I just installed 10.04 on an HP mini (using it now). Is the server edition that far behind the curve or are you just being conservative?
BTW, I frikkin love Ubuntu. It's going to seep into the market quietly over the next couple/few years. I'm so glad to see Gates and Jobs having some of their market taken away, even if it's only a couple of percentage points.
If you use Ubuntu as a notebook/desktop, check out Guake if you're unfamiliar with it:
If you use Ubuntu as a notebook/desktop, check out Guake if you're unfamiliar with it:
http://guake.org
Meh. Guake doesn't look that special to me. I can't see anything there that Snow Leopard's terminal doesn't do. Not that SL's terminal is so special either.
But this reminds me of a complaint I have had for years about Linux: they use repulsive and nonsensical names that absolutely repel those who might switch to Linux. Guake sounds like the lizard people from Planet X. Or a gay version of Quake.
Linux will never go anywhere until it adopts common descriptive names for its basic utilities. Like "Notepad", "Terminal", etc. Grandma and Cousin Jed are never ever going to run a program with a name like Guake.
The Linux folk are nerds and think these obscure names are wonderful. Well, maybe for nerds. But I'm pretty nerdy and I don't like these names either. They're just flat-out annoying. This is a major reason for the failure of Linux on the desktop, along with the ongoing rivalry and issues surrounding the Gnome versus KDE desktops and libraries (hey, Linux guys, pick ONE!).
As far as the geeky names go, the problem is that Linux with it's vast open source development base, has a dozen different software packages available for any single application need, and simple names like "notepad" just aren't available.
As far as the geeky names go, the problem is that Linux with it's vast open source development base, has a dozen different software packages available for any single application need, and simple names like "notepad" just aren't available.
I think they could adopt a convention of designating a particular app version as the official standard and giving it a decent name. I also think that Linux will never succeed as long as there is a divide between the Gnome and KDE camps.
User interface design really is no longer any kind of rocket science: just pick one and relegate the other to legacy support. It doesn't even matter which one you pick; just pick one.
If you had a system like this for Notepads and Terminals, then a new geeky-named competitor (fork or new project) might over time become more popular, then every few years they could choose to go to the new Notepad program. Let's face it, every system has Notepad programs. Some proliferation of names, often for obscure features, isn't that desirable. And just how extensive or subtle can a Notepad or a Terminal really be? This isn't actually a major divide that moves the hearts of men, causes people to kill each other, determines which computer system a person chooses to use (in the case of Linux, which computer system they choose not to use largely because of this endless confusing proliferation of minor versions of almost identical software).
You need continuity of sorts to succeed. Then you have more books and magazine articles to tutor and promote the various packages, you have users who become knowledgeable about a standard utility and can help others.
As I've said, this is one of the biggest single defects in any plan for Linux to conquer the desktop. If you're satisfied with obscurity (or if you purposely desire it for various reasons) then the current Linux practices are the way to go.
Linux needs to finally become a platform, in the same sense we use those terms towards Windows and Mac OSes.
Linux needs a way to standardize their APIs and utilities but keep the open-source nature of the Linux system.
Linux is weaker as an OS because of the divided effort and duplicated effort of so many teams, especially Gnome vs. KDE. I know some people would fight to the death over the two but that is legacy stuff. Both are more than capable enough and the division in UI development harms Linux far far more than it can ever help it. I'm on Mac instead of Linux largely because I actually like having a standard set of utils that everyone else is using. I also like that OS X, unlike Linux, actually is a UNIX 2003™ certified OS. This is one reason why it was fairly easy to change the Pinguinite install script to produce a working P forum on the Mac. (I should remember to email that script to you just in case anyone else asks for it.)
Of course, the very idea of standardization offends many Linux users. So I expect total marketshare/mindshare of Linux to continue to decline because of this tendency in the Linux community.
To make my own prejudices clear, I think Linux should standardize on Ubuntu with KDE (Kubuntu). But Ubuntu with Gnome would work too.
I think they could adopt a convention of designating a particular app version as the official standard and giving it a decent name. I also think that Linux will never succeed as long as there is a divide between the Gnome and KDE camps.
User interface design really is no longer any kind of rocket science: just pick one and relegate the other to legacy support. It doesn't even matter which one you pick; just pick one.
If you had a system like this for Notepads and Terminals, then a new geeky-named competitor (fork or new project) might over time become more popular, then every few years they could choose to go to the new Notepad program. Let's face it, every system has Notepad programs. Some proliferation of names, often for obscure features, isn't that desirable. And just how extensive or subtle can a Notepad or a Terminal really be? This isn't actually a major divide that moves the hearts of men, causes people to kill each other, determines which computer system a person chooses to use (in the case of Linux, which computer system they choose not to use largely because of this endless confusing proliferation of minor versions of almost identical software).
You need continuity of sorts to succeed. Then you have more books and magazine articles to tutor and promote the various packages, you have users who become knowledgeable about a standard utility and can help others.
As I've said, this is one of the biggest single defects in any plan for Linux to conquer the desktop. If you're satisfied with obscurity (or if you purposely desire it for various reasons) then the current Linux practices are the way to go.
Linux needs to finally become a platform, in the same sense we use those terms towards Windows and Mac OSes.
Linux needs a way to standardize their APIs and utilities but keep the open-source nature of the Linux system.
Linux is weaker as an OS because of the divided effort and duplicated effort of so many teams, especially Gnome vs. KDE. I know some people would fight to the death over the two but that is legacy stuff. Both are more than capable enough and the division in UI development harms Linux far far more than it can ever help it. I'm on Mac instead of Linux largely because I actually like having a standard set of utils that everyone else is using. I also like that OS X, unlike Linux, actually is a UNIX 2003™ certified OS. This is one reason why it was fairly easy to change the Pinguinite install script to produce a working P forum on the Mac. (I should remember to email that script to you just in case anyone else asks for it.)
Of course, the very idea of standardization offends many Linux users. So I expect total marketshare/mindshare of Linux to continue to decline because of this tendency in the Linux community.
To make my own prejudices clear, I think Linux should standardize on Ubuntu with KDE (Kubuntu). But Ubuntu with Gnome would work too.
It's interesting that you bring this up as a friend of mine and I just had a similar discussion. He is presently pursuing a BS degree in Information Technology Services Management. In this degree program he has to take a Linux System Admin and Linux Advanced System Admin course, at which time he will be qualified to take the LPIC-1, LPIC-2, and CompTIA Network+ certifications. I asked him why the University is focusing on Linux system administration instead of instead of Windows. He claims that research has shown that due to the cost factor, Linux is growing faster than Windows and is expected to continue to do so in the foreseeable future. I have no idea if that is true or if the University is blowing smoke up his ass. I don't know how Linux licensing works, but I bet it's a whole lot cheaper than Windows licensing. Then again, I'm pretty cynical.
It is for this reason that the university has focused on java programming instead of Windows development applications as well. I guess Java is a multi-OS language and the department though it would be more useful. Although I guess they have a couple of Windows programming classes you can take, the majority of CIS classes are Java based.
" The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow. "