flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > How to make Linux - The next big OS

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
dosin



Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 337
dosin
For a transition to Linux..
The current linux apps that are simular to windows would have to modified to make it easier to pick up... its the whole learning curve thing.. lol

For example:
Linux - Easier and Better than Windows!
Very Happy

yes they would have to change things like: command- man -to help
why because its what people are use to!
Post 13 Jan 2009, 21:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
Linux apps have a help button at the top, too. In fact, the whole tool bar is the same.


Last edited by drhowarddrfine on 13 Jan 2009, 23:12; edited 1 time in total
Post 13 Jan 2009, 23:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
f0dder wrote:
A standard desktop environment with the default applications is pretty coherent, but once you start installing other applications, things get ugly quickly because of the plethora of widget toolkits out there. IMHO that situation is just about unfixable...
Others may love the fact that you can choose your own. I notice folks try one, then another, and finally settle on something and customize the heck out of it.
Post 13 Jan 2009, 23:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
i think os should have a minimal working mode, in case of big problems, user can still use it's os to manipulate datas.
something like a warm system restore on the drive with minimal size to prevent precious data overwriting.
Post 13 Jan 2009, 23:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
drhowarddrfine wrote:
I love how Windows users find one program (and it's always VS) as proof that Windows apps are better than Linux apps. In Linux, you don't need all that stuff and VS does to organize their SDK mess (now up to 1GB). I know som eEmacs people that would go up against VS anytime. I wish I was good enough at it to show something but, like I said, 'nix users don't need all that VS stuff.

VS is obviously chosen because it's hard to find a replacement for. Nothing on the linux platform comes close. As for "don't need all that stuff", heh. No, and you don't need anything but a hex editor to write programs, really. But extra features can make the developer's life easier, debuggers help in fixing bugs, code coverage and profiling tools have their uses as well. VS integrates this stuff, instead of leaving you to juggle several programs and resort to command-lines.

As for the SDK being a mess, what do you base that on? It's big, yes, and it could probably benefit from being made modular. But Windows is a lot bigger platform than linux technology-wise, and includes documentation as well as tools, headers and libraries. If you don't need dotNET and the Vista+ APIs, you can do with the older Win2003 SDK. Besides, you don't need to download the full offline installer, you can use the web-based setup and only grab the components you need.

Oh yes, and sticking to EMACS and VIM is probably part of the reason why so much opensource code use cryptic abbreviated identifiers - intellisense is a godsend. And that's not the only feature of VS that's great - proper integrated&powerful debugger, source/object browser (which you probably have no idea what is - but it's insanely useful when dealing with large projects), et cetera.

drhowarddrfine wrote:

f0dder wrote:

Program documentation is often horrible, and for development... well, MAN pages are a joke compared to MSDN.

Linux man pages don't compare to FreeBSD man pages but they don't change, are accurate and understandable, with program examples and installed and available on every system. There is nothing wrong with man pages. Want to know how anything works? "man 'myprogram'". Want to know how a library or system call works? "man 'systemcall'" from anywhere.

Not possible to bookmark, no hyperlinking, not easy to search (sure, there's "aprospos" but it doesn't compare), doesn't have a proper index, and requires dropping to a console - whereas MSDN can be used either separately (which is useful when coding using Notepad++, emac, VIM, whatever) and integrated in VS (which is awesome). Man pages are shit compared to proper help formats... and often they aren't updated frequenlyt.

drhowarddrfine wrote:

f0dder wrote:
OpenOffice is OK, but it's about the feature level of Office2000

As if 90% of everyone uses 90% of Office features.

Ah yes, cut my sentences to try and twist it to your purpose? Let me re-quote, with emphasis added:
f0dder wrote:
OpenOffice is OK, but it's about the feature level of Office2000 while a good amount slower and somewhat buggy.

Sure thing, OOo does most of what I need, but it's still slow and bloated compared to Office2000. And yes, noticably slower, on a Quadcore with 8gigs of ram and 10k RPM raptor drives. And Office2000 has a better environment (debugger + help) for scripting. Oh, and that's even without touching on the issue of saving your documents... that is s-l-o-w-n-e-s-s incorporated. Sure, it has to dump entire document in XML format and zip it up (which imho isn't the smartest default document format in the first place), but even that shouldn't have to be that slow imho.

drhowarddrfine wrote:
f0dder wrote:
A standard desktop environment with the default applications is pretty coherent, but once you start installing other applications, things get ugly quickly because of the plethora of widget toolkits out there. IMHO that situation is just about unfixable...
Others may love the fact that you can choose your own. I notice folks try one, then another, and finally settle on something and customize the heck out of it.
I think you completely missed the point here.

Being able to customize your OS look and feel is a good thing. What I'm bitching about is individual applicationsthat have different look-and-feel. There should be a standard across all applications (except those very few where it makes sense to do something custom), and then let the user choose whatever skin/windowmanager/bleh he wants.
Post 14 Jan 2009, 00:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
f0dder wrote:

VS is obviously chosen because it's hard to find a replacement for. Nothing on the linux platform comes close.
I'll repeat: I'd bet emacs people can.
Quote:
As for "don't need all that stuff", heh. No, and you don't need anything but a hex editor to write programs, really.
What I meant is, Windows development is more complicated than Linux development and 'nix developers don't need a VS to hold the whole thing together for them.
Quote:
VS integrates this stuff, instead of leaving you to juggle several programs and resort to command-lines.
By just putting all those in their own window you have all those tools available at hand in Linux. I'm not saying VS isn't an excellent tool. I'm just saying we don't miss it.
Quote:

As for the SDK being a mess, what do you base that on? It's big, yes, and it could probably benefit from being made modular. But Windows is a lot bigger platform than linux
You answered the question. It's too big.
Quote:
and includes documentation as well as tools, headers and libraries.
So does Linux and it doesn't have to be a seperate install.
Quote:
If you don't need dotNET and the Vista+ APIs, you can do with the older Win2003 SDK. Besides, you don't need to download the full offline installer, you can use the web-based setup and only grab the components you need.
And if you are a developer then you need all that.
Quote:

Oh yes, and sticking to EMACS and VIM is probably part of the reason why so much opensource code use cryptic abbreviated identifiers
Maybe old code did from back in the days when memory counted but not nowadays.
Quote:

Not possible to bookmark, no hyperlinking, not easy to search (sure, there's "aprospos" but it doesn't compare), doesn't have a proper index, and requires dropping to a console - whereas MSDN can be used either separately
FreeBSD man pages. Similarly available with Linux and all the GNU tools.
Quote:
Man pages are shit compared to proper help formats... and often they aren't updated frequenlyt.
One of the reasons I quit coding for Windows was the shit Windows docs. They move and change without notice. Frequently wrong or left out important information. Cryptic at times with no one to turn to.
Quote:

Ah yes, cut my sentences to try and twist it to your purpose? Let me re-quote, with emphasis added:
f0dder wrote:
OpenOffice is OK, but it's about the feature level of Office2000 while a good amount slower and somewhat buggy.
Not at all and both answers to your statement still stand.
Quote:

Sure thing, OOo does most of what I need, but it's still slow and bloated compared to Office2000. And yes, noticably slower, on a Quadcore with 8gigs of ram and 10k RPM raptor drives.
Hm. I'm using a 1.6Ghz 1GB P4. My other is a P3 550Mhz 512Mb. Hm.
Quote:
And Office2000 has a better environment (debugger + help) for scripting.
Ah, specialization. I don't do that. 90% of the world doesn't do that. And that's what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Oh, and that's even without touching on the issue of saving your documents... that is s-l-o-w-n-e-s-s incorporated. Sure, it has to dump entire document in XML format and zip it up (which imho isn't the smartest default document format in the first place), but even that shouldn't have to be that slow imho.
I don't know because I don't have anything to compare it to. All I know is I click "save" and it saves it. That's all 90% of the world needs.
Quote:

Being able to customize your OS look and feel is a good thing. What I'm bitching about is individual applicationsthat have different look-and-feel. There should be a standard across all applications (except those very few where it makes sense to do something custom), and then let the user choose whatever skin/windowmanager/bleh he wants.
I don't know how I feel about that so I can't comment. Does it bother you just because or is it a real issue? I know I have problems like that because The Gimp is so different but I have no issues with anything else, though I haven't used Inkscape in a while. Firefox, OO and Evolution (email) look all the same tome. That's about all the average guy is going to use anyway.

The Gimp and Inkscape are special programs so you would almost expect them to act differently so I don't know it would bother such a user. I know it's a UI issue.
Post 14 Jan 2009, 04:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dosin



Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 337
dosin
post moved--


Last edited by dosin on 14 Jan 2009, 05:09; edited 1 time in total
Post 14 Jan 2009, 04:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
Here are a couple guys who use both VS and Emacs:
Ted Post
Jake Says
Quote:
Visual Studio has quite a lot to offer, but it just isn’t Emacs.

And here's my complaint similar to this:
Quote:
Well it isn't working out so well this time around. .NET simply has too many pieces and parts to keep track of. Too many separate files (*.cs, *.Designer.cs, *.resx).

And this is where VS is helpful to keep track of it all but you don't need all that in 'nix.
Post 14 Jan 2009, 04:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dosin



Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 337
dosin
With linux...

There would be much need of a redesign!
This is were profits would make a difference..

I know people would disagree .. but lets say linux systems were
not free open source and a person wanting to develope linux would have to purchuse a lisence in order to do so... and to make it free.. get there money back by providing programs on a buy back per program system...

say just a $500.00 fee... for a lifetime lisence

The lisence would transfer to that person the rights to there software developed. for a profit % if they wish or donate to the program!

Just a thought... would you still get Linux if this is how it worked?
Post 14 Jan 2009, 05:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Poster1: Windows has <this feature>

drhowarddrfine: Linux has that also, just download from <here>

Poster2: Windows has <that feature>

drhowarddrfine: Linux has that also, just download from <there>

Poster3: Windows has <another feature> that Linux doesn't have

drhowarddrfine: You don't need that feature.

revolution: Well if you want to be like that then all anyone needs is a hex editor (thanks for the idea f0dder), the rest is just bloat.

So it all boils down to this: Windows and Linux have similar functionality. They do it differently of course, but mostly similar capabilities. And for the things that Windows does have (that Linux doesn't have), it would seem they are things that you don't really need anyway so stop whining. Or, if you do need it then you are one of only 10% and thus don't count as a significant portion of users.

BTW: 10% of the 98% of users of Windows is still a very large number! Just saying "90% of people don't need it" is not a good justification for not having a useful tool. I'm not saying I disagree, just that the justification given is wrong. You can't pull figures out of the air (like 90%) and use that as a method of argument against certain features. You need to find another, proper, argument to prove your point.
Post 14 Jan 2009, 05:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
drhowarddrfine wrote:
f0dder wrote:
VS is obviously chosen because it's hard to find a replacement for. Nothing on the linux platform comes close.
I'll repeat: I'd bet emacs people can.
...and you can dig a hole using a tea-spoon, but that doesn't award you a cleverness medal. Visual Studio as a tool is better suited for software development than emacs or whatever.

drhowarddrfine wrote:
f0dder wrote:
As for "don't need all that stuff", heh. No, and you don't need anything but a hex editor to write programs, really.
What I meant is, Windows development is more complicated than Linux development and 'nix developers don't need a VS to hold the whole thing together for them.
Is it that more complicated, really? Once you start doing GUI, threading and high-performance network or file I/O under linux, you're going to face complexity as well. But perhaps you're comparing high-performance GUI stuff under windows with 300-line console programs under linux?

drhowarddrfine wrote:
f0dder wrote:
VS integrates this stuff, instead of leaving you to juggle several programs and resort to command-lines.
By just putting all those in their own window you have all those tools available at hand in Linux. I'm not saying VS isn't an excellent tool. I'm just saying we don't miss it.
...and you need to swap around between windows (usually shell windows or kinda crappy frontends), instead of having things nicely integrated. As for not missing the features VS (or other decent IDEs offer), it's probably because you've never used them and gotten used to the powerful features they offer. It's not like I miss VS when dealing with small projects with a handful of files of a few hundred lines of code each, but when dealing with larger projects - especially digging into other people's code - it's invaluable. Class browser, showing call sites, going to symbol definition, showing class/struct members through intellisense, ... - invaluable.

drhowarddrfine wrote:
f0dder wrote:
As for the SDK being a mess, what do you base that on? It's big, yes, and it could probably benefit from being made modular. But Windows is a lot bigger platform than linux
You answered the question. It's too big.
Quote:
and includes documentation as well as tools, headers and libraries.

So does Linux and it doesn't have to be a seperate install.
Depends on distro whether it's installed by default (non-developers shouldn't need a compiler etc.), and the linux documentation is sub-standard compared to MSDN.

drhowarddrfine wrote:
f0dder wrote:
If you don't need dotNET and the Vista+ APIs, you can do with the older Win2003 SDK. Besides, you don't need to download the full offline installer, you can use the web-based setup and only grab the components you need.
And if you are a developer then you need all that.
That depends entirely on what you're targetting. I'm not targetting smartphones, so I don't need WinCE stuff. I'm not currently messing with dotNET, so I don't need that stuff. I don't need to install example code if I don't want to - et cetera. Stop throwing blanket statements.

drhowarddrfine wrote:
f0dder wrote:
Oh yes, and sticking to EMACS and VIM is probably part of the reason why so much opensource code use cryptic abbreviated identifiers
Maybe old code did from back in the days when memory counted but not nowadays.
Lots of the linux code I've been looking at is like that, *shrug*.

drhowarddrfine wrote:
f0dder wrote:
Not possible to bookmark, no hyperlinking, not easy to search (sure, there's "aprospos" but it doesn't compare), doesn't have a proper index, and requires dropping to a console - whereas MSDN can be used either separately
FreeBSD man pages. Similarly available with Linux and all the GNU tools.
Ah yes, so I need to be online to access the documentation in a usable format - great. And in the usual pre-formatted manpage style that doesn't resize very well... but at least hyperlinked. Still inferior to MSDN. (Oh, there's also gnu texinfo, but that system is horrible).

drhowarddrfine wrote:
f0dder wrote:
Man pages are shit compared to proper help formats... and often they aren't updated frequenlyt.
One of the reasons I quit coding for Windows was the shit Windows docs. They move and change without notice. Frequently wrong or left out important information. Cryptic at times with no one to turn to.
You've got to be kidding? MSDN is indexed, it has tons of sample code, it has better documentation than manpages, and is properly searchable - and fast even with full-text search in the articles. But from the "move and change without notice", I guess you might be talking about the online version - I prefer offline docs.

drhowarddrfine wrote:

f0dder wrote:
OpenOffice is OK, but it's about the feature level of Office2000 while a good amount slower and somewhat buggy.
Not at all and both answers to your statement still stand.[/quote]
f0dder wrote:
Sure thing, OOo does most of what I need, but it's still slow and bloated compared to Office2000. And yes, noticably slower, on a Quadcore with 8gigs of ram and 10k RPM raptor drives.
Hm. I'm using a 1.6Ghz 1GB P4. My other is a P3 550Mhz 512Mb. Hm.[/quote]Perhaps you're not as sensitive to slowness as I am, then. Just to be fair: OOo starts noticably faster under linux than it does under windows, which is weird (application startup time under linux is usually somewhat laggy in my experience - enough that starting VS6 under windows was as fast as starting whathever notepad app came default with KDE - same hardware).

drhowarddrfine wrote:
f0dder wrote:
And Office2000 has a better environment (debugger + help) for scripting.
Ah, specialization. I don't do that. 90% of the world doesn't do that. And that's what I'm talking about.
Do you have any idea how much VBA scripting is used in the corporate world? Sure thing, the end-users are only using the VBA and not writing it, but does that mean that having a useful environment is not a good thing? By the same reasoning, 99% of the world doesn't program, so we might as well have shit tools under linux (hmm, I can see the point though).

drhowarddrfine wrote:
[quote"f0dder"]Oh, and that's even without touching on the issue of saving your documents... that is s-l-o-w-n-e-s-s incorporated. Sure, it has to dump entire document in XML format and zip it up (which imho isn't the smartest default document format in the first place), but even that shouldn't have to be that slow imho.
I don't know because I don't have anything to compare it to. All I know is I click "save" and it saves it. That's all 90% of the world needs.[/quote]Don't write very long documents, I take it?

I really like that OOo support an open documen format (that's one of the few reasons I actually stick with it), but it's still sickeningly slow. At 30+ pages, doing a save on a 2GHz dualcore core2 machine takes at least couple of seconds - and that's too slow when you're used to hitting Ctrl+S about every other sentence. But I guess "what 90% of the world needs" is an excuse to write sloppy software Rolling Eyes

drhowarddrfine wrote:

f0dder wrote:
Being able to customize your OS look and feel is a good thing. What I'm bitching about is individual applicationsthat have different look-and-feel. There should be a standard across all applications (except those very few where it makes sense to do something custom), and then let the user choose whatever skin/windowmanager/bleh he wants.
I don't know how I feel about that so I can't comment. Does it bother you just because or is it a real issue? I know I have problems like that because The Gimp is so different but I have no issues with anything else, though I haven't used Inkscape in a while. Firefox, OO and Evolution (email) look all the same tome. That's about all the average guy is going to use anyway.

I don't know if it's a problem per se (after all, I'm a power user) - but I still prefer my OS to look coherent. Non-standard interfaces (The Gimp, Blender3D) is one thing, but different widget sets (and UI rendering styles) across more "standard" applications is less excusable. And I don't think it's uncommon to end up with a mix of KDE, GNOME and raw xlib applications if you use your computer for more than simply writing a few mails and surfing the web.

drhowarddrfine wrote:
The Gimp and Inkscape are special programs so you would almost expect them to act differently so I don't know it would bother such a user. I know it's a UI issue.
Inkscape doesn't look "nonstandard" to me, while GIMP does (but no more so than Photoshop) - Blender3D would be a better example of a really non-standard GUI, but again that's probably defendable. I was thinking more about the inconsistencies between the various standard toolkits (Qt/KDE, GTK/GNOME, WxWindows)...

Anyway, don't get me wrong - I really wouldn't mind escaping Microsoft's clutches. But linux, by far, just "isn't there yet" - and you're following the typical linux-user defendist reaction. It's not that I expect linux to be Windows (I'm not bitching about W(h)INE incompatibilites, for instance), but to switch to a new OS I would want it to be better than the previous one; kernel, desktop, userland, documentation, everything. And there's still too many points where it's lagging behind for my needs (and a lot of other people, mind you).

And then there's of course the issue about everything having to be open and "free". Since I plan on intend making a living off programming, I find this demand rather insulting...

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 14 Jan 2009, 05:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
dosin wrote:
With linux...

There would be much need of a redesign!
This is were profits would make a difference..

I know people would disagree .. but lets say linux systems were
not free open source and a person wanting to develope linux would have to purchuse a lisence in order to do so... and to make it free.. get there money back by providing programs on a buy back per program system...

say just a $500.00 fee... for a lifetime lisence

The lisence would transfer to that person the rights to there software developed. for a profit % if they wish or donate to the program!

Just a thought... would you still get Linux if this is how it worked?
It can't work. Just try to figure out who administers the money. Big problem.
Post 14 Jan 2009, 05:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Raedwulf



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom
Raedwulf
I hate to admit it but MacOS X has improved the image of their OS and Apple have the iPhone and iPod which are major pullers. Macos has pulled out more friendly, usable? OS than windows in some respects and thats what has attracted attention - and it looks "cool" - people buy "cool" things, not because they are good, but they look trendy like new clothing. However, whats the business penetration of Macos like? It's not that great...
Admittedly, yes Linux doesn't need to run windows applications but for a window user they are just absolutely lost. What if you felt yes, this might work... my old program has some weird bug in it and it installs funny on wine...

I love linux, but for an old windows user, it just doesn't work for them. (Just look at a lot of the members on this forum - and these have some technical nouse!)

Oh about man, man is great Razz
But yes, they should enable help in the form of html more often, but they haven't done that.

However, if you talk about gnome documentation, that is all available in html form...

I know a linux user that happily doesn't even touch the bash prompt heh... so it is possible, he just happens not to know how to use windows either.
Post 14 Jan 2009, 07:03
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Raedwulf



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom
Raedwulf
Maybe we should say what precisely Linux needs to actually penetrate the market?
"precisely" being the operative word.
Post 14 Jan 2009, 07:18
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Raedwulf



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom
Raedwulf
1.) Bling factor - Compiz Fusion seems to do quite a good job.
2.) Ease of use - Ubuntu is getting there
3.) Hardware support - The major problem! Install it on a laptop and SUFFER! (Ubuntu so far the best)
4.) Software support - Another major problem! 1:1 correlation of applications, not quite there.
a.) Business sometimes use tailored software = WINE
b.) Casual users buy things OFF THE SHELF and want to use them. e.g. GAMES, WINE again.
5.) Other pulling factors like MacOS - iPod, iPhone. Maybe need the eePhone?
Post 14 Jan 2009, 07:23
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Raedwulf



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom
Raedwulf
For 3.), I think users should start building hardware profiles instead of tutorials. Basically the user uploads a profile for his hardware, so future users have automatic configuration based on that hardware.
Of course, that would require monitoring and reviewing before entered into a central hardware-profile repository. It is probably not more work than is being done on the ubuntu bug launchpad already, but does help a casual user tbh.

For 4.), I think all you windows-savvy folk should help out on Wine!!! (Just Kidding). Yea, wine has moved a long way, its getting very good these days, DX 8.1 and DX 9.0c support and sometimes even surpasses Vista in backwards compatibility.

and 1.) You need bling factor pre-installed Linux PCs. You don't see any advertisments with Linux PCs, so certain people don't even know what Linux is! I hate adverts, but Apple advertises, M$ advertises - what about Linux!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????
Post 14 Jan 2009, 07:31
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Raedwulf



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom
Raedwulf
Hmmm, interesting discussion here:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/10093/

But maybe a TV ad would have to emphasise that ubuntu is free? Smile
Post 14 Jan 2009, 07:34
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Raedwulf wrote:
Hmmm, interesting discussion here:
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/10093/

But maybe a TV ad would have to emphasise that ubuntu is free? Smile
It would be folly to do so until "the platform is ready" - it might actually gain a lot of attention, but if users test it out and find that it doesn't do the trick for them, they might be forever "lost", and it'd be wasted money for the campaign. Better spend that money getting the platform to a better state first Smile

Anyway, does linux even want to be "everything for everyone"? If it does, the community as a whole would need to change it's attitude dramatically - including not scowling on commercial and (*gasp*!) closed-source software.

_________________
Image - carpe noctem
Post 14 Jan 2009, 07:43
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Raedwulf



Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 375
Location: United Kingdom
Raedwulf
f0dder wrote:
It would be folly to do so until "the platform is ready" - it might actually gain a lot of attention, but if users test it out and find that it doesn't do the trick for them, they might be forever "lost", and it'd be wasted money for the campaign. Better spend that money getting the platform to a better state first Smile


Aye, I didn't specify a time frame Wink.

f0dder wrote:

Anyway, does linux even want to be "everything for everyone"? If it does, the community as a whole would need to change it's attitude dramatically - including not scowling on commercial and (*gasp*!) closed-source software.


Good point, but a lot of linux users do accept there will always be closed-source software but, Ubuntu, for example does enable closed-source software easily available, e.g. NVidia Drivers.
I think just pushing one Distro to be a mainstream OS would be sufficient because all the other Linux-geeks would benefit from that anyway ^^.

In brief, the Linux world would benefit if even 1 distro made it into the mainstream and followed the public-demands. It would mean that the linux crew who are adverse to commercial world can still use their own distros without problem because there would not be too many breakages between distros.

Besides, ubuntu is quite well funded...

_________________
Raedwulf
Post 14 Jan 2009, 08:05
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
f0dder wrote:
not easy to search (sure, there's "aprospos" but it doesn't compare)

Redirecting the output of man to grep?


f0dder wrote:
doesn't have a proper index

Why need a "proper" index when each and every topic for every single feature, .conf file, program, command, etc. is documented with a separate man page, named accordingly ("man hier" for Unix directory hierarchy, "man ls" for directory listing command, even "man man"!)


f0dder wrote:
and requires dropping to a console

Or just opening your console emulator by right-clicking to get the context menu or by clicking a button or whatever you have depending on the window manager/desktop environment you've chosen. What about xman?


f0dder wrote:
Ah yes, so I need to be online to access the documentation in a usable format - great.

When I need serious technical help under Window I can only get it online. Say I want to know RPC from A to Z, in the help I only get a very "helpful" 4-lines definition. That's great I guess.
Sometimes I can't even get information from "microsoft.com" and I need to search Google for 10 minutes. Even greater!
Under a *nix system, all useful (including highly technical) information is at the tip of my fingers.




Raedwulf wrote:
But yes, they should enable help in the form of html more often, but they haven't done that.

I don't know about Linux but with *BSD, you get it in the CD ISOs and you can download all the documentation (10 manuals for different topics and +50 articles) right from their FTP. And it's available in html, pdf, rtf, ps and plain text.


Raedwulf wrote:
3.) Hardware support - The major problem! Install it on a laptop and SUFFER!

Again, it must be a Linux thing. I've tried an old FreeSBIE (based on FreeBSD 5.4!!!!) on a 6 months max old laptop. 1 minute after booting, it had detected all hardware and Firefox had successfully opened Google's first page (through a cable modem).
Post 14 Jan 2009, 12:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.