Schaller: Wayland in Fedora update
Posted Jul 4, 2014 19:52 UTC (Fri) by torquay (guest, #92428)
If Fedora really cared about its users back in the day of Gnome 3.0 and KDE 4.0, it would have pushed back and told upstream a big fat "no, we're not going to ship this half-baked garbage until you make it parallel installable", and perhaps helped upstream with the effort. Otherwise the value proposition of a distro is rather questionable, if it's simply a mudball that shovels anything that "upstream" spews out, with a bit of sprinkling on top.
Given the fall in popularity of Fedora, and the current soul searching going on with the Fedora.Next effort, I do hope that it realises that Fedora is actually the upstream as far as its users are concerned. Passing the blame around that breaks are someone else's fault doesn't fly these days: people are sick of it, and droves of them have moved onto Mac OS X just to get a stable environment.
Posted Jul 4, 2014 20:30 UTC (Fri) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
If you really want to see linux "distribution" compete well against Apple then that "distribution" is going to have to take a very different stance than any distribution that as come before. They have to stop being inclusive with regard to UI options, they have to stop trying to be maximally inclusive with regard to hardware its trying to support. It has to be narrow and it has to be tailored.
I think at the end of the day, the best device experiences are going to be when the "upstream" is on the hook for both providing the hardware and the OS as a seemlessly designed thing. This is the lesson I take from Apple popularity and brand loyality. It's not just the software defined UX, but the totality of the hardware and software UX together...designed to provide an very specific experience.
I think distribution projects hurt themselves immensely by trying to give people a lot of choice with regard to different installable UIs. Done in part to make up for the fact that traditional distributions are not in the driver seat for any UI.
And this isn't limited to Apple, I think this is exactly why Chromebooks are so popular as well. The lack of choice, firms up the experience. And they are, if you look how many of those damn things are sold compared to other devices near the same pricepoints.
I think _all_ the linux ui environments would shine better if hardware OEMs took on the managing role of distribution projects in our ecosystem. And if OEM led distros stopped dividing up their manpower across multiple environments and just concentrated on making exactly one UI work well for their hardware and spending exactly zero effort maintaining any other ui options.
But we aren't going to get that with traditional distribution projects. There has to be a paradigm shift. OEMs have to start investing seriously in the UI development and OS distribution for their products.
Posted Jul 4, 2014 21:55 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
I think _all_ the linux ui environments would shine better if hardware OEMs took on the managing role of distribution projects in our ecosystem.
Not gonna happen. The fondest wish of OEMs is to make sure they will have no responsibilities once the package is shipped out of the door. That's why they accept Chromebooks: these things don't give many customization options for OEMs (thus they could not “differentiate” their offers) but on the plus side they don't need to think about software support at all. Now Google offers similar deal for the Android, too.
Situation is somewhat different for premium segment, but I'm not sure there are a lot of demand for premium Linux laptops.
Posted Jul 5, 2014 18:19 UTC (Sat) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
My pick of course would be to ditch both KDE and GNOME entirelly, and invest heavily in fvwm. Not fvwm2, that is just a terrible terrible interface, but fvwm was perfect.
Posted Jul 6, 2014 14:42 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433)
You only have to look at the Win3.1 / Win95 transition to see how true this is. People like Compaq and HP shipped modified 3.1 (I loved the replacement explorer that Compaq provided - called tabworks iirc). And their machines worked and were easy to use.
When MS shipped Win95 and forbad OEMs from tampering with the "great Windows User Experience" these premium OEMs all complained that their returns rate doubled or tripled as it moved towards the norm.
No reason at all why we shouldn't get that sort of competition back, if linux could displace Windows as the default desktop. Indeed, we're sort-of getting that already with Android.
Posted Jul 8, 2014 20:19 UTC (Tue) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285)
Remember print drivers and wifi drivers where the OEMs still customized things all sorts of ways?
Those custom wifi programs were horrible, awful, and had to be killed with FIRE. Seriously, trying to remove those craptacular things was a huge pain. The default Windows XP SP2 dialogs were so much better.
And printer software. Oh my ... I just don't have words to describe it that I'd write on a public website.
Posted Jul 17, 2014 13:26 UTC (Thu) by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
All of that happened after Microsoft put their foot down; before MS put their foot down, the entire user-visible OS would get changed (XSoft TabWorks or HP NewWave or Packard Bell Navigator instead of Microsoft's Program Manager, for example).
Once MS had put their foot down, instead of the OEM replacing everything, and standing behind the package as a whole, they were limited to tinkering round the edges - custom WiFi programs, funky print drivers etc. Because they weren't allowed to change the whole thing to look and feel "right" to the OEM, you got something that was mostly Microsoft look and feel, except where the OEM imposed their vision.
Before MS put their foot down, the OEM would push back on a WiFi card with a custom WiFi program - it didn't fit the OEM's look and feel and was therefore Bad and Wrong. After MS put their foot down, OEMs didn't care as much - the look and feel was Microsoft's problem now, and if they didn't like the "Dell" branded variation of the Broadcom WiFi software, well, they'd lean on Broadcom, right?
Posted Jul 5, 2014 19:38 UTC (Sat) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964)
Chromebooks, are bought by ppl because they're cheap and don't have the maintenance burden. They haven't exactly set the world on fire.
Posted Jul 5, 2014 22:30 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
Chromebooks may not be setting the world on fire from your vantage point but I think they are like a large whale under the surface where you can only see a fin, they are largely consumer and not business devices and are not fashion accessories so you don't see them at work/conferences and people don't talk about them so much but a Chromebook was the number one seller on Amazon for a while, they are selling like hotcakes.
Posted Jul 8, 2014 10:21 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151)
Posted Jul 8, 2014 14:59 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
Posted Jul 10, 2014 15:57 UTC (Thu) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964)
Posted Jul 10, 2014 16:29 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jul 11, 2014 11:12 UTC (Fri) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964)
Apple are doing pretty well and Chrome books have visibility in stores to, so I would have expected larger sales given their lower cost.
Posted Jul 5, 2014 8:08 UTC (Sat) by drago01 (subscriber, #50715)
Why do people always claim as if half the world is moving to OS X ? ... at least outside of the US ... OS X is pretty much the same niche as Linux i.e mostly irrelevant if anything people move back to Windows. Even in the US I doubt OS X is that popular that everyone throws away their hardware to move to it.
Posted Jul 5, 2014 8:52 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
I was at an Amazon conference last week - and at many times all the computers in the room were Macs.
I myself switched to OS X exactly because I got tired of broken stuff during the GNOME2->3 migration.
Posted Jul 7, 2014 11:33 UTC (Mon) by fb (subscriber, #53265)
From my own anecdotal perspective, nearly all Linux users I knew *personally* 10-15 years ago migrated to OSX. Perhaps it has to do with being older, having more discretionary income and less time (e.g. now you're married and have 2 kids) to spend fixing OS configuration problems.
Posted Jul 7, 2014 16:26 UTC (Mon) by efitton (guest, #93063)
Posted Jul 8, 2014 20:02 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205)
OSX evolved into a more locked down and thus less useful form, and we moved away as a result, approximately a decade ago.
Anecdotes can vary. Good statistical evidence is better. I believe the best figures show Apple with ~13% market share last time I checked.
Posted Jul 5, 2014 12:02 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Posted Jul 6, 2014 14:35 UTC (Sun) by Wol (guest, #4433)
Actually, wasn't it upstream (for KDE 4.0 at least) that said "no you should NOT be shipping this stuff in a consumer distro!"?
Why is it that KDE always gets the flack for distros shipping a "broken" 4.0 (no it wasn't broken) when it was the distros who ignored KDE saying "for fsck's sake DON'T SHIP IT!".
4.0 was a "we've frozen the core api" release and was meant for developers to use to build and test their apps on, not for end users to try and use and curse because nothing was available or worked.
Posted Jul 6, 2014 16:01 UTC (Sun) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870)
Interesting, I just re-read KDE 4,0 release notes which state:"KDE 4.0 is the innovative Free Software desktop containing lots of applications for every day use...." Does not exactly sounds like "DON'T SHIP IT". Also, the release notes make mention of which distros will ship 4.0, which does not sound like they've been doing that against KDE's will :-).
Posted Jul 10, 2014 16:02 UTC (Thu) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964)
The KDE core developers knew really, but needed to put a release to get applications porting and a focus on bug fixing. When it gets to a release Marketing team, they aren't going to write that they're knowingly shipping broken software.
Posted Jul 12, 2014 19:33 UTC (Sat) by Jandar (subscriber, #85683)
KDE 4.0 is not KDE4 but only the first (4.0.0 even non-bugfix) release in a years-long KDE 4 series to come.
KDE 4.0 is known to have missing parts or temporary implementations (eg. printing, PIM, Plasma).
Most applications (many are not even fully ported yet) will take only advantage of new features which the new Qt/KDE libraries offer later.
KDE 4.0 is only expected to be used by early adopters, not every KDE 3.5 user (and IMHO KDE 4.0 shouldn't be pushed onto other user types like planned for Kubuntu ShipIt (which by the way is said to have only 6 months support for its packages)).
Last, again: KDE 4.0 is not KDE 4.
Posted Jul 12, 2014 21:11 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
Posted Jul 6, 2014 18:55 UTC (Sun) by efitton (guest, #93063)
Posted Jul 8, 2014 20:18 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205)
"4.0 was a "we've frozen the core api" release and was meant for developers to use to build and test their apps on, not for end users to try and use and curse because nothing was available or worked."
And even if that WERE true, this would still be nonsense, because this is NOT what a .0 release signifies.
Posted Jul 10, 2014 16:13 UTC (Thu) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964)
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds