Windows Vista may be the killer of LinuxOS

nyMexTrader · External Since: Sep 22, 2005 Posts: 4

I wonder why Linux communities not work harder together united to speed
up the LinuxOS improving process? On desktop area, Linux is way behind.
If Apple Mac able to turn a unixOS into real MicrosoftOS contender, I
think Linux could do it too.

All we need is united on project instead of duplication on duplications.

Cheer.

Dave Uhring · External Since: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 633

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:53:07 -0400, nyMexTrader wrote:

> All we need is united on project instead of duplication on duplications.

User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)

What do you mean, "we"?

Snowbat · External Since: Jul 06, 2005 Posts: 92

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:53:07 -0400, nyMexTrader wrote:

> I wonder why Linux communities not work harder together united to speed
> up the LinuxOS improving process?

Why do you see more than one community and in what way are we not working
hard together?

> On desktop area, Linux is way behind.

In what way is it way behind? It does absolutely everything I need to do
with my desktop and does so with function and style.

> If Apple Mac able to turn a unixOS into real MicrosoftOS contender, I
> think Linux could do it too.

Since Apple refuse to release OS X for x86, how is it a contender? Are
you seriously suggesting everyone should dump their perfectly good x86
hardware and buy overpriced Macs?

> All we need is united on project instead of duplication on duplications.

What duplication do you see? Too many distributions? Too many
applications for similar tasks? It seems to me you have suffered vendor
lock-in for way too long and now you are having difficulty coping with
choice.

Joe · External Since: Jun 11, 2005 Posts: 11

This message is not archived

James McIninch · External Since: May 19, 2004 Posts: 128

<posted & mailed>

nyMexTrader wrote:

> I wonder why Linux communities not work harder together united to speed
> up the LinuxOS improving process? On desktop area, Linux is way behind.

That's debatable. I've been using the most recent KDE and every version of
Windows, beta and otherwise, and there's not a whole lot of difference from
a user perspective (except KDE is more network-transparent). Newer Windows
apps and such are starting to deviate pretty far from MS established HIG,
so consistency of the UI is degrading...

> If Apple Mac able to turn a unixOS into real MicrosoftOS contender, I
> think Linux could do it too.

Apple's OS/X has always been a Windows contender. The OS is technically
superior in many respects and the basic UI much more advanced. It's not as
customizable as Linux, but on par with Windows.

Apple's only issues have been lack of critical mass (application base) and
inability to make use of commodity hardware. The latter is rapidly being
attended to, and market penetration of OS/X is increasing (not as quickly
as Linux on the desktop, but it's increasing while MS' is notably
decreasing).

Linux is clearly as different from OS/X and Windows as those two are from
each other, but short of that the level of functionality and ease of use is
generally considered the same.

>
> All we need is united on project instead of duplication on duplications.

Why? The point of shifting the control from a corporate interest to the
consumer is that the consumer can see that whatever they care about is
implemented.

The biggest reason things in Linux operate the way they do is because it's
the way that people disatisfied with the current status quo (mostly
Windows) want it to behave. They want functionality beyond what they've had
before without any substantial introduction of complexity.

Keep in mind that a majority of those contributing to the development of
Linux user interfaces and applications had originated doing same in the
Windows and older Mac environments.

>
> Cheer.

--
Remove '.nospam' from e-mail address to reply by e-mail

Noozer · External Since: Sep 21, 2005 Posts: 86

> nyMexTrader wrote:
>> I wonder why Linux communities not work harder together united to speed
>> up the LinuxOS improving process? On desktop area, Linux is way behind.
>> If Apple Mac able to turn a unixOS into real MicrosoftOS contender, I
>> think Linux could do it too.
>>
>> All we need is united on project instead of duplication on duplications.

I agree with this...

Withuot a doubt, one of the biggest issues with Linux is that there is no
"base install" that an application can depend on.

I'll use computer hardware as an analogy.

Atari ST came out. The base machine was 512k, read only explantion slot,
800x600 monochrome graphics and single sided floppies.

Quite shortly after than Atari built in a hardware blitter chip for faster &
better graphics, double sided floppy drives and 1meg of memory.

Since you couldn't depend on your user having the blitter chip you couldn't
write software to make use of it. You couldn't sell your programs on double
sided floppy disks, you couldn't count on the user having more than 512k of
memory --- You had to design your apps for the lowest common denominator.

Linux is missing this lowest common denominator. I agree that Linux should
not have only one way of doing things, but there should be some kind of
common base that can be depended on. I should be able to install a base
Linux system that would allow me to edit text files and install
applications. If I choose to use a graphical desktop there should be a
single base installed that provides a good set of functionality for desktop
managers to depend on (X is there, but isn't it getting a bit long in the
tooth?).

The developers for the various Linux distros should get together and agree
on a common install base, a common "add/remove programs" package, a common
"control panel" package - all providing an interface that these developers
could use as they see fit.

ray · External Since: Nov 13, 2004 Posts: 3387

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:53:07 -0400, nyMexTrader wrote:

> I wonder why Linux communities not work harder together united to speed
> up the LinuxOS improving process? On desktop area, Linux is way behind.
> If Apple Mac able to turn a unixOS into real MicrosoftOS contender, I
> think Linux could do it too.
>
> All we need is united on project instead of duplication on duplications.
>
> Cheer.

I disagree with your main premise. I do not thing Linux is behind at all -
I think it is technically far in the lead. The perception is all that
lags. If there were major computer dealers who would sell computers with
linux properly installed and set up - there would be a huge demand. It is
not much easier to properly install and set up Linux than MS - and MS
generally comes that way.

Crashdamage · External Since: Apr 26, 2004 Posts: 132

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:38:36 GMT, Noozer <dont.spam.RemoveThis@me.here> wrote:

> Withuot a doubt, one of the biggest issues with Linux is that there is no
> "base install" that an application can depend on.

Yes there is.

> Linux is missing this lowest common denominator. I agree that Linux should
> not have only one way of doing things,
(snip)

Pretty much everything you want is already there.

All that this post proves is that you have no understanding whatever of
the differences between distros or even Linux in general.

Try again when you have a clue what you're talking about.
--
Registered Linux user #266531

Patrick Grimbergen · External Since: Jun 01, 2005 Posts: 151

Noozer wrote:

>
>> nyMexTrader wrote:
>>> I wonder why Linux communities not work harder together united to speed
>>> up the LinuxOS improving process? On desktop area, Linux is way behind.
>>> If Apple Mac able to turn a unixOS into real MicrosoftOS contender, I
>>> think Linux could do it too.
>>>
>>> All we need is united on project instead of duplication on duplications.
>
> I agree with this...
>
> Withuot a doubt, one of the biggest issues with Linux is that there is no
> "base install" that an application can depend on.
>
> I'll use computer hardware as an analogy.
>
> Atari ST came out. The base machine was 512k, read only explantion slot,
> 800x600 monochrome graphics and single sided floppies.
>
> Quite shortly after than Atari built in a hardware blitter chip for faster
> & better graphics, double sided floppy drives and 1meg of memory.
>
> Since you couldn't depend on your user having the blitter chip you
> couldn't write software to make use of it. You couldn't sell your programs
> on double sided floppy disks, you couldn't count on the user having more
> than 512k of memory --- You had to design your apps for the lowest common
> denominator.
>
> Linux is missing this lowest common denominator. I agree that Linux should
> not have only one way of doing things, but there should be some kind of
> common base that can be depended on. I should be able to install a base
> Linux system that would allow me to edit text files and install
> applications. If I choose to use a graphical desktop there should be a
> single base installed that provides a good set of functionality for
> desktop managers to depend on (X is there, but isn't it getting a bit long
> in the tooth?).
>
> The developers for the various Linux distros should get together and agree
> on a common install base, a common "add/remove programs" package, a common
> "control panel" package - all providing an interface that these developers
> could use as they see fit.

To be fare... I have no clue what you are talking about...
--
A female beauty is something to take notice of, your OS isn't

Noozer · External Since: Sep 21, 2005 Posts: 86

"Crashdamage" <03z1krd7.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:1127738154.e574e55df7aa336c3448786510d892e8@teranews...
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:38:36 GMT, Noozer <dont.spam.TakeThisOut@me.here> wrote:
>
>> Withuot a doubt, one of the biggest issues with Linux is that there is no
>> "base install" that an application can depend on.
>
> Yes there is.

Ok, what is installed in EVERY Linux distro that I can depend on being
there?

I can't even depend on VI existing on a machine when I go to use it.

Patrick Grimbergen · External Since: Jun 01, 2005 Posts: 151

Noozer wrote:

>
> "Crashdamage" <03z1krd7.TakeThisOut@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1127738154.e574e55df7aa336c3448786510d892e8@teranews...
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:38:36 GMT, Noozer <dont.spam.TakeThisOut@me.here> wrote:
>>
>>> Withuot a doubt, one of the biggest issues with Linux is that there is
>>> no "base install" that an application can depend on.
>>
>> Yes there is.
>
> Ok, what is installed in EVERY Linux distro that I can depend on being
> there?
>
> I can't even depend on VI existing on a machine when I go to use it.

The kernel, from there everything is installable/expandable.

It does not matter what is there in every distro, it does matter is wether
the install process is the same.

On all distros you can use ./configure, ./make and ./make install, just that
some distros make it even easier for you and not everybody agrees in what
is easiest... That what is great about the different distros...

The main difference (according to me) is how you install a program, because
you can install any WM in any distro...
--
A female beauty is something to take notice of, your OS isn't

Antti · External Since: Sep 21, 2005 Posts: 6

JDS wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:01:03 +0000, Noozer wrote:
> This is not really an issue. I mean, if, say, Vi is not installed, then
> install it! I don't really get what the problem is. I mean, when I go to
> a Windows box, I don't *expect* that Photoshop, Office, and Dreamweaver
> are going to be installed. So I install 'em if I need 'em.

Let me make a note that Photoshop, Office and Dreamwaver won't even come
with Windows package. You need to find them elsewhere. But usually most
Gnu/Linux distros ship with GIMP, OpenOffice.org/KOffice and
Bluefish/Quanta/NVU which are containing the same fuctionality. It's a
huge advance in installation when distro installs everything you
need/had chosen to be installed while installing operating system
itself. Just one install operation and everything can be run after first
boot.

Little off-topic I guess...

-Antti-

Patrick Grimbergen · External Since: Jun 01, 2005 Posts: 151

Antti wrote:

> JDS wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:01:03 +0000, Noozer wrote:
>> This is not really an issue. I mean, if, say, Vi is not installed, then
>> install it! I don't really get what the problem is. I mean, when I go to
>> a Windows box, I don't *expect* that Photoshop, Office, and Dreamweaver
>> are going to be installed. So I install 'em if I need 'em.
>
> Let me make a note that Photoshop, Office and Dreamwaver won't even come
> with Windows package. You need to find them elsewhere. But usually most
> Gnu/Linux distros ship with GIMP, OpenOffice.org/KOffice and
> Bluefish/Quanta/NVU which are containing the same fuctionality. It's a
> huge advance in installation when distro installs everything you
> need/had chosen to be installed while installing operating system
> itself. Just one install operation and everything can be run after first
> boot.
>
> Little off-topic I guess...
>
> -Antti-

I love programs like The Gimp, OpenOffice and Quanta+, I never want to go
back to Photoshop, MS Office and Dreamweaver... they are just so far behind
in their capabilities...

At work first thing I did was DEL Office and Install OpenOffice, I still had
to use WinXP though... they were not that liberal...
--
A female beauty is something to take notice of, your OS isn't

wd10 · External Since: Sep 21, 2005 Posts: 11

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:47:59 +0200, Patrick Grimbergen wrote:

> Antti wrote:
>
>> JDS wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 23:01:03 +0000, Noozer wrote:
>>> This is not really an issue. I mean, if, say, Vi is not installed, then
>>> install it! I don't really get what the problem is. I mean, when I go to
>>> a Windows box, I don't *expect* that Photoshop, Office, and Dreamweaver
>>> are going to be installed. So I install 'em if I need 'em.
>>
>> Let me make a note that Photoshop, Office and Dreamwaver won't even come
>> with Windows package. You need to find them elsewhere. But usually most
>> Gnu/Linux distros ship with GIMP, OpenOffice.org/KOffice and
>> Bluefish/Quanta/NVU which are containing the same fuctionality. It's a
>> huge advance in installation when distro installs everything you
>> need/had chosen to be installed while installing operating system
>> itself. Just one install operation and everything can be run after first
>> boot.
>>
>> Little off-topic I guess...
>>
>> -Antti-
>
> I love programs like The Gimp, OpenOffice and Quanta+, I never want to go
> back to Photoshop, MS Office and Dreamweaver... they are just so far behind
> in their capabilities...

I agree... I like Quanta Plus more than Dreamweaver. I don't know the
GIMP well enough yet to say. With OpenOffice there is no reason to use MS
Office anymore...

ODS2 · External Since: Aug 10, 2005 Posts: 3

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:23:56 -0600, ray <ray.DeleteThis@zianet.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:53:07 -0400, nyMexTrader wrote:
>
>> I wonder why Linux communities not work harder together united to speed
>> up the LinuxOS improving process? On desktop area, Linux is way behind.
>> If Apple Mac able to turn a unixOS into real MicrosoftOS contender, I
>> think Linux could do it too.
>>
>> All we need is united on project instead of duplication on duplications.
>>
>> Cheer.
>
>I disagree with your main premise. I do not thing Linux is behind at all -
>I think it is technically far in the lead. The perception is all that
>lags. If there were major computer dealers who would sell computers with
>linux properly installed and set up - there would be a huge demand. It is
>not much easier to properly install and set up Linux than MS - and MS
>generally comes that way.

True enough! However, when the general public user goes to install a
program, they don't want to go through the command line. They don't
want to figure out whether they have the correct distro. They want it
to work. Yeah, it's a bit lazy, but that's what the world wants in an
operating system. It may not be what you want, but hey, why do you
think Windows is so popular? It may be an intrusive money-grubbing
slime of an OS, but it's simple to use, for simple people to use.
Companies can't afford to teach Linux to their employees, it's too
intensive and far superior in it's complexity. Open source programs
are one thing, but the complete re-training of their staff would cost
more than the benefits.
Simplify and conjoin the best parts of the LOS, make it easier to
install programs so people don't have to look for their distro, make
it mainstream, and lessen the learning curve...it'll sell!

ray · External Since: Nov 13, 2004 Posts: 3387

On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:03:42 +0000, ODS2 wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 09:23:56 -0600, ray <ray.TakeThisOut@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:53:07 -0400, nyMexTrader wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder why Linux communities not work harder together united to speed
>>> up the LinuxOS improving process? On desktop area, Linux is way behind.
>>> If Apple Mac able to turn a unixOS into real MicrosoftOS contender, I
>>> think Linux could do it too.
>>>
>>> All we need is united on project instead of duplication on duplications.
>>>
>>> Cheer.
>>
>>I disagree with your main premise. I do not thing Linux is behind at all -
>>I think it is technically far in the lead. The perception is all that
>>lags. If there were major computer dealers who would sell computers with
>>linux properly installed and set up - there would be a huge demand. It is
>>not much easier to properly install and set up Linux than MS - and MS
>>generally comes that way.
>
> True enough! However, when the general public user goes to install a
> program, they don't want to go through the command line. They don't
> want to figure out whether they have the correct distro. They want it
> to work. Yeah, it's a bit lazy, but that's what the world wants in an
> operating system. It may not be what you want, but hey, why do you
> think Windows is so popular? It may be an intrusive money-grubbing
> slime of an OS, but it's simple to use, for simple people to use.
> Companies can't afford to teach Linux to their employees, it's too
> intensive and far superior in it's complexity. Open source programs
> are one thing, but the complete re-training of their staff would cost
> more than the benefits.
> Simplify and conjoin the best parts of the LOS, make it easier to
> install programs so people don't have to look for their distro, make
> it mainstream, and lessen the learning curve...it'll sell!

I disagree. What could be easier than Mandrivels app installer; or
synaptic; or yast; or . . .

I have said for years that: when Linux is properly installed and set up it
is no more difficult to use than MS - only a little different. And I've
seen first hand proof that Joe Sixpack can easily adapt to the differences
- all he needs is a computer with Linux properly installed and set up -
THAT is the bugaboo - no one is doing it.

ODS2 · External Since: Aug 10, 2005 Posts: 3

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:16:09 -0400, JDS <jeffrey DeleteThis @example.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:38:36 +0000, Noozer wrote:
>
>> Withuot a doubt, one of the biggest issues with Linux is that there is no
>> "base install" that an application can depend on.
>
>What a load of sheaht. Not that there aren't issues with Linux, but your
>complaint is completely missing the point.
>
>What you are talking about can be found in MS Windows or Mac OS. Now
>*those* are some lowest common denominators.

I realize that Linux-heads want to keep the system pure. You don't
care about the GUI's, the interoperability or the ease of use. The
system works the way you want it to, and that's good enough for you!
However, companies are investing money into this operating system, and
need it to function on par with Windows/Mac for ease of use, and for
consumers to find it appealing, it has to be simplified through a GUI,
using a simpler installer for programs, etc...
The general public knows little or nothing about Linux. The average
computer user knows little or nothing about Linux. RedHat, Debian, and
Suse/Novell are trying to change that. And while Windows/Mac may be
the lowest common denominators, they're selling. When Mac ports to the
PC next year, most of the Linux child companies will go under
financially. It's (Mac) Unix based, fast, and runs alot of the
Linux/Unix programs out of the box. If something isn't done soon,
Linux may find itself once again delegated to scientific applications
in obscure classrooms.
The complaining about Windows/Mac is irrelevant. They are the two
operating systems of choice for the majority of people. Open source is
coming around, but how can a company or individual make a living
giving away their product. And, if you can't make a living doing it,
why do it.
I leave the subject wide open. I love Linux, and enjoy the time I
spend learning it, however, 95% of the computer buying public doesn't
want to" learn", they want to "use".

Patrick Grimbergen · External Since: Jun 01, 2005 Posts: 151

ODS2 wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:16:09 -0400, JDS <jeffrey DeleteThis @example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 23:38:36 +0000, Noozer wrote:
>>
>>> Withuot a doubt, one of the biggest issues with Linux is that there is
>>> no "base install" that an application can depend on.
>>
>>What a load of sheaht. Not that there aren't issues with Linux, but your
>>complaint is completely missing the point.
>>
>>What you are talking about can be found in MS Windows or Mac OS. Now
>>*those* are some lowest common denominators.
>
> I realize that Linux-heads want to keep the system pure. You don't
> care about the GUI's, the interoperability or the ease of use. The
> system works the way you want it to, and that's good enough for you!
> However, companies are investing money into this operating system, and
> need it to function on par with Windows/Mac for ease of use, and for
> consumers to find it appealing, it has to be simplified through a GUI,
> using a simpler installer for programs, etc...
> The general public knows little or nothing about Linux. The average
> computer user knows little or nothing about Linux. RedHat, Debian, and
> Suse/Novell are trying to change that. And while Windows/Mac may be
> the lowest common denominators, they're selling. When Mac ports to the
> PC next year, most of the Linux child companies will go under
> financially. It's (Mac) Unix based, fast, and runs alot of the
> Linux/Unix programs out of the box. If something isn't done soon,
> Linux may find itself once again delegated to scientific applications
> in obscure classrooms.
> The complaining about Windows/Mac is irrelevant. They are the two
> operating systems of choice for the majority of people. Open source is
> coming around, but how can a company or individual make a living
> giving away their product. And, if you can't make a living doing it,
> why do it.
> I leave the subject wide open. I love Linux, and enjoy the time I
> spend learning it, however, 95% of the computer buying public doesn't
> want to" learn", they want to "use".

I don't know what kind of distro you are using... but mine has a nice GUI en
a very easy installation program.

The cable guy came by today and he didn't recognise it was Linux. He was
looking for the startbutton by going to the edges of the screen.. but of
course did not find any.... when he pressed the windows button, the music
jumped on Smile

(amaroK)

then he found Firefox on the main screen and went his way installing the new
cable modem, without realizing he was even using Linux. He did ask me if it
was the new windows Vista... but of course it's not... so who is ahead of
the other now?
--
A female beauty is something to take notice of, your OS isn't

Patrick Grimbergen · External Since: Jun 01, 2005 Posts: 151

JDS wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:03:42 +0000, ODS2 wrote:
>
>> True enough! However, when the general public user goes to install a
>> program, they don't want to go through the command line. They don't want
>> to figure out whether they have the correct distro. They want it to work.
>> Yeah, it's a bit lazy, but that's what the world wants in an operating
>> system
>
> So, when was the last time you used a major Linux distro? 1995?
>

I'd say before that.... Even in those days Linux was quite advanced.

But I must admit that in the last couple of years it has become more
intuitive. You don't really have to learn Linux anymore... if you're new to
computers... you just jump in and get going...

I do pay attention to packages for the correct distro, but I don't have
to... I can just as easily install .deb, .rpm or .tgz files by using
kpackage as I can install .rpm for SuSE via YaST.

Also one could use .package files that are cross-distro or klik:// that just
makes it possible to click and run like a Mac does.

Anyway... I hardly use the commandline
--
A female beauty is something to take notice of, your OS isn't

Patrick Grimbergen · External Since: Jun 01, 2005 Posts: 151

JDS wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 13:01:36 +0200, Patrick Grimbergen wrote:
>
>> The cable guy came by today and he didn't recognise it was Linux. He was
>> looking for the startbutton by going to the edges of the screen.. but of
>> course did not find any.... when he pressed the windows button, the music
>> jumped on Smile

(amaroK)
>>
>> then he found Firefox on the main screen and went his way installing the
>> new cable modem, without realizing he was even using Linux. He did ask me
>> if it was the new windows Vista... but of course it's not... so who is
>> ahead of the other now?
>
> Good story.
>

The best part is that it really did happen today at around 12 noon CEST (GMT
+1)
--
A female beauty is something to take notice of, your OS isn't