Dear All,
A lot of debate happened on our FB wall on the topic 'What are the advantages & disadvantages of having multiple Linux Distros?'. Here is the link https://www.facebook.com/OpenSourceForU?ref=tn_tnmn#!/photo.php?fbid=1015162....
We are planning to do a story on the same and we would really appreciate if you let us know your thoughts on *'Is having too many Linux distros a problem?*'. Please share your views on what you think on this.
Regards,
Priyanka
On 20 May 2013 15:58, Priyanka Sarkar efyedit6@efyindia.com wrote:
We are planning to do a story on the same and we would really appreciate if you let us know your thoughts on *'Is having too many Linux distros a problem?*'. Please share your views on what you think on this.
My son has never complained that "having Lego bricks in too many sizes and shapes" is a problem. :-) He understands very well that he might not need all the different bricks all the time, but some construction projects he undertake require a subset of those bricks and that he has never come across a brick that he couldn't use at all, ever.
So's Linux.
Binand
The question itself presumes that the desktop is the one of paramount importance. The reality is that desktops form a tiny fraction of the computing industry. In the 32 bit segment desktops form a measely 2% (by numbers ) of the market.
Infact there would not be any computing industry as we know it now if it were not for the other 98% almost all of whom run linux.
The strength of Linux is it ability to be shaped into whatever one wants.
What's more if you need something unique you can build one from scratch.
The popularity and flexibility can be gauged from the number of hardware architectures linux supports 33 core architectures, each one with tens of subsets.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
On 20 May 2013 15:58, Priyanka Sarkar efyedit6@efyindia.com wrote:
We are planning to do a story on the same and we would really appreciate if you let us know your thoughts on *'Is having too many Linux distros a problem?*'. Please share your views on what you think on this.
My son has never complained that "having Lego bricks in too many sizes and shapes" is a problem. :-) He understands very well that he might not need all the different bricks all the time, but some construction projects he undertake require a subset of those bricks and that he has never come across a brick that he couldn't use at all, ever.
So's Linux.
Binand
On 20 May 2013 18:58, J T Dsouza jtd1959@gmail.com wrote:
The strength of Linux is it ability to be shaped into whatever one wants.
Hence the analogy with Lego bricks. Linux is the building block for complex and wonderful things. With full source code access, the only limitation is the creativity of the user.
http://www.ugo.com/tech/50-awesome-lego-creations
Binand
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
On 20 May 2013 18:58, J T Dsouza jtd1959@gmail.com wrote:
The strength of Linux is it ability to be shaped into whatever one wants.
Hence the analogy with Lego bricks. Linux is the building block for complex and wonderful things. With full source code access, the only limitation is the creativity of the user.
Very apt analogy.
Binand
I absolutely agree with those who have praised the merits of GNU/Linux, and Open Source. Yet, the Linux community seem to have two conflicting agendas:
1. Be the ultimate hacker playground. Creativity, innovation, the bleeding edge. 2. Be a stable, usable platform. User should not have to worry about .deb v/s .rpm
Any thoughts?
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Ashwin Dixit ganeshacomputes@gmail.com wrote:
Yet, the Linux community seem to have two conflicting agendas:
- Be the ultimate hacker playground. Creativity, innovation, the bleeding
edge.
Debian unstable.
- Be a stable, usable platform. User should not have to worry about .deb
v/s .rpm
Debian stable. There are GUI front ends to for yum, apt-get.
Any thoughts?
Choose your poison. The FOSS eco system allows you both.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Arun Khan knura9@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Ashwin Dixit ganeshacomputes@gmail.com wrote:
Yet, the Linux community seem to have two conflicting agendas:
Choose your poison. The FOSS eco system allows you both.
Arun, I am acutely aware that the FOSS eco system offers a wide variety of choices. The problem is not that there are too many Linux distros. The problem is that there are too many Linux application package formats.
When a Windows or BSD ( *BSD | OS X ) user locates a desired application on the Internet, they pretty much know it will run for them. On Linux, you have to use the right package manager to install a desired application based on its package format, and your architecture. Choice is great for the brilliant Linux hacker, but terrible for the average Linux user.
For an OS to be intelligent and user-friendly, it has to hide its complexity from the common user. The OS should just DWIM ( Do What I Mean ).
The average human user, is statistically more error-prone than a modern machine. The user should be removed from the loops of most decisions.
The OS should shield the common user from decisions such as: "Software updates available. Install now?" "Do you want to trust this site?"
Who wants to babysit a Personal Assistant who asks you every single time before using the bathroom? "There is some gas in my tummy. Fart now? [nY]"
Dear Linux, for starters, please don't tell me the package format. Just make decisions for me, using real-time, context-sensitive heuristics, and my custom settings.
Just my 0.02 BTC
Cheers,
- Ashwin.
================================================= Subvert the dominant paradigm. Repeat as desired. http://ownlifeful.com/
I agree with Ashwin completely. Have been using Linux/Unix for a quarter century. When my goal is to play with OS or its installations, availability of many choices has been great. When my goal is to get something else done, the minor variations became a pain.
Also, I don't agree with the Lego analogy. Lego bricks may have different sizes and purposes but they have the same interface. You don't need more than a moment to join any two bricks. Things are not so easy across various distros.
Uday.
Dr. Uday Khedker Professor Department of Computer Science & Engg. IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India.
Email : uday@cse.iitb.ac.in Homepage: http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~uday Phone : Office - 91 (22) 2572 2545 x 7717, 91 (22) 2576 7717 (Direct) Res. - 91 (22) 2572 2545 x 8717, 91 (22) 2576 8717 (Direct)
On Tuesday 21 May 2013 06:14 AM, Ashwin Dixit wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Arun Khan knura9@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Ashwin Dixit ganeshacomputes@gmail.com wrote:
Yet, the Linux community seem to have two conflicting agendas:
Choose your poison. The FOSS eco system allows you both.
Arun, I am acutely aware that the FOSS eco system offers a wide variety of choices. The problem is not that there are too many Linux distros. The problem is that there are too many Linux application package formats.
When a Windows or BSD ( *BSD | OS X ) user locates a desired application on the Internet, they pretty much know it will run for them. On Linux, you have to use the right package manager to install a desired application based on its package format, and your architecture. Choice is great for the brilliant Linux hacker, but terrible for the average Linux user.
For an OS to be intelligent and user-friendly, it has to hide its complexity from the common user. The OS should just DWIM ( Do What I Mean ).
The average human user, is statistically more error-prone than a modern machine. The user should be removed from the loops of most decisions.
The OS should shield the common user from decisions such as: "Software updates available. Install now?" "Do you want to trust this site?"
Who wants to babysit a Personal Assistant who asks you every single time before using the bathroom? "There is some gas in my tummy. Fart now? [nY]"
Dear Linux, for starters, please don't tell me the package format. Just make decisions for me, using real-time, context-sensitive heuristics, and my custom settings.
Just my 0.02 BTC
Cheers,
- Ashwin.
================================================= Subvert the dominant paradigm. Repeat as desired. http://ownlifeful.com/
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Ashwin Dixit ganeshacomputes@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Arun Khan knura9@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Ashwin Dixit ganeshacomputes@gmail.com wrote:
Yet, the Linux community seem to have two conflicting agendas:
Choose your poison. The FOSS eco system allows you both.
Arun, I am acutely aware that the FOSS eco system offers a wide variety of choices. The problem is not that there are too many Linux distros. The problem is that there are too many Linux application package formats.
Every distro has it's own builtin package manager and repos.
If you want to muck around you jolly well educate yourself on whatever it is you are doing .
When a Windows or BSD ( *BSD | OS X ) user locates a desired application on the Internet, they pretty much know it will run for them. On Linux, you have to use the right package manager to install a desired application based on its package format, and your architecture. Choice is great for the brilliant Linux hacker, but terrible for the average Linux user.
Rubbish.
For an OS to be intelligent and user-friendly, it has to hide its complexity from the common user. The OS should just DWIM ( Do What I Mean ).
More rubbish. I cant install the simplest hardware on doze because of the utter stupidity of the error reporting and 20MB of crappy click once crash everywhere bloatware.
Rest of your post is a pile of rubbish.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Uday Khedker uday@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
I agree with Ashwin completely. Have been using Linux/Unix for a quarter century. When my goal is to play with OS or its installations, availability of many choices has been great. When my goal is to get something else done, the minor variations became a pain.
The minor variations are there to solve some perceived problem. And more often than not there would be some tool or the other to take care of these variations.
Also, I don't agree with the Lego analogy. Lego bricks may have different sizes and purposes but they have the same interface. You don't need more than a moment to join any two bricks. Things are not so easy across various distros.
If one is mucking around with distros, one is not an average joe. There is work involved in moving binaries from one distro to another. There is work involved in moving source from one distro to another, minimal to none in some cases, quite a bit of heavy lifting in some other.
The point remains that mucking around with packages from multile distros, requires skill and is most certainly not the average users priority or requirement.
Uday.
Dr. Uday Khedker Professor Department of Computer Science & Engg. IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India.
Email : uday@cse.iitb.ac.in Homepage: http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~**udayhttp://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~uday Phone : Office - 91 (22) 2572 2545 x 7717, 91 (22) 2576 7717 (Direct) Res. - 91 (22) 2572 2545 x 8717, 91 (22) 2576 8717 (Direct)
On Tuesday 21 May 2013 06:14 AM, Ashwin Dixit wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Arun Khan knura9@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Ashwin Dixit
ganeshacomputes@gmail.com wrote:
Yet, the Linux community seem to have two conflicting agendas:
Choose your poison. The FOSS eco system allows you both.
Arun, I am acutely aware that the FOSS eco system offers a wide variety
of choices. The problem is not that there are too many Linux distros. The problem is that there are too many Linux application package formats.
When a Windows or BSD ( *BSD | OS X ) user locates a desired application on the Internet, they pretty much know it will run for them. On Linux, you have to use the right package manager to install a desired application based on its package format, and your architecture. Choice is great for the brilliant Linux hacker, but terrible for the average Linux user.
For an OS to be intelligent and user-friendly, it has to hide its complexity from the common user. The OS should just DWIM ( Do What I Mean ).
The average human user, is statistically more error-prone than a modern machine. The user should be removed from the loops of most decisions.
The OS should shield the common user from decisions such as: "Software updates available. Install now?" "Do you want to trust this site?"
Who wants to babysit a Personal Assistant who asks you every single time before using the bathroom? "There is some gas in my tummy. Fart now? [nY]"
Dear Linux, for starters, please don't tell me the package format. Just make decisions for me, using real-time, context-sensitive heuristics, and my custom settings.
Just my 0.02 BTC
Cheers,
- Ashwin.
==============================**=================== Subvert the dominant paradigm. Repeat as desired. http://ownlifeful.com/
--
http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/**mailman/listinfo/linuxershttp://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On 21 May 2013 06:14, Ashwin Dixit ganeshacomputes@gmail.com wrote:
When a Windows or BSD ( *BSD | OS X ) user locates a desired application on the Internet, they pretty much know it will run for them. On Linux, you have to use the right package manager to install a desired application based on its package format, and your architecture. Choice is great for the brilliant Linux hacker, but terrible for the average Linux user.
Care to give an example? Almost all the third-party apps that I have seen clearly says something along the lines of "Download for Windows, OS X, Fedora, Debian....". Where is the confusion here? If I am running Fedora I download the Fedora version. If I am running Debian, I download the Debian version.
For an OS to be intelligent and user-friendly, it has to hide its complexity from the common user. The OS should just DWIM ( Do What I Mean ).
The average human user, is statistically more error-prone than a modern machine. The user should be removed from the loops of most decisions.
That is the line of thinking Microsoft adopted, and the larger FOSS community wisely rejected. Why do you think the software is more intelligent than the human and can take better decisions?
The OS should shield the common user from decisions such as: "Software updates available. Install now?" "Do you want to trust this site?"
See above. Why do you think the computer is better poised to answer either of these questions? Extending this line of thought, will you let the computer order stuff from Flipkart for you on its own (and charge your credit card)?
Binand
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
On 21 May 2013 06:14, Ashwin Dixit ganeshacomputes@gmail.com wrote:
When a Windows or BSD ( *BSD | OS X ) user locates a desired application
on
the Internet, they pretty much know it will run for them. On Linux, you have to use the right package manager to install a desired application based on its package format, and your architecture. Choice is great for the brilliant Linux hacker, but terrible for the average Linux user.
Care to give an example?
A very recent personal experience. We needed to change the serial number on a serial dongle. The dongle maker had not provided any utility on linux, but had 200MB of crapware for doze. So we set about installing the software. Just insert the cd. Wait.......20 minutes later the customary reboot. AND "intelligent" doze has discovered new hardware, so insert cd again. AND..... reboot. Ad nauseum. The drivers and applications failed to install. What was supposed to be a 2 minute job failed to get done after more than an hour.
Back to google. Found a small application on source forge. Download source. Compile. Run. 5 minutes from starting to google the job is done.
The oft stated stance of windows being transparent to the user is plain rubbish. It is transparent for certain restricted and well defined run of the mill tasks, BUT even in those cases is substantially less stable and capable.
Linux is actually substantially better for run of the mill stuff, and is absolutely unstoppable for all the other cases that one might think about. This is no accident. It is due to the diversity and richness of the ecosystem.
As I stated earlier mucking up 98% of the market to cater to 2% of microserfs is dumb from every perspective.
Almost all the third-party apps that I have
seen clearly says something along the lines of "Download for Windows, OS X, Fedora, Debian....". Where is the confusion here? If I am running Fedora I download the Fedora version. If I am running Debian, I download the Debian version.
For an OS to be intelligent and user-friendly, it has to hide its complexity from the common user. The OS should just DWIM ( Do What I Mean ).
The average human user, is statistically more error-prone than a modern machine. The user should be removed from the loops of most decisions.
That is the line of thinking Microsoft adopted, and the larger FOSS community wisely rejected. Why do you think the software is more intelligent than the human and can take better decisions?
The OS should shield the common user from decisions such as: "Software updates available. Install now?" "Do you want to trust this site?"
See above. Why do you think the computer is better poised to answer either of these questions? Extending this line of thought, will you let the computer order stuff from Flipkart for you on its own (and charge your credit card)?
Binand
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.comwrote:
On 21 May 2013 06:14, Ashwin Dixit ganeshacomputes@gmail.com wrote:
Where is the confusion here? If I am running Fedora I download the Fedora version. If I am running Debian, I download the Debian version.
It is a pain for a Linux developer to bundle their application for maximum adoption. Sooner or later, even a Debian user encounters a package they need but which is only available in RPM format. To get around this difficulty, you just install rpm on Debian, and then install the .RPM package. This is too confusing for the average user!
The user should be removed from the loops of most decisions.
That is the line of thinking Microsoft adopted, and the larger FOSS community wisely rejected. Why do you think the software is more intelligent than the human and can take better decisions?
Software is not more intelligent than the human, just more accurate at some kinds of tasks. We already trust machines with our very lives when we fly on modern aircraft, for example. AI has made significant advances, but has not yet been fully applied to practical uses.
The OS should shield the common user from decisions such as: "Software updates available. Install now?" "Do you want to trust this site?"
Why do you think the computer is better poised to answer either of these questions?
I don't want Linux bothering my old mother, with technical questions. Software should talk to web services, and use some intelligence, and figure out how/when to handle its own internal functions. For example, the OS can figure out when the user has been typing steadily for the last few minutes, and prevent a pop-up dialog from stealing keyboard focus.
Extending this line of thought, will you let the computer order stuff from Flipkart for you on its own (and charge your credit card)?
That is a silly example. Use some common sense. Trading algorithms buy and sell on our behalf already.
GNU/Linux is a manual gearshift car, in the age of self-driving vehicles. There is much potential to make Linux easier to use. Linux won't be adopted widely until we shed our Tech machismo, and become sympathetic towards the average user.
Cheers,
- Ashwin.
================================================= Subvert the dominant paradigm. Repeat as desired. http://ownlifeful.com/
On 21 May 2013 12:36, Ashwin Dixit ganeshacomputes@gmail.com wrote:
We already trust machines with our very lives when we fly on modern aircraft, for example.
Autopilot (which is what I believe you are referring to) is used only in cruise conditions. For take-off, landing and turbulence it is disengaged and the human pilot controls the aircraft. The principle is that in situations that require complex decision making process, the human brain is better-suitable than computers.
I don't want Linux bothering my old mother, with technical questions. Software should talk to web services, and use some intelligence, and figure out how/when to handle its own internal functions.
I think there is a fundamental difference between your thinking and mine, then. I prefer my computer to not do things on its own, but ask me instead. I consider myself to be the owner of my computer and not the other way round. I decide when it installs updates, which websites to visit etc.
That is a silly example. Use some common sense. Trading algorithms buy and sell on our behalf already.
Trading algorithms don't buy or sell on "our behalf". HFT (which is what you are referring to?) is performed by a subset of traders who fully understand the implications (and have the resources to absorb the monetary losses which such systems go haywire, as have happened several times in recent past). Your or my average mutual fund AMC does not employ HFT. Instead, they employ fund managers who use their human brain to take buying and selling decisions (admittedly, with computers to perform data analysis for them).
Having said all this, I find Google Now on my Android phone approaching the kind of functionality that you describe (though it doesn't take decisions, only conveys information. That is, it tells me at about 6PM every day the approximate time it would take me to commute from office to home. It doesn't - yet - call up my wife and tell her I'll be late for dinner :-).
Binand
-
Arun Khan -
Ashwin Dixit -
Binand Sethumadhavan -
J T Dsouza -
Priyanka Sarkar -
Uday Khedker