Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user - Linux

This is a discussion on Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user - Linux ; On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:18:41 -0700, Snit wrote: > "Rick" stated in post > aa6dnSZu3ozKjwLVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/10/08 9:07 AM: > >> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:27:16 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> "Rick" stated in post >>> aa6dnSxu3owbmwLVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@supernews.com on ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 126

Thread: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

  1. Re: Why Vista won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:18:41 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > aa6dnSZu3ozKjwLVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/10/08 9:07 AM:
    >
    >> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 08:27:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rick" stated in post
    >>> aa6dnSxu3owbmwLVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/10/08 8:17 AM:
    >>>
    >>> ...
    >>>>>>>> Snit RonB
    >>>>>>>> Hadron Rick
    >>>>>>>> Tim Smith Gregory Shearman KDE docs
    >>>>>>>> Peter Köhlmann Gnome docs JEDIDIAH
    >>>>>>>> OpenOffice docs El Tux
    >>>>>>>> Firefox docs vs. chrisv
    >>>>>>>> Screen shots 7
    >>>>>>>> Videos
    >>>>>>>> Tim Berners-Lee
    >>>>>>>> Peer Reviewed Studies [1]
    >>>>>>>> Shuttleworth, Mark
    >>>>>>>> UI Experts [2]
    >>>>>>>> Common sense
    >>>>>>>> Bloggers
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The names on the right there are a good start for the monthly
    >>>>>>> "retard round up". Good work.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You just keep calling people that name, don't you, jerk?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I would agree that the name calling is counter-productive.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So why not rise above that, Rick, and show *some* support for your
    >>>>> disagreement with those of us listed on the left, above. If you can
    >>>>> show some support I will happily list it with the group on the
    >>>>> right.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Frankly the fact that this is even a debate is rather odd. *All*
    >>>>> data supports the idea that a fractured user experience, such as the
    >>>>> one provided by PCLOS, has a considerable and quantifiable
    >>>>> detrimental effect on the user.
    >>>>
    >>>> Frankly I have supported my position.
    >>>>
    >>> Excellent, then quoting it should be a breeze! No need for you to do
    >>> any tough research, just quote from the post. This is such good news,
    >>> Rick.
    >>>
    >>> Right?
    >>>
    >>> Rick?
    >>>
    >>> Right?
    >>>
    >>> Oh.
    >>>
    >>> No quote from you.
    >>>
    >>> Man, why not?
    >>>
    >>> It is like you do not have any real support at all. Very much like
    >>> that, in fact. Wow... so much like that... well... if it looks like a
    >>> duck and quacks like a duck.

    >>
    >> Ok, you pathetic little person:
    >>
    >> Distros offer the ability to use different Windowing environments.
    >> They
    >> usually have a default environment that is installed unless the user
    >> chooses to over ride the default. That is called user choice, not
    >> fractured UI. Each UI is consistent within itself. A user is free to
    >> use applications not native to the default windowing environment. That
    >> is called user choice, not a fractured UI.Each environment is
    >> consistent within it self.
    >>
    >> Each windowing environment is consistent with itself. Users are free to
    >> use "non-native" applications if they wish. I am not familiar with
    >> Windows alternative environments, except for VMs, so will not comment.
    >> Apple, however, initially included OS 9 with OS X, and so by your
    >> definition, it
    >> seems, fractured its UI. Aqua and Classic were included for a long
    >> time, and so, by your definition, it seems, fractured its UI. Even now,
    >> Apple bundles X with Leopard, and so, by you definition, fractures its
    >> UI. Except, you are wrong. It is called user choice. Each environment
    >> is consistent within it self.
    >>
    >> Multiple UI environments have been a staple in computing since there
    >> were computers. Apple //s had them. DOS machines had them. Macs have
    >> them now. Not only are there multiple windowing environments for
    >> whatever native OS a person is using, VMs allow foreign OS to run side
    >> by side with the "native" OS. And, there are "emulators" such as Wine
    >> that allow "non- native" apps to run. You can even run Linux in a text
    >> environment... no GUI.
    >>
    >> Having the ability to run non-native apps is not having a fractured UI,
    >> it is the freedom to run non-native apps.
    >>
    >> There are windowing environments and there are applications that are
    >> written for the specific environments. The environments are cross
    >> platform, so that the environment and app written for will will
    >> generally look the same regardless or hardware architecture or
    >> underlying operating system. Apps written for a specific environment
    >> are native to that specific environment.
    >>
    >> Since it is the user that is starting the apps and using the apps, it
    >> is the user that is mixing the environments. Mixing as in mixing things
    >> together, not mixing a distro. I have the feeling I am going to have to
    >> repeat that to you many times.
    >>
    >>

    > You did not talk about the downsides of the fractured UI of PCLOS and
    > distros like it...


    "That is called user choice, not fractured UI."


    > nor try to show that those downsides did not exist
    > (which is what you would have had to do to support your disagreement
    > with those of us listed on the left).


    .... in your opinion.

    > What you did was try to excuse it
    > as "choice" while ignoring the fact that there is *no* other choice on
    > desktop Linux - the choice of a non-fractured user experience does not
    > exist in any real way. If it did you would point to a distro or list of
    > programs. You repeatedly fail to do so.


    ... nothing is going to satisfy you except total agreement with your
    position.



    --
    Rick

  2. Re: Why Vista won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    "Rick" stated in post
    aa6dnVRu3oxZigLVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/10/08 9:31 AM:

    >> You did not talk about the downsides of the fractured UI of PCLOS and
    >> distros like it...

    >
    > "That is called user choice, not fractured UI."


    But I am arguing for the *choice* of a non-fractured UI, and you are arguing
    *against* me. So how can you now flip flop and claim you are *for* choice
    in this discussion?

    Please, Rick, pick *one* side of the debate or the other!

    >> nor try to show that those downsides did not exist
    >> (which is what you would have had to do to support your disagreement
    >> with those of us listed on the left).

    >
    > ... in your opinion.


    My opinion is supported by massive amounts of data. Your opinion that the
    choice I am advocating for is bad is to try to redefine an inevitable
    inconsistent user experience as "choice". That is absurd.

    >> What you did was try to excuse it
    >> as "choice" while ignoring the fact that there is *no* other choice on
    >> desktop Linux - the choice of a non-fractured user experience does not
    >> exist in any real way. If it did you would point to a distro or list of
    >> programs. You repeatedly fail to do so.

    >
    > .. nothing is going to satisfy you except total agreement with your
    > position.


    Why is agreement so important to you?

    --
    I think we [the folks who make Linux desktops] don't yet deliver a good
    enough user experience.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


  3. Re: Why does Glasser need agreement?

    On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:59:58 -0700, Snit wrote:

    > "Rick" stated in post
    > aa6dnVRu3oxZigLVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/10/08 9:31 AM:
    >
    >>> You did not talk about the downsides of the fractured UI of PCLOS and
    >>> distros like it...

    >>
    >> "That is called user choice, not fractured UI."

    >
    > But I am arguing for the *choice* of a non-fractured UI, and you are
    > arguing *against* me.


    You are a liar.

    > So how can you now flip flop and claim you are
    > *for* choice in this discussion?
    >
    > Please, Rick, pick *one* side of the debate or the other!


    Please, Michael, learn how to read.


    >
    >>> nor try to show that those downsides did not exist (which is what you
    >>> would have had to do to support your disagreement with those of us
    >>> listed on the left).

    >>
    >> ... in your opinion.

    >
    > My opinion is supported by massive amounts of data. Your opinion that
    > the choice I am advocating for is bad is to try to redefine an
    > inevitable inconsistent user experience as "choice". That is absurd.


    Yes, you are absurd.

    >
    >>> What you did was try to excuse it
    >>> as "choice" while ignoring the fact that there is *no* other choice on
    >>> desktop Linux - the choice of a non-fractured user experience does not
    >>> exist in any real way. If it did you would point to a distro or list
    >>> of programs. You repeatedly fail to do so.

    >>
    >> .. nothing is going to satisfy you except total agreement with your
    >> position.

    >
    > Why is agreement so important to you?


    You are the one continually saying I agree with you, when I have
    repeatedly told you I don't.


    --
    Rick

  4. Re: Why does Rick need agreement?

    "Rick" stated in post
    aa6dnVBu3ozIvQLVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/10/08 10:07 AM:

    > On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:59:58 -0700, Snit wrote:
    >
    >> "Rick" stated in post
    >> aa6dnVRu3oxZigLVnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@supernews.com on 8/10/08 9:31 AM:
    >>
    >>>> You did not talk about the downsides of the fractured UI of PCLOS and
    >>>> distros like it...
    >>>
    >>> "That is called user choice, not fractured UI."

    >>
    >> But I am arguing for the *choice* of a non-fractured UI, and you are
    >> arguing *against* me.

    >
    > You are a liar.


    So now you think you get to define what *I* am arguing for. Nope, Rick,
    does not work that way.

    What I am saying would be better for the user is if desktop Linux offered
    the *choice* of a non-fractured (or consistent, if you prefer) user
    experience. This is my view. You and others argue against me on this...
    though you have stated *very well* why my view would be a benefit to users -
    making your disagreement, well, a bit odd. You have had a very hard time
    picking one side of the debate to stick to.

    ....
    >> My opinion is supported by massive amounts of data. Your opinion that
    >> the choice I am advocating for is bad is to try to redefine an
    >> inevitable inconsistent user experience as "choice". That is absurd.

    >
    > Yes, you are absurd.


    You are welcome to that opinion. Contrary to your fabrications about me I
    am perfectly OK with you disagreeing with the facts, the data, and repeated
    studies... I am even OK with you disagreeing with your own comments - I find
    it funny.

    ....

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


  5. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On 2008-08-09, DFS wrote:
    > Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:
    >>
    >>> What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more
    >>> effort is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is
    >>> *far* more efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of
    >>> others, instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time.

    >
    > Is that right? Then why does OpenOffice Base suck so bad, year after year?
    > In 2008 it's not even close to the level of functionality and feature that
    > MS Access had in 1995.


    So? In 1995, the typical office bundle didn't even include it?

    Why should the rest of us care about it in 2008.

    We can use real databases if we're really interested.

    [deletia]

    --

    Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
    who has pirated their music / | \


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  6. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On 2008-08-09, thufir wrote:
    > On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:40:16 -0500, chrisv wrote:
    >
    >>>> 2)> There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.

    > [...]
    >> What these wintards have trouble understanding is that *far* more effort
    >> is "wasted" in the closed-source world. The OSS model is *far* more
    >> efficient, allowing people to build-upon the work of others, instead of
    >> re-inventing the wheel all the time.

    >
    >
    > There is duplication in FOSS, though
    >
    > While choice is good, binary package management comes to mind as
    > something which needs to get straightened out.


    Skype manages well enough in the "current mess".

    The "problem" is vastly overblown.

    --

    Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
    who has pirated their music / | \


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  7. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On 2008-08-10, thufir wrote:
    > On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:48:51 -0400, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >>> While choice is good, binary package management comes to mind as
    >>> something which needs to get straightened out.

    >>
    >> Why?
    >>
    >> Which "best" way of doing things are you going to pick?
    >>
    >> How are you going to "force" people to do it the one "best" way?

    >
    >
    > "Darwinism"? Instead we've got divergent development without significant
    > improvement


    Significant improvement is WHY there is divergent development to begin with.

    --

    Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
    who has pirated their music / | \


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  8. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Aug 9, 2:23*pm, Hadron wrote:
    > Linonut writes:
    > > Like Hadron says, the coding is but a small part of the job.

    >
    > > And...

    >
    > > * *http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/Do...otTheMind.html

    >
    > > * *Does Visual Studio Rot the Mind?
    > > * *Ruminations on the Psychology and Aesthetics of Coding
    > > * *By Charles Petzold

    >
    > > Who's Charles Petzold?

    >
    > > He's the noted Windows author with the Windows tattoo:

    >
    > > * *http://www.charlespetzold.com/PetzoldTattoo.jpg

    >
    > His Windows API book was the de facto Bible back in the mid
    > 90s. Indispensable and well written.
    >
    > http://www.charlespetzold.com/pw5/index.html
    >


    And note Charles Petzold does C# now--a Microsoft language.

    If the world's foremost "do it yourself, roll your own, the hard way"
    coding guru switches from 100% hand code to machine generated Windows
    Forms, as the author says he has, what does this say about the future
    of Linux? Not very bright, like most of the people who post here.

    RL

  9. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Aug 9, 2:29*pm, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >
    > (And all that old code I wrote for sockets? *It is coming back to haunt
    > me. *Not so many bugs, considering how long its been in use, but plenty
    > of design limitations are coming to light as people try to stretch what
    > it does. *I hate my old code.)
    >


    You mean somebody still uses your old sockets code, that you wrote
    when there was a 640KB memory limit?

    No wonder you use Linux--you live in the past.

    RL


  10. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    raylopez99 wrote:
    >> it does. I hate my old code.)



    So does any decent programmer with at least a decade of experience.

  11. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    * Phil Da Lick! peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >>> it does. I hate my old code.)

    >
    > So does any decent programmer with at least a decade of experience.


    Indeed.

    --
    Larkinson's Law:
    All laws are basically false.

  12. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    * raylopez99 peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On Aug 9, 2:29*pm, Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >> (And all that old code I wrote for sockets? *It is coming back to haunt
    >> me. *Not so many bugs, considering how long its been in use, but plenty
    >> of design limitations are coming to light as people try to stretch what
    >> it does. *I hate my old code.)

    >
    > You mean somebody still uses your old sockets code, that you wrote
    > when there was a 640KB memory limit?
    >
    > No wonder you use Linux--you live in the past.


    What the heck are you talking about, Señor Lopez99?

    That old code is only about 5 or 6 years old. An eternity!

    As for equating Linux with the past, that's just horse manure. UNIX
    preserves the good stuff from the past, while adopting and integrating
    the good stuff from the present.

    Now please go back to running your code-generation "wizards".

    --
    Leslie West heads for the sticks, to Providence, Rhode Island and
    tries to hide behind a beard. No good. There are still too many people
    and too many stares, always taunting, always smirking. He moves to the
    outskirts of town. He finds a place to live -- huge mansion, dirt cheap,
    caretaker included. He plugs in his guitar and plays as loud as he wants,
    day and night, and there's no one to laugh or boo or even look bored.
    Nobody's cut the grass in months. What's happened to that caretaker?
    What neighborhood people there are start to talk, and what kids there are
    start to get curious. A 13 year-old blond with an angelic face misses supper.
    Before the summer's end, four more teenagers have disappeared. The senior
    class president, Barnard-bound come autumn, tells Mom she's going out to a
    movie one night and stays out. The town's up in arms, but just before the
    police take action, the kids turn up. They've found a purpose. They go
    home for their stuff and tell the folks not to worry but they'll be going
    now. They're in a band.
    -- Ira Kaplan

  13. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On 2008-08-08, Hans wrote:
    > http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-lin...perienced-user
    > The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the hackers
    > who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather schizophrenic view
    > of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play, develop, which is fine,
    > but also want Linux to become dominant, or at least far more prevalent. Most
    > computer users do NOT want a 'developers OS', they want an OS which does
    > what THEY want.


    Schizophrenia is not the word you are looking for. It is a "schism" from
    reality... where you hear voices or see hallucinations. It's a hideous
    illness.

    What you are really talking about is MPD (Multiple Personality
    Disorder).

    > 1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want.


    Of course not. They work for a _company_ and write software according to
    the brief given them by their contractor or boss.

    > 2) There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.


    Oh dear... it's the Insane Quark Troll.

    Duplicate? How so? I don't think you know what you are babbling about.

    > 3) Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities.


    You only have to look at Insane Quark Troll, Ezekiel, DFS ad nauseum to
    know the truth of that.

    > 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.


    har har har har har har har har har har har...

    Have we stepped into "opposite land"?

    > 5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from users.


    No one expects anything from users. If they wish to contribute to linux
    then great.

    > This article proves that Linux is a complete mess when it is looked at as a
    > whole.


    This article proves nothing other than that you are a troll.



    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  14. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    Gregory Shearman wrote:

    >> 5) Hackers/Zealots have unrealistic expectations from users.

    >
    > No one expects anything from users. If they wish to contribute to linux
    > then great.


    General, this what that head Linux man in charge thinks about the whole
    siltation.

    http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950



    From: Linus Torvalds linux-foundation.org>
    Subject: Re: [stable] Linux 2.6.25.10
    Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
    Date: 2008-07-15 16:13:03 GMT (3 weeks, 4 days, 6 hours and 17 minutes ago)

    On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > So as far as I'm concerned, "disclosing" is the fixing of the bug.
    > It's the "look at the source" approach.


    Btw, and you may not like this, since you are so focused on security,
    one reason I refuse to bother with the whole security circus is that I
    think it glorifies - and thus encourages - the wrong behavior.

    It makes "heroes" out of security people, as if the people who don't
    just fix normal bugs aren't as important.

    In fact, all the boring normal bugs are _way_ more important, just
    because there's a lot more of them. I don't think some spectacular
    security hole should be glorified or cared about as being any more
    "special" than a random spectacular crash due to bad locking.

    Security people are often the black-and-white kind of people that I
    can't stand. I think the OpenBSD crowd is a bunch of masturbating
    monkeys, in that they make such a big deal about concentrating on
    security to the point where they pretty much admit that nothing else
    matters to them.

    To me, security is important. But it's no less important than everything
    *else* that is also important!

    Linus



  15. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gregory Shearman

    wrote
    on 19 Aug 2008 02:45:17 GMT
    :
    > On 2008-08-08, Hans wrote:
    >> http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-lin...perienced-user
    >> The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the hackers
    >> who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather schizophrenic view
    >> of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play, develop, which is fine,
    >> but also want Linux to become dominant, or at least far more prevalent. Most
    >> computer users do NOT want a 'developers OS', they want an OS which does
    >> what THEY want.

    >
    > Schizophrenia is not the word you are looking for. It is a "schism" from
    > reality... where you hear voices or see hallucinations. It's a hideous
    > illness.


    With frightening consequences in some cases.

    >
    > What you are really talking about is MPD (Multiple Personality
    > Disorder).


    I should note here that Amiga had a similar disorder.
    It died. Sad, I know, and maybe not entirely relevant --
    but one has to wonder whether Linux will ever have the
    oomph behind it that Windows does, as Microsoft revs up
    its Mighty Marketing Machine for (this time) Windows 7.

    Microsoft's real good at making its customers salivate on
    the prospects of the vaporware du jour, though it might
    not be quite as successful as in the Win95 timeframe,
    where people lined up *after midnight* for the latest in
    Microsoft offerings.

    The good news: businesses are looking at Linux, and finding
    it rather interesting. However, that doesn't mean they're
    quite ready to adopt it yet, as they've grown comfortable
    with Microsoft's many faults -- like a favorite easy chair
    with the stuffing falling out, perhaps, but it's still
    rather comfy, as long as one doesn't lean too far back.

    Linux is a better chair, but does feel different on the
    bottom (metaphorically speaking).

    Also, Linux isn't obviously a "game machine", though some
    Winvocates apparently think it's a toy OS. (A "toy OS"
    that's already recouped a billion dollars in development
    costs for IBM! Plus, it's helping drive RedHat's entire
    revenue stream -- more than $500M/year. A pittance
    compared to Microsoft's $60B/year, to be sure, but more
    than a number of companies.)

    >
    >> 1) Developers don't listen or understand what ordinary users want.

    >
    > Of course not. They work for a _company_ and write software according to
    > the brief given them by their contractor or boss.


    Or they work freelance and either look at the brief much
    like someone employed full-time, or just tinker -- and
    some of us tinker fairly well. ;-)

    >
    >> 2) There are too many software projects which duplicate effort.

    >
    > Oh dear... it's the Insane Quark Troll.
    >
    > Duplicate? How so? I don't think you know what you are babbling about.


    I'm not sure he does either, but there's about a half-dozen
    or even dozen text editors for Linux, of varying power and
    flexibility. He might construe this as duplicate effort.

    Personally, I'm not sure if I care or not; I use vim and
    they're welcome to their editors -- including emacs,
    which is less of a text editor as such and more of a very
    powerful (if large) system that just happens to include
    text editing as one of its many many capabilities.

    I'll probably write one of my own in my own widget set,
    once I get things set up (and the general impetus/energy
    to do so) -- not that it'll do much beyond exercising the
    widget system.

    (It's a very old widget system too; I've been banging on a
    variant of it since before gcc 3 came out. You can guess
    what that did to my source code. ;-) )

    >
    >> 3) Hackers/Zealots have screwed priorities.

    >
    > You only have to look at Insane Quark Troll, Ezekiel, DFS ad nauseum to
    > know the truth of that.


    I'm not sure we have any set priorities, beyond discussing
    various ramifications of Linux, and perhaps a competitor's
    or competitor's product's effects thereon.

    The most interesting one I've seen lately might be
    the openat() et al system calls; apparently these were
    initially done on Solaris. Not that most users would
    understand something quite that deep in the system, though
    'man openat' is clear enough, for those who can actually
    read something more sophisticated than Dick and Jane
    readers.... :-)

    A more visible, if far older, one might be the inclusion
    of Control-C/Control-X/Control-V in KDE and Gnome
    editors and/or utilities. (The left-select middle-paste
    is arguably cleaner, though I'll admit I'd also like
    to see gray highlighting in a widget, without it
    taking the Selection token [if it does take the Selection
    token, it would be black instead]. However, nobody's
    quite gotten around to implementing such, though secondary
    select in Motif might underline text.)

    And then there's that Win95 horizontal scrollbar in its
    file requester. At the time, Information Architect's
    "Interface Hall of Shame" derided the concept (regrettably,
    the site has since closed down, but there should be
    archives of it flitting about), but a similar bar has since
    appeared in Java Swing. The good news: the file requester
    in Java Swing doesn't botch up the icons quite as badly as
    Win95 did (or WinXP does), and both file requesters are now
    resizable. The bad news: it's still a rather silly idea.

    >
    >> 4) Linux doesn't really run on old hardware.

    >
    > har har har har har har har har har har har...
    >
    > Have we stepped into "opposite land"?


    Depends on what he means by "Linux". I've run a basic
    system on a 4 MB 386/20. It's *extremely* basic, of
    course; little more than a kernel, shell, libraries,
    and utilities such as mv, cp, and vi. Lots of paging,
    too.

    A modern GUIfied Linux system, though, might have some
    quibbles if run in less than 256 MB RAM. If one adds
    compiz, one will probably want no less than 512 MB, and
    plenty of graphics card power for the OpenGL transformations.
    In fact, one will probably want as much RAM as one can
    get one's hands no (and his system can handle).

    Of course, for a good laugh, one might try installing an
    old game that relies on Soundblaster hardware on a modern
    XP system. Depending on the general intelligence of the
    game, one gets various results; I've had one game even crap
    out of me because of a divide by zero error (presumably,
    it was trying to calibrate a timing loop of some sort).

    So as usual, we have a bent arrow (software) trying to
    hit a moving target (hardware). At least with Linux one
    might have a chance in straightening out the shaft...

    [rest snipped]

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  16. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On 2008-08-09, Linonut wrote:
    > * thufir peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:19:05 +0200, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
    >>
    >>>> It's LINUX that keeps re-inventing the wheel, only in the Linux world
    >>>> the wheel turns out square, every single time.
    >>>>
    >>>> You guys really need to pool your resources.
    >>>>
    >>> Why?
    >>> Limiting the diversity of your DNA is not good for survival. A good
    >>> example is Windows which has tens of thousands of viruses/exploits out
    >>> in the wild, Linux has none.

    >>
    >> The DNA of Linux would be, err, Linux -- the kernel! In that sense
    >> there's almost no variation between the distros, unless they're modifying
    >> the kernel.

    >
    > Or the ".config" file.


    I run a "gentoo-sources" kernel which is rather heavily patched. I
    usually don't have much problem with it but it really isn't the generic
    Linux kernel any more.

    The .config? That's for the user to edit, not the distro.... as far as
    I'm aware, a distro (not a metadistro like Gentoo, but a vanilla distro
    like Ubuntu just builds everything it can as modules and then
    runs an initrd to load whatever it needs when it starts up.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  17. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On 2008-08-09, raylopez99 wrote:
    > On Aug 8, 5:44*am, "Hans" wrote:
    >> http://www.whylinuxsucks.org/why-lin...a-view-experie...
    >> The fundamental issue with Linux seems to be the developers and the hackers
    >> who write the programs. Quite simply, they hold a rather schizophrenic view
    >> of Linux. They see Linux as an opportunity to play, develop, which is fine,
    >> but also want Linux to become dominant, or at least far more prevalent. Most
    >> computer users do NOT want a 'developers OS', they want an OS which does
    >> what THEY want.

    >
    > I read the article, and I disagree. Linux is not for developers.
    > Linux developers programming interface, from what I've been able to
    > see (though I've never tried it) must (has to) pale in comparison to
    > Visual Studio by Microsoft, which independent experts agree is the
    > best developer's platform out there. Even I, a hobbiest, can build a
    > very professional looking program that looks just like anything a
    > professional can do, in a matter of days (ok, weeks, but still that's
    > pretty good).


    Pig's arse!

    There are NO "independent experts"... just different likes and dislikes.

    I use vim. It works brilliantly... especially on the code,show/fix
    errors,debug cycle.

    There are many "linux developers programming interfaces"... use one you
    like.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  18. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    * Gregory Shearman peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > On 2008-08-09, Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >> Or the ".config" file.

    >
    > I run a "gentoo-sources" kernel which is rather heavily patched. I
    > usually don't have much problem with it but it really isn't the generic
    > Linux kernel any more.
    >
    > The .config? That's for the user to edit, not the distro.... as far as
    > I'm aware, a distro (not a metadistro like Gentoo, but a vanilla distro
    > like Ubuntu just builds everything it can as modules and then
    > runs an initrd to load whatever it needs when it starts up.


    Debian provides a copy of .config in the /boot directory.

    That's where I start after downloading new kernel source.

    Some day I'd like to take time to pare down the kernel to just what is
    needed for a particular machine.

    For now I put up with building dozens of modules my box(es) will never
    need .

    --
    Nobody shot me.
    -- Frank Gusenberg, his last words, when asked by police
    who had shot him 14 times with a machine gun in the Saint
    Valentine's Day Massacre.

  19. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

    wrote
    on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:46:21 -0400
    :
    > * Gregory Shearman peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> On 2008-08-09, Linonut wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Or the ".config" file.

    >>
    >> I run a "gentoo-sources" kernel which is rather heavily patched. I
    >> usually don't have much problem with it but it really isn't the generic
    >> Linux kernel any more.
    >>
    >> The .config? That's for the user to edit, not the distro.... as far as
    >> I'm aware, a distro (not a metadistro like Gentoo, but a vanilla distro
    >> like Ubuntu just builds everything it can as modules and then
    >> runs an initrd to load whatever it needs when it starts up.

    >
    > Debian provides a copy of .config in the /boot directory.


    Gentoo provides /proc/config.gz; I suspect most distros
    do nowadays. I use tuxonice, though at the moment the
    hibernate to disk is a little broken (it was working
    fine until I upgraded at some point; I've not worked
    out why it broke).

    >
    > That's where I start after downloading new kernel source.
    >
    > Some day I'd like to take time to pare down the kernel to just what is
    > needed for a particular machine.
    >
    > For now I put up with building dozens of modules my box(es) will never
    > need .
    >


    Yeah, same here. ;-) At some point I want to fiddle more
    with writing a custom filesystem in a QEMU or UML context.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    /dev/signature/pedantry: Resource temporarily unavailable
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  20. Re: Why Linux won't succeed - A view from an experienced user

    On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:20:49 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:


    >> I read the article, and I disagree. Linux is not for developers. Linux
    >> developers programming interface, from what I've been able to see
    >> (though I've never tried it) must (has to) pale in comparison to Visual
    >> Studio by Microsoft, which independent experts agree is the best
    >> developer's platform out there. Even I, a hobbiest, can build a very
    >> professional looking program that looks just like anything a
    >> professional can do, in a matter of days (ok, weeks, but still that's
    >> pretty good).

    >
    > Pig's arse!
    >
    > There are NO "independent experts"... just different likes and dislikes.



    These "independent" experts ever fire up a Linux box?


    -Thufir

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 LastLast