Someone gets the problem - Linux

This is a discussion on Someone gets the problem - Linux ; ----- Linux GUIs are all forked The current state of Linux GUI toolkits is complete chaos. There are the big two: KDE and Gnome, and a number of smaller UI toolkits: FLTK, wxWindows, TK, Lucid, and others I don't know ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Someone gets the problem

  1. Someone gets the problem


    -----
    Linux GUIs are all forked

    The current state of Linux GUI toolkits is complete chaos.
    There are the big two: KDE and Gnome, and a number of smaller
    UI toolkits: FLTK, wxWindows, TK, Lucid, and others I don't
    know about. Same for window managers: Enlightment, FVWM,
    whatever. Individually, they all have good points and were
    created by well-intentioned and hard working designers.
    Collectively, it's a disaster.
    ...
    There are some bizarre contortions in the thought processes
    of the Linux community here. The mere possibility that the
    Linux kernel might fork will generate panic, and Linux
    advocates point to the existence of one kernel as a major
    advantage over BSD. Yet somehow multiple UI toolkits is all
    about choice and evolution.

    Consistency really matters

    Offering a choice of user interface toolkits is about as
    useful as offering car drivers a choice of which side of the
    road they want to drive on. I could use photocopier paper,
    VCRs, traffic signs, electrical power supplies, or shipping
    containers for examples of why consistency matters, but since
    most people reading this are probably geeks, consider network
    protocols.

    Linux has a TCP/IP networking stack in the kernel. The
    developers of said stack chose to implement the IETF TCP/IP
    protocols and the BSD socket API, exactly as specified,
    rather than design something new. Why isn't there a massive
    outcry about this failure to innovate and lack of choice? Or
    why get upset by Microsoft creating extensions to HTML that
    only work in Internet Explorer? Doesn't this kind of
    competition improve every system in the long term? (Yes,
    those were rhetorical questions.)
    ...
    User interface consistency is, I suspect, the main reason why
    the announced large scale deployment of Linux in Mexican
    schools was cancelled, and why those corporations currently
    evaluating Linux will most likely return to Windows.
    Deploying ten thousand copies of RedHat or any similar Linux
    is easy. Then you have to explain to ten thousand users that
    the Copy and Paste commands work from Mozilla to KOffice, but
    to go the other way you have to use Copy and middle mouse
    button instead. And why the Open File dialog in Acrobat
    Reader has different columns for directories and files, but
    in KWord there's just the one which serves both purposes. And
    why...

    Geeks like us tend not to see what the problem is, because we
    spend huge amounts of time learning about and dealing with
    the complexities of computer systems. If you have to memorise
    the intricacies of programming language syntax and command
    line options, what's the big deal? For everyone else, this
    kind of training and support is hugely expensive.
    ...
    How it ought to be
    ...
    In Linux, each API has its own widgets and distinct UI. KDE
    menus aren't quite the same as Gnome menus which aren't quite
    the same as Lucid menus... From the outside, it is hilarious.
    From the inside, tragic. How can the open source community
    claim to be a superior development model with such a
    massively bloated and wasteful reinventing of wheels going
    on?

    Linux must move to the successful Windows/Macintosh model if
    it is to achieve world domination: one library, one widget
    set, one API. This won't interfere with your sovereign right
    to run your own window manager if you really, really, want
    to, just as you can rip out TCP/IP and run only AppleTalk if
    you want. You will have the source.
    ...
    Conclusion

    The One Frickin' User Interface isn't essential for Linux to
    survive and prosper, only for Linux to achieve any kind of
    world domination. Without it I expect the future will look
    more or less like it does today. Linux will remain the
    operating system of choice for servers and computer science
    workstations. KDE and Gnome will continue their pointless
    competition. Cell phone and PDA manufacturers will choose
    Linux as the core OS and write their own proprietary and
    closed UI toolkits to run on top, although there is a good
    chance that they will find it easier to license PalmOS or CE
    instead. And Microsoft will retain their 90% or better share
    of the home and business PC market, while Linux advocates
    keep chanting "any year now."
    -----

    Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    the problem a lot more than many in COLA.

    --
    I know how a jam jar feels...
    .... full of jam!


  2. Re: Someone gets the problem

    Snit writes:

    >
    > -----
    > Linux GUIs are all forked
    >
    > The current state of Linux GUI toolkits is complete chaos.
    > There are the big two: KDE and Gnome, and a number of smaller
    > UI toolkits: FLTK, wxWindows, TK, Lucid, and others I don't
    > know about. Same for window managers: Enlightment, FVWM,
    > whatever. Individually, they all have good points and were
    > created by well-intentioned and hard working designers.
    > Collectively, it's a disaster.
    > ...
    > There are some bizarre contortions in the thought processes
    > of the Linux community here. The mere possibility that the
    > Linux kernel might fork will generate panic, and Linux
    > advocates point to the existence of one kernel as a major
    > advantage over BSD. Yet somehow multiple UI toolkits is all
    > about choice and evolution.
    >
    > Consistency really matters
    >
    > Offering a choice of user interface toolkits is about as
    > useful as offering car drivers a choice of which side of the
    > road they want to drive on. I could use photocopier paper,
    > VCRs, traffic signs, electrical power supplies, or shipping
    > containers for examples of why consistency matters, but since
    > most people reading this are probably geeks, consider network
    > protocols.
    >
    > Linux has a TCP/IP networking stack in the kernel. The
    > developers of said stack chose to implement the IETF TCP/IP
    > protocols and the BSD socket API, exactly as specified,
    > rather than design something new. Why isn't there a massive
    > outcry about this failure to innovate and lack of choice? Or
    > why get upset by Microsoft creating extensions to HTML that
    > only work in Internet Explorer? Doesn't this kind of
    > competition improve every system in the long term? (Yes,
    > those were rhetorical questions.)
    > ...
    > User interface consistency is, I suspect, the main reason why
    > the announced large scale deployment of Linux in Mexican
    > schools was cancelled, and why those corporations currently
    > evaluating Linux will most likely return to Windows.
    > Deploying ten thousand copies of RedHat or any similar Linux
    > is easy. Then you have to explain to ten thousand users that
    > the Copy and Paste commands work from Mozilla to KOffice, but
    > to go the other way you have to use Copy and middle mouse
    > button instead. And why the Open File dialog in Acrobat
    > Reader has different columns for directories and files, but
    > in KWord there's just the one which serves both purposes. And
    > why...
    >
    > Geeks like us tend not to see what the problem is, because we
    > spend huge amounts of time learning about and dealing with
    > the complexities of computer systems. If you have to memorise
    > the intricacies of programming language syntax and command
    > line options, what's the big deal? For everyone else, this
    > kind of training and support is hugely expensive.
    > ...
    > How it ought to be
    > ...
    > In Linux, each API has its own widgets and distinct UI. KDE
    > menus aren't quite the same as Gnome menus which aren't quite
    > the same as Lucid menus... From the outside, it is hilarious.
    > From the inside, tragic. How can the open source community
    > claim to be a superior development model with such a
    > massively bloated and wasteful reinventing of wheels going
    > on?
    >
    > Linux must move to the successful Windows/Macintosh model if
    > it is to achieve world domination: one library, one widget
    > set, one API. This won't interfere with your sovereign right
    > to run your own window manager if you really, really, want
    > to, just as you can rip out TCP/IP and run only AppleTalk if
    > you want. You will have the source.
    > ...
    > Conclusion
    >
    > The One Frickin' User Interface isn't essential for Linux to
    > survive and prosper, only for Linux to achieve any kind of
    > world domination. Without it I expect the future will look
    > more or less like it does today. Linux will remain the
    > operating system of choice for servers and computer science
    > workstations. KDE and Gnome will continue their pointless
    > competition. Cell phone and PDA manufacturers will choose
    > Linux as the core OS and write their own proprietary and
    > closed UI toolkits to run on top, although there is a good
    > chance that they will find it easier to license PalmOS or CE
    > instead. And Microsoft will retain their 90% or better share
    > of the home and business PC market, while Linux advocates
    > keep chanting "any year now."
    > -----
    >
    > Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    > the problem a lot more than many in COLA.


    It doesn't take a degree in CS to see he is spot on. Only in COLA would
    they disagree.

  3. Re: Someone gets the problem


    "Snit" wrote in message
    news:C3ECA51F.AAE16%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com.. .
    >
    > -----
    > Linux GUIs are all forked
    >
    > The current state of Linux GUI toolkits is complete chaos.
    > There are the big two: KDE and Gnome, and a number of smaller
    > UI toolkits: FLTK, wxWindows, TK, Lucid, and others I don't
    > know about. Same for window managers: Enlightment, FVWM,
    > whatever. Individually, they all have good points and were
    > created by well-intentioned and hard working designers.
    > Collectively, it's a disaster.
    > ...
    > There are some bizarre contortions in the thought processes
    > of the Linux community here. The mere possibility that the
    > Linux kernel might fork will generate panic, and Linux
    > advocates point to the existence of one kernel as a major
    > advantage over BSD. Yet somehow multiple UI toolkits is all
    > about choice and evolution.
    >
    > Consistency really matters
    >
    > Offering a choice of user interface toolkits is about as
    > useful as offering car drivers a choice of which side of the
    > road they want to drive on. I could use photocopier paper,
    > VCRs, traffic signs, electrical power supplies, or shipping
    > containers for examples of why consistency matters, but since
    > most people reading this are probably geeks, consider network
    > protocols.
    >
    > Linux has a TCP/IP networking stack in the kernel. The
    > developers of said stack chose to implement the IETF TCP/IP
    > protocols and the BSD socket API, exactly as specified,
    > rather than design something new. Why isn't there a massive
    > outcry about this failure to innovate and lack of choice? Or
    > why get upset by Microsoft creating extensions to HTML that
    > only work in Internet Explorer? Doesn't this kind of
    > competition improve every system in the long term? (Yes,
    > those were rhetorical questions.)
    > ...
    > User interface consistency is, I suspect, the main reason why
    > the announced large scale deployment of Linux in Mexican
    > schools was cancelled, and why those corporations currently
    > evaluating Linux will most likely return to Windows.
    > Deploying ten thousand copies of RedHat or any similar Linux
    > is easy. Then you have to explain to ten thousand users that
    > the Copy and Paste commands work from Mozilla to KOffice, but
    > to go the other way you have to use Copy and middle mouse
    > button instead. And why the Open File dialog in Acrobat
    > Reader has different columns for directories and files, but
    > in KWord there's just the one which serves both purposes. And
    > why...
    >
    > Geeks like us tend not to see what the problem is, because we
    > spend huge amounts of time learning about and dealing with
    > the complexities of computer systems. If you have to memorise
    > the intricacies of programming language syntax and command
    > line options, what's the big deal? For everyone else, this
    > kind of training and support is hugely expensive.
    > ...
    > How it ought to be
    > ...
    > In Linux, each API has its own widgets and distinct UI. KDE
    > menus aren't quite the same as Gnome menus which aren't quite
    > the same as Lucid menus... From the outside, it is hilarious.
    > From the inside, tragic. How can the open source community
    > claim to be a superior development model with such a
    > massively bloated and wasteful reinventing of wheels going
    > on?
    >
    > Linux must move to the successful Windows/Macintosh model if
    > it is to achieve world domination: one library, one widget
    > set, one API. This won't interfere with your sovereign right
    > to run your own window manager if you really, really, want
    > to, just as you can rip out TCP/IP and run only AppleTalk if
    > you want. You will have the source.
    > ...
    > Conclusion
    >
    > The One Frickin' User Interface isn't essential for Linux to
    > survive and prosper, only for Linux to achieve any kind of
    > world domination. Without it I expect the future will look
    > more or less like it does today. Linux will remain the
    > operating system of choice for servers and computer science
    > workstations. KDE and Gnome will continue their pointless
    > competition. Cell phone and PDA manufacturers will choose
    > Linux as the core OS and write their own proprietary and
    > closed UI toolkits to run on top, although there is a good
    > chance that they will find it easier to license PalmOS or CE
    > instead. And Microsoft will retain their 90% or better share
    > of the home and business PC market, while Linux advocates
    > keep chanting "any year now."
    > -----
    >
    > Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    > the problem a lot more than many in COLA.
    >
    > --
    > I know how a jam jar feels...
    > ... full of jam!
    >



    Incredibly accurate and to the point. Everything from why there's only one
    TCP/IP protocol that's adhered to the endless chants of "any year now".

    It's amazing how some zealots will make any excuse to avoid facing the
    obvious reality that's staring them in the face.





    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  4. Re: Someone gets the problem

    On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:44:15 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    > Snit writes:
    >
    >>
    >> -----
    >> Linux GUIs are all forked
    >>
    >> The current state of Linux GUI toolkits is complete chaos.
    >> There are the big two: KDE and Gnome, and a number of smaller
    >> UI toolkits: FLTK, wxWindows, TK, Lucid, and others I don't
    >> know about. Same for window managers: Enlightment, FVWM,
    >> whatever. Individually, they all have good points and were
    >> created by well-intentioned and hard working designers.
    >> Collectively, it's a disaster.
    >> ...
    >> There are some bizarre contortions in the thought processes
    >> of the Linux community here. The mere possibility that the
    >> Linux kernel might fork will generate panic, and Linux
    >> advocates point to the existence of one kernel as a major
    >> advantage over BSD. Yet somehow multiple UI toolkits is all
    >> about choice and evolution.
    >>
    >> Consistency really matters
    >>
    >> Offering a choice of user interface toolkits is about as
    >> useful as offering car drivers a choice of which side of the
    >> road they want to drive on. I could use photocopier paper,
    >> VCRs, traffic signs, electrical power supplies, or shipping
    >> containers for examples of why consistency matters, but since
    >> most people reading this are probably geeks, consider network
    >> protocols.
    >>
    >> Linux has a TCP/IP networking stack in the kernel. The
    >> developers of said stack chose to implement the IETF TCP/IP
    >> protocols and the BSD socket API, exactly as specified,
    >> rather than design something new. Why isn't there a massive
    >> outcry about this failure to innovate and lack of choice? Or
    >> why get upset by Microsoft creating extensions to HTML that
    >> only work in Internet Explorer? Doesn't this kind of
    >> competition improve every system in the long term? (Yes,
    >> those were rhetorical questions.)
    >> ...
    >> User interface consistency is, I suspect, the main reason why
    >> the announced large scale deployment of Linux in Mexican
    >> schools was cancelled, and why those corporations currently
    >> evaluating Linux will most likely return to Windows.
    >> Deploying ten thousand copies of RedHat or any similar Linux
    >> is easy. Then you have to explain to ten thousand users that
    >> the Copy and Paste commands work from Mozilla to KOffice, but
    >> to go the other way you have to use Copy and middle mouse
    >> button instead. And why the Open File dialog in Acrobat
    >> Reader has different columns for directories and files, but
    >> in KWord there's just the one which serves both purposes. And
    >> why...
    >>
    >> Geeks like us tend not to see what the problem is, because we
    >> spend huge amounts of time learning about and dealing with
    >> the complexities of computer systems. If you have to memorise
    >> the intricacies of programming language syntax and command
    >> line options, what's the big deal? For everyone else, this
    >> kind of training and support is hugely expensive.
    >> ...
    >> How it ought to be
    >> ...
    >> In Linux, each API has its own widgets and distinct UI. KDE
    >> menus aren't quite the same as Gnome menus which aren't quite
    >> the same as Lucid menus... From the outside, it is hilarious.
    >> From the inside, tragic. How can the open source community
    >> claim to be a superior development model with such a
    >> massively bloated and wasteful reinventing of wheels going
    >> on?
    >>
    >> Linux must move to the successful Windows/Macintosh model if
    >> it is to achieve world domination: one library, one widget
    >> set, one API. This won't interfere with your sovereign right
    >> to run your own window manager if you really, really, want
    >> to, just as you can rip out TCP/IP and run only AppleTalk if
    >> you want. You will have the source.
    >> ...
    >> Conclusion
    >>
    >> The One Frickin' User Interface isn't essential for Linux to
    >> survive and prosper, only for Linux to achieve any kind of
    >> world domination. Without it I expect the future will look
    >> more or less like it does today. Linux will remain the
    >> operating system of choice for servers and computer science
    >> workstations. KDE and Gnome will continue their pointless
    >> competition. Cell phone and PDA manufacturers will choose
    >> Linux as the core OS and write their own proprietary and
    >> closed UI toolkits to run on top, although there is a good
    >> chance that they will find it easier to license PalmOS or CE
    >> instead. And Microsoft will retain their 90% or better share
    >> of the home and business PC market, while Linux advocates
    >> keep chanting "any year now."
    >> -----
    >>
    >> Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    >> the problem a lot more than many in COLA.

    >
    > It doesn't take a degree in CS to see he is spot on. Only in COLA would
    > they disagree.


    Of course it's true and people are noticing, although not in COLA.
    How do I know this?

    Take a look at the download stats for various OSS/Linux software that get
    posted all the time.
    If even 1/4 of those people stuck with Linux, Microsoft would be out of
    business 5 years ago.
    These same people try Linux and dump Linux, mostly because of what is
    written above.
    Linux still commands a staggering 0.6 percent of desktop market.

    Linux desktop is going no place.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  5. Re: Someone gets the problem

    On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:53:37 -0500, Tony Drudge wrote:

    > "Snit" wrote in message
    > news:C3ECA51F.AAE16%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com.. .
    >>
    >> -----
    >> Linux GUIs are all forked
    >>
    >> The current state of Linux GUI toolkits is complete chaos.
    >> There are the big two: KDE and Gnome, and a number of smaller
    >> UI toolkits: FLTK, wxWindows, TK, Lucid, and others I don't
    >> know about. Same for window managers: Enlightment, FVWM,
    >> whatever. Individually, they all have good points and were
    >> created by well-intentioned and hard working designers.
    >> Collectively, it's a disaster.
    >> ...
    >> There are some bizarre contortions in the thought processes
    >> of the Linux community here. The mere possibility that the
    >> Linux kernel might fork will generate panic, and Linux
    >> advocates point to the existence of one kernel as a major
    >> advantage over BSD. Yet somehow multiple UI toolkits is all
    >> about choice and evolution.
    >>
    >> Consistency really matters
    >>
    >> Offering a choice of user interface toolkits is about as
    >> useful as offering car drivers a choice of which side of the
    >> road they want to drive on. I could use photocopier paper,
    >> VCRs, traffic signs, electrical power supplies, or shipping
    >> containers for examples of why consistency matters, but since
    >> most people reading this are probably geeks, consider network
    >> protocols.
    >>
    >> Linux has a TCP/IP networking stack in the kernel. The
    >> developers of said stack chose to implement the IETF TCP/IP
    >> protocols and the BSD socket API, exactly as specified,
    >> rather than design something new. Why isn't there a massive
    >> outcry about this failure to innovate and lack of choice? Or
    >> why get upset by Microsoft creating extensions to HTML that
    >> only work in Internet Explorer? Doesn't this kind of
    >> competition improve every system in the long term? (Yes,
    >> those were rhetorical questions.)
    >> ...
    >> User interface consistency is, I suspect, the main reason why
    >> the announced large scale deployment of Linux in Mexican
    >> schools was cancelled, and why those corporations currently
    >> evaluating Linux will most likely return to Windows.
    >> Deploying ten thousand copies of RedHat or any similar Linux
    >> is easy. Then you have to explain to ten thousand users that
    >> the Copy and Paste commands work from Mozilla to KOffice, but
    >> to go the other way you have to use Copy and middle mouse
    >> button instead. And why the Open File dialog in Acrobat
    >> Reader has different columns for directories and files, but
    >> in KWord there's just the one which serves both purposes. And
    >> why...
    >>
    >> Geeks like us tend not to see what the problem is, because we
    >> spend huge amounts of time learning about and dealing with
    >> the complexities of computer systems. If you have to memorise
    >> the intricacies of programming language syntax and command
    >> line options, what's the big deal? For everyone else, this
    >> kind of training and support is hugely expensive.
    >> ...
    >> How it ought to be
    >> ...
    >> In Linux, each API has its own widgets and distinct UI. KDE
    >> menus aren't quite the same as Gnome menus which aren't quite
    >> the same as Lucid menus... From the outside, it is hilarious.
    >> From the inside, tragic. How can the open source community
    >> claim to be a superior development model with such a
    >> massively bloated and wasteful reinventing of wheels going
    >> on?
    >>
    >> Linux must move to the successful Windows/Macintosh model if
    >> it is to achieve world domination: one library, one widget
    >> set, one API. This won't interfere with your sovereign right
    >> to run your own window manager if you really, really, want
    >> to, just as you can rip out TCP/IP and run only AppleTalk if
    >> you want. You will have the source.
    >> ...
    >> Conclusion
    >>
    >> The One Frickin' User Interface isn't essential for Linux to
    >> survive and prosper, only for Linux to achieve any kind of
    >> world domination. Without it I expect the future will look
    >> more or less like it does today. Linux will remain the
    >> operating system of choice for servers and computer science
    >> workstations. KDE and Gnome will continue their pointless
    >> competition. Cell phone and PDA manufacturers will choose
    >> Linux as the core OS and write their own proprietary and
    >> closed UI toolkits to run on top, although there is a good
    >> chance that they will find it easier to license PalmOS or CE
    >> instead. And Microsoft will retain their 90% or better share
    >> of the home and business PC market, while Linux advocates
    >> keep chanting "any year now."
    >> -----
    >>
    >> Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    >> the problem a lot more than many in COLA.
    >>
    >> --
    >> I know how a jam jar feels...
    >> ... full of jam!
    >>

    >
    >
    > Incredibly accurate and to the point. Everything from why there's only one
    > TCP/IP protocol that's adhered to the endless chants of "any year now".


    Any year now is the Linux programmers crutch.
    Why do you think applications like SLRN hide behind less than 1.0 versions?
    Because when they tank, the programmer can say"well it's beta, you have to
    expect problems".

    It's a total cop out.

    > It's amazing how some zealots will make any excuse to avoid facing the
    > obvious reality that's staring them in the face.


    The only place I see this lunacy is in Linux groups.
    Most normal people realize Linux is a work in progress and will take time,
    lots of time, to mature.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  6. Re: Someone gets the problem


    "Moshe Goldfarb" wrote in message
    news:13e6hz5hnubsg$.194hrknzmm7y6.dlg@40tude.net.. .
    > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:53:37 -0500, Tony Drudge wrote:
    >
    >> "Snit" wrote in message
    >> news:C3ECA51F.AAE16%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com.. .
    >>>
    >>> -----
    >>> Linux GUIs are all forked
    >>>
    >>> The current state of Linux GUI toolkits is complete chaos.
    >>> There are the big two: KDE and Gnome, and a number of smaller
    >>> UI toolkits: FLTK, wxWindows, TK, Lucid, and others I don't
    >>> know about. Same for window managers: Enlightment, FVWM,
    >>> whatever. Individually, they all have good points and were
    >>> created by well-intentioned and hard working designers.
    >>> Collectively, it's a disaster.
    >>> ...
    >>> There are some bizarre contortions in the thought processes
    >>> of the Linux community here. The mere possibility that the
    >>> Linux kernel might fork will generate panic, and Linux
    >>> advocates point to the existence of one kernel as a major
    >>> advantage over BSD. Yet somehow multiple UI toolkits is all
    >>> about choice and evolution.
    >>>
    >>> Consistency really matters
    >>>
    >>> Offering a choice of user interface toolkits is about as
    >>> useful as offering car drivers a choice of which side of the
    >>> road they want to drive on. I could use photocopier paper,
    >>> VCRs, traffic signs, electrical power supplies, or shipping
    >>> containers for examples of why consistency matters, but since
    >>> most people reading this are probably geeks, consider network
    >>> protocols.
    >>>
    >>> Linux has a TCP/IP networking stack in the kernel. The
    >>> developers of said stack chose to implement the IETF TCP/IP
    >>> protocols and the BSD socket API, exactly as specified,
    >>> rather than design something new. Why isn't there a massive
    >>> outcry about this failure to innovate and lack of choice? Or
    >>> why get upset by Microsoft creating extensions to HTML that
    >>> only work in Internet Explorer? Doesn't this kind of
    >>> competition improve every system in the long term? (Yes,
    >>> those were rhetorical questions.)
    >>> ...
    >>> User interface consistency is, I suspect, the main reason why
    >>> the announced large scale deployment of Linux in Mexican
    >>> schools was cancelled, and why those corporations currently
    >>> evaluating Linux will most likely return to Windows.
    >>> Deploying ten thousand copies of RedHat or any similar Linux
    >>> is easy. Then you have to explain to ten thousand users that
    >>> the Copy and Paste commands work from Mozilla to KOffice, but
    >>> to go the other way you have to use Copy and middle mouse
    >>> button instead. And why the Open File dialog in Acrobat
    >>> Reader has different columns for directories and files, but
    >>> in KWord there's just the one which serves both purposes. And
    >>> why...
    >>>
    >>> Geeks like us tend not to see what the problem is, because we
    >>> spend huge amounts of time learning about and dealing with
    >>> the complexities of computer systems. If you have to memorise
    >>> the intricacies of programming language syntax and command
    >>> line options, what's the big deal? For everyone else, this
    >>> kind of training and support is hugely expensive.
    >>> ...
    >>> How it ought to be
    >>> ...
    >>> In Linux, each API has its own widgets and distinct UI. KDE
    >>> menus aren't quite the same as Gnome menus which aren't quite
    >>> the same as Lucid menus... From the outside, it is hilarious.
    >>> From the inside, tragic. How can the open source community
    >>> claim to be a superior development model with such a
    >>> massively bloated and wasteful reinventing of wheels going
    >>> on?
    >>>
    >>> Linux must move to the successful Windows/Macintosh model if
    >>> it is to achieve world domination: one library, one widget
    >>> set, one API. This won't interfere with your sovereign right
    >>> to run your own window manager if you really, really, want
    >>> to, just as you can rip out TCP/IP and run only AppleTalk if
    >>> you want. You will have the source.
    >>> ...
    >>> Conclusion
    >>>
    >>> The One Frickin' User Interface isn't essential for Linux to
    >>> survive and prosper, only for Linux to achieve any kind of
    >>> world domination. Without it I expect the future will look
    >>> more or less like it does today. Linux will remain the
    >>> operating system of choice for servers and computer science
    >>> workstations. KDE and Gnome will continue their pointless
    >>> competition. Cell phone and PDA manufacturers will choose
    >>> Linux as the core OS and write their own proprietary and
    >>> closed UI toolkits to run on top, although there is a good
    >>> chance that they will find it easier to license PalmOS or CE
    >>> instead. And Microsoft will retain their 90% or better share
    >>> of the home and business PC market, while Linux advocates
    >>> keep chanting "any year now."
    >>> -----
    >>>
    >>> Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly*
    >>> gets
    >>> the problem a lot more than many in COLA.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> I know how a jam jar feels...
    >>> ... full of jam!
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Incredibly accurate and to the point. Everything from why there's only
    >> one
    >> TCP/IP protocol that's adhered to the endless chants of "any year now".

    >
    > Any year now is the Linux programmers crutch.
    > Why do you think applications like SLRN hide behind less than 1.0
    > versions?
    > Because when they tank, the programmer can say"well it's beta, you have
    > to
    > expect problems".
    >
    > It's a total cop out.
    >
    >> It's amazing how some zealots will make any excuse to avoid facing the
    >> obvious reality that's staring them in the face.

    >
    > The only place I see this lunacy is in Linux groups.
    > Most normal people realize Linux is a work in progress and will take
    > time,
    > lots of time, to mature.


    It's a lack of focus. Umpteen different window managers. Each app invents
    it's own "File-Open" and "File-Save" dialogs. Hell... even Apple and MS
    (which people accuse of being slow), they both had "Common Dialogs" back in
    the early 1990's. And linux still doesn't have something as basic as a
    common and consistent "File-Save" dialog for apps to use. Every developer
    has to invent their own.

    And how many different "sound systems" does linux have? And why do some
    apps work with one sound system but not the other and it's all one big
    freakin mess.

    In la-la-linux land everyone is out to re-invent the wheel the way they
    want. Freedom, yes. Chaos, most definitely.


    > --
    > Moshe Goldfarb
    > Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    > Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    > http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  7. Re: Someone gets the problem

    "Tony Drudge" stated in post
    47c75d2f$0$26088$88260bb3@free.teranews.com on 2/28/08 7:06 PM:

    >>> It's amazing how some zealots will make any excuse to avoid facing the
    >>> obvious reality that's staring them in the face.
    >>>

    >> The only place I see this lunacy is in Linux groups. Most normal people
    >> realize Linux is a work in progress and will take time, lots of time, to
    >> mature.
    >>

    > It's a lack of focus. Umpteen different window managers. Each app invents it's
    > own "File-Open" and "File-Save" dialogs. Hell... even Apple and MS (which
    > people accuse of being slow), they both had "Common Dialogs" back in the early
    > 1990's.


    Apple in the mid 80s - though they have had some hiccups along the way.

    > And linux still doesn't have something as basic as a common and
    > consistent "File-Save" dialog for apps to use. Every developer has to invent
    > their own.


    And, as I have shown with screen shots, they do so in ways that are not
    beneficial to the user.

    > And how many different "sound systems" does linux have? And why do some apps
    > work with one sound system but not the other and it's all one big freakin
    > mess.
    >
    > In la-la-linux land everyone is out to re-invent the wheel the way they want.
    > Freedom, yes. Chaos, most definitely.
    >



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


  8. Re: Someone gets the problem

    "Moshe Goldfarb" stated in post
    1pxmcheus084b.8iqy6ykocbbv.dlg@40tude.net on 2/28/08 6:56 PM:

    > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:44:15 +0100, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Snit writes:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> -----
    >>> Linux GUIs are all forked
    >>>
    >>> The current state of Linux GUI toolkits is complete chaos.
    >>> There are the big two: KDE and Gnome, and a number of smaller
    >>> UI toolkits: FLTK, wxWindows, TK, Lucid, and others I don't
    >>> know about. Same for window managers: Enlightment, FVWM,
    >>> whatever. Individually, they all have good points and were
    >>> created by well-intentioned and hard working designers.
    >>> Collectively, it's a disaster.
    >>> ...
    >>> There are some bizarre contortions in the thought processes
    >>> of the Linux community here. The mere possibility that the
    >>> Linux kernel might fork will generate panic, and Linux
    >>> advocates point to the existence of one kernel as a major
    >>> advantage over BSD. Yet somehow multiple UI toolkits is all
    >>> about choice and evolution.
    >>>
    >>> Consistency really matters
    >>>
    >>> Offering a choice of user interface toolkits is about as
    >>> useful as offering car drivers a choice of which side of the
    >>> road they want to drive on. I could use photocopier paper,
    >>> VCRs, traffic signs, electrical power supplies, or shipping
    >>> containers for examples of why consistency matters, but since
    >>> most people reading this are probably geeks, consider network
    >>> protocols.
    >>>
    >>> Linux has a TCP/IP networking stack in the kernel. The
    >>> developers of said stack chose to implement the IETF TCP/IP
    >>> protocols and the BSD socket API, exactly as specified,
    >>> rather than design something new. Why isn't there a massive
    >>> outcry about this failure to innovate and lack of choice? Or
    >>> why get upset by Microsoft creating extensions to HTML that
    >>> only work in Internet Explorer? Doesn't this kind of
    >>> competition improve every system in the long term? (Yes,
    >>> those were rhetorical questions.)
    >>> ...
    >>> User interface consistency is, I suspect, the main reason why
    >>> the announced large scale deployment of Linux in Mexican
    >>> schools was cancelled, and why those corporations currently
    >>> evaluating Linux will most likely return to Windows.
    >>> Deploying ten thousand copies of RedHat or any similar Linux
    >>> is easy. Then you have to explain to ten thousand users that
    >>> the Copy and Paste commands work from Mozilla to KOffice, but
    >>> to go the other way you have to use Copy and middle mouse
    >>> button instead. And why the Open File dialog in Acrobat
    >>> Reader has different columns for directories and files, but
    >>> in KWord there's just the one which serves both purposes. And
    >>> why...
    >>>
    >>> Geeks like us tend not to see what the problem is, because we
    >>> spend huge amounts of time learning about and dealing with
    >>> the complexities of computer systems. If you have to memorise
    >>> the intricacies of programming language syntax and command
    >>> line options, what's the big deal? For everyone else, this
    >>> kind of training and support is hugely expensive.
    >>> ...
    >>> How it ought to be
    >>> ...
    >>> In Linux, each API has its own widgets and distinct UI. KDE
    >>> menus aren't quite the same as Gnome menus which aren't quite
    >>> the same as Lucid menus... From the outside, it is hilarious.
    >>> From the inside, tragic. How can the open source community
    >>> claim to be a superior development model with such a
    >>> massively bloated and wasteful reinventing of wheels going
    >>> on?
    >>>
    >>> Linux must move to the successful Windows/Macintosh model if
    >>> it is to achieve world domination: one library, one widget
    >>> set, one API. This won't interfere with your sovereign right
    >>> to run your own window manager if you really, really, want
    >>> to, just as you can rip out TCP/IP and run only AppleTalk if
    >>> you want. You will have the source.
    >>> ...
    >>> Conclusion
    >>>
    >>> The One Frickin' User Interface isn't essential for Linux to
    >>> survive and prosper, only for Linux to achieve any kind of
    >>> world domination. Without it I expect the future will look
    >>> more or less like it does today. Linux will remain the
    >>> operating system of choice for servers and computer science
    >>> workstations. KDE and Gnome will continue their pointless
    >>> competition. Cell phone and PDA manufacturers will choose
    >>> Linux as the core OS and write their own proprietary and
    >>> closed UI toolkits to run on top, although there is a good
    >>> chance that they will find it easier to license PalmOS or CE
    >>> instead. And Microsoft will retain their 90% or better share
    >>> of the home and business PC market, while Linux advocates
    >>> keep chanting "any year now."
    >>> -----
    >>>
    >>> Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    >>> the problem a lot more than many in COLA.

    >>
    >> It doesn't take a degree in CS to see he is spot on. Only in COLA would
    >> they disagree.

    >
    > Of course it's true and people are noticing, although not in COLA.
    > How do I know this?
    >
    > Take a look at the download stats for various OSS/Linux software that get
    > posted all the time.
    > If even 1/4 of those people stuck with Linux, Microsoft would be out of
    > business 5 years ago.
    > These same people try Linux and dump Linux, mostly because of what is
    > written above.
    > Linux still commands a staggering 0.6 percent of desktop market.
    >
    > Linux desktop is going no place.


    And that destroys Rick's BS claims as to why Linux is not doing better on
    the desktop.


    --
    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
    --Albert Einstein


  9. Re: Someone gets the problem

    "Tony Drudge" stated in post
    47c75a14$0$25980$88260bb3@free.teranews.com on 2/28/08 6:53 PM:

    >
    > "Snit" wrote in message
    > news:C3ECA51F.AAE16%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com.. .
    >>
    >> -----
    >> Linux GUIs are all forked
    >>
    >> The current state of Linux GUI toolkits is complete chaos.
    >> There are the big two: KDE and Gnome, and a number of smaller
    >> UI toolkits: FLTK, wxWindows, TK, Lucid, and others I don't
    >> know about. Same for window managers: Enlightment, FVWM,
    >> whatever. Individually, they all have good points and were
    >> created by well-intentioned and hard working designers.
    >> Collectively, it's a disaster.
    >> ...
    >> There are some bizarre contortions in the thought processes
    >> of the Linux community here. The mere possibility that the
    >> Linux kernel might fork will generate panic, and Linux
    >> advocates point to the existence of one kernel as a major
    >> advantage over BSD. Yet somehow multiple UI toolkits is all
    >> about choice and evolution.
    >>
    >> Consistency really matters
    >>
    >> Offering a choice of user interface toolkits is about as
    >> useful as offering car drivers a choice of which side of the
    >> road they want to drive on. I could use photocopier paper,
    >> VCRs, traffic signs, electrical power supplies, or shipping
    >> containers for examples of why consistency matters, but since
    >> most people reading this are probably geeks, consider network
    >> protocols.
    >>
    >> Linux has a TCP/IP networking stack in the kernel. The
    >> developers of said stack chose to implement the IETF TCP/IP
    >> protocols and the BSD socket API, exactly as specified,
    >> rather than design something new. Why isn't there a massive
    >> outcry about this failure to innovate and lack of choice? Or
    >> why get upset by Microsoft creating extensions to HTML that
    >> only work in Internet Explorer? Doesn't this kind of
    >> competition improve every system in the long term? (Yes,
    >> those were rhetorical questions.)
    >> ...
    >> User interface consistency is, I suspect, the main reason why
    >> the announced large scale deployment of Linux in Mexican
    >> schools was cancelled, and why those corporations currently
    >> evaluating Linux will most likely return to Windows.
    >> Deploying ten thousand copies of RedHat or any similar Linux
    >> is easy. Then you have to explain to ten thousand users that
    >> the Copy and Paste commands work from Mozilla to KOffice, but
    >> to go the other way you have to use Copy and middle mouse
    >> button instead. And why the Open File dialog in Acrobat
    >> Reader has different columns for directories and files, but
    >> in KWord there's just the one which serves both purposes. And
    >> why...
    >>
    >> Geeks like us tend not to see what the problem is, because we
    >> spend huge amounts of time learning about and dealing with
    >> the complexities of computer systems. If you have to memorise
    >> the intricacies of programming language syntax and command
    >> line options, what's the big deal? For everyone else, this
    >> kind of training and support is hugely expensive.
    >> ...
    >> How it ought to be
    >> ...
    >> In Linux, each API has its own widgets and distinct UI. KDE
    >> menus aren't quite the same as Gnome menus which aren't quite
    >> the same as Lucid menus... From the outside, it is hilarious.
    >> From the inside, tragic. How can the open source community
    >> claim to be a superior development model with such a
    >> massively bloated and wasteful reinventing of wheels going
    >> on?
    >>
    >> Linux must move to the successful Windows/Macintosh model if
    >> it is to achieve world domination: one library, one widget
    >> set, one API. This won't interfere with your sovereign right
    >> to run your own window manager if you really, really, want
    >> to, just as you can rip out TCP/IP and run only AppleTalk if
    >> you want. You will have the source.
    >> ...
    >> Conclusion
    >>
    >> The One Frickin' User Interface isn't essential for Linux to
    >> survive and prosper, only for Linux to achieve any kind of
    >> world domination. Without it I expect the future will look
    >> more or less like it does today. Linux will remain the
    >> operating system of choice for servers and computer science
    >> workstations. KDE and Gnome will continue their pointless
    >> competition. Cell phone and PDA manufacturers will choose
    >> Linux as the core OS and write their own proprietary and
    >> closed UI toolkits to run on top, although there is a good
    >> chance that they will find it easier to license PalmOS or CE
    >> instead. And Microsoft will retain their 90% or better share
    >> of the home and business PC market, while Linux advocates
    >> keep chanting "any year now."
    >> -----
    >>
    >> Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    >> the problem a lot more than many in COLA.
    >>
    >> --
    >> I know how a jam jar feels...
    >> ... full of jam!
    >>

    >
    >
    > Incredibly accurate and to the point. Everything from why there's only one
    > TCP/IP protocol that's adhered to the endless chants of "any year now".
    >
    > It's amazing how some zealots will make any excuse to avoid facing the
    > obvious reality that's staring them in the face.


    Rick has one - maybe several - mantras to help him bury his head.


    --
    I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.





  10. Re: Someone gets the problem

    On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:16:22 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Moshe Goldfarb" stated in post
    > 1pxmcheus084b.8iqy6ykocbbv.dlg@40tude.net on 2/28/08 6:56 PM:
    >
    >> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:44:15 +0100, Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Snit writes:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> -----
    >>>> Linux GUIs are all forked
    >>>>
    >>>> The current state of Linux GUI toolkits is complete chaos.
    >>>> There are the big two: KDE and Gnome, and a number of smaller
    >>>> UI toolkits: FLTK, wxWindows, TK, Lucid, and others I don't
    >>>> know about. Same for window managers: Enlightment, FVWM,
    >>>> whatever. Individually, they all have good points and were
    >>>> created by well-intentioned and hard working designers.
    >>>> Collectively, it's a disaster.
    >>>> ...
    >>>> There are some bizarre contortions in the thought processes
    >>>> of the Linux community here. The mere possibility that the
    >>>> Linux kernel might fork will generate panic, and Linux
    >>>> advocates point to the existence of one kernel as a major
    >>>> advantage over BSD. Yet somehow multiple UI toolkits is all
    >>>> about choice and evolution.
    >>>>
    >>>> Consistency really matters
    >>>>
    >>>> Offering a choice of user interface toolkits is about as
    >>>> useful as offering car drivers a choice of which side of the
    >>>> road they want to drive on. I could use photocopier paper,
    >>>> VCRs, traffic signs, electrical power supplies, or shipping
    >>>> containers for examples of why consistency matters, but since
    >>>> most people reading this are probably geeks, consider network
    >>>> protocols.
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux has a TCP/IP networking stack in the kernel. The
    >>>> developers of said stack chose to implement the IETF TCP/IP
    >>>> protocols and the BSD socket API, exactly as specified,
    >>>> rather than design something new. Why isn't there a massive
    >>>> outcry about this failure to innovate and lack of choice? Or
    >>>> why get upset by Microsoft creating extensions to HTML that
    >>>> only work in Internet Explorer? Doesn't this kind of
    >>>> competition improve every system in the long term? (Yes,
    >>>> those were rhetorical questions.)
    >>>> ...
    >>>> User interface consistency is, I suspect, the main reason why
    >>>> the announced large scale deployment of Linux in Mexican
    >>>> schools was cancelled, and why those corporations currently
    >>>> evaluating Linux will most likely return to Windows.
    >>>> Deploying ten thousand copies of RedHat or any similar Linux
    >>>> is easy. Then you have to explain to ten thousand users that
    >>>> the Copy and Paste commands work from Mozilla to KOffice, but
    >>>> to go the other way you have to use Copy and middle mouse
    >>>> button instead. And why the Open File dialog in Acrobat
    >>>> Reader has different columns for directories and files, but
    >>>> in KWord there's just the one which serves both purposes. And
    >>>> why...
    >>>>
    >>>> Geeks like us tend not to see what the problem is, because we
    >>>> spend huge amounts of time learning about and dealing with
    >>>> the complexities of computer systems. If you have to memorise
    >>>> the intricacies of programming language syntax and command
    >>>> line options, what's the big deal? For everyone else, this
    >>>> kind of training and support is hugely expensive.
    >>>> ...
    >>>> How it ought to be
    >>>> ...
    >>>> In Linux, each API has its own widgets and distinct UI. KDE
    >>>> menus aren't quite the same as Gnome menus which aren't quite
    >>>> the same as Lucid menus... From the outside, it is hilarious.
    >>>> From the inside, tragic. How can the open source community
    >>>> claim to be a superior development model with such a
    >>>> massively bloated and wasteful reinventing of wheels going
    >>>> on?
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux must move to the successful Windows/Macintosh model if
    >>>> it is to achieve world domination: one library, one widget
    >>>> set, one API. This won't interfere with your sovereign right
    >>>> to run your own window manager if you really, really, want
    >>>> to, just as you can rip out TCP/IP and run only AppleTalk if
    >>>> you want. You will have the source.
    >>>> ...
    >>>> Conclusion
    >>>>
    >>>> The One Frickin' User Interface isn't essential for Linux to
    >>>> survive and prosper, only for Linux to achieve any kind of
    >>>> world domination. Without it I expect the future will look
    >>>> more or less like it does today. Linux will remain the
    >>>> operating system of choice for servers and computer science
    >>>> workstations. KDE and Gnome will continue their pointless
    >>>> competition. Cell phone and PDA manufacturers will choose
    >>>> Linux as the core OS and write their own proprietary and
    >>>> closed UI toolkits to run on top, although there is a good
    >>>> chance that they will find it easier to license PalmOS or CE
    >>>> instead. And Microsoft will retain their 90% or better share
    >>>> of the home and business PC market, while Linux advocates
    >>>> keep chanting "any year now."
    >>>> -----
    >>>>
    >>>> Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    >>>> the problem a lot more than many in COLA.
    >>>
    >>> It doesn't take a degree in CS to see he is spot on. Only in COLA would
    >>> they disagree.

    >>
    >> Of course it's true and people are noticing, although not in COLA.
    >> How do I know this?
    >>
    >> Take a look at the download stats for various OSS/Linux software that get
    >> posted all the time.
    >> If even 1/4 of those people stuck with Linux, Microsoft would be out of
    >> business 5 years ago.
    >> These same people try Linux and dump Linux, mostly because of what is
    >> written above.
    >> Linux still commands a staggering 0.6 percent of desktop market.
    >>
    >> Linux desktop is going no place.

    >
    > And that destroys Rick's BS claims as to why Linux is not doing better on
    > the desktop.


    Linux is not doing well on the desktop because people don't want Linux.
    It's that simple.

    The Linux advocates will try and blame it on Microsoft etc but the bottom
    line is that Linux is free and people just seem to repel from it.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  11. Re: Someone gets the problem

    "Moshe Goldfarb" stated in post
    1ei9fylyvupun.1idqhgfcicz9j.dlg@40tude.net on 2/28/08 11:13 PM:

    .....
    >>>>> Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    >>>>> the problem a lot more than many in COLA.
    >>>>
    >>>> It doesn't take a degree in CS to see he is spot on. Only in COLA would
    >>>> they disagree.
    >>>
    >>> Of course it's true and people are noticing, although not in COLA.
    >>> How do I know this?
    >>>
    >>> Take a look at the download stats for various OSS/Linux software that get
    >>> posted all the time.
    >>> If even 1/4 of those people stuck with Linux, Microsoft would be out of
    >>> business 5 years ago.
    >>> These same people try Linux and dump Linux, mostly because of what is
    >>> written above.
    >>> Linux still commands a staggering 0.6 percent of desktop market.
    >>>
    >>> Linux desktop is going no place.

    >>
    >> And that destroys Rick's BS claims as to why Linux is not doing better on
    >> the desktop.

    >
    > Linux is not doing well on the desktop because people don't want Linux.
    > It's that simple.


    Well, many do not know of it... perhaps most. The reason most do not know
    of it, though, is largely tied to the same reasons that of those that do
    know of it and try it most go back to Windows.
    >
    > The Linux advocates will try and blame it on Microsoft etc but the bottom
    > line is that Linux is free and people just seem to repel from it.


    When you cannot give a product away that does not speak well of the product.



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


  12. Re: Someone gets the problem

    Tony Drudge wrote:
    (snip)
    >
    > It's a lack of focus. Umpteen different window managers. Each app invents
    > it's own "File-Open" and "File-Save" dialogs.


    That is a blatant lie. Each app does NOT invent its own dialogs. The
    overwhelming majority of GUI apps don't. They adhere to whatever
    windowing environment they are written for.


    > Hell... even Apple and MS
    > (which people accuse of being slow), they both had "Common Dialogs" back in
    > the early 1990's. And linux still doesn't have something as basic as a
    > common and consistent "File-Save" dialog for apps to use. Every developer
    > has to invent their own.


    NO, they don't. Are you really that stupid?

    >
    > And how many different "sound systems" does linux have?


    Several, unfortunately.

    > And why do some apps work with one sound system but not the other


    Because they are written for one sound system and not the other. Howeve,
    most will work with several systems.


    > and it's all one big freakin mess.
    >
    > In la-la-linux land everyone is out to re-invent the wheel the way they
    > want. Freedom, yes. Chaos, most definitely.
    >

    If you want an OS that is controlled by one entity, go use Windows or OS X.

    --
    Rick

  13. Re: Someone gets the problem

    Snit wrote:
    > "Moshe Goldfarb" stated in post
    > 1pxmcheus084b.8iqy6ykocbbv.dlg@40tude.net on 2/28/08 6:56 PM:
    >
    >> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:44:15 +0100, Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Snit writes:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> -----
    >>>> Linux GUIs are all forked
    >>>>
    >>>> The current state of Linux GUI toolkits is complete chaos.
    >>>> There are the big two: KDE and Gnome, and a number of smaller
    >>>> UI toolkits: FLTK, wxWindows, TK, Lucid, and others I don't
    >>>> know about. Same for window managers: Enlightment, FVWM,
    >>>> whatever. Individually, they all have good points and were
    >>>> created by well-intentioned and hard working designers.
    >>>> Collectively, it's a disaster.
    >>>> ...
    >>>> There are some bizarre contortions in the thought processes
    >>>> of the Linux community here. The mere possibility that the
    >>>> Linux kernel might fork will generate panic, and Linux
    >>>> advocates point to the existence of one kernel as a major
    >>>> advantage over BSD. Yet somehow multiple UI toolkits is all
    >>>> about choice and evolution.
    >>>>
    >>>> Consistency really matters
    >>>>
    >>>> Offering a choice of user interface toolkits is about as
    >>>> useful as offering car drivers a choice of which side of the
    >>>> road they want to drive on. I could use photocopier paper,
    >>>> VCRs, traffic signs, electrical power supplies, or shipping
    >>>> containers for examples of why consistency matters, but since
    >>>> most people reading this are probably geeks, consider network
    >>>> protocols.
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux has a TCP/IP networking stack in the kernel. The
    >>>> developers of said stack chose to implement the IETF TCP/IP
    >>>> protocols and the BSD socket API, exactly as specified,
    >>>> rather than design something new. Why isn't there a massive
    >>>> outcry about this failure to innovate and lack of choice? Or
    >>>> why get upset by Microsoft creating extensions to HTML that
    >>>> only work in Internet Explorer? Doesn't this kind of
    >>>> competition improve every system in the long term? (Yes,
    >>>> those were rhetorical questions.)
    >>>> ...
    >>>> User interface consistency is, I suspect, the main reason why
    >>>> the announced large scale deployment of Linux in Mexican
    >>>> schools was cancelled, and why those corporations currently
    >>>> evaluating Linux will most likely return to Windows.
    >>>> Deploying ten thousand copies of RedHat or any similar Linux
    >>>> is easy. Then you have to explain to ten thousand users that
    >>>> the Copy and Paste commands work from Mozilla to KOffice, but
    >>>> to go the other way you have to use Copy and middle mouse
    >>>> button instead. And why the Open File dialog in Acrobat
    >>>> Reader has different columns for directories and files, but
    >>>> in KWord there's just the one which serves both purposes. And
    >>>> why...
    >>>>
    >>>> Geeks like us tend not to see what the problem is, because we
    >>>> spend huge amounts of time learning about and dealing with
    >>>> the complexities of computer systems. If you have to memorise
    >>>> the intricacies of programming language syntax and command
    >>>> line options, what's the big deal? For everyone else, this
    >>>> kind of training and support is hugely expensive.
    >>>> ...
    >>>> How it ought to be
    >>>> ...
    >>>> In Linux, each API has its own widgets and distinct UI. KDE
    >>>> menus aren't quite the same as Gnome menus which aren't quite
    >>>> the same as Lucid menus... From the outside, it is hilarious.
    >>>> From the inside, tragic. How can the open source community
    >>>> claim to be a superior development model with such a
    >>>> massively bloated and wasteful reinventing of wheels going
    >>>> on?
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux must move to the successful Windows/Macintosh model if
    >>>> it is to achieve world domination: one library, one widget
    >>>> set, one API. This won't interfere with your sovereign right
    >>>> to run your own window manager if you really, really, want
    >>>> to, just as you can rip out TCP/IP and run only AppleTalk if
    >>>> you want. You will have the source.
    >>>> ...
    >>>> Conclusion
    >>>>
    >>>> The One Frickin' User Interface isn't essential for Linux to
    >>>> survive and prosper, only for Linux to achieve any kind of
    >>>> world domination. Without it I expect the future will look
    >>>> more or less like it does today. Linux will remain the
    >>>> operating system of choice for servers and computer science
    >>>> workstations. KDE and Gnome will continue their pointless
    >>>> competition. Cell phone and PDA manufacturers will choose
    >>>> Linux as the core OS and write their own proprietary and
    >>>> closed UI toolkits to run on top, although there is a good
    >>>> chance that they will find it easier to license PalmOS or CE
    >>>> instead. And Microsoft will retain their 90% or better share
    >>>> of the home and business PC market, while Linux advocates
    >>>> keep chanting "any year now."
    >>>> -----
    >>>>
    >>>> Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    >>>> the problem a lot more than many in COLA.
    >>> It doesn't take a degree in CS to see he is spot on. Only in COLA would
    >>> they disagree.

    >> Of course it's true and people are noticing, although not in COLA.
    >> How do I know this?
    >>
    >> Take a look at the download stats for various OSS/Linux software that get
    >> posted all the time.
    >> If even 1/4 of those people stuck with Linux, Microsoft would be out of
    >> business 5 years ago.
    >> These same people try Linux and dump Linux, mostly because of what is
    >> written above.
    >> Linux still commands a staggering 0.6 percent of desktop market.
    >>
    >> Linux desktop is going no place.

    >
    > And that destroys Rick's BS claims as to why Linux is not doing better on
    > the desktop.
    >
    >

    No, it doesn't.

    --
    Rick

  14. Re: Someone gets the problem

    Snit wrote:
    > "Moshe Goldfarb" stated in post
    > 1ei9fylyvupun.1idqhgfcicz9j.dlg@40tude.net on 2/28/08 11:13 PM:
    >
    > ....
    >>>>>> Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    >>>>>> the problem a lot more than many in COLA.
    >>>>> It doesn't take a degree in CS to see he is spot on. Only in COLA would
    >>>>> they disagree.
    >>>> Of course it's true and people are noticing, although not in COLA.
    >>>> How do I know this?
    >>>>
    >>>> Take a look at the download stats for various OSS/Linux software that get
    >>>> posted all the time.
    >>>> If even 1/4 of those people stuck with Linux, Microsoft would be out of
    >>>> business 5 years ago.
    >>>> These same people try Linux and dump Linux, mostly because of what is
    >>>> written above.
    >>>> Linux still commands a staggering 0.6 percent of desktop market.
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux desktop is going no place.
    >>> And that destroys Rick's BS claims as to why Linux is not doing better on
    >>> the desktop.

    >> Linux is not doing well on the desktop because people don't want Linux.
    >> It's that simple.

    >
    > Well, many do not know of it... perhaps most.


    The overwhelming majority.

    >The reason most do not know
    > of it, though, is largely tied to the same reasons that of those that do
    > know of it and try it most go back to Windows.


    That's ludicrous. Most people don't know about it.... because it isn't
    advertised, and it is used by a (relatively) small number.

    >> The Linux advocates will try and blame it on Microsoft etc but the bottom
    >> line is that Linux is free and people just seem to repel from it.

    >
    > When you cannot give a product away that does not speak well of the product.


    You keep saying that, and you are wrong. If the OS looked like whatever
    OS people were using, and it ran all the apps those people were using,
    and those people heard of the OS, and/or it came pre-installed on the
    computers they were buying, those people would use that OS. At the
    moment, that OS is either Windows or OS X.


    --
    Rick

  15. Re: Someone gets the problem

    "Rick" stated in post 13sg5pb7e528k92@news.supernews.com
    on 2/29/08 7:10 AM:


    >>>>> Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    >>>>> the problem a lot more than many in COLA.
    >>>> It doesn't take a degree in CS to see he is spot on. Only in COLA would
    >>>> they disagree.
    >>> Of course it's true and people are noticing, although not in COLA.
    >>> How do I know this?
    >>>
    >>> Take a look at the download stats for various OSS/Linux software that get
    >>> posted all the time.
    >>> If even 1/4 of those people stuck with Linux, Microsoft would be out of
    >>> business 5 years ago.
    >>> These same people try Linux and dump Linux, mostly because of what is
    >>> written above.
    >>> Linux still commands a staggering 0.6 percent of desktop market.
    >>>
    >>> Linux desktop is going no place.

    >>
    >> And that destroys Rick's BS claims as to why Linux is not doing better on
    >> the desktop.
    >>
    >>

    > No, it doesn't.


    Then defend your mantra in the face of it... as if you could ever defend
    your views.


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




  16. Re: Someone gets the problem

    "Rick" stated in post 13sg61i3og1u1ee@news.supernews.com
    on 2/29/08 7:15 AM:

    >>> Linux is not doing well on the desktop because people don't want Linux.
    >>> It's that simple.

    >>
    >> Well, many do not know of it... perhaps most.

    >
    > The overwhelming majority.
    >
    >> The reason most do not know
    >> of it, though, is largely tied to the same reasons that of those that do
    >> know of it and try it most go back to Windows.

    >
    > That's ludicrous. Most people don't know about it.... because it isn't
    > advertised, and it is used by a (relatively) small number.


    And why, again, is it used by such a small number - even compared to the
    number who download it and, clearly, try it?

    You simply have no logical explanation... just a mantra you cannot defend as
    you stick your head in the sand.

    >>> The Linux advocates will try and blame it on Microsoft etc but the bottom
    >>> line is that Linux is free and people just seem to repel from it.

    >>
    >> When you cannot give a product away that does not speak well of the product.

    >
    > You keep saying that, and you are wrong. If the OS looked like whatever
    > OS people were using, and it ran all the apps those people were using,
    > and those people heard of the OS, and/or it came pre-installed on the
    > computers they were buying, those people would use that OS. At the
    > moment, that OS is either Windows or OS X.


    Neither of which is free... and yet OS X manages to snag about 10x the home
    market... only targeting the high end and not letting people run it on
    non-Apple hardware, etc.

    You simply are blind as to the reasons why... but as I have shown, clearly,
    others get the problem.


    --
    Is Swiss cheese made out of hole milk?


  17. Re: Someone gets the problem

    Snit wrote:
    > "Rick" stated in post 13sg61i3og1u1ee@news.supernews.com
    > on 2/29/08 7:15 AM:
    >
    >>>> Linux is not doing well on the desktop because people don't want Linux.
    >>>> It's that simple.
    >>> Well, many do not know of it... perhaps most.

    >> The overwhelming majority.
    >>
    >>> The reason most do not know
    >>> of it, though, is largely tied to the same reasons that of those that do
    >>> know of it and try it most go back to Windows.

    >> That's ludicrous. Most people don't know about it.... because it isn't
    >> advertised, and it is used by a (relatively) small number.

    >
    > And why, again, is it used by such a small number - even compared to the
    > number who download it and, clearly, try it?


    Once AGAIN, because it is different from what they are accustomed to. It
    is different, their software doesn't run on it and their friends
    probably don't use it.

    >
    > You simply have no logical explanation... just a mantra you cannot defend as
    > you stick your head in the sand.


    I keep giving you logical explanations. You won't accept them.

    >
    >>>> The Linux advocates will try and blame it on Microsoft etc but the bottom
    >>>> line is that Linux is free and people just seem to repel from it.
    >>> When you cannot give a product away that does not speak well of the product.

    >> You keep saying that, and you are wrong. If the OS looked like whatever
    >> OS people were using, and it ran all the apps those people were using,
    >> and those people heard of the OS, and/or it came pre-installed on the
    >> computers they were buying, those people would use that OS. At the
    >> moment, that OS is either Windows or OS X.

    >
    > Neither of which is free... and yet OS X manages to snag about 10x the home
    > market... only targeting the high end and not letting people run it on
    > non-Apple hardware, etc.


    SO neither is free. So what?

    >
    > You simply are blind as to the reasons why... but as I have shown, clearly,
    > others get the problem.
    >

    You are clearly blind to the reasons.


    --
    Rick

  18. Re: Someone gets the problem

    Snit wrote:
    > "Rick" stated in post 13sg5pb7e528k92@news.supernews.com
    > on 2/29/08 7:10 AM:
    >
    >
    >>>>>> Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly* gets
    >>>>>> the problem a lot more than many in COLA.
    >>>>> It doesn't take a degree in CS to see he is spot on. Only in COLA would
    >>>>> they disagree.
    >>>> Of course it's true and people are noticing, although not in COLA.
    >>>> How do I know this?
    >>>>
    >>>> Take a look at the download stats for various OSS/Linux software that get
    >>>> posted all the time.
    >>>> If even 1/4 of those people stuck with Linux, Microsoft would be out of
    >>>> business 5 years ago.
    >>>> These same people try Linux and dump Linux, mostly because of what is
    >>>> written above.
    >>>> Linux still commands a staggering 0.6 percent of desktop market.
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux desktop is going no place.
    >>> And that destroys Rick's BS claims as to why Linux is not doing better on
    >>> the desktop.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> No, it doesn't.

    >
    > Then defend your mantra in the face of it... as if you could ever defend
    > your views.
    >
    >

    I have defended my views.

    --
    Rick

  19. Re: Someone gets the problem

    "Rick" stated in post 13sgi7gj2h764c7@news.supernews.com
    on 2/29/08 10:43 AM:

    > Snit wrote:
    >> "Rick" stated in post 13sg5pb7e528k92@news.supernews.com
    >> on 2/29/08 7:10 AM:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>>>> Not saying I agree with all of what he has to say - but he *clearly*
    >>>>>>> gets
    >>>>>>> the problem a lot more than many in COLA.
    >>>>>> It doesn't take a degree in CS to see he is spot on. Only in COLA would
    >>>>>> they disagree.
    >>>>> Of course it's true and people are noticing, although not in COLA.
    >>>>> How do I know this?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Take a look at the download stats for various OSS/Linux software that get
    >>>>> posted all the time.
    >>>>> If even 1/4 of those people stuck with Linux, Microsoft would be out of
    >>>>> business 5 years ago.
    >>>>> These same people try Linux and dump Linux, mostly because of what is
    >>>>> written above.
    >>>>> Linux still commands a staggering 0.6 percent of desktop market.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Linux desktop is going no place.
    >>>> And that destroys Rick's BS claims as to why Linux is not doing better on
    >>>> the desktop.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> No, it doesn't.

    >>
    >> Then defend your mantra in the face of it... as if you could ever defend
    >> your views.
    >>
    >>

    > I have defended my views.


    When? I have seen you repeat your mantra many times but you *never* provide
    support.


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


  20. Re: Someone gets the problem

    "Rick" stated in post 13sgi6nd5ek60a8@news.supernews.com
    on 2/29/08 10:42 AM:

    > Snit wrote:
    >> "Rick" stated in post 13sg61i3og1u1ee@news.supernews.com
    >> on 2/29/08 7:15 AM:
    >>
    >>>>> Linux is not doing well on the desktop because people don't want Linux.
    >>>>> It's that simple.
    >>>> Well, many do not know of it... perhaps most.
    >>> The overwhelming majority.
    >>>
    >>>> The reason most do not know
    >>>> of it, though, is largely tied to the same reasons that of those that do
    >>>> know of it and try it most go back to Windows.
    >>> That's ludicrous. Most people don't know about it.... because it isn't
    >>> advertised, and it is used by a (relatively) small number.

    >>
    >> And why, again, is it used by such a small number - even compared to the
    >> number who download it and, clearly, try it?

    >
    > Once AGAIN, because it is different from what they are accustomed to. It
    > is different, their software doesn't run on it and their friends
    > probably don't use it.


    OS X is different from Windows... your "logic" is flawed.

    >> You simply have no logical explanation... just a mantra you cannot defend as
    >> you stick your head in the sand.

    >
    > I keep giving you logical explanations. You won't accept them.


    You repeatedly show your lack of logic. Oh well.

    >>>>> The Linux advocates will try and blame it on Microsoft etc but the bottom
    >>>>> line is that Linux is free and people just seem to repel from it.
    >>>> When you cannot give a product away that does not speak well of the
    >>>> product.
    >>> You keep saying that, and you are wrong. If the OS looked like whatever
    >>> OS people were using, and it ran all the apps those people were using,
    >>> and those people heard of the OS, and/or it came pre-installed on the
    >>> computers they were buying, those people would use that OS. At the
    >>> moment, that OS is either Windows or OS X.

    >>
    >> Neither of which is free... and yet OS X manages to snag about 10x the home
    >> market... only targeting the high end and not letting people run it on
    >> non-Apple hardware, etc.

    >
    > SO neither is free. So what?


    So it is quite telling that a free product cannot do well on the desktop -
    especially since that is the only place the originator of it cares about.

    >> You simply are blind as to the reasons why... but as I have shown, clearly,
    >> others get the problem.
    >>

    > You are clearly blind to the reasons.


    So defend them! Make your case.

    As if you could. LOL!



    --
    "Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
    all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs




+ Reply to Thread