LoL wrote:Take the kitchen sink approach of Ubuntu and any other number of distros I've looked at in the last few months
Fine, I realise that your average end/home user isn't gonna want to wade through the long and tedious process of an old style installation, selecting packages and dependancies and would be better served by the kitchen sink approach
But what about those of us who do want to? Those of us who don't want to have to uninstall all the stuff we don't want after an unnecessarily long install process.
nelz wrote:That approach is limited to Ubuntu and its derivatives. [...] So, you have the choice, there is no point in complaining about one of the choices not being suitable when so many more suitable choices exist.
Dutch_Master wrote:Anyway, the future of Linux isn't going to be determined here and now. It's the market that will decide what direction Linux will take, as that's the most profitable part. Don't forget that the likes of Novell, Red Hat and Canonical depend on a serious revenue-stream from paying customers: i.e. the businesses deploying Linux and/or other Open Source solutions in their corporate environment. Those customers want stability and consolidation of their business model, not experimental fancy 3D tricks and other bling-bling used to lure over disgruntled Win-users...
Dutch_Master wrote:So, if you want innovation, why not start a new project of your own?
wyliecoyoteuk wrote:On the one hand, you complain about lack of diversity, then you complain about lack of commonality.
wyliecoyoteuk wrote:We use Suse desktops at work, mainly because otherwise we would have to retrain our staff.
A lot of businesses are putting off Vista office 2007, and server 2008, because they don't want to retrain staff who are still learning XP and 2003
wyliecoyoteuk wrote:So.... the mainstream distros will always ape Windows because that is what most people know, and they will tend to be the most popular for the same reason.
But people will still use what they like and need.
wyliecoyoteuk wrote:The Unix FSH isn't really a problem, simply a convenience, but different distros use it differently.
wyliecoyoteuk wrote:Windows solves things by bunging everything in 2 or 3 directories, preferably on one large partition, unless you want apps to break.
Just try putting User documents and settings on a different partition and see how many apps fail, install incorrectly, or require you to edit every damn file location setting in 20 menus
wyliecoyoteuk wrote:and don't even mention offline folders on a 2003 domain.....
wyliecoyoteuk wrote:I have users at work who can't log in if their username isn't showing on the login screen, (because they can't remember their own name!) and I spend enough time in the field to know that I am not alone. Heaven help you if you want to retrain them.! I have just spent 2 weeks moving our Telesales section to a new version of their CRM package, and I have a lot less hair than when I started.
Rhakios wrote:If you don't like the Unix Filesystem you could always give GoboLinux a try - and there are several more open source OSes around to have a look at, such as Syllable (which appears in the magazine from time to time) and Haiku, if you're looking for something Be-ish.
LoL wrote:If, I'm reading this right, then Gobo won't actually install multiple copies of the same files each and every time ... I'll still have shared libraries in all the usual places, for instance .... but it'll present everything to me through a virtualised hierarchy of symlinks, correct?
From my reading of the "How can this possibly work?" section the shared libraries are symlinks to the actual location in Programs. So there won't be more than one copy. Other programs that need the library can find it from the indices.
Rhakios wrote:Thinking about it still gives me a headache though.
What the real point of this little essay is all about is that I am concerned that the real potential of linux to be a genuinely open, easy to use, alternative is not actually being realised.
Why, for instance, when I'm using a word processor ... in which, for the most part, my attention is gonna be focussed on the lower half of the screen ... are the menus I need to manipulate the content at the top of the window? ... It makes no sense!
Add in virtual folders, so that the user is freed from the tyranny of the FSH and can get on with manipulating their data rather than struggling with the OS ... So that they are encouraged to categorise, rather than locate, information ... So that they are encouraged to actually think about their data rather than call everything 'photo1.jpg' and lose track of where they put it
LoL wrote:And I haven't had one application fail to work properly as a result ... not ever ...
They break quite a few apps that don't like redirection too..wyliecoyoteuk wrote:and don't even mention offline folders on a 2003 domain.....
OK ... I won't:)
I can promise you that I know exactly what you are talking about, having filled just about every job role there is to do in IT, short of Director of the department/company
Rhakios wrote:On GoboLinux, see this page, wich has the "How can this possibly work?" section, it shows and describes the symlink structure and how it works with the indices. As you can see, libraries and executables in the tradional hierarchy are just symlinks up to the actual files in the Gobo structure.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests