●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load 500 More Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byMikkeles ( 698461 ) writes:
'...is it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?'
Good luck.
bybonch ( 38532 ) writes:
That part in the summary amused me:
[I]s it time to concentrate on consolidation and standardisation in GNU/Linux in general, and the desktop in particular?"
It was time ten years ago when Linux was first gaining real momentum in that area. I remember posting Slashdot comments about it and getting told Linux was about "choice" and that if I didn't like it, I should contribute code. Ten years later, even Google is bashing Linux for it. I bet nothing will change even now.
Linux is a server OS, only used on th
byosu-neko ( 2604 ) writes:
Linux is a server OS, only used on the desktop by enthusiasts.
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts. People who run Ubuntu should do so because that's what they like. People who run Mac OS X should do so because that's what they like. People who run Windows should do so because that's what they like. If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
Accept it, because the kind of standardized APIs that are needed are not going to happen with the attitudes that this community has.
Indeed. If we were to reject that attitude and simply standardize around a single way because it's best if everyone runs the same, we'd all run Windows. There's no logical argument that can be made for rejecting running Windows but advocating a standardized API for all Linux platforms. The argument for a standardized API is an argument against having multiple operating systems to begin with. Someone who thinks every Linux-based OS should have the same look, feel, toolkit, API (beyond the Linux kernel), etc. but accepts the notion that we shouldn't all just standardize around Windows is in a state of cognitive dissonance, holding logically imcompatible ideas to be simultaneously true. That's not so amazing as the fact that they've managed to maintain it for ten years...
Setting aside the logical contradictions of your point of view for the moment, and just out of curiosity, when you say "that are needed" -- needed for what? I'm unaware of any objective that an OS should have (keep my computer running, my multiple programs sharing resources effectively, my data safe, etc.) that would require other operating systems to run the same API as me. Why would it matter if my Debian desktop and your Fedora desktop are different? And why would it be more important and somehow more tragic that our two computers are different when it's not likewise tragic that my Debian desktop and my friend's Windows desktop are different? Why is one case of difference bad but the answer is not for all three of us to adopt the more popular standard, rather that for some reason two of us should and one should not?
Parent
twitter
facebook
bydave562 ( 969951 ) writes:
In the context of the story, the issue at hand is that Google is being pressured by "the Linux community" to develop a version of their browser "for Linux". If your Debian desktop is different than my Fedora desktop, then we can't both run Chrome. Either Google targets Fedora, or Debian, or OpenBSD, or, or or... That's the "problem" (challenge?) with "developing for Linux." In many instances there isn't a Linux standard. Even different flavors of Linux have different versions of the kernel. If the ker
●rrent threshold.
byPeter La Casse ( 3992 ) writes:
In the context of the story, the issue at hand is that Google is being pressured by "the Linux community" to develop a version of their browser "for Linux". If your Debian desktop is different than my Fedora desktop, then we can't both run Chrome. Either Google targets Fedora, or Debian, or OpenBSD, or, or or...
If the code base is already cross-platform, then the idiosyncrasies of different Linux distributions are minor; making it run on Debian and Fedora is much easier than making it run on Windows and Mac
byPeterBrett ( 780946 ) writes:
Yes, when distributing binaries one must target not only a specific distribution, but a specific release and a specific CPU architecture as well.
This is not true. If you make a binary installer with your own link libraries for all of the dependencies you need, you can successfully make a closed-source release which works on just about any kernel since 2.6 with the correct architecture. The Linux userspace ABI is very stable.
If you want to use open-source libraries that would make such a binary blob legally difficult, that's your choice.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byPeter La Casse ( 3992 ) writes:
I stand corrected. Is X as binary compatible as the kernel?
byPeterBrett ( 780946 ) writes:
Yes: don't forget that X is a client-server architecture, and that the protocol has been stabilised & standardised for years. You don't have to be using a client library which matches the server version, although that might affect what X extensions you can use.
The client-server stuff is what makes X so interesting (and powerful) IMHO.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Confirmed. I'm actually working on a large proprietary app (yes we do often submit improvements to projects we make use of ;), and a binary-only, pre-built single-distribution release to run on several moderately similarly-dated x86 distributions can be implemented relatively easily. That's not to say that it's a snap, but it can be done with moderate trouble, even with a very "special" (one could say weird) application.
Of course it's very debatable whether it is a good idea to distribute one single binary
byalexandre_ganso ( 1227152 ) writes:
you don't really expect to see 3d studio or maya open sourced, are you?
byActually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) writes:
If the code base is already cross-platform, then the idiosyncrasies of different Linux distributions are minor; making it run on Debian and Fedora is much easier than making it run on Windows and MacOS
Going from Windows to Windows + MacOS grows the possible market by 6-7%. Going from Windows + MacOS to Windows + MacOS + Fedora + Debian grows by... maybe 1% at what kind of cost increase?
Yes, when distributing binaries one must target not only a specific distribution, but a specific release and a specific CP
byGigaplexNZ ( 1233886 ) writes:
That's why the x86 architecture was standardized upon. No one bothers running anything else.
No-one bothers running 64-bit? I find that hard to believe.
byActually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) writes:
No-one bothers running 64-bit?
x64 is backwards compatible with x86. And there's only one x64 architecture. So, while your point is true, my overarching point still stands.
byPeter La Casse ( 3992 ) writes:
Going from Windows to Windows + MacOS grows the possible market by 6-7%. Going from Windows + MacOS to Windows + MacOS + Fedora + Debian grows by... maybe 1% at what kind of cost increase?
At a minimal cost increase, because your program is well-designed. Your program iswell-designed, right?
In the context of the story, the decision to develop a cross-platform application has already been made. We're discussing how hard that is given the variety of Linux distributions. As someone else pointed out, it's
bydaver00 ( 1336845 ) writes:
Somebody didn't RTFA (I know who expects you to, really). I will distill it down for you:
Chrome on Windows: Hacked to be funky and unique, non standard libraries for rendering, etc.
Chrome for Mac: Easy to replicate windows experience using standard OSX API's.
Chrome on Linux: Clusterfuck, standard API's are not standard, and not good enough. Hacks will not be cross platform, difficulties everywhere.
Basically the question was posed: Do we even bother to try and replicate the windows chrome experience? Or simply put our fast little engine inside a totally different visual experience?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byzsau ( 266209 ) writes:
The answer to that is trivial. It's not up to individual software packages to define a unique visual experience. MacOS with its diversity of toolkits and configurable UI experience is hard for me to use;[1] and least with Linux is obvious how you can avoid all non-Gtk+ 2 apps. (Well, I use xterm and xpdf and Skype: the first two precisely because they have almost no UI experience at all, and Skype because I have no choice.) Linux-on-the-desktop is really basically two words: Gtk/Gnome and Qt/KDE. Once you a
byIBBoard ( 1128019 ) writes:
Basically the question was posed: Do we even bother to try and replicate the windows chrome experience? Or simply put our fast little engine inside a totally different visual experience?
For the love of god, please let the developers use a different visual experience! A fast new browser is great, but if the developers are going to make it look and behave in a non-standard way then I don't want it. Running Safari on Windows looks out of place. Running Safari on most editions of OS X looks out of place. Runnin
byardle ( 523599 ) writes:
If the code base is already cross-platform, then the idiosyncrasies of different Linux distributions are minor; making it run on Debian and Fedora is much easier than making it run on Windows and MacOS. A variety of fine cross platform toolkits and languages exist.
Are you suggesting Chrome should be written in Java? ;-)
byMrHanky ( 141717 ) writes:
Wrong. Debian, Fedora, OpenBSD, etc., can all use the same libraries, and do. OpenBSD isn't Linux, though, so that's irrelevant. Developers target one set of libraries and stick to those. Basically, you have noe idea what you're talking about, and would be better off if you chose to shut up. So why spout a lot of idiotic drivel? You have nothing constructive, only re-hashed nonsense that's neither correct nor fixable.
byGigaplexNZ ( 1233886 ) writes:
If the kernel isn't even standard across distros, how are they supposed to standardize an API across them?
Simple. Standardise on the vanilla kernel, and let the distros deal with any incompatibilities their tweaks introduce.
● current threshold.
bycyberthanasis12 ( 926691 ) writes:
firefox, openoffice, apache and more.
gcc, python, perl and more.
supertux, xmoto, doom (these are exceptions, but still..).
So?
byCoonAss56 ( 927862 ) writes:
Why all this handwringing? Do any of us Linux users need Chrome? Hell, NO!!! If the Firefox developers can make a cross platform can build a browers that works VERY WELL why the hell can't the Google devs? Please calm down everyone. This is just some chicken little a$$hole whining and stirring up s#it.
byJim Hall ( 2985 ) writes:
In the context of the story, the issue at hand is that Google is being pressured by "the Linux community" to develop a version of their browser "for Linux". If your Debian desktop is different than my Fedora desktop, then we can't both run Chrome. Either Google targets Fedora, or Debian, or OpenBSD, or, or or... That's the "problem" (challenge?) with "developing for Linux."
When big-iron UNIX systems were everywhere, the vendors realized the same problem about every system looking slightly different. So they created the FHS (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard.
When Linux distros started to become popular, the Linux vendors came to the same realization, and defined the FSSTND (Filesystem Standard.)
The next step in the evolution is to define a standard toolset & API. What is the minimum base set of API that a system needs to allow 3rd party developers (like Google) to develop to a
bypdusen ( 1146399 ) writes:
Sure, you can run Creative Suite on a PC, but I don't know a single graphic designer who does it. They all run it on OSX.
You could have saved yourself a lot of time and said the same thing by saying
I don't know a single graphic designer.
●our current threshold.
byjacksonj04 ( 800021 ) writes:
A standardised API doesn't mean that there can only be one operating system, it just means there's a generally accepted way of making the operating system do what you want without having to alter your code for every different platform.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byPflipp ( 130638 ) writes:
And that's exactly why there are so many standard APIs...
bymartin-boundary ( 547041 ) writes:
People who say that usually don't know how to program portably.
There's nothing wrong with having many APIs, what's wrong is for your
program to use them directly. A properly designed program should
have an abstraction layer that separates the program logic from the direct interface with the OS.
byjacksonj04 ( 800021 ) writes:
Whilst I know where you're coming from, I have to disagree. The only reason you need abstraction layers in a lot of places is because of the lack of standard APIs.
bymartin-boundary ( 547041 ) writes:
There's more benefits to be gained from portable coding practices than just portability though. It's an amazingly useful bugfinder. I can't count how many times I found something iffy that showed up when the code was run on a different architecture.
●our current threshold.
bytheshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) writes:
If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
I guess you have problems. I for one have stopped using Linux and switched back to Windows because I am tired of things not working without hours of hacking and configuring. I want to use on board RAID without pulling my hair out. I know it is not as good as hardware RAID but it still provides redundancy. I am sick and fucking tired of the stupidity of calling it fake raid and refusing to support it. It is not fake, it stripes and
byvadim_t ( 324782 ) writes:
I am sick and fucking tired of the stupidity of calling it fake raid and refusing to support it. It is not fake, it stripes and mirrors the same as all raid. So it doesn't have all the features and uses some of the cpu resource to run, it is still real raid.
It is fake. There's no RAID on that board. You get no increased performance from it. All you have is a config app in the BIOS. The actual RAID happens in 100% software in the Windows driver for it.
Linux has a software RAID that works just as good, and wh
bytheshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) writes:
I must be imagining Red Hat, and Novell, and IBM, and Apple (KHTML is LGPL), and a few other companies.
How about Cubase? Or any other good DAW. Don't tell me that there is a very good Linux project that does this because there isn't. Nothing in Linux even comes close because the license is too restrictive. They would have to give away their code and end up losing money. They make their money from software sales not support. Only very big systems can get away with the selling support paradigm.
Or how about
bydbIII ( 701233 ) writes:
Your point is completely incorrect. Even Halliburton sell linux applications - can you see them giving away code to lose money?
As for incredibly hard to find SATA RAID cards that run under linux that is incorrect - a real RAID card runs on pretty well anything including MSDOS. 3ware are pretty good but there are many others. Promise used to be utter crap on any platform (had one on a win2k server and a couple of linux boxes for a while - didn't actually lose any data but the cards had intermittant failur
bysmoker2 ( 750216 ) writes:
BTW, it is unbelievably hard to find SATA RAID cards that are recognized by Linux (same reason it's hard to find good progams).
Silicon Image, Inc. SiI 3114 [SATALink/SATARaid] Serial ATA Controller
Found on various boards, cost less than £10 each. I have 4, and each has 4 ports. Picked up instantly by an existing install of FC4.
Maybe you're not looking hard enough (or at all). Haven't looked for a SATA II version yet.
byvadim_t ( 324782 ) writes:
Smoke some more. BTW, it is unbelievably hard to find SATA RAID cards that are recognized by Linux (same reason it's hard to find good progams).
Pull the wool over your eyes a little further. It feels better when you can't see the real world.
Real RAID is perfectly well supported by Linux.
But real RAID is not found on consumer motherboards. As a card it's something that could cost you about $400 or so. If it only does RAID0 and RAID1, it's not a real card.
The supposed advantage of doing RAID in hardware is of
byBKX ( 5066 ) writes:
I suppose this is feeding the trolls, but I'll bite...
The reason they called your on-board raid fake-raid, is because it is. It's just average, everyday run-of-the-mill software raid with a bios-based setup program and special Windows-only drivers. That's your real problem right there. The drivers are windows-only. Now, of course, Linux will use your on-board mirrored Windows partitions just fine (and, with a bit of coaxing, you might even get the mirroring part to work.). And Linux has it's own software raid that's just as good as your on-board "raid" (because it's practically the same thing). It comes with every modern distribution and works on every modern kernel.
If you really want dual-boot raid with Windows, bust out a higher-end version of Windows that can do actual Windows software raid, with the dynamic disks and all. Linux supports dynamic disks without any real fuss, mirroring, striping, raid-5 and everything else. Windows versions include Vista Ultimate, and any version with 2k in it.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byBlakey Rat ( 99501 ) writes:
So then, instead of those Linux a-holes making fun of "fake RAID" and refusing to do anything to support or configure it, why don't they be non-a-holes and actually help this person set up software RAID? Especially if (as you claim) software RAID is equivalent in every way?
byvadim_t ( 324782 ) writes:
Here you go. [com.com]. Any questions?
byBlakey Rat ( 99501 ) writes:
I'm not the one who had the problem. You don't need to link me the article; I don't care, and it only demonstrates that you completely misunderstood my point.
The point I was trying to make is that while the Linux experts that the poster who had the problem were ranting and raving about how his RAID hardware was "fake RAID" and it only works with Windows drivers and Microsoft is satan, etc...
While they were ranting, it turns out that Linux had a perfectly good alternative that they (apparently) never brought
byvadim_t ( 324782 ) writes:
Hard to believe. There are two replies to that post in this thread (one mine), and both mention the existence of software RAID. Both Linux and Windows have software RAID, and it's been there for ages, too. It's not a particularly mysterious feature.
I should note that this showmethecanuck guy told me to "Smoke some more" and "Pull the wool over your eyes a little further", so with that sort of attitude I can't see a discussion going well in any case.
The point I was trying to make is that while the Linux expe
byAlXtreme ( 223728 ) writes:
Constantly having to use second rate programs because the the GPL is so restrictive and viral that no software vendor wants to deal with it. As much as people spout 'open source' it isn't. It places as hard or harder restrictions on its use as any proprietary software, they are just different restrictions. But it definitely is not open.
Now you're clearly trolling/FUDing. There are plenty of proprietary apps for Linux, either as drivers (Nvidia) or as userland software (mostly for servers), and if you are merely using FLOSS there are hardly any restrictions at all. When was the last time you saw a EULA when you installed a FLOSS application?
The reason companies don't target desktop Linux is because it's only a tiny fraction of the market. The GPL has nothing to do with it. It's business, plain and simple.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bycalmofthestorm ( 1344385 ) writes:
The GPL is only viral in the sense that microsoft is viral. If I use MS source code, I am required to release my code to Microsoft under their control and copyright, and am almost certainly an employee.
The GPL grants you additional freedoms on top of this. Viral is just a criticism whiny people use because they want something shiny for free.
If authors of free software want to complain about viral GPL, I can see something of their criticism, but companies are just playing smoke, mirrors, and hypocrite.
You want to talk about proliferation of incompatible free software licenses that's fair, but whining that requiring other people to give back what you used is no sillier or more restrictive than charging $10/unit for others to use your code.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byBeetle B. ( 516615 ) writes:
The GPL grants you additional freedoms on top of this. Viral is just a criticism whiny people use because they want something shiny for free.
Thank you for pointing out that the GPL is not, in fact, free.
●th your current threshold.
bydrsmithy ( 35869 ) writes:
If I use MS source code, I am required to release my code to Microsoft under their control and copyright, and am almost certainly an employee.
The problem is that the people behind the GPL like to define "use" as "link against". Microsoft, does not.
bybonefry ( 979930 ) writes:
> If I use MS source code, I am required to release my code to Microsoft under their control and copyright
You're picking on a non-issue ... if you're using the .NET/Win32 apis then you're not required to release your source code to anyone's control. In fact you are free to release your source code under whatever license you want ... proprietary, BSD, GPL.
That's not the case with GPL. Surely using LGPL is a lot more reasonable ... in fact LGPL is my license of choice.
But I don't think the OSI open-source
bycalmofthestorm ( 1344385 ) writes:
Different licenses for different purposes. Personally, I don't want my code ending up in a product for which the code isn't available under similar terms (or more accurately the code for which I don't mind I BSD or LGPL). I could sell it, but instead I choose to license it this way.
Since writing code is not how I make my money, I have choice in how I receive compensation for it and I choose to require additional software for the community.
I refuse to attack BSD etc folks because I see them as making a diffe
by4D6963 ( 933028 ) writes:
The community can't get it's shit together enough to do it.
Well, that's what you get for choosing an anarchic project management style. It's like the FOSS community is just waking up to the fact that it's hard to do something coherent when anyone only does what they want. The forces of the people involved put together are mighty, and produce great tools, but the Linux crowd really is just a mob. They can do a lot together, but they're a mob, not an army.
To further the mob/army analogy, they want to invade the empire of Microsoft. It can't happen, a mob can't do that. Apple has a better shot at it, because of their wise dictator and well-trained army.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byZoolander ( 590897 ) writes:
To further further that analogy, quite a few of these mobsters have joined together to form something more like armies. I'm thinking of Ubuntu, Red Hat and Suse, to name the largest ones.
They are projects using free software, but guided by strong leadership.
These are the one who have a shot at making a dent in the armours of Microsoft and Apple.
by4D6963 ( 933028 ) writes:
Well, that's correct, but they're more like barbarian tribes. Not that barbarian tribes can't do great things, but none of the ones we're talking about have the power to make significant dents in the desktop world.
Look at the Ubuntu project, when you think of all it takes to make a desktop OS, it's a relatively modest undertaking. They don't write the OS from the bottom up or anything like that, all they do is cobble up some pre-existing projects as nicely as they can.
There's a reason why Apple would have n
byLaurence0 ( 832251 ) writes:
Are these the same barbarian tribes who sacked the Roman Empire when it got complacent and lazy?
by4D6963 ( 933028 ) writes:
You so wish.
byRalphTheWonderLlama ( 927434 ) writes:
No, more like the ones that turned into... Nazi!
well, it was going to get there eventually
byjavilon ( 99157 ) writes:
Following the logic of your mob/army analogy, I will point that when Spain was invaded by France, we used guerrilla wars (actually "guerrilla" is a spanish word meaning "small war") and we got them out of our country. This has happened on a number of places.
So the bottom line is, we Linux advocates consider computing something we should control, not some foreign multinational. In that situation, a "mob" has a lot of chances to win the "war".
by4D6963 ( 933028 ) writes:
lol, I love the smell of wishful thinking in the morning. The peninsular war was the sudden and sneaky invasion of a nation by a powerful empire, which was then defended by not only the nation itself but its allies, one of which was the British empire. Yeah, that's a bit far off the desktop OS situation.
The desktop OS market is a market. You can make OSes that you control, but you can't control the market. You can conquer it, but the Microsoft empire got about 90% of it occupied already, and Apple about 9%.
by4D6963 ( 933028 ) writes:
lol, allow me to call you out on your wishful thinking. The Germanic tribes were huge. Period.
● your current threshold.
bySycraft-fu ( 314770 ) writes:
Is that most people who use computers are NOT going to be enthusiasts. They use computers because the computer is a tool. They have something they want done, maybe it is e-mail, maybe it is watching video, maybe it is playing games, maybe it is staring at hampsterdance.com all day, doesn't matter. They have something they wish to do and the computer is the tool to allow them to do it. Thus their concern is getting the variety of tool that allows them to do this with minimal fuss. They aren't interested in technical merits, they aren't interested in becoming "fans". They want the shit to work and get out of the way.
Normal users are not OS "enthusiasts" any more than normal people are hammer "enthusiasts". I really don't give a shit about hammers. I don't are how they are made, I don't care about their design, I don't care about their merits. What I care about is their ability to pound a nail in to what I want. So I'm going to get a hammer that does that well for me. In my case, it is a standard claw hammer, about 1 foot long. I'm not interested in technical arguments as to why I ought to like a sledge hammer better. Yes, there are things a sledge hammer can do mine can't. I don't give a shit, I don't do those things and a sledge hammer is rather heavy and unwieldy. I have the hammer I want, and that's all I want. I'm not an "enthusiast" I'm a user.
So for most people, this is how computers are. For technical people, sure the computer itself can be fun. The process of running the system can be as interesting as anything you might do with it. However technical people aren't most people. Most people just want to d various tasks with the computer, and they want to the computer to not cause them grief as they do said tasks.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bySalsaman ( 141471 ) writes:
Boy, you sound stressed. Must be using Windows that causes it.
bydbIII ( 701233 ) writes:
The above looks very familiar. If it isn't a repeat then it can be summed up as someone not wishing to learn about software RAID and assuming it is going to happen by magic without telling the computer about it (because in the other OS there is stuff telling the computer about it). Unfortunately years of single platform experience doesn't help much on different platforms - so you either have to learn about it or get somebody else to do it when things are a bit out of the mainstream.
The second portion abou
bytheshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) writes:
Using the word 'magic' means you are assuming I know little about computers. I worked on Unix systems as a programmer for around 10 years. Big systems that supported literally hundreds of thousands of accounts. Programming in C using shared objects, IPC, muliple processes, daemons, pro*c, the gammit. Also a lot of Java and PL/SQL (was considered to be one of the most advanced at PL/SQL in our company's offices in Saint Louis where we had at the time a couple of thousand programmers). Was a technical team le
bydbIII ( 701233 ) writes:
Using the word 'magic' means you are assuming I know little about computers
No, that is the wrong assumption. Where in one OS the installer tells it what to do in the other there is nothing to tell it what to do. It's a trap for new players in whatever niche (eg. software RAID) even if they know other bits of the system. It wasn't aimed at you but really at how most of us see the machines and how we get caught out by different systems. I can see from your final comment that you took it very personally and
bypdusen ( 1146399 ) writes:
Constantly having to use second rate programs because the the GPL is so restrictive and viral that no software vendor wants to deal with it. As much as people spout 'open source' it isn't. It places as hard or harder restrictions on its use as any proprietary software, they are just different restrictions.
Am I understanding this correctly? You are complaining about having to use 'second-rate' GPL programs because the GPL prevents software vendors from using their code? What?
byelashish14 ( 1302231 ) writes:
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts. People who run Ubuntu should do so because that's what they like. People who run Mac OS X should do so because that's what they like. People who run Windows should do so because that's what they like. If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
Oh, SURE. It has nothing to do with what's installed by default by the OEM. At least 90% of people that use computers use it because it does what they ask it to, NOT because it's what they chose or because they like it in particular. Any of the major 3 OS's do that for most people, but they just don't want to go through the hassle/risk of writing over their whole hard drive and possibly ending up in a worse situation than before, or because they just don't have the time/will/expertise to do it, no matter ho
bymurdocj ( 543661 ) writes:
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts.
And this attitude is exactly why linux remains marginal on the desktop. 99% of computer users do not use a computer because they are "enthusiasts". They use them to get tasks done. Browse the web. Read email. Watch videos. Do research. Run spreadsheets. They aren't "enthusiasts" any more than I am an auto enthusiast because I drive to work each day. The computer is a tool, not an end in itself.
byChees0rz ( 1194661 ) writes:
They aren't "enthusiasts" any more than I am an auto enthusiast because I drive to work each day.
After a while, it seems like car analogies just happen on accident. The magic of /.
bySmallpond ( 221300 ) writes:
Average drivers are in Kias. Enthusiasts are driving 1970 Jaguar E type. Who do you think enjoys it more even if they have to spend a few hours tinkering every week to get it to run?
As for the other points, I switched to Linux on the desktop because of the number of things that just don't work well enough in Windows, so to each their own.
bysmoker2 ( 750216 ) writes:
99% of computer lusers are not relevant to linux. I wish people would stop trying to force linux to conform to the ideas of people who just want a fucking appliance. Can you imagine ham radio enthusiasts being forced to fine tune their equipment and knowledge to suit people who only ever listen to FM pap radio ? Fucking piss off and do your own thing. You make the mistake of thinking that a majority of linux users want linux to be mainstream on the desktop. The only issue is hardware support, and that is a
bymurdocj ( 543661 ) writes:
You know, you might want to pay attention before starting your rant. The post I replied to said that ALL computer users are enthusiasts. I was merely pointing out that that isn't true.
And by the way, being interested in computers doesn't mean you have higher intelligence, it means you are interested in computers. But if it makes you feel superior, go for it. I suppose everyone has to have something to hang onto.
●neath your current threshold.
byqieurowfhbvdklsj ( 796402 ) writes:
There's no logical argument that can be made for rejecting running Windows but advocating a standardized API for all Linux platforms.
Then allow me to proprose an illogical one: The superiority of open source software.
Seriously, the fact that Linux has a thousand ways to do everything is a major problem. It not only affects the users, but it also affects developers who simply want to make a nice piece of software, but find it obscenely difficult due to everything else they have to deal with. Simplifying t
●neath your current threshold.
byBodrius ( 191265 ) writes:
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts.... If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
Er... Why is that a problem again?
Why can't billions of people use computers and technology to improve their lives *without* making their OS choice a matter of philosophy or identity? If they choose for more pragmatic reasons (requirements, price/value, simplicity), why is that a 'problem'?
Most people have only a few things in their life that really matter to them to the point you can call them 'enthusiasts'.
Most people use stamps without collecting them, drive cars without obsessing over engine models, drink wine without knowing merlot from cabernet, enjoy music without playing any instruments, use electricity without having the least idea about their house wiring... There are enthusiasts for everything, but as a matter of practicality (and probably mental health) humans have to pick the few things on which they invest their time and energy.
Fortunately, most enthusiast communities are not so arrogant that they assume everyone must share their interests and obsessions - as some kind of political or religious choice. They're the better for it.
Those who demand their pet interests to be *important* to everyone else demonstrate not just arrogance, but a selfishness that is most likely self-defeating.
Technology has continuously improved the standards of living of billions of people - but the greatest values of each advancement are only reached when they are so omnipresent and require so little training they're taken for granted. Billions of lives are saved/extended when electricity is in every building, when every child is vaccinated, etc. Computers are not different.
As a geek, I would like more people to become tech enthusiasts and share the same interests. But I'd also hope we recognize, considering the richness of the human experience, most people will (and should) care a lot less about the OS on their laptop than about most things in their daily life.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byjakykong ( 1474957 ) writes:
I don't personally care what OS people choose to run (unless, of course, it's my job to fix it). However, one thing I *do* care about -- and it's worth caring about for a lot more reasons than just being an enthusiast -- is the *ability* to run open source software.
I mean, for example, if the fritz chip became common practice, so you need to have your operating system cryptographically signed or what have you. Or, hardware vendors that refuse adamantly to release specs for their hardware. I don't even care
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Why can't billions of people use computers and technology to improve their lives *without* making their OS choice a matter of philosophy or identity?
Because people are defined by their action. When you pay the Microsoft tax, you fuel Microsoft's plans for world domination. This is only somewhat tongue-in-cheek when you consider the effect Microsoft has on markets worldwide. In a world which works mostly on the basis of capitalism, there is no more important decision you can make than where you spend your money.
●neath your current threshold.
bystoicfaux ( 466273 ) writes:
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts. People who run Ubuntu should do so because that's what they like. People who run Mac OS X should do so because that's what they like. People who run Windows should do so because that's what they like. If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
Computers are useful because of applications. The OS is just there to make it easy for apps to interface with the hardware, such as video cards and hard drives. The OS also supports the applications with APIs such as DirectX. The user doesn't and shouldn't have to care about the OS.
Now if you meant to say that application developers should be enthusiastic about the OS, then I would agree.
byalexandre_ganso ( 1227152 ) writes:
for having people developing decent applications for it. For having autodesk porting autocad. For others to say "I develop for linux".
But they won't. Because it's too much of a burden. And the api diversity has great guilt on it.
bykiddygrinder ( 605598 ) writes:
Every distro doesn't need to look the same, but having the same fucking sound subsytem wouldn't hurt anyone.
Allowing more companies to quickly throw out a linux version of their software in the most expedient manner allowable would not be a bad thing at all, yes it would mean more shovelware, but more support is still good at this stage.
Also most of your arguments ignore other factors.
I think standardisation is good, but so is open source, so i run linux... how am i in a state of cognitive dissonance?
byjedidiah ( 1196 ) writes:
Having multiple sound systems in Linux is just the effect of progress.
Multiple sound systems exist in Linux for the same reason that DirectX is not still at version 1.0.
So you would like that Linux was limited to 1998 era OSS? Is that really what you want?
● beneath your current threshold.
byJay L ( 74152 ) * writes:
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts. People who run Ubuntu should do so because that's what they like. People who run Mac OS X should do so because that's what they like. People who run Windows should do so because that's what they like. If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
Really? Which brand of paper clip do you use, and what made you decide to become an enthusiast for that brand?
Certainly, there are some people who ARE enthusiastic about a giv
byjaaron ( 551839 ) writes:
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts. ... If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
Expecting everyone to be an enthusiast is incredibly myopic. Most people don't care about their OS. Most don't care about their computer. They care about their paycheck, their family, and sometimes the work they have to do which often involves a computer.
Are you an enthusiasts about the car brand you drive? The type of pen you use to write with? The chair design you
bymangobrain ( 877223 ) writes:
Oh, balls.. forgot to log in. The above post was me.
byUzik2 ( 679490 ) writes:
>Someone who thinks every Linux-based OS should have the same look, feel, toolkit, API (beyond the Linux kernel), etc. but accepts the notion that we shouldn't all just standardize around Windows is in a state of cognitive dissonance
Windows design is controlled by an organization that puts ITS COMMERCIAL INTERESTS AHEAD OF EVERYTHING ELSE.
If it were run by someone who had its users interests as its primary goal I might agree.
byUzik2 ( 679490 ) writes:
>Someone who thinks every Linux-based OS should have the same look, feel, toolkit, API (beyond the Linux kernel), etc. but accepts the notion that we shouldn't all just standardize around Windows is in a state of cognitive dissonance
Sorry, html format got me.
Windows design is controlled by an organization that puts ITS COMMERCIAL INTERESTS AHEAD OF EVERYTHING ELSE. If it were run by someone who had its users interests as its primary goal I might agree.
byUzik2 ( 679490 ) writes:
>I'm unaware of any objective that an OS should have that would require other operating systems to run the same API as me.
How about facilitating interoperability. Which is why APIs were invented in the first place.
byHaeleth ( 414428 ) writes:
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts. People who run Ubuntu should do so because that's what they like. People who run Mac OS X should do so because that's what they like. People who run Windows should do so because that's what they like. If people are running an OS for some other reason, then we have problems...
Nonsense. Most people don't care about what OS they use; they just use whatever came with the computer (i.e. Windows). They "like" it when it lets them see the photos of some
bySean Hederman ( 870482 ) writes:
I would hope that all desktop OS's are used by enthusiasts
What tripe. Most desktop OS's are used by people who need them to get something done, that by no means makes them enthusiasts. This attitude is a sterling example of what so many in the Linux community don't grok. Most people couldn't give a continental about the OS. They just want it to do what they need it to do.
That's not so amazing as the fact that they've managed to maintain it for ten years...
Well, I've always been constantly amazed by the pe
●beneath your current threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...