PDA

View Full Version : Michael Meeks' thoughts



vasa1
September 12th, 2012, 04:17 AM
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/11/michael_meeks_linux_desktop/
Quoted from the link above:

As a result, bundling Windows with hardware essentially costs OEMs nothing. In fact, it probably earns them money, which in turn makes it easier to pay developers and component makers to ensure that specific hardware configurations are well supported by the OS all of which makes Windows more attractive.
and

To that end, he wishes more hackers would spend less time worrying about things like GUI controls, flashy desktop effects, and how their desktops compare to Windows and Mac OS X. Instead, they should work to build systems that are secure, easy to manage, integrate well with existing network services, upgrade smoothly, and require little retraining all qualities that could help desktop Linux gain better footing in enterprise environments.

Blog link
http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2012-09-10-desktop-linux.html

forrestcupp
September 12th, 2012, 01:51 PM
Well, I've been saying the first quote for years now, at least for the large OEMs. It's not so for the small OEM's, though.

But the 2nd thing he said doesn't really make much sense to me. They pretty much already have built "systems that are secure, easy to manage, integrate well with existing network services, upgrade smoothly". But the part about "requiring little retraining" can't possibly happen unless they try to make things more like Windows, which is what he is saying they shouldn't do. I really don't get his point, since they're already doing everything he says they should be doing. Then again, I'm using KDE and not Unity or Gnome Shell.

jrog
September 12th, 2012, 03:01 PM
But the 2nd thing he said doesn't really make much sense to me. They pretty much already have built "systems that are secure, easy to manage, integrate well with existing network services, upgrade smoothly".
Do you really think that's true with respect to upgrading? The standard advice that I still hear about upgrading Ubuntu, to take the most relevant example here, is that it pretty much shouldn't be done; instead, you should backup your data and do a clean install from a CD/USB/DVD. When that is the standard advice, it seems doubtful that the upgrade process is "smooth." (Sure, it works great for some people, but almost everything works great for someone.)

forrestcupp
September 12th, 2012, 06:19 PM
Do you really think that's true with respect to upgrading? The standard advice that I still hear about upgrading Ubuntu, to take the most relevant example here, is that it pretty much shouldn't be done; instead, you should backup your data and do a clean install from a CD/USB/DVD. When that is the standard advice, it seems doubtful that the upgrade process is "smooth." (Sure, it works great for some people, but almost everything works great for someone.)

That's the standard advice because we have a bunch of scared wimps in the community. ;)

I've been around Ubuntu since Breezy Badger. Anytime I've had it installed and a new version came out, I always did an upgrade rather than a clean install. I've never once had a problem with it. The only real upgrade problems I've ever run into was when I was using an early alpha.

The upgrade process is smooth, and it always has been. And it's definitely smoother than, or at least as smooth as, upgrading Windows.

Mikeb85
September 12th, 2012, 09:54 PM
That's the standard advice because we have a bunch of scared wimps in the community. ;)

I've been around Ubuntu since Breezy Badger. Anytime I've had it installed and a new version came out, I always did an upgrade rather than a clean install. I've never once had a problem with it. The only real upgrade problems I've ever run into was when I was using an early alpha.

The upgrade process is smooth, and it always has been. And it's definitely smoother than, or at least as smooth as, upgrading Windows.

+1.

Don't know why people don't recommend the update, it works perfectly fine. I've upgraded Ubuntu, SUSE, both work fine (as long as you're not upgrading to an Alpha or early Beta).

fatality_uk
September 12th, 2012, 10:18 PM
The reason I am writing this on a Win 7 laptop is the reason that Linux is still languishing on 1-2% market share. Apps.

The reality is that people don't use an OS, they use apps. It's about time Linux developers put heads together, sort out the killer apps that almost all desktop users need. Office, photo imaging, email etc.

drawkcab
September 12th, 2012, 11:00 PM
That's the standard advice because we have a bunch of scared wimps in the community. ;)

I've been around Ubuntu since Breezy Badger. Anytime I've had it installed and a new version came out, I always did an upgrade rather than a clean install. I've never once had a problem with it. The only real upgrade problems I've ever run into was when I was using an early alpha.

The upgrade process is smooth, and it always has been. And it's definitely smoother than, or at least as smooth as, upgrading Windows.

I've never upgraded without at least having some bugs that are naggy enough that I, finally, perform a clean install. So I've had the opposite experience.

On the other hand, upgrading and installing ubuntu is much easier than upgrading or installing windows so I'll not complain.

Mikeb85
September 12th, 2012, 11:52 PM
The reason I am writing this on a Win 7 laptop is the reason that Linux is still languishing on 1-2% market share. Apps.

The reality is that people don't use an OS, they use apps. It's about time Linux developers put heads together, sort out the killer apps that almost all desktop users need. Office, photo imaging, email etc.

I actually think Linux does have some killer apps.

A bigger issue is that Microsoft apps are still considered 'standard', and it's simply incredibly difficult to dislodge a standard. For instance, Apple computers never became truly 'mainstream' until Microsoft started selling OSX software.

As apps migrate to the web it'll certainly help out Linux, but for right now Microsoft, Adobe and Autodesk are standard apps, and (mostly) unavailable on Linux...

vexorian
September 13th, 2012, 03:38 AM
Still beats me why would we want the enterprise niche.

Let MS keep it. Really.

vasa1
September 13th, 2012, 03:44 AM
Still beats me why would we want the enterprise niche.

Let MS keep it. Really.

It depends on who the "we" is. Canonical earns money by providing support to enterprises.

vexorian
September 13th, 2012, 03:57 AM
But Canonical has no control over upstream and thus can't do much beyond unity interface to follow Meek's wishes.

Also, you could make the easiest interface ever, or you could make a windows clone. For the enterprise (a bunch of lame guys), the alternative that needs less training is a windows clone.

forrestcupp
September 13th, 2012, 11:46 AM
I actually think Linux does have some killer apps. It does. But the moment you need just one Windows app that doesn't work with Wine, that one app can force you back to using Windows, at least part time.


But Canonical has no control over upstream and thus can't do much beyond unity interface to follow Meek's wishes.Meeks wasn't talking to Canonical or Ubuntu. He was talking to the whole desktop Linux community. We're all supposed to be working together on this.

jrog
September 13th, 2012, 03:54 PM
That's the standard advice because we have a bunch of scared wimps in the community. ;)

I've been around Ubuntu since Breezy Badger. Anytime I've had it installed and a new version came out, I always did an upgrade rather than a clean install. I've never once had a problem with it. The only real upgrade problems I've ever run into was when I was using an early alpha.

The upgrade process is smooth, and it always has been. And it's definitely smoother than, or at least as smooth as, upgrading Windows.
Interesting. I thought (until now) that the "standard advice" (to prefer reinstalling to upgrading) was official advice, not just community advice. I could have sworn that I'd seen it in official documentation. In any case, I just re-checked, and it looks like the official advice is now to go ahead and upgrade, so long as you do it from one release to the next (or one LTS release to the next LTS release). Guess I might have to start giving it a try. :)

It would be great if there were some actual statistics somewhere about successful vs. unsuccessful upgrades. Now I'm really wondering how error-prone the process is or is not.

forrestcupp
September 13th, 2012, 06:23 PM
Interesting. I thought (until now) that the "standard advice" (to prefer reinstalling to upgrading) was official advice, not just community advice. I could have sworn that I'd seen it in official documentation. In any case, I just re-checked, and it looks like the official advice is now to go ahead and upgrade, so long as you do it from one release to the next (or one LTS release to the next LTS release). Guess I might have to start giving it a try. :)

It would be great if there were some actual statistics somewhere about successful vs. unsuccessful upgrades. Now I'm really wondering how error-prone the process is or is not.

No matter what, you should always back up your important files first. Like I said, I've never had any trouble with it, other than alphas. But I guess other people have had other experiences. I'd say the most error prone upgrade for people (not me) was probably when Unity switched from a Gnome 2 base to a Gnome 3 base. Also, like you said, people have had problems when skipping releases. If you're going to skip a release, you're a lot better off doing a clean install. But I think upgrades from release to release are generally pretty smooth.

Also, it's probably wise to make sure you're not going to be a victim of hardware regressions before doing an upgrade. One good thing about doing a clean install is that you'll first boot to the LiveCD and find that out before you install it.

vexorian
September 16th, 2012, 12:23 AM
You should always have backups. I mean always. Not only before installing new OSes.

But honestly, after 600 upgrades. I would rather never do an upgrade ever ever again. Clean installs take less than or equal the amount of effort.

zer010
September 16th, 2012, 12:37 AM
You should always have backups. I mean always. Not only before installing new OSes.

But honestly, after 600 upgrades. I would rather never do an upgrade ever ever again. Clean installs take less than or equal the amount of effort.

I've only upgraded once and it wasn't the best experience, but as stated, with the time and effort being almost equal, why not do a clean install? Then again, I think it has to do with that warm and fuzzy feeling of laying down a new OS after formating...

alexfish
September 16th, 2012, 01:11 AM
The reason I am writing this on a Win 7 laptop is the reason that Linux is still languishing on 1-2% market share. Apps.

The reality is that people don't use an OS, they use apps. It's about time Linux developers put heads together, sort out the killer apps that almost all desktop users need. Office, photo imaging, email etc.

your name describes you and may others perfectly.

about time ,!!! got a brain.

most of what you see on this forum and in the Linux desk-top world is the work of volunteers. supported by themselves , and a lot by commercial support.

if I had someone like you telling me to get off my A** , guess what the answer would be If you were standing next to me .

regards

alexfish

PS ,it would not come as a surprise , it would not be recordable , at least when you wake up,

everything could be dim as ever , but shiny.

Mikeb85
September 16th, 2012, 01:50 AM
Also, thought I should mention. I think that the Ubuntu upgrade process is OK, but in my experience nothing is easier to upgrade than openSUSE KDE.

jrog
September 16th, 2012, 03:35 PM
No matter what, you should always back up your important files first. Like I said, I've never had any trouble with it, other than alphas. But I guess other people have had other experiences. I'd say the most error prone upgrade for people (not me) was probably when Unity switched from a Gnome 2 base to a Gnome 3 base. Also, like you said, people have had problems when skipping releases. If you're going to skip a release, you're a lot better off doing a clean install. But I think upgrades from release to release are generally pretty smooth.

Also, it's probably wise to make sure you're not going to be a victim of hardware regressions before doing an upgrade. One good thing about doing a clean install is that you'll first boot to the LiveCD and find that out before you install it.
All very good advice. :)

I went ahead and upgraded from 12.04 LTS to the 12.10 Beta, by the way. It all went very smoothly, except for one problem with DNS -- after the upgrade, my computer was unable to resolve domain names, so I couldn't browse the web or get in touch with any server for which I didn't know the IP address. I think I identified the problem (DNS now works, anyway!), and I reported the bug and workaround here (for anyone interested):

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/1051348

vasa1
September 16th, 2012, 04:01 PM
All very good advice. :)

I went ahead and upgraded from 12.04 LTS to the 12.10 Beta, by the way. It all went very smoothly, except for one problem with DNS -- after the upgrade, my computer was unable to resolve domain names, so I couldn't browse the web or get in touch with any server for which I didn't know the IP address. I think I identified the problem (DNS now works, anyway!), and I reported the bug and workaround here (for anyone interested):

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/1051348

Great to see you went ahead despite the "noise" :)

Kudos!