What are you looking for?

"Someone mentioned GIMP. Gimp. The benchmark for maddeningly unintuitive intefaces that is thrown up time and time again as a "viable" alternative to well-established packages like Photoshop"

It is a very intuitive interface. It's just that Windows is no Window Manager.

You right click on the image and you get a list of commands that are appropriate for the image you clicked on. Very intuitive. Very UNIX. And MS picked up on that BIG-TIME for Windows98.

By "maddeningly unintuitive" you mean "it isn't photoshop". Well, when Adobe noticed another company using tabs to separate out groups of commands and widgets, Adobe sued them for making a GUI that looked like theirs. And won.

Now how is a free package supposed to afford the bus fare to court to defend from this? After all, we've seen time and again that no matter how stupid and illegal your complaint is, if the defendant doesn't turn up, they lose.

Lack of Visionaries.

I tried to install an old Linux application which was part of an old OS install that did not work on the destined laptop.

Simple exercise to install a current running version of Linux and then extract the application and put it on top, after all that is the approach i would take with a Windows app.

Not so simple unfortunately as it doesn't have an RPM or Deb or whatever they are, so although several new versions of Linux install and run a dream, I can't take the next step to get at the application.

I tried the forums trying to link up with some Linux experts who could give guidance.

This highlights the main problem:

The answers I got back:-

1 - You should only try that if you are a Linux expert.

2 - If you can load those versions of Linux you are doing alright, why waste time on the application just carry on using Linux!?

As I pointed out, in real IT installing an OS is never a major target, it is a(n) (un)necessary step. I think I was banned as no further help was forthcoming.

Until the general attitudes change and a very simple interface is incorporated ( you can have everything driven by text config files, but there should be a simple select option interface for everyone else to use) which is common between versions, there is not much chance of a massive take up.

After all, between windows there is a big XP or Vista debate, but with Linux, it is RH, UBUNTu, kubunto, gentoo, ooh ahh... etc. That isn't going to put anyone off is it?

@Mark

Mark,

As the man says, go have another read, one day you'll get it...

You blinkered OSS Fanbois are so so funny to read.

@Anonymous Coward

Get what?

That it was either a load of crap or a long rant attempt at humour?

@Nìall Tracey

then why are you here on a story that says that Linux may lose out to windows, giving reasons why Linux is no good that are just as applicable to Windows?

Anonymous Coward shit.

"Every graphics designer/publisher I know says GIMPs shit, only lunatics claim it isn't."

And you know all the graphics designers?

My dad (72) uses Gimp. Likes it. Uses Photoshop, Picassa and Picture Project. Some of these apps do ONE thing better than all the others. He's not a computer whizz. He's pretty much a neophyte. But he generally uses GIMP or Picassa.

Re: Lack of Visionaries.

Try installing an old Win95 app. Heck, try MS Wine with Oz Clarke. May work, may not. If it doesn't work, you're SOL.

Better, try installing an old app from Windows NT (Alpha). SOL right off the bat.

Why do you complain that Linux isn't ready and then give examples that show Windows isn't ready either.

@Mark

Mark,

Honestly, you have valid points about GUI choice, etc.

But I get the impression you have very little knowledge of the real insufficiencies of Linux.

#1 Issue: Inconsistent kernel APIs. This means you have to choose older and open hardware to add to your Linux system, unless it can be driven completely by a simple class driver. This means any manufacturer that wants to do a closed source driver (heresy!!!!) to protect their intellectual property, will never have a truly solid driver that works across all distributions (though some companies come closer to supporting the majors than others). Add to this that the user is encouraged to build even more custom kernels for their own systems, and that kernel API is even further from being even near standard.

#2 Issue: I gave up at FC4 over this one, cut and paste between apps. Some apps written for one desktop, can't cut and paste to apps for other desktops, even though they run otherwise undisturbed between two GUI environments. There should be a standardized method for a developer, such that no matter what desktop library a app was coded for, that all apps can communicate relevant cut and paste data. Maybe always export basic data, such as selected text, vcards, email addresses, etc. via the X data sharing libraries?

#3 Issue: Library versioning... even windows has problems with this, but nowadays it seems much worse on Linux. Like Windows, Linux dumps all libraries into the same directory for the most part. The benefit is that all apps have access to these libraries. The detractor is that in Linux, many times the libs are not reverse compatible. Microsoft has gotten better about this issue of late. Either Linux needs a standard way to find a specific version of a library, never requiring the user to swap libs, etc., or Linux needs to make sure application libraries are generally backwards compatible to older apps, while supporting the new apps as well.

I think that if the Linux distribution architects got together, they could hash out fixes to these three major issues, but until they do, it will be very difficult to penetrate the user market with Linux.

@Anonymous Cow Herd

I see.

Linux Therapy == The Emperor's New Clothes

If I were smart I'd be able to see how enlightening that pile of satanic cow shit is. But as I don't see it, I must be thick as pigshit and so dumb that I wouldn't understand the explanation.

And you complain about FOSS telling people "you're too dumb"!!!!

There's no icon with a wintroll's head up BillG's arse, so this will have to do...

Did you think they were serious ?

Its pretty obvious Asus etc. don't really care about Linux.

The 701 was supplied with Linux (cos it was free) but the package had drivers and instructions for XP.

Clear signal to MS, surely ? Come on, you know you want to sell XP cheap to us lower powered PC suppliers ? A few extra dollars for something thats recouped its costs years ago ?

And now result - MS are looking to punt XP to the netbooks hand over fist.

XP - its the new Vista really.

My 701 lasted 10 mins on Linux, just enough for AC Jnr to get bored with Penuin Racer, and then it was on with the XP install.

Game over.

Bill - cos he still knows how to get a win from anything...

@mark ( and this is the last one )

If you can't even write my name correclty, then i do not want to use any of your code... If you want to find out how it is spelled: look in the developer docs for almost any linux distro out there. hint : look at the i2c api for motherboard diagnostics and monitoring.

And as for the screwdriver example: mine's the quad core with the 1000 watt power supply. It will drive the little screw in the drywall. You missed the point, again, completely.

@ Mark

I don't for one moment think you're thick as pigshit or dumb, but I do think you need to develop some awareness outside of your current field of vision.

Simpsons original post was subtle, yes, but with dispassionate reflection it contained a lot of difficult "truth". And unfortunately, you've done your level best to prove his point which seems to demonstrate a jaw dropping lack of self awareness.

Rather than taking it on the chin, agreeing that everyone has a different point of view (and to paraphrase him) tried to get on with people who disagree, you've been rude and arogant. You could have used your knowledge to influence, to drive "the cause", but instead you reinforce old stereotypes and exactly the ones Simpson was doing his best to throw into relief.

Reading back through these comments, you're the only poster, exception me right now, to use the word "fuck" and, in my opinion, without exception, every post you've answered you've done so in a confrontational sarcastic and blinkered manner. To quote Simpson "This sort of behaviour doesn't help you".

The world is not black and white! Can you not accept that you may not be 100% correct and anyone deviating from your view is not by default 100% wrong? I believe you're intelligent enough to understand that, but for some reason on this subject the red mist always wins through - yet another support to Simpsons original post.

My own experience? Disatisfied and disillusioned with XP (and MS generally) for a number of years. Tried half a dozen Linux distros none of which I could get to grips with in a meaningful way as a productivity tool, finally landing in desperation with OSX. And the quality of my experience with OSX means Linux and I will seldom if ever cross paths again.

Natually you'll respond to this as you have everyone else, and naturally you'll rant at me, which is a shame, because I'm open to and supportive of OSS as a whole and Linux in particular. But you won't ever accept that fact because, like you, I'm only open to it on my terms. You champion choice as the unbreakable primary directive, but paradoxically in doing so you insist that I can't choose not to have to make choices I am unquallified to make.

@Vincent Hippie

No, I just think you should change your name. OK, you don't have to change it to "hippie" but change it. The one you've got is completely unsuitable.

As to Athonus Prime: are you then 100% correct? That pile of shit "Linux Therapy" had nothing subtle in it. It had a lot of crap in it. And how come you still haven't said what I've missed?

<sigh> And people wonder why Linux has yet to take off...

... I made a few comments about what I wanted for my wishlist... and instead of being "educated" (ie, shown how to get what I want) I get ranted at.

First of all - to all of you who flamed me, read my post again. I am a big fan of Linux. As a server. Love it. Wouldn't want to run anything else. It keeps on ticking away in its little box and serving my web-pages and e-mail to the outside world without supervision. I just don't think it is ready for the desktop.

As for the flaming and people telling me to engage my brain... might you look in the mirror sirs? I did not ask that GIMP and OO be "like photoshop or MS word", I wanted a compatibility option like MSWord had for WP. It would help me make the transition. Why? Because I do not like Adobe or Microsoft. I would love to cross over. I just don't feel up to re-learning upteen million commands (exaggeration, I know, but it sometimes feel like it) just so I can *start* to use the damn product. No, I don't want a Linux copy of Photoshop or OO, I want a version of GIMP or OO I can use *right now*. Even if not fully.

I notice, BTW, that no-one has responded to my "normal view" comment, unless that comment about "too much like MS" was the response.

@Peter Kay

"A non trivial amount of software that works fine under x86 Linux either doesn't work on non Linux unixes or fails to compile when it finds anything other than x86 architecture."

Nope, the fact is that if you have the source code it is possible to re-compile on ANY architecture that provides gcc. The fact that the source / configuration may need to be changed to some degree (from minor->major) is irrelevant. If somebody wants to port some open source app to another architecture then they can do so.

The same can't be said for Windows.

"You're a poor student of history Goat Jam. Can it be said that Windows runs on MIPS, ARM and PowerPC. Well, yes, you can say that."

Nope, I was there during history and I have a good memory. Firstly, XP/Vista don't run on MIPS, PowerPC or ARM (I am willing the acknowledge that there may be a cut-down version of XP out there that runs on ARM but I have not heard of it). Pointing to a version of Windows that is over a DECADE old is a sign if desperation Peter. Same goes for Wince, which has also been obsoleted.

So, we find that the only architectures that current versions of Windows will run on are x86 variants and the itanic.

Wow.

The point here is that you can only run Windows on architectures that Microsoft chooses to compile it for. End of Story.

Open source, by its very nature can be compiled to run on any architecture. The fact that it might not work out of the box for every one of those architectures is completely irrelevant.

@Niall

"My point is that massive amounts of "Linux" software is really "Linux i386" software in that it only works on an x86 chip. The term "Linux software" is therefore a point of extreme confusion."

Whereas 100% of Windows userland apps only run on x86 chips.

"Don't start talking about "recompiling", because most of it won't recompile, because of the complexities of library dependencies"

Whereas with Windows, you don't even have the chance of re-compiling because MS won't give you the source code.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. You seem to be saying that Linux is inferior because you can't always recompile the source code without tweaking it compared to Windows where you cannot recompile the source code AT ALL.

And somehow this makes Windows better? I want some of what you are smoking dude.

Seriously.

See my preceeding post @Peter Kay for more details

@Aubrey

"I made a few comments about what I wanted for my wishlist... and instead of being "educated" (ie, shown how to get what I want) I get ranted at."

I call bullshit Aubrey.

I told you how to choose and remove apps as per your wish list.

I pointed out that It's not the fault of the GNU/Linux OS that the proprietary shops (apple, MS, adobe) choose to ignore linux as a deliberate strategy in an effort to maintain the predominance of their closed source model..

I forgot to point out that you can't just copy the look and feel of Photoshop because adobe will sue you for doing so. Fortunately, somebody else did that.

I do admit I suggested that you "engage your cerebral cortex" which I probably should have not have done. Please consider this my apology for that.

Emperors Clothes

Nope, the reason why it makes no sense is because it's wrong.

FOAD

@Mark

Leaving your trolling personal insults aside,

"Fair enough. Don't use Linux. But let someone else try it without YOUR prejudice turning them sour. It's a free frigging download or several ISO's with a lot more stuff available on the front of a £5 magazine. LET THEM TRY."

I don't quite see how I'm stopping anyone? I just want more of those who try to discover a great OS, friendly, productive and an OSS showcase. I want those who try to stick and stay. I want the reasons they give for leaving (my reasons for moving on!) not to apply. I want that because it benefits everyone, Linux, The Community, Users, everyone. Heck it would even force MS to actaully get with the program and stop devliering sub standard pap to fit a profit margin.

Can you not see where I'm coming from? Not at all?

I make the point that actually they won't stay because the project's immature and your ONLY counter is that obvously they're f*ckwits because they can't see the *real* benefits. Posturing aside, do you genuinely believe that?

And sadly, friend, "your" (and I don't really mean you personally) mindset and attitude is doing more to deter people than I ever could - even if I was minded to. :-/

@Peter Kay

Actually I do get it. It was you Wintrolls that bought up the whole "can't compile Linux on X architecture" crap.

The fact is that 99% of users NEVER have to recompile apps. They just use the precompiled x86 apps that are provided by their distro, end of story.

I've written and compiled some minor apps in the past. However, the fact is that I don't want to do that for my OS and user apps, and I haven't had to do so since about 2001. What you are attempting to do is maintain the MYTH that ordinary users need to compile all the software they want to use, which is a load of complete bollocks.

Ergo, pointing out that the Linux source code won't compile on some obscure architecture is patently ridiculous when we are discussing Windows vs Linux on "Netbooks" which are all x86.

It is a red herring. A blatant attempt to troll this forum and spread FUD by Microsoft shills such as yourself. If you have a problem compiling Linux on your obscure architecture of choice then why don't you have the same problem compiling Windows?

The truth is that you don't have difficulties compiling windows source for your imaginary architecture because A) you don't actually have any hardware of a different architecture and B) even if you did you don't have the Windows source to recompile.

Today, to use Linux (Ubuntu) you install off the CD, click on Synaptic Package Manager and select "Mark All Updates". If you fail to do that it will consult the repositories anyway and then inform you that "Updates are available". Click the icon, type in your password and all updated packages will be downloaded and installed automatically

No compiling is required. If you want to run on some whacky architecture then that is also fine, but you need to take some responsibility for that choice and tweak+recompile. Big deal.

That is called choice. If want to take the easy route, then choose an x86 box and install a distro like Ubuntu. If you wan't play at uber geek and install Linux on your gcc equipped toaster oven then that is fine too, just don't expect it to work seamlessly.

The fact that you don't have such a choice with Windows appears to escape you WinTrolls. You can't recompile Windows for ANYTHING, yet you point at the choice that Linux provides and whine "Its all to hard for joe sixpack to compile linux for his toaster"

Here's a hint Peter. Joe Sixpack would never want to recompile an OS for a toaster oven.

@ Aubry Thonon

Points 1. and 2. (Add/Remove Programs, put them in Start menu upon installation) have already been dismissed as already solved in Linux (although in a somewhat rude manner), but I agree with you on points 3. and 4.

Wine should be included in consumer-oriented distros (Ubuntu, I'm looking at you), so Joe Sixpack could run his Windows-only programs. One of great advantages of Ubuntu to an average user is that everything relevant comes on the installation disk and you don't have to locate additional programs somewhere on IntarTubes(tm). As some of my business tools (I'm an accountant) have no Linux equivalent, I'd like Wine preinstalled so I could say to some of my less savvy colleagues "Look, just click on BusinessTools.exe and it'll install it for you". Instead of doing a Windows-like "first you have to install this."... people put up with that behavior from Windows just because it's a familiar environment. Linux has to outshine Windows in that field if it wants to attract more people... Windows didn't have much of a competition, Linux faces a virtual monopoly.

GIMP also... as you have said, WinWord had a WordPerfect compatible style. GIMP users should be greeted with "do you want GIMP or Photoshop menu-styles?". If you want to attract people, give them familiar look and feel.

I'm glad that nvidia's Linux support started drawing people away from ATI in such a number that ATI felt compelled to release Linux drivers... not that my X1800XT didn't work flawlessly with Ubuntu with default drivers, but it's much nicer now. 8-)

I hope that we'll see other manufacturers act the same, it will remove the "aargh, my XXX hardware didn't work with Linux!". Maybe I'm blessed with exceptionally common hardware as I had no such problems, but as people turn more to Linux I think in several years such complaints will become much rarer.

While we're at suggestions for improvement, it seems that the non-existent telephone support is a big problem. If Canonical's keeps its promise of 60 days of free telephone support for anyone who buys Ubuntu (20 USD isn't *that* much), it could negate that complaint too.

I thought we were consumers...

Do you really think that Microsoft _controls_ what you are going to eat tonight?

People who like Windows, buy Windows. Regardless of the flaws, they like it and thus they buy it.

Why are consumers not choosing Linux systems on a scale that matters? Oh wait, I can read the answers above....ok...I see. It is EVERYONES fault. Linux is basically THE BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD and everyone is working AGAINST it....or...

They don't, because it can not do what a consumer want it to do.

Ow yeah...the great idea of adding wine emulation onto majority of Linux distribution so users can run Windows apps....which requires a Windows OS license anyway....smart. That is how you indeed kill Microsoft. While you are at it, send me 100 bucks as well - that way you can make sure I'll get poor and unhappy too!

FACE IT - LINUX IS MACARENA.

UNIX and MS are the champs of grown up, serious computing.

Re: I thought we were consumers...

No. But they DO control what I can do with their software and others. Copyright means I cannot make a "work-alike" or interoperate. Patents mean I can't create a connector to MS's AD to validate.

Even though I've bought the OS, they control what I can or can't do with it.

That is why so little consumption of Linux is taking place.

@vincent hippo

Look, you have a silly name. Change it. It doesn't cost you anything. Just change that silly name to something less silly.

Or you can say that it is none of my business what your name is and I shouldn't tell you what you should be called.

And then do the same for the GIMP programmers.

"Wine should be included in consumer-oriented distros"

Lindows does.

Lindows got sued by MS all over the planet because they used a name *like* windows. They had to find a court that didn't accept "windows" was too generic to be infringed by something that *sounds* like it.

And AFAIK, wine is on all the DVD distributions anyway.

If you want to have a GIMP with that functionality, fork the code. Heck, if you don't like the name, fork the code, change the name and use search/replace to change GIMP to whatever you like. And put up with finding a new name when some pissant company you never heard of sues you for infringing on their trademark. But, you know, you CAN do it, rather than just complain.

@Anthony Prime

Look up "FUD".

Fear

Uncertainty

Doubt

Fear that you will break your computer or be unable to use it.

Uncertainty as to whether you will be able to get help

Doubt that you will be making a sound decision

This is what you do when you troll against linux as you do with one-sided arguments or 1990's era complaints.

And the reason for spouting FUD? To halt, reverse or at least slow Linux adoption. By making the people thinking of trying afraid to try.

@mark - FUD

Ahhhh... Got it now, it's us, not you - of course!

So to support Linux is to be blind to it's flaws and airbrush them from my mind. To blindly encourage people to try substandard product, tell them they're fools when they say things could perhaps be a little easier and then expect them to stay and be eternally grateful. :-)

Actually son, I've got to live in the real world so I'll give it a miss eh - it's called choice ;-)

If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny...

@vincent hope

Yup, I do buy an operating system: Linux.

I really do get to own it.

And because you don't get to own other software, what do you get off the price to compensate you? After all, the EULA is a contract (because it takes away rights you have intrinsically, unlike, say the GPL or BSD which GIVE you rights) and contract has to exchange consideration otherwise it is null and void, you must get *something* back.

No? And you *like* and *approve* this? Well, this is how we can TELL you're biased wintrolls: whatever MS does is absolutely fine.

In Germany specifically, the EULA is absolutely 100% void. In the UK it would come under UCCTA and as a contract of adhesion most of the restrictions are not applicable before then. US? Well, if the uniform contracts act is passed in your state, you're stuffed unless you raise a constitutional issue on it (NOTE: the MS EULA has *never* been tested in court) but in most states you're covered with the first sale doctrine and contract of adhesion law to ignore the EULA.

Companies only make money by making something people WANT. And by that want, selling what they make available and making a profit.

This is no longer true of Microsoft for a long time and if they don't change their way of thinking, they could well die off. Which, despite what prejudices you have may make you think of me, I don't want. That they have monopoly means that the free market is broken, that they rode closed source (which they didn't invent but was a VERY rare beast for most of the computing industry history and innovation was massive over those times too) and now because of it have a temporary reprieve because interoperability is the sine non qua of computing and interoperating with a closed source application practically requires either open protocols (which MS are fighting with every resource they have: see the stacking of the MSOOXML boards with other well paid wintrolls) or purchasing the monopoly product, MS are in the delusion that the slow reduction of their power will reverse merely because they are Microsoft.

If they don't change, there will be no microsoft. And without competition, all OS producers have less need to innovate. Of course, they have less fear of being screwed/lawyered/fillibusterer/stolen from by microsoft, but that will only help for a while.

@vinvent

Glad to see you've changed your name.

You can *buy*

Red Hat (odd that you use RH but don't know you have to buy it. Fedora is the [recent] free distribution).

Suse

Mandrake

SCO

(Ok, joking on that last one).

among others.

Buy.

If you buy a program you have a 90% chance it will work under Wine under Linux or MacOS X. Picassa is a Wine program.

Targeting a distro is targeting the package manager. NOT the distro. Debian packages work in Ubuntu. And if you have the source tarball, this is not targeted. How difficult is this?

$ configure

$ make

$ sudo make install

Or use an autopackage package (which is distribution agnostic but acts like rpm or apt).

We used to have programs that didn't need an OS. That didn't work so well. And if it doesn't work with Windows you're SOL. If it doesn't work with Linux, a recompile is almost always enough.

Now what did all that have to do with how Linux will never make it???

All this silliness

Use the tool that works for you. I like the *NIX world, distribution depending on what architecture machine. I know how it works. I have my dot files for my personal desktop environs I LIKE that are cross platform. It's about useless to try to hack up a comfortable windows interface to me, I've messed with LiteStep and all the rest, when forced by a job to use a windows desktop. It caused me to slowly and painfully waste loads of time getting a desktop that works the way I LIKE, not the way somebody at M$ likes. If I'm going to hack up OS X to suit me, why not have source code and just run the BSD they stole it from?

As long as the only easy bits of customizing an out of the box non-*NIX GUI barely extend past changing wallpaper, I can't see any of them as viable out of the box Operating Systems or Window Managers.

/My desktop will be the one running the super hacked up version of Ion with MY DOT FILES SO I CAN MAKE EVERY MACHINE I TOUCH WORK THE SAME that rarely gets rebooted.

re: All this silliness

Agreed.

And another thing...

"one click and it works right"???????

I mostly hate mice, I just biff them about with my backhand to shift focus between tiled windows once in a while. Why should I have to click? It's an ergonomically broken model first forced on stupid people by Apple and now forced on people by Apple and M$. Mice have a minor purpose in my computing existence. Every time my hands have to leave the keyboard I'm not typing. Being able to sorta use something rapidly tends to lead to tools that aren't very good if you use them all the time. If you want to click, fine. I like a kb because it's a better tool for my purposes. The only thing I generally dislike more than mouse intensive environs is touch screens. They might be good for handicapped people and such but they don't do anything for me. I've never woken up in the morning and thought to myself "You know, I'd really like to have to poke a monitor a lot to get something done, maybe I'll type something about it on a broken membrane keyboard in an email using my AOL account".

People who spend 16-18 hours a day working on computers get a pretty good grasp on ergonomics, as often as not. They don't work in Redmond or the Bay Aryan Nation either, as far as I can ascertain. That's why *NIX tools tend to be intuitive and work very very well once you understand how they work. They are used by people that USE THEM.

/Sorry. It's a pet peeve that the industry is so narrow minded to focus so much on anti-ergonomics that are easy for stupid people to learn poorly.

//Mine's the coat that says on the back "I started out on a PDP-11 when I was 7 years old".

Re: And another thing...

See if a "window manager" called ratpoison will work for you. Gets rid of mice.