On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 07:59 -0700, Phil Mattison wrote:
> Now that I have been using Linux on a fairly regular basis for several years
> I realize I have been making what probably is an incorrect mental
> association regarding Linux stability. I have observed that a number of
> applications are really not very stable at all, but tended to equate them
> with Linux because of their corolaries in Windows. For example, in KDE I use
> Konqueror much the same as I use Windows Explorer, which I suspect was the
> intent of its developers. But I have fould that Konqueror tends to crash if
> left open for more than a few hours, especially if file changes are
> happening in the background requiring dynamic updates of the Konqueror
> display window. There are lots of annoying little glitches like that in many
> programs that have become associated with Linux by virtue of their inclusion
> in major distributions.
> 
> Because Windows Explorer is part of Windows people tend to assume that KDE
> or Gnome is part of Linux. In a sense that is true because they are
> installed by default in most every major Linux distribution. But strictly
> speaking, Linux is only the operating system kernel and a few ancient
> command-line utilities, all of which are sublimely stable. It is unfortunate
> that the reputation of Linux is being diluted by the stuff that gets packed
> around it in an effort (a futile effort, I would say) to compete with
> Windows. A Linux mode 3 system with Apache is still a far more stable and
> secure web server (if configured properly) than any Windows/IIS setup, but I
> still know people who would rather use IIS because it is easier to
> configure. I know people who are capable of installing Windows but were
> stumped by Linux.
> 
> In 1995 I worked on a project at Intel to develop some of the first cable
> modem field trials. I was in charge of the software group, and our biggest
> task was to develop the core protocols and firmware to make the system work.
> (The head-end routers all ran on Sun/Solaris platforms.) But the managers,
> cable company  executives and customers only appreciated what they could see
> on the computer screen, so we got recognition for only a fraction of the
> actual work we did. In expanding the user base of Linux I think you run into
> the same problem. The more people you invite into the tent the fewer there
> are who can appreciate the finer distinctions of what is and is not Linux. I
> think it would be smarter to distribute the Linux core and GUI bundles
> separately so the distinction between the kernel and the UI remains clear.
> That way the people who make KDE and Gnome and their ilk would have to stand
> on their own merits instead of getting a free ride on the reputation of
> Linux. Maybe then there would be some real competition for Windows.
----
I suppose that you would see it that way if you want to look at it from
the angle of Linux being in competition with Windows - much like most of
the magazines would have us think.

In reality, Linux is a philosophy, not another Windows alternative.

I suppose that if I bought a Linux retail box and installed it, my
expectations would be more likely to drift in the competitive
comparisons.

My experiences with the proprietary operating systems has been generally
disappointing. The target sellers - Adobe/Quark etc. are generally
unresponsive to the end user. The niche software is likely to be
software maintained by one or two programmers and getting bug fixes is
slow if at all, comes with a purchased upgrade.

With open source, I can contact the developers and get answers and
solutions.

I think that your post above does a tremendous disservice to the open
source community at large since it represents cursing the darkness with
no effort to light a candle. You could work with the KDE people to fix
the memory leakage problem with Konqueror. I don't use KDE or Konqueror
so I cannot comment. FC-3 uses Firefox which seems to work exceptionally
well and before that, I use to leave Mozilla open for days on end
without problems (then again, I can do the same with Mozilla on
Windows). The fact that you have a number of desktop/window managers in
Linux is a testament to its versatility and you can try out many others
if you wish.

The point is - Linux can never be more than you make it. If you have
needs, it provides the building blocks to meet them. If there is
software that you want to do more/different/better, you can work with
the developers. Of course, if you want to complain how this piece or
that thing doesn't work as well as Windows, you can do that too. I just
don't value that level of participation.

Craig

---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss