Posts in by tag
Recent Poll's
User login
Navigation
Recent Comments
Syndicate
Look, I get it.
Sat, 04/04/2009 - 03:59 — D
I get it. It's open source. You're a devoted, die-hard user. You don't really care about me, and I don't blame you. And frankly, I don't really give a shit. If it can be done, I can either figure out how to do it or read something written by someone who has. Be an asshole all you want, you can't scare me away from this if it's useful or enjoyable to me.
What sucks about Linux is what I can't do, not because I don't know how to do it but because it can't be done. Case in point: this afternoon, I tried to figure out how to get my printer working in Ubuntu. My printer, unfortunately, is not supported--not just not supported in Ubuntu, but not supported in Linux, period. I went to a site devoted to Linux printing that classified my printer as a "Paperweight."
No, it isn't. It's a laser printer and copier. It's a perfectly capable printer, and I actually like it a lot. It's not a brand-new model. I believe it was designed for XP, and Vista drivers were added later. But there just aren't Linux drivers for it. None. Period.
As much as "Vista sucks," if I can't print (and I'm not buying a new printer any time soon), Linux can't replace it. Not now, and as long as this printer is working in Vista but unsupported in Linux, not ever.
WTF is your point? You have
WTF is your point? You have a printer not supported in Linux -- whoopie do. Tell the manufacturer and quit revealing to the world how ignorant you are.
There are ways to print to that printer from your Linux machine. Simple ones, too. But, I guess you're just not interested, you'd rather whine like a 3 year old girl.
Good luck with that attitude.
You should allow us to vote
You should allow us to vote comments up and down. It's therapeutic to downmod idiots like this.
It's this very mindset that
It's this very mindset that kills the potential of linux. I like many come from windows, have been trying linux and am sick and tired of reading insults towards the inexperienced or in need of an answer. Those looking to turn a profit understand that making their product accessible to many if not all is the way to stay in the biz. What I think alot of OSS advocates forget is the reason why people are willing to pay for software is because they're users, not programmers. To sell hammers, you sell the customer on the new deck it can build. To "sell" an OS, you sell the lifestyle of being connected to friends and the coolness of the latest tech. (Apple does this very well) Except for very few, you can't sell anything with charts and benchmarks. Linux seems to favor the OS, opposed to the applications that run on it. Example: Apple indirectly pushes OSX by demonstrating how their media editing suite can help make you the next Peter Jackson. Linux seems to scream "You're not smart enough to be Linux!" and then wonders why no one cares. When I feel inspired to create something and instead have to research convoluted ways to get it completed, the passion fades. I am an animator, new to OSS and what I am finding out is that it works best in theory. Reality says, I must be done on Friday before 5pm.
Ha! This a site against
Ha! This a site against using Drupal?
I think it has to do with
I think it has to do with the fact that the "open source" model is fatally flawed. The idea that a bunch of hacks working in their spare time will design a better operating system than full time professionals is a bunch of nonsense. Open source developers have no incentive to make a better product because their livelihood doesn't depend in it. These clowns could care less if their programs are a pile of shit. It's just a hobby for them.
Open source can go either
Open source can go either way. Mozilla is doing pretty well with it, open source web development stuff works very well. Linux desktop, on the other hand, sucks. I think it has more to do with 1. Money, 2. Attitude.
What you really mean is "*volunteer-developed* open source is fatally flawed", with a little "only people with a peculiar mental defect have the patience to learn how to develop for Linux" (which is why they're all assholes).
Absolutely true indeed. I
Absolutely true indeed. I really don't see what this obsession with open source is all about.
I am not entirely against open source in fact I must say some open source programs are very useful.
But of course I don't see the need to go completely using open source software. It is a very dangerous software model too.
But there is no point going open source simply because it is open source. I only bother with open source if it is what I need.
Well, the open source guys
Well, the open source guys are usually pretty skilled-- else, their projects wouldn't gain such popularity. And open source projects are more often than not seeded or subsidized by big companies (OpenOffice.org is developed by the community but new features go into StarOffice, Linux is based on Unix, etc).
I think it's a bit more organized than what you're talking about. But it's still not organized (or maybe monetized) to the point that Microsoft and Apple are.
Linux is not based on Unix.
Linux is not based on Unix. It's a new OS built from scratch designed to be as Unix-like as possible. But it's not built upon any Unix.
The *BSDs, on the other hand, are direct derivates of the original BSD and therefore they are Unixes (I think the plural is Unices?).
Problems Linux has and probably will never overcome:
- Too few *good* GUI programs. For many tasks you're forced to use the commandline. Many GUI tools are half-assed, feature-reduced, buggy/unstable copies of Windows apps. Often times, the commandline tool is better than the GUI tool.
This is completely inacceptible in 2009 (and for newcomers of course).
- No integration. This is the result of too many APIs/frameworks/libs. It's simply impossible to make one program which integrates well into everything. At the very best you'll either have good integration in KDE *or* good integration in Gnome. Doing both may be possible but means a ton of additional work (and additional bugs) so it's unrealistic.
Having no integration means every program will have a slightly different look and feel, and some features won't work in other programs.
- Fragmentation: too many distros, too many possible configurations. Makes it very hard to create a closed source program for it which should run on every distro. Guess why most commercial developers don't really like developing for Linux?
- It's not beautiful enough. Apple and MS have done some amazing work in making their GUIs very aesthetical and compelling to use. Linux still looks like Windows 9x era at best. KDE 4 tries to copy some elements of Vista (black task bar) and OS X (brushed metal stuff) but fails miserably, it just looks shitty in comparison. Look is important for an OS, after all you use it every day and so you want something that's not hideous to look at.
Or do you use ugly wallpapers? ... Didn't think so.
- In their race to compete with MS and Apple (GUI-wise), most popular distros often include bleeding-edge, untested, beta quality software like Pulse Audio which might really be problematic for you.
There seems to be either stable but outdated OR unstable but modern. Linux distros need to have both qualities.
- Application/game and driver compatibility. Nuff said. Also the reason for why many Linux users have an additional Windows partition or use Windows in a VM: to have a fallback when they need one particular application which just doesn't exist for Linux.
Now I know this is not directly Linux' fault, as every new OS would face that problem. But Linux can at least do something to gain more market share so that more developers care to provide a Linux version. It's not like Linux can expect everyone to jump onto Linux development when it only has < 2% of market share.
- API/ABI changes which break older programs. This is a complete no-no, but apparently Linux people expect developers to play along with this shit.
Let's face it: Windows has 2398427309183x better backwards compatibility - chances are pretty high that you can still run a program developed 10, 15 years ago for ancient Windows versions. In Linux - well, good luck when trying that.
This makes Linux development very unattractive for commercial developers, and for good reason.
- Linux users always expect everything to be OSS or free of charge. They should be more tolerant and pragmatic. If a developer wants to develop a CSS application then he shouldn't be flamed for doing so, and in the case of a driver the kernel team shouldn't make it hard for him to do so and speak of "tainted kernels" and stuff like that. I thought Linux was about choice, so give the users the goddamn choice to run any kind of program or driver they want - open or not.
This attitude change would also make more commercial developers happy about developing for Linux.
I like Linux and I wish it would succeed, but I think it can't ever overcome those problems without a major attitude/paradigm shift among all of the key developers. Without better inter-project collaboration. Without agreeing upon one "standard", one working baseline, even for GUI programs, sound systems, and so on.
Until that happens, you're way better off with OS X or Windows, as you'll get your jobs done faster, i.e. without much work.
And that's what computers are for anyway... they're tools to get a job done. When you use Linux though, at first you must tweak and fiddle with your tool to make it work. Which might make you feel superior to OS X or Windows users because you are able and know how to do this kind of stuff, but at the end of the day it's completely irrelevant and stupid extra work no one else really cares about.
I've used Linux for about 10 years and the feeling of being "superior" to Windows users was always there... after all I learned a lot about operating systems and I managed to use a "harder" operating system! But in the end, you won't always have the time for all this extra work, and I realized that I was actually more stupid than a Windows user for always going through all those hassles. Now my life is pleasant again thanks to Windows. And no, I still don't like Microsoft (and Apple even less), but as long as they offer a better operating system, I'll stay with that. I'm a pragmatist after all.
KDE4 sucks. Vista looks
KDE4 sucks. Vista looks terrible and MacOS hurts my eye and I find it hard to use. I think only a small number of technophiles care about transparent windows, wobbly windows, glowing icons, rotatable icons and other 'eye candy'. Most people dont care after the first 5 minutes, most of those that do probably stop caring after a few weeks. Besides, if someone is going to switch OS because of pointless eye candy, then they really aren't in the frame of mind to judge an OS/Computer system. Most people still prefer XP, and XP has just a more 'plasticky' interface over Win95. Still basically the same.
As to Linux not being Unix. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It is a duck. I mean, if I build a vehicle with a frame, doors, 4 wheels, engine, steering wheel, seats, gear stick, accelerator, clutch and brakes, its a car. Just because its not based on a car, and its only a car clone, doens't matter. It's a car. Unless Unix is a particular brand, like Ford or Nissan, then I'm missing something.
Linux most certainly IS
Linux most certainly IS UNIX. You're right. It doesn't matter that Unix code is not in the Linux kernel, what matters is that Linux was designed to be as UNIX-compatible as possible. It's UNIX-like and UNIX-compatible... but not UNIX? Give me a break.
With respect to GUIs, I happen to like KDE 4 (when it's not blacking out and flickering), I like Vista's look, and Mac OS X... eh. Not so much. But most users are not "technophiles"-- most users need a flashy UI. They need to be wowed by computers, both with how EASY they are and how PRETTY they are. This is how PCs made it out of the basement and onto the coffee table in the first place.
And most people still prefer XP because most people have been told by someone who arguably knew more than they did (but arguably, as a Mac or Linux user, had an ulterior motive) that Vista is "hard" to use and "insecure" and "unstable." People would prefer Vista hands-down based on the appearance of the UI, but they've been poisoned against it. It's actually a little more user-friendly than XP, if you don't know your way around a computer. If you do, using Vista requires you to unlearn a lot of stuff.
I find it pretty weak that
I find it pretty weak that people need to be 'wowed' by a computer while sitting idle. I used to like running the old demo's that were written back in the 90's for DOS that had awesome graphical and sound displays. That was wow. Running Doom or Quake for the first time and seeing what the computer was really capable of, was a worthy' wow' moment. Watching a P100, which would barely run notepad.exe these days, render full 3D, realtime graphics in a game.
But people with 3GHz+ machines with 2G RAM go 'wow' at transparent windows, wobbly windows or rotating icons or glowing widgets, well, its neither impressive nor pleasing. I bought a car of a guy who went into details 'features' such as being able to choose the timings when you set your wipers to intermittent, and how you could choose not just cold or hot air, but a range of temperatures in between. Oh, it had a handy interior light which, get this, you could set to automatically light up when you open the door.
Well, you, as a technophile,
Well, you, as a technophile, may find it "weak," but it's reality. Pretty things sell, ugly things that work well only sell to people who need them, and ugly things that may or may not work well sell to people who don't need anything but have convinced themselves that they like the challenge. A pretty UI is, in the mind of the average user, an indication of "modernness." Keep in mind that the typical user wants to surf the web (which is driven by prettiness--if it wasn't, there would be no need for broadband), check his email, and listen to music (and has no idea where his music is located on his hard disk, thereby necessitating a highly functional and easy-on-the-eyes navigator and player to keep him from getting frustrated and just popping a CD into his stereo).
In order for computers to become a large part of people's lives, they must match people's expectations of all consumer products--usability and aesthetic appeal. Would you buy an ugly couch just because it was comfortable when you could get a more attractive one that's just as comfortable? Even if the prettier couch costs more, isn't that why you have a job?
I'm not a technophile. I'm
I'm not a technophile. I'm merely point out the obvious, that most people never needed computers (they still really dont), so in order to appeal to the masses, the technology must devolve to the lowest common denominator. I couldn't care less if computers weren't a large part of peoples lives. Beating off to the vision of everyone using computers for everything is Bill Gates' job, not mine. I dont think the world would be any worse off if PC home adoption remained at the leves it was circa 1991.
Computers are merely a tool, but most people have expensive computers that people 20 years ago could only dream of, and use them only as overrated VCR's/CD players/typewriters/photo albums. So in order for businesses to keep selling products consumers don't really need, they need to put shiny stuff on it, add bling, make people go 'woo!'. It's more an indication of the sad state of society where people have been conditioned to turn into mindless consumers, simple automatons who respond in a pavlovian like matter. Yes, I am being elitist and definately not apologising for it. "The Market" has no clue"
Linux could have at least found a niche amongst those who actually understand computers a bit more, but its trying to hard to compete against Windows (beause Windows actually does such a bad job as an OS, its a temptation to hard to resist competing).
Well, I think the vast array
Well, I think the vast array of cheaply available computers today is a good thing. I, for one, cannot stand typewriters, and what if I needed to... oh, I don't know... type up my resume' to get a job?
I'm not saying we have to go lowest common denominator with it. But I see no problem in making a product that provides a balance between power and ease-of-use. Geek elitists will disagree, but they are simply wrong. I'm not saying there should be NO learning curve--anything useful requires some training. But computers should be only slightly more difficult to use than most consumer electronics (because they are only slightly more powerful). Linux has come a long way in this regard, but it still has a long way to go. Windows has come a longer way.
Computers are a LOT more
Computers are a LOT more powerful than most consumer electronics. That have been for a long time. OK, so you need to type up a resume. I was typing up my resume back in 1999 & school projects in 1994 with Word 2.0 for Windows 3.1. It did the job. Granted there are more features today, but considering that computers have about 500x the RAM and processing power, we definately don't have 500x the capability. People are constantly purchasing newer and newer machines, simply because they are shinier, and the requirements to do the SAME tasks keep increasing. But even though they are far more powerful, people barely do more with them than they did 10 years ago. OK, maybe video editing, but the exception proves the rule.
I've never worked in a paperless office, and I know of no one who does. I've rarely seen computers implemented where they make a total net decrease in administrative tasks. The amount of expenditure, man hours and waste created to get the technology up to this level is phenomenal, yet whenever someone needs to calculate 789*4 they still use a battery powered calculator, we still use forms, collate data manually, etc.
The problem is, that people have very little expectation from computers, despite the fact that the raw processing power and possibilities are far greater than what we utilise. Rather than using increases in RAM, hard drive space and processing speed to increase the possibilities, existing software is simply re-writtn to eat up that power. Microsoft is especially guilty of this, advertising 'new' features in XP such as ability to share files over a network, etc, which aren't new, but lead most people to think that these are the limits of the computers capability. So people forget what the old hardware was really capable of, and are led to believe that the new, shiny hardware is the 'first' which can do stuff which was done before. People believe that these new machines can just manage simple tasks like playing music and burning CDs and browsing the web, and *gasp*, this new DELL is powerful enough to do all three at the same time! WOW! Remember, we are talking of people who are convinced they need an SUV to cart around two kids, and think a station wagon simply isn't powerful enough and think you need to buy a new computer to have enough power to multitask. The advertising says so.
My point is that some of us know better, and Free Software, being (supposedly) free of the corporate requirement to create waste, be inefficient and put people on an endless purchase cycle wasting money for nothing, could have created a more robust system which allows people to make better use of the computing power they own. MS Windows is geared to do the opposite, and advertising is most definately aimed at people who will be won over by something that sounds great (but isn't). People who really know and appreciate cars pay little attention to car ads, especially those aimed at 'consumer' vehicles. People who really know and appreciate computer likewise dont put much stake in DELL/MS/Intel ads, Linux doesn't have to follow that path.ms, collate data manually, etc.
I agree with absolutely
I agree with absolutely everything you've said here. However, none of this makes any difference-- the fact is that the majority of people buying computers for home use ARE consumers and NOT people who "know and appreciate computer." Most people don't know ANYTHING about computers. And for these people, the flawless visuals of a Microsoft OS / Office Suite / Media Center looks like it "works" better than free software. The majority of them think their computer has "some gigarams" and "what's a gee-bee? does that make it fast?" Guess what? People in the computer business, including hardware manufacturers, are making WAY more money off of these people than they are off of people like you.
The fact that the specs are increasing to do the same tasks, likewise, means nothing to most consumers (and, in fact, to many technophiles) because as the same kinds of applications become more technically demanding due to the increased use of fancy visual effects, the price of faster processors and more RAM is decreasing.
My point in all of this is that producers sell to consumers, and consumers buy what producers will sell them. Not because they need it, but because they've been trained to want it. Call them stupid all you want, it's the way business works.
This is a Linux forum. You
This is a Linux forum. You are making the same assumptions that many Linux critics make, that somehow Linux has to play by corporate/capitalist rules. Lets not beat around the bush. The current computing environment exists as it is, with user expectation being what it is, because of the Capitalist financial system which dictates how the relationship between the companies, the people who need to make a living from the companies and the customers is going to operate. Dictate perhaps isn't the right word, but it certainly provides the ideological basis to form a specific framework of interactions, expections and definitions. If (should that be when?) the political ideology of how our economy runs changes, so too will the nature of the interactions. Fact is, MS, Dell, etc need to SELL constantly, whether the customers need to buy or not, they need to sell. The computers, the software are irrelevant, they are merely the by product of the working of the system.
I'll just say this, most people would quit their jobs if they won the lottery, indicating that they are at their job primarily for money, and that the 'career' is a byproduct of the necessity to earn money. Likewise, if MS could make all the money they like without having to engineer software, I would bet they wouldn't bother making Windows. Same deal, the manufacture of computing technology is merely a means to aqcuire capital. The technology is only a TOOL to acquire capital, and its development and usefulness is secondary to its primary goal, being a vehicle for a business/corporation to make money.
Hence the reason for the points that we agree on.
However, there is a very important point. This capitalist/corporate paradigm does NOT rule over every human interaction. Well, you could argue it does more and more as we become more mercantile and less human, but nevertheless we still have interactions with others that are not for the purposes of acquiring money or capital. Love for instance, hobbies, travelling, having children, writing in a journal, voluntary work, charity, the list goes on. Well, its pretty much anything else really with 'market share' and 'customer demand' and 'ability to make money' only being important in the confines of that sphere where the current financial system rules.
Linux kind of falls outside that sphere, though can cross into it. People develop Linux as a hobby, thats how it started. People develop Linux for themselves, or for a specific target. They don't demand money, its not a way to make a living. Its like your home garden. You can grow tomatos for yourself, but are you going to worry that they aren't as shiny or as waxed as those in the supermarket? Are you going to worry that your apples wont compete with the processed ones from the big companies? Well, if you've grown them for your own personal use, and give them to others who appreciate organic, home grown food, and understand that this is REAL food, it doesn't matter. It's really irrelevant whether they can compete on the market or not. They are not grown to make money (maybe to save money, yes), but to be eaten. Likewise, Linux is developed to be USED, not SOLD. It doesn't matter if 90% of the people won't touch it, as it wont live or die based on market shares, because it does not follow the coporate model.
This is why the constant stories from Linux users how it will take over MS, and how mum and dad and Aunt Mavis are pointless. It isn't about trying to make a product that competes by Corporate/Capitalist standards, as it exists outside of that world entirely. Linux is suited to a niche market, it is suited to those who use computers outside of the 'consumer' paradigm. Saying it should abide by these rules is like saying that a small group of residents who have a little co-operative farm should create food that competes with the supermarket, and that they will somehow 'fail', or are 'inferior' because they don't.
There are definately ways in which Linux could be improved to serve those who nuturally would be drawn to using it, there are certainly improvements to be made, but I think criticism of how it isn't a good 'comsumer' desktop OS miss the point. It simply doesn't have to be.
This is NOT a Linux forum.
This is NOT a Linux forum. Yes, I am making the same assumptions that many Linux critics make.
This forum is about "why Linux as a Desktop is not getting anywhere."
Look at the title bar on your browser. You are making the same arguments many Linux supporters make - "We don't care if you like it or not, it's for us and you suck!" That's not the purpose of this forum.
The forum is "Why Linux
The forum is "Why Linux Sucks". Not "Why Linux sucks as a windows clone" or "why Linux sucks for windows users" or "why Linux sucks for xxx". Just "Why Linux Sucks".
I'm beginning to understand why Linux zealots do act the way they do. They aren't as articulate maybe, so perhaps thats the reason the endless and pointless flame wars continue. But the fact of the matter is, any product created is created for a specific function and subset of people. A commercial package like Windows will try to be all things to all peoples to maximize profit. So technical users, corporations and your proverbial click and pray 'Aunt Mavis' are sold the same product, and because of the 'myth' that a computing product must be all things to all people, many Linux critics fail to understand that a NON-COMMERCIAL product doesn't have to subscribe and support the market image of being a universal solution. A non-commercial product (like home grown vegetables) can be tailored to a subset of people who have defined specific requirements. It serves a requirment which isn't shared by everyone, however it serves the requirements of those who participate,and perhaps serves their own needs better, which may differ from others.
So no, Linux may not be for you and there is no reason I can see why developers should TRY, or care at all about people who think that Linux is flawed because it doesn't follow their own particular paradigms as to how a desktop computer should operate, should be used and which desktop tasks are the most important. What gets me is people who whinge and whine about "I cant run Photoshop", "It has a command line, thats so, like 1992!", "Its DIFFERENT!!", or "you're silly for putting thinking X is more important than Y, when me and most others think Y is more important than X".
Maybe Linux ISN'T for you because its a more technical, customizable OS based on UNIX, and you dont like that and prefer something different, or think that these paradigms are dumb, then just use something else. If however the Linux OS DOES tailor to your specific computing requirements and provides a computing environment more suited to what you want to use the hardware for, then use it, and if there are technical issues or improvements or design issues which prevent people who would normally want to use Linux from using Linux effectively, then bring it up.
Again, I agree with you
Again, I agree with you (mostly), but again, you are missing the point of the discussion. It is highly probable that Linux developers don't care about this discussion, but the topic of this forum is "why Linux as a Desktop is not getting anywhere," because it isn't. Linux accounts for less than 1% of the desktop OS market. The purpose of this discussion is why Linux does not have broad appeal. The purpose of this discussion is not to defend Linux for not wanting to have broad appeal. That's what all the other Linux forums are for.
Where I disagree with you is in your assertion that Linux may not be for everybody and does not aim to be. The whole philosophy behind free software is "choice" that commercial software does not offer. So, on a free system, I should be able to make my computer what I damn well want it to, and not what Microsoft or Apple or Sun or Novell or Canonical or Mandriva wants me to want it to do.
And with regard to the command line, I think that everyone who knows and cares about Linux thinks that it's a good thing to have. It's great to be able to have the CHOICE to use the command line if you find it increases your productivity or you enjoy using it. What people don't like is the NECESSITY of resorting to the command line to do things that other operating systems can do graphically or automatically. This makes Linux more useful only in the way that an abacus is more useful than an electronic calculator and that a stone and chisel are more useful than a word processor.
Then we pretty much do
Then we pretty much do agree. I was probably overemphasising the importance of differentiating between dislike of Linux simply because it follows conventions and priorities that you may not agree with, and dislike of Linux because it fails, or falls short in areas which Linux is supposed to cover, but does so poorly. For instance, I consider the lack of binary compatibility between distros a valid criticism of the OS, but the fact tha Warcraft III doesn't run, not really a valid criticism. However, I beleive because of the former, I dont think Linux could gain more than 10 - 20 % anyway. I believe the Linux community needs to listen more to those who actually do use Linux and find it problematic, than ignore everyone, while at the same time trying to win over mum and pop Windows users.
It's better to aim to create a desktop which 10% of people would want to use and be able to use it and come close to succeeding, then try to aim for 100% and because of the schizephrenic development efforts get nowhere (where Linux is at now).
"For instance, I consider
"For instance, I consider the lack of binary compatibility between distros a valid criticism of the OS, but the fact tha Warcraft III doesn't run, not really a valid criticism."
Absolutely. People who think of this as a criticism of Linux are morons... Windows can't run Linux apps either. I'd love to be able to use, say, BasKet Notes on Windows (even though I have already paid for OneNote 2007).
However, if Linux could expand its market share, then major commercial developers would probably pay more attention to it. If Blizzard felt it was missing out on serious money that Linux users would pay, we might indeed see Warcraft III for Linux, the way that Windows apps are often, eventually, ported competently to Mac. But this goes against what many feel is the whole point of Linux--running a completely free system.
Windows runs rings around
Windows runs rings around Linux in compatibility. I can still run new software on Windows 2000, yet would struggle on a Linux distro thats the same age as XP. The Linux community really needs to at least have a common mechanism by which hardware manufacturers and software companies can distribute drivers/software and have it work. Klik and 0install don't count. Remember, they want to provide a service, a disk or program which makes it painless for the user to get thier program up and running. The only mechanism available is the repositories, which suck ass at the best of times, and are completely NOT the way a commercial company would want to distribute software. Why would a commercial operation want to distribute a driver disk which is going to cause the user headaches and lead the user into blaming them for a dodgy product and be turned away from their products?
By the way, isn't the whole point of a "Free OS" (libre) that you can run whatever the hell you want? Closed source or not? So if you only want to run free software you can, or if you want to be able to run closed source, you can? I think Linux actually goes backwards in offering freedom, which is sad, because I moved away from MS to Linux for that reason, only to find my reasons for moving were wrong. ie, the FUD against MS was just plain false, and if anything the negative comments made about Windows apply MORE to Linux, than Windows. So I moved to Linux to avoid certain things, only to find I would have fared better sticking with Windows.
But thats because MS has more than just coders working on their OS. They care about users and usability, and aren't just in it to have fun developing new systems for the sake of it so they can write an OS their mum or Aunt Mavis can use without having to learn anything. I swear Linux has turned into an OS designed just so some coder living in his mums basement can get his computer illiterate grandma away from Windows. It just PRESENTS itself that way. I've just installed FC7 and the basic mistakes they have made just scream that the scenario I've painted is true. Really basic stuff which demonstrates NO Quality Assurance or care at all. I simply cannot believe that in developing an OS, no one tested wither the Add/Remove Software program could actually remove software, because out of the box, it does niether! Everything about it just screams that they are more interested in getting grandma off MS, or getting her to use Linux, than making an OS suitable for technical computer users. Ubuntu the same, SuSE the same. They want people away from MS, but once they have them, they stop caring about them.
To be fair, when I first
To be fair, when I first started using Linux as an alternative to upgrading to Windows 2000, I found it multitasked FAR more smoothly than windows 98, and was far more stable. Even compared to Windows 2000 machines to help up very well. Open source, just like proprietary has both good and bad coders, good and bad projects. The DIFFERENCE is that in proprietary software, you can throw money to mask bad programming, whereas in open source, bad projects are just thrown out.
If you think that people who write proprietary software are necessarily more skilled and competent, then you're deluding yourself.
Design and QA have been issues with Open Source, as unlike proprietary systems, there is no need for broad compatibility.
Design and QA have been
Design and QA have been issues with Open Source, as unlike proprietary systems, there is no need for broad compatibility.
Another OSS visionary.
There isn't a need. Free
There isn't a need. Free software does not have to sell. It might be desirable, but if you chose to write a program and give it away, it makes no difference to you whether it runs on 100% of the machines, or 2%, the outcome for you, is the same. That is unless you make widespread use a goal and a desire of yours.
For proprietary software, generally improved capability = greater market share. For OSS projects, that requirement isn't there to that degree. I'm not saying its a GOOD thing, I'm just saying that software authors that rely on customers need compatibility more than software authors who don't need end users.
If you think that people who
If you think that people who write proprietary software are necessarily more skilled and competent, then you're deluding yourself.
It doesn't matter how skilled the developers are if there is no-one guiding their expertise.
Without that guidance, everyone is scratching their own particular itch and going off in a thousand different directions.
One can argue that distro makers perform this function. However, there are over 1000 distros. Each one marches to their own drummer. Yes, you have the LSB but no-one seems to pay much attention to it.
I can totally understand a hardware manufacturer looking at that anarchy and concluding that it isn't worth the bother. Especially when the effort would be expended on a platform that, outside of the server room, has less than a percentage point of market-share.
Sure, in an ideal universe, they could open their specs and allow the community to write drivers. However, we do not live in that universe.
The big problem, is that
The big problem, is that it's purely developers, or seems to be purely developers who work on Linux. They can write code, but do very little else. Imagine if you had nothing but architects designing a town. The town sould suck, even though each architect would try their hardest at making good buildings. Each building might a well designed, but the town would be unlivable. Yet the architects all sit around admiring the buildings wondering why people dont want to live there.
Notice how EVERY problem in Linux is tackled simply by writing more code, or another version of autoconf, or another wrapper, another app, another this and that?
You are correct, Linux needs more people who are NOT coders guiding it, and keeping it cohesive. The wholistic view is lacking because all a distro is is a kernel, libraries, toolkits and apps thrown together. Somehow, the objective of developing a platform was lost, well, honestly, probably was never there. We have lots of Linux distros, but there is no solid Linux platform. Windows has a VERY solid platform. You can run windows 3.1 programs in Windows 98, 2000 and later. You can run new software on old windows.
A good platform allows me to write a program, put it on a website/BBS, and allow anyone to download it and execute it, as is. Windows does that. DOS did that, Commodore 64's did that. Trading software is a basic requirement, yet ironically the OS which boasts the most about openness and sharing, is precisely the most difficult one to share programs with.