Asa Dotzler must die.

mmgm · 2005-07-14 04:21:26

This is proably the biggest pile of stupid bullshit I have ever read.
It really just completely pissed me off.
So...um...yeah, read it, tell us what you think.
Am I amongst the only people that think this is totaly full of shit?
Most comments actually praise the crap told by Asa, I'm sort of surprised.

Edit:

· Look for a comment by Anders. It summarizes what sucks about this article pretty well.
· I dont really think Asa should be killed. The guy is doing a really important job and as far as I know, he's doing it pretty well, so I respect him for that, but this article is just plain stupidity in its rawest form.

phrakture · 2005-07-14 04:41:31

I agree with her that linux isn't ready for the desktop - and she makes alot of really valid points - go into an office that has one shared computer where they do stuff on - they have about 50-60 word documents, a few access databases and a handful of excel spreadsheets and say "here install linux" - any computer savvy person could do it - resize the partition, copy data across partitions, install openoffice - but some normal scrub couldn't do that...

archdaemon · 2005-07-14 04:43:49

It's a shame I love the mozilla browser. Because I hate what the Mozilla Foundation has become and I hate firefox with a passion and I hate Dotzler and Goodger and their Mac/Windows-isms even more. I really really wish people would realize that firefox just *happens* to run on Linux. It is a WINDOWS app. That was even true of mozilla, but more so now. Just go read Goodger blathering about Linux lacking - wait for it - not a desktop... no, Goodger was claiming Linux didn't have a decent *EDITOR*. He can't *develop* on Linux. Screw 'em.

But, yeah, I'm glad you stressed the thread title was rhetorical/exaggeration. Shouldn't really post stuff like that even jokingly.

Just leave them to their stupidity and let's us enjoy our Linux boxes.

Their desperation to displace IE isn't doing anybody any favors. Witness, again, Goodger going on about how sometimes you have to *cut corners* in devlopment to get out the *features*, so security sometimes plays second banana.. Sound familiar? And, great, now I can use IE or something that *looks and feels* like IE. But that's the whole point: I don't WANT IE. The only way you can have 'choice' is to have two or more *different* things. And the same goes for *desktops*.

mmgm · 2005-07-14 05:00:24

phrakture wrote:

any computer savvy person could do it - resize the partition, copy data across partitions, install openoffice - but some normal scrub couldn't do that...

Assume for a moment that the initial OS installed on the machine was Linux and that you were trying to install Windows on it. Would Windows make it any easier on you? No it wouldn't!
You'd still have to resize partitions, this time with the inferior fdisk, you wouldn't be able to copy data from ext/reiser/etc partitions without the use of third-party tools and you'd still have to install MS Office.

What I'm saying is that the assumption that every computer starts off as a Windows computer is completely unfair to Linux and therefore takes almost all legitimacy from the claims made by Asa.

phrakture · 2005-07-14 05:38:38

mmgm wrote:

Assume for a moment that the initial OS installed on the machine was Linux and that you were trying to install Windows on it. Would Windows make it any easier on you? No it wouldn't!

The thing about that is that window *is* already installed - that's the hurdle... it has nothing to do with how good the linux desktop is, or how bad windows is - the defining factor is, that windows is already installed, and there's nothing you can do about it - her cry was for a conversion mechanism...

mmgm wrote:

What I'm saying is that the assumption that every computer starts off as a Windows computer is completely unfair to Linux and therefore takes almost all legitimacy from the claims made by Asa.

"unfair" it may be, but that's the way it is. Open up a BestBuy (FutureShop?) paper you get with the sunday paper and tell me how many computer say "linux" by it... talk to customer support at places like Dell (or avaratec, who I just called) - "sorry, we only support windows"

As sad or "unfair" as it may be, it's the truth - and running from the truth and pulling the "unfair" card is childish. It's an issue that needs to be dealt with, nothing more....

iphitus · 2005-07-14 05:44:50

You cant use installation as an argument when talking about linux adoption.

You're comparing an OS that has to be installed, to a preinstalled OS.

Linux will be adopted by mainstream audiences when it comes by default on the computers, and when it's vendor support improves, which it constantly is. And linux is already available.

If you want to compare installations, Window's installation is nowhere near as friendly as a Linux installation.

iphitus

phrakture · 2005-07-14 06:00:16

iphitus wrote:

If you want to compare installations, Window's installation is nowhere near as friendly as a Linux installation.

Ugh, ok - you missed the point... let's just replace install with a live CD or something - it doesn't matter...

Now, let's say I have a small business that's been running for 5 years. I have one main computer which has all my financial data on it for the past 5 years, as well as every customer invoice I've had. I also have random flyers, advertisements, mailings etc - all saved on this machine. Assuming my business is non-computer based, we'll say this computer is fairly crappy (I know people who run a very large photography studio off one P2@500Mhz) - and because it's crappy, we'll go so far as to say I have Windows 98 installed.
Now, why would I switch to linux when there is a risk a) I lose some data, b) my data won't even work. This is not a linux specific problem, as this is the reason people don't upgrade from win98->XP or even XP->XP with SP2. Linux just makes it a more prevalent issue because it's a whole different world.

This isn't small business specific either - what about grandma? She want's to keep all her emails from the grandkids, and pictures of grandpa before he died, and TurboTax. Same risk here - if someone said "there's a slight chance you can lose the only surviving pictures of your husband before he died", she wouldn't risk it (yeah, no one would say something like that, but still, there *is* the chance... what if you blew the partition table out of the water?).

It's the truth - if you don't believe me, I want you to find the nearest small business that has been around for a few years - go in there and off to switch them to linux for free, and tell them all the good points, and the licensing fees they'll save, and even tell them you can do it in a few hours - then tell them there's a possibility their data won't work right or could be lost.
Tell me what they say.

It's not about fairness, or comparing installations or any of this crap - it's about utility. Right now, linux isn't offering granny anything new. Linux isn't offering Mr Generic Businessman anything new. It's all risk.

Seriously, give me a sales pitch for granny "You can do everything you can in windows, but it's more secure!"... come on

sweiss · 2005-07-14 06:23:07

Linux is problematic because it is not unified. The only thing unified is the use of GNU tools, which is something for administrators to use rather than real users.

And opening up a console for installing applications isn't the way it should be, at least not for a desktop. The clipboard issue annoys me like hell, at least.

The desktop is improving rapidly, but it's still not quite there. That freedom of choice is also not very good for the desktop. Think of all the support companies, they'd have to support at least 3 different distributions, at least 2 DEs.

Regular users are not picky and will use what you give them. What free software needs is more convention. Even Microsoft claims Linux is much more modular than Windows - that's good for servers, but for desktops, I doubt it.

sepht · 2005-07-14 07:47:01

I think LSB could really help this.. shame that LSB is so fractured in some areas(i.e. init.d/ style init-scripts), I think themore people move to LSB, the more LSB can evolve, and the more unfied the desktop can become.

Same goes for FreeDesktop.org 's standards, for example the .desktop files

The software is there... it's just not unifed enough. But thats being rapidly fixed..

kth5 · 2005-07-14 08:34:33

when i read this one it almost made me throw up:

The final major issue is comfort. Linux must feel comfortable to Windows users.

if this implies that a linux based system should try to implement the same look and feel and will, i switch to OpenBSD. they at least do one thing right, they don't care how many people say it's bad here and bad there they just seem to do what they think is right even if people are not getting used to it. end of story.
*linux* should do the same... errr ok, userfriendliness of the kernel. where does window have anything like that? I can do menuconfig and a custom bootsplash easy! i see it all now, it's what scares windows users away. custom bootsplashs and menuconfig!

Gullible Jones · 2005-07-14 10:38:42

I don't see why Linux isn't ready for the desktop. What people forget is that Joe User may not know how to use a command line, but he can learn. Maybe that's for the better.

Cotton · 2005-07-14 11:26:35

linux not ready for the desktop

It really doesn't matter.

Linux is only suitable for the people who are prepared to try it. If you're not, then its not for you.

I work in an electronic engineering office and have given 10 designers (including the Chief Engineer) a copy of the Kanotix Live CD, to give them a taste of what Linux has to offer. Not one has tried it (at least they haven't let me know how they got on).

If the techies aren't interested in Linux, just leave it to the people who are. The Linux community is as helpful as any other out there and its unlikely you'll come across a problem that no one else has experienced.

citral · 2005-07-14 11:26:36

There are some things that I agree and disagree with in that article.

To start with, Windows users will have to drop their habit of going to a site like download.com, and downloading their application and it instantly works. They'll have to unlearn that. Their distro will manage the installing/uninstalling, not the application writer. And I think that is the right way of doing things.

But I do agree that IF (and that's an if) we want to attract the big public to Linux, we will have to make a Windows->Linux transition as easy as possible. Sure, if everyone uses Linux, that would be nice for us, because we'd get better hardware support and all that. But we'd need to treat the big audience like Microsoft do. This audience cares nothing for FSF, OSS and Linux and nor do they care for or contribute anything back to the community. A totally different consumer than we (Linux users) are used to.

bruno · 2005-07-14 13:55:19

citral wrote:

To start with, Windows users will have to drop their habit of going to a site like download.com, and downloading their application and it instantly works. They'll have to unlearn that. Their distro will manage the installing/uninstalling, not the application writer. And I think that is the right way of doing things.

Geez...

I'm sure you guys are against consistent documentation, interfaces and funtionality as well, no? After all, it's all about choice.

I'm sure you wouldn't apreciate an interface like this:
http://www.pcbsd.org/forums/viewtopic.p … ight=camel

or well-documented cross-platform package management like this:

http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/sof … #platforms
http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/pkgsrc/
http://www.freebsdforums.org/forums/sho … hp?t=32574

And sure, you would like the reputation, driver support and commercial aplications brought by a bigger userbase, but if they don't care about Stallmanism and GPL, then what's the point? But we do envy the Microsoft's user base...

So many init types, so many file structures, so many package managers, so many window managers... And you call Linux an OS???

What can be called Linux is what's described at Linux from Scratch, kernel + a few tools. And that's not sufficient to garantee full app compatibility. So why should we call it distros and not OSes?

Have a look at a nice example of what I'm saying:

Linux Descending into DLL Hell?
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?si … 47&tid=106

I still remember the days before kernel 2.4.10 when FreeBSD was much faster than Linux, before the VM rework. They claimed ironically that not only they ran Linux apps faster, but were also more compatible with Linux than most Linux distros. Because their compatibility package used RedHat structure and by that time appeared some RedHat-specific commercial software. This was before LSB.

That's why all new n00b distros are going the Debian way, which is mostly like the BSD way in terms of development (not structure, that's Slack department) : there is a solid base structure and package management, everybody working on the same project including documentation, and a new installer and pre-selected packages are just value added. They don't need to duplicate Debian efforts while the growing userbase can bring Debian the same advantages it brought to RedHat. I'd just wish they were as good in documentation as the BSDs.

But why should we avoid duplicating efforts? It's all about choice, right?

PS: When I linked to NetBSD's pkgsrc was just to show it's possible to avoid duplicating efforts in package management even between different OSes. Nothing against pacman itself which I like very much.

Just remember that computers were made to make your life easier, not to suck your life into them. They should make you productive instead of forcing themselves into your main hobby.

Cheers,
Bruno

Dusty · 2005-07-14 14:37:21

WTF??

Gullible Jones · 2005-07-14 15:20:50

Learning how to use a computer with a certain degree of skill does not require lifetime dedication. Remember, there was a time when the command line was all that there was for interacting with your computer. Did that stop ordinary people from getting and using computers? No!

bruno · 2005-07-14 19:51:15

@Gullible Jones

I agree with you, but DOS was easier to deal with than Linux.
There were a few drivers, a few commands, you'd unzip or unarj to a directory, init scripts were autoexec.bat and config.sys. VESA was standard, DOS4GW dealt with 32-bit memory in games, no dependencies, no Internet..

In terms of package management OS X still resembles the old Apple and MS-DOS way to install software, just drop in a directory. A bit like the ROX desktop.

I think most Linux distros are too demanding for the average guy that just wants a text editor, spreadsheet, browser and e-mail. To these people the computer is a tool for a purpose, not the purpose itself.

bruno · 2005-07-14 20:34:07

Don't get me wrong, Unix has it's strengths even for the average user.

If you have two formatted hard disks and want to move games to the other one, for example: create directory in new disk, copy contents, change mount point, and voilà.

Windows registry and spread DLLs would probably make your life hard when trying to do this.

Dusty · 2005-07-14 20:41:59

bruno wrote:

I think most Linux distros are too demanding for the average guy that just wants a text editor, spreadsheet, browser and e-mail. To these people the computer is a tool for a purpose, not the purpose itself.

pacman -S abiword gnumeric firefox thunderbird

I guess it would be easier with jacman...

Dusty

bruno · 2005-07-14 21:08:12

@dusty

I edited my rant post and quoted what got to my nerves.

IMHO most distros should be called OSes. A distro should be a different installer, set of packages and maybe enhanced documentation, allways compatible with the original OS. Minislack or Slax should be called Slack distros. Morphix and Libranet should be called Debian distros. Frugalware independent. Ubuntu... not quite sure.

Calling everything Linux while not being able to install every package everywhere seamlessly is somewhat wrong. It's probably as difficult to install a Debian package under Arch or RedHat as under NetBSD.

Why not third-party repositories like download.com or tucows.com for Linux, like Bebits for BeOS and linuxpackages.net for Slackware ? What's wrong about third-party repositories that really are for Linux, not Linux-the-buzzword, but Linux-the-OS, working on every distro?

EDIT: I 've posted about this here as well:
http://www.freebsdforums.org/forums/sho … hp?t=32574

Bruno

Dusty · 2005-07-14 21:23:05

A package can't work on every distro. Why? Because it depends on the architecture. A package compiled for i686 won't run on a 386. A package compiled for ppc will not work on a 686. A package compiled for alpha or sparc won't run on x86. etc etc etc.

I've always maintained that the primary difference between linux distros is the package manager. Its pretty much impossible to have a universal package. Different distros install packages to different folders. There's no way around that.

You may be interested in searching google for zero-install though.

Dusty

bruno · 2005-07-14 22:36:28

I've heard about zero-install, that's why I mentioned ROX.
I've also heard about autopackage.

But most important, I've heard about NetBSD's pkgsrc: supports both source and binary packages, and the source packages can be used through a lot of OSes and architectures. On my rant I linked to this:

pkgsrc supported platforms
http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/sof … #platforms

Linux distros using NetBSD pkgsrc (using the NetBSD source packages directly, not just adapting the package manager like Frugalware did with Arch)
http://www.freebsdforums.org/forums/sho … hp?t=32574

EDIT: Of course a binary package can't be used on different architectures, but it should be usable on the same architecture and specially with the same kernel... And as I posted above source packages can be cross-platform and cross-OS. And if someone here thinks this kind of criteria leads to too much time to get packages available, have a look at http://pkgsrc.netbsd.se

Dusty · 2005-07-14 23:23:26

*shrugs* People are free to use what they like of course...

bruno · 2005-07-14 23:35:53

I'm not saying NetBSD's pkgsrc is the best thing around, it was just to show it can be done. I'm not even talking about cross-platform and cross-OS. Zero install is DOS install, just using static libraries. Never used autopackage, but from the feedback I got it's not as tested and not as portable as pkgsrc.

I'm just saying that for the same architecture and the same kernel all packages should work.

mmgm · 2005-07-15 00:05:30

If I'm not mistaken, the combination of ABS and pacman aren't too different from pkgsrc, at least in theory.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-07-14 04:21:26

Asa Dotzler must die.

#2 2005-07-14 04:41:31

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#3 2005-07-14 04:43:49

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#4 2005-07-14 05:00:24

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#5 2005-07-14 05:38:38

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#6 2005-07-14 05:44:50

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#7 2005-07-14 06:00:16

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#8 2005-07-14 06:23:07

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#9 2005-07-14 07:47:01

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#10 2005-07-14 08:34:33

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#11 2005-07-14 10:38:42

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#12 2005-07-14 11:26:35

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#13 2005-07-14 11:26:36

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#14 2005-07-14 13:55:19

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#15 2005-07-14 14:37:21

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#16 2005-07-14 15:20:50

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#17 2005-07-14 19:51:15

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#18 2005-07-14 20:34:07

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#19 2005-07-14 20:41:59

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#20 2005-07-14 21:08:12

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#21 2005-07-14 21:23:05

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#22 2005-07-14 22:36:28

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#23 2005-07-14 23:23:26

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#24 2005-07-14 23:35:53

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

#25 2005-07-15 00:05:30

Re: Asa Dotzler must die.

Board footer