On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 12:33:40PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote: > David A. wrote: > > >BUT.. There is some sour itchy feelings regarding some plicy/political > >stuff and diffrences in opinion. I've also felt "debian morale" going > >down. But my impression is that the huge bulk, the big momentum of > >Debian keeps on turning and monving in the right direction. No "medium > >size conflicts" risk jepordizing the big projekt. > > I guess I'll get sucked into this, 'cause I see something here that > piques my interest now. > > I don't think it's just Debian's morale that's low -- the "hype" > surrounding Linux overall is down, the real world problems of operating > Linux in business have cooled the general hub-bub about Linux and > desktop users are finding that an OS that's built to "just work" suits > most people's needs better than an OS or desktop that you have to hack > on to get it to do what you want. > I see where you are going with this, but I don't think that the fact that Linux now just works out of the box and that you need to hack on Windows to get it into a semi-usable state is the source of low morale. I think it has more to do with the constant FUD spread by MS. > Even mutltiple millions of dollars thrown at the problem (Mark > Shuttleworth/Ubuntu) still hasn't really addressed the underlying > hardware/driver support issues from manufacturers, and the other > licensing problems inherent in the system. > Because the millions being dumped into Linux are not meant to solve the problems you point out. Hardware/driver support and licensing are social problems. To fix the hardware/driver support problem, you really need to start getting people to only buy hardware which has in-tree (or open source) drivers. When they find a piece of hardware which they want but does not meet the criteria, they need to let the company know. To solve the licensing problem, we need to look at how we have solved the problem of political dogmatism (hint, we have not). > Linux still has (and mostly seems to want to keep) that "hacker feel" > (the traditional sense of the term hacker, of course) and that makes it > wholly inappropriate for some environments. Always will. > Really? I feel that Linux has been losing that "hacker feel" ever since I started using it. Try using something like SUSE or Red Hat Enterprise. They feel very institutional. > There are a chosen few who work on really professional level Linux > development, including the majority of the kernel coders these days -- > most of the core people are paid to work on it. > > But the Linux "desktop" is still quite a joke, really -- compared with > the benefits companies have from sticking to Windows environments or > even Macs. > I have personally deployed a network with 12 workstations at my church. The users are all not tech savvy individuals. I recently started a new job where the users I support work on a network with 200+ Linux workstations/servers. There are only two Windows machines (workstations) on this entire network. Again, none of these folks are hackers and the problems we have are the same as on a windows network, less the problems related to crappy OS stability. Basically, people forget their passwords and accidentally lockout their accounts. That is about as serious as it gets, along with the occasional hardware failure. > I love my Linux machines and all their "fun" desktop options, but the > damn things just aren't even close to the standardization and usability > of the commercially available alternatives, really. > Haha! Standardization in windows? Please. Go and look at how many different (and custom) widget sets MS uses *in their own* apps. Referring again to the 200+ machine network above, everything is standardized to the extent possible because the admins set it up that way. Users can change their defaults and there are some apps which use different toolkits, but nothing crazy. In this respect, Linux is at least on par with windows. > Would I recommend Linux desktops for certain business uses, heck yeah... > but being a Unix "geek" for work means that my pidgeon-hole is at the > servers in the back room, and my influence on desktop decisions at my > organization (and virtually every organization I've worked for) > realistically is nil. > > The Windows kids will always get their way as the "desktop experts" > around here. > > And I find that okay, I have plenty of work to do keeping the back-room > (where the real money is made) running. > That, however, does not change the fact that the desktop is where the real money is lost. Think of lost productivity when the version of MS Office is upgraded. Or what about when a virus gets in and the whole division has to be shut down for a day while the systems are cleaned up? > Debian does a great job sticking to their guns about things being > DSFG-Free or they won't be in main... but people don't understand it and > don't like when their shiny new hardware does not work. Hell even their > three or four year old hardware doesn't work (802.11 cards, anyone?). > Not "right out of the box" anyway. > Again, this goes back to being an informed consumer. If Debian did not stick to its guns about the DFSG, then it would not be possible to *freely* distribute Debian in its entirety. Look at things like Novel Linux Desktop and OpenSUSE. They need to remove lots of proprietary add ons and other licensed things to make free redistribution possible. > Debian also does a great job releasing a real STABLE distro that really > is STABLE, but people want shiny new software toys there too, and get > frustrated at the release cycle. > That is why there are other Linux distros which cater to that. Or you can run testing/unstable to get newer stuff. > But explaining this to newbies isn't something I feel like doing > anymore. I did it for years... now I just hand them an Ubuntu disc and > say, "If that loads up correctly on your hardware, you'll probably find > that fun. Holler if it doesn't, I'll see if I can help." And leave it > at that. I used to do it with Debian CD's, but that's far more painful. > > I love Debian for my servers, but I'll stick with my Mac for a desktop > for the time being. That may be helping some "evil empire" somewhere in > California instead of Washington State, but the thing "just works" when > I open the lid. > Good point. My Macbook has Debian installed on a partition (just a base install, but not all the hardware support is there). I installed Debian on it the week I got the machine. But, so far Mac OS X has worked well enough that I have not had a burning need to change over to Debian on this machine. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature