Posted: 3/5/2013 7:55:30 PM EDT
|
And what does one of its key architects say?
"To me, the fragmentation of Linux as a platform, the multiple incompatible distros, and the incompatibilities across versions of the same distro were my Three Mile Island/Chernobyl. " "Even during all of my dogfooding and Linux advocacy days, whenever I had to recommend recommended a computer to a single new user, I recommended a Mac. And whenever I gave away computer gifts to friends and family, it was always a Mac. Linux just never managed to cross the desktop chasm. " Miguel de Icaza... |
|
Quoted:
Fools. Linux is like sex. There are thousands of ways to do it right, and a few ways to do it wrong. The desktop may be doing it wrong, but remember - Linux is like sex, even when you do it wrong it's still pretty damned good. Anyone that says "Linux is like sex" really needs to get out a bit more. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fools. Linux is like sex. There are thousands of ways to do it right, and a few ways to do it wrong. The desktop may be doing it wrong, but remember - Linux is like sex, even when you do it wrong it's still pretty damned good. Anyone that says "Linux is like sex" really needs to get out a bit more.
# unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; > finger ; mount ; fsck ; > more ; yes ; umount ; sleep |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fools. Linux is like sex. There are thousands of ways to do it right, and a few ways to do it wrong. The desktop may be doing it wrong, but remember - Linux is like sex, even when you do it wrong it's still pretty damned good. Anyone that says "Linux is like sex" really needs to get out a bit more.
# unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; > finger ; mount ; fsck ; > more ; yes ; umount ; sleep 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fools. Linux is like sex. There are thousands of ways to do it right, and a few ways to do it wrong. The desktop may be doing it wrong, but remember - Linux is like sex, even when you do it wrong it's still pretty damned good. Anyone that says "Linux is like sex" really needs to get out a bit more.
# unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; > finger ; mount ; fsck ; > more ; yes ; umount ; sleep And yet, still not as good as sex. |
|
I've supported windows, mac, linux, and unix boxes for years now and pretty much agree with the fragmentation problems. This is more of a problem on the desktop/laptop. Don't get me wrong linux does have its places but even in many server roles I don't use it.
I will say the apple problem is still one of price and options. No 17 inch notebook(a lot of people seem to like bigger systems), no real desktop tower option(buy the mini or an imac, both have major limits, etc. Lack of server options don't really help either. Don't get me wrong, I like my 14 inch macbook pro but would love a mini tower with at least some expansion options. |
|
Quoted:
So... a mistake we've learned from but won't be able to move on from? What would you do? The first thing you need to do is fix the kernel. I'd recommend either BSD or Mach. Or maybe a hybrid. We could call it xnu. Second thing we have to do is scrap X-Windows and start over from scratch. Maybe we could start by trying to build something for a desktop user, rather than something designed for a 1980's model of computing. Maybe we could call it Cocoa. The last thing we have to do is make sure it can run Microsoft Office. I'm not a fan of Office personally, but there's nothing else out there that has the market share. So we have to have full, perfect, MS Office compatibility. Bottom line, desktop Unix exists. Apple did it already. Linux never won the desktop and never will, because the community refuses to do it right. |
|
Quoted:
I've supported windows, mac, linux, and unix boxes for years now and pretty much agree with the fragmentation problems. This is more of a problem on the desktop/laptop. Don't get me wrong linux does have its places but even in many server roles I don't use it. I will say the apple problem is still one of price and options. No 17 inch notebook(a lot of people seem to like bigger systems), no real desktop tower option(buy the mini or an imac, both have major limits, etc. Lack of server options don't really help either. Don't get me wrong, I like my 14 inch macbook pro but would love a mini tower with at least some expansion options. I agree completely. Apple is not the slightest bit interested in the computing enthusiast market -- they want the consumers, the users, the people who just want a computer that works. I wish it were not so, because I would love to have a mid-range tower that runs OSX on an I7 and doesn't use Xeons and cost eight thousand dollars. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Easy to learn, powerful, stable. Pick any two. How about you pick all 3 and go with Windows? Wat whuuuut? I have a laptop with OSX, a laptop with windows 7 enterprise, a laptop with windows 8 pro, a couple desktops with Slackware and Ubuntu, and a few servers with FreeBSD. In the end, it all comes down to the user. A dumbass will have issues with anything you throw at them. |
|
really Linux is hard?
I built a Ubuntu box for my parents that are in their 70's because they kept getting viruses, and even they have no problem with it. Hell they love the software center, and they are barely computer literate. the ONLY extra thing I had to install on my XBMCbuntu box was NTFS which is easy with the software center. if Linux is hard for you maybe its PEBKAC |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So... a mistake we've learned from but won't be able to move on from? What would you do? The first thing you need to do is fix the kernel. I'd recommend either BSD or Mach. Or maybe a hybrid. We could call it xnu. Second thing we have to do is scrap X-Windows and start over from scratch. Maybe we could start by trying to build something for a desktop user, rather than something designed for a 1980's model of computing. Maybe we could call it Cocoa. The last thing we have to do is make sure it can run Microsoft Office. I'm not a fan of Office personally, but there's nothing else out there that has the market share. So we have to have full, perfect, MS Office compatibility. Bottom line, desktop Unix exists. Apple did it already. Linux never won the desktop and never will, because the community refuses to do it right. Because you can only polish a turd for so long. The problem with linux is the same problem that caused early problems in Android. |
|
That's a very interesting piece about the ideology of the invested OS user. For him to so completely re-evaluate what was essentially his life's (professionally speaking) work and reach that conclusion is pretty profound.
I suppose it says something about the real world of IT versus the hobbyist, and to a lesser extent, technicians world. At a certain point you begin to evaluate and use only that which is proven reliable and best fits the business and technology goals rather than trying to evangelize solutions and platforms that you are personally invested in (irrespective of whether or not they are a true best fit). |
|
Quoted:
really Linux is hard? I built a Ubuntu box for my parents that are in their 70's because they kept getting viruses, and even they have no problem with it. Hell they love the software center, and they are barely computer literate. the ONLY extra thing I had to install on my XBMCbuntu box was NTFS which is easy with the software center. if Linux is hard for you maybe its PEBKAC Ubuntu is easy. Linux today is not Linux of the early 90s. Ubuntu will install on damn near anything without issues. The original Linux distos would damn near guarantee you would have a good understanding of the C language and the GCC compiler. |
|
Quoted:
really Linux is hard? I built a Ubuntu box for my parents that are in their 70's because they kept getting viruses, and even they have no problem with it. Hell they love the software center, and they are barely computer literate. the ONLY extra thing I had to install on my XBMCbuntu box was NTFS which is easy with the software center. if Linux is hard for you maybe its PEBKAC Linux is easy. It's still a piece of shit. |
|
Quoted:
That's a very interesting piece about the ideology of the invested OS user. For him to so completely re-evaluate what was essentially his life's (professionally speaking) work and reach that conclusion is pretty profound. I suppose it says something about the real world of IT versus the hobbyist, and to a lesser extent, technicians world. At a certain point you begin to evaluate and use only that which is proven reliable and best fits the business and technology goals rather than trying to evangelize solutions and platforms that you are personally invested in (irrespective of whether or not they are a true best fit). Well said... |
|
Quoted: really Linux is hard? I built a Ubuntu box for my parents that are in their 70's because they kept getting viruses, and even they have no problem with it. Hell they love the software center, and they are barely computer literate. the ONLY extra thing I had to install on my XBMCbuntu box was NTFS which is easy with the software center. if Linux is hard for you maybe its PEBKAC Linux only has a steep learning curve today if you want to do a LOT with a computer. For the people doing internet, documents and playing solitare, ANY OS will work fine. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once GNU/HURD is ready it will fix everything I've never even hurd/hird of that until now, are you serious or is it some kind of eternally-in-development joke? It's a joke. Google GNU/HURD and look at when the project started. It is a price of shit that is running damn near everything today. DVD players, phones, routers, SCADA networks, cars, aircraft, drones,iPhones, even refrigerators |
|
Quoted: Quoted: really Linux is hard? I built a Ubuntu box for my parents that are in their 70's because they kept getting viruses, and even they have no problem with it. Hell they love the software center, and they are barely computer literate. the ONLY extra thing I had to install on my XBMCbuntu box was NTFS which is easy with the software center. if Linux is hard for you maybe its PEBKAC Linux is easy. It's still a piece of shit. It's not a piece of shit. It works pretty well, but it is certainly not as user friendly as Windows or OSX. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
really Linux is hard? I built a Ubuntu box for my parents that are in their 70's because they kept getting viruses, and even they have no problem with it. Hell they love the software center, and they are barely computer literate. the ONLY extra thing I had to install on my XBMCbuntu box was NTFS which is easy with the software center. if Linux is hard for you maybe its PEBKAC Linux is easy. It's still a piece of shit. It's not a piece of shit. It works pretty well, but it is certainly not as user friendly as Windows or OSX. Linux on the desktop is absolutely a piece of shit. It's designed with essentially no regard for the user whatsoever. Note that the article is not written by some nobody. It's written by the fucking author of Gnome. Miguel de Icaza is probably one of the world's foremost experts on Linux on the desktop. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Once GNU/HURD is ready it will fix everything I've never even hurd/hird of that until now, are you serious or is it some kind of eternally-in-development joke? It's a joke. Google GNU/HURD and look at when the project started. It is a price of shit that is running damn near everything today. DVD players, phones, routers, SCADA networks, cars, aircraft, drones,iPhones, even refrigerators Most of which do not run Linux on the desktop. Most of them run a Linux kernel with something else entirely built on top of it. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: really Linux is hard? I built a Ubuntu box for my parents that are in their 70's because they kept getting viruses, and even they have no problem with it. Hell they love the software center, and they are barely computer literate. the ONLY extra thing I had to install on my XBMCbuntu box was NTFS which is easy with the software center. if Linux is hard for you maybe its PEBKAC Linux is easy. It's still a piece of shit. It's not a piece of shit. It works pretty well, but it is certainly not as user friendly as Windows or OSX. Linux on the desktop is absolutely a piece of shit. It's designed with essentially no regard for the user whatsoever. Note that the article is not written by some nobody. It's written by the fucking author of Gnome. Miguel de Icaza is probably one of the world's foremost experts on Linux on the desktop. Well they are onto Gnome3 now, and I am not fond of it. Therefore I don't use it. As to your first point, I stand by my original assessment. It is not geared towards a lot of people. Doesn't mean it sucks. Linux != Gnome |
|
I literally did an experiment with my home computing for at least 9 months. I converted everything in my home to Open Source. I was on a mission to remove Microsoft from every aspect of my home computing experience.
You'll never guess which part pushed me back to Microsoft the farthest. Imagine the irony, when I nearly rendered my Iphone useless without Microsoft. ............ it was Itunes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
really Linux is hard? I built a Ubuntu box for my parents that are in their 70's because they kept getting viruses, and even they have no problem with it. Hell they love the software center, and they are barely computer literate. the ONLY extra thing I had to install on my XBMCbuntu box was NTFS which is easy with the software center. if Linux is hard for you maybe its PEBKAC Linux is easy. It's still a piece of shit. It's not a piece of shit. It works pretty well, but it is certainly not as user friendly as Windows or OSX. Linux on the desktop is absolutely a piece of shit. It's designed with essentially no regard for the user whatsoever. Note that the article is not written by some nobody. It's written by the fucking author of Gnome. Miguel de Icaza is probably one of the world's foremost experts on Linux on the desktop. Well they are onto Gnome3 now, and I am not fond of it. Therefore I don't use it. As to your first point, I stand by my original assessment. It is not geared towards a lot of people. Doesn't mean it sucks. Linux != Gnome Of course Linux isn't Gnome. Gnome is a window manager, built on top of the piece of obsolete piece of shit that is X-Windows, that runs on a Linux kernel. The combination is what most people are talking about when they say Desktop Linux. And Desktop Linux sucks. I've got a bit of relevant experience using Unix desktops that actually work (CDE and the like, along with OSX). Desktop Linux is not even in the same computing world as either. |
|
Many of those have nothing to do with Linux on the desktop. Linux is one thing, and it's used in a lot of server farms. Desktop Linux simply isn't that common anywhere. |
|
Quoted: Doesn't mean it sucks. Linux != Gnome I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't mean it sucks. Linux != Gnome I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux. Hi Richard. |
|
I used Linux a lot in the past...
I'm pretty sure I only used it in order to not use Windows. I prefer a strong gui over command line. There's really no reason to use Linux on an everyday machine. I do keep encrypted flash drives with tails and liberte, though. Linux is great for specific applications. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Doesn't mean it sucks. Linux != Gnome I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux. Hi Richard. That's Mr. Stallman. Have some respect. I've actually had success with using SUSE linux desktop in an enterprise environment. If you use it with Groupwise, Iprint, Firefox, and OpenOffice, it covers the necessities just fine. |
Actually my favorite desktop unix is Windows 7 with cygwin But Miquel is totally right. Back before my late 20's when I finally grew up and became an actual thinking adult, I was a total evangelizing freak about OSS. I mean you couldn't even have a family dinner without me bursting out something terrible about Microsoft and how Linux was going to take over the world and everything else sucked and a bunch of other blah blah blah. But even then, that petulant little child, when asked by a family member what computer to get, would always answer, "Get a Mac" |
|
Maybe more like Three Mile Island.
Running Linux here since Slackware 1.0. I don't really care about OS's, I just want to get work done. The maintenance argument about Linux is pretty funny to me since I spend more time applying Windows updates every couple weeks (to the few Windows machines I "manage") than it takes me to reinstall Debian/Ubuntu from scratch over the network. I have some Macs and do recommend Macs to people. However, the downsides are that: after about 3 years, new versions of MacOS no longer support the hardware; before that, updates generally slow down the machines as they add more stuff. Hardware is expensive but relatively proportional to value. I have Thinkpads I bought 6-7 years ago to run Linux that still run as fast as ever. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't mean it sucks. Linux != Gnome I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux. Hi Richard. That's Mr. Stallman. Have some respect. I've actually had success with using SUSE linux desktop in an enterprise environment. If you use it with Groupwise, Iprint, Firefox, and OpenOffice, it covers the necessities just fine. Unless, of course, you need to interact with the rest of the world in any manner that requires more than the use of notepad. |
|
Quoted:
Actually my favorite desktop unix is Windows 7 with cygwin
But Miquel is totally right. Back before my late 20's when I finally grew up and became an actual thinking adult, I was a total evangelizing freak about OSS. I mean you couldn't even have a family dinner without me bursting out something terrible about Microsoft and how Linux was going to take over the world and everything else sucked and a bunch of other blah blah blah. But even then, that petulant little child, when asked by a family member what computer to get, would always answer, "Get a Mac" I was very much the same way for a number of years. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fools. Linux is like sex. There are thousands of ways to do it right, and a few ways to do it wrong. The desktop may be doing it wrong, but remember - Linux is like sex, even when you do it wrong it's still pretty damned good. Anyone that says "Linux is like sex" really needs to get out a bit more.
# unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; > finger ; mount ; fsck ; > more ; yes ; umount ; sleep This right here has made clicking on the thread worth it. 
|