Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47

Thread: mission of ubuntu

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Beans
    193

    Re: mission of ubuntu

    Ah. So to "bring people in" one must have a product that uses the same terms and structures as Windows? Don't we already have Windows to fulfill the role of Windows?
    If one is to develop a Linux distro to attract as many people to it and to expand the use of open source software then yes you mimic the best parts of your competitor and develop on them. Winodws isn't the best OS and there are many things that need to be improved on it. Like it or not Windows has the majority of market share when it comes to desktop users, they do so because they do a lot of things right, not everything.

    To help bring people in would be to offer something better.

    Why have an alternative that is indistinguishable from the other product?
    So offer a poorer user experience because you want to be different?

    Be different by being better not being worse.

    I always hear this, oh Microsoft is the devil, Windows is evil. Devil or not they do somethings right. By having software install in one place instead of all over and calling that folder Program Files instead of Bin is a lot better.

    So your development theory is based on offering a poorer experience for users than a better one? How does that make any sense? Taking the best from your competitors and improving upon it is the best way to be different and gain more users in.

    I constantly see this more attention given to being different than better.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    I think I'm here! Maybe?
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: mission of ubuntu

    As I said in post #9, I started using ubuntu in 2005 and since then have not used windows; I just booted to it about once a month to update my virus checker until I removed it completely.

    Since 2005 I have seldom installed packages from anywhere other than the repos, eg when OOo updated to a completely new and different version that was not available in repos, but only direct from OOo. That is the only time I have ever seen an application put itself into /opt.

    I would repeat that the windows filesystem hierarchy is a complete mystery to me now, whereas I can go quickly to anything that I want or need in Linux. Whatever the OP's opinion about one being better than the other, the truth is that they are simply different from one another, and being used to Linux, I find it easiest; the OP being more used to windows, I presume, finds that easiest to deal with.

    This whole thread is obviously going nowhere, and neither "side" of the divide is going to change their mind.

    One man's meat is most definitely another man's poison!
    DISTRO: Xubuntu 16.04-64bit --- Code-tags --- Boot-Repair --- Grub2 wiki & Grub2 Basics --- RootSudo --- Wireless-Info --- SolvedThreads

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Williams Lake
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: mission of ubuntu

    One more question for the op, the OSX file system layout is quite similar to the Linux file system layout, why is that millions of OSX users don't seem to have a problem where programs are installed to. There is no Program Files directory in OSX either.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Left Coast of the USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Kubuntu

    Re: mission of ubuntu

    Poorer user experience?

    If the expectation is cultivated that nothing will be different, I suppose the experience might seem poor when it does turn out to be different.

    Visiting a small German town and expecting everyone to speak English so you can understand is likely to be a poor experience.

    I think part of the problem is that we frame the (assumed) goal of getting more people to switch in terms of what will make the switch as Windows-friendly as possible.

    Linux isn't Windows. We'd be better off approaching our (assumed) goal of proselytizing Windows users by starting up front with a clear statement that Linux is not Windows and behaves much differently than what they have become used to.

    What many who seem to be of like mind with you propose is tantamount to subterfuge.
    Last edited by QIII; October 9th, 2012 at 03:20 AM.
    Please read The Forum Rules and The Forum Posting Guidelines
    My Blog
    A thing discovered and kept to oneself must be discovered time and again by others. A thing discovered and shared with others need be discovered only the once.
    This universe is crazy. I'm going back to my own.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Beans
    193

    Re: mission of ubuntu

    Since 2005 I have seldom installed packages from anywhere other than the repos, eg when OOo updated to a completely new and different version that was not available in repos, but only direct from OOo. That is the only time I have ever seen an application put itself into /opt.
    ok so what? There are plenty of others who have this issue. I don't have the problem but I don't understand the mission of Ubuntu then why create an operating system in an attempt to spread the usage of open source software while at the same time shoot anyone in the leg for any criticism or suggestions?

    While Nick Farrell said:

    The biggest killer of putting penguin software on the desktop was the Linux community. If you think the Apple fanboys are completely barking, they are role models of sanity to the loudmouthed Open Sauce religious loonies who are out there. Like many fundamentalists they are totally inflexible – waving a GNU as if it were handed down by God to Richard Stallman
    I don't agree with everything in his article but what he said seems to be pretty true. This threat is in "Recurring Discussions" so clearly not only is this issue being spread all over the Linux community there have been enough threads on Ubuntu Forums alone. So Ubuntu is made to be attractive to the mroe common user but yet any criticisms are quickly and immediately thrown out.

    One more question for the op, the OSX file system layout is quite similar to the Linux file system layout, why is that millions of OSX users don't seem to have a problem where programs are installed to. There is no Program Files directory in OSX either.
    The user base is smaller and you have to pay for it which reduces the parties that are interested. Yes you have to pay for Windows but not as much adn Windows attracts more individuals who aren't the most basic computers users. I have seen more Windows to Linux going than Mac to Linux Users though I seen plenty of Linux to Mac users.

    If the expectation is cultivated that nothing will be different, I suppose the experience might seem poor when it does turn out to be different
    Didn't I clearly say it that by providing a "different" experience you should provide a better one? The irony is that you ignore that and say that I want Linux to act exactly like Winodows but if I wanted that why not just stick with Windows? Aside from your argument being false it makes no sense.

    It is an operating system you can only provide something different two ways, better or worse you can also do things the exact same way. There are your three options in terms of providing an experience. What is different if not one of the three?

    Visiting a small German town and expecting everyone to speak English so you can understand is likely to be a poor experience.
    I don't know why you like analogies but that is a poor one, assumption is that there is something wrong with the German language when there isn't. by calling a folder /bin and not /programs creates an issue, there is no benefit of calling it /bin.

    If you want an analogy then here is one, take all bicycles and consider them as the "operating system" in general. Consider a modern mountain bike with oval wheels to be Windows and then consider a penny farthing with square wheels to be Linux. Ubuntu is the equivalent of putting stickers and ribbons on the penny farthing instead of dealing with the issue of a big square wheel. Indeed both are bikes and both will get you places. by refusing to develop where Windows done better Linux sticks with the square wheels. A better approach would be to reduce the size of the wheels and make more rounder than Windows.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Lubuntu Development Release

    Re: mission of ubuntu

    Since the OP's intent seems to be purely to have a different opinion, I won't spend too much time on this thread other than to point out that changing the filesystem would be exceptionally difficult, contrary to what the OP believes.

    Ubuntu gets packages (where things decide where they're going) from Debian. And, with few exceptions, simply distributes them, sometimes slightly modified, as Ubuntu. If you want to persuade people to change the filesystem layout, start there (or maybe at Red Hat, or one of the other upstream contributors) instead.

    Every piece of software written for *nix has assumed a filesystem starting at /. If you wanted to change that, feel free to re-write almost every bit of software, plus re-write some of the core kernel code as an added bonus so that it loads drives as letters instead of files.

    Then persuade people to use something which has a really bizarre way of labelling drives, and then you're done.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Beans
    193

    Re: mission of ubuntu

    Yes how dare I have a different opinion! GoboLinux managed to start at a filesystem and still be backwards compatible. Nothing prevents from developing a small backend program that will "translate" the /programs to /bin for the program to be installed and run correctly.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Somewhere...
    Beans
    1,557
    Distro
    Ubuntu 14.10 Utopic Unicorn

    Re: mission of ubuntu

    About the file system issue, at least Linux keeps things where they are. In Windows, programs tend to confuse between where to store configs. In the install directory? Or Local Settings? Which Local Settings? All Users or just that user? In Linux, system-wide settings are in /var, and user settings (which is the important part) are in the home folder (which is one feature I want Windows to have. Less backups)


    Having followed this thread, I believe the whole thing has been a conflict of opinions here. The OP thinks Windows is good and Linux should folow some of its guidelines, while some people here thinks differently, so debate is pretty pointless as everyone here has their own opinion are not gonna change them. The problem is, Windows is NOT better and Linux and Linux is NOT better than Windows (Mac can be thrown into the mix). They are different in design, and they all have their own userbase who likes their design. You can't compare apples with oranges, and you also can't make apples taste like oranges.

    (unless some crazy geneticists managed to breed apple-oranges, but my point still stands)

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Beans
    6,540
    Distro
    Ubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail

    Re: mission of ubuntu

    The reason Linux isn't widely used on the desktop isn't because it's somehow technically deficient and/or users are unable to understand it. If that were true, it wouldn't be so widely used on servers, embedded devices, smartphones, etc.

    Making desktop Linux "better" isn't the key to adoption, it's been good enough for years. What's needed is large-scale corporate support, funding and marketing. We have 1% of the desktop market not because desktop Linux isn't good, but because that's about all that can be expected with the amount of money that's being spent on it.

    Fiddling about with the filesystem will make absolutely diddly squat difference to adoption rates.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Beans
    193

    Re: mission of ubuntu

    In Windows, programs tend to confuse between where to store configs. In the install directory? Or Local Settings? Which Local Settings? All Users or just that user? In Linux, system-wide settings are in /var, and user settings (which is the important part) are in the home folder (which is one feature I want Windows to have. Less backups)
    I haven't heard of this, I know that some applications like to install configuration files in weird places but most I have seen follow a norm where they install specific configurations in Program Data and overall (general) configurations in the Program Files folder.

    You think naming the folder /var is better than /system?

    They are different in design, and they all have their own userbase who likes their design. You can't compare apples with oranges, and you also can't make apples taste like oranges.
    Both are operating systems, one is more difficult to navigate through for normal users. If this is somethign you do not understand then I don't know what to say. This isn't really a difference of opinion but a difference in understanding. Naming /bin instead of program files or /var instead of /system and thinking both are just as user intuitive is just plain nonsense.

    If you think having a single application being installed in 30 different places isn't anymore confusing then again I don't know what to say.

    The reason Linux isn't widely used on the desktop isn't because it's somehow technically deficient and/or users are unable to understand it. If that were true, it wouldn't be so widely used on servers, embedded devices, smartphones, etc.
    Are seriously comparing desktop operations to server operations? First of all smartphones aren't desktops. Servers aren't desktops and aren't made to be intuitive or easy or anything because they aren't designed with the user in mind because the common user won't setup or manage a server. You can run a server entirely in CLI whereas you can't do the same on Desktop.

    the point overall is simple: designing a distro to attract more users to open source software and Linux more specifically but yet not even offering a fork in the development when you get so many criticisms is nonsensical. it is a waste of time otherwise, let's develop an os for the common user but ignore the common user's feedback.

    The real world implications of this is that I known two companies that walked away from Ubuntu implementation because of this. These aren't small companies neither, so lost money there.
    Last edited by num; October 9th, 2012 at 08:15 PM.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •