way it's actually kind of pathetic.


    Agreed: Linux is currently not doing well on the desktop.

    Linux.
    Free.
    Runs on almost anything.
    Offered as an option by the biggest OEMs
    Less than 1% of the only market Linus really cares about.

    Compared to:

    OS X
    Not free.
    Runs only on relatively high end proprietary hardware.
    Offered by only one relatively small OEM
    Around 10% of the the same market

    ....
    >>> This Vista box won't be counted as a Linux box. It is though.

    >>
    >> Um, no, Vista is not a Linux distro.

    >
    > Whoosh!!!


    Read what you snipped.


    --
    Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid: humans are incredibly
    slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
    imagination. - attributed to Albert Einstein, likely apocryphal


  10. Re: Linux on the desktop

    On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:40:37 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > 13qpi2ga92df49d@news.supernews.com on 2/8/08 2:23 PM:
    >
    >> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:21:31 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:35:31 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> <http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/...torvalds-part-

    ii/
    >>>
    >>>> -----
    >>>> Linus Torvalds: Well, I don繒t know about broader adoption, but
    >>>> the Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I
    >>>> mean, I have never, ever cared about really anything but the
    >>>> Linux desktop. ...
    >>>> But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don繒t even
    >>>> want to; it繒s not what I繒m interested in. I繒m more of a desktop
    >>>> guy. I繒ve always used Linux as a workstation person.
    >>>>
    >>>> So * and I think I see that as not just me. I think a huge amount
    >>>> of the developers see Linux the same way because it turns out
    >>>> that while, yes, maybe servers is a huge market, when you
    >>>> actually look at developers, what developers interact with all
    >>>> the time is their workstation, their desktop and that繒s the area
    >>>> where you really eat your own dog food and where you really end
    >>>> up seeing the fruits of your labor.
    >>>> -----
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> ------
    >>>> The BBC had to prioritise building the service around PCs
    >>>> because, according to BBC figures, around 90% of computers use
    >>>> Microsoft's Windows operating system, he added.
    >>>>
    >>>> Macs account for 9% of the market while the open source system
    >>>> Linux accounts for 0.8%.
    >>>> -----
    >>>>
    >>>> If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS
    >>>> is not doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he
    >>>> struggles to get 1% of the user base.
    >>>>
    >>>> His explanation (from the same link as above):
    >>>> -----
    >>>> The desktop is special. Everybody has a different idea of what
    >>>> the desktop is going to be. You have lots of people coming from
    >>>> Windows who just * they know what a desktop is supposed to be -
    >>>> Windows, right?
    >>>>
    >>>> You have people coming from Mac and they know what a desktop is
    >>>> supposed to be and it has to have that menu bar at the top and if
    >>>> you don繒t have the menu bar at the top, it繒s not a desktop,
    >>>> right?
    >>>>
    >>>> So, everybody has a different idea. Everybody also has different
    >>>> hardware. The desktop is also where all the hardware really
    >>>> exists. Servers have 1% of the hardware that the desktop has in
    >>>> terms of different drivers and things like that. You don繒t find
    >>>> webcams on servers generally. You don繒t find oddball IDE drives
    >>>> on servers.
    >>>>
    >>>> So, the desktop is just much more varied and, at the same time,
    >>>> the desktop is also the thing where people get really upset if
    >>>> something changes, so it繒s really hard to enter the desktop
    >>>> market because people are used to whatever they used before,
    >>>> mostly Windows. And if you act differently from Windows, even if
    >>>> you act in some ways better, it doesn繒t matter; better is worse
    >>>> if it繒s different. -----
    >>>>
    >>>> While there is some truth to what he is saying he is simply missing
    >>>> the big picture. I know I would jump ship if an OS came along that
    >>>> handled my desktop needs better than what I currently use. When
    >>>> talking about Linux distros Linux folks seem to get this - they talk
    >>>> about jumping from distro to distro to find the one you like (the
    >>>> distro dance). Sure, a number of people will just stick with what
    >>>> they know - Windows.
    >>>> But look at Apple: they do not sell to the low end of the desktop
    >>>> market and they still have managed to get 10% or so... and Apple
    >>>> insists you use their hardware, clearly a big impediment to their
    >>>> getting a bigger user base. All Linux distros *together*, most being
    >>>> *given* away and running on almost any hardware (to at least some
    >>>> extent) is - if the BBC is to be believed - at less than 1%.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have been talking about usability / UI issues... *that* is a huge
    >>>> part of what keeps Linux from being adopted - that and the lack of
    >>>> strong support from major software venders (Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.)
    >>>> Other have been noting that the fractured nature of Linux also plays
    >>>> a role - and it surely does: with Linux at less than 1% it is a big
    >>>> detriment to have people who use it have obstacles to helping each
    >>>> other.
    >>>>
    >>>> For Linus to focus on Mac users only considering the a desktop to be
    >>>> a desktop if the menu is at the top is just silly... most Mac users
    >>>> *also* have some experience with Windows... and many Mac users,
    >>>> myself included, understand the pros *and* the cons of the menu at
    >>>> the top. Heck, with greater screen resolutions and (especially) dual
    >>>> screens becoming more common the pros of the menu at the top might
    >>>> not counter the cons. It simply is not a big deal with today's
    >>>> computing hardware.
    >>>>
    >>>> And his comments about Windows: again he is wrong. As he notes the
    >>>> Mac is very different and many people who use the Mac quickly learn
    >>>> to prefer it... imagine if Mac OS were free - it would easily double
    >>>> its user base (or more) very quickly. There are good reasons why
    >>>> Apple does not do this - market share / user base is not the be all
    >>>> and end all of success... but clearly there is something amiss with
    >>>> the Linux system and the Linux model for it to have so much trouble
    >>>> breaking into a large market where it *gives* its product away.
    >>>
    >>> Pretty much true from what I can see. Notice the less than 1 percent
    >>> number for Linux. No matter where you go, that number keeps popping
    >>> up. Except on Linux blogs of course where you will read that Linux is
    >>> taking over the desktop.
    >>>
    >>> There is some truth that Microsoft stifled Linux but then Linux is
    >>> free, totally free. if Linux were a decent enough desktop alternative
    >>> to Windows it would be destroying Microsoft.
    >>>

    >> It would be in a truely unfettered market, byt Microsoft has had a
    >> stranglehold for decades that is only now just barely loosening.
    >>
    >>
    >>> It's not. And there is no indication that this will change in the near
    >>> future.
    >>>

    >> Vendors need to port some apps.
    >>
    >>
    >>> The bottom line is that when something free can't take over a
    >>> commercial products market, at least in a decent way, then something
    >>> is seriously wrong with the free product.
    >>>

    >> Or something is seriously with the market place.
    >>
    >>
    >>> The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix
    >>> it. Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.
    >>>

    >> Break up Microsoft 10 years ago.

    >
    > Linux.
    > Free.
    > Runs on almost anything.
    > Cannot get more than 1% of the desktop market... the only market
    > Linus really cares about.


    And again you show you have no idea how Microsoft go, and maintained
    their monopoly power.

    --
    Rick

  11. Re: Linux on the desktop

    On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:10:15 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > 13qpmc018fcjc4f@news.supernews.com on 2/8/08 3:36 PM:
    >
    >> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:14:58 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> 13qpf4p8e2jh030@news.supernews.com on 2/8/08 1:13 PM:
    >>>
    >>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>> "Gordon" stated in post
    >>>>> foi4o9$fmp$1@news.mixmin.net on 2/8/08 10:49 AM:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Snit wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> but clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the
    >>>>>>> Linux model for it to
    >>>>>>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives*
    >>>>>>> its product away.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> it's not Linux that is the problem - it's been the predatory
    >>>>>> monopolistic economic blackmail of MS in the past that is the
    >>>>>> problem - they have locked down their customers (OEMs) so much that
    >>>>>> there's been NO free competition at all. In other words, MS said
    >>>>>> to the OEMs - Windows or nothing. Thus the vast majority of Joe
    >>>>>> Public don't KNOW about or have EVER seen Linux. because MS has
    >>>>>> denied them that freedom.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That plays a part... but clearly is *not* the full picture... look
    >>>>> at how well Apple does with a product that is tied to specific
    >>>>> hardware... hardware that you cannot even get low end. Even in
    >>>>> Apple's darkest days they were well above the 1% Linux has been able
    >>>>> to achieve by *giving* their products away and letting it run on
    >>>>> just about any hardware (ok, not hardware such as a wrench, but you
    >>>>> get the idea!)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Yeah.. Apple did real well during the high days of the MS monopoly.
    >>>> 2-3%. And that was donw from 30's or better. The only reason they are
    >>>> as high as they are now is because of a slight weakening of MS, the
    >>>> "boutiqueing of the Mac, followed by the iPod.
    >>>
    >>> So now, as you suggest, is not "during the high days of the MS
    >>> monopoly." During that time Macs actually *did* cost more than
    >>> comparable PCs and yet Apple maintained a 2-3% market share (so you
    >>> say... I would love to see where you get that figure in terms of
    >>> desktop share). Now, when MS is no longer in its "high days" of its
    >>> monopoly, Linux struggles to get 1% while *giving* away free products
    >>> that, unlike Mac OS, can be run on almost any hardware.

    >>
    >> AND AGAIN, go look up herd mentality, inertia and network effects.

    >
    > They are all under the definition of things you will try to use to
    > excuse the fact that Linux distros are hardly used even when they are
    > given away.


    And you still show you have no idea how Microsoft got, and maintained
    their monopoly power.

    >
    >>> You keep trying to tell me that ho many people use PCLOS and what
    >>> grand reviews it gets. Care to re-think that?

    >>
    >> Not necessary.

    >
    > I agree - it is not necessary for you to make reasoned comments... but
    > it would be nice!






    --
    Rick

  12. Re: Linux on the desktop

    Snit :
    >
    > If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is not
    > doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he struggles to get
    > 1% of the user base.


    See, this is where you lose me. Linux isn't struggling. He doesn't even
    really give a **** about adoption. He's doing what he loves to do, and
    others have joined him because they also love to do it. You're confusing
    the *movement* with Linus. You want to be talking about RMS, or possibly
    to him. He'd give you an earful!

    On to the rest...

    > His explanation (from the same link as above):
    > -----
    > The desktop is special. Everybody has a different idea of
    > what the desktop is going to be. You have lots of people
    > coming from Windows who just * they know what a desktop is
    > supposed to be - Windows, right?
    >
    > You have people coming from Mac and they know what a desktop
    > is supposed to be and it has to have that menu bar at the top
    > and if you don靖 have the menu bar at the top, it零 not a
    > desktop, right?
    >
    > So, everybody has a different idea. Everybody also has
    > different hardware. The desktop is also where all the
    > hardware really exists. Servers have 1% of the hardware that
    > the desktop has in terms of different drivers and things like
    > that. You don靖 find webcams on servers generally. You don靖
    > find oddball IDE drives on servers.
    >
    > So, the desktop is just much more varied and, at the same
    > time, the desktop is also the thing where people get really
    > upset if something changes, so it零 really hard to enter the
    > desktop market because people are used to whatever they used
    > before, mostly Windows. And if you act differently from
    > Windows, even if you act in some ways better, it doesn靖
    > matter; better is worse if it零 different.
    > -----
    >
    > While there is some truth to what he is saying he is simply missing the big
    > picture. I know I would jump ship if an OS came along that handled my
    > desktop needs better than what I currently use. When talking about Linux
    > distros Linux folks seem to get this - they talk about jumping from distro
    > to distro to find the one you like (the distro dance). Sure, a number of


    The 'Distro Dance' I understand, that's a person looking for the right
    fit. Not many people have time to rool their own and finding the right
    one is time consuming. I've tried many distros and have settled on
    Slackware. Mandrake was a great learners distro and introduced me to
    RedHat style package management (RPM) and SysV style startup script
    structure. Yay! Slackware showed me a simpler method of running the
    machine with BSD style init, and a tougher but more manageable method of
    doing the desktop thing (tgz and source). That's my perfect fit. Very
    few people choose that fit. It's *my* fit. Linux allows you to find your
    fit.

    > people will just stick with what they know - Windows. But look at Apple:
    > they do not sell to the low end of the desktop market and they still have
    > managed to get 10% or so... and Apple insists you use their hardware,
    > clearly a big impediment to their getting a bigger user base. All Linux
    > distros *together*, most being *given* away and running on almost any
    > hardware (to at least some extent) is - if the BBC is to be believed - at
    > less than 1%.


    Steve Jobs is selling quality merchandise at a high price point and
    making a really good living doing it. Kudos to him. Not only that he's
    selling real appliances. There's no screwing around with the box with
    most Mac users, once a frowny face shows up it's off to the Apple store!

    > I have been talking about usability / UI issues... *that* is a huge part of
    > what keeps Linux from being adopted - that and the lack of strong support
    > from major software venders (Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.) Other have been noting
    > that the fractured nature of Linux also plays a role - and it surely does:
    > with Linux at less than 1% it is a big detriment to have people who use it
    > have obstacles to helping each other.


    Linux being fractured is fallacious. It isn't. It's percieved as being
    that way because there is more than one vendor. You dont see people
    calling MS fractured because of all the White Box vendors do you? Also,
    Those big companies, MS, Apple, Adobe, how many of them would benefit
    from supporting Linux? My guess: 1. Adobe. The same one that supports
    the other two who are direct competitors.

    > For Linus to focus on Mac users only considering the a desktop to be a
    > desktop if the menu is at the top is just silly... most Mac users *also*
    > have some experience with Windows... and many Mac users, myself included,
    > understand the pros *and* the cons of the menu at the top. Heck, with
    > greater screen resolutions and (especially) dual screens becoming more
    > common the pros of the menu at the top might not counter the cons. It
    > simply is not a big deal with today's computing hardware.


    I have one at the top and one at the bottom. The most used stuff is on
    the top and the ever expanding menus are on the bottom.

    > And his comments about Windows: again he is wrong. As he notes the Mac is
    > very different and many people who use the Mac quickly learn to prefer it...
    > imagine if Mac OS were free - it would easily double its user base (or more)
    > very quickly. There are good reasons why Apple does not do this - market
    > share / user base is not the be all and end all of success... but clearly
    > there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
    > have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    > product away.


    *sigh*

    --
    I hope I bought the right relish ... zzzzzzzzz ...

    www.websterscafe.com

  13. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "Rick" stated in post 13qqb98fd2u80ad@news.supernews.com
    on 2/8/08 9:33 PM:

    > And again you show you have no idea how Microsoft go, and maintained
    > their monopoly power.


    Linux.
    Free.
    Runs on almost anything.
    Offered as an option by the biggest OEMs
    Less than 1% of the only market Linus really cares about.

    Compared to:

    OS X
    Not free.
    Runs only on relatively high end proprietary hardware.
    Offered by only one relatively small OEM
    Around 10% of the the same market

    MS is not the full reason Linux is doing so poorly on the desktop, Rick...
    but it is people such as yourself who refuse to look at Linux itself for the
    answer that help to hold it back. If you would be honest about the problems
    with Linux you could do a lot more to help it grow.

    But you won't. Oh well, I am sure (based on emails *completely* sure) that
    others get the points I am making and that it is helping people in the Linux
    community understand some of the needs better. I am making a difference,
    even if only a small one, in helping to better and to advocate for Linux.

    Your running from the facts simply does not do that.


    --
    "If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson




  14. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "Rick" stated in post 13qqbav8886enc7@news.supernews.com
    on 2/8/08 9:34 PM:

    >>> AND AGAIN, go look up herd mentality, inertia and network effects.

    >>
    >> They are all under the definition of things you will try to use to
    >> excuse the fact that Linux distros are hardly used even when they are
    >> given away.

    >
    > And you still show you have no idea how Microsoft got, and maintained
    > their monopoly power.


    Nor have I talked about the process used to make cheese.

    Care to talk about Linux or are you going to obsess over Microsoft?



    --
    The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.


  15. Re: Linux on the desktop

    Linonut writes:

    > * Peter B P peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On 2008-02-08 19:21:31 +0100, Moshe Goldfarb said:
    >>
    >>> The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix it.
    >>> Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.

    >>
    >> I agree. Fewer distros and more efforc behind each. This shoudl mean
    >> more drivers, more software, more quality.

    >
    > How so?
    >
    > What you say makes no sense.
    >
    > GNU/Linux dudes do what they want. A guy who just wants to collect
    > existing applications, change some configuration items, maybe tweak
    > a few things, might not /want/ to add his efforts to an existing
    > project.


    Duh! Clearly.

    >
    > Next you'll be telling people who make themes that they should instead
    > be working on improving OpenOffice's ODF<--->MS Office conversions.


    If they really want Linux to be a force as you so clearly do, then
    yes. Any idiot can make a "theme".

    >
    > More drivers? The vendors should be helping.


    They would if the other problems like desktop penetration were solved.

    >
    > More software? It is happening all the time.


    No. Good SW that desktop people want.

    >
    > More quality? Always a good goal. Let the people vote with their
    > feet.


    It appears they have.

    Liarnut, Liarnut, Liarnut. What do YOU give back?

    --

    Casar 矇 trocar a admira癟瓊o de v獺rios homens pela cr*tica de um s籀.

    --Audrey Hepburn

  16. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "Handover Phist" stated in post
    slrnfqqbhe.8bf.jason@jason.websterscafe.com on 2/8/08 9:40 PM:

    > Snit :
    >>
    >> If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is not
    >> doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he struggles to get
    >> 1% of the user base.

    >
    > See, this is where you lose me. Linux isn't struggling. He doesn't even
    > really give a **** about adoption. He's doing what he loves to do, and
    > others have joined him because they also love to do it. You're confusing
    > the *movement* with Linus. You want to be talking about RMS, or possibly
    > to him. He'd give you an earful!


    The reason he gives for Linux is the desktop... I doubt he means just his!

    > On to the rest...
    >
    >> His explanation (from the same link as above):
    >> -----
    >> The desktop is special. Everybody has a different idea of
    >> what the desktop is going to be. You have lots of people
    >> coming from Windows who just * they know what a desktop is
    >> supposed to be - Windows, right?
    >>
    >> You have people coming from Mac and they know what a desktop
    >> is supposed to be and it has to have that menu bar at the top
    >> and if you don靖 have the menu bar at the top, it零 not a
    >> desktop, right?
    >>
    >> So, everybody has a different idea. Everybody also has
    >> different hardware. The desktop is also where all the
    >> hardware really exists. Servers have 1% of the hardware that
    >> the desktop has in terms of different drivers and things like
    >> that. You don靖 find webcams on servers generally. You don靖
    >> find oddball IDE drives on servers.
    >>
    >> So, the desktop is just much more varied and, at the same
    >> time, the desktop is also the thing where people get really
    >> upset if something changes, so it零 really hard to enter the
    >> desktop market because people are used to whatever they used
    >> before, mostly Windows. And if you act differently from
    >> Windows, even if you act in some ways better, it doesn靖
    >> matter; better is worse if it零 different.
    >> -----
    >>
    >> While there is some truth to what he is saying he is simply missing the big
    >> picture. I know I would jump ship if an OS came along that handled my
    >> desktop needs better than what I currently use. When talking about Linux
    >> distros Linux folks seem to get this - they talk about jumping from distro
    >> to distro to find the one you like (the distro dance). Sure, a number of

    >
    > The 'Distro Dance' I understand, that's a person looking for the right
    > fit. Not many people have time to rool their own and finding the right
    > one is time consuming. I've tried many distros and have settled on
    > Slackware. Mandrake was a great learners distro and introduced me to
    > RedHat style package management (RPM) and SysV style startup script
    > structure. Yay! Slackware showed me a simpler method of running the
    > machine with BSD style init, and a tougher but more manageable method of
    > doing the desktop thing (tgz and source). That's my perfect fit. Very
    > few people choose that fit. It's *my* fit. Linux allows you to find your
    > fit.


    It might allow you to find your fit but for most people it, clearly, does
    not. I know with me I value productivity, efficiency, a good look (clearly
    subjective, there), and support by some major players.

    In the area of support Linux clearly fails. That right there is a no
    brainer... in the areas of productivity and efficiency I have been pointing
    out UI issues with both PCLOS and Ubuntu that reduce those things - I do not
    want to settle for such a poorly done UI.

    >> people will just stick with what they know - Windows. But look at Apple:
    >> they do not sell to the low end of the desktop market and they still have
    >> managed to get 10% or so... and Apple insists you use their hardware,
    >> clearly a big impediment to their getting a bigger user base. All Linux
    >> distros *together*, most being *given* away and running on almost any
    >> hardware (to at least some extent) is - if the BBC is to be believed - at
    >> less than 1%.

    >
    > Steve Jobs is selling quality merchandise at a high price point and
    > making a really good living doing it. Kudos to him. Not only that he's
    > selling real appliances. There's no screwing around with the box with
    > most Mac users, once a frowny face shows up it's off to the Apple store!


    Just as with most people if the car does not start you take it to the
    shop... if the water heater dies you call the plumber... if the roof gets a
    leak... well, you get the idea. Sure, Apple has people who understand the
    "average" user better than any other computer group I know of. Their UI
    shows this off... though it is, of course, not perfect.

    >> I have been talking about usability / UI issues... *that* is a huge part of
    >> what keeps Linux from being adopted - that and the lack of strong support
    >> from major software venders (Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.) Other have been noting
    >> that the fractured nature of Linux also plays a role - and it surely does:
    >> with Linux at less than 1% it is a big detriment to have people who use it
    >> have obstacles to helping each other.

    >
    > Linux being fractured is fallacious. It isn't.


    Sure it is. Each distro is, essentually, its own OS - at least from the
    user perspective.

    > It's percieved as being that way because there is more than one vendor.


    And the great inconsistency between venders.

    > You dont see people calling MS fractured because of all the White Box vendors
    > do you?


    The different "distros" of Windows are all, essentially, the same.

    > Also, Those big companies, MS, Apple, Adobe, how many of them would
    > benefit from supporting Linux? My guess: 1. Adobe. The same one that supports
    > the other two who are direct competitors.


    Not even sure Adobe would benefit... not enough desktop users.

    >> For Linus to focus on Mac users only considering the a desktop to be a
    >> desktop if the menu is at the top is just silly... most Mac users *also*
    >> have some experience with Windows... and many Mac users, myself included,
    >> understand the pros *and* the cons of the menu at the top. Heck, with
    >> greater screen resolutions and (especially) dual screens becoming more
    >> common the pros of the menu at the top might not counter the cons. It
    >> simply is not a big deal with today's computing hardware.

    >
    > I have one at the top and one at the bottom. The most used stuff is on
    > the top and the ever expanding menus are on the bottom.


    Do you mean your application menus... the File, Edit type stuff?

    >> And his comments about Windows: again he is wrong. As he notes the Mac is
    >> very different and many people who use the Mac quickly learn to prefer it...
    >> imagine if Mac OS were free - it would easily double its user base (or more)
    >> very quickly. There are good reasons why Apple does not do this - market
    >> share / user base is not the be all and end all of success... but clearly
    >> there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
    >> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    >> product away.

    >
    > *sigh*


    It is depressing for those of us who *want* Linux to do well.

    --
    If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
    Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)






  17. Re: Linux on the desktop

    Snit :
    > "Handover Phist" stated in post
    > slrnfqqbhe.8bf.jason@jason.websterscafe.com on 2/8/08 9:40 PM:
    >
    >> Snit :
    >>>
    >>> If it is true that Linus really only cares about the desktop his OS is not
    >>> doing particularly well... distros are *given* away and he struggles to get
    >>> 1% of the user base.

    >>
    >> See, this is where you lose me. Linux isn't struggling. He doesn't even
    >> really give a **** about adoption. He's doing what he loves to do, and
    >> others have joined him because they also love to do it. You're confusing
    >> the *movement* with Linus. You want to be talking about RMS, or possibly
    >> to him. He'd give you an earful!

    >
    > The reason he gives for Linux is the desktop... I doubt he means just his!


    I was responding before reading the article at this point, my bad...

    >> On to the rest...
    >>
    >>> His explanation (from the same link as above):
    >>> -----
    >>> The desktop is special. Everybody has a different idea of
    >>> what the desktop is going to be. You have lots of people
    >>> coming from Windows who just * they know what a desktop is
    >>> supposed to be - Windows, right?
    >>>
    >>> You have people coming from Mac and they know what a desktop
    >>> is supposed to be and it has to have that menu bar at the top
    >>> and if you don靖 have the menu bar at the top, it零 not a
    >>> desktop, right?
    >>>
    >>> So, everybody has a different idea. Everybody also has
    >>> different hardware. The desktop is also where all the
    >>> hardware really exists. Servers have 1% of the hardware that
    >>> the desktop has in terms of different drivers and things like
    >>> that. You don靖 find webcams on servers generally. You don靖
    >>> find oddball IDE drives on servers.
    >>>
    >>> So, the desktop is just much more varied and, at the same
    >>> time, the desktop is also the thing where people get really
    >>> upset if something changes, so it零 really hard to enter the
    >>> desktop market because people are used to whatever they used
    >>> before, mostly Windows. And if you act differently from
    >>> Windows, even if you act in some ways better, it doesn靖
    >>> matter; better is worse if it零 different.
    >>> -----
    >>>
    >>> While there is some truth to what he is saying he is simply missing the big
    >>> picture. I know I would jump ship if an OS came along that handled my
    >>> desktop needs better than what I currently use. When talking about Linux
    >>> distros Linux folks seem to get this - they talk about jumping from distro
    >>> to distro to find the one you like (the distro dance). Sure, a number of

    >>
    >> The 'Distro Dance' I understand, that's a person looking for the right
    >> fit. Not many people have time to rool their own and finding the right
    >> one is time consuming. I've tried many distros and have settled on
    >> Slackware. Mandrake was a great learners distro and introduced me to
    >> RedHat style package management (RPM) and SysV style startup script
    >> structure. Yay! Slackware showed me a simpler method of running the
    >> machine with BSD style init, and a tougher but more manageable method of
    >> doing the desktop thing (tgz and source). That's my perfect fit. Very
    >> few people choose that fit. It's *my* fit. Linux allows you to find your
    >> fit.

    >
    > It might allow you to find your fit but for most people it, clearly, does
    > not. I know with me I value productivity, efficiency, a good look (clearly
    > subjective, there), and support by some major players.


    If by 'Major Players' you mean MS and Apple, not going to happen. I do
    agree that Adobe coupld be *very* beneficial if they joined in.

    > In the area of support Linux clearly fails.


    I see this as a major market opportunity! Folks who know Linux could
    easily sell in the marketplace, but there are so few Linux *salesmen*!
    Advocates, yes, salesmen, no.

    > That right there is a no
    > brainer... in the areas of productivity and efficiency I have been pointing
    > out UI issues with both PCLOS and Ubuntu that reduce those things - I do not
    > want to settle for such a poorly done UI.


    Most folks dont even give a crap about the UI, they just want stuff to
    work! In office spaces, program access is given through an Active
    Directory or some other 'registry' paradigm contrivance, and it works
    when they need it to (mostly). I've proven to myself that the UI doesn't
    mean anything when stuff just works in a public setting by offering
    Linux computers for public use. They worked, so the public paid to use
    them.

    Internet cafe setting, summer of 2003. Websters Internet Cafe. If you
    doubt its existance then just freeze fram the bit in the beginning of
    "Ecks Vs Sever". You probably wont want to watch much more. The movie
    sucked.

    >>> people will just stick with what they know - Windows. But look at Apple:
    >>> they do not sell to the low end of the desktop market and they still have
    >>> managed to get 10% or so... and Apple insists you use their hardware,
    >>> clearly a big impediment to their getting a bigger user base. All Linux
    >>> distros *together*, most being *given* away and running on almost any
    >>> hardware (to at least some extent) is - if the BBC is to be believed - at
    >>> less than 1%.

    >>
    >> Steve Jobs is selling quality merchandise at a high price point and
    >> making a really good living doing it. Kudos to him. Not only that he's
    >> selling real appliances. There's no screwing around with the box with
    >> most Mac users, once a frowny face shows up it's off to the Apple store!

    >
    > Just as with most people if the car does not start you take it to the
    > shop... if the water heater dies you call the plumber... if the roof gets a
    > leak... well, you get the idea. Sure, Apple has people who understand the
    > "average" user better than any other computer group I know of. Their UI
    > shows this off... though it is, of course, not perfect.


    Nothings perfect. Anyone looking at perfect could point out the flaws in
    anything. Apple's just darned good.

    >>> I have been talking about usability / UI issues... *that* is a huge part of
    >>> what keeps Linux from being adopted - that and the lack of strong support
    >>> from major software venders (Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.) Other have been noting
    >>> that the fractured nature of Linux also plays a role - and it surely does:
    >>> with Linux at less than 1% it is a big detriment to have people who use it
    >>> have obstacles to helping each other.

    >>
    >> Linux being fractured is fallacious. It isn't.

    >
    > Sure it is. Each distro is, essentually, its own OS - at least from the
    > user perspective.


    As is any other. Each distro isn't fractured (do I see a smantics war
    looming?). You're saying Linux is fractured, but talking about OSs. Is
    RedHat fractured? Is Mandriva or PCLinuxOS fractured? Slackware? Ubuntu?
    Debian? What's fractured?

    >> It's percieved as being that way because there is more than one vendor.

    >
    > And the great inconsistency between venders.


    Yep! There's great inconsistancy between MS and Apple. Little between
    Linux distros because they have the same basis. To use the really tired
    old car analogy, they all have engines. Only Linux distros all have the
    gas pedal on the right.

    >> You dont see people calling MS fractured because of all the White Box vendors
    >> do you?

    >
    > The different "distros" of Windows are all, essentially, the same.


    This is true! Same source, essentially the same kernel, libraries, and
    UI, just a few fifferent programs.

    >> Also, Those big companies, MS, Apple, Adobe, how many of them would
    >> benefit from supporting Linux? My guess: 1. Adobe. The same one that supports
    >> the other two who are direct competitors.

    >
    > Not even sure Adobe would benefit... not enough desktop users.


    Plenty of developers using Dreamweaver who would probably love it if it
    ran on Linux!

    >>> For Linus to focus on Mac users only considering the a desktop to be a
    >>> desktop if the menu is at the top is just silly... most Mac users *also*
    >>> have some experience with Windows... and many Mac users, myself included,
    >>> understand the pros *and* the cons of the menu at the top. Heck, with
    >>> greater screen resolutions and (especially) dual screens becoming more
    >>> common the pros of the menu at the top might not counter the cons. It
    >>> simply is not a big deal with today's computing hardware.

    >>
    >> I have one at the top and one at the bottom. The most used stuff is on
    >> the top and the ever expanding menus are on the bottom.

    >
    > Do you mean your application menus... the File, Edit type stuff?


    App menus? Nope, I mean desktop menus.
    http://www.websterscafe.com/Screenshot.png. Sorry, didn't edit it and
    it's a big old dual monitor shot.

    >>> And his comments about Windows: again he is wrong. As he notes the Mac is
    >>> very different and many people who use the Mac quickly learn to prefer it...
    >>> imagine if Mac OS were free - it would easily double its user base (or more)
    >>> very quickly. There are good reasons why Apple does not do this - market
    >>> share / user base is not the be all and end all of success... but clearly
    >>> there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model for it to
    >>> have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it *gives* its
    >>> product away.

    >>
    >> *sigh*

    >
    > It is depressing for those of us who *want* Linux to do well.


    Is is doing well.

    --
    Conserve energy -- make love more slowly.

    www.websterscafe.com

  18. Re: Linux on the desktop

    "Handover Phist" stated in post
    slrnfqqkpl.8bf.jason@jason.websterscafe.com on 2/9/08 12:20 AM:

    >>> See, this is where you lose me. Linux isn't struggling. He doesn't even
    >>> really give a **** about adoption. He's doing what he loves to do, and
    >>> others have joined him because they also love to do it. You're confusing
    >>> the *movement* with Linus. You want to be talking about RMS, or possibly
    >>> to him. He'd give you an earful!

    >>
    >> The reason he gives for Linux is the desktop... I doubt he means just his!

    >
    > I was responding before reading the article at this point, my bad...


    Fair enough - no hard done.

    ....
    >>> The 'Distro Dance' I understand, that's a person looking for the right
    >>> fit. Not many people have time to rool their own and finding the right
    >>> one is time consuming. I've tried many distros and have settled on
    >>> Slackware. Mandrake was a great learners distro and introduced me to
    >>> RedHat style package management (RPM) and SysV style startup script
    >>> structure. Yay! Slackware showed me a simpler method of running the
    >>> machine with BSD style init, and a tougher but more manageable method of
    >>> doing the desktop thing (tgz and source). That's my perfect fit. Very
    >>> few people choose that fit. It's *my* fit. Linux allows you to find your
    >>> fit.

    >>
    >> It might allow you to find your fit but for most people it, clearly, does
    >> not. I know with me I value productivity, efficiency, a good look (clearly
    >> subjective, there), and support by some major players.

    >
    > If by 'Major Players' you mean MS and Apple, not going to happen. I do
    > agree that Adobe coupld be *very* beneficial if they joined in.


    Apple supports the OSS community in some ways, but you will not see iLife
    and iWork and most of their pro apps ported to Linux any time soon... and as
    far as MS, well, I just don't see them having much to do with Linux at all.
    This is a problem what Linux has where they cannot do much to fix it. For
    what it is worth Apple has some of these same problems, though they are
    getting less as they grow. If Linux were to get a significant share of the
    desktop they, too, would likely get more support. Chicken and egg...

    >> In the area of support Linux clearly fails.

    >
    > I see this as a major market opportunity! Folks who know Linux could
    > easily sell in the marketplace, but there are so few Linux *salesmen*!
    > Advocates, yes, salesmen, no.


    I meant software support... but your interpretation is also a good one.

    >> That right there is a no brainer... in the areas of productivity and
    >> efficiency I have been pointing out UI issues with both PCLOS and Ubuntu that
    >> reduce those things - I do not want to settle for such a poorly done UI.

    >
    > Most folks dont even give a crap about the UI, they just want stuff to
    > work!


    Most folks want things to "feel" right... and have a hard time explaining
    why they don't when they don't. When they use an OS that is consistent they
    suddenly feel like they "get" the OS and different programs more quickly...
    and they get their own list of pet quirks they wish the OS did differently.
    Still, better to deal with one set of predictable quirks than have to deal
    with four or more different sets (there are at least that many different
    Save As dialogs on PCLOS - by default with GUI software that comes with it).

    > In office spaces, program access is given through an Active
    > Directory or some other 'registry' paradigm contrivance, and it works
    > when they need it to (mostly). I've proven to myself that the UI doesn't
    > mean anything when stuff just works in a public setting by offering
    > Linux computers for public use. They worked, so the public paid to use
    > them.


    People expect to have to hunt a bit when using a computer that is new to
    them... but with a better designed UI the learning curve is reduced and the
    error rate goes down.

    > Internet cafe setting, summer of 2003. Websters Internet Cafe. If you
    > doubt its existance then just freeze fram the bit in the beginning of
    > "Ecks Vs Sever". You probably wont want to watch much more. The movie
    > sucked.


    No reason to doubt... heck, unlike many in COLA you admitted to a mistake,
    above.

    >>>> people will just stick with what they know - Windows. But look at Apple:
    >>>> they do not sell to the low end of the desktop market and they still have
    >>>> managed to get 10% or so... and Apple insists you use their hardware,
    >>>> clearly a big impediment to their getting a bigger user base. All Linux
    >>>> distros *together*, most being *given* away and running on almost any
    >>>> hardware (to at least some extent) is - if the BBC is to be believed - at
    >>>> less than 1%.
    >>>
    >>> Steve Jobs is selling quality merchandise at a high price point and
    >>> making a really good living doing it. Kudos to him. Not only that he's
    >>> selling real appliances. There's no screwing around with the box with
    >>> most Mac users, once a frowny face shows up it's off to the Apple store!

    >>
    >> Just as with most people if the car does not start you take it to the
    >> shop... if the water heater dies you call the plumber... if the roof gets a
    >> leak... well, you get the idea. Sure, Apple has people who understand the
    >> "average" user better than any other computer group I know of. Their UI
    >> shows this off... though it is, of course, not perfect.

    >
    > Nothings perfect. Anyone looking at perfect could point out the flaws in
    > anything. Apple's just darned good.


    Right... and I can also point out inconsistencies in what Apple does: for
    example closing the last window of an application sometimes quits the app
    and sometimes does not. No easy pattern or the user to see. At the very
    least there should be some indication that closing *this* window will quit
    the app... I would say some visual difference with the red close dot but
    that is already used for showing if a file is not saved. I am open to ideas
    on that one.

    I also do not like how scroll bars do not indicate when they are being
    actively pressed... just a silly error as far as I am concerned, and one
    that is not shared by any other modern OS I know of. Also not a fan of the
    lack of resizing by any side... on and on... one can find problems with OS
    X's UI but, as you said, overall it is darned good. It really is the gold
    standard - but it is different enough in essentially arbitrary ways where
    there is an opening for a Linux distro to do things right but differently...
    have consistent menus and dialogs (when there is no user-based reason not
    to), get drag and drop to work better, put the common apps a new user is
    likely to use in a an easy to access "dock" (but, perhaps, make it a bit
    less likely to have those be accidentally removed - another weakness of OS
    X).

    This is what I would like to see: but because of the fractured nature of
    Linux and OSS that is hardly possible - at least for now. The distro would
    have to have their own versions of much of the software it includes... and
    that is just not likely. They would also have to have enough clout so that
    other software they do not include would at least have a strong tendency to
    fit their UI guidelines: again not an easy thing to accomplish. Ubuntu
    actually seems, however, to have a decent start in this direction, even if
    their UI looks like it was designed by blind sea monkeys.

    >>>> I have been talking about usability / UI issues... *that* is a huge part of
    >>>> what keeps Linux from being adopted - that and the lack of strong support
    >>>> from major software venders (Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.) Other have been
    >>>> noting that the fractured nature of Linux also plays a role - and it surely
    >>>> does: with Linux at less than 1% it is a big detriment to have people who
    >>>> use it have obstacles to helping each other.
    >>>>
    >>> Linux being fractured is fallacious. It isn't.
    >>>

    >> Sure it is. Each distro is, essentually, its own OS - at least from the user
    >> perspective.
    >>

    > As is any other. Each distro isn't fractured (do I see a smantics war
    > looming?).


    Even with each distro their is huge fracturing that is essentially
    unavoidable - Apple and MS have enough resources to build a lot of the
    software they ship, so they can dictate the UI (though MS opts to not use
    this well and makes things be very inconsistent... weird). Others who want
    their apps to run on those OSs tend to build them to the UI standards set by
    the OS (this is more true for OS X - largely because the target is a clearer
    one with Apple). With a Linux distro the people who put it together are
    going to grab all sorts of different software made by different groups who
    have different ideas. This offers some benefits - you can get some very
    goof software that is unique in what it does and how it does it... but you
    also lose consistency and a good measure of ease of use from this fractured
    model.

    > You're saying Linux is fractured, but talking about OSs. Is RedHat
    > fractured? Is Mandriva or PCLinuxOS fractured? Slackware? Ubuntu? Debian?
    > What's fractured?


    Hopefully you understand what I mean a bit better... even if you do not
    agree.

    >>> It's percieved as being that way because there is more than one vendor.

    >>
    >> And the great inconsistency between venders.

    >
    > Yep! There's great inconsistancy between MS and Apple. Little between
    > Linux distros because they have the same basis. To use the really tired
    > old car analogy, they all have engines. Only Linux distros all have the
    > gas pedal on the right.


    Linux programs, even in the same distro, cannot figure out if the Save As or
    Cancel button should be on the right.

    >>> You dont see people calling MS fractured because of all the White Box
    >>> vendors do you?
    >>>

    >> The different "distros" of Windows are all, essentially, the same.
    >>

    > This is true! Same source, essentially the same kernel, libraries, and UI,
    > just a few fifferent programs.


    Right. Heck, with OS X even the server version is essentially the same with
    some added apps and a few different defaults.

    >>> Also, Those big companies, MS, Apple, Adobe, how many of them would benefit
    >>> from supporting Linux? My guess: 1. Adobe. The same one that supports the
    >>> other two who are direct competitors.
    >>>

    >> Not even sure Adobe would benefit... not enough desktop users.
    >>

    > Plenty of developers using Dreamweaver who would probably love it if it ran on
    > Linux!


    Wonder how many compared to similar demographics on Mac. Clearly both have
    less than Windows.

    >>>> For Linus to focus on Mac users only considering the a desktop to be a
    >>>> desktop if the menu is at the top is just silly... most Mac users *also*
    >>>> have some experience with Windows... and many Mac users, myself included,
    >>>> understand the pros *and* the cons of the menu at the top. Heck, with
    >>>> greater screen resolutions and (especially) dual screens becoming more
    >>>> common the pros of the menu at the top might not counter the cons. It
    >>>> simply is not a big deal with today's computing hardware.
    >>>
    >>> I have one at the top and one at the bottom. The most used stuff is on
    >>> the top and the ever expanding menus are on the bottom.

    >>
    >> Do you mean your application menus... the File, Edit type stuff?

    >
    > App menus? Nope, I mean desktop menus.
    > http://www.websterscafe.com/Screenshot.png. Sorry, didn't edit it and
    > it's a big old dual monitor shot.


    Ok, that is what I thought you meant... that is not the same thing as
    Apple's single menu and does not share most of the weaknesses of the Apple
    style menu. It also does not offer the same benefits (applications still
    lack the "infinitely" tall menu, for example)
    >
    >>>> And his comments about Windows: again he is wrong. As he notes the Mac is
    >>>> very different and many people who use the Mac quickly learn to prefer
    >>>> it... imagine if Mac OS were free - it would easily double its user base
    >>>> (or more) very quickly. There are good reasons why Apple does not do this
    >>>> - market share / user base is not the be all and end all of success... but
    >>>> clearly there is something amiss with the Linux system and the Linux model
    >>>> for it to have so much trouble breaking into a large market where it
    >>>> *gives* its product away.
    >>>>
    >>> *sigh*
    >>>

    >> It is depressing for those of us who *want* Linux to do well.
    >>

    > Is is doing well.


    Sure... in some areas it is. I meant on the desktop. There it is not doing
    well by any (aggregate) measure I can think of... even though some people
    prefer it.

    --
    It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
    speech. -- Mark Twain


  19. Re: Linux on the desktop

    Jim Richardson wrote:

    >
    > On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 00:57:28 +0100,
    > Peter B P wrote:
    >> On 2008-02-08 19:21:31 +0100, Moshe Goldfarb said:
    >>
    >>> The Linux community should figure out what is wrong with Linux and fix it.
    >>> Making 1000's of different distributions isn't the answer.

    >>
    >> I agree. Fewer distros and more efforc behind each. This shoudl mean
    >> more drivers, more software, more quality.
    >>

    >
    >
    > that doesn't make any sense. The drivers and software work on pretty
    > much *any* distro. That's based on the kernel version for the drivers)
    > and underlying libs (like kde vs gnome) for the apps.



    *Ahem* May I suggest you check against the *real* Peter B.P. in googlegroups?

    --
    Free-BSD 7.0, PC-BSD 1.4
    Linux systems: PCLOS 2007, Mandrake One 2008,
    Fedora 8, Kubuntu 7.10.
    -- On 64bit systems --

  20. Re: Linux on the desktop

    On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:59:19 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > 13qqb98fd2u80ad@news.supernews.com on 2/8/08 9:33 PM:
    >
    >> And again you show you have no idea how Microsoft go, and maintained
    >> their monopoly power.

    >
    > Linux.
    > Free.
    > Runs on almost anything.
    > Offered as an option by the biggest OEMs Less than 1% of the only
    > market Linus really cares about.
    >
    > Compared to:
    >
    > OS X
    > Not free.
    > Runs only on relatively high end proprietary hardware. Offered by
    > only one relatively small OEM Around 10% of the the same market


    I see you seem to thin it is OK for you to cut and paste, but not others.
    Ok.

    Oh, well...

    And again you show you have no idea how Microsoft go, and maintainedc
    their monopoly power.

    >
    > MS is not the full reason Linux is doing so poorly on the desktop,


    No, it isn't, but it a very large, if not the largest reason.

    > Rick... but it is people such as yourself who refuse to look at Linux
    > itself for the answer that help to hold it back. If you would be honest
    > about the problems with Linux you could do a lot more to help it grow.


    More Snit BS and lies. CSS isn't OSS. Get over it.

    >
    > But you won't. Oh well, I am sure (based on emails *completely* sure)
    > that others get the points I am making and that it is helping people in
    > the Linux community understand some of the needs better. I am making a
    > difference, even if only a small one, in helping to better and to
    > advocate for Linux.


    Actually you seem to be pissing people off with your cluess, dishonest
    tripe. And it seems I am pissing people off by responding to you.

    >
    > Your running from the facts simply does not do that.


    You just keep thinkin' Butch, that's what you're good at. (Hint: that's
    not a compliment.)
    --
    Rick

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast