At its Professional Developers Conference this week, Microsoft is taking the wraps off its Longhorn Windows, Yukon SQL Server and Whidbey tool suite. Check back here for news from the Los Angeles event. Articles here, here here, here (lots of good info about the new Longhorn features) and here. Longhorn SDK here, screenshots and video of Longhorn from today conference here, Longhorn Tweak Guide, special access to Longhorn/Whidbey PDC release code. Even more articles here, here and here.
Microsoft PDC News; Longhorn Details Emerge
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I think if we’re discussing the practical aspects of computing than Microsoft only deserves as much of a fair evaluation as free alternatives. However, I’m seeing very little innovation in these reviews and reports of Longhorn on the net.
Based on what I’ve read, the much praised “WinFS” is nothing more innovative of what Be Inc accomplished several years ago, on a much smaller budget, with less programmers, and less resources in general with their filesystem for BeOS. WinFS offers practical advantages for the user, but is hardly a new concept in this regard.
Based on those screenshots from winsupersite I think that longhorn is visually disgusting. Windows originally implemented an overall blue scheme after Apple did so in their OS, and it now looks like they’re trying to also use the brushed metal look. The abstracted GUI elements, or “Aero”, in longhorn are basically implementations of features that have been in Mac OS X, which has been around for quite some time. The X11 enlightenment window manager had many of the features in OS X even earlier. For example, enlightenment has always had a “iconbox” which you could have miniturized windows rendered into scaled down icons, which were contained in a “iconbox”, very similar to OS X’s “dock”.
As far as applications go, Microsoft isn’t really innovating in this area either. I read somewhere of IE finally having some sort of pop-up blocker. It’s about time I say. Outlook 2k3 has some neat feature which allows you to create “self-destructing” emails, as well as other digital restrictions management features. I personally don’t see any practical purpose for this feature. If anyone knows of a way they could use this feature in some useful way, than do share those reasons with me.
Until I read about the new API’s, it looked like Longhorn was destined to hit an iceberg.
Now I’ve looked through the sample code for writing apps using the new UI framework, comms framework, and database-like file system… I am impressed.
Now whether or not anyone other than Microsoft will be able to write a good app using all this stuff, that I don’t know.
I have no doubt that when Microsoft moves their entire army forward in 2006, it will be impressive.
Of course Apple will have their entire office suite shipping by then. And Linux will have a better office suite vs. Open Office. So it will be fun to see who chooses what and how much they end up paying. The world economy could be in a depression at that time for all we know.
I could not watch the videos with the mac version of Media player. Does someone has a solution? I guess is because its encoded in Medeiaplayer 9 codec……
As as far as i read in the description of this os, i could not really find new technologies or new ideas. Seeing microsoft describing their speech technology as an innovation, its simply funny.
All the things they try to do, is only to make better windows for their users (with a lot of developpers and cash, …their developpers are really not good at microsoft), but basically nothing is really impressive for a system schedulled in 2006.
Why do people go on so much about innovation? Is Linux innovative? No, it’s a UNIX clone. Is OSX innovative? No. All good ideas are usually built on previous ideas – isn’t that supposedly what the open source/free software ideology is about? I think the room for innovation in OSs is over. What I see of Longhorn looks good, I belive Microsoft are moving in the right direction – I have been an XP convert since it came out, until then I used to champion Linux, but I feel now that Linux is lagging behind somewhat (in the desktop stakes at least).
I think the time for Microsoft bashing is over, they have a good product – yes it has problems, but name one piece of software (other than something minimal like ‘cat’) that doesn’t?
haha just let the MS haters (= linux geeks) stay with their command line while the rest of us moves forward
and its nice to use, i was pleasantly surprised that microsoft has finally locked down the network cards in the system, they are firewalled by default, no matter what happens with longhorn in the future, this one adjustment to the mainstream os that longhorn will more than likely become, will make it harder for blaster type variants to wreak havoc.
also, noted that their is ipv6 support built in, makes your ip addresses look very odd … the whole look and feel is nice, i like the slate theme, after all its only a theme, and after all its only alpha os at this point so im sure many things will mature.
cheers
anyweb
>> but I feel now that Linux is lagging behind somewhat
Then why is Longhorn mentioning such features as ipv6 support, popup blocking, firewalled network cards, journaled file systems etc that have been in just about every other OS for the last 2-3 years and MS won’t be able to deliver it until another 2-3 years. That makes MS 6 years behind – if anyones lagging its them.
Of course it seems that Lomghorn will bring a lot of improvements to windows, for security, interface, files management, new APIs and development model. For sure its a nice and even impressive development for the pc plateform.
But comparing for exemple to MacOsX, its not so impressive. The advanced interface with effects is already here (and we don’t know what apple will bring in 2006!!!), and i don’t think that Avalon, Indigo or any developments technology is better than the Cocoa technology, which is really amazing.
And 2006 its very far, three years from now. This the time that apple needed to build MacOsX, and not to mention the Linux development and other alternative os.
Dude, Linux was never at the forefront of the desktop appreciation in the past. In fact, it was pathetic at the desktop front up until a few years ago, 2 maybe 3. Not anymore today. GNOME easily spanks Luna all over the face while keeping OSX’s DE on its toes. Same goes for KDE. So what are you talking about? Oh, and not to be picky, Linux is a Unix. Almost all of its libraries are POSIX complaint or strive to be. And POSIX is a framework of Unix standards.
Read the rest of the sentence…
>> but I feel now that Linux is lagging behind somewhat (in the desktop stakes at least).
The “in the desktop stakes at least” part clarifies what I was talking about. If you are going to quote, then quote the whole sentence.
I’m not getting into a Linux sux/Linux roolz debate. You think it is better than anything out there then I say good for you. I don’t think it is good. My personal opinion is that it is still not there, the DE’s maybe getting a lot better but hardware support and software support is still varied. This is my opinion and it is only my opinion. In the end, XP provides the best experience I’ve had using a computer because it just works.
It seems like some of the columnists have fallen victim to the hype somewhat. Case in point, the microsoftwatch.com column, talking about how the taskbar will “even have an RSS feeder”. Well, we’ve had that for years now, in KDE, gnome, and third party windows apps.
Don’t get me wrong, I think theres some ok features in there, and its interesting to compare them to the current linux parallels, its certainly going to be a race over these next three years and should be fun to see the status of both projects in 2006.
That being said, I cant really see why a company with the size and resources of Microsoft’s would need another 3 years to do this, there doesnt seem to be THAT much there worth getting excited about.
I wasn’t debating you. I was just correcting your misconceptions.
>> I was just correcting your misconceptions.
I don’t need any misconceptions correcting, thank you. And I don’t think “GNOME easily spanks Luna all over the face while keeping OSX’s DE on its toes.” is anything other than your opinion. In fact your post doesn’t address any misconceptions.
Somebody guessed that winFX, the new windows API to replace win32 would be so difficult no one would be ablt to use it except for M$ devs. That’s just rediculous. For one thing, it’s based on markup language. It couldn’t possibly get easier than that.
Also to the haters of the theme on the new release, you’re getting upset over nothing as well. The Tier2 machines won’t have anything close to the themes we’re seeing today, and it’s likely the Tier1 machines will be much different as well.
Attend some M$ events and then try and say they are making it hard to program.
Misconception one
Why do people go on so much about innovation? Is Linux innovative? No, it’s a UNIX clone.
What is a UNIX clone? It is media non sense. Linux was writing from the scratch. It wasn’t cloned. It is a Unix because it conforms to POSIX standards.
Misconception two
Is OSX innovative? No, All good ideas are usually built on previous ideas – isn’t that supposedly what the open source/free software ideology is about?
Nope, the Open/Free software ideology isn’t about that. It’s more about being pissed off about lousy commercial proprietary software products that work like crap, are insecure and unstable by default, attempt to lock you in, reduce your privacy to dust, insult your intelligence with licensing schemes and so on. OSS is about providing a free and better alternative based on open standards.
Misconception 3
I think the room for innovation in OSs is over. What I see of Longhorn looks good, I belive Microsoft are moving in the right direction – I have been an XP convert since it came out, until then I used to champion Linux, but I feel now that Linux is lagging behind somewhat (in the desktop stakes at least).
When XP arrived on the market, Linux desktop environment wasn’t as polished as it is today. XP came out around 2000 and it is the year 2003. No changes have been made to XP, except security vulnerability patches, several has been made to GNOME and KDE within that same time period. So your comparison is unjustified.
I think the time for Microsoft bashing is over, they have a good product – yes it has problems, but name one piece of software (other than something minimal like ‘cat’) that doesn’t?
Microsoft bashing is silly. It’s a silly as Microsoft hyping. Especially, given Microsoft’s track record.
But if you idea of a better desktop experience is not been able to open email attachment for fear or viruses, being scared of which website you visit for fear of activeX vulnerability that exist on IE, being scared of using Microsoft Outlook for fear of buffer overflows, being scared to visit IRC channels for fear of trojans, running two spywares, three adwares, 2 antivirus software for fear of loosing your data, your system and privacy issues, backing up every 30 mins for just because something might go wrong, updating patches from windowupdate.com to patch vulnerability in previous patches(that didn’t work) and paying 200 bucks for all that, then I really do respect your opinions, but that’s about where it stops.
i must admit, that at first i was very sceptical about longhorn’s chances of success, but if the linked video is any indication about the actual possibilities of aero when released, i’m quite convinced that longhorn will truly break new ground, and that most if not nearly all windows-endusers will therefore want to have it!
i’m still not so sure about the corporate market, where price and functionality matters first, and not looks.
so at least in terms of ui or user experience, longhorn will likely be _the_thing for other os to get judged for years to come. as a word of caution, it might be that with all that movement on the screen, after a while, you gonna want to switch off at least some of the eyecandy to not get distracted from your actual tasks or work-this remains to be seen…
but anyays, as a friend and user of free or open software, i just wonder (even more if i look at the recent developments-or lack of-over at xfree86) if in 2006 gnome and kde might even have reached the status quo of osx in 2002/3-this would be nice, but unless the creative potential of xfree-developers doesn’t get untied (means unless the current crawling pace doesn’t get accelerated), chance is nearly nil!
>> What is a UNIX clone? It is media non sense. Linux was writing from the scratch. It wasn’t cloned. It is a Unix because it conforms to POSIX standards.
Linux is not a UNIX because UNIX is a trademark. Linux was designed to work like UNIX, so UNIX clone or UNIX-alike is an accurate description of Linux.
>> Nope, the Open/Free software ideology isn’t about that. It’s more about being pissed off about lousy commercial proprietary software products that work like crap, are insecure and unstable by default, attempt to lock you in, reduce your privacy to dust, insult your intelligence with licensing schemes and so on. OSS is about providing a free and better alternative based on open standards.
It is still about ‘openness’, openness of source, openness of ideas etc. Proprietory software does not equal bad software. Open source does not equal good software. There is good and bad in both.
>> When XP arrived on the market, Linux desktop environment wasn’t as polished as it is today. XP came out around 2000 and it is the year 2003. No changes have been made to XP, except security vulnerability patches, several has been made to GNOME and KDE within that same time period. So your comparison is unjustified.
Windows XP came out around the end of 2001, not 2000. I still don’t think the DEs are as good as XP. I don’t care how many updates GNOME and KDE have had, XP works as a unified system – Linux doesn’t. You’ve still got several layers of Linux kernel, shell, X server, window manager, x number of toolkits and you haven’t got the software base of Windows. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking what Linux has achieved, but it is no Windows killer ’til it becomes more user friendly. Rememeber, a desktop computer is a productivity tool and I find Windows XP a more productive environment.
>> Microsoft bashing is silly. It’s a silly as Microsoft hyping. Especially, given Microsoft’s track record.
OK. Fair enough. But doesn’t every company who is selling a product use marketing hype? Is Microsoft the only company guilty of dodgy sales tactics? You still can’t knock the product they have delivered in XP. I am not living in fear of viruses, scripts, trojans, adware. I know what I am doing with my system and take precautions – the same precautions you would take on any system.
> Oh, and not to be picky, Linux is a Unix. Almost all of its
> libraries are POSIX complaint or strive to be. And POSIX is
> a framework of Unix standards.
Linux is *not* UNIX. Just like GNU: “GNU’s NOT UNIX” Linux is a UNIX-like operating system. POSIX compliance should be taken worth a grain of salt. After all, I think (though I’m not certain of this) that even Windows is “POSIX compliant” with Cygwin or terminal services.
1) The *only* way it could be truly considered “UNIX” is if it was *based* on UNIX code. True, Linux works similarly to UNIX, but claiming that it is the same is a stretch. Also, GNU tools are pretty different from sysV or bsd tools.
2) It could be even further argued that a certification from the open group is also essential to be truly “UNIX”. At least to be sysV-unix, anyway. Either way, the first point is more important.
–Tim
Avalon surely sounds (and looks) to be the killer desktop feature…with a high potential of many hiller apps based on the new WinFX technologies and XAML.
However, in the timescale between now and 2006 will it not be possible to develop comparable OpenGL desktop acceleration for linux etc? And as for the other features, of Longhorn, these will all come in time to the freedesktop….
I am excited by the news from yesterday – many many good things to come to the desktop over the next few years!
> It is still about ‘openness’, openness of source, openness of ideas
> etc. Proprietory software does not equal bad software. Open source
> does not equal good software. There is good and bad in both.
This is a dramatically oversimplified interpretation. Leaving all of the security flaws, instabilities and design inconsistencies in Windows products, there are other factors that are important.
When using open source software, you have no need to worry about other companies trying to play unfairly with you and “lock you in” (so to speak) to proprietary file formats, protocols and APIs. Open Source software distributed under licences such as the GPL and BSD Lic. ensure that you will always have a choice who you receive the product from.
Open Source removes the dependence of marketing and distribution agreements from developers and ensures that those who create the best product will be the most successful. Think of it as “market self-regulation”.
Microsoft has introduced quite a bit of innovation, but they can not implement innovation as quickly as Linux. The problem however is that Linux is not focused, it is not using it’s strengths, it doesn’t know itself.
There is absolutely no reason to learn Win32 because Win32 is an interface, it’s real name is not Win32, it’s real name is the system interface. Now an interface encapsulates the implementation, and the .Net interface is much more flexible as well as logical. The .Net interface is highly reusable and productive. You are only doing damage to yourself, trying to hold onto Win32. On the other hand, if you use Linux than you can generalize beyond the interface and to the implementation. This is a totally different story.
The new and old features of the Microsoft product are based on a strategy. So you have to take it as a whole and realize that they do know what is missing and what is going to happen in the future. You can not tell them anything that they don’t already know.
Sorry for posting anonymously. Since I’m claiming to violate the EULA, I think you can forgive me.
Downloaded Longhorn beta off the net.
Installed on spare 10-gig hard disk.
Install was taking too long, went to bed.
Got up in the morning to play with Longhorn.
Played with Longhorn for 10 minutes.
Edited Boot.ini to remove Longhorn entry.
Formatted spare disk to make room for useful stuff.
The bottom line is that Longhorn is worse in each way that it differs from XP, except one. The slate grey theme is nice. The sidebar is crap. The gui changes are crap. Notepad is still the same notepad we’ve had since (I think) Windows 3.11 or maybe 95. It’s utterly worthless. The gui is *huge*, you can’t appreciate how much screen real estate is wasted in screenshots; you’ve got to see it to believe it.
Somebody said they thought the developers didn’t know what to do with the sidebar yet. I concur. It seems like a “kewl idea” that they haven’t gotten around to yanking yet.
I’ve played with Red Hat 9, and its GUI is much better than this. If the OS itself was more comprehensible, Win Geeks might even migrate.
To be honest I don’t care whether Linux or Windows is a better OS. What I care about is having some level of compatibility between the two. With all the power and promise of computers it is absolutely ridiculous that to truly get on in the world you can only use one OS, one Office suite, one email client. Imagine what the internet would be today if it was built on MS principles? Or any other social technology for that – PCs (image if IBM compatable never was), cars, phones, TVs – everthing. If MS had built the world it would be an impossable place to live in.
Until MS announce that they have built an OS on _truly_ open standards and software that can run anywhere then the IT industry is doomed. The OS should be nothing more than the OS and the same with other programs.
We shouldn’t have to live in a world where you can’t use another OS to type a simple letter because it’s binary format is propiertry and locked – its just ridiculous, backwards and what’s more its against the Capitalist ethic (and anti-American at that).
Another boring longhorn thread turned to linux. Wake up! There is nothing to see for 3 years. Yet we see new posts everyday. Bah!
The IT industries strategy is to move specialists to Europe and developing countries and to educate North American knowledge workers to be generalists.
A specialists reused vendor library objects and specializes them for a domain. On the other hand a generalist experiments with research and development. They are opposite, and only one of them has control. Now North American businesses will use these specialists in other countries to deploy vendor technologies. They work in concert with the vendor. This is the strategy. This is the future, and Longhorn is not significant, but it is just a part of a strategy, it’s not an operating system.
I see more and more that you link with the linktext “here”. I don’t know if it is because you want to keep visitors on this page
or if you didn’t think about it, but maybe you could consider using a more descriptive link so visitors could see the difference between information ‘here’ and ‘here’.
Linux is not a UNIX because UNIX is a trademark. Linux was designed to work like UNIX, so UNIX clone or UNIX-alike is an accurate description of Linux.
A clone is an exact replica of an object going by my definition. So still maintain Linux is not a Unix clone. UNIX is a trademark of AT&T, but Unix isn’t. All modern Unices conform to POSIX to the word UNIX clone UNIX-alike or whatever is flawed. There is no one true UNIX, all the Unices are different from IBMs to SCOs to SUNs to Novells to *BSDs to Linux. Not one of them is the a true “UNIX”. But most all of them conform to POSIX, so they can be considered the same family. So if Linux is Unix-alike, then all of them are. Again thanks to the media, for the confusion. I hear statements like “FBSD is more a Unix than Linux is.” That makes me cringe because none of them are the true UNIX.
It is still about ‘openness’, openness of source, openness of ideas etc. Proprietory software does not equal bad software. Open source does not equal good software. There is good and bad in both.
Agreed.
Windows XP came out around the end of 2001, not 2000. I still don’t think the DEs are as good as XP. I don’t care how many updates GNOME and KDE have had, XP works as a unified system – Linux doesn’t.
Thanks for the correction. Don’t be silly. GNOME is better integrated and unified than Windows XP is. It has a well documented and followed HIG.
You’ve still got several layers of Linux kernel, shell, X server, window manager, x number of toolkits and you haven’t got the software base of Windows.
Yeah, Linux doesn’t have Windows user base either.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking what Linux has achieved, but it is no Windows killer ’til it becomes more user friendly.
Lindows, Lycoris, Mandrake, Xandoras, my grandmama can install all those without my aid, what else do you want. User friendly? Install GNOME and see how much easier it is to use compared to XP. I don’t exactly understand what you mean by user friendly. If my computer inexposed mother can use GNOME then you can.
Rememeber, a desktop computer is a productivity tool and I find Windows XP a more productive environment.
Good for you. I’m glad you are enjoying XP and it’s very productive, but don’t spread FUD about Linux.
Amen, you hit the nail on the head.
How is Ken Lynch spreading FUD? He said his OPINION was that Windows XP is better. You said that this was a misperception, and Gnome is factually better. The only one spreading FUD is you, as usual.
I am bored, so here we go…
> Thanks for the correction. Don’t be silly. GNOME is better integrated and unified than Windows XP is. It has a well documented and followed HIG.
Explain to be how GNOME is better intgrated and unified than Windows XP?
> Yeah, Linux doesn’t have Windows user base either.
Isn’t that a plus for Windows?
> Lindows, Lycoris, Mandrake, Xandoras, my grandmama can install all those without my aid, what else do you want. User friendly? Install GNOME and see how much easier it is to use compared to XP. I don’t exactly understand what you mean by user friendly. If my computer inexposed mother can use GNOME then you can.
Ask your grandma to install a new video card or a new dvd-r or a new wireless card. Installing the OS is only the begining.
Explain to be how GNOME is better intgrated and unified than Windows XP?
You explain otherwise.
Isn’t that a plus for Windows?
Did I say it isn’t?
Ask your grandma to install a new video card or a new dvd-r or a new wireless card. Installing the OS is only the begining.
But why would my grandma want to do that? She is a user not a technician or a geek.
“Somebody guessed that winFX, the new windows API to replace win32 would be so difficult no one would be ablt to use it except for M$ devs. That’s just rediculous. For one thing, it’s based on markup language. It couldn’t possibly get easier than that.”
Where can we see this WinFX, and it’s so called markup language?!?!
> You explain otherwise.
You made the statement that “GNOME is better integrated and unified than Windows XP is.” All I am asking is to back it up.
> But why would my grandma want to do that? She is a user not a technician or a geek.
Because XP makes it easy to do even for someone who is not a technician or a geek. You say Linux is good enough for your grandama, I say WIndows XP is even better for your grandma.
“Somebody guessed that winFX, the new windows API to replace win32 would be so difficult no one would be ablt to use it except for M$ devs. That’s just rediculous. For one thing, it’s based on markup language. It couldn’t possibly get easier than that.”
Where can we see this WinFX, and it’s so called markup language?!?!
I think the previous poster is somewhat mistaken. The link in the story to the Longhorn SDK documents portions of the markup language, but that seems to be limited to the user interface portion of applications (ie you would use the markup language to handle the appearance of the application and much of the user interaction, as well as trigger events which would be handled by code in C#/Managed C++/VB). The remainder of the documentation is still pretty sparse, but that’s about what I’d expect for an OS that’s supposed to be 2 or 3 years away.
the BrushedMetal theme been around longer than OSX
Gnome-1.4 has it
ICEwm has a brushed metal theme http://themes.freshmeat.net/projects/brushedmetal_/?topic_id=925~*~…
You made the statement that “GNOME is better integrated and unified than Windows XP is.” All I am asking is to back it up.
Well, you seem to disagree with the statement, all I’m asking you to do is tell me how my statement is false.
Because XP makes it easy to do even for someone who is not a technician or a geek. You say Linux is good enough for your grandama, I say WIndows XP is even better for your grandma.
Oh, yes it does. XP magically installs grandma’s video card and DVD-R ROM, while grandma just sits and watches. Get real.
the BrushedMetal theme been around longer than OSX
Gnome-1.4 has it
ICEwm has a brushed metal theme
If you’re looking for prior art, so to speak, try QuickTime 4, which dates back to 1999. I didn’t like it then, and still don’t like it, but if we’re going to find someone to hang for it, unless you’ve got some older examples somewhere, the fault still lies with Apple.
The new features in the SDK look really interesting, but I wonder if it’s worth all the hype.
Flexbeta’s tweak guide basically says: turn off all the cool new stuff, and then you have a usable system.
Not much of an advance then is it? Still it’s an alpha, so it’s to be expected.
I’m off to look for a torrent.
> Well, you seem to disagree with the statement, all I’m asking you to do is tell me how my statement is false.
Little green spacemen from a planet far far away are coming to destroy earth. Also, the center of the earth is made of chocolate. If you do not believe me prove me wrong.
You can’t just make outlandish claims and expect others to prove you wrong.
> Oh, yes it does. XP magically installs grandma’s video card and DVD-R ROM, while grandma just sits and watches. Get real.
It is just as easy to installing. Plug in (admittingly plugging in may be hard, but the same for both all os’s), double-click installer, next, next, next, done.
Also, instructions that come with the hardware explain all the steps. Can’t say the same on Linux because it is different across distros.
SkyOS
Hey,
Can we agree that Gnome offers better integration because it looks the same on different platforms (Linux, all 3 major BSD’s, I’m told it runs on comericial Unicies, but I haven’t seen it). I call this horizontal. Gnome also lets you intergrate non-Gnome applications (e.g. KDE apps), but with some lost of ‘integration.’
Can we say the Windows offers better interation in the sence that all Microsoft tools integrate only with Windows. I’ll call this vertical integration. However, the integration between Windows and anything else is notorious.
Integrated is poorly defined. Can you agree on a defintion before you start arguing?
Little green spacemen from a planet far far away are coming to destroy earth. Also, the center of the earth is made of chocolate. If you do not believe me prove me wrong.
You can’t just make outlandish claims and expect others to prove you wrong.
I really don’t take anyone who quotes me out of context seriously. Well since you can’t prove me wrong, then I’m right. And I did give the reason why I made that statement. Read closely.
It is just as easy to installing. Plug in (admittingly plugging in may be hard, but the same for both all os’s), double-click installer, next, next, next, done.
Also, instructions that come with the hardware explain all the steps. Can’t say the same on Linux because it is different across distros.
Sir it seems you can’t differentiate between installing hardware components and software drivers. First of all, my grandma is scared of screw drivers and anything that remotely resembles a motherboard. Second of all, irrespective of the OS my grandma is using, she will never venture to install hardware components. No, she’s not that l33t yet. Lastly, if the hardware vendor provides you with drivers, or if your Linux distro contains one, a distro like Lindows or Xandaros will alert you that a new component has been detected and will prompt you to ‘click’ away to install it.
Sir seems you are still living in Linux’ 17th century. Yeah, Linux now has auto-hardware detection. I’m sure you’ve heard of knoppix too, right?
From what I’ve read it seems like longhorn will really be a big boost to the windows using crowd. The new file system seems really cool as does the new graphics engine. This should be a definate step up from XP and a no-brainer of an upgrade, but I have some serious questions about Longhorn.
1) What kind of DRM will be implemented? I know MS has something planned that will lock Longhorn down to one computer, and maybe all of your files as well.
2) The graphics engine is cool, but quartz extreme is over 2 years old and has a significant head start on whatever longhorn has planned. Can MS really catch up at this point to Apple?
3) Finally. How far ahead will OSX be by the time longhorn hits the streets. OSX should be on 10.6 maybe 10.7
Any thoughts?
> Hey,
> Can we agree that Gnome offers better integration because it looks the same on different platforms (Linux, all 3 major BSD’s, I’m told it runs on comericial Unicies, but I haven’t seen it). I call this horizontal. Gnome also lets you intergrate non-Gnome applications (e.g. KDE apps), but with some lost of ‘integration.’
> Can we say the Windows offers better interation in the sence that all Microsoft tools integrate only with Windows. I’ll call this vertical integration. However, the integration between Windows and anything else is notorious.
> Integrated is poorly defined. Can you agree on a defintion before you start arguing?
Personally, I am talking about vertical integration. Gnome runs on different platforms but is still Gnome. Also, anything other then x86 is not on topic here because we are talking about user desktop computers, as show by bring up Mystilleef’s grandma. Average users. Average users use x86 hardware unless using a mac which is another story all together. So no bringing up sparc or ppc hardware.
If you decide on horizontal integration, that is fine as long as it runs on the x86 hardware. As soon as you bring up anything else, you are outside of the scope of this argument.
So I repeat, how is Gnome better integrated then Windows XP?
Hey,
Can we agree that Gnome offers better integration because it looks the same on different platforms (Linux, all 3 major BSD’s, I’m told it runs on comericial Unicies, but I haven’t seen it). I call this horizontal. Gnome also lets you intergrate non-Gnome applications (e.g. KDE apps), but with some lost of ‘integration.’
None of this holds with most definitions of integration. Additionally, when Windows is available on different platforms, it features the same quality of looking the same on different platforms.
Can we say the Windows offers better interation in the sence that all Microsoft tools integrate only with Windows. I’ll call this vertical integration. However, the integration between Windows and anything else is notorious.
In`te*gra”tion, n. [L. integratio a renewing, restoring: cf. F. int[‘e]gration.] 1. The act or process of making whole or entire.
In other words, Windows is a group of applications and an operating system that make up a whole known as Windows. This is fairly well integrated, in that the majority of the parts don’t function well on their own, and can detract from the whole if removed. This isn’t quite the ‘monopoly-suit’ definition of integration which involves integrating previously external applications into the operating system, although it’s similar in that at one point most of the applications were not a part of the operating system (though NT was built with much of this functionality and did not ship without it).
Integrated is poorly defined. Can you agree on a defintion before you start arguing?
Perhaps that’s an issue, but dictionaries usually solve that sort of problem, since the definition I cited above is one of only a very small number that don’t apply to specific fields outside of computers (ie psychology and math).
However, it is possible to say that Gnome is well-integrated with a completely different argument from what you prevented above, though I can’t say whether or not it would be a well-founded argument, based on consistency and interactivity between Gnome and it’s suite of applications, as well as the components of Gnome itself.
Brushed metal? This new build doesn’t have brushed metal, people! It’s blackish-grey– a whole world apart from brushed metal!
Anyway, d/l the new build right now, might try it out if I have the time…
this is my opinion.
there is not much new things in this longhorn….
they are changing stuff here and there…..new fs to streghthen its security i guess… new UI which is not a big buzz as it’s always be de case as before
…
but the only new stuff i see is the XAML + C# programming model.. it also says something like…i can run a program as windows based and browser based using same code…..*heck* why should i do that….. i cant imagine any scenario for that…browser is for online….windows based is for offline…..=(
for developers…..time to chase the NEW WAY OF PROGRAMMING ….new OS new stuff..means time to learn..as usual in IT
1) What kind of DRM will be implemented? I know MS has something planned that will lock Longhorn down to one computer, and maybe all of your files as well.
If they locked all of your files (both files already on the system and files that you create) down to one computer, they’d face severe public outcry. In essence, this is FUD until proven otherwise, as none of MS’ current implementations of DRM have done this, nor do their released plans make statements of this nature. Windows itself, and applications that are installed on Windows could have a very real possibility of being locked down to one computer, but locking down data created by end-users is something that Microsoft would have to bet the company over, because they would lose it (businesses may want DRM, but they don’t want it outside of their control).
2) The graphics engine is cool, but quartz extreme is over 2 years old and has a significant head start on whatever longhorn has planned. Can MS really catch up at this point to Apple?
MS’ graphics engine is based on technology they’ve actively developed since Windows 95, that being DirectX. In essence, it’s a new application of technology, but the technology itself goes back much further. It remains to be seen how well this will work in this application, but I’m betting that it’ll turn out better than their current interface, though perhaps it will see some stability issues in it’s first year or two (SP3 will probably be about as stable as can be expected).
3) Finally. How far ahead will OSX be by the time longhorn hits the streets. OSX should be on 10.6 maybe 10.7
Who knows? That’s always the gamble with software development. On the good side, though, as the Justice Deparment put it, Apple and Microsoft aren’t competitors, because there’s a huge barrier of entry to move to Mac OS from Windows, known as PPC or Apple hardware. It’s why I’m not running OS X, that much is certain (and really has nothing to do with preference, and everything to do with buying a computer as a single purchase rather than multiple small purchases I later assemble into a computer).
it also says something like…i can run a program as windows based and browser based using same code…..*heck* why should i do that….. i cant imagine any scenario for that…browser is for online….windows based is for offline..
This doesn’t take much imagination, and you can currently do it using only a small amount of extra code for the Windows-based version. If you have an application that you want to make available in both situations, you would currently write an ActiveX control and then build a container for the Windows-based interface, and use IE as the container for the browser-based interface. Essentially what they’re saying is that the interface code should work the same whether it’s interpreted by IE or by Windows, because it’s done in markup language.
The biggest area this is currently widely-seen is with Java-based games, where you have a downloadable version available alongside the online web-based version. Sometimes the downloadable versions have extra features, whether unlockable through purchase or just in general, but the majority of the code is the same between the two versions. This just reduces the amount of code that would have to be written to make a web-based application windows-based, or vice versa.
> I really don’t take anyone who quotes me out of context seriously. Well since you can’t prove me wrong, then I’m right. And I did give the reason why I made that statement. Read closely.
Ok, lets look at your statement.
Ken Lynch said:
“Windows XP came out around the end of 2001, not 2000. I still don’t think the DEs are as good as XP. I don’t care how many updates GNOME and KDE have had, XP works as a unified system – Linux doesn’t.”
Mystilleef said:
“Thanks for the correction. Don’t be silly. GNOME is better integrated and unified than Windows XP is. It has a well documented and followed HIG.”
Where am I taking you out of context? I am asking you to backup your statment. You don’t do this. Instead you ask me to prove you wrong.
I make a statement: Earth’s center is made of chocolate. I ask you to prove me wrong. If you can not, does that mean I am right?
Also, is the fact that there is a HIG your reason? Microsoft provides very extensive resources for developing for Windows XP.
> Sir it seems you can’t differentiate between installing hardware components and software drivers. First of all, my grandma is scared of screw drivers and anything that remotely resembles a motherboard. Second of all, irrespective of the OS my grandma is using, she will never venture to install hardware components. No, she’s not that l33t yet. Lastly, if the hardware vendor provides you with drivers, or if your Linux distro contains one, a distro like Lindows or Xandaros will alert you that a new component has been detected and will prompt you to ‘click’ away to install it.
> Sir seems you are still living in Linux’ 17th century. Yeah, Linux now has auto-hardware detection. I’m sure you’ve heard of knoppix too, right?
Hardware detection exists on Linux but is no-where near the point it is in Windows. All commercially available x86 hardware works on Windows… not so with Linux. Simple as that. But this is off-topic this thread.
I would still like to see you back up your claim about Gnome.
So I repeat, how is Gnome better integrated then Windows XP?
Well, like I said earlier because the GNOME Desktop platform and GNOME applications all follow a Human Inteface Guide. The guide provides a framework as to how applications look, feel and behave accross the platform. Every gnome app acts, feels and behave the same. They all use the same keyboard shortcuts for basic functions and their menus arranged and placed identically. Once you mastered how to use one gnome app, you can use any other gnome app because they almost always have the same basic behaviour.
Unlike window applications which all act, feel and behave erratically. Tell me how Quicktime on windows feels, looks and behaves, like Internet explorer? Or how Macromedia looks, feels and behaves like Winamp? Or how about musicmatch jukebox, can I use the same shortcut keys to operate it as I can with say Acrobat reader? For every new app I install on Windows, I have to learn how to use, because it almost always has it’s own menu layout or arrangment, it’s own propreitary shortcuts, and it’s own weird behaviour. Oh, I’m not even going to talk about the Windows Control panel. What a mess.
And how about realplayer and Netscape7. Tell me how they look well integrated in Windows? I challenge you, mention a gnome app that feels awkward or different to use than any other gnome app. There, you have it. Better integration for you. Better unification for you. As for ease to use, everyone know gnome approach to application design is the KISS principle, keep it simple, stupid. I hope this answers your question and stops this miconception about Linux not being unified and utter crap.
> From what I’ve read it seems like longhorn will really be a big boost to the windows using crowd. The new file system seems really cool as does the new graphics engine. This should be a definate step up from XP and a no-brainer of an upgrade, but I have some serious questions about Longhorn.
> 1) What kind of DRM will be implemented? I know MS has something planned that will lock Longhorn down to one computer, and maybe all of your files as well.
I am sure there will be a DRM of sometype but will be selectable by the user. Example: if you want all your Word documents to be secure, the DRM can be used to lock it down. If Microsoft is smart, it will be there to be used if needed, but defaulted to off, or at least easy to turn it off. If not, they may be store for a huge public back-lash.
2) The graphics engine is cool, but quartz extreme is over 2 years old and has a significant head start on whatever longhorn has planned. Can MS really catch up at this point to Apple?
This stuff may be completely different by the time it comes out. It is hard to judge any of this stuff yet.
3) Finally. How far ahead will OSX be by the time longhorn hits the streets. OSX should be on 10.6 maybe 10.7
Again, who know. Wait and see. By 2006, I would hope OSX would be up to 11.
Aeonsfx (IP: —.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net) – Posted on 2003-10-28 12:21:04
1) The *only* way it could be truly considered “UNIX” is if it was *based* on UNIX code. True, Linux works similarly to UNIX, but claiming that it is the same is a stretch. Also, GNU tools are pretty different from sysV or bsd tools.
Incorrect. Anyone can grab the “grand unified” UNIX 98 standard documentation, write a clean room implementation and get it tested by the opengroup for a few hundred grand. In no way does one need any access to the original UNIX source code.
Matthew Baulch (IP: 203.123.69.—) – Posted on 2003-10-28 12:30:30
When using open source software, you have no need to worry about other companies trying to play unfairly with you and “lock you in” (so to speak) to proprietary file formats, protocols and APIs. Open Source software distributed under licences such as the GPL and BSD Lic. ensure that you will always have a choice who you receive the product from.
OpenSource isn’t the only menthod. If the company conforms to an openstandard or makes their API an openstandard then atleast there is a level playground. The problem is that Win32 and respective API’s have not been submited to a standards body.
Compare that to UNIX, for example. If you write an application conforming to the UNIX 95 specification, it *SHOULD* recompile on any UNIX currently on the market and possibly BSD and Linux with some minor adjustments. Compare that to a migrating software from Windows to *NIX which virtually requires a complete re-write.
Imagine had Microsoft submited the Windows API’s to a standards body, wine would have been finished long a go and people would be enjoying the fact that they can run Office 2003 on their x86 based operating system.
Mystilleef (IP: 168.143.123.—) – Posted on 2003-10-28 14:03:02
Linux is not a UNIX because UNIX is a trademark. Linux was designed to work like UNIX, so UNIX clone or UNIX-alike is an accurate description of Linux.
Incorrect. UNIX is a trademark of the OpenGroup. The only part of UNIX which isn’t owned by the OpenGroup is the original AT&T code which is now owned by SCO.
The OpenGroup regulate who can and can’t call themselves UNIX. Linux is not a UNIX because it has not gone through the necessary conformance testing required. Once, and ONLY once it has passed those tests THEN Linux can be called a UNIX.
IIRC the UNIX testing is around $150,000. You can informally test your implementation against the documentation that is made available by OpenGroup then it is up to you to decide whether you are going to test for UNIX 98 or UNIX 95 compliance.
Also, is the fact that there is a HIG your reason? Microsoft provides very extensive resources for developing for Windows XP.
It doesn’t seem like many developers care to follow them. Is it publicly available?
Hardware detection exists on Linux but is no-where near the point it is in Windows. All commercially available x86 hardware works on Windows… not so with Linux. Simple as that. But this is off-topic this thread.
And how is that my fault, and how does that relate to Linux is less unified, integrated or difficult to use as a desktop platform. If you purchase a Dell, HP, or IBM computer/hardware, they’d most likely work on Linux. For an OS that is largely unknown on the Desktop environment, I think that’s a great start.
The Linux doesn’t support new hardware is a tired theme. It’s
the hardware manufacturers that only support windows. The same
problem happens for Mac users. They also have to wait for drivers to be written. If the product is standards based, both
Linux and Mac have no problem with them. The public should demand that new products conform to a standard. One prime example of this is the WinModem. It’s a piece of crap in any
OS. Demand better.
> Well, like I said earlier because the GNOME Desktop platform and GNOME applications all follow a Human Inteface Guide. The guide provides a framework as to how applications look, feel and behave accross the platform. Every gnome app acts, feels and behave the same. They all use the same keyboard shortcuts for basic functions and their menus arranged and placed identically. Once you mastered how to use one gnome app, you can use any other gnome app because they almost always have the same basic behaviour.
> Unlike window applications which all act, feel and behave erratically. Tell me how Quicktime on windows feels, looks and behaves, like Internet explorer? Or how Macromedia looks, feels and behaves like Winamp? Or how about musicmatch jukebox, can I use the same shortcut keys to operate it as I can with say Acrobat reader? For every new app I install on Windows, I have to learn how to use, because it almost always has it’s own menu layout or arrangment, it’s own propreitary shortcuts, and it’s own weird behaviour. Oh, I’m not even going to talk about the Windows Control panel. What a mess.
Just because Gnome provides a HIG, does not mean developers always follow it. Microsoft provides guidelines also and you did a good job pointing out apps that don’t follow it the provided guidelines.
> And how about realplayer and Netscape7. Tell me how they look well integrated in Windows? I challenge you, mention a gnome app that feels awkward or different to use than any other gnome app. There, you have it. Better integration for you. Better unification for you. As for ease to use, everyone know gnome approach to application design is the KISS principle, keep it simple, stupid. I hope this answers your question and stops this miconception about Linux not being unified and utter crap.
Ok, XMMS does not look or feel like GIMP. Done, both work in Gnome, niether look or feel the same. How about realplayer and mozilla for Linux. Challenge met.
You have proved nothing other then developers don’t always follow guidelines provided.
“Also, anything other then x86 is not on topic here because we are talking about user desktop computers, as show by bring up Mystilleef’s grandma.”
Actually anything pertaining to anybody’s grandma or Gnome is off topic. The topic was/is “Microsoft PDC News; Longhorn Details Emerge”
The signal to noise ratio on this site is beyond belief especially when it comes to MS or Windows topics. I believe some of the Linux zealots have a need to reinforce thier choice of OS by putting down other peoples choices.
Quite juvenile to say the least.
Incorrect. UNIX is a trademark of the OpenGroup. The only part of UNIX which isn’t owned by the OpenGroup is the original AT&T code which is now owned by SCO.
The OpenGroup regulate who can and can’t call themselves UNIX. Linux is not a UNIX because it has not gone through the necessary conformance testing required. Once, and ONLY once it has passed those tests THEN Linux can be called a UNIX.
IIRC the UNIX testing is around $150,000. You can informally test your implementation against the documentation that is made available by OpenGroup then it is up to you to decide whether you are going to test for UNIX 98 or UNIX 95 compliance.
Yes, you are absolutely correct, I don’t remember where I got the information that AT&T owned the original trademark to UNIX before it was sold and the never ending story… However, I did mention there is a difference between UNIX and Unix. UNIX is the trademarked product while Unix isn’t. However, I find the whole process beaurocratic and unnecessary.
As long as the OSes are POSIX complaint, are portable and function the same accross platform they are Unix in my reasoning. Finally, that wasn’t my quote, that was Lynch’s quote, but I understand the confusion.
> It doesn’t seem like many developers care to follow them. Is it publicly available?
Yup. Tons of info at msdn.microsoft.com
> And how is that my fault, and how does that relate to Linux is less unified, integrated or difficult to use as a desktop platform. If you purchase a Dell, HP, or IBM computer/hardware, they’d most likely work on Linux. For an OS that is largely unknown on the Desktop environment, I think that’s a great start.
Who said about your fault? It is a start, but only a start. Also, I have stated this is off-topic.
Lindows, Lycoris, Mandrake, Xandoras, my grandmama can install all those without my aid, what else do you want. User friendly? Install GNOME and see how much easier it is to use compared to XP. I don’t exactly understand what you mean by user friendly. If my computer inexposed mother can use GNOME then you can.
Sure, but you’re also going to be limited in what you can do with it. For example, name me ONE distro that will let me do the following:
1. Install the OS with a minimal amount of pain
2. Fonts out of the box that I don’t have to dick with to make look decent
3. Easily install hardware (video/capture/sound, scanners, MP3 players, digital cameras, calculators, fireware/usb cards, DVD burners, etc) that are known to work in Linux, but that the kernel and/or X does not know about (in Windows, it’s usually a matter of plug in the device, insert the CD when asked, Next, Next, etc) For example, when I am running this distro and plug in (via USB) my Roland XV-5050 music synth, I assume getting it up and running would be a matter of point and click, or similar.
4. Easily install any app and/or version of an app that is not in the distro’s package manager repository
5. Allow me to share folders with Windows boxes without having to hack smb.conf or similar
6. Easily install whatever plugins I want for any web browser I choose to install
Nothing I have listed above is beyond Linux’s capabilities, so I am assuming that there is at least ONE distro that does this, no?
Every gnome app acts, feels and behave the same. They all use the same keyboard shortcuts for basic functions and their menus arranged and placed identically.
Yeah, but that’s every GONE app … but what about non-Gnome apps? We’re not talking about how well Gnome integrates with Gnome. What about other DE’s apps and toolkits? And what about Gnome’s piss-poor integration with the OS? For example, where in Gnome could I go to configure the IRQ settings on my modem?
Unlike window applications which all act, feel and behave erratically. Tell me how Quicktime on windows feels, looks and behaves, like Internet explorer? Or how Macromedia looks, feels and behaves like Winamp?
Just like the other guy said:
Ok, XMMS does not look or feel like GIMP. Done, both work in Gnome, niether look or feel the same. How about realplayer and mozilla for Linux. Challenge met.
As for Longhorn, I look at it as just another Windows release and I only try and figure out how to turn off all the new crap to make it Win95-like, so I can concentrate on what really matters … the apps.
Ok, XMMS does not look or feel like GIMP. Done, both work in Gnome, niether look or feel the same. How about realplayer and mozilla for Linux. Challenge met.
XMMS is not a gnome app. Rhythmbox or Jamboree is the gnome app equivalent of XMMS. Realplayer and mozilla are not gnome apps. Gmplayer, totem, epiphany or galeon are their gnome equivalents.
You have proved nothing other then developers don’t always follow guidelines provided.
No, you’ve just proven Windows isn’t as unified as seem to claim it is. And that Windows, not GNOME, developers don’t follow windows guidelines, wherever you claim they may be.
> XMMS is not a gnome app. Rhythmbox or Jamboree is the gnome app equivalent of XMMS. Realplayer and mozilla are not gnome apps. Gmplayer, totem, epiphany or galeon are their gnome equivalents.
If XMMS is not a Gnome app, how is Winamp a Windows app? How is realplayer a Windows app but not a Gnome app?
“Just because Gnome provides a HIG, does not mean developers always follow it.”
It’s not a gnome application if it doesnt follow the hig, end of story.
“Ok, XMMS does not look or feel like GIMP. Done, both work in Gnome, niether look or feel the same. How about realplayer and mozilla for Linux. Challenge met. ”
all of which are gtk/gtk2 applications.
the gnome media player to be is rhythmbox
the gimp is a relic of old times, dunno if we’re ever going to get a hig compliant gnome graphics editor.
realplayer is actually sort of following the look of totem, totem is one of the proposed gnome media players.
mozilla is also a gtk2/gtk application, however epiphany is the gnome browser based on the gecko engine…
Sure, but you’re also going to be limited in what you can do with it. For example, name me ONE distro that will let me do the following:
1. Install the OS with a minimal amount of pain
2. Fonts out of the box that I don’t have to dick with to make look decent
3. Easily install hardware (video/capture/sound, scanners, MP3 players, digital cameras, calculators, fireware/usb cards, DVD burners, etc) that are known to work in Linux, but that the kernel and/or X does not know about (in Windows, it’s usually a matter of plug in the device, insert the CD when asked, Next, Next, etc) For example, when I am running this distro and plug in (via USB) my Roland XV-5050 music synth, I assume getting it up and running would be a matter of point and click, or similar.
4. Easily install any app and/or version of an app that is not in the distro’s package manager repository
5. Allow me to share folders with Windows boxes without having to hack smb.conf or similar
6. Easily install whatever plugins I want for any web browser I choose to install
Nothing I have listed above is beyond Linux’s capabilities, so I am assuming that there is at least ONE distro that does this, no?
Lindows.
Yeah, but that’s every GONE app … but what about non-Gnome apps? We’re not talking about how well Gnome integrates with Gnome.
We are. GNOME is a Desktop environment. That’s all the user needs. We comparing Linux versus Windows DE for DE. And to me GNOME seems to be winning with regards to integration, unification and ease of use.
What about other DE’s apps and toolkits?
Normal users don’t use more than one DEs, nor to they need to know or use toolkits. Let developers worry about that.
And what about Gnome’s piss-poor integration with the OS? For example, where in Gnome could I go to configure the IRQ settings on my modem?
What OS? I doubt you’d need to do that with a modern Linux distro. But if you insist, gnome comes installed with gnome-system-tools and/or gnome-networking which contains such tools for manipulation of your network hardware, so does KDE.
Just like the other guy said:
Ok, XMMS does not look or feel like GIMP. Done, both work in Gnome, niether look or feel the same. How about realplayer and mozilla for Linux. Challenge met
Challenge failed. XMMS is not a gnome app. Realplayer and Mozilla aren’t gnome apps either. I provided their equivalents above. Challenge failed once again.
“If XMMS is not a Gnome app, how is Winamp a Windows app?”
win32.
If XMMS is not a Gnome app, how is Winamp a Windows app? How is realplayer a Windows app but not a Gnome app?
Well because it was designed to be used on the Windows DE. What else can I say. XMMS wasn’t designed to be used specifically for GNOME. It doesn’t follow the GNOME HIG and is not shipped with vanilla GNOME so it’s not a GNOME app, period.
Winamp was designed to be used on Windows, it clearly doesn’t follow and Windows guideline, it is confusing and annoying to use, not to mention difficult, and it clearly doesn’t unify, integrate, look, feel, behave and/or act like any other Window app.
Further proof that the Window DE and the apps designed for it are a bunch of poorly designed, not well thought out and just erratic stuff bundled to it’s users. Not the same for GNOME.
If XMMS is not a Gnome app, how is Winamp a Windows app? How is realplayer a Windows app but not a Gnome app?
Well because it was designed to be used on the Windows DE. What else can I say. XMMS wasn’t designed to be used specifically for GNOME. It doesn’t follow the GNOME HIG and is not shipped with vanilla GNOME so it’s not a GNOME app, period.
Winamp was designed to be used on Windows, it clearly doesn’t follow and Windows guideline, it is confusing and annoying to use, not to mention difficult, and it clearly doesn’t unify, integrate, look, feel, behave and/or act like any other Window app.
Further proof that the Window DE and the apps designed for it are a bunch of poorly designed, not well thought out and just erratic stuff bundled to it’s users. Not the same for GNOME.
Same goes for realplayer. It’s not a GNOME app. GNOME apps all look and feel the same. You know GNOME app when you see one.
If Windows apps suck so badly, then why do OpenOffice/Koffice try to be as similair as possible to MS Office? Then why do Gnome/KDE resemble the Windows desktop so much (they are drifting apart though, I know)? Then why do Evolution/Kmail resemble Outlook so much?
Etc. Etc. Etc.
I mean, I’m not saying that Windows apps are the best of the best, I just want to say that saying that they are “a bunch of poorly designed, not well thought out and just erratic stuff” is complete nonsense. If that is so, then why does your Gnome (which is wonderfull by the way, don’t get me wrong, I just like KDE better
) developpers don’t come up with something better?
“Further proof that the Window DE and the apps designed for it are a bunch of poorly designed, not well thought out and just erratic stuff bundled to it’s users. Not the same for GNOME.”
Haha. This coming from a Linux fanboy, using an operating system with apps like Xine that have no open button. Just something with a “://” on it that says “MRL Browser” on the tooltip.
Windows apps are way, way, way more integrated and seamless than the hodge-podge that is GNOME, KDE, and the rest of the endless hacks on top of X11. You single out Winamp and offer that as proof for all Windows apps, which means you’re just trolling, and badly, might I add.
In KDE you can also see that that desktop environment is better integrated than Windows:
– KIO: you do not need a FTP client, because a kio-slave for FTP exists, and that means that every KDE application can use FTP for all file operations.
– KParts: counterpart of OLE32.
– DCop: something like com+. But all KDE applications support it.
– Consistent UI: all KDE applications use the same widgets, the same dialogs for file operations and for configuration, they use the same toolbar layout, and all those widgets always behave the same, and they all obey the same central configuration settings.
– HIG: KDE has a HIG, and has had it since version 1.x!
This is not the case in Windows: gogo compare Office toolbars with others! Gogo script notepad via com+! Gogo open a FTP file with notepad! Gogo use sftp! And the latest Media Player looks so HIG-compliant!
This also isn’t always the case in Gnome. Gogo compare the Epiphany and GEdit toolbars! Gogo try to embed a spreadsheet in AbiWord! Gogo look at buttons and text boxes in Epiphany! Gogo log in to FTP using Nautilus (Gnome-VFS isn’t that good: ftp://username:password@host isn’t really secure!)
Winamp 5 has a redesigned interface anyway, complete with menus, to make it more of a standard Windows app (though it allows Winamp3 style skins to make the interface whatever you want).
Next.
“If Windows apps suck so badly, then why do OpenOffice/Koffice try to be as similair as possible to MS Office? Then why do Gnome/KDE resemble the Windows desktop so much (they are drifting apart though, I know)? Then why do Evolution/Kmail resemble Outlook so much?”
I don’t expect much from people other than that they realise that there are certain ui paradigms that make perfect sense and follow aesthetics aswell as function.
evolution is getting a redesign because the focus groups ximian uses found it to be too hard to use, hence refactoring and redesign.
openoffice and koffice are wordprocessors, you can only take typography and typesetting that far.
First things first – all these posts should be modded down.
Secondly, if you’re comparing a Desktop Environment like Gnome to Windows then you need to comapre the apps that *ship* with Gnome to those that *ship* with Windows.
All apps that ship with each ‘DE’ comply with the design guidelines – including WMP in XP using the classic interface.
Now, can we get back on topic?
On topic: it seems that Microsoft tries to waste 3/4 of your screen. Just look at the screen of “My Computer”, and measure how many space the icons actually get. Not much more than 1/4, and that with a maximized window! And look at the save dialog of Paint! Huge icons that serve no purpose, because it are such common and such different icons that you can’t distinguish them better at this size. That coloured bar doesn’t fit into it in style, and is pure another 200×50 (or so) pixels of wasted space, because it only tells the number of icons! I would say they assume everybody has 40 inch screens in 2006.
> Well because it was designed to be used on the Windows DE. What else can I say. XMMS wasn’t designed to be used specifically for GNOME. It doesn’t follow the GNOME HIG and is not shipped with vanilla GNOME so it’s not a GNOME app, period.
> Winamp was designed to be used on Windows, it clearly doesn’t follow and Windows guideline, it is confusing and annoying to use, not to mention difficult, and it clearly doesn’t unify, integrate, look, feel, behave and/or act like any other Window app.
> Further proof that the Window DE and the apps designed for it are a bunch of poorly designed, not well thought out and just erratic stuff bundled to it’s users. Not the same for GNOME.
> Same goes for realplayer. It’s not a GNOME app. GNOME apps all look and feel the same. You know GNOME app when you see one.
This is just too stupid. I doubt blame anyone if it is modded down.
Fine then. Winamp and all the apps you said are not Windows apps since they don’t follow the guidelines setup by Microsoft. Sure they work in Windows, but since they don’t follow the guidelines, they are not Windows apps. So using your logic, your own argument makes no sense. So back to show me inconsitencies that follow Windows guidelines.
On topic: it seems that Microsoft tries to waste 3/4 of your screen. Just look at the screen of “My Computer”, and measure how many space the icons actually get. Not much more than 1/4, and that with a maximized window! And look at the save dialog of Paint! Huge icons that serve no purpose, because it are such common and such different icons that you can’t distinguish them better at this size. That coloured bar doesn’t fit into it in style, and is pure another 200×50 (or so) pixels of wasted space, because it only tells the number of icons! I would say they assume everybody has 40 inch screens in 2006.
Windows XP does the same thing sorta (not to the same extent). It can be turned off. As long as I can remove it, it is fine with me. Pick and choose the parts of the new interface that I like. Thats what I hope Longhorn allows. Also, it is still way too early to really make any thoughts about stuff like that. It will all change.
Excellent points.
If Windows apps suck so badly, then why do OpenOffice/Koffice try to be as similair as possible to MS Office? Then why do Gnome/KDE resemble the Windows desktop so much (they are drifting apart though, I know)? Then why do Evolution/Kmail resemble Outlook so much?
Etc. Etc. Etc.
MS Office is clearly the best office application tool I’ve used. It does have it’s drawbacks but it is very good. However, today I use Ximians version of Openoffice, Abiword(buggy as hell) and Gnumeric. Openoffice tries to be similar to MS Office is because MSOffice applications are a standard. They are used everywhere most especially in the corporate and academic environment. If openoffice tried to be different, the learning curve for adjusting to it will be steep and shawned upon. That’s not good for adoption of an open and free alternative. So, the plot to copy MSOffice was intentional not because developers ran out of ideas. That’s why you and I can use Openoffice or MSOffice without learning how to use either apps. Frankly, I prefer it that way.
However, today I feel open office is better for three reasons. It cost nothing and provides all the features you’d ever need in an office suit. It supports export to pdf a feature not yet available in OfficeXP, at least.(I don’t know about Office2k3). It hasn’t crashed or eaten any of my documents. It also has it’s drawbacks, but for a free alternative, it’s probably the only tool that can bury MSOffice.
I mean, I’m not saying that Windows apps are the best of the best, I just want to say that saying that they are “a bunch of poorly designed, not well thought out and just erratic stuff” is complete nonsense. If that is so, then why does your Gnome (which is wonderfull by the way, don’t get me wrong, I just like KDE better
) developpers don’t come up with something better?
More often than not the apps I use on Linux are much better than it’s equivalent offering in Windows. I use epihany on Linux, I’m not scared of activeX vulnerabilities, or visiting certain sites that will crash my app or “runtime errors” or clicking on trojan links. All these misgivings are possible on IE.
For my mail application I use Evolution. I don’t get junk mail because evolution has good filters that work. I’m not afraid to open attachments because MS viruses to execute on Linux and I can see before hand what the attachment contains. Html pages by default don’t launch in evolution, I turn them on if or when I want. Evolution has never crashed on me when downloading messages from my pop server or when sending messages I can go on.
Terminals. Enough said, BASH is more powerful than the best offering you have on windows period. Media players, well mplayer plays almost any file format known to man. It doesn’t delete the songs or video files I have on my hard disk, like Windows Media player did several times(some licensing issues*shrugs*). Instant messaging, if you’ve heard of GAIM you’d at least give OSS the props for such an innovation. How about window managers? Linux in my opinion has better window managers than anything on Windows.
I could go on and on, but this will quickly become a rant. But for almost every window app you have out their, I will give one that is most likely better on Linux and the reason why I think so. I acknowledge that there are a few exceptions. But the exceptions are truly few, and are usually very specialized applications. How can I forget the apps that make Linux popular among admins apache and samba. I don’t see any window equivalents that are better. I think I’ve defended Linux enough for one day. Have a nice day.
> More often than not the apps I use on Linux are much better than it’s equivalent offering in Windows. I use epihany on Linux, I’m not scared of activeX vulnerabilities, or visiting certain sites that will crash my app or “runtime errors” or clicking on trojan links. All these misgivings are possible on IE.
No problems with Mozilla for Windows.
> For my mail application I use Evolution. I don’t get junk mail because evolution has good filters that work. I’m not afraid to open attachments because MS viruses to execute on Linux and I can see before hand what the attachment contains. Html pages by default don’t launch in evolution, I turn them on if or when I want. Evolution has never crashed on me when downloading messages from my pop server or when sending messages I can go on.
Eudora is a great mail app. with the same advantages as Evoliution.
> Terminals. Enough said, BASH is more powerful than the best offering you have on windows period.
Bash with cygwin.
> Media players, well mplayer plays almost any file format known to man. It doesn’t delete the songs or video files I have on my hard disk, like Windows Media player did several times(some licensing issues*shrugs*).
PowerDVD run everything wonderfully for me.
> Instant messaging, if you’ve heard of GAIM you’d at least give OSS the props for such an innovation.
GAIM on Windows is great too.
> How about window managers? Linux in my opinion has better window managers than anything on Windows.
Still waiting on the Gnome integration thing.
> I could go on and on, but this will quickly become a rant. But for almost every window app you have out their, I will give one that is most likely better on Linux and the reason why I think so. I acknowledge that there are a few exceptions. But the exceptions are truly few, and are usually very specialized applications. How can I forget the apps that make Linux popular among admins apache and samba.
Hey look… Apache for Windows exists.
> I don’t see any window equivalents that are better. I think I’ve defended Linux enough for one day. Have a nice day.
Good job
For fucks sake people, it’s an operating system, not your girlfriend.
If you can do your work on it without getting in your way then it is doing your job. If it’s the best looking, most hi tech, has the best features, has the lowest price, but doesn’t do what you need it to do, it’s worthless.
I mean honestly, can’t we actually have a discussion about what good things could come about by the new features being added to longhorn (or conversly the bad things)? If linux, or macosx or beos did something sooner, do it better, do it faster or whatever, it really doesn’t matter much does it?
Does bashing the other side really do any good? I know people who shun linux because it seems quite a few linux advocates are so full of this “i hate bill gates”, “m$”, crap, that regardless of the merits of their products people just don’t want to get involved. There’s also windows people who are so afraid to try anything new that they won’t even look at linux or any alternative os’, and they lose productivity and lose great opportunities because of it. And there’s the mac users who have such a high and mighty attitude about their precious apples (feeling that it some how makes them “elite”), that again people just shun macs because of them.
To the best of my knowledge an application designed for Windows is a window application. That’s the only requirement Windows stipulates. It does not need to follow the so called Windows guidelines you talk about so technically and non-technically speaking Winamp is a window application. No application designed for Windows can be rejected a by MS as not being a window application. And to the best of my knowledge, developers need not follow Windows guidelines, 90% of them don’t. They do their on thing.
Not the same in Linux land. I know several high quality good apps that have been rejected as not being a gnome app for non-complaince with GNOME’s HIG. Gaim comes to mind. Sad but true. For an app to be called a gnome app, it needs to follow the GNOME HIG so that it integrates well with the GNOME desktop and behaves like other GNOME apps. I can understand your frustration, but despite popular misconceptions like yours and many others, Linux is pretty much organized. Oh, and we follow the standards we make. GNOME is a beautiful example. KDE is another.
So next time someone tells you Linux is not integrated, unified or is designed with no purpose or focus or doesn’t have good apps and all the crap I hear here, kindly tell them they are wrong and point them to the GNOME or KDE website. That way, we create more awareness and less propraganda. Have a wonderful day.
Ahem…Back on topic…
Still waiting on the Gnome integration thing.
lol. Despite all my explanations and examples, if you still don’t belief GNOME is better integrated than windows is then you’ll never believe it. I’m sorry I can’t help then.
> Not the same in Linux land.
Hmm… Linux land. XMMS runs on Linux.
> I know several high quality good apps that have been rejected as not being a gnome app for non-complaince with GNOME’s HIG. Gaim comes to mind. Sad but true. For an app to be called a gnome app, it needs to follow the GNOME HIG so that it integrates well with the GNOME desktop and behaves like other GNOME apps.
If this is the case, then there is a sever shortage of apps available.
> I can understand your frustration, but despite popular misconceptions like yours and many others, Linux is pretty much organized. Oh, and we follow the standards we make. GNOME is a beautiful example. KDE is another.
So Linux is organized as long as you only look at a few apps. GOod call.
> So next time someone tells you Linux is not integrated, unified or is designed with no purpose or focus or doesn’t have good apps and all the crap I hear here, kindly tell them they are wrong and point them to the GNOME or KDE website. That way, we create more awareness and less propraganda. Have a wonderful day.
So you point them at a handful of apps and say ignore the of 95% of software. Good argument.
No need to defend Linux when it comes to me, the only PC I have is a Linux only box (MDK 9.2)
I’m just trying to bring some sense back into the world about Windows. It’s not all bad, in Windows-land, you know.
Well, here’s what I found about the so called “multi-user” capabilites of XP.
So my friend just received a new laptop with XP pre-installed. By default, there was no login screen and the default user was Administrator with no password.
Since the machine is connected to the cable modem constantly, I mentioned to her that she should not work as Administrator and instead use a “limited user id”. This way, her system files will not be in as much danger in case she downloads a virus or something to that nature.
So I setup her user id and password protected the Administrator’s user id. I explained to her that if she needs to do any administrative tasks such as installing new software or changing system settings via the control panel, she must use the Administrator user id.
Everything was clear to her (she’s pretty smart). She began working in her user id when the first problem occurred. The media player which played mp3’s and CD’s wouldn’t work for her. I found that it did work for the Administrator though? The player is not a MS app by the way.
The next day she decided to download and install one of the peer2peer file sharing programs. She did this as Administrator. When she logged out and switched to her user id, there was no program icon on the desktop. She called me and I basically linked a desktop icon to the program executable. Then when she ran the program, it didn’t work!!! The program couldn’t find some system libraries! When she tried to use the program as Administrator, everything was fine. Again the program is not a MS app.
Problem number three began appearing. There were all sort of popups just randomly showing advertising and stuff on her screen. They would popup right when she logs in, before executing IE for the first time. Maybe she already downloaded a virus when she was running as Administrator??
She downloaded another peer2peer program. I think it was Limewire. She installed it while Administrator and then switched to her user id. Yet again, there was no way of launching the program. Yet again, we set up a link to the executable on her desktop. The program would work, but it wouldn’t download anything. It’s funny how it would download for the Administrator.
I found that Limewire would use the same shared folder no matter which user id you’re using. Apparently is wasn’t written for the new XP multi-user operating system?? But, I attempted to change her Shared folder to a new one under Documents and Settings. This didn’t fix anything. Oh, and by the way, how does one find out who the owner of the file is?? Clicking on properties for a file doesn’t give this information. Is there even such a thing as a file owner in the NTFS… I thought there was.
Well, it appears XP is a secure OS which handles multiple users elegantly …
Great job guys! I’m sure Longhorn will be just as good…..
She should have got someone to help her with her XP PC that knew what they were doing in Windows land.
The first thing you should have done was enable the firewall.
As I have said before the biggest problem with Windows right now is you have to be a local admin for alot of software to run, because of access to the registry. You might have tried adding her to the power users group though.
Also I wouldn’t install any peer to peer software on anyones PC. If they thought they had to have it, fine I would walk away and let them mess up thier own PC.
My first, and incidently only post, about the lack of innovation in Microsoft Longhorn was not meant to be a indirect patronage of free software (GNU/Linux) but was rather a reflection of my contempt for technology as a whole in it’s present form.
As far as operating systems go, you have basically three major players that consumers and organizations will choose from: BSD and GNU/Linux, which I feel is appropriate to group together in this incident, Microsoft, and Apple. I resent the fact that these players aren’t really offering much to us as consumers. It’s seems more and more that they’re just offering security patches (which generally demostrates careless initial design decisions in most instances), “usability improvements” and “ease of use”(I think we’ve all grasped the basic fundamentals of how computers work, don’t you folks), as well as catch-all phrases like “faster, more productive, scalable” and such.
I think it’s sad that this is where we, the human race, find ourselves at in our most evolve state. We’re not directing the mass of resources to improving technology that will make our lives better. I don’t think that anyone would argue that most of our resources, meaning money, time, education, etc… are spent on computers, personal electronics, digital entertainment, and such. Anyway, what you have instead of a clever use of scarce resources is so much energy going into developing totally useless aspects of technology. And where you have development you always seem to have people who believe that they are somehow getting return for investment. “150 new features that you definitly can’t live without, so therefore you must justify the pricetag and not invest your money anywhere else that may offer radically different solutions”.
Apple totally rewrote their OS and nothing has essentially changed. Any computer science student would see no basic differences, and few detailed contrasts between DOS, win2k, the Mac OS’s, foobarOS, etc… I mean we all know that their is nothing but science behind a computer. We’re dealing with idealized mathmatical environments, so how “different” can they be. Honestly I do think that what has made UNIX and clones/derivatives last for so long is that the system as a whole was thought out from the drawing board moreso than anything, and no one made any obnoxious definitive claims about what the system was capable of, which means that in the end no one could be dissatissfied with what wasn’t supported etc… The very reason that UNIX became so powerful was scrutiny, and people saying that so-and-so feature just wasn’t good enough for them, or wasn’t implemented right.
My point is that basically today people are letting companies and such define what it is that they need, and what makes their computers easier to use, etc… As a science you would probably say that computers need great minds to build systems for the ignorant masses, but I don’t think that this is any longer the case. People have lost their will to say no or that something sucks. I don’t mean the critics, I mean people as a whole. The users. They just don’t care mostly, which I think is sad, because surely if we combined ideas, refined ideas, and sad no, that’s just stupid, I’m not buying it, than in the end things would improve. If we just let companies tell us that blue interfaces and brushed metal themes will make things easier, it’s like willingly taking opiates to a problem, instead of dealing with it.
We need more innovation. I honestly believe that. I don’t think we can be innovative in the existing framework, simply because our only goal is money. Like the saying goes, a salesman will say anything for a buck. So will computer companies. If we start taking risks with our resources, and implementing things that we honestly think are worth it, than I think we’ll see progress. Otherwise we’re stuck with the failed systems of the past, with no new systems, just added crap that isn’t really revolutionary.
Nothing I have listed above is beyond Linux’s capabilities, so I am assuming that there is at least ONE distro that does this, no?
Lindows.
K, maybe I’m missing something, but how do you (easily) install an app that’s not found in the Click ‘n Run database or (even worse), the apt repository?
We are. GNOME is a Desktop environment. That’s all the user needs. We comparing Linux versus Windows DE for DE.
Sorry, but Windows (2k/XP) is not a DE, it’s an OS. Gnome is not an OS. Gnome, as it applies to Linux, is only part of the equation. Gnome integrates well within itself, but not within the OS. You can’t just say “Linux is easy to use, just look at Gnome …”; that’s not really a fair statement because Gnome is only a subset of what Linux is.
If you say it’s well integrated as long as you only use Gnome ‘certified’ apps, you are severly limiting the range of apps a user can work with and what they can do with the OS.
What about other DE’s apps and toolkits?
[i]Normal users don’t use more than one DEs, nor to they need to know or use toolkits. Let developers worry about that.
I didn’t say what about other DE’s. I said what about other DE’s apps and toolkits? If they’re using other apps, they’re using other toolkits by default. So, even though they don’t have to worry about toolkits specifically, they’ll probably end up using one sooner or later as a result of using a non-Gnome app, which will ‘break’ the integration.
What OS? I doubt you’d need to do that with a modern Linux distro. But if you insist, gnome comes installed with gnome-system-tools and/or gnome-networking which contains such tools for manipulation of your network hardware, so does KDE.
So are you saying that any hardware manipulation/configuration that needs to be done (video, sound, LAN, printer, etc) can be done within Gnome? I only brought up the modem thing as an example.
However, today I feel open office is better for three reasons. It cost nothing and provides all the features you’d ever need in an office suit.
No, it provides all the features you’d ever need in an office suite. Plus, it runs in Windows anyway, so the argument is irrevalent.
I use epihany on Linux, I’m not scared of activeX vulnerabilities, or visiting certain sites that will crash my app or “runtime errors” or clicking on trojan links.
And since when did using IE in Windows become a requirement? You don’t even need it to get Windows updates.
For my mail application I use Evolution. I don’t get junk mail because evolution has good filters that work. I’m not afraid to open attachments because MS viruses to execute on Linux and I can see before hand what the attachment contains.
So, I use The Bat .. what’s your point?
Terminals.
There are some great ones in Windows.
Enough said, BASH is more powerful than the best offering you have on windows period.
No arguments there, but this is not really an app, is it? Besides, when did this become Gnome-certified?
Media players, well mplayer plays almost any file format known to man. It doesn’t delete the songs or video files I have on my hard disk, like Windows Media player did several times(some licensing issues*shrugs*).
That’s what you get for using Windows Media Player (duh) .. even Windows users know what sucks
Try Media Player Classic next time – it’s even open source.
Instant messaging, if you’ve heard of GAIM you’d at least give OSS the props for such an innovation.
I use Trillian Pro, which (IMHO) whips Gaim’s ass. If it weren’t for Trillian, I can only wonder if you’d actually have a Yahoo fix that actually worked.
How about window managers?
There’s DesktopX, I believe LiteStep, and who knows what else. Personally, I like the default, so I’ve never experimented.
I could go on and on, but this will quickly become a rant.
Of course, you do like so many others, you only compare Linux apps with whatever comes with Windows (sans MS Office), completely ignoring the thousands of other apps out there. That makes for a pretty narrow point-of-view.
I acknowledge that there are a few exceptions. But the exceptions are truly few, and are usually very specialized applications.
What is your definition of a ‘specialized’ apps? There are quite a few ‘specialized’ apps that nothing in the open source world can touch with a 10-foot rubber d*ck, so I guess as long as a person doesn’t use one of those, then they’re all set. However, a ‘specialized’ app doesn’t necessarily have to equal an ‘industrial strength’ app. For example, do you know of a Linux, er … *ahem* … Gnome app that will let you print calendars and such with Di$ney characters on them? I have a friend who would be very interested if so.
How can I forget the apps that make Linux popular among admins apache and samba.
Apache, available for Windows, though that’s a server app and a completely different ball of wax. Obviously, Samba is not needed in Windows
Everything was clear to her (she’s pretty smart). She began working in her user id when the first problem occurred. The media player which played mp3’s and CD’s wouldn’t work for her. I found that it did work for the Administrator though? The player is not a MS app by the way.
Without knowing what media player it was, my first guess is simply that it is poorly written. The majority of media players I’ve checked out under XP work fine under multiple users (and have to, since my girlfriend and I don’t use the same user account). The biggest thing is making sure the app is available to the other user, but usually it’s just install, make sure a shortcut is available, and go (and this considering my girlfriend can’t find things if they aren’t in her documents folder). iTunes, WMP, and the media player that’s bundled with Roxio Easy CD/DVD Creator all work fine. I’d imagine WinAmp does as well, but how many apps do I need?
The next day she decided to download and install one of the peer2peer file sharing programs. She did this as Administrator. When she logged out and switched to her user id, there was no program icon on the desktop. She called me and I basically linked a desktop icon to the program executable. Then when she ran the program, it didn’t work!!! The program couldn’t find some system libraries! When she tried to use the program as Administrator, everything was fine. Again the program is not a MS app.
I had this problem with an older version of Kazaa-lite, but a newer version works fine, again an application error, not the OS.
Problem number three began appearing. There were all sort of popups just randomly showing advertising and stuff on her screen. They would popup right when she logs in, before executing IE for the first time. Maybe she already downloaded a virus when she was running as Administrator??
Probably ad/spy-ware, most likely installed with the P2P program. Install Ad-Aware and Spybot Search & Destroy and they should be removed, would also recommend a different P2P program.
She downloaded another peer2peer program. I think it was Limewire. She installed it while Administrator and then switched to her user id. Yet again, there was no way of launching the program. Yet again, we set up a link to the executable on her desktop. The program would work, but it wouldn’t download anything. It’s funny how it would download for the Administrator.
Check the access rights to the download folder. More than likely since the program created it while installing as administrator, it is limited to only being written to by the administrator. Again, this could be solved by a good installation program for Limewire, and/or better development in the first place.
I found that Limewire would use the same shared folder no matter which user id you’re using. Apparently is wasn’t written for the new XP multi-user operating system??
According to the guidelines for XP software development (which very few developers follow completely), data files should be stored in the ‘My Documents’ folder for the particular user of the application, meaning that each user should have a ‘LimeWire downloads’ folder in their My Documents folder, though obviously the developers of LimeWire have to implement this themselves.
But, I attempted to change her Shared folder to a new one under Documents and Settings. This didn’t fix anything.
I don’t use LimeWire, so I can’t be of much help here. Perhaps there’s a seperate entry for the downloads folder (vs Shared Folders)?
Oh, and by the way, how does one find out who the owner of the file is?? Clicking on properties for a file doesn’t give this information. Is there even such a thing as a file owner in the NTFS… I thought there was.
Directory and file permissions can be viewed (and changed) by right-clicking on the file or directory and selecting ‘Properties’, then choosing the ‘Security’ tab. You probably have to be administrator to view this, or have full access to the particular file or folder (access to change the security settings), though iirc you can see them (just not change anything) as a normal user.
Well, it appears XP is a secure OS which handles multiple users elegantly …
Great job guys! I’m sure Longhorn will be just as good…
I’m sure by 2006 most developers will figure it out, stop developing for Windows, or perish. At the very least, maybe we can finally get rid of the 9x trash and people will stop developing as if that was the only OS people used.
If you say that it’s all the applications that are wrong, I can also say that all the Linux inconsistencies are just the fault of the application, because they should all be CDE apps.
If you say that it’s all the applications that are wrong, I can also say that all the Linux inconsistencies are just the fault of the application, because they should all be CDE apps.
Perhaps, because many of the inconsistencies have to do with applications being written specifically for one DE over another.
In the cases mentioned with using WinXP under multiple accounts, you’re dealing with applications that were wrriten assuming that you are running Windows 9x or running only under the administrator account (or accounts with administrator access).
The similar state in Linux would be an application that assumes you are running as root every time you run that application, and requires write access to folders created with root access only (and maybe read access for other users), and writes application-specific libraries to new folders created with root access only (so that there isn’t even read, let alone execute, access for other users). Who would write an application like that for Linux? Well, maybe someone that wanted an application to only be run by root. Who would deny that the person either didn’t know what they were doing, or purposely made it impossible for average users to use their app?
In respnonse to the “XP vs Gnome integration war”, I have a one up for Gnome. You guys should check out http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnome-network/ .They have screenshots there in case you were wondering. Also, in KDE 3.2, which is soon to be released similarly to “Longhorn”, users will be able to dynamically change desktop resolutions.
The main thing that most of you have to understand is that free software offers no promises. We don’t claim to offer you any features, like Apple and Microsoft do. Their very existance relies as much on marketing great features as it does in making solid Operating Systems, Office suites, music stores, etc… Free software generally doesn’t need to market itself. It’s a different phenomenon. If you want to market it that’s fine. But it won’t cease to exist if we don’t. Theirfore as free software developers we don’t generally feel the need to add certain features. It’s not because we lack the resources to do so, at least not usually. It’s basically because we don’t see the need to develop those features. And I’ll tell you, most hackers, being people who like optimized setups and such, won’t waste their time which they mostly just code for fun not money, to implement those features that we don’t personally see useful. We would much rather be reading a good book, hanging out socializing with mates, playing a videogame, or meeting people of the opposite sex. The nice thing is that you have the freedom to engage someone to implement something for you. They would than be payed for the work that they do, not for “owning” intangibale things, often called “intellectual-property”. IMO, this would be a much more healthy economic model. The sad thing is that people have yet to realize this wonder situation. It’s much similar to software which will enable certain features in Windows and OS X, except that you can do much more such as pay someone to port the whole OS to a new architecture, or implement SMP. This is how jobs will exist in a free software system. Additionally, in a proprietary system, you’re limited to the number of “hacks” that you can implement according to how free the supplier will let you. For example, Apple doesn’t allow you to change the default font in OS X, and I have yet to see an App than can do so. Say I need big fonts on a monitor with 1024 by 768 only? I’m fucked in OS X.
Another problem I see with XP is that, sure you have a firewall, but it’s limited in power so that its “easy to setup” or whatever. I see the configuring of firewalls a huge market, just like an electrician or plumber. They don’t make lights or toilets easy to fix in design so that any joe sixpack or sally soccermom can fix them. No. We’ve realized at a society that it’s just better to have professionals deal with certain things. That’s not saying that anybody can’t learn how to install a specialzed light fixture, it’s just they have to take into account certain things, like learning how to do it and such. They are totally free to become a plumber if they want.
Many will think I’m crazy, but just think if every desktop had a free OS, how much money their is to make, and how many jobs could exist, for securing just the firewall. I think it’s wrong for Microsoft to make their firewall non-free, un-powerful, and “easy to use”.
And another thing, I dont want my GUI integrated! If Gnome crashes why should my system crash? I love love the modular design of POSIX standards, freedesktop.org, KDE, GNOME, and such. I don’t believe that anyone doesn’t see the practical advantage of these systems.
Also, I think given the resources of free software, since people have yet to realize it’s economic benefits, which are close to the ethical benefits, gnome will eventually have things like Aero and Aqua, which aren’t really that important for day to day use of a computer IMO. We can all be grateful that it will be done right , with open technologies such as Scalable Vector Graphics, and will exist forever, for the code to be reused, much like Xfree86, which I predict will fall apart into several forks soon, and totally cease to exist. For example, just look at linux and BSD curses, such as ncurses, and compare them to DOS 6.0 curses. Curses are a great UI IMO. They don’t allow you to waste time with moving and resizing widgets. They only allow you to do what’s allowed, at least directly, they can of course be changed. So basically linux curses is much more advanced than DOS today. And don’t tell me that’s a weak arguement because of it being old. curses in DOS and linux and BSD are still instanely useful.
In respnonse to the “XP vs Gnome integration war”, I have a one up for Gnome. You guys should check out http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnome-network/ .They have screenshots there in case you were wondering. Also, in KDE 3.2, which is soon to be released similarly to “Longhorn”, users will be able to dynamically change desktop resolutions.
Until KDE and Gnome (including their associated apps and toolkits) are able to integrate as well with each other then how integrated each one is with itself is highly irrevalent, unless you plan on using only one or the other (including apps).
he main thing that most of you have to understand is that free software offers no promises.
No, but you surely have your fair number of zealots who will bash anything even remoately MS-related at every given opprotunity, all while boldy proclaiming the ‘superiority’ of open source software.
Free software generally doesn’t need to market itself. It’s a different phenomenon. If you want to market it that’s fine. But it won’t cease to exist if we don’t.
If you mean in the sense that it won’t cease being developed, it might. What happens when the main developer(s) get bored with the project and drop it, and nobody else wants to pick it up?
It’s not because we lack the resources to do so, at least not usually. It’s basically because we don’t see the need to develop those features. And I’ll tell you, most hackers, being people who like optimized setups and such, won’t waste their time which they mostly just code for fun not money, to implement those features that we don’t personally see useful.
Great, so if I find a feature useful and you don’t, then unless I add it myself, what chance is there that the feature will get added? At least if I’m paying for the app, perhaps the developers might pay attention to what I as a user wants instead of the other way around.
They would than be payed for the work that they do, not for “owning” intangibale things, often called “intellectual-property”.
So in other words, if I want a particular feature in an app that the developer doesn’t feel compelled to add on his own, I’m gonna be paying through the nose to make that happen.
IMO, this would be a much more healthy economic model.
How so? How many of us could actually afford to pay developers just to get a requested feature added to an app just for us? Perhaps if a couple of my buddies pitch in, we might be able to swing it.
The sad thing is that people have yet to realize this wonder situation. It’s much similar to software which will enable certain features in Windows and OS X, except that you can do much more such as pay someone to port the whole OS to a new architecture, or implement SMP.
Yeah, ok … and how much is that going to cost me? Certainly not $29.95?
Another problem I see with XP is that, sure you have a firewall, but it’s limited in power so that its “easy to setup” or whatever.
There are probably 8 dozen firewalls (many of them free) available for XP.
They don’t make lights or toilets easy to fix in design so that any joe sixpack or sally soccermom can fix them. No. We’ve realized at a society that it’s just better to have professionals deal with certain things.
Either that, or else they can download and install ZoneAlarm. It’s moronic to think we should make things difficult to use ‘just because.’
That’s not saying that anybody can’t learn how to install a specialzed light fixture, it’s just they have to take into account certain things, like learning how to do it and such. They are totally free to become a plumber if they want.
And maybe they should all have Ph.D’s in order to use their microwaves too?
Many will think I’m crazy, but just think if every desktop had a free OS, how much money their is to make, and how many jobs could exist, for securing just the firewall.
Jesus Christ … if a firewall on a free OS is that damn complicated, even I want nothing to do with it.
I think it’s wrong for Microsoft to make their firewall non-free, un-powerful, and “easy to use”.
Why? So they could get sued through the nose by Zonelabs, Sygate, Symantec, etc?
And another thing, I dont want my GUI integrated! If Gnome crashes why should my system crash?
If Gnome crashes, what difference does it make, assuming you’re not running server apps? I can reboot my computer and be back inside WinXP faster than I can restart Gnome. Besides, that, WinXP has proven itself rock solid on my machine anyway.
Personally, I think this argument that we should purposely make software hard to use in order to keep this free software ‘economy’ alive is just moronic. Any software that is decently written shouldn’t need all that much support anyway.
K, maybe I’m missing something, but how do you (easily) install an app that’s not found in the Click ‘n Run database or (even worse), the apt repository?
Call Lindows support, that’s what they are there for.
Sorry, but Windows (2k/XP) is not a DE, it’s an OS. Gnome is not an OS. Gnome, as it applies to Linux, is only part of the equation. Gnome integrates well within itself, but not within the OS. You can’t just say “Linux is easy to use, just look at Gnome …”; that’s not really a fair statement because Gnome is only a subset of what Linux is.
If you say it’s well integrated as long as you only use Gnome ‘certified’ apps, you are severly limiting the range of apps a user can work with and what they can do with the OS.
When we speak of Windows Operating System we don’t exclude the kernel from it. We speak of windows it’s DE it’s application and so on. Clearly, Linux provides you with choices absent in Windows. To play it fair, and prove that Linux can be more consistent than Windows it, I have decided to choose GNOME to represent the Linux operating system. GNOME/GNU/Linux, if I may. Identifing an operatin system from it’s DE isn’t perculiar or alien, that exactly what windows does.
I’m limiting any range of apps by selecting gnome of DE of choice. I have all the gnome apps I need as a user and many more. But to argue that GNOME which an absolute desktop environment with hundreds of user applications designed specifically for the environment and in conformance with well established HIGs as incomplete beyond belief. Name the app you are looking for and there is probably one designed specifically for the gnome platform and of course adhering to the HIG standards. Clear case consistency here. This type of consistency is absent in windows period.
I didn’t say what about other DE’s. I said what about other DE’s apps and toolkits? If they’re using other apps, they’re using other toolkits by default. So, even though they don’t have to worry about toolkits specifically, they’ll probably end up using one sooner or later as a result of using a non-Gnome app, which will ‘break’ the integration.
Non sense. I don’t know why you would want to use non-gnome apps in a gnome env. Do you mean like using KDE apps in gnome? Well, even then, that is possible. It will not break integration. KDE and GNOME and whatever toolkit applications work well together. They however might not act or feel the same like gnome apps, but that is a user choice, not a flaw with Linux. If there is a gnome app by all means use it over any other app in GNOME. That sounds pretty straight forward and logical. I don’t know why I would want to use other apps on GNOME as opposed to those designed to be used in GNOME. The most widely used toolkits in Linux are gtk and qt. But again, this is not the users business.
And since when did using IE in Windows become a requirement? You don’t even need it to get Windows updates.
Aren’t we discussing windows apps here? You speaking as if IE isn’t a window application. And did you just say I didn’t need to get windows updates? Or I’m I halucinating.
So, I use The Bat .. what’s your point?
What’s your qualm? I don’t remember those responses being directed to you. Or I’m I confused. Let’s stick to your issues, and let the other dude handle his. Sheesh you’re getting me confused.
No arguments there, but this is not really an app, is it? Besides, when did this become Gnome-certified?
Like I said, for every generic linux app, there’s always a gnome enhanced version. Gnome-terminal is my way of using BASH in gnome. Lord people know so little about Linux. *sighs*
Of course, you do like so many others, you only compare Linux apps with whatever comes with Windows (sans MS Office), completely ignoring the thousands of other apps out there. That makes for a pretty narrow point-of-view.,
Dont be is silly. That was the purpose of the whole argument. Read the thread again and stop whining. Someone blindly claimed Windows was integrated. We both agree that’s false. No argument. I went further to prove Linux is more integrated than Windows is, and I seem to have stepped on a lot of feet in the process. It feels nice to shatter stereotypes.
What is your definition of a ‘specialized’ apps? There are quite a few ‘specialized’ apps that nothing in the open source world can touch with a 10-foot rubber d*ck, so I guess as long as a person doesn’t use one of those, then they’re all set. However, a ‘specialized’ app doesn’t necessarily have to equal an ‘industrial strength’ app. For example, do you know of a Linux, er … *ahem* … Gnome app that will let you print calendars and such with Di$ney characters on them? I have a friend who would be very interested if so.
Proprietary applications designed to do uncommon special functions. Like a sofware designed to print $5 bills. Emm…that’s what I think a specialized app is. Oh and as to your last question. Duh…Gimp and gimp-print. Ahem…that’s a gnome app too.
Apache, available for Windows, though that’s a server app and a completely different ball of wax. Obviously, Samba is not needed in Windows
Yes, unlike windows we are willing to port our apps to all platforms. It’s nothing to be shameless about we pride ourselves in it. When Windows ports MSOffice to Linux, give me a holla. Oh, your friend can run his windows apps in Linux. You windows emulations like wine and crossover. Ah, what a day.
It’s sad to see, people judge Linux for what it is not without having used it or tested it. They claim it’s hyped. They claim it’s not secure. They claim it’s not ready. They claim it doesn’t match Windows. They claim OSX is more polished. It doesn’t have apps. It’s not unified. It’s not integrated. It’s slow. And alas, none of them have used it or even spent enought time with it. *me shakes his head*
I have been unfair though. I use windows as well as I use linux(more) so I’m clearly exposed to both their weakness and strengths. Linux has weaknesses, but unfortunately, it’s not any of what has been mentioned on this thread. I agree, it’s pathetic.
Re: daan
>>
If you say that it’s all the applications that are wrong, I can also say that all the Linux inconsistencies are just the fault of the application, because they should all be CDE apps.
>>
Nope, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that Unix or Unix like systems (such as Linux
are designed to be multi-user from the ground up, but XP seems more like a multi-user hack from my experience.
Re: Bill Sykes
>>
She should have got someone to help her with her XP PC that knew what they were doing in Windows land.
The first thing you should have done was enable the firewall.
As I have said before the biggest problem with Windows right now is you have to be a local admin for alot of software to run, because of access to the registry. You might have tried adding her to the power users group though.
Also I wouldn’t install any peer to peer software on anyones PC. If they thought they had to have it, fine I would walk away and let them mess up thier own PC.
>>
First, I didn’t have the pc in my hands initially so I couldn’t turn on the firewall. She was using the PC in Administrative mode which is the default. That’s a no no if you know what your doing. So the machine basically comes setup for self destruction.
Second, if the software uses the registry to store preferences, each user should have his/her own registry or section in the system registry.
The media player is made by Sony and I’m sure it’s farily new and they followed the proper design principles for XP,
yet it was failing to work for the limited user account.
As for peer2peer, it’s not as dangerous if you use it in limited user mode and enable sharing to only one folder (which is the default for Limewire), and if you’re smart enough not to execute any unknown programs.
I’ll check on the power user group, but, in general, if a new user is created on a system, the default settings for that user should allow that person to do normal tasks without huge problems.
Re: PainKilleR
>>
Directory and file permissions can be viewed (and changed) by right-clicking on the file or directory and selecting ‘Properties’, then choosing the ‘Security’ tab. You probably have to be administrator to view this, or have full access to the particular file or folder (access to change the security settings), though iirc you can see them (just not change anything) as a normal user.
>>
I’ll have to re-check this…
Obviously my first guess was that the limited user account didn’t have permissions to access the folder. This was just based on my experience. It’s not that I had an error dialog appear. As a limited user I couldn’t see who owns the file by clicking on the Properties. I don’t think there was a Security button because I would have selected it.
I’ll double check on that though.
Running Windows XP as a regular user is a huge pain. Some of the most widely used Windows programs totally ignore the fact that more than one user with regular rights might use the software. Two examples: Winamp and ICQ. I was looking for a solution to the problem. So I go to their web site. And what did I find? They actually recommend to run as a user with administrative rights. I still cannot believe that they would put this on their web site. What is the point of having different user groups if you still have to run as administrator?
Many Windows applications are not integrated at all: Winamp, Easy CD Creator, even MS Office. Just take a look at their widgets. Even KDE and GNOME on Red Hat look more alike than MS Office in its various version. Each version brings its own widget set – for whatever purpose.
Funnily enough, Apple is doing the same. They use two very different styles. The worst offender is Apple itself. I just can’t figure out why they are doing this.
Back to the original topic. Longhorn sounds interesting but I wonder how many new API sets we really need. Wasn’t .NET supposed to fix all that? Now they introduce yet another “greatest way to write Windows apps”.
All the visual stuff is nice – but more than annoying after a while. That is why I used to run the classic mode in Windows XP. Now I am in GNOME because the simplicity is what makes it really stand out. Apple and Microsoft put too much effort into the visuals and not enough in the basic system and applications.
The question is: do we need all this technology – or do we use it simply because we can.
> Call Lindows support, that’s what they are there for.
Yay!!! Call support to install software. This is not good.
> When we speak of Windows Operating System we don’t exclude the kernel from it. We speak of windows it’s DE it’s application and so on. Clearly, Linux provides you with choices absent in Windows. To play it fair, and prove that Linux can be more consistent than Windows it, I have decided to choose GNOME to represent the Linux operating system. GNOME/GNU/Linux, if I may. Identifing an operatin system from it’s DE isn’t perculiar or alien, that exactly what windows does.
> I’m limiting any range of apps by selecting gnome of DE of choice. I have all the gnome apps I need as a user and many more. But to argue that GNOME which an absolute desktop environment with hundreds of user applications designed specifically for the environment and in conformance with well established HIGs as incomplete beyond belief.
> Name the app you are looking for and there is probably one designed specifically for the gnome platform and of course adhering to the HIG standards. Clear case consistency here. This type of consistency is absent in windows period.
Wrong. You are saying that Gnome with a limited set of apps is consistent. I say that Windows with a lmited set of apps is consistent too. You have not proven that Gnome is MORE consistent then Windows.
> Non sense. I don’t know why you would want to use non-gnome apps in a gnome env.
Since the gnome apps are not always best for the job.
> Do you mean like using KDE apps in gnome? Well, even then, that is possible. It will not break integration. KDE and GNOME and whatever toolkit applications work well together. They however might not act or feel the same like gnome apps, but that is a user choice, not a flaw with Linux.
It is not a flaw with Linux. It is a flaw with your argument.
> If there is a gnome app by all means use it over any other app in GNOME. That sounds pretty straight forward and logical. I don’t know why I would want to use other apps on GNOME as opposed to those designed to be used in GNOME. The most widely used toolkits in Linux are gtk and qt. But again, this is not the users business.
Again, because the best apps are not always Gnome apps.
> Aren’t we discussing windows apps here? You speaking as if IE isn’t a window application. And did you just say I didn’t need to get windows updates? Or I’m I halucinating.
He is saying the IE is not the ONLY Windows app. Mozilla integrates nicely in.
> What’s your qualm? I don’t remember those responses being directed to you. Or I’m I confused. Let’s stick to your issues, and let the other dude handle his. Sheesh you’re getting me confused.
Again, I use Eudora, integrates nicely and safe.
> Like I said, for every generic linux app, there’s always a gnome enhanced version. Gnome-terminal is my way of using BASH in gnome. Lord people know so little about Linux. *sighs*
Again… BASH exists with cygwin. Nicely integrated again.
> Dont be is silly. That was the purpose of the whole argument. Read the thread again and stop whining. Someone blindly claimed Windows was integrated. We both agree that’s false. No argument. I went further to prove Linux is more integrated than Windows is, and I seem to have stepped on a lot of feet in the process. It feels nice to shatter stereotypes.
You have proved nothing. Show me that Gnome is MORE integrated then Windows. Remeber, you can not bring up any arbritrary app since you are using a subset yourself.
> Yes, unlike windows we are willing to port our apps to all platforms. It’s nothing to be shameless about we pride ourselves in it. When Windows ports MSOffice to Linux, give me a holla. Oh, your friend can run his windows apps in Linux. You windows emulations like wine and crossover. Ah, what a day.
Is apache one of the Gnome apps?
> It’s sad to see, people judge Linux for what it is not without having used it or tested it. They claim it’s hyped. They claim it’s not secure. They claim it’s not ready. They claim it doesn’t match Windows. They claim OSX is more polished. It doesn’t have apps. It’s not unified. It’s not integrated. It’s slow. And alas, none of them have used it or even spent enought time with it. *me shakes his head*
Integration is not my problem with Linux. Hardware support is but that is another argument.
> I have been unfair though. I use windows as well as I use linux(more) so I’m clearly exposed to both their weakness and strengths. Linux has weaknesses, but unfortunately, it’s not any of what has been mentioned on this thread. I agree, it’s pathetic.
I just found your arguments funny considering you based it on a small portion of apps.
K, maybe I’m missing something, but how do you (easily) install an app that’s not found in the Click ‘n Run database or (even worse), the apt repository?
Call Lindows support, that’s what they are there for.
Having to harass support everytime you want to install an app they don’t ‘officially’ support is not a very workable solution, IMHO.
To play it fair, and prove that Linux can be more consistent than Windows it, I have decided to choose GNOME to represent the Linux operating system.
Can be and is are two different things. If you want to isolate Gnome and say that it is the Linux OS or even the ‘official’ DE of the Linux OS (which it clearly is not), then you would be right, at least to the point where Gnome and its apps integreate better with themselves. But as far as integration with the OS, that’s an entirely different can of worms.
GNOME/GNU/Linux, if I may. Identifing an operatin system from it’s DE isn’t perculiar or alien, that exactly what windows does.
But Windows has only one DE. Linux has … what, at least 3 or 4? When it comes to this sort of thing, you can’t just pick and choose the elements you like to work with and say “See? This is better integrated!”
But to argue that GNOME which an absolute desktop environment with hundreds of user applications designed specifically for the environment and in conformance with well established HIGs as incomplete beyond belief.
Well, it’s not incomplete for you because you have all the apps you need. Therefore, I guess you consider yourself a normal user and assume that all ‘normal’ users would be just as happy with the selection of apps as you. It’s not incomplete for sure, but it definitely does not cover the range of apps available for Linux.
Name the app you are looking for and there is probably one designed specifically for the gnome platform and of course adhering to the HIG standards.
Are you talking about Linux (eg KDE) or Windows? If you’re talking about KDE particularly, other than Opera (QT, which I like better than Mozilla/Firebird .. never tried Epiphany), I really have no idea, as I was never particularly fond of KDE to begin with.
If you’re talking about Windows, I could list for you about a dozen, but you’ll just dismiss them as ‘specialized’ apps and say that normal users don’t need/want to use them, so I’m not going to bother.
I don’t know why you would want to use non-gnome apps in a gnome env … I don’t know why I would want to use other apps on GNOME as opposed to those designed to be used in GNOME.
I don’t think I would personally, but perhaps there are others who like KDE apps better than Gnome apps but don’t like KDE? It’s just a theory, but I’m sure it’s reality somewhere
And since when did using IE in Windows become a requirement? You don’t even need it to get Windows updates.
Aren’t we discussing windows apps here? You speaking as if IE isn’t a window application.
I’m speaking as if IE (and therefore ActiveX, sans a handful of websites) isn’t required to surf the web. You act like if you’re browsing the web in Windows, you’re vunerable to IE’s flaws, and therefore you must be using IE to surf in Windows.
And did you just say I didn’t need to get windows updates? Or I’m I halucinating.
No, I said you don’t need IE to get Windows updates.
Of course, you do like so many others, you only compare Linux apps with whatever comes with Windows (sans MS Office), completely ignoring the thousands of other apps out there. That makes for a pretty narrow point-of-view.,
Dont be is silly. That was the purpose of the whole argument. Read the thread again and stop whining. Someone blindly claimed Windows was integrated
Yes, the original argument was integration. But you went on to spout off about how you thought Linux apps were better by comparing them to what came bundled with Windows (again, sans MS Office) … that had little (if nothing) to do with integration.
I went further to prove Linux is more integrated than Windows is, and I seem to have stepped on a lot of feet in the process. It feels nice to shatter stereotypes.
No, you went further to prove that Gnome is better integrated than Windows is. But Gnome != Linux!
Proprietary applications designed to do uncommon special functions. Like a sofware designed to print $5 bills. Emm…that’s what I think a specialized app is
Ok, so what is your definition of ‘uncommon’ … something that you don’t personally have a use for? Or do you consider something that every computer user doesn’t do to be uncommon? Or do you draw the line in saying anything you do that Linux doesn’t currently do (well) is uncommon? I’ve heard this argument before. People really don’t need a real Dreamweaver alternative, because, well … I guess web design with a WSYIWYG editor is an uncommon task, no ?
Oh and as to your last question. Duh…Gimp and gimp-print. Ahem…that’s a gnome app too.
I assume these apps come bundled with the clipart and everything needed (and I mean lots of Pooh sh*t and ‘Tiger’ as well)? Remember, this is a ‘normal’ user we’re talking about … so let’s not make things complicated.
Having to harass support everytime you want to install an app they don’t ‘officially’ support is not a very workable solution, IMHO.
Harass!!! Oh, now Linux provides you with support and you term that harassment. And forgive me since you said a package isn’t available in the Lindows repository, what exactly would be your next cause of action? First off, you’d have to provide me with the package not in the repository before you assumption becomes valid. I think it’s cheap to hold Linux accountable based on your skewed assumption.
There is a difference between assuming something to happen, and it happening. I think the Lindows repository has all the packages the average user will need. And if a package is not contained in the repository, the user has the right to contact support. Logical, pragmatic and reasonable. I am dumbfounded you find a fault in that, and you even term your right to support harassment. Yeah Windows support is pathetic, but there is hope in Linux land.
Can be and is are two different things. If you want to isolate Gnome and say that it is the Linux OS or even the ‘official’ DE of the Linux OS (which it clearly is not), then you would be right, at least to the point where Gnome and its apps integreate better with themselves. But as far as integration with the OS, that’s an entirely different can of worms.
GNOME is my preffered desktop. It is an advanced graphical desktop environment. I could argue on behalf of XFCE4, KDE, Fluxbox, Openbox, Blackbox, to mention but a few. But since our target is the home user, granny, I have chosen to use a DE representative on Linux and comparable to any OS offering in the market Windows or Mac inclusive. My choice is GNOME you can deal with it, or continue to whine. I wouldn’t install Fluxbox or Kahaika or Twm for my granny to use. My granny can’t run Linux. No, it just a damned useless kernel. My granny can however run GNOME just as she can run Windows.
I’d install either KDE or GNOME. I’ve chosen GNOME. We both agree that GNOME integrates better than Windows does and will ever do. All my granny knows is that she is using a unified and integrated desktop env. She doesn’t know if its Linux, Windows, MacOSX or whatever. To the user, all that don’t matter. You and I can sit here and argue all day about he defination of Linux and you’d end finding out that Linux is just a kernel not an OS. It packages like the GNU tools, the GNOME platform/tools, and the KDE platform/tools that make it Linux a complete OS.
The OS I’m using is GNOME running on Linux. Others may use KDE running on Linux and yet still others may use XFCE on Linux. As far as I’m concerned, and my granny is concerned, the OS we use running on Linux, GNOME, is more unified, more integrated, much easier and better to use than similar offerings on Windows. Period.
Yes, the original argument was integration. But you went on to spout off about how you thought Linux apps were better by comparing them to what came bundled with Windows (again, sans MS Office) … that had little (if nothing) to do with integration.
I still do argue that Linux apps are inherently more secure, safer, faster and better to use than most Windows app. This still doesn’t distort the fact the Linux is more coherent than Windows is.
No, you went further to prove that Gnome is better integrated than Windows is. But Gnome != Linux!
Yeah, my granny doesn’t know that. Neither do I. I am just user.
Ok, so what is your definition of ‘uncommon’ … something that you don’t personally have a use for? Or do you consider something that every computer user doesn’t do to be uncommon? Or do you draw the line in saying anything you do that Linux doesn’t currently do (well) is uncommon? I’ve heard this argument before. People really don’t need a real Dreamweaver alternative, because, well … I guess web design with a WSYIWYG editor is an uncommon task, no ?
HTML editors? Abundant in supply just ask I’ll tell you. Even gnome has one. My granny wouldn’t use that though. My granny doesn’t understand the concept of a web server. She knows how to use Epiphany but she doesn’t know it’s a web client.
I assume these apps come bundled with the clipart and everything needed (and I mean lots of Pooh sh*t and ‘Tiger’ as well)? Remember, this is a ‘normal’ user we’re talking about … so let’s not make things complicated.
Yeap, or you can download more from the internet. Once again, I have proven Linux is more integrated than Windows is and in many instances better and more secure. That won’t change. Let my granny use GNOME running on Linux and let my granny use Windows. I can’t bet you she’ll tell ya linux is better integrated and unified. That’s indisputable. Period.
Darius seems to be a smart guy. Good, they’re few around here.