| |||||||||||||
Tasting the Ice Cream SandwichTasting the Ice Cream SandwichPosted May 16, 2012 3:19 UTC (Wed) by jcm (subscriber, #18262)In reply to: Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich by drag Parent article: Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich
Here here. Android has shown how to actually do a consumer offering. Linux desktop offerings today are largely nonsense as a consumre proposition - certainly I can't in good conscience recommend a Linux desktop over OS X today. Android offers a stable platform that developers can target, with a versioned API/ABI, and a large variety of third party developed software that can be easily installed without needing to be Open Source and part of the Android distribution itself. In short, what mass consumers actually want. Everyone may now happily attack me because I'm supporting the evils of proprietary software by advocating for a platform that allows consumers to have what they actually want. That's ok, I'm not listening.
(Log in to post comments)
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 3:23 UTC (Wed) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]
> allows consumers to have what they actually want
hmm, i consider myself a consumer and *I* certainly don't want Mac OS X ...
maybe you meant "allows *most* consumers to have what they actually want"?
which is actually Windows if the numbers mean anything ... shrug ...
jake
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 3:56 UTC (Wed) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
Come one, surely you get the intention.
Google took the Linux kernel and create a general-consumer oriented distribution that is a major player in the market. That's something the most popular GNU/Linux distros can only dream about.
There are certainly lessons to be learned - in particular how you can be free whilst also maintaining a certain core functionality and consistency that allows developers and users to trust in your product.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 7:15 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] The big difference here is that people don't buy Android, they buy a phone that has Android installed. They don't make an operating system choice, they make a phone choice that is influenced by a lot of factors other than what operating system the phone runs. Most PC Linux users do not buy a computer that comes with Linux – they buy a generic PC and then put Linux on it themselves. That in itself limits Linux uptake to people who (a) have access to the technical mojo to do that (not as much of a hurdle as it used to be), and (b) can be bothered in the first place. If the only way to get Android would be to install it yourself on an iPhone, the Android market share would be 1% no matter how great the operating system was. The comparative success of Android has a lot to do with 800lb Internet gorilla Google putting out something that phone manufacturers seem to like, and less with how Android is that much better a Linux distribution than mainstream Linux distributions.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 9:54 UTC (Wed) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
Yeah, of course the two markets and products are different. That doesn't excuse GNU/Linux entirely though.
The Android team managed to convince application developers to write for their platform, despite it being new. This something Linux distributions have never been able to do, and it's clear that without application developer outreach and coordination, no mobile or desktop platform can survive.
People simply don't buy smartphones with a lousy app ecosystem. Windows Phone 7 is testament to that. There are some really nice Windows 7 phones, but the platform is struggling. Microsoft is putting most of their effort into convincing developers to support their platform.
Similarly, most people would be unsatisfied with the application ecosystem of Linux, which explains why OEMs and consumers seem to show little desire for pre-installed Linux systems. What concerted effort has their really been by Linux distributions to convince developers to write for our platform?
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 10:32 UTC (Wed) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link] AndreE: The Android team managed to convince application developers to write for their platform, despite it being new. No they didn’t. The number of developers and degree of app support for Android started out well behind Apple’s platform, and still remains somewhat behind. And yet the customers are choosing Android phones over Apple’s offerings by something like a 2:1 ratio. It is users that attract developers to a platform, not the other way round.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 10:29 UTC (Wed) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link] anselm: The big difference here is that people don't buy Android, they buy a phone that has Android installed. They don't make an operating system choice, they make a phone choice that is influenced by a lot of factors other than what operating system the phone runs. Ah, but they do buy Android. I see it in the brochures that come through my letterbox every week—page after page of phones with the little green robot on them or peeking out of them. When users see that, they know they are buying into a compatible ecosystem that will work across all those devices. And it’s not just the electronics places and phone carrier shops; even the stationery shops are carrying Android phones now. I even saw one advertised in my local supermarket. The bottom end that Android spans keeps dropping lower and lower.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 11:29 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Yes, but people still don't buy Android installation media for their iPhones – they're buying phones that they like that happen to come with Android preinstalled. The ecosystem is a factor that goes into picking a phone but if all Android phones were Android-robot green with yellow and pink stars all over them and Mickey Mouse ears attached then the ecosystem could be the best thing in the world but people still wouldn't want to be seen with a dorky phone. It's really not the consumers who drive Android uptake. Consumers will buy all sorts of strange stuff, and for most people a phone is still a phone first and a mobile computer second (even though we all know that modern smartphones are really computers with the ancillary ability of being able to place and receive phone calls). A phone, unlike a computer, is a lifestyle object, so many people want to be seen with a reasonably recent and cool-looking one. Android phones do become cheaper and cheaper, but people who are in the market for a cheap phone don't see an Android phone, they see a cheap phone, and if it is running that Android thing they've heard about then so much the better as long as it looks like a goodish phone. If it was really running CP/M it would still be a goodish-looking cheap phone. (The first iPhone was a pretty lame phone from a technical POV when it came out but boy did it look slick, especially to someone who already had an iPod and whose mind equated »Apple stuff« with »cool stuff«, which means a large swathe of the populace.) Android is out there mainly because the phone manufacturers like it – it saves them the trouble of maintaining their own operating system (and ecosystem) to compete with Apple. Also, with Google in the background, which is big, not a phone manufacturer (Motorola notwithstanding), and not going to go away, Android looks good to a phone manufacturer in a way that a dinky little outfit like Canonical (with Ubuntu) never could, which is why we are unlikely to see Ubuntu phones anytime soon regardless of their technical merit. Furthermore, phone manufacturers want to sell lots and lots of goodish-looking cheap phones (especially in places where people don't have money to burn on the latest top-of-the-line iPhone), so a reasonably cool operating system that doesn't cost them license fees, like Android, is a good thing. Why do you think Microsoft tries to extort patent licensing fees from Android-using phone manufacturers? Right, because they want to disrupt the Android value proposition for phone manufacturers by making it more expensive to put Android on a phone than Windows Phone. The reasoning seems to be that once using Windows Phone is more convenient for the phone manufacturers than using Android, they will go for it and the customers will follow along because they're not buying operating systems, they're buying phones – and a Windows Phone phone is still a reasonable phone for calling people even if its app ecosystem isn't quite like that of Android. Especially if the phone itself is cheaper.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 12:36 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] I just want to say that the above comment, as an antidote to all the "No, you are wrong!" sniping, is a great summary of why things are as they are. One can always argue that Canonical, GNOME, KDE and others haven't stepped up to deliver the front-to-back, top-to-bottom coherent user experience, but there's not a huge incentive to do so when they will all be denied an audience by the cartel-like activities of the industry.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 13:12 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
>The first iPhone was a pretty lame phone from a technical POV when it came out
No it didn't. It was the FIRST phone where web browsing was not an exercise in pulling hair.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 17:22 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] The iPhone was using GSM when many other smartphones were already using UMTS. (When the iPhone came out I had a very clunky not-that-smart Nokia phone and even that was using UMTS.) The iPhone may have had a reasonable web browser compared to other phones at the time, but its Internet connectivity sucked, which did make the better browser somewhat pointless. It did eventually get UMTS but only quite some time later, which from Apple's POV was just fine because by that time many iPhone users were more than happy to ditch their phones for the newer model that actually promised reasonable speed. It would have been perfectly possible to launch the thing with UMTS from the get-go but that would have meant that many fewer sales, a strategy that was successfully repeated with the iPad. – As far as the phone features (rather than the web browsing features) are concerned, I seem to remember that at the time the reviews were less than enthusiastic. Most of the stuff people associate with the iPhone nowadays (like third-party native apps) only came along after it had been out for a while. Contrary to popular legend, the iPhone took off not because it was the greatest phone technology ever but because it was a cool gadget from Apple that had some nifty but marginally useful features that other phones didn't have at the time (even though it missed various other useful features that other phones did have), in some very slick packaging guaranteed to wow your friends, colleagues, and business associates – a lifestyle product, not a technology product. Which is not a problem at all (Apple makes most of its money selling lifestyle products), but means that the lessons learned from the iPhone and its competitors do not automatically transfer to technology products like PC operating systems.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 17:57 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
There were no good 3G solutions by the time the first iPhone arrived. Existing 3G networks in the US at that time were not capable of supporting enough subscribers.
And I do remember browsing on iPhone compared to other phones. It really was a groundbreaking experience. 3-rd party app infrastructure also appeared quite quickly (in a year) after the phone's launch.
PS: I'm actually still using EDGE on my phone because there's no UMTS/HSPA in my country (there's 4G, but not 3G due to quarrels over radio spectrum licensing). It's fairly OK.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 20:37 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] There were no good 3G solutions by the time the first iPhone arrived. Existing 3G networks in the US at that time were not capable of supporting enough subscribers. That's because as far as mobile communications are concerned, the US are a backwater. Here in Germany (and various other European countries), UMTS was already so widespread at the time that the iPhone being launched without UMTS capability did raise lots of eyebrows. After all, even the el-cheapo phones you would get »for free« with a contract (like mine) had UMTS already, so why not a €500+ iPhone? It's not that Apple couldn't have done it if they'd wanted to; it does make sense from a marketing point of view given Apple's strategy of introducing mediocre devices first to skim off the people who must have every new Apple product right away, and then later launching a device that is like the one they should have, and could have, brought out in the first place.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 22:28 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
>That's because as far as mobile communications are concerned, the US are a backwater.
Sure. But the US was (and still is) the primary iPhone market. So it made no sense for them to develop 3G phones (which is NOT trivial - just ask OpenMoko people).
And iPhones are certainly NOT mediocre - they have top-notch hardware with new features (like 'retina displays' or gyroscopes) appearing well in advance of other competitors.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 23:25 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] So it made no sense for them to develop 3G phones (which is NOT trivial - just ask OpenMoko people). Nokia was doing it even in their cheap phones at the time, so it can't have been that hard either. And iPhones are certainly NOT mediocre - they have top-notch hardware with new features (like 'retina displays' or gyroscopes) appearing well in advance of other competitors. We were talking about the first iPhone, which was a very slick package but definitely not a great phone compared to others in the market at the time. Of course Apple has been beefing the iPhone up since then – after all they need to give their customers a reason to get the latest phones, and the competition isn't slacking off, either. (Arguably some of the iPhone competitors do have nicer hardware from a practical-use POV – the »retina display« is cool but a somewhat bigger screen is often more valuable in real life.) But the same effect was visible with the iPad, where the general consensus was that the iPad 2 was the device they ought to have, and could have, come up with instead of the original iPad – which was missing all sorts of obvious features that were introduced with the second version, just so all those people who thought the first one was cool already had to go out and get the next one, too, just to stay on top of things.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 19, 2012 15:26 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
"If you're not deeply embarrased when you ship, then you shipped too late."
If Apple really did ship crap rev1 devices to force upgrades, somebody else would be eating their lunch right now. Apple does do many questionable things (lock-in!) but I don't buy that "forced upgrade treadmill" theory at all.
Even Apple can't wait until something is perfect before shipping.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 21, 2012 13:32 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Nobody is talking about »forced upgrades«. The original iPad didn't have a camera, so when the iPad 2 came out, many owners of the first iPad thought that would be a cool feature to have and got the new version (after all, being able to video-chat with other people using FaceTime must count for something). How difficult would it have been for Apple to put a camera into the first iPad? Virtually all the mobile phones at the time – including the iPhone – had at least one already, so it's not as if the requisite pieces weren't out there and mass-producible already. The reason this works is that smartphones and tablets are considered lifestyle products rather than computers. You carry them around in public and people – even complete strangers – see you using them. Having (and being seen as having) the latest Apple stuff to play with is an important part of many people's lives, so it makes sense for Apple to introduce piecemeal upgrades to skim off that part of their customer base who must have everything just because it is new. If the original iPad had had the two cameras already, then fewer people would have felt the need to get a new one a year after the original one came out. (Do note that the new iPad is called exactly that - »the new iPad«. This strongly suggests that to be »with it«, you want that version and not the »old« one.) Even people who would hang on to their computers for a comparatively long time do not seem to mind replacing their phones every two years or so, and even quicker if the new phone seems better to them.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted Jun 1, 2012 16:45 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
If people are foolish enough to spend $600 merely to be »with it« then more power to Apple. They should be encouraged to take advantage of that revenue stream.
But, in real life, I don't think there are as many fashion victims as you say. Used Mac hardware is still outrageously expensive, even previous-gen iPhones and iPads without cameras. That seems to directly contradict your theory.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted Jun 2, 2012 12:18 UTC (Sat) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] But, in real life, I don't think there are as many fashion victims as you say. Used Mac hardware is still outrageously expensive, even previous-gen iPhones and iPads without cameras. That seems to directly contradict your theory. No, it doesn't. Used Apple stuff is still Apple stuff, i.e., cool and fashionable. If you want Apple stuff in preference to other stuff but can't really afford to buy it new then you buy it used. Many people seem to want even the used Apple stuff so there is a lot of demand. Demand keeps the prices for used Apple stuff up. The new Apple stuff is quite expensive in order to cream off those people who must have the new up-to-date Apple stuff and are ready to pay for it. Do note that, e.g., the iPad 2 is still available new but priced somewhat lower than it used to be when it was the top-of-the-line model. This makes it more accessible to people who want new (as in, unused) Apple stuff but not the very new Apple stuff at the premium price. It takes a trained eye to distinguish the iPad 2 from the »new iPad« but it still has an Apple logo, so the »lifestyle incentive« of being seen with cool Apple stuff is the same. (Also, it's supposedly not a bad tablet at all.)
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 19:41 UTC (Wed) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
This matches my recollection. I was in awe when I saw a functional web browser on the phone. Ever since that moment I wanted such a phone, but could not justify the expense to myself. In the end, I got an android device years later.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 20:42 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Which only goes to prove that consumers generally aren't that passionate about what operating system their phone runs as long as it does roughly what they want. (That is if they're not the sort of person who isn't that passionate about what operating system their phone runs as long as the phone has a big Apple logo on the back.) ☺
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 17, 2012 9:10 UTC (Thu) by rwst (guest, #84121) [Link]
Which itself proves that if Linux would come preinstalled on one half of desktops (the less expensive half), and Windows/OSX on the other half, most of the people would chose Linux desktops and stay with them.
I thought around 2000 this was clear, too. Later, Dell and RH made some real money with the idea. Nowadays, noone seems to bother, not even the E.U. cartel office.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 17, 2012 16:47 UTC (Thu) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]
Sorry, but I do not agree with your statement that people would choose Linux desktops.
Perhaps if Wine was more polished and complete.
Out of the four people I know who bought netbooks with Linux preinstalled, three of them replaced Linux with a Windows XP install and were much happier.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 17, 2012 17:46 UTC (Thu) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] And I'll bet the fourth flattened theirs and replaced the delivered Linux distro with a decent one. I don't know about the other netbook lines, but I do know that the Linux distro that Asus used on the Eee range was awful.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 31, 2012 12:52 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>Which itself proves that if Linux would come preinstalled on one half of desktops (the less expensive half), and Windows/OSX on the other half, most of the people would chose Linux desktops and stay with them
I thought that too at one time, but it simply can't be true.
As you use your computer day-by-day, month-by-month, try to think about all the things you do without thinking. I mean things like subconsciously learning that if you do certain things, something crashes or the computer grinds to a halt.
Or things like upgrading your distribution and needing a simple one-line fix to get something working again. Or getting new hardware and needing to spend even just a few minutes Googling for how to get it to work.
For most of us here these obstacles are insignificant. We don't really even notice that we need to spend five minutes now-and-then fixing things, because it's so easy.
But consider the perspective of someone who actually *can't* do those things. That's not a five-minute interruption in exchange for new cool versions of software; it's a complete inability to do something you used to be able to, in exchange for...nothing.
When was the last time Ubuntu made a new release that didn't require you to a) learn a new way of interacting with your computer, b) fix something that broke, or c) both of the above? I've tried every Ubuntu release, at least very briefly. All of them. And one of those things has happened *every* *single* *time*. It's not only on release upgrades even. My partner uses Ubuntu and has learned not to accept new release upgrades so long as the current release is still supported, because of the inevitable breakage, but periodically a high-priority update comes along and her printer will stop working; fortunately she's usually able to solve it with some Googling, because countless other people had exactly the same problem and managed to figure out the magical incantation to fix it.
Back to those things you learn to subconsciously ignore: try actively looking for minor bugs - the kind of things they're calling 'paper cuts'. When you start paying attention, you start to realise that you encounter *dozens* every day. Around the KDE 4.2 time (IIRC) I actually wrote down a list of all the minor bugs I experienced within the first 5 minutes. It wasn't a small list. I filed bugs for some of them; others had already been reported. In some cases there was some flaming about worrying over small things, but *small things add up*.
Here's an example: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4957647/calendar.png
By the way, the red 'fail' icon in that shot is because so far I've only spent about 45 minutes trying to work out how to get wireless networking to work. It only took me a couple of minutes to get wired networking working because I have enough Debian experience to know that I needed to add 'auto eth0 inet dhcp' to /etc/network/interfaces. Good luck figuring that out if you're a new user. Why doesn't wired networking work out-of-the-box on a default install of the last two Ubuntu releases? No idea, but that's exactly the kind of thing I've come to expect (to be fair, in many cases the network connection does work; it just refuses to perform any name resolution - to a non-technnical user that's the same thing).
A solution that's permanently 90% finished is not 90% as good; that last 10% is utterly crucial for a good user experience.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 31, 2012 18:55 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
every windows upgrade (including service packs) break things on windows systems as well. somehow people manage
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted Jun 6, 2012 14:48 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
I'm sorry, but I can't assume good faith when you make such an obviously ludicrous statement.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted Jun 6, 2012 15:15 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
I'll elaborate a little:
The problem is that you are obviously aware that your statement is an attempt to compare entirely unrelated things in entirely unrelated contexts, simply as a means of avoiding making any real point. It is deliberately dismissive and inflammatory, and very blatantly intended as nothing but snide trolling.
The regressions in Windows in successive releases are so trivial in comparison with the regressions in Linux distributions that trying to claim any equivalence displays, at best, a breathtaking level of ignorance. Furthermore, every Windows version is supported for longer than the best support level available in any Linux distribution, while simultaneously making it trivial for any user to use the latest version of any application software they desire.
Nobody would seriously try to claim that 'the latest 64-bit version of Windows no longer runs my 16-bit Windows applications from 1992' is in any way equivalent to 'my networking stops working every six months'.
Pretty much the only legitimately comparable example is that there are a number of printers for which the existing drivers haven't worked in new OS releases - and Ubuntu has that problem periodically in minor (non-release) updates, so doesn't exactly come out ahead.
There are probably some other examples of extremely cheap hardware with drivers that work in one Windows release but not the next, however in the vast majority of cases that hardware either doesn't work in Linux *at all*, or works well enough to satisfy a tick-list but not well enough to actually use (eg a webcam that manages 30fps in Windows, but 2 fps in Linux). I'm aware that in such a case it's the manufacturer of that crappy hardware that's at fault, but then to make a fair comparison you need to acknowledge that in the case of Windows as well.
Statements like yours are a textbook example of why Linux - and Free Software in general - is not taken seriously by normal computer users, since the only thing you are interested in is nursing your damaged pride at all costs. The very idea that a competitor might be better in some way must not be entertained under any circumstances, with the inevitable result that real deficiencies cannot be fixed because they cannot even be acknowledged.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted Jun 6, 2012 19:23 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
> Nobody would seriously try to claim that 'the latest 64-bit version of Windows no longer runs my 16-bit Windows applications from 1992' is in any way equivalent to 'my networking stops working every six months'.
Ok, slow down. If you have a run-of-the-mill, garden-variety network configuration, it will not stop working every six months (mine worked without modification for the last ten years or so). AND if you have some complicated, exotic configuration with strange and mysterious drivers, then every Windows update or hotpatch is an adventure.
I know that for some video configurations, things were far rougher on Linux than on Windows.
> There are probably some other examples of extremely cheap hardware with drivers that work in one Windows release but not the next, however in the vast majority of cases that hardware either doesn't work in Linux *at all*, or works well enough to satisfy a tick-list but not well enough to actually use (eg a webcam that manages 30fps in Windows, but 2 fps in Linux). I'm aware that in such a case it's the manufacturer of that crappy hardware that's at fault, but then to make a fair comparison you need to acknowledge that in the case of Windows as well.
Actually, I had problems on Linux on the "extremely expensive and especialized hardware" range more often than on the "dollar-store hardware" range.
> Statements like yours are a textbook example of why Linux - and Free Software in general - is not taken seriously by normal computer users, since the only thing you are interested in is nursing your damaged pride at all costs. The very idea that a competitor might be better in some way must not be entertained under any circumstances, with the inevitable result that real deficiencies cannot be fixed because they cannot even be acknowledged.
People acknowledge and fix those problems much more often in the Linux world than in the Windows/OSX worlds. Oh, there are lots of hardware best supported on Windows and OSX. The model where the hardware maker is usually also the driver maker works faster, even if it does not work so well.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted Jun 7, 2012 16:34 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
> If you have a run-of-the-mill, garden-variety network configuration, it will not stop working every six months
The idea of what is 'run-of-the-mill' changes too frequently for my liking - for example, the last three Ubuntu releases have not supported wired networking out of the box (with differing varieties of breakage depending on the release and the machine in question).
I suspect the reason that the default configuration doesn't just attempt to make a DHCP connection has something to do with NetworkManager being expected to bring up the interface, but I've managed to get NM to bring up a wired connection on precisely one occasion - and that broke on the next release upgrade; certainly I've never seen it work automatically.
Unfortunately the only machine I have access to that has a wireless connection has some kind of Broadcom chip that I think needs special firmware that I've not bothered to track down, so I can't speak for how well wireless works on supported hardware. (I do apparently have a 'Broadcom STA propretary wireless driver' installed, but it seems that's not enough.)
Actually, now that I think about it there was an Ubuntu release a while back (it was around the release of KDE4.2, so presumably it was 9.04) which did get the wireless device in this machine to work without any special configuration that I can recall; alas the next release came along and hosed it so thoroughly that I couldn't figure out how to get any networking back *at all*, and eventually resorted to reinstalling from scratch.
In contrast, I have a rather more complex setup on my Debian systems which has worked reliably for many years, but they required a reasonable amount of technical knowledge to configure in the first place. But Debian has its own problems of course; there's no single option that won't periodically come with pain.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted Jul 1, 2012 3:38 UTC (Sun) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
Interesting; my personal experience has been exactly the opposite. I have upgraded my kubuntu system (which uses network manager exclusively, all configured via GUI, and with some quirks in my workplace network) regularly at every release, and for the last three years or so I have not touch said configuration.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 23:28 UTC (Wed) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link] anselm: Consumers will buy all sorts of strange stuff... No, they won’t. If they did. Windows Phone would not be languishing in fifth or sixth place, well behind Samsung Bada. Android succeeded because it was the one platform that encouraged open-slather competition. Having a ready-made, adaptable OS lowered the cost of trying out risky new ideas. And handset makers were truly free to try out whatever ideas they wanted, regardless of what Google might have wished (Android 2.x tablets, anybody?). Most of them failed and were forgotten. But there were enough successes to make people realize that here was a platform to be taken seriously. And so success built on success, and we have reached the situation today where Samsung has knocked Nokia off its perch as the world’s number-one mobile-phone maker.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 18, 2012 5:55 UTC (Fri) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link]
You know what, if they called it anything other than "Windows Phone" (or any other name with Windows in it), the current Windows phones would probably have a chance. After all, the iPhone isn't "MacPhone" and Androids aren't "Linux Phone."
Call it something else and strongly de-emphasize the fact it comes from Redmond, and it'd probably sell.
(I still mourn the loss of Maemo, personally.)
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 3:34 UTC (Wed) by fredex (subscriber, #11727) [Link]
here here ==> hear, hear!
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 7:30 UTC (Wed) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
Remind me, what operating system has stored the password in plaintext for encrypted partitions -- and for how long now? Yeah, I'm sure that's something to recommend in good conscience.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 17, 2012 19:21 UTC (Thu) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link]
Ah yes! Let's find one flaw and decide the whole thing is useless! Wooo! :)
Or, we could admit that no matter how much we like or dislike the offerings out there, there is a reason people don't run Linux on their consumer electronics. Sure, maybe only 2% of people would run Linux without it being default, but it would be much higher than 1% if there were actually a useful platform. Want to write an Android app? There are books, tools, it's *easy*. So easy, a dog could do it. Want to write a Linux app? Well...first one starts by putting on the condescending attitude and then proceeds to lecture people that they're all wrong in wanting books or stable platforms and that really, the only way forward is to read all the code...wait? Where did everyone go? Oh, that's right, they're using Android, OS X, and those other platforms that make their lives easier. Ah yes. I give up :)
Jon.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 17, 2012 19:24 UTC (Thu) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link]
Oh, and I forgot. It's Thursday, so if you're still using the API or library from yesterday, where have you *been* for the last 24 hours? What in the heck do you mean you don't have time to change your app every 10 minutes!!! :)
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 21, 2012 16:37 UTC (Mon) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
That's not what I said. Your anecdote (singular) is useless as a data point, as much as the fact that I won't recommend an insecure operating system to anyone these days.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 22, 2012 14:54 UTC (Tue) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] Unfortunately, seL4 isn't ready for desktop use.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 24, 2012 11:31 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
Perhaps there is some middle ground between not communicating with security researchers for *months* about open holes, and running a fully secured system?
I don't think it's asking too much to plug wide open holes that are already public. It's not like it's the first time.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 9:11 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
Amen.
Basically the problem with desktop Linux today boils down to this: we are doing it wrong.
* Ubuntu is the closest we have ever had, but it fails short in some respects: too much of a moving target, no love for developers and content creators (that provide what users _really_ want). It looks polished and tends to "just work", though.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 11:10 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Basically the problem with desktop Linux today boils down to this: we are doing it wrong. That's your opinion. I happily run Linux on the desktop and have done so for years. It's really tiresome to see all the moaning about desktop Linux just because it hasn't managed to achieve significant market share... market share does not necessarily reflect quality. Furthermore, although Linux has a small share of the desktop market, the range of applications available is huge. I have everything I need from basics like office suites and web browsers to more specialized tools like video editing, audio processing, symbolic math, flight simulators, ... My daughter recently bought a new laptop and the first thing she asked me to do was install Debian. So maybe my family has weird taste. :)
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 16:44 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
> I happily run Linux on the desktop and have done so for years.
Me too.
> market share does not necessarily reflect quality.
Sure, but I'm afraid it can have a some impact in life expectancy. Put another way: the traditional PC/desktop/laptop marked looks more and more closed each year. If _could_ happen that, if we do not manage to position a free OS as a viable option on the desktop, it will close just too much. For a taste of what I mean, read all the articles about secure booting.
But not only that. Hardware is also becoming more and more complex. So complex that developing drivers by reverse engineering will eventually become a non option. For the time they would become usable the targeted devices will be obsolete. The noveau example is a hint of that.
Additionally you have the problem of software. There's not much independent development for an irrelevant platform. Case in point: id software latest game engine (it's not getting ported to Linux), but also the latest Firefox Apps movement. Also, there are no paying jobs in developing software for a OS nobody uses. If we developers want to keep developing software for Linux, somebody has to want it. Someone has to pay for it. Also, life is much more difficult when your bank and your city refuse to serve you unless you run the same proprietary OS everybody else uses.
Finally, there's the question of being useful. Is the goal of a free OS to be useful in general or just for the developer?
To sum it up: being a relevant market on the desktop could be critical for Linux (and free OSes in general) future.
But that's just my opinion, of course.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 18:34 UTC (Wed) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] To sum it up: being a relevant market on the desktop could be critical for Linux (and free OSes in general) future. Yes, you are right. I think Linux's existing community is sufficiently large and vocal to keep Linux on the desktop viable for a long time, though.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 4:28 UTC (Sun) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link] Sure, but I'm afraid it [market share] can have a some impact in life expectancy. Put another way: the traditional PC/desktop/laptop marked looks more and more closed each year. If _could_ happen that, if we do not manage to position a free OS as a viable option on the desktop, it will close just too much. For a taste of what I mean, read all the articles about secure booting.I'm not worried about this happening on PCs. All empirical evidence points against it. Hardware support in Linux has gotten (much!) better over time, not worse. Secure booting has been talked about for almost a decade and I still haven't seen any machines that require it. Ever since the IBM PC became established, software compatibility has always been an overriding consideration in PC culture, fueled largely by vendor reliance on software lock-in as a profit driver (which requires backwards compatibility). Simply put, you can't lock down a PC too much without damaging software compatibility. I see no evidence that the historical emphasis on software compatibility for PCs is diminishing in any way. Even the latest 64-bit multicore Intel machines can still boot DOS 5 in real mode. As long as the hardware is not jailed, Linux (being truly free software) will always survive. As long as there is sufficient developer interest, Linux will always thrive. Although Linux has miniscule desktop share, it has such a dominant share of the server market that there is no way it will go away. I'd say the life expectancy of Linux is very promising indeed. What I'm really worried about is the mobile device market. Here, locked-down devices are the norm, and compatibility is shunned. Without market share, Linux on mobile is doomed. Luckily Android is more than holding its own in market share; let's hope that this remains the case.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 15:43 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
>I'm not worried about this happening on PCs. All empirical evidence points against it. Hardware support in Linux has gotten (much!) better over time, not worse. Secure booting has been talked about for almost a decade and I still haven't seen any machines that require it.
Sure. But now it's required for ALL new PCs.
>Ever since the IBM PC became established, software compatibility has always been an overriding consideration in PC culture, fueled largely by vendor reliance on software lock-in as a profit driver (which requires backwards compatibility). Simply put, you can't lock down a PC too much without damaging software compatibility. I see no evidence that the historical emphasis on software compatibility for PCs is diminishing in any way. Even the latest 64-bit multicore Intel machines can still boot DOS 5 in real mode.
That was before the era of virtual machines. You can't run 16-bit DOS programs on 64-bit Windows anymore, for example.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 16:56 UTC (Sun) by jcm (subscriber, #18262) [Link]
You know why secure boot happened as it did? Because, as usual, the Linux community waited until someone else came up with a standard first, then complained and whined about "the big bad Microsoft". We should learn to join in with these folks in creating future standards that are more palatable to our own desires rather than criticizing the others for looking out for their business interests over our own.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 18:20 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
As anybody who reads mjg59's journal, I know that technically secure boot is not a problem for Linux.
The problem is in the certificate management which is outside of the technical scope of the current secure boot standards.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 18:59 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
The problem is not the standard. The problem is the policy that a third party created around the standard and then imposed on the industry. Earlier involvement in the spec process would have made zero difference here.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 21, 2012 16:43 UTC (Mon) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
That does not make sense. It is somehow Linux developer's responsibility to lock ourselves out of hardware? Palladium and its ilk was a bad idea. Bad ideas should be criticized.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 17:48 UTC (Sun) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link] Sure. But now it's required for ALL new PCs.So, which new (Intel) PCs are incapable of running Linux because of secure boot requirements? Be specific please. Make, model, etc. The truth is, Intel PCs are just as Linux-capable as they always have been. You can always turn off secure booting on PCs. The spec even requires (largely in response to user protests) that the user can turn it off on PCs (Custom mode): "MANDATORY: On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: 'Custom' and 'Standard'. --Windows Hardware Certification Requirements, May 9, 2012, p. 122"(The above clause applies to complete computer systems. Theoretically, it would be possible for a component maker such as a motherboard manufacturer to ship a compliant computer component that had no way to turn off secure boot. But, given that such a part could not be used as part of a Windows 8 certified system, my guess is that the number of such parts in the marketplace will be next to nil.) I am a heavy Linux user, and at one point I had serious concerns about secure boot as well, but the latest news coming out of Redmond is much better than feared. At worst one could say that secure boot lays the groundwork for future lock-in on PCs. While it's true that Microsoft's history has not been good, I think there is some room to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt here. Malware really is a serious problem on PCs, even for Linux users (who have to deal with Windows botnets on their networks), and secure boot does have nonzero benefits in terms of stopping malware -- it guarantees in hardware that the kernel has not been compromised. As long as advanced users can turn it off (which they can), I see nothing but good coming out of this effort. Quite honestly, I want unskilled computer users to be subject to secure boot restrictions. Unlike Intel, secure boot on ARM is indeed an issue of grave concern for Linux users, because there is no way to turn it off. Here, barring an unlikely successful legal challenge, our only option is to win in the marketplace, as you say. Fortunately, against all expectations, this is actually happening: Android is on a majority of devices, and outsells Microsoft on ARM by more than 10 to 1. And also, let's not forget where the true blame belongs: Apple is the company that pioneered lock-in on ARM devices. That was before the era of virtual machines. You can't run 16-bit DOS programs on 64-bit Windows anymore, for example.That is true, and perhaps a sign of change. I may have misspoken. What I meant to say is that the hardware-OS interface (e.g. BIOS calls) has enjoyed strong backwards compatibility even to the present day. This is what lets you run DOS on bare metal today. It's why x86-64 processors still boot up in 16-bit real mode. It is true that Microsoft is taking steps to break compatibility at the OS-software interface for old programs. This is in fact a huge change which may signal more to come.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 18:19 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Yet Microsoft mandates for ARM devices that secure boot must be mandatory, without possibility to turn it off.
How long do you think the generic PC market will have unsecured PCs? 10 years? I bet it won't take more than 15 years for all computers to be locked.
"Right to read", here we go...
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 18:41 UTC (Sun) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link]
Did you read the post to which you are replying? I said in that post that mandatory secure boot on ARM is an issue of grave concern. I also pointed out that Apple, not Microsoft, is largely responsible for the current situation on ARM. I think the distinction between Apple and Microsoft is a significant one. All too often, Linux users are quick to blame Microsoft even when the evidence points elsewhere.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 21:07 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Nope. It's not Apple's problem.
Do you remember 'Palladium' initiative of Microsoft? No? That's exactly what happens now.
I might also remind you mandatory driver signing starting from Windows Vista - and that was before even the first iPhone. So no, Microsoft is definitely to blame.
Besides, if you don't see the direction PCs are taking then you need to see an optometrist.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 22:23 UTC (Sun) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link] Mandatory driver signing even now does not prevent individual users from loading unsigned drivers. It's only mandatory for manufacturers. Users can disable it. So I think your "sky is falling" rhetoric is excessively hyperbolic.Meanwhile iOS and OS X are, right now, today, more locked-down than any operating system Microsoft has ever released. Compare the experience of installing Linux on a Mac vs. a PC and tell me which one's easier. It's really important to get facts straight and not let past biases get in the way. The truth is Microsoft is no longer the biggest threat to Linux today. Fighting the last war wastes resources and helps no one.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 23:40 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Nope. Users CAN NOT, I repeat CAN NOT disable mandatory driver signing (on 64-bit versions of OSes).
It can be turned off by pressing F8 during startup and booting into "test mode" which disables features like Blu-Ray playback and adds ugly "test mode" labels in each corner of the desktop.
So for all practical purposes, driver signing can't be disabled on Windows.
>Meanwhile iOS and OS X are, right now, today, more locked-down than any operating system Microsoft has ever released.
Only until Windows 8 is released. New 'metro' interface will be accessible only to sandboxed programs, downloaded from the official Microsoft Store. The old environment is now called 'classic', btw.
So direction is quite clear, in a few releases the old classic environment will be confined in a VM with hardware capable only of booting signed Windows.
>Compare the experience of installing Linux on a Mac vs. a PC and tell me which one's easier.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 21, 2012 6:48 UTC (Mon) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link] The link that I provided in the comment to which you replied contains exactly a description of how to permanently disable driver signing checks on both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows OSes. Did you bother to read the page that I linked? The whole page?I think it's hardly fair to blame Microsoft for Blu-ray not working. Does Blu-ray work in Linux? No. Blu-ray is the fault of the entertainment companies. All I'm proposing is the very modest suggestion that Microsoft is not 100% at fault for absolutely every single one of Linux's problems. Apparently this claim is too radical for some around here.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 21, 2012 9:29 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
>The link that I provided in the comment to which you replied contains exactly a description of how to permanently disable driver signing checks on both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows OSes. Did you bother to read the page that I linked? The whole page?
I can ask you the same. Have YOU read it?
>You can’t permanently disable the use of signed drivers in the 64-bit version of Windows Server 2008 — at least, not using any Microsoft-recognized technique.
And undocumented DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS is disabled in final releases of Microsoft OSes (it's enabled in previews). You can try it yourself.
But what do I know? After all, I'm only writing Windows drivers.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 21, 2012 17:40 UTC (Mon) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link] And undocumented DDISABLE_INTEGRITY_CHECKS is disabled in final releases of Microsoft OSes (it's enabled in previews). You can try it yourself.I did try it, just now, not more than 10 minutes ago, on my retail release version of Windows Server 2008 R2. And here is the result. As you can see, it works. You do not have to press F8 every time you reboot; the screenshot was taken from a clean reboot done without user interaction.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 22, 2012 22:00 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
I don't have 2008 Server right now, but it definitely doesn't work on my up-to-date Windows 7 and Windows Vista. I've just re-checked to be sure I'm not going completely mad.
Google suggests that several Microsoft updates break it:
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 31, 2012 15:15 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
I don't know about Windows 7 or Server 2008, but I do have experience of Windows 8 CP.
One of the advanced reboot options is to disable driver signing enforcement for the next boot. You can then install unsigned drivers by clicking through a scary warning as in previous versions of Windows. Once that driver is installed, you can reboot in normal mode and continue using it. I'm not certain if there's a boot flag that can be set *permanently* to keep enforcement disabled, but in practice that's only going to be a problem if you need to install unsigned drivers on a frequent basis, and to be honest I can't really fault MS for not considering that a high-priority use case.
Since the advanced reboot options menu is entirely new to Windows 8, I doubt it is a left-over from old versions that they're planning to remove in the final release; more likely that's how it will work in RTM.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 31, 2012 15:18 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>more likely that's how it will work in RTM.
(Except when secure boot is enabled, obviously, since that would entirely defeat the point of secure boot)
Microsoft never sued anyone for purchasing their OS and installing it on 'unapproved' hardware Posted May 21, 2012 1:23 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
At least Microsoft has never sued another company for buying their OS and installing it on 'unapproved' hardware the way that Apple has.
Yes, Microsoft is looking at what Apple is doing with envy and trying to copy their amount of control, but Microsoft is also being watched by government anti-trust regulators (both in the US and EU) so they are going to be more limited in what they can get away with doing.
This doesn't mean that you don't have to watch out for Microsoft, but they are going to be able to get away with a lot more if they can point at Apple and say "we're just doing what our competition is doing, users are showing that they want us to do this by buying their products"
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 21, 2012 2:18 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]
It's not possible to disable driver signing on Windows 8 if the platform has secure boot enabled.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 21, 2012 6:58 UTC (Mon) by djao (subscriber, #4263) [Link] Right, now go read my post above where I point out, with quotes, the part in the Windows Hardware Certification Requirements where it states that users on Intel PC systems must be able to disable secure boot in order for the system to be compliant with the certification requirements.Secure boot and driver signing on ARM is a genuine obstacle for Linux, because users can't turn it off. Secure boot and driver signing on Intel PCs is not a problem right now, because users can turn it off. It may become a problem in the future and I will be the first to complain if it does. But at the moment I believe it is a legitimate tradeoff to restrict what unsophisticated computer users can do on PCs in the name of security. I'm sick and tired of dealing with Windows botnets and I can't possibly be the only one. No one is talking about the benefits side of the cost-benefit equation. Secure boot isn't just purely an antagonistic move on Microsoft's part to screw over Linux users. It has some legitimate benefits to offset its costs, benefits which will be appreciated even by Linux users. The key issue is whether advanced users can turn it off. If they can, then I don't have a problem with it.
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 20, 2012 17:58 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
> That was before the era of virtual machines. You can't run 16-bit DOS programs on 64-bit Windows anymore, for example.
you can't run 16 bit DOS programs on 64 bit windows, but you can BOOT such a system with DOS 5 in 16 bit mode
don't mistake application/OS compatibility with hardware/OS compatibility (which was the topic being discussed)
Tasting the Ice Cream Sandwich Posted May 16, 2012 12:59 UTC (Wed) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link]
I don't think these guys have done it wrong. They're just a different audience. Android is a nice platform, but it *is* one-size-fits-all and your "traditional" Linux user doesn't necessarily want that.
Sure, I have an Android device but do I "love" Android the way I "love" my (Gentoo) Linux system? No, because I lose so much. What I *do* love about my handset is the hardware: It's a ultra-portable computer that allows me to browse the web, watch videos, take pictures, run some dumbed-down apps, and send text/email on the go… oh, and it makes phone calls :D But most of that is due to the hardware more then the more-closed software. Believe me if I could run a more open OS on my phone (than CyanogenMod which I'm running), I would.
OTOH if my laptop was more like Android and less like what it is, I'd move on to an alternative. I would not consider running something like Android on a desk/laptop.
|
|||||||||||||
