just for a thought...

[kapil]

i came across an interesting article..
its a short article..
here: http://www.ciol.com/Operating-System...25110130496/0/

[GreyGeek]

Re: just for a thought...

That link is just one of a flurry of recent negative articles about Linux and FOSS.

There is a new slant to them, however. They are not written by obvious Windows fanbois out to bash Linux. All appear to be written by folks claiming to have used Linux for a long time, so as to increase their street cred. And, all have the same negative interpretation of the current applicability and viability of Linux, as if they were writing from the same internal MS talking points.

We have Anindya Roy claiming that Open Source is "losing value", and Mayank Sharma claiming that Ubuntu "blew its chance to go main stream", as if being offered pre-installed on several major OEM's isn't "main stream", or that holding a 12+% desktop marketshare doesn't count. Then we have the "applications are hard to install on Linux" ploy posted by a pro Windows journalist, Preston Gralla. But, not just any Linux distro... the "problems" are specifically with the leading Linux distro, Ubuntu. His obvious moral: if a "Windows expert" is having trouble doing something as mundane as installing FireFox 3.6 on Linux what hope does a noob have? Then, there is the obvious Microsoft shill, David Coursey, pontificating on why Linux will lose in the Mobil OS shakeout. Coursey quotes Robbie Bach, MS Entertainment and Devices head for his "proof". Jzimlin, at LinuxFoundation.org, blows Bach and his theory out of the water with his analysis.


Basically, you are seeing a single event, the manipulation of news by MS via either their PR department or from astroturfing by their Technical Evangelists. The spin is predictable and, as usually, wrong. In the talkbacks of all of those articles the comments posted there literally destroy the thesis of each article. Take the one about FireFox 3.6 being difficult to install. One comment, Shannon VanWagoner showed ridiculously simple steps for installing FF3.6, and then posted a link to the steps necessary to install IE 8.0, a task which would be difficult even for Preston Gralla.

EDIT:
Today (1/26) yet another "Linux is hard" article appears, this one by Matt Assey, in which he rehashes other "Linux is hard" articles and ends with this sentence: "Linux has a starring role to play in such a future. The company that makes Linux easiest will win.", which leaves the impression that Linux is hard. IMO, Assay does that a lot ... presenting himself as a Linux supporter who is "pragmatic", while leaving false impressions about Linux and the FOSS community. The effect is the same as the "FireFox 3.6 is too hard to install" article by Windows expert, Preston Gralla, so you have to ask yourself if either is a real fan of Linux.

[kapil]

Re: just for a thought...

@greygeek: heh.. actually.. even i (when i installed kubuntu for first time) found ff installation a cake walk..
regarding that article.. it made me wonder.. how exactly does the kubuntu or for that matter any OS 'developed' by thousands of user..
i wonder how do they co-ordinate without a manager

i am a happy and proud user of kubuntu but some questions bug me.. like, if distros like (k)ubunutu, openSuse etc. which are developing since long time.. then why does some functionality still not standardised? e.g. automatic detection of required driver when usb is plugged in.

[GreyGeek]

Re: just for a thought...

@greygeek: heh.. actually.. even i (when i installed kubuntu for first time) found ff installation a cake walk..

That's the experience of MOST Ubuntu, Kubuntu, PCLinuxOS, MEPIS, openSUSE, Fedora and other modern Linux distro users. Most of the postings you see in this forum are from that small percentage of Kubuntu (and other distros or EVEN Windows!!) users with marginal, faulty or unsupported hardware, and (I want to put this delicately) folks who have difficulty following directions. The latter have as many problems reinstalling Windows as they do installing Linux. For the last two days I have been in constant Skype contact with a fellow in W.V. who has to be repeated told where to find the "File" menu option, who cannot retain or understand the difference between using the left mouse button for actions and the right mouse button for options. It's an old Compaq support story which ends with the support staff member asking the caller "Do you still have the box that your computer came in?" "Yes", he replies. "Then, pack your computer up and take it back to the store, you're too stupid to use a computer". He was fired for making that remark, but I can understand his frustration.

regarding that article.. it made me wonder.. how exactly does the kubuntu or for that matter any OS 'developed' by thousands of user..
i wonder how do they co-ordinate without a manager

Most projects DO have a "manager", or rather, a leader, and usually several "sub-leaders" who manage various parts of the project. Debian's dev crew elect their leader in regular elections every so often. Debian has a set of rules which the developers agree to abide by before they are allowed to join the dev crew. And, applicants are allowed to join only after the leaders verify their development skills. No rookies need apply. The Linux kernel has Linus Torvolds, often called the "benevolent dictator", who oversees the work of dozens of sub-project leaders who act as "managers" for that part of the kernel development they oversee. KDE has Aaron Seigo, who oversees several other middle-level "managers". These "managers" are usually responsible for vetting and controlling the source that gets submitted to the project's version control system. Most large FOSS projects are managed that way.

i am a happy and proud user of kubuntu but some questions bug me.. like, if distros like (k)ubunutu, openSuse etc. which are developing since long time.. then why does some functionality still not standardised? e.g. automatic detection of required driver when usb is plugged in.

The ONLY thing that is monolithic in Linux is the kernel, and it is only marginally so. Anyone, at any time, and for any purpose allowed by the GPL, can take the GPL source code of a project and "fork" it. The fork can become better than the original project and replace it, which explains why we use Xorg and not XF86config today. Or, the fork can stall and die out, with any improvements it generates being re-adsorbed into the first project. Linux is not unique. The commercial software world is littered with the bodies of dead operating systems and application projects. Some because they didn't pan out, like Plan Nine. Others died due to sabotage, like OLPC. Some were put to sleep in their old age and some, like BEOS, were murdered. It is a sad but true fact that the best OS or application doesn't always make it to the top of the popularity heap. In fact, the opposite is more often the truth, and skulduggery is often behind the failure.

Any competent developer, having an itch or seeing a niche, can take the source of any GPL Linux distro and "roll his own" version. PCLinuxOS came from Mandrake. CENTOS came from RedHat, Linux Mint is a spin off from Ubuntu, etc.... Kubuntu is Ubuntu with KDE instead of GNOME. Each distro has their own leader and some are leaders by virtue of the fact that they started the distro. When PCLinuxOS's creator, TexStar, took a leave of absence because his home was blown away by the Huston hurricane a couple years ago, his absence was sorely noticed during that year. The distro suffered in quality and timeliness. Bickering replaced cooperation. PCLinuxOS's quality was only restored when he returned shortly after the first release without him, which was a disaster, IMO. Now it is top notch again. Some project would be sensitive to the absence of its "leader", some would not be. Most feel that there are several talented people who could replace Linus Torvolds should he retire or a misfortune occur, and I believe that is true.

Another reason why Linux distros don't "standardize" is that the computer industry isn't "standardizing". Improvements and changes are constantly occurring. And, Microsoft is NOT "standardized" in any sense of the word either. After a lone period of trying to sustain backwards compatibility while trying to generate "new and improved" versions of Windows in order to keep the revenue stream flowing in, Microsoft had to make a break and drop compatibility with 16 bit apps. Sometime in the future they will drop compatibility with 32 bit apps, as Linux will, because the production of 32 bit machines is waning. Staying with any technology is a sure way to lock your distro OR OS into the past and put it on the path to irrelevancy. Ubuntu is dropping HAL in favor of Udev detection. HAL has its merits, but it is not the only or, now, the best way to detect and automatically configure hardware. But, nothing comes to life fully formed and functional. If you wait until all bugs are found and squashed (which is really VERY EXPENSIVE and difficult) you'd never release. Only a small program like the space shuttle control software has had the money, time and talent spent on it to make it as perfect as humanly possible. You could not afford an OS which is as perfect as the shuttle control software.

As far as the automatic detection AND manipulation of USB hardware is concerned, when a USB device is plugged into my my Sony VAIO VGN-FW140E/H notebook the 64bit Kubuntu Karmic detects it perfectly. Other hardware may have problems. That's true even when running Windows.


BTW, the link above, to Aaron Segio's blog, contains an excellent reply to Carla Schroder's complaints on LinuxToday about the configuration of the KDE4 desktop and some of its applications. It is a VERY WORTHWHILE read which also explains why an ill-informed rant is less than worthless -- it is destructive. Segio's reply is well thought out, laid out and presented, which shows why he was chosen the KDE dev leader. His programming is the result of the same skills and we all benefit from it by virtue of the KDE4 desktop, the most powerful desktop ever written.