5 ms·

What a trash comment. No, the closed garden application computer is not the right way to go for non-programmers. It gives tremendous monopolistic power to corpo

What a trash comment. No, the closed garden application computer is not the right way to go for non-programmers. It gives tremendous monopolistic power to corporations - fuck that. We need to get rid of all the kinks out of linux, make plug and play work seamlessly, and improve usability. Part of that means getting rid of the dependency to use the terminal (who uses that piece of shit anyway?) and the need to config text files to fix driver issues. Linux still has the ability to reach #1 in non-programmer desktop usage.

sounds 14y ago
While I agree that closed "walled gardens" are a bad idea, the traditional desktop/laptop PC is facing competition, and yason's comment isn't trash. By combining both of your comments, I do think the future is clear: the only truly free, general purpose computing machines will run Linux, and will _look_ like an appliance, just because of all the locked down walled in appliances Linux will be competing with. It won't hurt that this will make Linux easier to use. And Gnome 3 is an example of how not to make it easier to use – give the user what they want, do not take it away.
bonch 14y ago
Your post illustrates an anger common to computer enthusiasts who hate the idea of appliance computing because it takes aways their feeling of master over the system. Real people don't care about "giving tremendous monopolistic power to corporations". They don't see it that way. They see it as an easier-to-use computer and think you're weird for wanting something more complicated out of principle.
GHFigs 14y ago
What a trash comment. Actually, it's not. You just disagree with it. Sometimes when you disagree with someone's conclusions, it's hard to see the merit of their reasoning. We need to... There are two complications to this. One is that the "we" of Linux development has never and will never have the kind of coherence that it takes to appeal to an extremely large audience. (Even calling it "Linux" isn't always agreed-upon). There are a great many people working on Linux or making things from Linux, but they are not all going in the same direction. This is both a strength and a weakness. The second is not so much a different reason as it is an example of a major weakness of this style of development: It's a demonstrably inefficient way of addressing the needs of certain kinds of users. The list of things you say need to be fixed with the Linux desktop, which is quite typical and also quite incomplete, has also remained constant for more than a decade as year after year "of the Linux Desktop" passed by. Although the situation has improved, "We" have not moved on to a better class of problems because most people working on them want to use the terminal, or at least don't mind editing text files for configuration, and correspondingly are not very good at addressing the needs of people very much unlike them.

sounds 14y ago

While I agree that closed "walled gardens" are a bad idea, the traditional desktop/laptop PC is facing competition, and yason's comment isn't trash. By combining both of your comments, I do think the future is clear: the only truly free, general purpose computing machines will run Linux, and will _look_ like an appliance, just because of all the locked down walled in appliances Linux will be competing with. It won't hurt that this will make Linux easier to use. And Gnome 3 is an example of how not to make it easier to use – give the user what they want, do not take it away.

bonch 14y ago

Your post illustrates an anger common to computer enthusiasts who hate the idea of appliance computing because it takes aways their feeling of master over the system. Real people don't care about "giving tremendous monopolistic power to corporations". They don't see it that way. They see it as an easier-to-use computer and think you're weird for wanting something more complicated out of principle.

GHFigs 14y ago

What a trash comment. Actually, it's not. You just disagree with it. Sometimes when you disagree with someone's conclusions, it's hard to see the merit of their reasoning. We need to... There are two complications to this. One is that the "we" of Linux development has never and will never have the kind of coherence that it takes to appeal to an extremely large audience. (Even calling it "Linux" isn't always agreed-upon). There are a great many people working on Linux or making things from Linux, but they are not all going in the same direction. This is both a strength and a weakness. The second is not so much a different reason as it is an example of a major weakness of this style of development: It's a demonstrably inefficient way of addressing the needs of certain kinds of users. The list of things you say need to be fixed with the Linux desktop, which is quite typical and also quite incomplete, has also remained constant for more than a decade as year after year "of the Linux Desktop" passed by. Although the situation has improved, "We" have not moved on to a better class of problems because most people working on them want to use the terminal, or at least don't mind editing text files for configuration, and correspondingly are not very good at addressing the needs of people very much unlike them.