From now on, I defer all my opinions on the quality of the Linux desktop and the open source projects that work on it to this guy, the LinuxHater. I started reading this blog after I ran across this article on the 'Z' via the 'dot' written by a guy from Google. It really hits home what both of them have to say.
The hater shares some really honest opinions using some very colorful language (warning - if you're sensitive to that kind of thing) on everything from how hard it is for his grandmother to get into Linux, to how all the forking and duplication that's going on FOSS community is doing some serious harm to our ability to build up the Linux desktop to compete with Mac and Windows. It's a really funny read. And I have to agree with the Google guy. Given how much the hater knows about what he's writing about, he's really a Linux lover who desperately wants Linux to succeed but is loosing his cool in frustration.
And it's hard to argue with what the guy says. Open source is about freedom, freedom of the developer to build whatever he wants, however he wants it. And if he doesn't like working on a project, he can start his own, and even fork the code. What he can't do, however, is fork the developers. And that's what's killing the Linux desktop. Too much duplication is watering everything down. Everyone's so focused on building the best framework, they're forgetting about the average end user who doesn't care, or have the capacity to care, and just wants something that's easy to use and works.
With Eclipse, we're making conscious efforts to avoid this problem. At almost every project creation review someone asks whether the project is duplicating some other project and, if so, we work hard to get everyone to work together to resolve it. I think it helps that Eclipse is very much commercially driven. We understand the economics of open source development. We have very limited resources to invest, and it's so critical to work as a team with other companies, even if we compete in the marketplace. If we can get over that, why can't Linux desktop projects, who don't even have a financial vested interest in succeeding, do the same?
But there's a lot of politics in open source, especially with projects close to the Free Software Foundation. I'm not sure how we get out of it. Hopefully, those involved can see through the sarcasm and listen to the message. Linux rocks as an operating system, it really needs a desktop to match, and the community needs to unite to provide the sufficient resources to build it.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
LinuxHater is a good read. I added a couple new words to my vernacular... like 'gnawesome' :)
yeah, me too. But I won't repeat them here ;).
Is choice really killing Linux?
Look at ubuntu's success at catering to the gnome, kde, and xfce audiences. Or MEPIS building on kubuntu/debian to improve the grandmother-end-user experience. Or PCLinuxOS. Or openSuse. Or linuxMint.
There's a lot of 'simpler == better' distros out there now, though I agree it would be nice to see them combining forces rather than going it alone, or contributing their stuff back into the base repos for cross-distro use.
Reminds me a little of subclipse vs. subversion, Eclipse Modeling vs. Tigerstripe, phpeclipse vs. PDT. Hardly a linux-only issue, it seems.
Look at ubuntu's success versus Microsoft and Apple. Then let's talk.
And yes, the subclipse versus subversion is a great example. They both suck in different ways. Work together on one client and you fix it. So no it's not Linux only.
But look at the picture relative to the desktop market as a whole, not the tiny (at the moment) Linux niche.
actually subversive. subversion is fine, but then there are only one of those ;)
So, if we're wasting time with KDE vs Gnome, why doesn't everyone just use NetBeans and build a platform around it?
Since you guys brought up Subclipse and Subversive, I want to point out that even Subversion is an example of fragmentation. What was wrong with CVS that couldn't be fixed by more development? SVN added a couple of things (arguable quite minor) for the developer and built something that's just this side of unusable as an administrator.
Also, Ubuntu is actually a rock-solid desktop for the average user. I know because I've set it up for several who are quite happy. Once it is setup it's good to go. Where they are not making inroads is in the one-click install experience--hence the low market share. But, I think counting it out now simply because they don't have 5% of the market share is a little early.
As for turf-battles... every community has them. The Eclipse community should not be throwing stones. Given the commercial nature of our open source we have a whole different set of issues to work out. Witness E4...
loosing his cool?
Like others asked, is Eclipse really better? Subclise and Subversive were given as examples, but an even better example is M2E and IAM (since they're both Eclipse projects):
http://www.eclipse.org/m2e/
http://www.eclipse.org/iam/
Ismael
Is Eclipse better? That's a judgement call. But the Eclipse mentors work pretty hard to resolve these things. Some do slip through.
And I'll say this. I made quite a stink during the Subversive project creation review. I claimed there would be only one Subversion client in the end. There is now, but unfortunately Subclipse bailed on us instead of reconciling differences.
At any rate, the point stands. I hate these kind of open source bun fights no matter where they are where the real luser is the people who get stuck with the end result.
Since you're joining the LinuxHater crusade, let me reply to you by using his language:
You stupid Windoze luser, your operating system is a pile of shit. And btw CDT and Eclipse are so fscking slow that i can go to the bathroom, do big things and come back while it starts and parses that shitty includes.
Doug, I don't understand why you would even want to use Linux. If you're looking for the best Desktop OS around, one that your grandmother could use, brace yourself -- this ain't it.
Oh, you want a rock-solid dev environment that costs nothing and comes shock-filled with tools to get work done (all free)? Sure, but why would my grandmother want any of that?
I stopped being a Linux apologist long ago, because I've realized Windows and Linux are two entirely different tools. None better, none worse -- just different. I can't get anything useful done with Windows because it's simply not the right tool for me.
Blasting the 'Linux Desktop' for its shortcomings is like faulting a '69 Hemi Charger for not having cup holders and armrests.
flavio: No arguments there. That's exactly the point. Let's complain about things that suck so we know what to work on to fix it.
Denis: You are describing the state today. There is no reason that Linux couldn't have as good a desktop as Mac or Windows does. The Linux desktop community lacks innovation and are wasting resources with duplication and that's what we need to fix.
Quote: There is no reason that Linux couldn't have as good a desktop as Windows
As a Linux user, I think the Linux Desktop is already far better than Windows Desktop. Of course, Windows users disagree, as they approach the Linux desktop with a deeply-rooted Windows mentality.
I struggle with Windows' lack of functionality, tooling, stability and geez ... Antivirus and malware software? That is sooo 1990's.
Quote: The Linux desktop community lacks innovation and are wasting resources with duplication and that's what we need to fix.
I think the argument here is that it's not duplication, it's *choice*, where choice == freedom == good. I mean, there were C development tools long before the CDT, why did you go and duplicate what has been done before?
That's true. Goodness is in the eye of the beholder. I just find X clunky and slower and less sharp visually than Windows. But, yes, Linux is more functional. But then a lot of that is just the power of Linux, which does rock, and not the GUI-based utilities, which generally do not.
On the CDT front, I'd say licensing drove that decision since all the open source C/C++ IDEs I know of are GPL. And none of them are written in Java and easily integrated into Eclipse which is the main reason we're here.
But do notice that Wind River has migrated away from their own Eclipse-based C/C++ IDE to the CDT, all because the industry couldn't afford more than one such IDE to integrate Eclipse plug-ins into.
Post a Comment