Board index » kylix » Re: Dear Borland's!

Re: Dear Borland's!


2003-11-09 06:07:56 PM
kylix2
On 11/09/03 15:35 +0900, Ender wrote:
Quote
TF>Market share does not determine the robustness or worth of an
TF>operating system.

I'm saying same. It will be more accurate to compare robustness of Linux
with OS that has nearest widespread, closest in terms of time and has more
common features with Linux that other old {*word*99}.
What I don't understand is why you need to compare them in the
first place. The comment "Linux is a robust desktop" stands on
its own without the requirement of a long, ad nauseum discussion
of Windows. Nobody said Windows was bad. Nobody said Linux was
better. My comment amounted to "Linux is good enough" -- and that
is demonstrably true. Maybe your combination of hardware and
software conspires against you, but it does not necessarily make
your experience typical.
Quote
TF>telnet server on my Linux box. Telnetting into the box to clean up
TF>a frozen desktop is a great feature.

Unfortunately, it is completely has no matter. When X subsystem crashed,
your desktop apps also crashed.
If X has crashed, that's true. Sometimes it's just a matter of a
single runaway process that causes the window manager to block.
That can usually be tidied up without ill effect. Of course, I
admit that this requires a second PC and skills that the average
housewife has perhaps not yet developed. If you've saved your
data, then a Ctrl-Alt-Backspace isn't out of the question and
poses little inconvenience. On my Slack system, assuming my
keyboard is working, I can also Ctrl-Alt-F6 to a console login.
Lots of options there.
In any case, the quality of a particular X server is no different
than a bad video driver crashing Windows. For example, the SVGA
server with an old Millennium G200 may not be fast, but it's VERY
stable.
Quote
TF>but ME on this same system blue screens when that disk goes strange.

I told you, you selected wrong "opponent" for Linux.
Again, you're the one who insists on comparison here. I see
little point in it.
Quote
Thanks. When i will work on nuclear power plant i remember your suggestion.
;-)
;^)
Quote
Happy man. :-) Eventually when pegasus and muses come down to me, i may type
about 300..400 lines of code on one breath. And crashed X'es is very
disgusting thing.
You've heard of the F2 key, right? Use it. I'm sure your muses
won't mind. ;^)
Quote
Not ready for the desktop - means level of required qualification of user
enough to use OS and GUI is too high for ordinary home user. Because you is
If that's the case, then Windows, too, is not ready for the
desktop. Example: a friend of mine, who is a normal end-user,
tried to upgrade her Norton AV. She followed instructions, but
things went wrong -- now Norton is not installed, the firewall
component blocked all ports and she cannot access the internet at
all. All her attempts to install a newer version from CD-ROM to
fix the problem have failed. She's a frustrated user. Is it a
Norton or Windows problem? I'm inclined to blame the app, not the
OS. If she were running Linux, however, I'm guessing that you'd
be blaming Linux.
Quote
programmer and basically expirienced user, your opinion "ready for the
desktop" does not count.
The average user cannot administer Windows. The average user
considers "administering Windows" to be reinstalling Windows. If
it works, fine. If there's trouble, most users are completely
lost as to how to proceed.
Quote
Example 1: once i installed Linux Mandrake 9.2 with default installations
settings i tried to launch Licq. I clicked on appropriate item of system
menu but nothing happens. Completely. I don't see any reaction of my PC on
my click. How average John or Jane should react on that? In windows at least
You're blaming Linux for a configuration problem in a
distribution? Blaming Mandrake would be far more sensible.
ANYway, it's easy to spin this story: If you've installed an app
on Windows and it has an init problem that causes it to exit,
will Windows tell you? Hardly. Windows will tell you if that app
misbehaves
Quote
host.domain.com/music/mp3/Engima/The Screen Behind The
Mirror/03-Gravity of Love.mp3. User that copied link in the WMP's "Open URL"
window has no problems, user that copied link in XMMS "Open URL" window
should guess that all spaces should be replaced by %20 or XMMS won't open
URL, and it should do this manually.
This is an XMMS problem, not a Linux problem. You're talking
about a programmer oversight at the application level. XMMS is
not Linux. Licq is not Linux. Either one may or may not be
included in a distribution. In Slack 9.1, for example, Licq is
nowhere to be found. Your example, while interesting in and of
itself, is not germane to Linux being ready for the desktop.
Would you blame Windows for a bug in PhotoShop?
Quote
There are many examples where we may see that Linux still not enough good
for desktop. For very expirienced users - maybe yes, but not for most of
users.
Just as with any operating system, one's success or failure
depends on many things. Hardware, installed software, how we use
the system....all contribute to the end-user experience. And
getting back to my original point, whether the apps are available
and are of decent quality for an OS is precisely what this
newsgroup is all about. It's our job to make good software and
ensure a good user experience, whether that be at home or in the
workplace, with free or commercial software.
How we do our job affects the user experience.
trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks XXXX@XXXXX.COM Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
// mp3.com/trane_francks/
 
 

Re:Re: Dear Borland's!

"Ender" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
Not ready for the desktop - means level of required qualification of
user enough to use OS and GUI is too high for ordinary home user.
Because you is programmer and basically expirienced user, your opinion
"ready for the desktop" does not count.
I agree to some degree. At least if you are talking about the "home-
desktop". In the case of corporate workstations, the situation might be
different. The admin should be able to setup a usable desktop for the
user and most companies don't like it if the users setup their private
programs anyway.
IMO Linux is (quite) ready for the desktops of mid to larger corporations
because the admin-team should know how to setup them. And it's also ready
for the desktop of tec-freaks, of course.
It might not be so good for small companies which do not have a real
admin and are used to click-click configuration, yet. And it might also
not be so good for unexp. home-users.
 

Re:Re: Dear Borland's!

ken moffat wrote:
Quote
Trane Francks wrote:

>
>We have different user experiences. I can't remember the last time I
>hung either W2k or Linux.


Yikes. I'm always{*word*154} linux through my own experimentation.

Several times today while attempting to use Lazarus I hung my system,
forcing a reboot. The combination of Libranet linux (Debian
testing/unstable mix) running Icewm and Lazarus just doesn't work. When
I run Lazarus under Gnome 2.4 it works well. (Lazarus beginner, of
course, so it could be all my fault)
Yes, this is a pity. It's a known problem with the window manager.
Micha.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Dear Borland's!

Quote
IMO Linux is (quite) ready for the desktops of mid to larger corporations
because the admin-team should know how to setup them. And it's also ready
for the desktop of tec-freaks, of course.
I think the biggest challenge for Linux in the corporate world is that it
has to
compete with the team of Windows / Exchange server / MS Office. A lot
of stuff has been built on top of Office / Exchange, and these two might
be the reason why it is diffucult to swith from Windows to Linux in
larger corporations.
Remember, there is no newgroup on the borland server named
'borland.public.kylix.automation' :)
 

Re:Re: Dear Borland's!

"Dag Fjeld Edvardsen" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
>IMO Linux is (quite) ready for the desktops of mid to larger
corporations
>because the admin-team should know how to setup them. And it's also
>ready for the desktop of tec-freaks, of course.

I think the biggest challenge for Linux in the corporate world is that it
has to compete with the team of Windows / Exchange server / MS Office.
After 30+ years, *nix has yet to make a dent on the desktop; largely due to
the fact that several key issues have never been adequately addressed.
Linux has no fix to offer, it's just "free". Apparently, the idea being
that this is enough to get users to overlook and accept the underlying
problems. It ain't happened yet, it ain't gonna happen, get over it.
IMO, the last gasp hope for *nix on the desktop is Mono. This may *finally*
facilitate development of a commercial market for Linux desktop software;
one that can eventually start to rival what's available on Windows. Open
Source will never be able to do it alone.
 

Re:Re: Dear Borland's!

"juliusz" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
It is just more FUD against Linux. What are the mysterious key issue
UNIX suffers that Linux cannot fix?
The two immediate ones --- lack of consistency and compatibility.
Consistency - No standard installation, user interface, etc.
Compatibility - Lack of binary software compatibility between distros and
even between versions of the same distro.
Linux does nothing to fix these problems, if anything it makes them worse.
 

Re:Re: Dear Borland's!

"juliusz" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Very unlikely; I really don't see Microsoft supporting any technology
which will rival Windows or what's available on Windows by Microsoft.
Forgot to respond to this part.
MS has provided a standardized framework that others can duplicate and build
upon. Any further support from them is not really required.
 

Re:Re: Dear Borland's!

JQP wrote:
Quote

After 30+ years, *nix has yet to make a dent on the desktop; largely due to
the fact that several key issues have never been adequately addressed.
Linux has no fix to offer, it's just "free".
It is just more FUD against Linux. What are the mysterious key issue
UNIX suffers that Linux cannot fix? Unix did just fine over the years
and serve the big business computer infrastructure very well, if Linux
can do it better, so be it..
Quote
Apparently, the idea being
that this is enough to get users to overlook and accept the underlying
problems. It ain't happened yet, it ain't gonna happen, get over it.

It is not a problem for Linux users it is a problem for Linux
competitors. Linux is constantly and rapidly growing operating system.
Linux is not going to disappear or stop its progress, it ain't gonna
happen. Linux is inseparable part of the computing future and a must
to know for any computer professional...
Quote
IMO, the last gasp hope for *nix on the desktop is Mono. This may *finally*
facilitate development of a commercial market for Linux desktop software;
one that can eventually start to rival what's available on Windows. Open
Source will never be able to do it alone.

Very unlikely; I relay don't see Microsoft supporting any technology
which will rival Windows or what's available on Windows by Microsoft.
Beside, Dot NET acceptance is yet to be seeing. This by nature
exclusionary Microsoft technology will face a furious resistance ( no,
not from MS competitors) but from all the existing Microsoft Windows
users. It is very unlikely that DotNet will ever achieve any
significant success, comparable to Win95 and eventually it will be
replaced by another "big" thing.
 

Re:Re: Dear Borland's!

JQP wrote:
Quote

After 30+ years, *nix has yet to make a dent on the desktop; largely due to
the fact that several key issues have never been adequately addressed.
Linux has no fix to offer, it's just "free".
It is just more FUD against Linux. What are the mysterious key issue
UNIX suffers that Linux cannot fix? Unix did just fine over the years
and serve the big business computer infrastructure very well, if Linux
can do it better, so be it..
Apparently, the idea being
Quote
that this is enough to get users to overlook and accept the underlying
problems. It ain't happened yet, it ain't gonna happen, get over it.
It is not a problem for Linux users it is a problem for Linux
competitors. Linux is constantly and rapidly growing operating system.
Linux is not going to disappear or stop its progress, it ain't gonna
happen. Linux is inseparable part of the computing future and a must
to know for any computer professional...
Quote

IMO, the last gasp hope for *nix on the desktop is Mono. This may *finally*
facilitate development of a commercial market for Linux desktop software;
one that can eventually start to rival what's available on Windows. Open
Source will never be able to do it alone.

Very unlikely; I really don't see Microsoft supporting any technology
which will rival Windows or what's available on Windows by Microsoft.
Beside, Dot NET acceptance is yet to be seeing. This by nature
exclusionary Microsoft technology will face a furious resistance ( no,
not from MS competitors) but from all the existing Microsoft Windows
users. It is very unlikely that DotNet will ever achieve any
significant success, comparable to Win95 and eventually it will be
replaced by another "big" thing.
 

Re:Re: Dear Borland's!

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news:3fb3ff8e$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
Quote
MS has provided a standardized framework that others can duplicate and
build upon. Any further support from them is not really required.
No, they did not.
 

Re:Re: Dear Borland's!

JQP wrote:
Quote
The two immediate ones --- lack of consistency and compatibility.

Consistency - No standard installation, user interface, etc.

Compatibility - Lack of binary software compatibility between distros and
even between versions of the same distro.

Linux does nothing to fix these problems, if anything it makes them worse.

Unix systems are very consistent in installation procedures and user
interface. They are using well established way of installing software
for years. ;-) If you are referring to compatibility problems between
different versions of Unix, then sure, one cannot expect to run AIX
application on Solaris, just like this.., it is just a common sense;
they are similar but different operating system. This situation is
called “Unix fragmentation? Fragmentation do to the fact that may
of this Unixes evolved in isolated environments.
Linux addressing this issue by providing a solid common base for all
Linux version, a freely available source code. The common base of
source code creates a solid roots for many different versions of Linux
and in the same time stimulates innovation and healthy competition
among all Linux distro makers. The benefits of this approach is
apparent, many Unix systems are in fact changed to modern
comparatively inexpensive and well supported Linux systems.
From a Linux user point of view:
Choose one distribution you like, then install, as many you want,
prepared for this particular distribution pre-compiled packages . For
example MDK 9.2 has thousands of programs ( RPMs ready to install an
run), among them, many commercial ones. However, if you want to use on
your system, any other software obtainable in a form of a source code
then you need to have a sufficient information and skills to be able
to compile and install this new version of software on your own, or to
call a Linux professional to do this for you.
From a developer point of view:
Choose as many Linux distributions you want to support and prepare
compatible binary packages for each of them. Alternatively, provide
a source code of your application with an appropriate instruction.
Kylix applications (since we are on a Kylix newsgroup) work pretty
good on most any Linux distribution you install it on. For a custom
Kylix application, supply along your application a whole
pre-configured operating system at no extra cost...