LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 06-12-2003, 10:51 PM   #151
rhuser_bwood
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Distribution: Redhat 9
Posts: 5

Rep: Reputation: 0

I agree. Those who prefer traditional/power-user Linux would benefit from hardware vendors adding support. I thought Lindows was flaky, but it does serve a purpose. Besides, I don't think anyone wants Palladium/Longhorn to kill Linux, but that's what will happen if 90% go for the "Trusted Software" scam.
 
Old 06-13-2003, 03:05 AM   #152
slakmagik
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,113

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally posted by hotrodowner
It sounds to me like you haven't tried one of the minimalist versions of Linux. Why not try some of those single CD versions out there, and come back with complaints. I personally recommend vector <although my video card is stuck at 16 colors>.
*points at Distros field* I am running Vector. Which is bloated compared to the other distro I'm running - BasicLinux 1.8. *g*

Maybe I should try Tom's root-boot.

(And, hey - me, too. I can't get Vector and my monitor to get along at all - one monitor either died or got blown and now I've got an old Compaq V75 and an S3 Trio that WfW 3.11 can display at 800x600 and 256 colors but can't get Vector to do the same. Looks like hell. I'm not sure if you were saying your video card could only do 16 or you could only get it to do 16 with Vector - if you ever get it to do better, let me know how. )

But, no, I'm not complaining about Linux at all. - Well, I can't say that cuz I do complain but just in the usual love-hate way. I think stuff could be improved in Linux such as the keyboard situation. But Linux is great. My bitch is about the lack of a valid open source OS that isn't Linux. In other words, I could see tinkering with Linux but I don't want any fundamental changes that go against the spirit of Linux or to make it more Windows-like. Blah - anything but.

And, like I say, one of my main points wasn't anti-Linux and certainly not pro-Microsoft, but just wondering about why there really isn't an Open Source community so much as a *nix-derivative community. You can have a better security model than 9x without assuming that the system's going to be multi-user or a server - which my boxes aren't. You can have a simpler file system when you're not worried about spool overruns. You can definitely have a cleaner GUI if you don't assume it's server based and if it doesn't have all these competing toolkits. That sort of thing. I'm not saying *Linux* should be without these things but just that the coolest thing in Linux to me is 6 consoles and not an X server I can log into remotely or whatever. A lot of the stuff just isn't real necessary or useful and yet is a headache to configure, to backup, or just to 'cd' through, even. I don't know. Maybe a few years from now I'll know every file on my Linux system by name and know what they all do and what I can delete or move and so on and I'll be perfectly happy, but I doubt that. Because Linux is still essentially a port of a mainframe system to an x86 platform and I just think it'd be awesome to have a native x86 OS. But, as I also say, if there isn't such a thing with real support behind it, then I'm cool with Linux.
 
Old 06-13-2003, 08:40 AM   #153
mattman
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 49

Rep: Reputation: 15
ok, i wasnt gonna post again, cause i said pretty much everything i have to say about the origional topic, but (as usual), i cant keep my mouth shut

first off, define mainstream. if your talking about an OS that is good for everyone under the sun, then i totally and completely disagree. if you are talking about maybe, 15% of the population who is willing to actually learn stuff, then i agree. personally, i think lindows went wayyyy too far, at that point it isnt an introduction to linux, its linux hiding behind the scenes, and the system would become totally unusable if something broke that the GUI tools couldnt fix. that isnt an introduction to linux, thats windows 98.


as for needing something more for a home desktop environment rather then a mainframe, again i disagree. how many people with highbandwidth have personal web pages on geocities? why? just set up a webserver. its not too hard, you dont need crazy hardware, all you need is a decent connection. I alwas have an ftp server up, not for the general public, just for friends to share mp3s, movies, programs they've wrote, etc... personally, i think having my own mailserver is the coolest thing, i dont have any limitations on usernames, etc. i can email myself files of any size i want. with ssh, i have access to the command line from anywhere with internet, even if someone else is using my computer (the whole multi-user aspect) garbage laptop? just open up a remote x session, and presto, you can run anything your desktop can. (mozilla and gnome on a 386, woohoo!)

you know what? this is what i use my desktop computer to do. not a mainframe. my desktop. thats what i expect it to do. I understand the talk about making a desktop OS rather then a mainframe port, but you know what? linux offers me the flexibility and power to do these things with my desktop, if you gave me the choice between linux and a non-multiuser, unsecure, user friendly (yet with little power or control), i would turn you down, because my idea of a desktop differs from alot of other peoples.
 
Old 06-13-2003, 09:01 AM   #154
hotrodowner
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Distribution: Too many to count
Posts: 368

Rep: Reputation: 30
I think people need to realize, that with Linux being open source, they can do whatever they want to with it to meet their needs, they just want someone else to know what they want for them. That doesn't work. Like I said the first time, if you want Linux to do something, or be something, then MAKE Linux do what you want it to. You dont have to go complaining to other companies like Mandrake, or Red Hat; you know what you want, do it yourself!!!
 
Old 06-13-2003, 11:20 AM   #155
ricdave
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 222

Rep: Reputation: 31
<< first off, define mainstream. if your talking about an OS that is good for everyone under the sun, then i totally and completely disagree. if you are talking about maybe, 15% of the population who is willing to actually learn stuff, then i agree.>>

<<I think people need to realize, that with Linux being open source, they can do whatever they want to with it to meet their needs, they just want someone else to know what they want for them. That doesn't work. Like I said the first time, if you want Linux to do something, or be something, then MAKE Linux do what you want it to. You dont have to go complaining to other companies like Mandrake, or Red Hat; you know what you want, do it yourself!!!>>

If your attitude prevails, Linux on the desktop remains a toy for geeks. And that is good for you. Nothing that I want threatens your experience.
Apple did what I would like to see in Linux with BSD. Apple users were apple to switch seamlessly to OSX.

Geekified Apple users such as yourselves(remember now, the operative expression here is geekified, not Apple) still have CLI and all of the neat 'nix tools. Why would this a bad thing for Linux?
 
Old 06-13-2003, 01:07 PM   #156
hotrodowner
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Distribution: Too many to count
Posts: 368

Rep: Reputation: 30
well, first, why is it that every time a person actually knows how to use a computer, there termed a geek? What was Apple's incentive to anticipate what people want? I'll tell you , money. What was Microsoft's <besides global domination...>, money! The people that want the programmers to anticipate what they want, are the people that complain when it isn't right. You have three options:
1) do it yourself
2) pay someone else to do it
3) deal with it
The people in the open source COMMUNITY make linux do what THEY want it to. If you can't do it yourself, pay someone else to. Hire your own programmer, tell them what you want, and then pay them $100's of dollars for it. That what you get with Microsoft and Apple. If you don't want to learn it, and be lazy, then you must either not use, deal with it, or pay someone else. Thats how human economy works. Where not going to bend over backward to please you for free. It's the lazy people that do nothing, that don't make it in life. You can't treat us, just cause Linux is available for free, like were your parents or slaves; and it's our job to please you for nothing. Grow up and stop complaining to others for not doing what you want.
 
Old 06-13-2003, 02:41 PM   #157
mattman
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 49

Rep: Reputation: 15
you see, this is an opinion i think is wrong, and have said it to many people both online and off. making linux more user friendly and accessable is one thing, TURNING it into a user friendly OS is something totally different.

setup.exe would be easy, yes. but you would have to have all libraries statically linked, which means significately larger binaries, both in memory and disc space.

the /etc is big and complicated, why not hide it like windows does? cause having a registry is one of the worst things windows ever did.

multi user systems are complicated, why not make linux single user? because multi user systems mean better security, how many linux virii are there out there? not many, thats because as a normal user, you cant mess that much stuff up, so there isnt as much point in writing the virus.

i could go on and on.

the other point is, how is linux just a geek toy? i mean, install mandrake or SuSE for you average secretary, show them how to launch open office, and they are able to work just as productivly on a linux box as a windows box. people here tend to forget, OS installation, configuration, and software installation are all administrative tasks, when it comes to the actual end user, with all the progress linux has made for the desktop in recent years, it isnt too much harder then windows.

one other thing to consider, i was reading a charlie rose interview with linus torvalds the other day, charlie asked him to name the best and worst things about windows. linus said he didnt like microsoft bashing but charlie pushed very hard. eventually, linus basically said the best thing about the wiindows OS is that its widely used and widely available. charlie said, well thats damning with faint praise, linus said basically, there are two keys to the windows phenomenon. first, microsoft knows what users want, and gives it to them. not what the users need, what they want. and microsoft is quite good at that. secondly, everyone is used to windows and windows conventions. people like what they are comfortable with, that is why microsoft is able to sell OS after OS and people will buy them.

just something to consider, yes linux is hard. but how much of that is because your used to microsoft, and find different sets of standards and conventions confusing? something that is totally different then what your used to may seem incomprehensable at first, but if you apply yourself, you get pased that very fast. linux make alot of sense, just not in a microsoft fashion. im not saying linux is easy, not by a long shot, but it is WAY easier then its reputation makes it, and is very accessable to those who own a computer, and dont mind reading up on stuff.
 
Old 06-13-2003, 08:49 PM   #158
ricdave
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 222

Rep: Reputation: 31
well, first, why is it that every time a person actually knows how to use a computer, there termed a geek? What was Apple's incentive to anticipate what people want? I'll tell you , money. What was Microsoft's <besides global domination...>, money! The people that want the programmers to anticipate what they want, are the people that complain when it isn't right. You have three options:
1) do it yourself
2) pay someone else to do it
3) deal with it

I have neither the expertise nor the desire to acquire the expertise to do it myself. That's not what I bought a computer to do. I bought the computer to do work I need done. I did not buy the computer so I could do work on it. I bought the computer so I would not have to deal with many of the less attractive chores of doing business. I did not buy a computer to create more chores. The computer is a tool.
I pay for my tools, and I pay well for quality tools. I am Linux's best friend. I am a consumer who knows what I want and will pay for it. I am not a freeloader.
 
Old 06-13-2003, 08:53 PM   #159
hotrodowner
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Distribution: Too many to count
Posts: 368

Rep: Reputation: 30
Thats too bad, I am definately a freeloader. I cann't stand to pay money for software. I just think this thread has got a little out of hand, and the topic needs to be dropped. This is one of those questions that can be argued forever, and is totally based on personal opinion.
 
Old 06-13-2003, 08:53 PM   #160
ricdave
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 222

Rep: Reputation: 31
<< setup.exe would be easy, yes. but you would have to have all libraries statically linked, which means significately larger binaries, both in memory and disc space. >>

Utter nonsense. I am not tech oriented, and I can think of at least 2 ways of doing a "setup.exe" thing without static links.
 
Old 06-13-2003, 08:55 PM   #161
hotrodowner
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Distribution: Too many to count
Posts: 368

Rep: Reputation: 30
and what are they?
 
Old 06-13-2003, 09:11 PM   #162
ricdave
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 222

Rep: Reputation: 31
apt-get with debian, for one. Also used in Xandros. Xandros has come the closest IMHO to assembling and marketing a truly competitive desktop OS. Not quite there yet, but getting close.
A simple shell script which runs something like this for tar.gz files

tar -zxvf <filename>
mv <filename> <filename>
cd <filename>
./<filename>

This is all pretty standard. Could also give option of automated install or the user could take control and download/move/install to wherever he pleased.
 
Old 06-13-2003, 09:23 PM   #163
ricdave
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 222

Rep: Reputation: 31
<< just something to consider, yes linux is hard. but how much of that is because your used to microsoft, and find different sets of standards and conventions confusing? something that is totally different then what your used to may seem incomprehensable at first, but if you apply yourself, you get pased that very fast. linux make alot of sense, just not in a microsoft fashion. im not saying linux is easy, not by a long shot, but it is WAY easier then its reputation makes it, and is very accessable to those who own a computer, and dont mind reading up on stuff.>>

And yet, OSX is easy, user friendly, gives people not only what they want but also what they need. Would I pay for an Apple type OS on the PC. You bet, especially if the business oriented software base is available. Why don't I just buy an Apple? The software I am required to use by statute and regs(re: FDA, EPA)are just not available.
 
Old 06-13-2003, 11:43 PM   #164
slakmagik
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,113

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally posted by mattman
...as for needing something more for a home desktop environment rather then a mainframe, again i disagree. how many people with highbandwidth have personal web pages on geocities? why? just set up a webserver. its not too hard, you dont need crazy hardware, all you need is a decent connection. I alwas have an ftp server up, not for the general public, just for friends to share mp3s, movies, programs they've wrote, etc... personally, i think having my own mailserver is the coolest thing, i dont have any limitations on usernames, etc. i can email myself files of any size i want. with ssh, i have access to the command line from anywhere with internet, even if someone else is using my computer (the whole multi-user aspect) garbage laptop? just open up a remote x session, and presto, you can run anything your desktop can. (mozilla and gnome on a 386, woohoo!)

you know what? this is what i use my desktop computer to do. not a mainframe. my desktop. thats what i expect it to do. I understand the talk about making a desktop OS rather then a mainframe port, but you know what? linux offers me the flexibility and power to do these things with my desktop, if you gave me the choice between linux and a non-multiuser, unsecure, user friendly (yet with little power or control), i would turn you down, because my idea of a desktop differs from alot of other peoples.
Now that's pretty persuasive. I'm stuck with low bandwidth dialup but some day...

And actually, hotrodowner, that's just it - this can be talked about forever, so why not? I feel like it's heating up a bit in here but just tossing around the points of view is cool by me - I've found a lot of this thread pretty enlightening. Hell, now I think maybe I do want a server. *g*
 
Old 06-14-2003, 06:03 AM   #165
hotrodowner
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Distribution: Too many to count
Posts: 368

Rep: Reputation: 30
well, for me personally, I think I'm gonna get out of this thread, I got things to do, people to see, 120 MHz computers to sell as routers see-ya'll later!!
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
File system for both Windows and Linux nonoitall Linux - Newbie 6 11-16-2005 11:33 AM
Can't mount windows file system kaega2 Linux - Software 4 05-29-2005 11:12 AM
Does anyone have any experience with installing two or even 3 linux operation system? babyboss Linux - Distributions 2 10-23-2004 04:33 AM
some problem about multi operation system ,help me, xyuren Linux - General 4 05-10-2004 07:08 AM
Why not build an OS Exactly like windows in operation and file system???? arun79 General 3 06-03-2003 06:44 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration