Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #4405 > unrolled thread

Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want?

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-08-16 04:14 +0000
    Re: Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want? Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-08-16 09:14 +0100
      Re: Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want? Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-08-16 13:32 +0100
        Re: Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want? Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-08-16 15:59 +0300
    Re: Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-08-16 20:02 +0000
      Re: Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-08-16 21:48 +0000
        Re: Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-08-16 22:13 +0000
          Re: Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want? Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-08-16 22:43 +0000
          Re: Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-08-16 23:52 +0000
    Re: Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want? Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-08-17 14:38 +0100
      Re: Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-17 15:04 +0100

#4405 — Will Linux ever be able to give consumers what they want?

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/will-linux-ever-be-able-to-give-consumers-what-they-want/

   In the world of consumer electronics, if you don't give the buyer what
   they want, they'll go elsewhere. We've recently witnessed this with the
   Firefox browser. The consumer wanted a faster, less-bloated piece of
   software, and the developers went in the other direction. In the end,
   the users migrated to Chrome or Chromium.

   Linux needs to gaze deep into their crystal ball, watch carefully the
   final fallout of that browser war, and heed this bit of advice:

   If you don't give them what they want, they'll leave.

   Another great illustration of this backfiring is Windows 8. The consumer
   didn't want that interface. Microsoft, however, wanted it because it was
   necessary to begin the drive to all things Surface. This same scenario
   could have been applied to Canonical and Ubuntu Unity -- however, their
   goal wasn't geared singularly and specifically towards tablets (so, the
   interface was still highly functional and intuitive on the desktop).

   ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4413

On 2014-08-16 05:14, Rich wrote:
> http://www.techrepublic.com/article/will-linux-ever-be-able-to-give-consumers-what-they-want/
> 
>    In the world of consumer electronics, if you don't give the buyer what
>    they want, they'll go elsewhere. We've recently witnessed this with the
>    Firefox browser. The consumer wanted a faster, less-bloated piece of
>    software, and the developers went in the other direction. In the end,
>    the users migrated to Chrome or Chromium.
> 
>    Linux needs to gaze deep into their crystal ball, watch carefully the
>    final fallout of that browser war, and heed this bit of advice:
> 
>    If you don't give them what they want, they'll leave.

I don't want an idiot-friendly, dumbed-down OS or software. I've left
Windows because it didn't give me what, and I don't have a Mac because
that doesn't give me what I want either. Geeks are consumers too. Linux
rocks. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4414

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 09:14:42 +0100, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:

>On 2014-08-16 05:14, Rich wrote:
>> http://www.techrepublic.com/article/will-linux-ever-be-able-to-give-consumers-what-they-want/
>> 
>>    In the world of consumer electronics, if you don't give the buyer what
>>    they want, they'll go elsewhere. We've recently witnessed this with the
>>    Firefox browser. The consumer wanted a faster, less-bloated piece of
>>    software, and the developers went in the other direction. In the end,
>>    the users migrated to Chrome or Chromium.
>> 
>>    Linux needs to gaze deep into their crystal ball, watch carefully the
>>    final fallout of that browser war, and heed this bit of advice:
>> 
>>    If you don't give them what they want, they'll leave.
>
>I don't want an idiot-friendly, dumbed-down OS or software. I've left
>Windows because it didn't give me what, and I don't have a Mac because
>that doesn't give me what I want either. Geeks are consumers too. Linux
>rocks. :-)

 The mention of "CONSUMERS" is the key thing in this debate.
Microsoft's goal in producing windows was to extend the appeal of
computer tech into the wider realm of consumers away from the
'computer experts' (or 'folk with an actual clue about what it was all
about') in an effort to exploit a market sized not in a mere million
or so but one that was potentially a couple of billions or more.

 The major letdown by Microsoft was in ignoring security needs to the
point where they included features helpful to the black hats,
blindsiding their consumers[1] - fileview options that by default
modified the names of the files so that the blackhats could masquerade
their trojans as harmless picture files, for example, when there
really shouldn't have been any such feature built into the OS in the
first place[2].

 This 'consumerisation rot' came in with a veangance with the
introduction of windows2000's idiot offspring, windows XP and it's
been a downhill ride for the computer user ever since.

 Although there is a legitimate need to consumerise application
software, there really is no such need to do likewise with the all
important OS underlying the whole operation of a "Personal (general
purpose) COMPUTER".

[1] One of my first thoughts when I spotted the same stupid fileview
options (_and_ defaults) was "That's either very brave of them or else
it's sheer bloody minded arrogance." since they were selling a product
intended to be used by mere consumers with an implied 'safe for use by
mere consumers' feature built in in pretty much the same way that
white goods have to conform to basic electrical safety standards.

 Windows XP was the equivilent to a hair drier where the mains cable
was attached via naked terminal screws. A brave law firm could, by
that stage - the abuse of this fileview default option by malware
threats having long been established prior to winXP's release, so
easily have gathered a class action law suit against Microsoft on the
simple basis of "A lack of 'duty of care' ", in theory, totally
bankrupting Microsoft out of existence if vested interest could have
been held in check (a classic example of ethical theory diverging from
unethical practice in 'The Real World' of business politics).

 The fact that there was not a peep out of the media in regard of any
such class action law suits or threats of such law suits suggested to
me that the most likely explanation would be more to do with 'Legal
Firepower' than anything else (which suggested to me the strong
liklihood that Microsoft were investing more money in their legal
department than in software R&D).

[2] Microsoft have a history of including meaningless OS 'tuning'
options such as those unnecessary and undesirable file viewing
options. The other standout 'option' concerns the pagefile behaviour.

 Who, in their right mind would think dynamic auto sizing this all
important system file would provide any benefit whatsoever? All it
does is leave the system to handle the knotty problem of unpredictably
variable disk free space (the results of which could be seen in system
crashes in windows 98 when space became a little tight).

 The only party benefiting from all of this was the PC industry who
would happily sell a replacement PC to a consumer suffering from the
deletorious effects of file fragmentation due to this autosizing
algorithm (the default option) thinking that their computer 'was worn
out' due to its age and use (a form of 'software obsolescence').

 It always seemed to me to be a 'quickly fixable' 'problem' that
Microsoft could 'apply' in a heartbeat in the event that enough
consumers were to get wise and complain vociferously enough to
endanger sales if this particular 'Piss Take' proved to be "A Piss
Take Too Far".

 Unfortunately, we, who understand that the only acceptable solution
to using disk storage space as 'pretend ram' (better known as virtual
memory) is to give it its own dedicated partition (or, at the very
least, allocate a fixed chunk of unfragmented disk space so that it
can no longer pollute the rest of the FS it resides within with
'auto-resizing induced fragmentation' ofboth the page file and the
free space on the disk volume), fail to appreciate the effects of "The
power of stupid people (mere consumers) in large numbers".

 It seems to me that the needs of the few have been sacrificed to the
"desires" of the many to the sole benefit of the even fewer (OEMs and
Microsoft).
-- 
J B Good

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4415

Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com>:

> The mention of "CONSUMERS" is the key thing in this debate.
> Microsoft's goal in producing windows was to extend the appeal of
> computer tech into the wider realm of consumers away from the
> 'computer experts' (or 'folk with an actual clue about what it was all
> about') in an effort to exploit a market sized not in a mere million
> or so but one that was potentially a couple of billions or more.

I'd say it is the word "market" that is key.

Linux does not have a market. It doesn't seek to make money. It doesn't
need money.

Now, a lot of us have managed to make money using and building on linux.
Great! A lot of us have managed to enjoy our computers using linux.
Great!

If linux doesn't do that to you, no problem. Maybe there's something
else out there that makes your life easier.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4429

On 2014-08-16, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>

For what it's worth, Linux /does/ give me what I want, and so does
FreeBSD.  But I make some rather judicious choices, too.  I never much
liked Gnome, but I dislike their philosophy of "fewer choices, because
the user is a mental imbicile" even more vehemently, and as such I don't
use their desktop, and very little of their software (Gimp, Transmission
come to mind; that might truly be it).

There's a piece on HackerNews today [1] that roils me: "Choose Firefox
now, or later you won't get a choice."  Yeah, I get it that Chrome is
Google and Google is avaricious.  But I want to scream at the Firefox
developers, "Get it together son!  I don't use Chrome because I love
Google.  I use it because your browser is a piece of donkey shit!  Give
me a browser worth using and I'll be back!"

Actually, I use Opera, but whatever.  And in the comments [2] someone
rightly points out now that Opera uses Google's Blink rendering engine,
I'm in trouble too ...

[1]
http://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-or-later-you-wont.html?showComment=1408137721125
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8185461

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4433

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-08-16, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> >

> ... I never much liked Gnome, but I dislike their philosophy of
> "fewer choices, because the user is a mental imbicile" even more
> vehemently, and as such I don't use their desktop, and very little of
> their software (Gimp, Transmission come to mind; that might truly be
> it).

I despise Gnome for much the same reasons.

If you want to reduce that list by one, then rtorrent
(http://rakshasa.github.io/rtorrent/) is an excellent bit-torrent
client, but without all the GUI fancyness.

But then that means it can be run inside a screen/tmux session so you
can connect to it from anywhere you can get ssh access to the machine,
and as well, you can run it on a headless box if you wish.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4438

Rich <rich@example.invalid> Wrote in message:
> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> On 2014-08-16, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> >
> 
 their desktop, and very little of
>> their software (Gimp, Transmission come to mind; that might truly be
>> it).
> 
> I despise Gnome for much the same reasons.
> 
> If you want to reduce that list by one, then rtorrent
> (http://rakshasa.github.io/rtorrent/) is an excellent bit-torrent
> client, but without all the GUI fancyness.
> 
> But then that means it can be run inside a screen/tmux session so you
> can connect to it from anywhere you can get ssh access to the machine,
> and as well, you can run it on a headless box if you wish.
> 
> 

That's a great tip, thanks.  I'd heard about it once before but
 will make an effort this time to give it a look.  I'm more of a
 console guy anyway ...
-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4439

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 22:13:44 +0000, RS Wood wrote:

> Rich <rich@example.invalid> Wrote in message:
>> RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>> On 2014-08-16, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>  their desktop, and very little of
>>> their software (Gimp, Transmission come to mind; that might truly be
>>> it).
>> 
>> I despise Gnome for much the same reasons.
>> 
>> If you want to reduce that list by one, then rtorrent
>> (http://rakshasa.github.io/rtorrent/) is an excellent bit-torrent
>> client, but without all the GUI fancyness.
>> 
>> But then that means it can be run inside a screen/tmux session so you
>> can connect to it from anywhere you can get ssh access to the machine,
>> and as well, you can run it on a headless box if you wish.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> That's a great tip, thanks.  I'd heard about it once before but
>  will make an effort this time to give it a look.  I'm more of a console
>  guy anyway ...

I find it very good too...definitely more of a console person! (see sig)



-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4440

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> Wrote in message:
> > RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> >> On 2014-08-16, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> > 
>  their desktop, and very little of
> >> their software (Gimp, Transmission come to mind; that might truly be
> >> it).
> > 
> > I despise Gnome for much the same reasons.
> > 
> > If you want to reduce that list by one, then rtorrent
> > (http://rakshasa.github.io/rtorrent/) is an excellent bit-torrent
> > client, but without all the GUI fancyness.
> > 
> > But then that means it can be run inside a screen/tmux session so
> > you can connect to it from anywhere you can get ssh access to the
> > machine, and as well, you can run it on a headless box if you wish.

> That's a great tip, thanks.  I'd heard about it once before but will
>  make an effort this time to give it a look.  I'm more of a console
>  guy anyway ...

It (rtorrent) is pure console (well, curses console app, it runs "full
screen" in the terminal within which is runs, so it has some "terminal
fanciness" to it).  Be sure to get at least 0.9.2 or better.  Older
versions had a bug that caused segfaults upon adding magnet: links.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4450

Rich wrote:
> http://www.techrepublic.com/article/will-linux-ever-be-able-to-give-consumers-what-they-want/
>
>     In the world of consumer electronics,

I detect (at least a slight) illogicality: Linux isn't an item of 
consumer electronics.  Perhaps the article's author didn't say exactly 
what they mean?

>                                           if you don't give the buyer what
>     they want, they'll go elsewhere. We've recently witnessed this with the
>     Firefox browser. The consumer wanted a faster, less-bloated piece of
>     [snip]

-- 
[Dancing is] a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire.
        G.B. Shaw quoted in /New Statesman/, 23 March 1962

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4451

Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes:

> Rich wrote:
>> http://www.techrepublic.com/article/will-linux-ever-be-able-to-give-consumers-what-they-want/
>>
>>     In the world of consumer electronics,
>
> I detect (at least a slight) illogicality: Linux isn't an item of
> consumer electronics.  Perhaps the article's author didn't say exactly
> what they mean?

Though my digital TV receiver/PVR runs Linux.  I know what you mean
though: this is a piece of consumer electronics, but the consumer of
Linux is not the customer but the device manufacturer.  Hence:

>>                                           if you don't give the buyer what
>>     they want, they'll go elsewhere. We've recently witnessed this with the
>>     Firefox browser. The consumer wanted a faster, less-bloated piece of
>>     [snip]

...who the buyer is matters.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web