[dundee] [jtsmoore@revolution-os.com: Re: Screening of Revolution OS]

[Mark Harrigan]

On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 08:33:19PM +0100, Andrew Clayton wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-07-19 at 19:03, Mark Harrigan wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 05:57:44PM +0100, Andrew Clayton wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2003-07-19 at 16:34, Mark Harrigan wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 01:32:57AM +0100, Andrew Clayton wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Personally, I started using Linux, because I wanted to run UNIX on my
> > > > > PC. It grew from there....
> > > > > 
> > > > I'd say that's my real reason too but that's kinda wanting to really
> > > > understand how the computer works... or should work.
> > > > 
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > > can't be bothered to learn a little?! People should stay in their own little
> > > > > > controlled world without sharp edges and potholes in that case.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Which is why it's good to have the likes of SuSE, Red Hat, Mandrake and
> > > > > Connectiva around. They pay people to do the stuff that other hackers
> > > > > don't want to do. e.g docs, nicey nicey stuff etc
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also having the likes of IBM/HP/Oracle/SAP/CA  and many others, on board
> > > > > will only help this situation.
> > > > > 
> > > > Now this I find interesting, yes these fine companies do invest in
> > > > Linux but I don't see any that really invest in the user
> > > > experience. 
> > > > 
> > > > Redhat funds some Kernel work and developer side stuff for
> > > > Gnome especially work on ORBit the CORBA base behind Gnome's
> > > > architecture. Nothing directly user orientated.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > gtk, bluecurve if you will, lots of stuff really...
> > Bluecurve is for Redhat no-one else, the rest is libraries, not
> > directly user orientated.
> > > 
> 
> I'd say gtk was pretty user orientated...
> 
> Anyone could use bluecurve if they so wished. Anyways I'm not really a
> fan of it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > SuSE works on server side stuff like the OS/390 port and Opteron
> > > > support. Nope.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > KDE
> > > 
> > okay
> > > 
> > > > Mandrake have a list of stuff they develop down the side of their home
> > > > page most of which is developer or high performance server
> > > > orientated. Don't think so.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > GUI admin stuff
> > > 
> > Hello I'm a home user, what's an admin?
> > >
> 
> You know what I mean... things like checking your printer queue,
> changing your screen resolution, changing keyboard layout etc
> 
> 
> >  
> > > > Connectiva is hard to find out about but I'd assume they would help
> > > > Gnome in some way so they should be a good example. Maybe but I
> > > > couldn't find anything, didn't look very hard mind.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Internationalisation, GUI stuff...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > IBM, HP, Oracle, SAP and CA... I have a strange feeling this is all
> > > > very server side.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > What directly effects the server will indirectly effect the desktop...
> > > look at the 2.6 kernel, a lot of the scalability work, will also help
> > > the desktop and smaller systems.
> > > 
> > > I'm pretty sure HP have deals with Ximian and CA also IIRC.
> > > 
> > > And just to not forget... Ximian....
> > > 
> > > Oh yeah and Sun, all the GNOME usability and access stuff....
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > I agree that the application side is coming on very well but it's
> > > > still not intended for "Mr Average" when installed they look and work
> > > > in a way that will appeal to the average user but the install is
> > > > pretty daunting. What the hell are partitions? I only have a hard
> > > 
> > > I say again... Linux (generally) is NO harder than Windows to install.
> > > 
> > Then I disagree. I think you're ignoring the fact that you are much
> > more knowledgable than the average user.
> 
> Well, thats not an issue... Todays, Red Hat, and I expect SuSE, Mandrake
> etc can be installed with only a few mouse clicks. You need to know very
> little about the underlying system. Try it...
> 
>  
> > > 
> > > > disk? I've just bought a new graphics card/modem/cheap piece of
> > > > generic Taiwanese junk how do I install it? Taking the case off freaks
> > > > these people out enough, you then expect them to find out the chipset
> > > > their particular card has, find out if it has a driver, recompile the
> > > 
> > > What about windows, default install, your running in 640x480, 256
> > > colors, I mean c'mmon,
> > > 
> > > Oh and you'll need to download the nic driver before you can get on the
> > > network... hmm, ok, modem, shit, needs a fscking driver....
> > > 
> > Kernel recompile or new version of X or whatever vs download a driver?
> > >
> 
> But you don't need to do any of this.... (ok, if you have bleeding edge
> hardware, then may be yes.). But generally the vendor supplied stuff
> should just work.
>  
> 
> 
> >  
> > > > kernel or modify XFree86? Not gonna happen. I want a piece of software
> > > 
> > > XFree86... well, it is really a fine piece of software when you think
> > > about it. Currently it's just lacking funding... 
> > > 
> > > XFree86 autoconfiguration has been talked about and is already somewhat
> > > been done with kdrive.
> > > 
> > Yeah I'm talking about the home user, they will buy hardware from PC
> > World and expect it to work, unless they update the OS everyday they
> > most likely will buy something too new to support.
> 
> Graphics cards being of course the main culprit here... However even the
> latest cards should work (to some degree, perhaps no 3d accel) without
> doing anything. Either with the opensource drivers or with a generic vga
> one.
> 
> 
> > >  
> > > Kernel.. well they can stick with the vendor kernel...
> > > 
> > How do you add a driver? Recompile the kernel, that's scarey. Find a
> > Windows user and make them watch you compile a kernel. It's hilarious.
> > 
> 
> How often do you actually have to add a driver? Either way vendor
> kernels ship fully modularised, 
> 
> 
> > And loading a precompiled module, but it has to match the kernel to
> > guarantee stability, 2.2, 2,4, 2.5, Vanilla, Redhat, Mandrake, AC?
> 
> If you get a binary module from some place, chances are it's been
> compiled against that vendor kernel your running. Generally yes though,
> you do want the module to match the kernel version your running. If no
> other option, insmod -f
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > > to do whatever, do I need the source, rpm or deb? How do I use these
> > > > files? Why isn't the latest version with magic feature A available for
> > > > my pc? You mean there's different platforms? I thought it was
> > > > all Linux? 
> > > > 
> > > > The only way to get around this is to change the architecture
> > > > significantly as Apple have done. XFree86... out the door, kernel
> > > 
> > > XFree86/X11 won't be going anywhere soon, this has been discussed to
> > > death on forum@xfree86.org.
> > > 
> > Yeah I know and this is why Linux won't suit the home user for a long time.
> 
> I don't know why people keep thinking X is outdated, bloated, a week
> link.... it's certainly non of these... though it could possibly  go on
> a wee diet... again this has been discussed.
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > > modification... gone, choice of desktop... nope, standard Unix
> > > > filesystem, no no no. The minute a big distro comes out like that
> > > > every Linux guru will be on Slashdot/Linuxnews calling it an
> > > > abomination that is against everything they've ever fought for. I
> > > > realise that gobolinux does the filesystem but that's a small
> > > > component.
> > > 
> > > hmm... it's called windows....
> > > 
> > Exactly.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > Note I say A Distro, there can't be more than one, companies won't
> > > > sell identical distros because there's nothing to differentiate them
> > > > from the crowd and users won't stand for differences, look at the Unix
> > > > market of the 1980's to see why.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Multiple distros are a Good Thing(tm), this is totally different to the
> > > fragmentation of Unix; can you say GPL? 
> > > 
> > What has the license got to do with this? I'm talking about getting
> > the system to a state where there's no confusion moving between
> > machines. Walk into a new office and use a pc sitting there without
> > needing to relearn, which is what people want.
> 
> The license is the key! It prevents people from forking and going off in
> umcompatable ways. Everybody is running the same stuff, everybody
> remains fully compatable and interoparable.

The licence does not prevent incompatibility, I can quite happily take
the code rehash it into something different and it'll be incompatible,
I have to release it back to the community but that doesn't mean it'll
be compatible with the existing stuff. Companies have used Linux code
in proprietary software, BE being one example. They used Linux code in their
boot loader and then added a proprietary library to it. This is
totally fine as long as they release the bits that aren't theirs. So I
could create a program with GPL code in it and I only need to release
the files with GPL code, the rest I can have under a totally different
licence. I could even replace the windows kernel with the linux one on
Windows XP and there'd be no problem.

> 
> The LSB, sees that distributions all follow the same filsystem layout
> have the same set of basic software etc.
> 
> 
> Right, so theres no difference between sitting in front of Win95 and
> WinXP?
> 
Yes there is, it can confuse a lot of people when they first hit it.
> 
> 
> > 
> > And quite how the GPL is supposed to stop fragmentation? Emacs vs XEmacs?
> 
> But because the code is still open, they can each feed of each other and
> take each others improvements. I think the word "forking" is probably
> the wrong one here. Forking is rife in the FLOSS world... but it's a
> good kind of forking. Everyone remains compatable and quite often you
> see forked projects reunite. e.g GCC
> 
> Forking is encouraged in the Linux kernel world.... But because it's all
> GPL no-one can go off and make there own closed incompatible changes,
> and even if someone attempted that they would be very quickly isolated.
> 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > > Unix was meant to be powerful, no-one ever said it should be easy, Linux
> > > 
> > > err, yeah.. exactly...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > was created as a replica of that. The only reason Linux has these nice
> > > > looking apps is that nerds like shininess as much as power.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Again this is where the likes of Red Hat, Ximian, SuSE and others come
> > > in... they fund a lot of this "shininess".
> > 
> > Shininess is not usability and familiarity. Take a Mac user and place
> 
> I'm not going to debate that, it can mean whatever you want it to mean,
> take it in its context.
> 
> 
> > in front of a Windows PC, do the reverse. They don't like it do
> > they? Now what's the difference between that and lots of different
> > distros with different desktops and different styles?
> > 
> 
> Different. KDE/GNOME/whatever is available on any distro, in fact most
> Unices.
> 
> If someone is familiar with KDE on Red Hat, they can be familiar with
> KDE on Debian....

Yeah but I'm talking about just sitting down at a PC. You can't
guarantee it'll have the gui you use. And if you sit on a helpdesk you
will find that people get confused over a lot less. I'm not saying
these people are idiots it's simply that they lack the confidence or
background to deal with changes. To be fair this and the problem of
simply not knowing what the hell Konquerer or Mozilla are is easily
solved. 1. Reduce choice, one browser only 2. Give it a sensible
name. 3. Make Gnome/KDE consistant - Bluecurve for all.

> 
> 
> > I think Linux and Open Source are great things but I also think that
> > the people who think it's ready for the desktop are way off. There's a
> 
> I'm not saying it's ready for *every* desktop user. I think it's ready
> for a lot of desktop users. Certainly in the business desktop,
> scientific/engineering desktop, it's certainly ready in the Animation
> desktop.
> 

You mean where there's an experienced sysadmin to fall back on. :) I
wouldn't disagree with that. As for sci/engineering and animation,
these have always been Unix orientated. Quite a lot of that kinda of
work requires programming skills so Unix isn't a big deal.

> And clearly ready for some non-technical home users.
> 

>  
> > superiority complex that what they have is nice and reliable compared
> > to that silly Windows stuff. Microsoft are not stupid, they have some
> > of the most intelligent people in their field working for them, they
> > decided that absolute power and control was not essential but that
> > making a system work for most of the people most of the time was and
> 
> And look what the result of that was....
>
A system that does work most of the time for most of the hardware with
little or no effort.
> 
> > if that person wanted a new toy for their computer it would be
> > simple for them to add it. Simplicity like that comes at a price,
> > reliability and control. If you think it's purely because Microsoft
> > people don't care that we get crashes and problems I think you're
> > very very wrong. Software that easy is very hard to do.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, well you could be forgiven for thinking that way.
> 

Excuse me?! It's extremely hard to program something like an OS and
make it easy to use. Giving complete control makes a hard task
impossible. Easy and complete control are opposite ends of a
line. You have to choose and I feel that something like Windows is for
those that don't need/want complete power and Linux is for those that
do. Can't it be as simple as that? Not everyone needs to using the
same thing.

> 
> > Until Linux is prepared to give up it's freedoms of choice at every
> > level, they won't compete against Microsoft on the desktop and to be
> > perfectly honest if that's the cost of beating Microsoft I'm perfectly
> > happy as is.
> > 
> 
> The thing is... a majority of the worlds population hasn't chosen their
> desktop yet. So lets forget about all the lost causes out there, and
> concentrate on the billions of people who will be looking for that first
> desktop. ;)
Yeah but which desktop is that? :)
> 
> 
> > Not everyones a computer enthusiast so I don't think that it's
> > unreasonable that they pay money if they don't want to work at it. I
> > also think that people are perfectly welcome to keep their code to
> > themselves, it has nothing to do with anyone else what they do with
> > it. I wish they'd give it out but I can't force them. BTW that's not
> > the same as supporting software patents.
> > 
> > Can anyone tell me why they think normal people will learn all this
> > complex software?
> > 
> 
> It's upto them. They can just use the stuff that they have right in from
> of them. Or they can do a little researching and reap the rewards.
> 

Yeah and imho they won't bother. To beat Windows, Linux has to become
standardised as much as possible. That's why Windows has made so much
money, it's not unique, it's not special, it's exactly what your mate
has, no matter where you go it behaves in the same way. That's a Killer App.

Mark