Oh gawd OVERKILL, you must send that pic above to
Steve Ballmer!!!!!
Please do it!
Steve Ballmer!!!!!
Please do it!
Windows 8 debacle lead to Linux's future success?
- Thread starter antiqueshell
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Unless you like Metro UI this will NOT be the OS for you. Since it is only good on tablets and phones there will be tens of millions looking for a nice alternative to Windows.
I'm thinking this is a great opportunity for Linux to shine and finally get the attention and large numbers users they deserve.
The problem is Canonical and Shuttleworth have decided to go with Unity. I haven't used W8 w/Metro but I've seen screenshots. Unity is just as egregious as Metro and so is Gnome 3. Kubuntu (KDE) is the most "Windows 7" like GUI. However it is not a "community" developed flavor instead of officially supported financially and otherwise by Canonical.
Quote:
The most critical thing for Linux is that it must be presented in an easy to understand download that takes limited knowledge to install and use. The elements are there the only thing I see missing in the cohesiveness with releases and GUIs.
They can't make it any easier at this point. Download ISO. Burn to DVD or use a simple program to make a bootable USB stick. Boot computer and click the "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M DOING" default install option.
Also until Broadcom starts behaving themselves its going to be a bit hard for any novice with certain (most?) Broadcom based wifi cards to install Linux because of having to use the firmware cutter programs to pull the code from the chip itself etc etc etc... long technical explanation as to why Broadcom can take a flying leap. Same goes for ATI and Nvidia. At least Intel is open about their architecture for their wifi and graphics solutions.
Unless you like Metro UI this will NOT be the OS for you. Since it is only good on tablets and phones there will be tens of millions looking for a nice alternative to Windows.
I'm thinking this is a great opportunity for Linux to shine and finally get the attention and large numbers users they deserve.
The problem is Canonical and Shuttleworth have decided to go with Unity. I haven't used W8 w/Metro but I've seen screenshots. Unity is just as egregious as Metro and so is Gnome 3. Kubuntu (KDE) is the most "Windows 7" like GUI. However it is not a "community" developed flavor instead of officially supported financially and otherwise by Canonical.
Quote:
The most critical thing for Linux is that it must be presented in an easy to understand download that takes limited knowledge to install and use. The elements are there the only thing I see missing in the cohesiveness with releases and GUIs.
They can't make it any easier at this point. Download ISO. Burn to DVD or use a simple program to make a bootable USB stick. Boot computer and click the "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M DOING" default install option.
Also until Broadcom starts behaving themselves its going to be a bit hard for any novice with certain (most?) Broadcom based wifi cards to install Linux because of having to use the firmware cutter programs to pull the code from the chip itself etc etc etc... long technical explanation as to why Broadcom can take a flying leap. Same goes for ATI and Nvidia. At least Intel is open about their architecture for their wifi and graphics solutions.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Quote:
The final product will not be much different from Windows 7.
That's a fear. Windows is just the same product sold again and again with all the features moved around.
W7 UI is a mess.
Win 7 was a huge leap from XP. It took everything right with XP + all the improvements in Vista, polished it up and packaged it beautifully.
Quote:
The final product will not be much different from Windows 7.
That's a fear. Windows is just the same product sold again and again with all the features moved around.
W7 UI is a mess.
Win 7 was a huge leap from XP. It took everything right with XP + all the improvements in Vista, polished it up and packaged it beautifully.
Originally Posted By: buickman50401
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Quote:
The final product will not be much different from Windows 7.
That's a fear. Windows is just the same product sold again and again with all the features moved around.
W7 UI is a mess.
Win 7 was a huge leap from XP. It took everything right with XP + all the improvements in Vista, polished it up and packaged it beautifully.
I am happy with Win 7 coming from XP. In the end you spend your time in the applications not mucking around with the desktop. However it seems linux users get joy out of mucking around with the configurations which is cool but not my thing.
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
Quote:
The final product will not be much different from Windows 7.
That's a fear. Windows is just the same product sold again and again with all the features moved around.
W7 UI is a mess.
Win 7 was a huge leap from XP. It took everything right with XP + all the improvements in Vista, polished it up and packaged it beautifully.
I am happy with Win 7 coming from XP. In the end you spend your time in the applications not mucking around with the desktop. However it seems linux users get joy out of mucking around with the configurations which is cool but not my thing.
If its truely that horrible (it is) they will make changes before release.
Or we will all just use w7 on everything except tablets.... and ignore w8. like most people did with vista (except oems)
something like...
when you select windows classic
there is a checkbox to always start that way etc...
Or we will all just use w7 on everything except tablets.... and ignore w8. like most people did with vista (except oems)
something like...
when you select windows classic
there is a checkbox to always start that way etc...
Last edited:
If its that bad, then the world will stick with Win 7, and ignore 8. Same thing that happened with Vista and XP. (Heck, Still running XP at work and at home).
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
The most critical thing for Linux is that it must be presented in an easy to understand download that takes limited knowledge to install and use. The elements are there the only thing I see missing in the cohesiveness with releases and GUIs.
It would be great if the Linux orgs would concentrate on perhaps just one or two versions for the general public such as Linux Mint and Ubuntu, and make things as clear as possible.
Linux is basically an anarchy. There is no central organization the exists to "present" Linux; save for a few for-profit organizations like Canonical, Red Hat, etc. To that end there ARE "Linux orgs" concentrating on one or two versions - Ubuntu! They're negotiating having it pre-installed on systems in school boards, big-iron servers, gov't systems, etc. Same with Red Hat. Same with SUSE.
The *whole point* of Linux and open source licenses is to allow for fragmentation and customization (like Android!). Who exactly "wins" or benefits in any way from more adoption of Linux on the desktop besides the small handful of for-profits that are already actively pushing for it? Having all 450+ Linux distributions try to somehow co-ordinate their methods and setups would entirely negate the whole raison d'etre of the community; which is to provide free-as-in-freedom as well as free-as-in-beer software. The 1000+ developers of Debian make an incredible OS, which is then tweaked by Canonical who calls their version "Ubuntu" which is tweaked by Clement Lefebvre who calls his version "Linux Mint". There are versions of each of those that feature Gnome, KDE, LXDE, XFCE and other desktops. There is Red Hat who offers a free, community-supported version called "Fedora", etc. Fragmentation *is* the beauty and the strength that these communities enjoy. I know that several regional governments, scientific organiztions and others customize and support their very own Linux distributions. Fermi/ CERN have Scientific Linux, for example. DARPA also has one! Google uses a customized Ubuntu in-house they call Goobuntu. None of these people care one hoot about wider-spread Linux adoption, I don't imagine.
The most critical thing for Linux is that it must be presented in an easy to understand download that takes limited knowledge to install and use. The elements are there the only thing I see missing in the cohesiveness with releases and GUIs.
It would be great if the Linux orgs would concentrate on perhaps just one or two versions for the general public such as Linux Mint and Ubuntu, and make things as clear as possible.
Linux is basically an anarchy. There is no central organization the exists to "present" Linux; save for a few for-profit organizations like Canonical, Red Hat, etc. To that end there ARE "Linux orgs" concentrating on one or two versions - Ubuntu! They're negotiating having it pre-installed on systems in school boards, big-iron servers, gov't systems, etc. Same with Red Hat. Same with SUSE.
The *whole point* of Linux and open source licenses is to allow for fragmentation and customization (like Android!). Who exactly "wins" or benefits in any way from more adoption of Linux on the desktop besides the small handful of for-profits that are already actively pushing for it? Having all 450+ Linux distributions try to somehow co-ordinate their methods and setups would entirely negate the whole raison d'etre of the community; which is to provide free-as-in-freedom as well as free-as-in-beer software. The 1000+ developers of Debian make an incredible OS, which is then tweaked by Canonical who calls their version "Ubuntu" which is tweaked by Clement Lefebvre who calls his version "Linux Mint". There are versions of each of those that feature Gnome, KDE, LXDE, XFCE and other desktops. There is Red Hat who offers a free, community-supported version called "Fedora", etc. Fragmentation *is* the beauty and the strength that these communities enjoy. I know that several regional governments, scientific organiztions and others customize and support their very own Linux distributions. Fermi/ CERN have Scientific Linux, for example. DARPA also has one! Google uses a customized Ubuntu in-house they call Goobuntu. None of these people care one hoot about wider-spread Linux adoption, I don't imagine.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Linux is basically an anarchy.
The *whole point* of Linux and open source licenses is to allow for fragmentation and customization
And that's its biggest problem as well. Massive egos in the developers and forking/fragmentation and breaking what was working.
Look at Mint. They weren't happy with the direction that Gnome was heading so they forked Gnome Shell at version 3.2, changed from mutter to muffin and created Cinnamon. They also forked/extended Gnome 2.3 into MATE. That's great I suppose but then you end up with duplicated effort and rewriting for the sake of rewriting.
Then you watch as someone with an ego that can't fit through a barn door decides to change the code in a package that was working just because they felt like it and then break a piece of critical software that was working up to that point. When the problem is pointed out the response is "Yeah and...?"
Linux is basically an anarchy.
The *whole point* of Linux and open source licenses is to allow for fragmentation and customization
And that's its biggest problem as well. Massive egos in the developers and forking/fragmentation and breaking what was working.
Look at Mint. They weren't happy with the direction that Gnome was heading so they forked Gnome Shell at version 3.2, changed from mutter to muffin and created Cinnamon. They also forked/extended Gnome 2.3 into MATE. That's great I suppose but then you end up with duplicated effort and rewriting for the sake of rewriting.
Then you watch as someone with an ego that can't fit through a barn door decides to change the code in a package that was working just because they felt like it and then break a piece of critical software that was working up to that point. When the problem is pointed out the response is "Yeah and...?"
Originally Posted By: buickman50401
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Linux is basically an anarchy.
The *whole point* of Linux and open source licenses is to allow for fragmentation and customization
And that's its biggest problem as well. Massive egos in the developers and forking/fragmentation and breaking what was working.
That is not a problem - *that is the whole point*. If anything ever happens that you don't like, you can switch to something else or fix it yourself.
Forking and fragmentation is what ensures that the state and quality of the OS produced by the community always reflects the will and level of active participation by the community; with a
(almost-)complete absence of coercive authority. Don't like the new Gnome? Use MATE or XFCE or LXDE! Ubuntu forces Unity on you? Use Mint or Debian. Fedora too bleeding-edge and developer-oriented for you? Use CentOS. It's easy and free; and your data can migrate between these choices seamlessly.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Linux is basically an anarchy.
The *whole point* of Linux and open source licenses is to allow for fragmentation and customization
And that's its biggest problem as well. Massive egos in the developers and forking/fragmentation and breaking what was working.
That is not a problem - *that is the whole point*. If anything ever happens that you don't like, you can switch to something else or fix it yourself.
Forking and fragmentation is what ensures that the state and quality of the OS produced by the community always reflects the will and level of active participation by the community; with a
(almost-)complete absence of coercive authority. Don't like the new Gnome? Use MATE or XFCE or LXDE! Ubuntu forces Unity on you? Use Mint or Debian. Fedora too bleeding-edge and developer-oriented for you? Use CentOS. It's easy and free; and your data can migrate between these choices seamlessly.I don't disagree with fragmentation because it does drive innovation and progress, but at the same time it would be nice to see one of the umbrella orgs focus on one or two specific versions for general public use, because it certainly never hurts to gain more users and increase visibility.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
That is not a problem - *that is the whole point*. If anything ever happens that you don't like, you can switch to something else or fix it yourself.
No that is a huge problem for Linux if it is to ever gain more adoption among the general public.
Why should Joe User have to spend hours attempting to fix something that was working until a handful of egomaniacs and smug [censored] decided to change something on a whim.
Choice and distro hopping are fine for the more "power" oriented user but for Joe User he wants something that works and that isn't going to break at the drop of a hat.
That is not a problem - *that is the whole point*. If anything ever happens that you don't like, you can switch to something else or fix it yourself.
No that is a huge problem for Linux if it is to ever gain more adoption among the general public.
Why should Joe User have to spend hours attempting to fix something that was working until a handful of egomaniacs and smug [censored] decided to change something on a whim.
Choice and distro hopping are fine for the more "power" oriented user but for Joe User he wants something that works and that isn't going to break at the drop of a hat.
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I don't disagree with fragmentation because it does drive innovation and progress, but at the same time it would be nice to see one of the umbrella orgs focus on one or two specific versions for general public use, because it certainly never hurts to gain more users and increase visibility.
Red Hat, Canonical (Ubuntu), Novell (OpenSUSE).
I don't disagree with fragmentation because it does drive innovation and progress, but at the same time it would be nice to see one of the umbrella orgs focus on one or two specific versions for general public use, because it certainly never hurts to gain more users and increase visibility.
Red Hat, Canonical (Ubuntu), Novell (OpenSUSE).
Originally Posted By: buickman50401
No that is a huge problem for Linux if it is to ever gain more adoption among the general public.
Market share, for Pete's sake, *is not the point*; nor is it the purpose: The license and the entire eco-system/ community are there for the purpose of freedom, not dominance. Who exaclty is this "Linux" who should do this and that with their "product"? It's anarchic; and freedom is messy!
The volunteers who develop and use Linux-bases OS's and the scores of professional developers who make and use this OS and the Open Source software that consitutes it (Firefox, LibreOffice, VLC, etc.) of course want wider adoption because they love these projects and feel they are of high quality and would benefit those who would find and use them. The small, small handful of companies that are attempting to profit from their OS's *are* consolidating their GUI's and development environments specifically to try to make themselves more attractive to OEM's and manufacturers. The vast majority of distributions, however, simply have *no overwhelming motive* to desperatly claw at a larger, larger and ever larger user base, beyond what altruistic motives they have.
No that is a huge problem for Linux if it is to ever gain more adoption among the general public.
Market share, for Pete's sake, *is not the point*; nor is it the purpose: The license and the entire eco-system/ community are there for the purpose of freedom, not dominance. Who exaclty is this "Linux" who should do this and that with their "product"? It's anarchic; and freedom is messy!
The volunteers who develop and use Linux-bases OS's and the scores of professional developers who make and use this OS and the Open Source software that consitutes it (Firefox, LibreOffice, VLC, etc.) of course want wider adoption because they love these projects and feel they are of high quality and would benefit those who would find and use them. The small, small handful of companies that are attempting to profit from their OS's *are* consolidating their GUI's and development environments specifically to try to make themselves more attractive to OEM's and manufacturers. The vast majority of distributions, however, simply have *no overwhelming motive* to desperatly claw at a larger, larger and ever larger user base, beyond what altruistic motives they have.
If your business is computers, this is great. If you build other widgets, not so much.
One's perspective determines if this is a good thing or not.
The local insurance agent just wants something that works. If the application says it runs on Windows7, it probably runs on Windows7. (I can't believe I'm saying this, for those who know me.)
Now how does our local insurance agent deal with Linux? Will it run on the distro they've chosen. (Let's assume the app runs on some distros.)
If you think DLL heck was bad, it gets fun making sure you have the right kernel and libraries to run an application in the Linux space.
So for our insurance agent, who wants to spend his/her time selling insurance, helping customers, etc, there is probably too much "freedom" in Linux.
Don't get me wrong, Linux is one of my go-to OS's that I have a virtual box image for real work tasks. I used it today, as well as Solaris 11 and Window XP.
But I can see where such freedom may cause more headaches than the typical non-IT person wants.
They just want it to work. The closer we get to that, the better for that particular user.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: buickman50401
No that is a huge problem for Linux if it is to ever gain more adoption among the general public.
Market share, for Pete's sake, *is not the point*; nor is it the purpose: The license and the entire eco-system/ community are there for the purpose of freedom, not dominance. Who exaclty is this "Linux" who should do this and that with their "product"? It's anarchic; and freedom is messy!
The volunteers who develop and use Linux-bases OS's and the scores of professional developers who make and use this OS and the Open Source software that consitutes it (Firefox, LibreOffice, VLC, etc.) of course want wider adoption because they love these projects and feel they are of high quality and would benefit those who would find and use them. The small, small handful of companies that are attempting to profit from their OS's *are* consolidating their GUI's and development environments specifically to try to make themselves more attractive to OEM's and manufacturers. The vast majority of distributions, however, simply have *no overwhelming motive* to desperatly claw at a larger, larger and ever larger user base, beyond what altruistic motives they have.
One's perspective determines if this is a good thing or not.
The local insurance agent just wants something that works. If the application says it runs on Windows7, it probably runs on Windows7. (I can't believe I'm saying this, for those who know me.)
Now how does our local insurance agent deal with Linux? Will it run on the distro they've chosen. (Let's assume the app runs on some distros.)
If you think DLL heck was bad, it gets fun making sure you have the right kernel and libraries to run an application in the Linux space.
So for our insurance agent, who wants to spend his/her time selling insurance, helping customers, etc, there is probably too much "freedom" in Linux.
Don't get me wrong, Linux is one of my go-to OS's that I have a virtual box image for real work tasks. I used it today, as well as Solaris 11 and Window XP.
But I can see where such freedom may cause more headaches than the typical non-IT person wants.
They just want it to work. The closer we get to that, the better for that particular user.
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: buickman50401
No that is a huge problem for Linux if it is to ever gain more adoption among the general public.
Market share, for Pete's sake, *is not the point*; nor is it the purpose: The license and the entire eco-system/ community are there for the purpose of freedom, not dominance. Who exaclty is this "Linux" who should do this and that with their "product"? It's anarchic; and freedom is messy!
The volunteers who develop and use Linux-bases OS's and the scores of professional developers who make and use this OS and the Open Source software that consitutes it (Firefox, LibreOffice, VLC, etc.) of course want wider adoption because they love these projects and feel they are of high quality and would benefit those who would find and use them. The small, small handful of companies that are attempting to profit from their OS's *are* consolidating their GUI's and development environments specifically to try to make themselves more attractive to OEM's and manufacturers. The vast majority of distributions, however, simply have *no overwhelming motive* to desperatly claw at a larger, larger and ever larger user base, beyond what altruistic motives they have.
I don't see it helping Linux much, I think it will boost Win 7 sales. People that were holding off might just start buying Win 7, especially if they plan on pulling it off the shelves. Even though I have no intentions to try Win 8, thanks to OVERK1LL's picture I'll be sure to skip Win 8 just as I skipped Vista.
The 'metro' name has nothing to do with metrosexuals, men's facials, men's pink shirts nor anything of the sort. It is based on advertising that is uncluttered, larger-font, and to-the-point. Wiki says it's from King county in WA, but it could be anywhere.
^^^ I was just waiting for someone with more patience to clarify that - my clarification would have included comments about narrow mindedness.
ANYWAY, this Metro UI makes me feel like I am in Lego-Land or something. I can't help it, but looking at the screen shots, it just looks awfully childish and silly.
Win 7 UI is great compared to this joke of a UI, IMO.
ANYWAY, this Metro UI makes me feel like I am in Lego-Land or something. I can't help it, but looking at the screen shots, it just looks awfully childish and silly.
Win 7 UI is great compared to this joke of a UI, IMO.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
The 'metro' name has nothing to do with metrosexuals, men's facials, men's pink shirts nor anything of the sort. It is based on advertising that is uncluttered, larger-font, and to-the-point. Wiki says it's from King county in WA, but it could be anywhere.
Yeah, it's an obvious ripoff of the various Metro interfaces you see around here--though if you're not in Seattle or King County, maybe Overkill's connotation is what some folks have in mind. Who knows, maybe they're going after the Iphone users like that dude in the picture
The Metro Transit interfaces I see seem to be designed for people who are partially blind or something. It's certainly clear and all, that's for sure... I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I will say that going from XP to W7, I do like W7 quite a bit.
The 'metro' name has nothing to do with metrosexuals, men's facials, men's pink shirts nor anything of the sort. It is based on advertising that is uncluttered, larger-font, and to-the-point. Wiki says it's from King county in WA, but it could be anywhere.
Yeah, it's an obvious ripoff of the various Metro interfaces you see around here--though if you're not in Seattle or King County, maybe Overkill's connotation is what some folks have in mind. Who knows, maybe they're going after the Iphone users like that dude in the picture
The Metro Transit interfaces I see seem to be designed for people who are partially blind or something. It's certainly clear and all, that's for sure... I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I will say that going from XP to W7, I do like W7 quite a bit.
It's too GREEN - blech!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
^^^ I was just waiting for someone with more patience to clarify that - my clarification would have included comments about narrow mindedness.
ANYWAY, this Metro UI makes me feel like I am in Lego-Land or something. I can't help it, but looking at the screen shots, it just looks awfully childish and silly.
Win 7 UI is great compared to this joke of a UI, IMO.
Please don't rein in your politically correct issues with my post for my sake. If poking fun at the use of the term "metro" by associating it with the topic of metrosexualality bothers you, then tell me why. Don't hint around it using aloof references to "narrow mindedness" as if by not stooping to my level of extracting humour out of Microsoft's naming convention here that it puts you that much closer to God or some level of divine equality that mere mortals such as myself are unable to obtain.
I laugh when I find something funny. Because Microsoft's naming convention makes me think of metrosexuals, I laugh. I found it funny and made an image of it. Others found humour in it as well. There was no offence meant in my post or by the image. Are we really becoming this politically correct that something like this offends somebody? If so, that is truly tragic.
^^^ I was just waiting for someone with more patience to clarify that - my clarification would have included comments about narrow mindedness.
ANYWAY, this Metro UI makes me feel like I am in Lego-Land or something. I can't help it, but looking at the screen shots, it just looks awfully childish and silly.
Win 7 UI is great compared to this joke of a UI, IMO.
Please don't rein in your politically correct issues with my post for my sake. If poking fun at the use of the term "metro" by associating it with the topic of metrosexualality bothers you, then tell me why. Don't hint around it using aloof references to "narrow mindedness" as if by not stooping to my level of extracting humour out of Microsoft's naming convention here that it puts you that much closer to God or some level of divine equality that mere mortals such as myself are unable to obtain.
I laugh when I find something funny. Because Microsoft's naming convention makes me think of metrosexuals, I laugh. I found it funny and made an image of it. Others found humour in it as well. There was no offence meant in my post or by the image. Are we really becoming this politically correct that something like this offends somebody? If so, that is truly tragic.
- Status
