Random question for Asher

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If he didn't start it the whole thing wouldn't have happened. I am still amazed that Asher didn't receive some severe sentence.

If they didn't respond the whole thing wouldn't have happened. Clearly, Agathon & Co. destroyed the Mac forum.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Ari Rahikkala
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=99909

Christ, a few lines of code it's like a religion to some people!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Free's good.

Free's hard to top.

-=Vel=-

Commie!

[Velociryx]

That'll be the day...

-=Vel=-

[Ari Rahikkala]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Christ, a few lines of code it's like a religion to some people!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Comes with Windows?

I didn't say that. I said the software is available.

Surely you jest. All major distros have a easy to use GUI installation program with standard configuarations.

This is nonsense and you know it. Try distributing a single binary for a reasonably sized program across any and all Linux distributions. I deal with this first-hand all the time at work, and in fact our team is extremely annoyed by it. There has to be special builds for all of our compilers, one for each Linux distro. Each build has its own testing to go through. It's a huge money and time sink, and it's one of the many reasons Linux will never be a major force on the desktop until things change.

You are ignoring the fact that there are two major families of Windows with a whole bunch of different forks. It's not all that easy.

Which two main families? Most new programs only support Windows NT-families, and even then, for a COMPLETELY new architecture, 99% of the programs will work across both. It's little things like that which cost MS a boatload of money and time, that people like Apple never bothered to do.

You don't have to configure Linux if you don't need to, however you can do it if it is necessary, as the ability to do so is right there.

You don't haveto configure Linux, you just need to. Plus, the distros do this for you, leading into my original point.

That misses the point. The gamer market is nice, but you don't need it to get the volume - the business market is where the volume is.

You're missing the point -- it was a generalized comment on development. MS has a monopoly on the business market too, if you'll recall.

Only Gentoo requires you to compile the kernel. Other major distros don't. The ability to customise the kernel when you need to do so is a positive, not a negative.

It's a negative in that it fragments the market considerably, making development costs much, much higher for companies.

[Provost Harrison]

No, asking 'Which have the largest ears, African or Indian elephants?' would be a random question for Asher

[Asher]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Asher , your accusations would have made sense - three years ago . Now , the install process for Fedora , to take an example , is much easier than that of XP . Most stuff works out of the box .

I'm not talking about the ease of installation of the OS at all. Good luck maintaining Fedora in any sensible manner, it's ridiculous -- rpms are evil.

Further, I call bull****. Fedora Core 2 wouldn't install on either my PC or my laptop without significant problems. Windows XP installed perfectly, FWIW.

Linux will be desktop ready in about another one to two years , because I predict that will be the amount of time it takes companies to release linux drivers and ports for the few products causing the most problems .

Absolute, total nonsense. I'll bump this in 1-2 years and taunt you with it, just like I continually do with UR who made the same claims back in '99-'00.

It's not going to happen until the Linux zealots realize that you need to have more than open source to have a successful platform. It's not practical for companies to release their commercial products on Linux, and until it is (which will require some fundamental changes), it won't ever come close to reaching the Windows marketshare.

The very simple fact is most Linux software undergoes little to no testing. They're buggy, most of the software is ugly, and there's so many cross-dependencies with a vast array of different configuratoins it's nightmarish.

As someone who deals with supporting a commercial product on Linux, I will tell you just how expensive it is compared to other platforms, as well as complex and time-consuming. With Windows XP, you have one installation base to shoot for. The same files will be in the same place at the same version.

With Linux, Fedora Core 1 install things in different places than FC2, which is different from RH9, which is different from SuSE 9.2, which is different from Gentoo, which is different from Debian, which is different from Slackware, which is different from....etc.

Each of these variations go under their own array of testing and builds and require their own, individual updates. It is really no understatement to consider it a nightmare.

Every time I use a Linux desktop I somewhat cringe. It feels unpolished, it feels inconsistent, it feels buggy. It's incredible that the Linux desktop designers still "don't get it". It's overly complicated -- there's links to 8 or 9 text editors on the program menu, a few different "system configuration" tools with overlapping functionality, newly installed programs don't "register" themselves with the programs list unless you use a distribution-specific installer (which sometimes doesn't work due to conflicting pre-reqs...)...

Windows (and MacOS) are simpler. They're more functional in that they don't overwhelm with options.

There are so many things wrong with KDE and Gnome that it's not even funny, from a usability perspective. They're generations behind Windows XP and MacOS X.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If he didn't start it the whole thing wouldn't have happened. I am still amazed that Asher didn't receive some severe sentence.

It was in response to repeated jabs at me. I didn't start it.

I did finish it, though.

[Atahualpa]

I'd like to see some professional usability comparisons. Not that I think their summary would be different, but you know... their way of presenting is... more professional and more fact-based.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Is this a thread for any random questions for Asher?

I've no wish to threadjack, but then again these are a bit dull.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I don't understand why even you think XP is such a hot item, when it's a complete pain in the arse. First of all, installing XP isn't easier than, say, Red Hat or SuSE, and it takes longer - all the drivers must be installed separately under Windows, though people somehow don't think it's part of the installation process.

There is a big difference between loading a CD in and clicking setup.exe and trying to find an obscure driver with an obscure name off of some hacker site somewhere that MIGHT have a driver.

As Linux gains a higher volume more drivers will be available,

This has been said since 1995. Still hasn't materialized. The target date is 2008 now!? In 2008 this argument will be put forth also. "In 2011 Linux WILL finally gain desktop market share!"

idiots users downloading all sorts of stuff and installing them.

How dare users actually be able to maintain their own desktop??? Calling users "idiots" tells me alot about your perspective. That's usually the #1 sign of being a Linux Zealot. Besides taking up several paragraphs to to defend it.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yeah, ming got played like no other by asher in that thread.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm not talking about the ease of installation of the OS at all. Good luck maintaining Fedora in any sensible manner, it's ridiculous -- rpms are evil.

Further, I call bull****. Fedora Core 2 wouldn't install on either my PC or my laptop without significant problems. Windows XP installed perfectly, FWIW.


Absolute, total nonsense. I'll bump this in 1-2 years and taunt you with it, just like I continually do with UR who made the same claims back in '99-'00.

It's not going to happen until the Linux zealots realize that you need to have more than open source to have a successful platform. It's not practical for companies to release their commercial products on Linux, and until it is (which will require some fundamental changes), it won't ever come close to reaching the Windows marketshare.

The very simple fact is most Linux software undergoes little to no testing. They're buggy, most of the software is ugly, and there's so many cross-dependencies with a vast array of different configuratoins it's nightmarish.

As someone who deals with supporting a commercial product on Linux, I will tell you just how expensive it is compared to other platforms, as well as complex and time-consuming. With Windows XP, you have one installation base to shoot for. The same files will be in the same place at the same version.

With Linux, Fedora Core 1 install things in different places than FC2, which is different from RH9, which is different from SuSE 9.2, which is different from Gentoo, which is different from Debian, which is different from Slackware, which is different from....etc.

Each of these variations go under their own array of testing and builds and require their own, individual updates. It is really no understatement to consider it a nightmare.

Every time I use a Linux desktop I somewhat cringe. It feels unpolished, it feels inconsistent, it feels buggy. It's incredible that the Linux desktop designers still "don't get it". It's overly complicated -- there's links to 8 or 9 text editors on the program menu, a few different "system configuration" tools with overlapping functionality, newly installed programs don't "register" themselves with the programs list unless you use a distribution-specific installer (which sometimes doesn't work due to conflicting pre-reqs...)...

Windows (and MacOS) are simpler. They're more functional in that they don't overwhelm with options.

There are so many things wrong with KDE and Gnome that it's not even funny, from a usability perspective. They're generations behind Windows XP and MacOS X.

[Az]

That Ming thread on the Mac forum is funny, though I must admit that I feel sorry for the mac people.