Marvin

King the average user does not care about updateing small packages. They want large updates they can apply simply. By having standards commercial software can run on most linux's that adhere to the standard without support headaches.

I wish you would listen, i not talking about me using it, im talking about my next door neighbour, or the local piano teacher or whoever. They dont want to type commands on the command prompt, they dont want to understand about packages. They want simple, easy to use software that they can call up support easily and say what linux stadard their distro adheres to. They wont want to reel off different version of different packages they dont know about.

Its easy to say on the phone i have this problem and i have this linux distro what adheres to this standard. What shall i do?

Standards will help commercail software get ported to linux, and with that more people will use it, and then more software will be ported. Its a cycle. If you want PaintShop pro or Dreamweaver on linux you need to make it better for the average user.

__________________
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without trying to invent any more of it."

MBirchmeier

I thought Linux (and open source as a whole) was about creating and allowing others to improve upon the ideas and foundations of others.

The fact of the matter is 10-15 years ago not everyone had the technical know-how or the desire and drive to create their own flavor of *nix. Choices were wide open, because expectations were virtually non-existant. Open a window, use a library here or there and you were good to go.

Now applications are getting increasingly more complex, users are expecting more from their programs, and the range of choices has increased exponentially. Developers are faced with a problem, do you optimize for one flavor of *nix? Do you use overly generic dependancies, and hope they work, or some mix therein.

Having a set 'standard' and a minimal 'core Linux' would provide base functionaltiy that <<standard compliance name>> compliant OS's and interfaces will handle. It doesn't mean that all flavors of *NIX will need to conform to that. Rather if it complies, developers can say that their Programs will work, as expected, efficiently straight out of the box.

This provides a much more open environment to both create and share software for (lets face the fact) a Non-windows environment, quicker and easier, without having to worry about testing for all of the dozens of splintered API's. Any more spreading ideas in applications is just as important as spreading ideas in the OS.

And don't think this will be the end of OS innovation either, people will always be trying to improve upon the core functions, or be suggesting things to add/remove. There will probablly be compliant and non-compliant versions of each major distro for those who want a FOB install, and those that want a tweak-ier install.

Not being as familiar with Linux anymore I don't know how many of these libraries and what not are out there. I remember having troubles with differences between X and K desktops when I tinkered with that stuff, and maybe that's gotten better, but congruance between the two was always frustrating.

-MBirchmeier

DaWei

Fine. There's no law that says you need to target Aunt Gertie. If you don't want the Aunt Gerties, quit bitching about your inability to capture market share, despite your "superiority." The fact is, Linux is inferior, both in mass appeal and competent geek appeal. It's limited popularity is because of the fairly large number of geeks of somewhat limited competence, those who have never contemplated (or understood) the requirements of slickness, prime utility, and top-notch programming.

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

Marvin

I think DaWie you have hit the nail on the head.

__________________
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without trying to invent any more of it."

King

@ Marvin
I do get what you are saying man, and you have some very valid points. All I am saying is some of the things that you are mentioning are sort of going against what Linux in general is trying to do. Like you are saying that Linux should do this to satisfy these people, and all I am saying is that if you do that it will make a lot of other people not happy. Linux isn’t for your next door neighbour or the local piano teacher if they aren’t willing to learn new things. There are OS’s already out there for these people, so if Linux is trying to do things different, leave it alone and don’t try and make it like these other OS’s cause it’s not.

Yea that to

__________________
I am Addicted to Linux!

DaWei

You can't have your taurine excrement and eat it, too....

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

MBirchmeier

I think this relates back to the python thread someone started the other day. The concept of overall efficiency in the real world as opposed to 'percieved efficency' by taking 3 days to shave off 3 seconds from execution time. (I lurk, quite a bit around these parts, even if I don't post often)

People who have the skillset and the desire to create a distro, are rarely in touch with the average computer user (or an average developer for that matter) to know what they truly want from their computer. This format has probablly led to some of the bigger innovations, however it also creates some major problems. Namely conformity as was mentioned.

Linux doesn't need to be for your next door neighbor to be popular and useable. What it needs is a standardized API, so that a programmer can reliably write a program that works across many flavors of *nix, without a complicated setup procedure. Right now it either requires sufficient effort from the Distro's point of view, or sufficient effort from the programmers point of view. A standard set of 'install' functions and a standard set of 'operating' functions is swiftly becoing a requirement to maintain the feasability of linux. requireing work-arounds at the install, and operations levels isn't ideal in anyone's book.

-MBirchmeier

Marvin

@King, peace

I thought, thought im not sure it still is, that the GNU project was stated so that everyone could have a free and open system. Now i appreciate that its hard for geeks to design software for the average user as they have little experience of being an average user and that was probably years ago.

We have Novell, Red Hat and some others, who sell linux for the enterpirse desktop. If they are to sucseed then it has to become more user friendly. Then people might use it on their home computers as well. Maybe it wont happen, and i think it wont happen in the near future.

Linux still needs commercial input thought IBM, Novell and Red Hat. If they found it was not viable because windows and OS X were just better then linux would regress back into an OS that geeks only use. Now this is what some people might want(or maybe not care about it if it were to happen). Look at the GNU Hurd project, that has no commericl support that i know of, and look how far that has got in the last 10 years. Do you want linux to end up with that speed of development?

Im not sure at all that Richard Stalman and his FSF wants linux to become overly commercial. I know that linus does not care much about software being free(as in speech) as long as the licence it is published with is stuck to by the users. He just happened to make it open source and under the GPL. Without the GPL no commercial comapany would touch it. He even works for a commerial linux company(i forget which one). If linux want to grow furter it will need commercial support and that comes thought makeing it useable for non geeky users, as that is who they have to sell it too.

__________________
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without trying to invent any more of it."

Arevos

To achieve that Linux would need binary compatibility across distros. It doesn't technically have that, especially when one compares old distributions to new ones. However, binary compability is something the LSB is working on, and a number of large distros have already expressed a great deal of interest in this (for obvious reasons).

I assume you're talking about the average user here, as I can think of a lot more advantages for those with greater technical skill.

One could also point to security (at least over Windows), and package managers. If all your computing needs are served by the official software packages for your distro, then Linux works out as having a far easier installation process than either Windows or OS X. Go beyond the packages offered by the package manager, however, and things rapidly go down hill.

I'm not quite sure I understand your argument, DaWei. In your first sentence, you suggest that Linux does not appeal to competant geeks, whilst your second sentence appears to imply the opposite.

I consider myself fairly competant technically (read: geek), and I use Linux because it manages to serve my needs more efficiently and more effectively than any other OS on the market. From what I've seen, most other desktop users of Linux have similar reasons for adopting the OS.

DaWei

The difference is in the adjective, competent. I know dam' well you're competent. You are not average, but I don't think you represent a commercially viable market. I don't think you can find an insult there, but I don't think you can find much of an argument against my position of a suitably profitable market share, either. If someone wants to claim the market of the technical cognisenti, I have no problem with that. Most of my money came from systems you'd have no use for on your desktop. Nor could you have afforded them. What I'm saying is very simple and has no technical (rather, only a marketing) basis: don't bitch if you can't get Aunt Gertie because you can't handle her requirements, and don't bitch if the best of the UN*X systems whup your ass because you relied on amateurs to compete with pros.

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers