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.
What I enjoy about Linux is that I don't have to "just pick one". If I want I can install all the window managers and switch between them at will. Windowmaker is elegant and suits my needs most of the time, Gnome sometimes, KDE if I'm feeling like pretending I'm using Windows for that day. It allows me choice, to suit my whims of the moment. It's an OS geared completely towards individualism, there is no "one size fits all package".
As to "platform", lots of companies use Linux. IBM has even offered an entire Linux "platform" suite of servers that were well received.
What I enjoy about Linux is that I don't have to "just pick one". If I want I can install all the window managers and switch between them at will. Windowmaker is elegant and suits my needs most of the time, Gnome sometimes, KDE if I'm feeling like pretending I'm using Windows for that day. It allows me choice, to suit my whims of the moment. It's an OS geared completely towards individualism, there is no "one size fits all package".
Sounds tiresome. Exactly what is so compelling about installing and maintaining all of those anyway? This is like some of the old icon sets and menu utilities we used to have on the Amiga. Just how many icon sets and weird menu/dock utilities does anyone need?
That isn't a strength of the platform, it's refusal to make a sound choice based on ergonomics and engineering. Catering to whimsy has no real future. That's what Twitter and Facebook are for.
If clicking three or four check-boxes at install is tiresome, might I recommend a more vigorous exercise regime for you to embark on? :)
Exactly what is so compelling about installing and maintaining all of those anyway?
You don't have to "maintain" them, really. What maintenance you do, is normally handled auto-magically now anyway (just like Windows automatic updates feature).
As to what is compelling, well, it allows me to select the window manager based on my whim and mood at the time. Really, it's a very libertarian, individualistic type of notion. Today I might feel like something that has all the useless bells and whistles of Windows, tomorrow I might feel lean mean and ready for some serious computing (non-gaming), the next day I'm just in the mood for...a few widgets. It's up to me, daily, hourly, by the minute even, and I get what I want.
I'm guessing that your conception of Linux is based off of Linux as it existed in 1999?
Catering to whimsy has no real future.
Well then, we might as well flush individual liberty down the toilet as a political philosophy then eh? Individual choice, catering to unique personalities and "one size does not fit all" are, after all, some of the root concepts of free markets and free choice. :)
Many desktop arrangements used in Linux have counterparts/compilations in the "professional" UNIX/POSIX world actually. "Whimsy" does have a future, because we're all individuals. And it's not "whimsy" many times, it's having a toolbox filled with the tools you want for the job at hand, with the option of opening up other toolboxes later if you have more and different jobs to do.
So, for example, for the system administrator, a simple BASH prompt against a traditional bare bones X-Windows interface is all that's desired. The desktop user, on the other hand, is equipped with KDE. The graphics professionals use GNOME (just an example, not saying they would). The power users (programmers) may find Windowmaker more suited to their style. All in one shop, yet the underlying OS is exactly the same (kernel, mods, etc) so there are no cross platform compatibility issues at all.
I have no problem with folks that want cookie cutter choices made for them in regards to OS choices/wrappers/desktops. Many people are quite content to be given something and adapt to it. Some of us, IT professions more often than not, tend to like to customize and trim our tools for maximum efficiency. That's why I like Linux (and POSIX/UNIX in general).
If clicking three or four check-boxes at install is tiresome, might I recommend a more vigorous exercise regime for you to embark on? :)
I'm a Mac guy. So it only has to be brushed aluminum (or shiny white) to make me happy.
You don't have to "maintain" them, really. What maintenance you do, is normally handled auto-magically now anyway (just like Windows automatic updates feature).
I don't even trust the Mac to do it any more. So I suppose I make a chore of updates. I still run WinXP under VMware too but I don't trust it unsupervised to connect to this interweb thing.
I'm guessing that your conception of Linux is based off of Linux as it existed in 1999?
Linux folk like to make this accusation toward critics. It's a variety of the old but-everything-is-different-now. It's not really an argument more a way of trying to invalidate criticism.
What I said about Linux is as true today as it was then.
So, for example, for the system administrator, a simple BASH prompt against a traditional bare bones X-Windows interface is all that's desired.
The desktop user, on the other hand, is equipped with KDE.
Not universally. There's the problem.
The graphics professionals use GNOME (just an example, not saying they would).
The "graphics professional" uses Photoshop or Maya and Linux is important only for creating cheap render farms. Which is a terrific niche for Linux BTW.
The power users (programmers) may find Windowmaker more suited to their style. All in one shop, yet the underlying OS is exactly the same (kernel, mods, etc) so there are no cross platform compatibility issues at all.
Still too many package dependencies. Too much division and duplication of effort in GUI development which does not create a stronger end user experience and confuses newbs. At some point, you need to settle on a single platform because your developer resources are and will remain finite. The drawing of GUI gadgets is not rocket science and hasn't been for thirty years.
I'm a Mac guy. So it only has to be brushed aluminum (or shiny white) to make me happy.
Would that be the system that uses Mac OSX, which is a platform built against the POSIX BSD OS? :)
Linux folk like to make this accusation toward critics. It's a variety of the old but-everything-is-different-now. It's not really an argument more a way of trying to invalidate criticism.
That didn't answer my question though. When was the last time you actually *installed* a modern Linux package?
Even Windows, from 1995, was much more complex, unstable and crappy than Windows 7. It is a very valid argument to make, though in truth it was kind of a question more than anything (from me I mean).
What I said about Linux is as true today as it was then.
Not at all.
I boot my micro-laptop (one of those Atom processor types) off of a USB drive, using EasyPeasy Linux, which is a scaled down and user friendly(-er, if it's possible) version of Ubuntu. My family had their first experience with it this last week. With no instructions, they turned on the lap top and were all able to immediately start web browsing, checking whatever they wanted, and then shutting it down. Completely intuitive, almost Mac-esque (I have an iMac btw, love it) in its simplicity and "turn on and use" capabilities.
Not universally. There's the problem.
And the problem is what precisely? Not everybody is bound to monolithic conformity? I don't get it.
Still too many package dependencies.
Can't recall the last time I had to manually go through all the dependency installations. I use OpenSUSE 11.1 on one of my "main" boxes, and it simply installs. You say you want to install, say for example, GIMP, and it picks out the dependencies and auto installs them. All you do is say "hey, install GIMP" through the control panel (YAST), and badda bing, there it is. I
Too much division and duplication of effort in GUI development
Most liberals I know say this about the free market. "We have far too much duplication of effort in the market, why, we should have one car company and eliminate waste!". :)
Since it's not a "company", you will have "duplication of effort". That said, you can go the monolithic route and install company supported Red Hat and get fully directed effort if you want, you don't have to even pretend other distros of Linux exist, and you'll be just as "in the box" as any Windows/Mac platform choice.
does not create a stronger end user experience and confuses newbs.
Funny, because my 10 year old daughter and 13 year old son, and 63 year old mother (not a computer literate type) had no problems immediately grasping the interface they were using, without a word of instruction from me.
At some point, you need to settle on a single platform because your developer resources are and will remain finite.
You don't seem to be making a distinction between desktop shell, and underlying OS. If the Kernel version and underlying framework is the same (and it is, if you're using OpenSUSE 11.1, you're using OpenSUSE 11.1 whether you install KDE, GNOME or Bob's Custom Shell), then you're golden. C++ code is C++ code, and if it is compiled to run native on the OS you're using, it runs native, period, shell notwithstanding.
There is no one flavor of a POSIX environment. Nobody stood up and said "Only SUNOS, and nothing else!" for the entire POSIX community. Linux is no different. Thank goodness.
The drawing of GUI gadgets is not rocket science and hasn't been for thirty years.
Great. So if you're happy with Mac, why bother criticizing people who like more customization capabilities? Or with companies that like to offer good (great really) internet servers at low cost (no licensing, cost reduced)? Or small shops that want to provide graphical kiosks for their clerks to use across the company at low cost (I believe Dominoes may use a fully Linux corporate network architecture, but may be mistaken and confusing them with another major brand pizza company). I'm not saying that as a diss, please don't take my tone as sarcastic, it's an honest question.
End of the day, Linux fills a decent niche, lots of companies use it in some capacity, and it's a great example of undirected chaos resulting in order. I'm hip with that.
Would that be the system that uses Mac OSX, which is a platform built against the POSIX BSD OS? :)
Not merely POSIX but also certfied UNIX 2003™ as well. The only BSD that is a real UNIX.
The Linux folk could do the same for themselves. It is yet another reason why Linux cannot fully penetrate the Big Iron world or make headway on the corporate desktop. These things do matter but your average Linux folk seem to have no idea.
That didn't answer my question though. When was the last time you actually *installed* a modern Linux package?
2-3 months back, the current Kubuntu. Naturally, I run it under VMware for convenience. I generally have a half-dozen of so different Linux installs on hand on my workstation in case I want to fire one up or compare features.
I boot my micro-laptop (one of those Atom processor types) off of a USB drive, using EasyPeasy Linux, which is a scaled down and user friendly(-er, if it's possible) version of Ubuntu. My family had their first experience with it this last week. With no instructions, they turned on the lap top and were all able to immediately start web browsing, checking whatever they wanted, and then shutting it down. Completely intuitive, almost Mac-esque (I have an iMac btw, love it) in its simplicity and "turn on and use" capabilities.
I think the portable Linux installs are somewhat in a class by themselves, more comparable to appliances than to a full OS install. And many issues simply don't arise in that scenario.
Most liberals I know say this about the free market. "We have far too much duplication of effort in the market, why, we should have one car company and eliminate waste!". :)
That argument is too shabby for me to volunteer to be your strawman.
You don't seem to be making a distinction between desktop shell, and underlying OS. If the Kernel version and underlying framework is the same (and it is, if you're using OpenSUSE 11.1, you're using OpenSUSE 11.1 whether you install KDE, GNOME or Bob's Custom Shell), then you're golden. C++ code is C++ code, and if it is compiled to run native on the OS you're using, it runs native, period, shell notwithstanding.
You might want to read up a bit on emerging technologies to meet the modern glut of CPU/GPU hardware. Only Apple has made substantial inroads to solve these issues at the OS level and they have enlisted partners like Nvidia, ATI, Intel to work with them on these standards. The key technologies are: LLVM/LLDB, Clang, OpenCL/OpenGL and these technologies work together and across the Mac platform, right down to the iPhone. (OpenCL is an Apple industry initiative. They are big into LLVM and Clang and just contributed the LLDB debugger back to the community. Strangely, even though this is computer rocket science and, for once, readily available to the Linux community, they no longer seem to have the interest, the numbers, or the resources to exploit it for the Linux platform. This spells again the niche role for Linux that it has always had (though it is declining further in the last few years in market share and developer share).
Linux simply does not have this kind of development happening. In part, it is because Linux coders spend way too much time re-inventing wheels instead of moving the platform forward. Personally, I think Torvalds is out of his element on this stuff. Even if he adopts a good strategy, imposing it on the Linux community is much easier said than done. This failure-to-thrive parallels the ongoing failures of the various Linux office productivity suites, why Gimp is still so lame, why there isn't any video editing software on the Linux platform worthy of the name.
You act as though there is some unlimited number of Linux developers out there and that there is some unlimited time frame to modernize and standardize the OS. Well, there isn't. Unless the Linux community modernizes and standardizes, they will continue to decline in users and developers. This could lead to a situation where Linux exists but is nothing more than a legacy platform in as little as five years from now, perhaps retaining legacy presence as render farms, cheap network file/print servers, or web servers. Unless things change radically, Linux will never be ready for prime time.
Well, it seems to be being adopted at the corporate level, for items like web/internet servers, as well as file servers and database servers (MySQL being particularly popular).
Desktop use, I could care about. It's fine as it is, and frankly, there is not "Linux people" to direct this. There is no organization, no hierarchy, no people you can point to and say "make one monolithic version!". Might as well command the tides not to come in for all the good it can do ya'.
That argument is too shabby for me to volunteer to be your strawman.
Ya' already did, by starting down that rhetorical path, heh. :)
I think the portable Linux installs are somewhat in a class by themselves, more comparable to appliances than to a full OS install. And many issues simply don't arise in that scenario.
Well, no, not this one (EasyPeasy). Full Linux kernel, full array of modules, full array of applications, and you can download/install as many more as you want, if you want. You can choose, if you wish, to make it a full install from the USB. It's not Ubuntu proper, but what I consider a better version of Ubuntu (which I'm not particularly fond of). It's a full OS suite, not a PDA version of Linux.
This failure-to-thrive parallels the ongoing failures of the various Linux office productivity suites,
LOL, yeah, nobody uses OpenOffice! Except most people I know I mean. :)
Even if he adopts..
Tovalds doesn't own "Linux", he was just the guy who wrote the first kernel. There is no Director In Chief of Linux.
If you want centralized power/control over OS, then stick with out of the box stuff, which is fine (again, I like Mac and Windows). I like Linux because it is NOT centrally controlled, because I can review the source, and because it displays to me the most interesting takes on ideas out there. Whether Bob Averageman adopts it as his preferred OS is irrelevent, really, it will continue to exist as a server-esque OS without ol' Bob, with plenty of gui stuff for the geeks that like that kind of thing. That's enough for me to ask for.
He owns it. He's got a death grip on the kernel, and that's enough to control the rest. It's bloated to around 50mb+ now, and has everything but the kitchen sink in it.
A handful of communist "free" fanatics run the show. Politics dictate development.
It's bloated to around 50mb+ now, and has everything but the kitchen sink in it.
Uh-oh. My complaint was what's still missing from Torvald's kernel. LOL.
A handful of communist "free" fanatics run the show. Politics dictate development.
Well, Linus isn't like Stallman. He is a more practical fellow, being Finnish and all. But were it not for Linux, Stallman would be too obscure to even mention outside a small circle of UNIX software purists.