When Linux bounces people back to Billy

[Buendia]

(This is an extension of this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=487938).)

This a try to explain how Linux-gurus serve Windows a big time by bouncing back the range of starters to medium-skilled users trying to detox from Microsoft. Needless to say, this range contains much larger population than the gurus. This is not a note in favour of Windows neither it tries to start a yet another flame-war. However, expressing and recording the different opinions may be of the community benefit.

Imagine that (I know it is hard to imagine this) one day you wake up and see that on top of Google News it says that 'Now everything in Linux works out-of-the-box'. Here is the question: Would that make you happy? No more unknown error, no more copy/pasting to Google and sniffing the forums for a similar problem and no more how-to recipes. Would that make you happy? Surprisingly, this is not the ideal OS for everyone.

There is this misleading misunderstanding when it comes to open-source that since the provided software is free and since the consumer has not paid anything for it, there is no right for the consumer to ask for a nice piece of open-source software. It seems that it is okay, and ideal, for open-source operating-systems to look amateurish and ugly outside and non-friendly to the starters inside, just because they are free.

People who think like this, assume that they are giving out free food in the street to the homeless, and when the starving homeless complains about the rock-solid-bread, he deserves a big-strong shut-up to bring this to his attention and he is not paying for anything. Perhaps he should go to the high-class Microsoft Restaurant where Bill serves Champaign where he can nag for something he has paid (actually, the kitchen of this restaurant is strictly closed to the customers since Bill does not like to give out the recipes, however, from the smell of the food it is not hard to say that the ingredients are not far away from the McDonald's).

I would like to declare that, an ideal open-source community not only should be open-to-complain, but also it should provide commercial-quality software which is out-of-the-box-oriented. What is wrong with having such a nice OSOS? Is that too much to ask for an OS that serves me and not me serving the OS? Commercial OS are paid by money, open-source OS are paid by time and energy to fix and maintaining which is an equivalent of money for many people – the only difference is that you are self-paid!

Let me give a nice example of a nice professional-quality open-source software which sadly may not happen again: Donal Knuth's TeX. Just being free and open-source was not enough for Knuth to give us an ugly-structured word processing system with amateurish fonts. While it was not his background, he even designed the Computer Modern font which has been being used in the professional world. If Knuth had the same strategy of these Linux-gurus we are talking about, perhaps his word processor wouldn't be better than MS Notepad.

Assume the installed copy of a Windows-guru and a Windows-starter, they probably are more or less the same copies -- both copies work. Now compare the copies of a Linux-guru and a Linux-starter, the Linux-guru copy works smoothly thank to its master where all the drivers work just fine and if there is any problems, it will be solved based on the skills. The Linux-starter copy, which is more or less a fresh copy, is restricted and 10 to 30 clicks out of 100 clicks end up with an error. Now the started has at least 2 choices:

(1) Spending up his time and energy on fixing and maintaining the OS, the same thing that the guru did it once and perhaps that is why the guru wants everyone else to suffer the same thing he went through – don't forget all gurus were starters one day.

(2) Giving up Linux and going back to Windows.

It is not hard to see that the majority go for the second option and this is a big leak for Linux.

[bapoumba]

Thread moved to the discussion area.

[tpg]

I can see your line of reasoning, and I agree to some extent. Although I would say that there are many ways in which Open Source has done much better than proprietary software. The example of TeX (and then of course, LaTeX) is good, although it would only be applicable to a small group of people.

Take Ubuntu's software/package management system.

1) Applications can be installed from a selection of over 20,000 packages all with a few clicks. This is the easiest system I have ever seen for installing software.

2) A system-wide updater keeps the whole system including all your applications up-to-date with the latest versions and patches. I don't see anything like this for Windows.

3) Having essentially all the applications you will ever need pre-packaged means that they can all be tested for compatibility with each other. The system simply is much more integrated than with, for example, Windows.

I could go on, but my point is that Linux and Windows are different - they make different things easier. Some things are easier in Windows, but I'd say that a lot of things can be easier with Linux, too.

[Brucevdk]

There is this misleading misunderstanding when it comes to open-source that since the provided software is free and since the consumer has not paid anything for it, there is no right for the consumer to ask for a nice piece of open-source software. It seems that it is okay, and ideal, for open-source operating-systems to look amateurish and ugly outside and non-friendly to the starters inside, just because they are free.

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

[wolfen69]

huh?

[Stew2]

But you don't have to be a guru to use linux. I think the main reason people go back to windows from linux is because they can't get their head around the fact that linux is not windows.

[tpg]

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
:lolflag:

(To wolfen69, Brucevdk has quoted from the kind of EULA that is included with most pieces of proprietary software)

[Kilz]

(This is an extension of this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=487938).)

This a try to explain how Linux-gurus serve Windows a big time by bouncing back the range of starters to medium-skilled users trying to detox from Microsoft. Needless to say, this range contains much larger population than the gurus. This is not a note in favour of Windows neither it tries to start a yet another flame-war. However, expressing and recording the different opinions may be of the community benefit.

Imagine that (I know it is hard to imagine this) one day you wake up and see that on top of Google News it says that 'Now everything in Linux works out-of-the-box'. Here is the question: Would that make you happy? No more unknown error, no more copy/pasting to Google and sniffing the forums for a similar problem and no more how-to recipes. Would that make you happy? Surprisingly, this is not the ideal OS for everyone.

There is this misleading misunderstanding when it comes to open-source that since the provided software is free and since the consumer has not paid anything for it, there is no right for the consumer to ask for a nice piece of open-source software. It seems that it is okay, and ideal, for open-source operating-systems to look amateurish and ugly outside and non-friendly to the starters inside, just because they are free.

But you are not a consumer. You gave nothing for the software. You have no rights to ask for anything, nor expect anything. The reason you can do that with commercial operating systems like Windows, is because you have PAID for it.
Before writing another of these pages go here and READ. (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm)


People who think like this, assume that they are giving out free food in the street to the homeless, and when the starving homeless complains about the rock-solid-bread, he deserves a big-strong shut-up to bring this to his attention and he is not paying for anything. Perhaps he should go to the high-class Microsoft Restaurant where Bill serves Champaign where he can nag for something he has paid (actually, the kitchen of this restaurant is strictly closed to the customers since Bill does not like to give out the recipes, however, from the smell of the food it is not hard to say that the ingredients are not far away from the McDonald's).

This is not food, nor are you needy. If you feel that you need something better, feel free to pay for it, or its development.


I would like to declare that, an ideal open-source community not only should be open-to-complain, but also it should provide commercial-quality software which is out-of-the-box-oriented. What is wrong with having such a nice OSOS? Is that too much to ask for an OS that serves me and not me serving the OS? Commercial OS are paid by money, open-source OS are paid by time and energy to fix and maintaining which is an equivalent of money for many people – the only difference is that you are self-paid!

This makes sense, since it was given to you free, you should expect to have to do some setup, to help others, to give something back. What would happen to open source if everyone was a no good freeloader that just took an never gave back?


Let me give a nice example of a nice professional-quality open-source software which sadly may not happen again: Donal Knuth's TeX. Just being free and open-source was not enough for Knuth to give us an ugly-structured word processing system with amateurish fonts. While it was not his background, he even designed the Computer Modern font which has been being used in the professional world. If Knuth had the same strategy of these Linux-gurus we are talking about, perhaps his word processor wouldn't be better than MS Notepad.

Assume the installed copy of a Windows-guru and a Windows-starter, they probably are more or less the same copies -- both copies work. Now compare the copies of a Linux-guru and a Linux-starter, the Linux-guru copy works smoothly thank to its master where all the drivers work just fine and if there is any problems, it will be solved based on the skills. The Linux-starter copy, which is more or less a fresh copy, is restricted and 10 to 30 clicks out of 100 clicks end up with an error. Now the started has at least 2 choices:
There you go again compairing Windows and Linux, you cant, Linux is not windows, go take a look. You must think you are the first ex Windows user to write one of these blithering rambles. Guess what, ....not! (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm).


(1) Spending up his time and energy on fixing and maintaining the OS, the same thing that the guru did it once and perhaps that is why the guru wants everyone else to suffer the same thing he went through – don't forget all gurus were starters one day.

(2) Giving up Linux and going back to Windows.

It is not hard to see that the majority go for the second option and this is a big leak for Linux.
Sadly, you need to visit reality once in a while.

[Brucevdk]

:lolflag:

(To wolfen69, Brucevdk has quoted from the kind of EULA that is included with most pieces of proprietary software)

Actually while it is true that most EULAs contain a disclaimer of warranty or a section describing the limited warranty associated with the product, the disclaimer I pasted is in fact from the license under which most Free Software is licensed. That is the GNU General Public License (GPL).

Now as to why I choose to paste this disclaimer might only be obvious to some.

[Buendia]

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.


i am not talking about giving the user any warranties. Some similar conditions apply to (La)TeX. I do not understand why no-warranty is quivalent to low-quality for some people.

See this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=483057) complaining about the official eye-soring fonts. Are you official unubtu staff using the officisal eye-soring fonts? If yes, why?! If not, why don't you include the nice fonts for everyone?

[Bachstelze]

As I always say, people who make Free Software are people who like it, not people who don't. I've talked to a few people who work at Microsoft, and most of them don't like the Microsoft product, but they work on them because they're paid for that.

On the other hand, Open Source developers are generally not paid, and code their stuff on a volunteer basis. Do you really expect them to spend so much of their free time working, gratis, on something they don't like ?

You say that it would be better to have some more "user-friendly" software, whatever that means. It's your opinion, it is obviously not the one of the developpers. What you consider "user-friendly", others might consider it a bad thing (see the whole Linus Vs Gnome war) and will have no interest in working on them. You think it would be good ? Fine, go code it yourself, but you can't force others to do it for you.

[@trophy]

i am not talking about giving the user any warranties. Some similar conditions apply to (La)TeX. I do not understand why no-warranty is quivalent to low-quality for some people.

See this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=483057) complaining about the official eye-soring fonts. Are you official unubtu staff using the officisal eye-soring fonts? If yes, why?! If not, why don't you include the nice fonts for everyone?

First of all, sorry for those who are being jerks to you.
Second, there's any number of reasons why the better fonts might not be included by default: they might not work on older hardware, they might be under a more restrictive license, or Mark might have simply preferred the fonts that did get included over the ones that didn't. No conspiracy.

And if you want to install the fonts you like better, ubuntu's community is one of the friendliest I've ever found about helping you. Now, I've been frustrated about non-answered posts of mine in the Total Beginner section too, so I can understand it not feeling like ubuntu is very friendly all the time, because it isn't always friendly.

And perhaps someone should add "Not enough qualified people on the forums to answer all the newbies' questions" as a bug... but please bear with us. I try to help people out whenever I can, and I'm sure there's others on here doing the same.

[Brucevdk]

i am not talking about giving the user any warranties. Some similar conditions apply to (La)TeX. I do not understand why no-warranty is quivalent to low-quality for some people.

Actually I think you are, at least that's how I interpret your post. You've come to expect a certain level of quality from the software you use and if this quality isn't present you demand of the programmers that they clean up their act. But instead of helping them achieve this goal all you seem to want to do is exercise your so called right to complain about it.

From your original post:


I would like to declare that, an ideal open-source community not only should be open-to-complain, but also it should provide commercial-quality software which is out-of-the-box-oriented. What is wrong with having such a nice OSOS? Is that too much to ask for an OS that serves me and not me serving the OS? Commercial OS are paid by money, open-source OS are paid by time and energy to fix and maintaining which is an equivalent of money for many people – the only difference is that you are self-paid!

And how would you propose this ideal community is formed? Perhaps we should bring out the leashes and force the FOSS developers to work harder because we all know they're just being lazy when they're not giving us exactly what we ask for. We shouldn't ever have to pay FOSS developers for their time spent writing software, they should be glad we're even considering using their software on our machines!


See this thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=483057) complaining about the official eye-soring fonts. Are you official unubtu staff using the officisal eye-soring fonts? If yes, why?! If not, why don't you include the nice fonts for everyone?

I personally never had a problem with the fonts, I use Bitstream Vera Sans for mostly everything and configure the programs accordingly. As to the reason they don't include those fonts mentioned in the thread, well the msttcorefonts package is in multiverse.


The "multiverse" component contains software that is "not free", which means the licensing requirements of this software do not meet the Ubuntu "main" Component Licence Policy.

The onus is on you to verify your rights to use this software and comply with the licensing terms of the copyright holder.

This software is not supported and usually cannot be fixed or updated. Use it at your own risk.


Maybe I misunderstood you, maybe I'm one of the jerks in this thread @trophy speaks of. But. I feel the sentiment expressed in your post poses a grave danger to the ideals and spirit as I've come to see them behind Free Software.

[argie]

I hate it when people say 'the majority'. Quit saying that if you don't really know.

As to your point about open-to-complaints, Ubuntu atleast is. Try Launchpad. Be specific there. Do that and you've handled your part of the whole thing.

Also, you may have a right-to-complain, but you certainly do NOT have a right to tell the developers what to do. That's up to them,. Unless you'll be writing the cheque.

EDIT: Woah! I just read that 64-bit thread in which you posted, and uhh, I think you will be disappointed with Windows 64-bit too. Just a sneaking suspicion. I hate to tell you this, but no OS is perfect. No OS works for every user the way you envision it.

[moffatt666]

One thing people seem to miss about Windows is that it doesn't work out of the box and you have to install a load of drivers to make things work. Then you have to hunt around to download software or even buy it to make use of you computer beyond mine sweeper.
Windows and 'Linux' are totally different (hell, even Linux distros vary wildly compared with eachother) and things are done in different ways. I don't expect to be able to use internet explorer (not that I'd wand to) on Linux any more than I'd expect to be able to go into windows, open DOS Prompt and type 'sudo apt-get install ms-word-2007'

[Buendia]

This is not a Windows vs Linux discussion -- there are enough topics like that out there. The point is to bring this to the attention of the community that it seems that the Linux distros are sank in an excessive amount of how-tos and fixes rather than fixing the problems from the root.



Also, you may have a right-to-complain, but you certainly do NOT have a right to tell the developers what to do. That's up to them,. Unless you'll be writing the cheque.




But you are not a consumer. You gave nothing for the software. You have no rights to ask for anything, nor expect anything.


These are typical answers that you get when you complain about open-source quality.

First of all, specifically speaking about ubuntu, the distro is actually paid by this Mister self-funded space tourist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth), so it is not like no one gets paid in this project.

Secondly, where does this rule come from that since I am not helping the development I cannot criticise it? To me, Linux should be as useful for a pentioner with zero-level of IT experience as it is for you. Otherwise it is nothing but an open-source piece of software suitable for for the closed-community of people call themselves gurus.



This is not food, nor are you needy. If you feel that you need something better, feel free to pay for it, or its development.


This just does confirm the topic of this discussion. Not happy? Bounce back to Windows or become a programmer! Words like this help Gates to pay less for that silly 'wow experiece' adverts.

[koenn]

Dear Buendia,
your post is so full of wrong assumptions that it hurts my ears.
First off, you assume that your so-called Linux gurus use linux because it's buggy so they can have their dose of problems to solve, and that they prefer it to remain buggy.

Imagine that (I know it is hard to imagine this) one day you wake up and see that on top of Google News it says that 'Now everything in Linux works out-of-the-box'. Here is the question: Would that make you happy? No more unknown error, no more copy/pasting to Google and sniffing the forums for a similar problem and no more how-to recipes. Would that make you happy?

Well, tinkering with software is probably a hobby for lots of computer users, and Linux is a good platform to do so, not because it's buggy, but because the user can (by the design of the OS) and is allowed (by the license) to do so.
Claiming that these "guru's" take some perverse pleasure in using a buggyy system is an insult. Guru's, or people interested in technology enough to enjoy tinkering with it, like things that work. Running out of things to tinker with is not a problem - new software is released daily, plenty of stuff to play with for those so inclined.


Next, you claim that open source sofware is amateurish, ugly and non-friendly.


There is this misleading misunderstanding when it comes to open-source that since the provided software is free and since the consumer has not paid anything for it, there is no right for the consumer to ask for a nice piece of open-source software. It seems that it is okay, and ideal, for open-source operating-systems to look amateurish and ugly outside and non-friendly to the starters inside, just because they are free.

This is an insult. The open source develoment produces quality software.
Do you think that coorporations would run amateurish software on mission-critical servers, to save a few bucks on software licenses ? Do you think e-businesses can afford buggy software on their web servers ? Do you think Google can't afford a couple of Windows Server licenses ?




People who think like this, assume that they are giving out free food in the street to the homeless, and when the starving homeless complains about the rock-solid-bread, he deserves a big-strong shut-up to bring this to his attention and he is not paying for anything.

Developers choose open source because they believe in its merits as e development method, and/or because they think software should be free to used modified and re-distributed without restrictions. The fact that it's usually alse free of charge, is irrelevant. Your comparison is meaningless.




I would like to declare that, an ideal open-source community not only should be open-to-complain, ....

On every piece of Open source software I've seen so far, there was a note asking for feedback and bug-reports. Still you claim that open source devs are not open to feedback from users ?
Your freedom of speech grants you the right to complain and nag, but unless you can voice it as constructive feedback that benefits the development of the software in question, you can't force people to listen to you're whining.


Finally, you assume that "commercial" is synonymous to "quality" :

... but also it should provide commercial-quality software
So, the fact that something costs money or is sold by a company, makes it quality ? To think so is rather naive, I'd say. Some would call it plain stupid, but let's keep it polite here.



...
(2) Giving up Linux and going back to Windows.
It is not hard to see that the majority go for the second option and this is a big leak for Linux.
Yes, some people try Linux, give up, and go back to Windows. Linux is not the ultimate OS for everyone, and no OS can be the ideal for every single computer user. You pick the OS that best suits your needs. For some it's Mac. For others its BSD. Some still like DOS. Others use Windows. And some use Linux.
Your ramblings about perverse gurus who just want to make people suffer and about software that is made complicated; ineffective and ugly on purpose to stop people from using it, are ridicolous.

[macogw]

One thing people seem to miss about Windows is that it doesn't work out of the box and you have to install a load of drivers to make things work. Then you have to hunt around to download software or even buy it to make use of you computer beyond mine sweeper.
Windows and 'Linux' are totally different (hell, even Linux distros vary wildly compared with eachother) and things are done in different ways. I don't expect to be able to use internet explorer (not that I'd wand to) on Linux any more than I'd expect to be able to go into windows, open DOS Prompt and type 'sudo apt-get install ms-word-2007'

Ah, but you CAN use Internet Explorer on Linux with Wine.

[Dimitriid]

I dont think that both points of view are necessarily conflicting: complaining about lack of support is ok and saying "its free you get no support" its also their right.

But from what I understand, if the OS is open for development then its open for support too, and support ( quality support for all kinds of users not just the ones comfortable with a PC already ) should be provided not by developers but by someone else that would be interested in helping citizens use open source applications without being expert. And who should provide what is closely tied to education? Ideally the government.

I wont turn this into a politics discussion but there are countries like Venezuela turning to open source software and are willing to provide said "extra mile" support so it is doable.

[Bachstelze]

To me, Linux should be as useful for a pentioner with zero-level of IT experience as it is for you.

This is where you fail. "To me, Linux should...", right, but sorry to tell you this : the developers don't care about what Linux should be to you. You're basically telling volunteers "do as I say" and that's not how it works.

[Buendia]

This is where you fail. "To me, Linux should...", right, but sorry to tell you this : the developers don't care about what Linux should be to you. You're basically telling volunteers "do as I say" and that's not how it works.

That sounds like expressing opinions are restricted. What is wrong with talking about the way that an OS should be? That sounds like treating developers like fragile drama queens where you have to be very careful with what you say or you may upset them easily by insulting them this way.

[saru411]

dont feed the trolls. this has been covered countless times. its a waste of server space.

[Bachstelze]

That sounds like expressing opinions are restricted. What is wrong with talking about the way that an OS should be?

Nothing. But calling people names because their OS is not how yo uthink it should be is.

[OrbJinzo]

Nope never switching back. I hate MS and always will.

[Buendia]

Nothing. But calling people names because their OS is not how yo uthink it should be is.

Well,...


dont feed the trolls.

Actually, I am the victim here, people were not called names in my posts. It not an easy job to have a civilised dicussion when you put open-source quality under question which is a shame.

[Bachstelze]

Actually, I am the victim here, people were not called names in my posts. It not an easy job to have a civilised dicussion when you put open-source quality under question which is a shame.

That is becuse the word "quality" has a fundamentally different meaning when you talk about Free Software than when you talk about non-free software. The goals are different, the development spirit is different, the economic model is different. I don't think you can judge the two based on the same criteria, as you do.

[macogw]

That is becuse the word "quality" has a fundamentally different meaning when you talk about Free Software than when you talk about non-free software. The goals are different, the development spirit is different, the economic model is different. I don't think you can judge the two based on the same criteria, as you do.

Yeah, "quality" in commercial software means having a 1-800 number where you can yell at some poor untrained tech. It also means releasing software that doesn't work properly and then charging more for an "upgrade" that "adds features" which really means "fixes bugs" and "makes it stop crashing" because the "final" release was "whatever we managed to finish before the due date."

In open source, it generally means "it works correctly." If it doesn't work right yet, don't call it stable, regardless of what deadlines someone wants to place. It took the Linux kernel years to hit 1.0 because it wasn't "right" yet. Many projects which are very stable will be 0.x still because the developers don't think it's "perfect enough" to call it 1.0.


Coincidentally, Ubuntu falls in the first case more often. Debian follows the second properly.

[saulgoode]

That sounds like expressing opinions are restricted. What is wrong with talking about the way that an OS should be? That sounds like treating developers like fragile drama queens where you have to be very careful with what you say or you may upset them easily by insulting them this way.

Would you reserve only for yourself the right to criticize? Is it wrong for others to criticize your views yet somehow acceptable for you to comment upon theirs? Is the expectation that you be treated like a "fragile drama queen"?

Yes, you may express your opinion; just don't expect that those who hold differently still their tongues and refrain from comment.

[Stew2]

Aysiu would probably get a charge out of this thread :D

[Buendia]

Yeah, "quality" in commercial software means having a 1-800 number where you can yell at some poor untrained tech...

In open source, it generally means "it works correctly." ...

That is right. However, I believe there is a 'common' quality factor which is independent of the nature of open-source or commercial systems. The following example may make this more clear.

Let's consider the quality of GUI and look-and-feel. Go to gnome-look and see how many vista-like or xp-like themes are in the top-rated or top-downloaded list. This implies that many people who run Linux like to have a windows-look. Is that because of their interest in MS? Probably not. However, whether you love or hate this, it is a fact that MS pays the professionals to create ergonomic GUI which attracts people, otherwise the Windows themes wouldn't be top rated by Linux users. This does not mean that people love MS products, this means that there is a 'quality' which attracts people and that is the 'quality' I am talking about. The fact that companies like MS have acquired this quality does not mean that it should be avoided in open-source software. Overall, Linux ditros are (very) slowly moving towards this 'quality'. If you follow the Linux desktop software from early 90s to now, you may find out that they are getting closer and closer to the one of Windows -- it is not hard to demonstrate this.

[moffatt666]

Ah, but you CAN use Internet Explorer on Linux with Wine.

Oh shush you :p I never account for WINE!!! :D

[Kilz]

This is not a Windows vs Linux discussion -- there are enough topics like that out there. The point is to bring this to the attention of the community that it seems that the Linux distros are sank in an excessive amount of how-tos and fixes rather than fixing the problems from the root.

If you dont like Ubuntu, feel free to let the door hit you in the rear end on your way out. This post is a waste of time, it helps no one. Put the energy into improving not complaining.



These are typical answers that you get when you complain about open-source quality.

First of all, specifically speaking about ubuntu, the distro is actually paid by this Mister self-funded space tourist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth), so it is not like no one gets paid in this project.
He has the right to complain then, not you! You didnt give anything only took, and then complained. Like some bad gift reciever, who when they get a present, free, look down their nose at it.


Secondly, where does this rule come from that since I am not helping the development I cannot criticise it? To me, Linux should be as useful for a pentioner with zero-level of IT experience as it is for you. Otherwise it is nothing but an open-source piece of software suitable for for the closed-community of people call themselves gurus.
What other reason gives you any right? If you dont contribute, you dont have the right to complain. Those that do , would never complain because they know all the selfless hard work that went into Ubuntu or any version of linux. That self appointed, spoiled consumers, have no right to open their mouths and complain about that work. Linux is not Windows.
While your at it, complain you want a full refund!



This just does confirm the topic of this discussion. Not happy? Bounce back to Windows or become a programmer! Words like this help Gates to pay less for that silly 'wow experiece' adverts.
Exactly, but there, since you paid for the software, you have a right to complain. That same right dose not exist in relation to Ubuntu. If you dont like it, realize you are wasting yours and everyones time that might better be spent helping someone.
Go post on a Windows forum about its problems, you wont change anything, but you at least will have some right to do it.

[Buendia]

If you dont like Ubuntu, feel free to let the door hit you in the rear end on your way out. This post is a waste of time, it helps no one. Put the energy into improving not complaining.

What about this: if you don't like this thread feel free to let the door hit you in the rear end or front end or whatever 'end' that makes you get out of here. If this is a waste of time why do you bother keep replying? Aren't there enough people out there desperately waiting for you to help? So why don't you stop waisting your time here and start saving the world by your 32-bit plug-in wrapper that, according to your signature, you are very proud of.


You didnt give anything only took, and then complained. Like some bad gift reciever, who when they get a present, free, look down their nose at it.

What makes you think that I, or anyone else, have not contributed? Actually, how do you measure and judge how much other people contribute? By their forum signature? And, what makes you think that you have the right to feel free to ask people to stop using some community-driven software? Apparently you think of yourself as a contributer or someone who gives something to the OS community, but your posts, they get much more than what you give.

I have declared at the very begining that this is not a flame-war and I was looking forward for some productive dicussion. It seems there is a strong desire for diverting the subject to cheap forum wars. Perhaps a good way of doing this is to ignore the non-relevant comments and focus on the subject. One the other hand, sadly, I am happy that people who send posts like that give a real-life demonstration which helps proving the claim in this topic.

[Kilz]

What about this: if you don't like this thread feel free to let the door hit you in the rear end or front end or whatever 'end' that makes you get out of here. If this is a waste of time why do you bother keep replying? Aren't there enough people out there desperately waiting for you to help? So why don't you stop waisting your time here and start saving the world by your 32-bit plug-in wrapper that, according to your signature, you are very proud of.

This is a community forum. When you post here, expect people of all opinions to post. Not just those that agree with you. I post here because I am hoping(I know its a lost cause in the back of my head). That you will see that you are applying your past (and flawed) Windows opinions in a place that they dont fit and that no one wants them.
Do you really think you are the fist windows users who has come in to a linux forum and demanded something? NOT!



What makes you think that I, or anyone else, have not contributed? Actually, how do you measure and judge how much other people contribute? By their forum signature? And, what makes you think that you have the right to feel free to ask people to stop using some community-driven software? Apparently you think of yourself as a contributer or someone who gives something to the OS community, but your posts, they get much more than what you give.
Please point to your contribution, provide a link, as your very next action. Not to this blithering nonsense. But to something you have added or given, nottearing down. So many of these "But Ubuntu could be better if only" posts seem to think they are helping. You are only rationalizing that. You are doing nothing constructive and proving yourself to be a bad windows users who only wants and gives nothing back.
Let me repeat, you will change nothing, no one will see this who can make any difference. You are complaining to end users who love what you are complaining about and see your actions as foolishness. Notice not one post from a regular poster here is supporting you.
No one is telling you that you cant use the FREE software, but that you have no standing to complain about it. Please prove me wrong with a link to any contribution.


I have declared at the very begining that this is not a flame-war and I was looking forward for some productive dicussion. It seems there is a strong desire for diverting the subject to cheap forum wars. Perhaps a good way of doing this is to ignore the non-relevant comments and focus on the subject. One the other hand, sadly, I am happy that people who send posts like that give a real-life demonstration which helps proving the claim in this topic.
You will receive exactly what you dont want. This post of yours is a exercise in futility. If you think you are doing some good, you are not. Not one developer will see this post, buried in a forum devoted to helping people.
Ubuntu may not be perfect, but its the best we have.

[Bachstelze]

Let's consider the quality of GUI and look-and-feel. Go to gnome-look and see how many vista-like or xp-like themes are in the top-rated or top-downloaded list. This implies that many people who run Linux like to have a windows-look.

Many people who run Linux like to have a Vista-like look. The people who make it, don't.

Linux is not Windows !

The people who make it do it firstly for themselves. Then, if other people like it, they're free to use it also. If they don't like it, they're free not to use it. As simple as that.

What you need to understand is that making everyone happy with a single product is impossible. Give Vista-like looks by default, some people will be happy, some will not. And I would bet a lot of money that the second category will be larger. The people who want Vista looks have Vista. Leave Linux to the people who don't.

And for those who do and who want to run Linux, they can go there (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=223).

[Buendia]

Many people who run Linux like to have a Vista-like look. The people who make it, don't.

Linux is not Windows !


Well, who said Linux is Windows anyway. You didn't quote me completely, the important part was cut: forget about Linux or Windows, we are talking about providing 'quality' the way the is was defined in that post. I did declare that neither this is in favour of Windows nor am I a fan of it (I am not a big fan of ubuntu either, if that is of any help to anyone to ask me out).

Here is another example: One good tweak of gnome in ubuntu is that clicking on the elements inside the file browser does not open a new window. Other distros, eg Fedora, have not changes this default behaviour. Now you may argue that this is the way that the developer liked it to be and you may accuse me of being a Windows-lover since the opposite of this is the way that explorer in Windows works. Fine, but it does make much more sense to have a file browser that does not open a new window with every click as this way you can easily end up with a hundered of windows waiting to be closed.

You may find many other examples like this in Linux, there should be a better answer for this than 'cause the developer wanted it to be that way'.

[Bachstelze]

Well, who said Linux is Windows anyway. You didn't quote me completely, the important part was cut: forget about Linux or Windows, we are talking about providing 'quality' the way the is was defined in that post.

I thought I made myself clear enough. 'Quality' as you definied it in your post is a very subjective notion. What some think to be "high quality", other would consider horrible. I repeat : you cannot make everyone happy with a single product.

[AusIV4]

I think the main thing that bounces people back to Windows is that they come to Linux expecting a free and secure version of Windows, and are unable to understand or unwilling to accept the learning curve associated with Linux.

Sure, there are some programs for Windows that don't have adequate Linux counterparts, but those are increasingly few and far between.

I hear a lot about how certain aspects of Linux aren't 'user-friendly'. I read an essay a while back about how user-friendliness is a myth. Take vi or emacs for example. Coming from something like Notepad, the learning curve for the advanced text editors is incredible. Some might say that they aren't user friendly. On the other hand, once you've learned the shortcuts for your advanced text editor of choice, you can work much faster than you ever could have using an "intuitive" text editor. The same can be said for using the command line over using graphical front-ends, or text-file configuration versus dialog windows.

Which is more user friendly? The one that a novice can use, or the one that an expert can use twice as fast?

By and large, Windows has been geared towards people who want their computer to be as easy to use as their toaster. Open Source software, on the other hand, has been written by people because they intend to use it themselves. It may not be as straightforward to learn as the proprietary alternatives, but once you know how to use it, it can often be more effective.

Some people may want the simple, easy to learn software, and they're welcome to use Microsoft or Apple products. Others of us, however, are willing to spend some time learning about how our software works if it means we can be more productive later.

[Buendia]

Take vi or emacs for example. Coming from something like Notepad, the learning curve for the advanced text editors is incredible. Some might say that they aren't user friendly.


That's a good one. How many teenagers do you think use vi these days? do you think vi or emacs will be around after 2 decades? Do not forget that one reason of fans of these editors are more psychological than efficiency-related. Many of them are people who have spent a life with the editor and working with them remindes them of thei young days. Some other people just use the editor to show off and say that they only get satisfied with complicated systems. The terminology of 'user-friendliness' cannot be applied to these biased people.

Take texmacs for example, which is a very nice idea of some sort of wysiwyg tex-looking word processor, but with the GUI of texmacs. When you want to quit this creature, it askes you whether you want to save your work and you have to literally type 'yes' or 'no' to exit -- why not simply using a dialog box, the program does use a GUI library anyway. Isn't it logical to say that texmacs would have much more users if it had a modern GUI like eclipse or open office? Does it make sense to say that this is the way that it is because the developer liked it to be this way? This implies that the developer likes to have much less users.



Some people may want the simple, easy to learn software, and they're welcome to use Microsoft or Apple products. Others of us, however, are willing to spend some time learning about how our software works if it means we can be more productive later.

Are you suggesting that Linux is some piece of software 'designed by developers for developers'? An open-source OS for a closed-community? (Is that open enough?)

[Kilz]

Are you suggesting that Linux is some piece of software 'designed by developers for developers'? An open-source OS for a closed-community? (Is that open enough?)

Read and understand! (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm) Sections 3 and 4 are right on point. What you are trying to grasp is nothing new. Yes it is designed to be used by the people who create it, that you use it is of little or no concern of the developers.

[argie]

This is not a Windows vs Linux discussion -- there are enough topics like that out there. The point is to bring this to the attention of the community that it seems that the Linux distros are sank in an excessive amount of how-tos and fixes rather than fixing the problems from the root.





These are typical answers that you get when you complain about open-source quality.

First of all, specifically speaking about ubuntu, the distro is actually paid by this Mister self-funded space tourist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Shuttleworth), so it is not like no one gets paid in this project.

Secondly, where does this rule come from that since I am not helping the development I cannot criticise it? To me, Linux should be as useful for a pentioner with zero-level of IT experience as it is for you. Otherwise it is nothing but an open-source piece of software suitable for for the closed-community of people call themselves gurus.



This just does confirm the topic of this discussion. Not happy? Bounce back to Windows or become a programmer! Words like this help Gates to pay less for that silly 'wow experiece' adverts.

Listen, this is annoying me. It is funded by Mark Shuttleworth, so he gets to say what gets done. You can complain, there is a method for this. If you're going to criticise constructively, use Launchpad, for god's sake! If you're not just get a rant blog and rant. http://blogspot.com or http://wordpress.com is what you need.

Also, quit misinterpreting what I said. If something doesn't work for you, then please post a bug report. Common sense is required. Programming experience not required. Returning to windows is optional. Now, is there any specific thing you want to complain about or are you just trying to get us worked up?

This is free software, boss, criticising it properly is assisting in its development. I see your goal, but you are (and this is not meant to be an insult) completely useless in helping everyone to achieve it.

Now, I shall draw a parallel between this and a completely unrelated thing in the hope of confusing you. Imagine your Nissan breaks down, so you take it to the mechanic. The mechanic is setting about fixing the problem and there's this other guy who walks into the mechanic's garage and starts ranting about how the perfect car would never break down and how it is breakdowns like this that make people buy Fords. Or even better, imagine that guy jumping up and down and singing "The car is broken down, the car is broken down." Ahh, nice.

Okay, let's have some kind of a solution. There are a limited number of resources (developers) and a lot of options. Let's pretend that you (by virtue of being a user of Ubuntu) can tell the developers what to improve on. You have chosen "better 64-bit support" and "vista-like look and feel". Since the developers are already working on something else (they are, that's what they're paid for) and you want to reallocate some to this task, let us say some other tasks A and B are no longer being worked on. Since you (by virtue of being a user of Ubuntu) can tell the developers what to improve on, I (by virtue of being a user of Ubuntu) have the same right and I choose tasks A and B. Well, now look here what's happened. We have a stalemate. Since Shuttleworth pays for this project (and also because he uses it) , he deserves a vote. Oh, now look at everything! It's all back to the same it was before we started. Thank you very much for attending, it's been fun.

[gothelin]

What makes you think that I, or anyone else, have not contributed?

In your case that was pretty easy to determine. You have only recently signed up for these forums; you have 17 posts and almost all of them are in this thread or the one you spawned this from; and all of those are just whinging and carrying on because you aren't getting your money's worth out of Linux.

Of course, the fact that when confronted by someone asking for any information on how you have contributed, you totally ignored the request, was also a bit of an indicator.

You start from the flawed premise that people starting on Windows can have the same setup as a Windows guru (I very much doubt that a newbie to Windows would/could have their system as tweaked as mine was after well over a decade of playing with various versions of Windows), and then somehow try to use that to justify your attitude that you have the right to complain about software provided to you for free.

You have the right to report bugs; you have the right to read the copious, well indexed and searchable documentation available; you have the right to ask for help and you certainly have the right to tweak your system. A process that is actually a lot easier in Linux than it was in say...WinXP. However, you don't have the right to stamp your foot and carry on like a prima-donna demanding the volunteer developers do what you say just because you don't like the standard fonts and such.

And I kinda think you'd have a hard time getting issues fixed by that kind of carry-on in the Windows world as well.

Linux is not for everyone, its been said over and over again. Linux is also not Windows. And a lot of your attitude seems to stem from the entitlement you feel you have over the developers when using an OS - particularly Windows - because you've paid for it. You don't have that same kind of entitlement with Linux. However, you do have the freedom to become a developer yourself and be part of the solution. Until you are capable of grasping that concept, you will continue to miss the point.

[koenn]

Originally Posted by AusIV4
Take vi or emacs for example. Coming from something like Notepad, the learning curve for the advanced text editors is incredible. Some might say that they aren't user friendly.
That's a good one. How many teenagers do you think use vi these days? do you think vi or emacs will be around after 2 decades? Do not forget that one reason of fans of these editors are more psychological than efficiency-related.
yet another silly, and wrong, assumption. You really know how to get your facts right, don't you ?

vi and emacs have been around for a couple of decades already. A few decades more won't be a problem as they've matured and proven there usefullness.

vi and emacs are designed and optimized for use by programmers. Programmers use if because of that. That's efficiency-related, not psychology.

I wonder what you're gonna come up with next.

[matthinckley]

There is a big difference between easy to use and easy to learn.. I think some need to research this.. things like vi and emacs are easy to use, but not so easy to learn..

windows is easy to learn but lacks some of the easy to use features that some linux apps give us.. however if you want a distribution that is easy to learn, that is if you are unwilling to invest the time to learn how to use linux, I suggest you do go back to windows.. you may try a windows-clone linux distribution such as linspire.. It may be more acceptable to you.

[@trophy]

wow this has gone downhill pretty fast...

[Kilz]

wow this has gone downhill pretty fast...

What do you equate to going down hill? Should we tolerate lies? Should we allow the blind to lead us?
I think we sometimes bend over backwards to please someone who cant be pleased.

[Bachstelze]

Are you suggesting that Linux is some piece of software 'designed by developers for developers'? An open-source OS for a closed-community? (Is that open enough?)

No, it is some piece of software designed by developpers for everyone willing to use it. Is that Open enough ?

[ticopelp]

As with any community, there are those who participate constructively, and those who think they're contributing by standing out the outside telling everyone else they're doing it wrong.

[PhilJ]

Please no more I read thru this thread and it's hurting my head.
It's been said many times including in this thread LINUX is not WINDOWS. If you cant take the time to learn (like you did when you first got windows) then its not for you. Where did you go when you found a bug in windows , and there are some, did you contact Bill and ask him about a fix? . Could you alter it if you yourself found the cure? Can you ask Bill to add something to Windows because it's useful to you?
I'm not a computer guru , I'm a 57 year old Grandad and there have been times when I have been stuck with a problem I couldnt get my head round. Linux needs you to put a little time in and not expect to be handheld all of the time. This is not a flame against Windows, if you like it use it, I don't so I don't use it. i ditched Windows for Breezy and have learned more about my computer than I ever did with Windows. All the help for a newbie is out there all you have to do is ask. As for the 'Works out of the Box' argument I think that 99% of the time Ubuntu does just that.
What about the look of a program, my first question is does it work and does it do what I want? If it doesnt look pretty its up to me to either live with it or put something back and learn to create a gui,
I have never been talked down to when asking a question about Ubuntu or Linux or treated with anything else but respect and consideration and I dont think anyone else would if they explained their problem as clearly and concisely as possible and explained they were new to linux. The main reasons in my opinion that people return to Windows is they really dont have the time to put to learning something new, It's too technical for them. ( in this case there is no way anyone can help them). They cant be bothered and again there is nothing to be done for them. they will not accept help. So dont blame the OS its horses for courses

Sorry for the ramble, grumpy old man.

philj

[AusIV4]

That's a good one. How many teenagers do you think use vi these days? do you think vi or emacs will be around after 2 decades?
I'm 20 years old and a computer science major. I catch a lot of flack from my friends (the same age, give or take a year) for using Kate instead of vi or emacs when programming. They may continue to decline in popularity, but I would be surprised if nobody is using them in 20 years.

[Altarbo]

That's a good one. How many teenagers do you think use vi these days?We use vim. ;)

To be honest I don't see your point. You have a right to complain. Okay. Everyone else has a right to complain about your complaints. Then it becomes a feedback loop. That's why nonconstructive criticism is looked down upon.

OSS desktop applications may never catch up to proprietary. Think about how many times you've ever called Corel, Adobe, or Autodesk for help. Think about how much money you've spent on their type of software. In the desktop world, often software can be service/support. OSS makes money off of selling services/support, so it struggles there.

It kind of seems like your actual complaint is that there is too much choice. That's easy problem to solve. Just use the first thing you find and never switch. It's exactly like not having a choice, but if your first choice breaks, you can move to the next thing you find, until something works. Linux has about a thousand messengers for chat. Do I care? Nope.

[Buendia]

I'm 20 years old and a computer science major. I catch a lot of flack from my friends (the same age, give or take a year) for using Kate instead of vi or emacs when programming. They may continue to decline in popularity, but I would be surprised if nobody is using them in 20 years.

Why didn't you use vi or emacs in the first place? If you spend some time with your friends you may have to switch to vi or emacs. Would that be a result of your own choice or the pressure from your friends? Have you asked this question from yourself why should you receive a hard time because of not using their favourite editor? Perhaps some of your friends end up using those edtitors because they used to receive a hard time from their friends. Or maybe thei chose those editors simply because it was cool to show off.

vi and emacs belong to a time when the super expensive computers could barely run something like eclipse. Since the hardware was not that great, some creative people made these editors where the skill of the user compensated the deficiency of the computer. Those days are over and now you do not need to put up with the steep learning curve -- it is as simple as that. Just go get eclipse and feel at home instantly.

For those who enjoy diverting the subject of this thread to the cheap dicussion of linux vs windows: Go find another thread which dicusses that subject. If you cannot find something suitable, you can always create one.

For those who get annoyed reading this subject: Don't read it and don't reply. Take your pills on time and visit your therapist regularly. Also, do not forget to brush at least twice a day.

For those who want me to put my CV online: You remind me of Toni Soprano's mom.

For the official ununtu forum staff: You introduce ubuntu as 'linux for humanity'. By reading most of the above posts you may see that your ditro is strongly pushed to 'linux for filtered humanity' expressed in some not-very-human-friendly form.

[Tomosaur]

Buendia - when people say Linux is 'by developers, for developers', that does not mean that the developers are not interested in catering to other types of users. All it means is that the very people who develop Linux use it. Features get added to Linux when a developer notices something is wrong, missing, or otherwise unsatisfactory, and then works on it until he/she is happy. It is development driven by necessity. This means that Linux evolves extremely quickly, and incorporates new technology and ideas much quicker than say, Windows does.

However - because there is no real financial incentive, developers generally do not concern themselves with polished end-products. If it works for them, they're happy. It is down to communities such as this, and people with financial incentives (Red Hat, Novell, etc) to take what's already there, clean it up, and market it to other types of users. The GPL ensures that this can happen. When a developer releases some software, others can take that software, tidy it up and otherwise improve it, then release it back into the ether, for someone else to do whatever they need with it. There is no CEO breathing down anybody's neck to 'make it shiny' so that a million potential users will cough up the dough for it.

Now, you'll find few people who don't accept that Linux could do with a bit of a makeover in some areas, and indeed, the last few months have seen the biggest developments in UI technology. One of the biggest Linux areas of interest right now is KDE4, which is a desktop environment and looks set to vastly improve the look and feel of a Linux system. However, you should also just accept that the Linux development model favours functionality over eye-candy. It is more important that the system works, performs well, and is useful, rather than polished, beautiful, but functionally deficient. Since Linux isn't generally considered a commercial endeavour, there are few 'UI Teams' who are focusing on making it all beautiful, but there are many, many programmers which, although useful, may not be the nicest looking thing in the world.

It is typically the communities and the distributors who prettify things, because these are the people who have a vested interest in making people adopt the system.

However, your criticism about vi / emacs are unfounded. They are primarily programmer's editors. As I have just explained, programmers typically favour utility over beauty. They will use whatever is the most useful tool for them. If that means using the ugliest editor on the planet, so be it. It could just as easily be the most graphically beautiful editor ever conceived. The point is that utility is the decisive factor.

[Buendia]

Buendia - when people say Linux is 'by developers, for developers',...

Independent of the interpretation, perhaps this saying and sayings like that should be marked as nostalgia -- they scare people out. Imagine new ubuntu-ready dell computers with the advert of: 'ubuntu-dell by developers for developers', a distaster for the business. If Michael Dell have noticed the potential of linux, that is not because the number of developers are increasing, but since there have been movements for increasing the number of non-developer users.


However - because there is no real financial incentive, developers generally do not concern themselves with polished end-products.

That has been always a question for me. I understand this hapenning by end of 90s or so, but now so many OS GUI around why people are not interested in finishing the job and increasing the number of the users? I see you have worked on GrubED, what was the amount of effort your put on this grub-wrapper-GUI comparing to the grub program itself?


However, your criticism about vi / emacs are unfounded. They are primarily programmer's editors. As I have just explained, programmers typically favour utility over beauty.

Well, eclipse is not just beautiful. I am not against vi, I am just saying that it seems logical if the number of vi users decrease -- every software has its own peak. And, thank you for the post.

[Tomosaur]

Independent of the interpretation, perhaps this saying and sayings like that should be marked as nostalgia -- they scare people out. Imagine new ubuntu-ready dell computers with the advert of: 'ubuntu-dell by developers for developers', a distaster for the business. If Michael Dell have noticed the potential of linux, that is not because the number of developers are increasing, but since there have been movements for increasing the number of non-developer users.

I disagree. Regardless of what direction you think Linux should take - if you are not actually developing it yourself, then you have no real say in what happens. This is not meant to sound rude, or dismissive, it's just how it is. You don't pay for the software, and you're not doing anything to influence how it develops and evolves. At the end of the day, the only people who have any say in what happens to Linux is the people who develop it. It is the developer's decision, and right to ask users for their feedback and input about that developer's work. It is the developer's right to take heed of, or completely disregard, that very feedback. What it comes down to in the end is that the developers don't owe you a thing. It just so happens that many Linux developers DO listen to their users, and they DO take notice of feedback, and they DO work to please users by implementing suggestions. They do not HAVE to though, and you, nor I, have any right to demand that they do what we tell them or suggest to them.

You can argue the point as much as you feel like, but the fact remains that there is no separation between 'developers' and 'users'. The developers ARE the users, and the users ARE the developers. Ergo - they will do whatever pleases them, no more, no less. If they are not hired to develop a particular thing, then there is no reason for us to expect them to do it. If they do not feel that Linux 'needs to be more visually attractive', then they won't do it. The Linux development model is NOT driven by competition with other operating systems, it is driven by the needs of its developers. If you take a look at any project web-page, you will probably see something along the lines of 'We couldn't find a tool to do this task, so we made our own'. It is simply sheer generosity that the developers allow you to use the software which they create, and thus you have no right to demand changes etc.

Imagine if you bake a cake, and a visitor comes to your house and you offer them a piece. When they see the slice of cake, they start making remarks like 'Why did you use this stupid icing colour? You should have used white icing!', and 'Why did you put raisins in this cake? I hate raisins, don't use them in your next cake!'. Would you not feel offended? You didn't make the cake for that person, you made it for yourself. You just happened to feel generous enough to offer that person a slice of cake. It is exactly the same situation here. The developers do not create their software for you, they make it for themselves. It is only generosity which means you get to use it too. They are just ordinary users of Linux, and if they see a hole, they fill it. They may not create the product which you are looking for, but if it suits the developer's needs, then what's the problem? Nobody is forcing you to use it, and you suffer no loss in experimenting with it and seeing if it suits you, since you didn't pay for it and you can just carry on looking for something which better suits your needs.

The increase in users of Linux is primarily because the needs of the developers have become more aligned with the needs of the 'non-developer' users. There is a lot more 'experimental' development going on than there has been in the past. The skills required to program software have become more mainstream, and thus it is accessible to far more people than it was in the past. This naturally means that more interests are catered for, and more software is produced. In the past, Linux was more 'technical', in that the software available for it was more development oriented, or obscure, non-mainstream stuff. Now, programming is more mainstream (meaning any one can do it), and technology is more prevalent (meaning more people are interested in it), and thus there is a greater diversity in the software available. Some people only want to surf the web. Linux has browsers. Some people only want to chat to friends. Linux has IM. Some people only want to write documents. Linux has office software. Some people want to listen to music, others want to watch movies, others want to play games, etc etc etc. All of this technology has appeared not because developers thought they could make money, but because the developers said 'Hey, Linux has no software to do <x> task, so I'll just make my own. This is fundamentally different from the proprietary world, where new software appears mainly because there is money to be made. In this situation then, users of proprietary software at least have a moral grounding when they say 'this software doesn't do what I need, change it', because they have suffered a loss by paying money for that software. In the open-source world, the users do not lose anything by using the software, they ONLY gain. Linux has more users now because it suits a wider range of needs, and causes no loss when people try it out.



That has been always a question for me. I understand this hapenning by end of 90s or so, but now so many OS GUI around why people are not interested in finishing the job and increasing the number of the users? I see you have worked on GrubED, what was the amount of effort your put on this grub-wrapper-GUI comparing to the grub program itself?


This is a question which totally misses the point. I didn't develop GrubEd to make it easier for other people to fiddle with grub, I did it so that I:
a) Had something to do
b) Could learn more about the Linux shell
c) Didn't have to mess about with the menu.lst file by hand (the file which controls grub)

It was only later on when I thought "Maybe someone else can make use of this". Gaining a user base was absolutely not the intention of my writing GrubEd, I just thought that since I had gained so much from the work of others (knowledge, free software, a nice community etc), then giving something back was at least a way of saying thank you, and partaking in the spirit of 'open-source'. I have no idea how many people currently use GrubEd, and frankly I don't care. I have had lots of feedback from it, some suggestions (some of which I have implemented, others which I have not), and of course, some criticism (some helpful, some not), which I can choose to disregard or act upon at my leisure. I have even had someone translate GrubEd into Spanish, completely voluntarily!

I do not feel I 'owe' the users of GrubEd anything, although there have been times when I have gone out of my way to fix problems for individual users when I feel that their issues warranted special attention. However, the users technically have no legal right to my attention, even if something DOES go wrong. I like to think of myself as a reasonable person, however, and I try to help people out when they have problems with GrubEd. I do get satisfaction from knowing people benefit from it, and its always nice when someone thanks me for sharing it, of course, but this was never the driving force behind it. I just happened to do something, and a bunch of people just happened to benefit from it. This is more or less how open-source (and thus Linux) works. A bunch of stuff happening and a bunch of people who benefit from this stuff happening. There's no real, overriding incentive behind it, it 'just happens'. Why do forests grow? Why does the sun shine? Nobody sits all of the saplings down and says 'Listen saplings, last month was good, but the big guy wants a better return. You've gotta grow taller, you've gotta spread further, you've gotta grow more fruit!'. Granted, Linux has slowly become more commercial over the last few years, and this has meant that some developers have been given financial incentives to do something, regardless of whether that particular developer has an interest in whatever the task at hand is, but the majority of the development is still not competitive, it is desire-driven. If the developers want something, it gets done. If the users want something, they have to either convince the developers that THEY want the same thing (which happens very rarely), or they have to become developers and do it themselves (which is what mostly happens).

In any case, how do I even begin to quantify 'effort'? I don't really understand what you're asking me. Did I put more effort into GrubEd than the grub developers put into grub? Does that really matter? As far as I'm concerned, grub and GrubEd are two completely different things. Grub is what lets you boot your machine. GrubEd is what lets you configure grub. A trowel is what you use to plaster a wall. A paintbrush and paint is what you use to change how the wall looks. The two are related only by what you actually use them for. A few minor alterations is all it would take to change GrubEd into a configurator for X, or a configurator for pretty much anything which uses text files to configure itself.



Well, eclipse is not just beautiful. I am not against vi, I am just saying that it seems logical if the number of vi users decrease -- every software has its own peak. And, thank you for the post.

Has the number of vi users decreased? Do you have something to back this up? What makes you think that everyone considers Eclipse to be beautiful? I certainly don't think it is beautiful - I don't find anything about Eclipse to be particularly special. It's useful, yes, and I wouldn't say it's ugly, but then I wouldn't say vi is beautiful or ugly either. It just 'is'. Some people will disagree with me, others will agree, such is life. The kinds of people who use Eclipse and the kinds of people who use vi may be completely different, united only by the fact that they are programmers. Eclipse users may prefer GUI stuff over command line stuff, while the opposite may be true of vi users. What you are proposing, by saying that there is some universally agreed constant of what is 'nice' and what constitutes 'quality', is that we are all mindless drones and that we all like the same kind of thing, which is just not true, as you will find if you simply talk to any random person on the street. Essentially what you are saying is that whatever you like is 'right', and everything else is wrong. You may not see it like that, but it certainly comes across that way.

[hellomeow]

Buendia, thank you very much for your accurate (and hopefully enlightening to some) post. The idea that people have no right to complain is one thing that is severely hurting Ubuntu.

Notice that people are beginning to participate in the dated and old practice of invoking the "Linux is not Windows" argument for every post that could possibly be an attempt to criticize Linux in an attempt to defend it, even though this wasn't your original point anyway. When many Linux users (a minority, mind you) see posts like this, they will synthesize "main points of yours" that weren't really there in the first place, and thus ironically try to contest points you have never made. This is nothing more then an attempt at psychological self-protection and it should be ignored.

I believe most normal users of Ubuntu will agree with you, and people certainly have a right to criticism. I insist that any user having issues (of any kind) with Ubuntu must let the developers know in any way you they please. Doing this can only improve Ubuntu. If the developers resolve that they have had enough of these complaints, then they can very well terminate their participation in the project.

[Tomosaur]

Buendia, thank you very much for your accurate (and hopefully enlightening to some) post. The idea that people have no right to complain is one thing that is severely hurting Ubuntu.

Notice that people are beginning to participate in the dated and old practice of invoking the "Linux is not Windows" argument for every post that could possibly be an attempt to criticize Linux in an attempt to defend it, even though this wasn't your original point anyway. When many Linux users (a minority, mind you) see posts like this, they will synthesize "main points of yours" that weren't really there in the first place, and thus ironically try to contest points you have never made. This is nothing more then an attempt at psychological self-protection and it should be ignored.

I believe most normal users of Ubuntu will agree with you, and people certainly have a right to criticism. I insist that any user having issues (of any kind) with Ubuntu must let the developers know in any way you they please. Doing this can only improve Ubuntu. If the developers resolve that they have had enough of these complaints, then they can very well terminate their participation in the project.

Demands are not the same as criticism. When a user says 'Do this, or you'll never get more users', on a forum which the developers don't read, to people who mostly disagree with the statement, then the only response which can be expected is a hostile one. Time and time again we have said 'File reports, do something about it, tell the developers', yet still we receive complaints and demands, when it is not us who develop the software in the first place. Criticism is one thing, whining is a whole different ball game.

[hellomeow]

Demands are not the same as criticism. When a user says 'Do this, or you'll never get more users', on a forum which the developers don't read, to people who mostly disagree with the statement, then the only response which can be expected is a hostile one. Time and time again we have said 'File reports, do something about it, tell the developers', yet still we receive complaints and demands, when it is not us who develop the software in the first place. Criticism is one thing, whining is a whole different ball game.

The fact of the matter is that demands and complaints (which in my opinion do not differ as much as you believe) will be made, and will be made wherever the users feel like making them. Many users simply want to express what they feel is wrong with Ubuntu, and may or may not know (or even care) whether or not the developers read it. If a user wants to make himself heard, he will do it. Whether or not he will give the convenience of providing a bug report to the community is entirely the choice of the user, and no one else's.

[qamelian]

The fact of the matter is that demands and complaints (which in my opinion do not differ as much as you believe) will be made, and will be made wherever the users feel like making them. Many users simply want to express what they feel is wrong with Ubuntu, and may or may not know (or even care) whether or not the developers read it. If a user wants to make himself heard, he will do it. Whether or not he will give the convenience of providing a bug report to the community is entirely the choice of the user, and no one else's.

Sorry, but if you don't file a bug report, which is the ONLY valid and logical way to "complain" about a problem or short-coming in a piece of software, then you have know right to complain at all. Filing bug reports using established procedures is the only way to ensure that the developers are aware that there may be a problem. That is why these procedures and bug-tracking mechanisms exist. If you expect the devs to be lurking on the forums all day waiting for you to gripe that something is broken, you are being completely unrealistic and unreasonable.

Processes are in place to report problems to the devs in ways that ensure that the bugs are brought to the attention of the appropriate devs to be dealt with. When you come to these forums and complain without filing a bug, all you are doing is running your mouth and wasting your time. And everybody else's.

As long as you maintain your current attitude, you will never gain any satisfaction nor do you deserve any.

[hellomeow]

Sorry, but if you don't file a bug report, which is the ONLY valid and logical way to "complain" about a problem or short-coming in a piece of software, then you have know right to complain at all.

That's funny, I don't see anything in TOS that says I cannot....


Filing bug reports using established procedures is the only way to ensure that the developers are aware that there may be a problem.

Wonderful. Perhaps some users will be kind and generous enough to submit one.


That is why these procedures and bug-tracking mechanisms exist. If you expect the devs to be lurking on the forums all day waiting for you to gripe that something is broken, you are being completely unrealistic and unreasonable.

If Ubuntu expects to gain more users by putting the users at the mercy of the developers, we are in a similar manner being "completely unrealistic and unreasonable."


Processes are in place to report problems to the devs in ways that ensure that the bugs are brought to the attention of the appropriate devs to be dealt with. When you come to these forums and complain without filing a bug, all you are doing is running your mouth and wasting your time. And everybody else's.

If we develop Ubuntu without caring about what the users think, all we are doing is typing in garbage into our text editors and wasting our time. And everyone else's.


As long as you maintain your current attitude, you will never gain any satisfaction nor do you deserve any.

You assume here that I am dissatisfied with Ubuntu, even though I never once said that I was. I just wrote a post about this.

[igknighted]

Why didn't you use vi or emacs in the first place? If you spend some time with your friends you may have to switch to vi or emacs. Would that be a result of your own choice or the pressure from your friends? Have you asked this question from yourself why should you receive a hard time because of not using their favourite editor? Perhaps some of your friends end up using those edtitors because they used to receive a hard time from their friends. Or maybe thei chose those editors simply because it was cool to show off.

vi and emacs belong to a time when the super expensive computers could barely run something like eclipse. Since the hardware was not that great, some creative people made these editors where the skill of the user compensated the deficiency of the computer. Those days are over and now you do not need to put up with the steep learning curve -- it is as simple as that. Just go get eclipse and feel at home instantly.

For those who enjoy diverting the subject of this thread to the cheap dicussion of linux vs windows: Go find another thread which dicusses that subject. If you cannot find something suitable, you can always create one.

For those who get annoyed reading this subject: Don't read it and don't reply. Take your pills on time and visit your therapist regularly. Also, do not forget to brush at least twice a day.

For those who want me to put my CV online: You remind me of Toni Soprano's mom.

For the official ununtu forum staff: You introduce ubuntu as 'linux for humanity'. By reading most of the above posts you may see that your ditro is strongly pushed to 'linux for filtered humanity' expressed in some not-very-human-friendly form.

WRONG!!!!!!!! Vi and emacs are designed for a very specific purpose... for people who code a lot. The people who write the software tend to code a lot and (not surprisingly) want a good editor for that. So they came up with these. Tell me, how does my computer being able to run a fancy GUI aid me in coding all my lines? It doesn't. So I could make it pretty like Eclipse or NetBeans or any other IDE, or I could (as a developer writing software that I intend to use) spend my time coding features that will actually help me with my coding. Lots of programs require a great GUI design, and they get the attention they need. But programs in linux are designed to work first, and if theres extra time then maybe we can add some "prettyness".

Consider the fact that microsoft and other commercial companies have to sell you a product. And one thing that suckers more people than anything else is how a product looks. Therefor microsoft HAS to waste time/$/developers on making something LOOK nice. Now take linux. There is no effort to "sell" it (a few exceptions, and they tend to spend a lot of time dressing it up), and hence the developers tend to focus on functionality. After all, say I can spend 40hrs coding my OSS project this week. Would I rather spend 40hrs coding the application and have it be very functional, or rather have it work OK but look great. It is not art, it is a tool... so of course I want it functional. You don't go to the store and by the prettiest hammer, you buy the one that does the job you need most efficiently (claw, ballpeen (sp), sledge, etc.).

Please consider the case of MS Office. Go ask around some friends and come up with an Office97 disk. Then go find an office2007 disk as well. Install them each (you need separate computers for this, '07 will overwrite '97). Now open them up and do some common tasks. Run some wizards (chart wizard, query design, pivot tables, etc.) and tell me what great advances 10 years (and if you upgraded each time, probably about $1,500-$2,000) have gotten you? In reality, very little has changed. It looks very different (the ribbon, rounded buttons, new icons, new fonts, new file formats), but has the product really changed? NO! We run Office '97 where I work because no matter how pretty the wizard looks when I make my pivot table or design my query, the data is exactly the same and the things Office has allowed me to do are, well, the same.

So if this focus on a "pretty interface" leads to stagnation in features, then why do we want it? It's a marketing ploy from a different business model. Linux is about functionality, not gimmicky marketing ploys. We use it because we want results, not BS. So MS can charge you hundreds for a GUI upgrade, but I'll stick with what _works_, linux.

And yes, you might need to read the manual before you do anything. But thats to be expected. Look at the difference between final cut and iMovie. Anyone can sit down and use iMovie, but to make really good movies you need final cut. And you need to read the manual to do anything (or most will need to at least). Functionality tends to give the user more control, but to harness that power you need to do your research and prepare. This is not a bad thing, just reality. If you expect otherwise, reconsider your expectations or your choice of software.

EDIT: Sorry, there should be more paragraph breaks in this... (added)

EDIT 2: <offtopic> Office '07 does have a few neat features... highlight some text, then go to the font section in the ribbon and scroll through the fonts. As you arrow down through them the font displayed for your text will change real-time. Much nicer than "click", don't like it, "click", don't like it... I use '07 at home because I got it for free from my school, but I would like to believe that a company that the money the MS gets for selling Office could improve a LOT more than that.

EDIT 3: (so I don't have to double post)

If we develop Ubuntu without caring about what the users think, all we are doing is typing in garbage into our text editors and wasting our time. And everyone else's.
We do care what users think. But there are procedures for these things. That is what launchpad is for. You post issues there, and developers will respond to you with solutions to your issues, or at least give you recognition and say thanks, but no thanks, we're going another way. Devs don't read these forums. Even mark is infrequent here. The simple fact is that Ubuntu will listen if you talk, but as peon #23542 you speak for exactly 1/23542 of the users. So does that mean that OSS is no better than MS? NO WAY! If there is a feature that you just have to have and the devs say its not that high on the priority list, you can open up that handy Vim (or emacs if you must) and have at it. Go to your local library and get some books on coding and learn. You could never do that with MS's code. There is always a way around. Also, contact the developer of that specific software. Maybe there is a new version, or maybe personal contact with the developer would inspire him/her to fix your issue.

In the end, and I mean absolutely no disrespect by this, but it doesn't matter if you use Linux. Even if they were the only ones, the developers would keep developing. Why? They use it too. It isn't about making software to get people to use, it is about making software that is usable. And because of this, "the customer is always right" mentality of America does not fit. So throw it away. Ask for features, beg at times, contribute where you can, and most of all be polite. That is how you get what you want in the linux world

[lisati]

Having waded through a significant portion of this thread, I'm thankful that none of my computer gear at home uses the punched cards that the machine I learned Fortran on used nearly 30 years ago.....Not much call for either here.....

[matthew]

.ǝuoʎɹǝʌǝ 'ʎɐp ʇɐǝɹb ɐ ǝʌɐɥ

.ǝbɐʇs ʇuǝɯɯoɔ ǝʌıʇɔnpoɹd ǝɥʇ pǝssɐd ʎ1uıɐʇɹǝɔ ǝʌɐɥ ǝʍ 'ǝbɐʇs ɹɐʍ ǝɯɐ1ɟ ǝɥʇ pǝɥɔɐǝɹ ǝʌɐɥ ǝʍ ɹǝɥʇǝɥʍ ǝ1qɐʇɐqǝp sı ʇı ǝ1ıɥʍ .11ıɥuʍop ǝpı1s sʇı pǝnuıʇuoɔ puɐ punoɹb ʎʞɐɥs uo ɟɟo pǝʇɹɐʇs uoıssnɔsıp ǝɥʇ .pǝso1ɔ pɐǝɹɥʇ sıɥʇ ǝʌɐǝ1 oʇ pǝpıɔǝp ǝʌɐɥ ǝʍ 'ɟɟɐʇs ǝɥʇ buoɯɐ ʇı buıssnɔsıp puɐ pɐǝɹɥʇ sıɥʇ buıʍǝıʌǝɹ ɹǝʇɟɐ