To those who scream endlessly for Linux to become a clone of Windows

[petrus4]

We want to live on McDonald's, (i.e., utterly nutritionally devoid fast food, with instant gratification) rather than cook ourselves, but we don't want to get fat, or get any kind of disease.

We want to be able to gorge ourselves on any kind of refined sugar we want, but not get fat from that either, or get diabetes. We also want to be able to drink as much alcohol as we like, but never get liver failure or brain damage.

We want to be able to continue to produce tons of household rubbish per month, and simply throw it away with no further thought, without it doing any damage at all to the environment.

We want to be able to do nothing other than sit and mindlessly vegetate in front of television, computer games, porn, or YouTube, but still have a stable, functioning democracy, and political leaders who maintain the highest standards of personal integrity, and who will vigorously defend our freedoms.

We want to be able to have a sociopathic, morally bankrupt society which is primarily focused on the lives of people like Paris Hilton, where if we see someone lying on the side of the road as a result of being hit by a car, we simply keep driving; but at the same time, we also want our society to be completely free of crime, and for our children to grow up to be emotionally stable, responsible human beings.

We want to be able to keep driving cars, and belching carbon monoxide into the atmosphere by the ton, and we don't ever want the oil to run out, or for global warming to ruin the ability of corporations to continue to post record profits, year in and year out.

We want the operating systems of our computers to be totally driven by a graphical user interface that is sufficiently easy that someone with chronic mental retardation could use one of them, with zero time investment in learning how to use them, (because otherwise we might miss something important, like watching Survivor) and we want them to be totally secure. to never, ever crash, and to be completely immune to even the very idea of viruses.

[kernelhaxor]

I don't know where to start

[jrusso2]

I hope you feel better after all that.

[nisshh]

That just made my day. Probably the best description of a windows perfectionist iv ever seen.

[kernelhaxor]

I understand your frustration but this is just too extreme talk.

With regards to your last sentence, what is so wrong in having a graphical user interface that is simple and easy? Sure, there might be some complex tasks that need complicated UI but for simple daily tasks what's wrong in having simple and easy UI?

[wilee-nilee]

Who is we?

[petrus4]

Sure, there might be some complex tasks that need complicated UI but for simple daily tasks what's wrong in having simple and easy UI?

That depends. What's your definition of simple and easy?

[kirsis]

That just made my day. Probably the best description of a windows perfectionist iv ever seen.

That post says nothing about windows, perfectionists, people who like windows, or even people who like GUIs.

It does say, however, something about a certain type of FOSS users.

[Irihapeti]

I'm tired of seeing the put-downs of people with mental disabilities. And I'd like to see a bit more compassion for people who don't have a natural talent for using computers, but still have to use them.

[Screwdriver0815]

I think this post should open the eyes of these people who say

"this is not easy, this is not like in windows, there I have to think about what I am doing and this is not acceptable..." and so on... for the simple fact:

when you want to have a certain thing/feature/... there are consequences connected to it. And before wanting "this and this" please look around yourself where you can improve and yourself instead of screaming that something is not acceptable and requesting tons of features which nobody needs, beside you.

and to the people who repeat endlessly the question "what is wrong with a GUI?": it is_NOT_wrong, but there are tasks which are done faster and more efficient in a terminal and if there is no GUI for something, then you either have to live with this fact or you program your own GUI for this task, or you pay someone to do that, or (extreme) you go back to Windows.

[tsali]

...or (extreme) you go back to Windows

As many do, because spending tons of time writing scripts and learning arcane commands to perform an occasional task is inefficient for the majority of us.

Personally, I'm quite thankful for the Gnome and KDE folks who've made linux much more accessible to those of us who want to just get stuff done.

[chriskin]

I'm tired of seeing the put-downs of people with mental disabilities. And I'd like to see a bit more compassion for people who don't have a natural talent for using computers, but still have to use them.

:popcorn:

[earthpigg]

I'm tired of seeing the put-downs of people with mental disabilities. And I'd like to see a bit more compassion for people who don't have a natural talent for using computers, but still have to use them.

+1

people that cannot drive for whatever reason have public transit, friends/family, bicycles and the like, and, failing that, taxis.

and people that cannot pick up computer stuff easily?

just Best Buy and their Geek Squad with their ridiculous prices and lack of transparency -- or their nation's local equivalent.

or, hopefully, they have Ubuntu and ubuntuforums.org.



it makes outstanding sense for driving to require testing and licensing - you put the lives of others at risk.

this is generally not the case when you want to check your e-mail and read a wikipedia article or two.

computer and internet use should be as accessible as possible to as many as possible.

ergo, Ubuntu.

i feel the same way about books - thus, we have public libraries and literacy is no longer limited to the Elite and wealthy.

just as peasants 400 years ago did not have time to waste learning to read, a lot of modern folks do not have time to waste learning a command line.

education and learning is the realm of people with spare time on their hands. people not living pay-check to pay-check. etc.



signed,

someone quite happy & comfy at the command line, but understands that it is not for all, and someone who prefers driving cars with automatic transmission.

[Screwdriver0815]

As many do, because spending tons of time writing scripts and learning arcane commands to perform an occasional task is inefficient for the majority of us.

Personally, I'm quite thankful for the Gnome and KDE folks who've made linux much more accessible to those of us who want to just get stuff done.

okay, just for being curious: which important day-to-day tasks can not be done with a GUI in Linux?

I personally use Linux since 2008 and I have used the terminal... maybe 50 times or so. Mostly for editing pdf with pdftk and for practising/ learning.

I never wrote a script

and KDE rocks. But there for sure will be a "average user" who says that in KDE you do not have c:\documents and settings\ and that this is not acceptable.
And in Gnome, there is no start-menu... how can this be???

[meant sarcastic]

and for the "going back to windows"... look, the reality is:

- you are free to use any OS you like

- you can not come up into another "camp" and say: "this is ***** and I want it like that" and then expect that people who have used this "*****" for years say "ah yes, we have waited for someone like you, who tells us how to do certain things". Instead you get the answer "okay, its your opinion and your choice, if the system does not fit your needs, please look for another one"

this is normal, isn't it? Because the people, who have used and developed this system owe you nothing. It is the opposite way around: you owe them: respect, and consructive cooperation (and this only if you want to do this).

The Linux community in general is no company like Microsoft, where the user can write angry letters, complaining about anything. Because he has paid for their stuff.
No, the Linux community is there and it will be there, no matter if an ex-windows user likes it or not.

this does not mean that one should not ask for a certain feature. But it should mean that a user actually thinks about his festure request, if it makes sense, if it is useful for the majority of users (and not just for him) and searches if this feature maybe exists already.

Just to be sure: with this, no offending is intended. Its just my sight on the things.

[tsali]

okay, just for being curious: which important day-to-day tasks can not be done with a GUI in Linux?

I personally use Linux since 2008 and I have used the terminal... maybe 50 times or so. Mostly for editing pdf with pdftk and for practising/ learning.

I never wrote a script

and KDE rocks. But there for sure will be a "average user" who says that in KDE you do not have c:\documents and settings\ and that this is not acceptable.
And in Gnome, there is no start-menu... how can this be???

[meant sarcastic]

and for the "going back to windows"... look, the reality is:

- you are free to use any OS you like

- you can not come up into another "camp" and say: "this is ***** and I want it like that" and then expect that people who have used this "*****" for years say "ah yes, we have waited for someone like you, who tells us how to do certain things". Instead you get the answer "okay, its your opinion and your choice, if the system does not fit your needs, please look for another one"

this is normal, isn't it? Because the people, who have used and developed this system owe you nothing. It is the opposite way around: you owe them: respect, and consructive cooperation (and this only if you want to do this).

The Linux community in general is no company like Microsoft, where the user can write angry letters, complaining about anything. Because he has paid for their stuff.
No, the Linux community is there and it will be there, no matter if an ex-windows user likes it or not.

this does not mean that one should not ask for a certain feature. But it should mean that a user actually thinks about his festure request, if it makes sense, if it is useful for the majority of users (and not just for him) and searches if this feature maybe exists already.

Just to be sure: with this, no offending is intended. Its just my sight on the things.

You're barking up the wrong tree in your response.

I'm a linux user that's not afraid of the command line.

And as far as complaining about the software, most don't. They just leave and linux is lost to them forever.

They use what works for them, regardless of what it is. If it makes THEM work for IT, they aren't interested.

The OP was ranting that we've made life "too easy".

As far as a consumer task that a problem from the linux GUI...

When was the last time you put a DVD movie together in linux?

[Screwdriver0815]

You're barking up the wrong tree in your response.

I'm a linux user that's not afraid of the command line.

And as far as complaining about the software, most don't. They just leave and linux is lost to them forever.

They use what works for them, regardless of what it is. If it makes THEM work for IT, they aren't interested.

The OP was ranting that we've made life "too easy".

As far as a consumer task that a problem from the linux GUI...

When was the last time you put a DVD movie together in linux?

I think that I have understood what the OP meant and I think he is right. He was not ranting that we have "made life too easy" - he was ranting that lots of people pop up and complain about things which are different to other operating systems, no matter if these differences really are stupid or not. Just because one doesn't know about something or maybe he has to adapt himself or to read some documentation, this "something" is not necessarily wrong.

He has critisised the fact that lots of these people request Linux developers to change Linux into a windows clone. And this is not right in my opinion and obviously also in the opinion of the OP. Linux is as it is and when it changes, then because the users have requested it AND the developers came to the conclusion that it is better. Better for them and better for the system.
He also has pointed out that doing certain things have consequences and that one can not complain about things going wrong when one does (or ignores) other things which have the same importance but on a lower level.

in german there is a common wording for that: "sweep in front of your own door before complaining about others"

when I was watching DVD the last time in Linux? today. Why?

[Chronon]

Who is we?

Well, it certainly isn't "those who scream endlessly for Linux to become a clone of Windows" because that is the audience to whom this is addressed.

[geoken]

We want to be able to do nothing other than sit and mindlessly vegetate in front of television, computer games, porn, or YouTube, but still have a stable, functioning democracy, and political leaders who maintain the highest standards of personal integrity, and who will vigorously defend our freedoms.
.
.
.
.
.
We want the operating systems of our computers to be totally driven by a graphical user interface that is sufficiently easy that someone with chronic mental retardation could use one of them, with zero time investment in learning how to use them, (because otherwise we might miss something important, like watching Survivor) and we want them to be totally secure. to never, ever crash, and to be completely immune to even the very idea of viruses.

Am I the only one who thinks these two points virtually contradict each other?

Which one am I supposed to do, be an informed citizen, a responsible father and a person who values sstrong interpersonal relationships or spend countless hours learning how to accomplish a mundane task?

Am I supposed to help my son with school work or spend several days researching and hacking post script files and printer drivers before finally emailing the work he needed to print out to my dad's house and driving over there to pick it up after he prints it?

There are shades of grey in the world. Just because someone isn't as fit as an Olympic gymnast doesn't mean they gorge themselves on McDonalds 7 days a week.

[geoken]

Well, it certainly isn't "those who scream endlessly for Linux to become a clone of Windows" because that is the audience to whom this is addressed.

So it's addressed to the fictional group of people who are frequently used as a straw man argument by extreme zealots whenever someone has the nerve to praise any specific feature of Windows.

[lisati]

I'm tired of seeing the put-downs of people with mental disabilities. And I'd like to see a bit more compassion for people who don't have a natural talent for using computers, but still have to use them.
I don't see the OP as a put-down. Most of the people I know with mental-health issues to cope with are smarter than they give themselves credit for, even those who, for whatever reason, choose not to take personal responsibility for their own recovery. There will always be those who seek to blame everyone else for their problems.
If I read the OP correctly, some people, because of their giftings, need a "super easy" way of doing things that wouldn't be needed for the rest of us.

[aysiu]

We want the operating systems of our computers to be totally driven by a graphical user interface that is sufficiently easy that someone with chronic mental retardation could use one of them, with zero time investment in learning how to use them, (because otherwise we might miss something important, like watching Survivor) and we want them to be totally secure. to never, ever crash, and to be completely immune to even the very idea of viruses. What does having a graphical user interface have to do with being insecure?

So if I'm using a command-line installation of Linux with listening on all ports, SSH server installed with remote root logins and an easy-to-guess password, that means I'm more secure than if I'm using a graphical user interface with everything locked down with AppArmor, iptables, and NoScript in Firefox?

Your rant makes no sense.

I take it you're writing this using Lynx? Not Firefox or Chrome or Opera or Epiphany or Konqueror. Only someone with a mental deficiency would use those easy graphical programs, right?

The primary goal of Ubuntu is to take market share away from Windows. (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1) Over the past five years, Ubuntu has implemented more and more graphical frontends for tasks, and it has sought in its development to be more friendly to Windows migrants (importing settings, setting up an unintrusive dual-boot, soon displaying an intro slideshow).

The crux of the problem is not in the use of graphical interfaces or in user-friendliness. The problem is in the proprietary nature of the software that dominates the consumer space: Non-free software is holding back innovation in the IT industry, restricting access to IT to a small part of the world's population and limiting the ability of software developers to reach their full potential, globally. This bug is widely evident in the PC industry. Ubuntu is about making Free software available to everyone. It is not about bringing command-line interfaces to everyone. A closed source command-line interface is no better than an open source graphical user interface.

What I would say to those who scream endlessly for Linux to become a clone of Windows: Donate to ReactOS and Wine Donate to Ubuntu and other Linux distros focused on ex-Windows users Write documentation that's accessible to ex-Windows users File bug reports Contribute code if you have programming skills Buy only Linux-friendly hardware And this is what I would say to those who scream endlessly for Linux to be difficult for Windows users: use Arch, Gentoo, Slackware, or Linux from Scratch if it makes you happy. Not all Linux distros are intended to be difficult for ex-Windows users.

[Screwdriver0815]

Am I the only one who thinks these two points virtually contradict each other?

Which one am I supposed to do, be an informed citizen, a responsible father and a person who values sstrong interpersonal relationships or spend countless hours learning how to accomplish a mundane task?

Am I supposed to help my son with school work or spend several days researching and hacking post script files and printer drivers before finally emailing the work he needed to print out to my dad's house and driving over there to pick it up after he prints it?

There are shades of grey in the world. Just because someone isn't as fit as an Olympic gymnast doesn't mean they gorge themselves on McDonalds 7 days a week.

I don't think that these points contradict each other.

And as you said: there are shades of grey in the world. And what are you doing with this post? Painting a nice black/white picture, consisting from a

informed citizen, a responsible father and a person who values sstrong interpersonal relationships

and

spend countless hours learning how to accomplish a mundane task? ... spend several days researching and hacking post script files and printer drivers before finally emailing the work he needed to print out to my dad's house and driving over there to pick it up after he prints it?

I think that you know on your own that this is not what the OP wanted to say. And I also think that you know on your own that the second sentence is not general in Linux. It is your particular case, but not normal.
He simply wanted to do a comparison between the world in general and the behaviour of some (you noticed the word "some"? ;) ) users.
This comparison as I see it has nothing to do with your printerdrivers or any other problems. It just focuses on user-behaviour and brings the following result:

- you can not sit in front of you screen and wait for things to happen, when you want to accomplish a specific task. You have to do something for that (this is the youtube, porn, democracy thing - because you can not watch porn and care about nothing and in the same time expect the world to turn into a paradise)

and the last one you mentioned:

- you can not expect a system which you do not have to learn. You have to learn how to use windows, you have to learn how to use a Mac, you have to learn how to use Linux and in Linux you have to learn how to use KDE and (if required) how to use Gnome. This is a fact.
I read more than once over here, postings of ex-windows users who complain about things, which simply belong to Linux. And they will belong if someone hates them or not.
For this learning process, a documentation is written. Its free to read. The only price it has is: reading it carefully. If you actually WANT to use a system, then you need to read the documentation.

Thats it. Thats what I understand the op means. And he is right in my opinion.

Edit: and for the marketshare...

yeah, okay, marketshare... but what does it mean? Should Ubuntu get a C:\ drive and defrag-operations for the "warm feeling of being home" for the ex-windows users? I know that this argument is ridiculous. But what else should Ubuntu do beside writing a comprehensive Documentation and designing tools for the switch?

-When new users do not read the documentation? and they do not read it - to be honest: this really pisses me off because lots of problems could be avoided and lots of problems could be solved without complaining and bothering, if these users would open their minds and eyes. Why does anyone write this documentation then?

- when new users install the system and the first thing they do is screaming (exaggerated) "this is different to windows and it has to be the same when I [as the most important person in the universe] should use it" - I for one easily could do without those people

And I simply hate the idea of turning this great OS into a windows-clone just because of a phrase "marketshare". I changed over from windows, because I hated it. I found a great operating system, called Ubuntu, which does so many things better (and better because they are done different!!!) than windows... and now? Talking exaggerated again: and now? everything should be like in Windows? Thank you very much... I don't want to search for another distro. But I want to ask the question: "why is everything done for the new users? And why is nearly nothing done for the older users (or worse: everything done agains them), who have worked on Ubuntu and who have brought it into this stage as it is now?"

[uberdonkey5]

I just love the fact I have a choice whether to use a GUI or the command line.

Almost everything I do is with a GUI, but:
- I have a 'hot key' to pull down a pretty terminal (using tilda)
- I use the nautilus scripts so I can open a terminal in a specific folder with the right click of a mouse (much easier than trying to get there by typing it all in)
- I use 'Ctrl+Alt+T' as a 'hotkey' so I can open a terminal with the keyboard (as with the eeepc)

Therefore, obviously, I USE the terminal, especially for downloading certain bits of software, doing things a little more technically, etc. Also, if I have problems with mouse, or panels (as I had recently) I can still operate pretty normally.

How do people surf the internet without a GUI?

However, I DO agree that GUIs destract from using the command line. BUT the 'windows' type environment allows people to work more intuitively with little or no training. With the command line you need training. I presume the original poster HAS had some training, and thus feels more comfortable with the command line. For me, I am just learning as I go along!

[RabbitWho]

Who is we?

Not one of those things applied to me or anyone I know anyway.

[purgatori]

There aren't enough facepalms in a lifetime.

[zer010]

+1


just as peasants 400 years ago did not have time to waste learning to read, a lot of modern folks do not have time to waste learning a command line.

education and learning is the realm of people with spare time on their hands. people not living pay-check to pay-check. etc.



.

+1
I agree, and I,myself,am not opposed to using the command line. I'm still learning. I thought about creating an abridged compendium poster of commands to hang on my wall near my pc. I have a great example, but I'm running a live session right now(trying out Masonux[awesome]). I'll post it later.

[geoken]

I don't think that these points contradict each other.

And as you said: there are shades of grey in the world. And what are you doing with this post? Painting a nice black/white picture, consisting from a



and



I think you missed the point. I don't think I need to fall into either of those two extremes. I was merely using the extreme positions which the OP himself conjured and showing how they are in contradiction of each other.

I know exactly what the OP wanted to say. He wanted to draw direct cause/effect relationships between various harmful practices and the unavoidable consequences they bring (ie we want to eat McDonald's but also be in good health). Unfortunately, there is no direct cause effect relationship between rich usable GUI's and security/malware (look to Apple for an example of this). Regardless, the OP believes this point needs no proof/argument and as such relegates anyone who would like a secure system and a nice GUI to the same group as those who would eat McDonald's every day while also complaining about their weight.

In other words;

A --causes--> B

as

C --causes--> D

therefore, people who can't see the link between c and d (a link which is never proven or even argued) are as dense as the people who can't see the link between a and b (a link which is completely scientifically verified and widely known).

[LoREZ]

I learned on a CLI (DR-DOS), and there is much to recommend the approach in many instances (even in the limited schema of DOS). However, it is foolish to conclude that people that want simple are also asking for stupid. The reality is that many folks simply don't have the time or natural temperament to bang away at a problem in forums or books until they become "efficient," especially since such initial effort may only payoff in a one-time or once-in-a-while skill that they will forget by the time they have to use it again, because not everyone is blessed with the ability to remember obscure code strings that pertain to niche configuration issues. Practically speaking, this is not efficiency.

And here is my problem with the current state of affairs, imho. It's not CLI vs. GUI, or even Linux vs. Windows or (insert OS here). It's obscurity vs. discoverability. I don't mean transparency; Linux is nothing if not transparent (what FOSS isn't?). However, it is functionally obscure for all that. Unlike Windows, or MacOS, or OS/2, Linux isn't given to easy access by fumblers, people who just want to poke around and explore in a low stress way. My experience has been one of constant interruptions by opaque roadblocks followed by copy-pasting a Frankensteinian stew of code until things work and being left with the feeling that there was no way I was going to just stumble upon the answer even if I did rtfm, despite the fact that the code made sense in microcosm. That is neither good or efficient, nor does it recommend an operating system. It's just frustrating, and frankly off-putting for most.

And really, if something can be done in a GUI, there should be a tool for it, and likewise for CLI tasks.

That isn't to say I hate Ubuntu; I use it everyday and probably will continue to do so, because I'm the tinkering sort and enjoy variety. But that doesn't mean I could recommend any Linux distro to anyone I know who isn't as adventurous as me. And that matters. You are only revealing short-sightedness to think otherwise. Following such an attitude to its logical conclusion leaves you standing alone in the dark -- with an obsolete computer.

[steveneddy]

I'm tired of seeing the put-downs of people with mental disabilities. And I'd like to see a bit more compassion for people who don't have a natural talent for using computers, but still have to use them.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Oh - you're serious?

[running_rabbit07]

I'm tired of seeing the put-downs of people with mental disabilities. And I'd like to see a bit more compassion for people who don't have a natural talent for using computers, but still have to use them.
+1 You don't buy a V12 Audi just to put rumbling exhaust to make it sound like a Ford.

[Screwdriver0815]

I think you missed the point. I don't think I need to fall into either of those two extremes. I was merely using the extreme positions which the OP himself conjured and showing how they are in contradiction of each other.

I know exactly what the OP wanted to say. He wanted to draw direct cause/effect relationships between various harmful practices and the unavoidable consequences they bring (ie we want to eat McDonald's but also be in good health). Unfortunately, there is no direct cause effect relationship between rich usable GUI's and security/malware (look to Apple for an example of this). Regardless, the OP believes this point needs no proof/argument and as such relegates anyone who would like a secure system and a nice GUI to the same group as those who would eat McDonald's every day while also complaining about their weight.

In other words;

A --causes--> B

as

C --causes--> D

therefore, people who can't see the link between c and d (a link which is never proven or even argued) are as dense as the people who can't see the link between a and b (a link which is completely scientifically verified and widely known).

I am sure that I did NOT miss the point. I am furthermore sure that you actually understood what the OP meant and what I mean. I have explained it and won't do this again.

You still insist on your position, so do I.

but speaking in general, to all the people who say "I don't have the time to learn, I don't want to inform myself... " and so on:

why do you use a computer then? When you can not use it and also have no time to learn how to use it, it does not make much sense to use it anway doesn't it?

Its like learning a language. You want to use it but you don't want to learn it. So you can not talk in it and you can not communicate to people, speaking this language... unless you force all people speaking this language to speak your language... Doing an analogy like this, most of these people who just speak this foreign language will react like the following on your trial to force them to speak your language: they will give you the finger.
I know, this is not acceptable, because YOU have no time to learn this language... but YOU want to communicate to these people. These people don't care about you, their life will go on, no matter if you have talked to them or not.

The same goes with a computer, no matter which operating system it runs. When you do not know how to use it and when you actually do NOT WANT to learn how to use it, the computer can not care less. It doesn't matter to it.
So in this case you are in a good position, because you have 3 more options (normally you would have much more, but you limit yourself by not wanting to learn and inform yourself):

- use another operating system, this contains the risk that there are other things which do not fit to you and which can not be solved because you do not want to adapt to it

- change the things, you don't like, on your own

- request this change somehow and hope the developer agrees to your opinion, or pay someone to do it

so for the last point it will most likely run into paying someone... so please do that then.
Or jump on the first point.

Edit: everything I have pointed out on computer learning is not limited to the command line. It is applicable to both, CLI and GUI. Sometimes, the CLI is more efficient, sometimes the GUI is more efficient. But saying "no it all has to be GUI because I hate CLI" is not right, as reverse ("it all has to be CLI...") too

[petrus4]

The primary goal of Ubuntu is to take market share away from Windows. (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1)

This is exactly my point. The primary goal is, essentially, to turn Linux into a clone of Windows.

What you're not understanding though, is that if Linux becomes a clone of Windows, Linux will by definition also inherit Windows' problems.

Just today on Slashdot, there was a report of the discovery of the first ever botnet made up of compromised Linux machines. This has never happened before; Linux used to be a very secure operating system.

That is my point; that Ubuntu's focus is too strongly on outwardly visible ease of use, at the expense of real strength under the hood. Windows adopted the same approach, and that is the cause of its' problems, in terms of security and so on.

Binary packaging of software is a great example. It's there because it makes life a lot easier for end users; but what gets overlooked is how there can also be scenarios where updating the system will render it unstable, or also where, in the case of exploits being found for specific applications, the availability of patches by definition cannot be as fast with binary repositories as it can for people who use compilation from source.

Ubuntu's work with regards to user friendliness is, in many respects, a good thing. The amount of out-of-the-box hardware support that Ubuntu provides, in particular, is wonderful. Ubuntu's default installation is also very good for rapid deployment of a system; I spent probably two weeks fine tuning my current FreeBSD system, whereas Ubuntu is ready to go in probably less than half an hour.

So the usability advances which Ubuntu provides genuinely are things which Linux has needed; I'm not denying that.

However, if Canonical wants, rather than to just replace Windows, for Ubuntu to actually be better than Windows, there needs to be more focus put on internal technical integrity as well.

The tradeoff between implementation (internal) and interface (external) quality has always been a tricky one with software design in general; so that is not intended as an attack on Canonical specifically. Ubuntu, however, is not a robust system. Usability is a very valuable thing, but a system that has become non-functional is not usable at all.

One suggestion I've got is to try and teach users to do some basic things for themselves, rather than always increasing software complexity. End-users need a lot of automation and help, yes; but the more of that you have, the more chances you have that the user is going to end up at the proverbial black screen of death, as well.

My main example here, is the mounting of hard drive partitions. Someone here asked how to do that in a thread a week or so ago, and the immediate option offered was a GUI application written for the purpose. I on the other hand wrote an explanation of how to edit /etc/fstab.

Some people might think that the use of an fstab ought to be deprecated entirely; but the point is that the more GUI applications are written, even to perform simple tasks, the more chances there are of serious errors which can further weaken the stability of the overall system.

Another suggestion would be, at least for critical applications, (such as apache and so on) for those people at least who are willing, apt's capacity for source compilation should be promoted. If that were done, the security for these applications would improve, because people compiling from source could apply the patches to their own systems more rapidly than the repository could produce new packages. It would definitely also be possible to automate that process, as well.

So I'm not suggesting for one moment that binary packaging go away; it obviously can't, because it's too valuable. What I am suggesting, however, is that there may be times where source compilation on individual machines, for selected applications, could not only improve response time for fixing exploits/problems, but also potentially reduce some of the load on the respository maintenance staff as well.

At the moment, the emphasis is purely on making everything as user-friendly as possible, with robustness being left almost entirely by the wayside. Granted, perhaps in Linux's past, the extreme was too far in the opposite direction; but in order for Ubuntu to truly maximise its' potential, we need to find a way to create a marriage of the two.

FreeBSD is, of course, at that other extreme. It is very stable, but whatever usability you want, you largely have to create yourself.

An operating system with unprecedented ease of use, but which was also able to maintain a very high level of stability as well, would be the greatest thing for a computer that we've ever seen yet. It would be tricky, but I think such a thing genuinely is attainable.

[hoppipolla]

We want to live on McDonald's, (i.e., utterly nutritionally devoid fast food, with instant gratification) rather than cook ourselves, but we don't want to get fat, or get any kind of disease.

We want to be able to gorge ourselves on any kind of refined sugar we want, but not get fat from that either, or get diabetes. We also want to be able to drink as much alcohol as we like, but never get liver failure or brain damage.

We want to be able to continue to produce tons of household rubbish per month, and simply throw it away with no further thought, without it doing any damage at all to the environment.

We want to be able to do nothing other than sit and mindlessly vegetate in front of television, computer games, porn, or YouTube, but still have a stable, functioning democracy, and political leaders who maintain the highest standards of personal integrity, and who will vigorously defend our freedoms.

We want to be able to have a sociopathic, morally bankrupt society which is primarily focused on the lives of people like Paris Hilton, where if we see someone lying on the side of the road as a result of being hit by a car, we simply keep driving; but at the same time, we also want our society to be completely free of crime, and for our children to grow up to be emotionally stable, responsible human beings.

We want to be able to keep driving cars, and belching carbon monoxide into the atmosphere by the ton, and we don't ever want the oil to run out, or for global warming to ruin the ability of corporations to continue to post record profits, year in and year out.

We want the operating systems of our computers to be totally driven by a graphical user interface that is sufficiently easy that someone with chronic mental retardation could use one of them, with zero time investment in learning how to use them, (because otherwise we might miss something important, like watching Survivor) and we want them to be totally secure. to never, ever crash, and to be completely immune to even the very idea of viruses.

It's human nature man ._.

And would an OS like you described really be that bad? o.O

[badvegan39]

functionality!

[aysiu]

This is exactly my point. The primary goal is, essentially, to turn Linux into a clone of Windows. No, the primary goal is to take away marketshare. You don't take away marketshare by being a clone. Please tell me one clone in the history of consumer products that has flipped the marketshare on a previously dominant consumer product?

Did Google clone any of the search engines from the turn of the millennium? Did Wal-Mart clone Sears? Did the iPod clone Creative or Archos players?

No.

But you still have to appeal to the masses if you want your product to succeed with them.

What you are presenting is a false dichotomy: either an operating system is like Windows, or it is not fully point-and-click and accessible to the masses. We know, from both Linux interfaces and Mac OS X, though, that such an either/or scenario is untrue.

There are plenty of point-and-click and accessible-to-the-masses interfaces that are not clones of Windows. A taskbar at the top of the screen is just as accessible as one at the bottom of the screen. Compiz is just as accessible as Aero.

You're also missing the point of Bug #1. Even if Ubuntu does become a clone of Windows (which it won't, but let's just say hypothetically it does), that will still be better for everyone in the end. The main issue Bug #1 seeks to address is the dominance of proprietary software. Ubuntu ultimately celebrates freedom. Windows tries to lock you in with activation keys, "genuine advantages," and restrictive End User License Agreements. Ubuntu lets you do with the software what you want.

So even if ReactOS ended successful, I'm sure a lot of Ubuntu supporters would be happy, even though ReactOS is (unlike Ubuntu) intended to be a clone of Windows, because ReactOS is open source, not proprietary.

As for security, well, if users want to be stupid, it won't really matter what operating system they use. Sure, Linux distros tend to have better security design than Windows releases, but 90% of the security compromises in Windows come from stupid user choices (not installing system updates, using easy-to-guess passwords, turning off UAC, etc.).

I don't see why you have such an issue, though. If you really believe Ubuntu is becoming a clone of Windows, no one is pointing a gun at your head and coercing you into using Ubuntu. There are plenty of Linux distros out there that are different from Ubuntu. You can try Arch Linux or GoboLinux, Gentoo or Slackware, or even Linux from Scratch.

[hoppipolla]

No, the primary goal is to take away marketshare. You don't take away marketshare by being a clone. Please tell me one clone in the history of consumer products that has flipped the marketshare on a previously dominant consumer product?

Did Google clone any of the search engines from the turn of the millennium? Did Wal-Mart clone Sears? Did the iPod clone Creative or Archos players?

No.

But you still have to appeal to the masses if you want your product to succeed with them.

What you are presenting is a false dichotomy: either an operating system is like Windows, or it is not fully point-and-click and accessible to the masses. We know, from both Linux interfaces and Mac OS X, though, that such an either/or scenario is untrue.

There are plenty of point-and-click and accessible-to-the-masses interfaces that are not clones of Windows. A taskbar at the top of the screen is just as accessible as one at the bottom of the screen. Compiz is just as accessible as Aero.

As for security, well, if users want to be stupid, it won't really matter what operating system they use. Sure, Linux distros tend to have better security design than Windows releases, but 90% of the security compromises in Windows come from stupid user choices (not installing system updates, using easy-to-guess passwords, turning off UAC, etc.).

I don't see why you have such an issue, though. If you really believe Ubuntu is becoming a clone of Windows, no one is pointing a gun at your head and coercing you into using Ubuntu. There are plenty of Linux distros out there that are different from Ubuntu. You can try Arch Linux or GoboLinux, Gentoo or Slackware, or even Linux from Scratch.

I agree (on pretty much every point) :)

[petrus4]

I don't see why you have such an issue, though.

Because Ubuntu isn't the only distribution that is being affected by this. The development style for Linux in general is changing, and the emphasis is now almost entirely on making sure that something appeals to Windows refugees first and foremost, with very little regard for if it breaks.

As for going to Linux From Scratch; I already have compiled LFS once before...that is a good suggestion. I will, however, now also shut up. ;)

[SuperSonic4]

Because Ubuntu isn't the only distribution that is being affected by this. The development style for Linux in general is changing, and the emphasis is now almost entirely on making sure that something appeals to Windows refugees first and foremost, with very little regard for if it breaks.

As for going to Linux From Scratch; I already have compiled LFS once before...that is a good suggestion. I will, however, now also shut up. ;)

Not really, there are many distros that do but also many that do not. Click on the red link in my sig and check the KISS policy arch uses. Gentoo is also compiling based. BSD I believe is the same and slackware too.

[aysiu]

Because Ubuntu isn't the only distribution that is being affected by this. The development style for Linux in general is changing, and the emphasis is now almost entirely on making sure that something appeals to Windows refugees first and foremost, with very little regard for if it breaks. Sure. Most GUI improvements come from upstream anyway. Ubuntu isn't Gnome or KDE. But it doesn't really matter, because nothing has been taken away from you.

Is there a bash command that used to work that no longer does? Is there any Linux distro that doesn't have a fully functioning terminal? Is there a Linux distro you cannot remove the GUI from?

Even in Ubuntu, which you fear is becoming a clone of Windows, you can always remove xorg and have a command-line only system. Or, better yet, you can use the mini.iso to build Ubuntu from the ground up.

One big problem with Windows is not that it is designed with an idiot-proof interface (in fact, I find KDE, Gnome, and OS X interfaces to be far more idiot-proof than the Windows ones). The big problem is how difficult it is to change things, either for technical or legal reasons. I can't just remove the Windows equivalent of xorg and end up a DOS prompt. I can't uninstall Internet Explorer.

[petrus4]

Or, better yet, you can use the mini.iso to build Ubuntu from the ground up.

Interesting. Both Debian and FreeBSD have one of these, but I will admit that I didn't know Ubuntu did.

[aysiu]

Interesting. Both Debian and FreeBSD have one of these, but I will admit that I didn't know Ubuntu did. It's not well-publicized, of course, but it does exist. It's about 10 MB and gives you a pretty barebones command-line system (fetching most of the essential packages off the internet):
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD

[petrus4]

It's not well-publicized, of course, but it does exist. It's about 10 MB and gives you a pretty barebones command-line system (fetching most of the essential packages off the internet):
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD

This could be really good. I did try and change window environments to Ratpoison with a Ubuntu install, and had issues in terms of it not having an Xsession file as some window managers usually do. GDM wasn't happy with adding things that didn't have one of those, apparently.

I tried going around it by ripping gdm out of init and then just using .xinitrc as I normally do on other distros, but that had all sorts of weird problems; the system didn't like me doing that at all.

[bodhi.zazen]

I tried going around it by ripping gdm out of init and then just using .xinitrc as I normally do on other distros, but that had all sorts of weird problems; the system didn't like me doing that at all.

You need to start with a minimal install and build up.

I build an install of Karmic this way, using xfce + some of the apps I like + gdm (I like GDM but understand why you may not).

The install is about 2 Gb. My goals was to remove the bloat without endign up iwth a minimal system.

If you want a minimal system, look at crunchbang or lubuntu (LXDE). Both are nice, but I almost always end up adding the apps I like to them if I use them.