Given our last topic, it's interesting that we fall into this one.
While we love to hammer at proprietary companies like Microsoft for "dumbing down" the interaction for users, it's something of a shock when we realize that some Linux distros are doing the exact same thing.
FACT: Fedora 10 ( and 9 as well, but let's focus on what I can actually quote.) has been admittedly hobbled in the root user logon. Supposedly, this is to provide a safety net for new users.
I am curious as to exactly when Fedora, of all distros, became a distro that ONLY "newbies" use.
Is this move really to help new users, or is it to prevent the developers and forum mods, help staff etc.. not have to hear about common errors some users are likely to make?
Linux in general is supposed to be "open" Open source, open to checking source code, open to usage.
How "open" can Linux be if a Linux user is deliberately inhibited in how they use or access their distro simply to save the powers that be from hearing about newbie errors?
For most distros, and Fedora is no exception, there are plenty of tools to "harden", lock down and otherwise secure a users OS, be it in use as a desktop or a server.
There are apps and tools like Bastille and fail2ban and SELinux and AppArmor, firewalls, intrusion detectors and so on, that can be implemented as the user decides they want to implement them. THAT is "open" my friends, when I decide what and how I use my system, not some group of devs who grow weary of users "oops" lamentations.
If I wanted the company that provides the OS I use to do my thinking for me, I would probably still be using MS products.
Now, I don't mean to pick on Fedora too hard. They have a nice distro that in many other respects is just fine.
It would be a shame though, to see other distros en masse, jump onto this "Joe User is too dumb to use our distro" attitude.
To all developers out there who w appreciate all your hard work and participation, just keep in mind, as you expect for yourself, we might be installing a distro that someone else put together, but once it is installed on my computer, it is my distro, to make the decisions as I feel necessary.
It's called respect. Just as you like to receive as well.
UPDATE:
Seeing the confusion people have understanding that I am not discussing the mere disabling of the root user account, such as Ubuntu does. That has a quick fix in simply activating the root user and root has full access to the system, as it should.
This is more inhibiting that that in it limits the access and capabilities root has while logged in as root. Whether you think one should log in as root or not, is your one opinion, there are many arguable points to either side of that discussion. It is a matter of access and someone else forcing you, by default, to work with a computer the way they want you to and not the way you perhaps might choose to.
That is "Big Brother". Yes, one can search and try to find workarounds or fixes, but the point is, going to such lengths to do so should be unnecessary.
It isn't that Fedora has done this, it's that ANY distro would choose to do so. Also, this is not a 'typical' approach to using Linux, not only do they inhibit the root users capabilities, they do not inform anyone that access to root is different than what they might expect.
If there were at least a warning or notice that such changes are present, one could decide upfront whether or not that is the type of system they want to take the time to install on their system.
It isn't 'elitism' to expect a distro to be productive and accessible out of the box. Those are the same demands that people make of Windows and of the new development of Linux as a whole. To be accessible and productive out of the box.
Once again, I am not "bashing" Fedora for this, I am using them as an example of a company or group of developers that decide they are somehow responsible for thinking that they must force users to use a system as the group demands, rather than letting users decide for themselves how they want to use it.
It's the mentality that I would say is the problem. Moreso, it is one thing to give someone sage advice on how the best way to do something or accomplish desired results, it is something else entirely to force them to do it.
Perhaps "dumbing down" isn't the correct phrase here. It's more like trying to making something "foolproof" so as to protect people from themselves. Welcome to the U.S.S.L
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Hmmm, a computer user licence...
In a recent blog by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, he suggested that there be computer users licenses issued.
I can understand his frustrations, I see them everyday myself. While I can also be frustrated by the sometimes seeming total incompetence of a "casual" user", I think things need to be put into perspective as well.
While Steven goes so far as to call Joe User "dumb" I don't think he really means that. I would say Joe User can be willfully ignorant. For those in the management field, think of it as "Deniable Plausibility" meaning, if one doesn't know about something, one can't be held responsible for it.
If one purposely attempts to not know how things work, then that's that much less one has to do about them. At least, that's how the thinking goes.
I have commented before that the "average user" aka Joe User, sees a computer as an appliance. Like a microwave oven or a DVD player. It is there to perform specific tasks, he wants to push a couple buttons, click on an icon or two and WAMMO PRESTO, it is doing what they want it to do.
Joe User wants to surf the internet and check his email. He doesn't want to think about it beyond that. Applying "patches" or upgrades, installing updates and third party software is not part of that picture for Joe User.
That infers having to know more than what Joe User thinks he should know to doing something so seemingly simple as web surfing, watching movies, typing a letter, etc...
The same thing applies to car licenses. In order to obtain an car drivers license, one doesn't need to prove mechanical repair knowledge. Now, we all know, the more we are able to learn and do in terms of even minor auto maintenance, the better off our cars will run and be ready for us to use when we want them.
That doesn't stop some people from deciding they want nothing to do with that. Instead, they prefer to pay someone else to handle that for them. Hence the proliferation of lube and brake shops and tire stores all over the place.
If you were to walk into an auto repair shop, I guarantee you will hear auto mechanics mumbling under their breath that some folks just shouldn't be allowed to obtain a drivers license given the condition of the auto they bring in.
There is a reason, outside of shameless contractual trickery, that Windows has a broad appeal. It caters to the 'Willfully Ignorant" crowd. It tries to make things click it and do it experience for Joe User regardless of how much it might limit or hamper things behind the scenes.
The audience is there, demanding it. They don't want Linux because it is Linux. They don't shy away from it because it isn't Windows. They make an effort to not know about anything that might require them to know more than they want to know or do. The media has done a tremendous job of communicating that in order to use Linux, you must "know" about using computers. There is an expectation of knowledge and learning inherent in the very mention of Linux into a discussion.
That large audience only wants appliance like interaction because to know anything more than how to "click and run" means they will eventually have to do something they really don't want to do in the process.
As far as I am concerned, Windows is welcome to have that audience.
I can understand his frustrations, I see them everyday myself. While I can also be frustrated by the sometimes seeming total incompetence of a "casual" user", I think things need to be put into perspective as well.
While Steven goes so far as to call Joe User "dumb" I don't think he really means that. I would say Joe User can be willfully ignorant. For those in the management field, think of it as "Deniable Plausibility" meaning, if one doesn't know about something, one can't be held responsible for it.
If one purposely attempts to not know how things work, then that's that much less one has to do about them. At least, that's how the thinking goes.
I have commented before that the "average user" aka Joe User, sees a computer as an appliance. Like a microwave oven or a DVD player. It is there to perform specific tasks, he wants to push a couple buttons, click on an icon or two and WAMMO PRESTO, it is doing what they want it to do.
Joe User wants to surf the internet and check his email. He doesn't want to think about it beyond that. Applying "patches" or upgrades, installing updates and third party software is not part of that picture for Joe User.
That infers having to know more than what Joe User thinks he should know to doing something so seemingly simple as web surfing, watching movies, typing a letter, etc...
The same thing applies to car licenses. In order to obtain an car drivers license, one doesn't need to prove mechanical repair knowledge. Now, we all know, the more we are able to learn and do in terms of even minor auto maintenance, the better off our cars will run and be ready for us to use when we want them.
That doesn't stop some people from deciding they want nothing to do with that. Instead, they prefer to pay someone else to handle that for them. Hence the proliferation of lube and brake shops and tire stores all over the place.
If you were to walk into an auto repair shop, I guarantee you will hear auto mechanics mumbling under their breath that some folks just shouldn't be allowed to obtain a drivers license given the condition of the auto they bring in.
There is a reason, outside of shameless contractual trickery, that Windows has a broad appeal. It caters to the 'Willfully Ignorant" crowd. It tries to make things click it and do it experience for Joe User regardless of how much it might limit or hamper things behind the scenes.
The audience is there, demanding it. They don't want Linux because it is Linux. They don't shy away from it because it isn't Windows. They make an effort to not know about anything that might require them to know more than they want to know or do. The media has done a tremendous job of communicating that in order to use Linux, you must "know" about using computers. There is an expectation of knowledge and learning inherent in the very mention of Linux into a discussion.
That large audience only wants appliance like interaction because to know anything more than how to "click and run" means they will eventually have to do something they really don't want to do in the process.
As far as I am concerned, Windows is welcome to have that audience.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Linux institutionalized, a little look back
Linux as an Operating System, not just a specific distribution, but all of them. The collective. has been an institution in and of itself for several years now in the server world. Linux and FOSS server software together has developed a dominating presence in the business/server world.
The proverbial "LAMP" ( Linux, Apache, Mysql, PHP ) is more than an acronym, it's practically the definition of the internet web server.
There is little doubt to the presence and ability of Linux in the server/business world.
Now, when we discuss user desktops, that's another story entirely. Linux, being so heavily based on Minx and Unix subsequently, is a Network Operating System. Yes, a NOS. If you haven't learned by now, acronyms are the stuff of legend in the computer world and we won't stop now.
One of the largest competitors, nay, the dominator of the business user desktop, is Microsoft Windows. This article won't go into the hows and whys of it's gaining said dominance, we will only say that there is no arguing that it is the big dog in the desktop arena.
Going way, way back to the times before Windows was what it is today, there was DOS ( Desktop Operating System) the acronyms and terms of both DOS and NOS are not as young as one might think and actually go back a very long time.
The NOS has been around since Unix at the least. Before there was ever a personal computer, an Apple or Windows, there were networks. Huge mainframe systems that ran connected terminals in various locations, almost always in the same building or location. Giving rise to the idea of the LAN, ( Local Area Network).
Now I am not giving a history lesson per se, just trying to get the gist of the ideas out here for the sake of discussion. Suffice it to say that after many years and many people working hard at it, the personal computer was born, hatched or otherwise brought about.
What is a personal computer? It's a computer that can operate and exist apart from a server that would otherwise provide it with the ability to boot and function. It operates entirely independent of another computer.
One of the first independent, Operating Systems to make that happen was DOS. You can research the history of DOS on your own. Let's just say it allowed people to own and operate computers in locations now that otherwise wouldn't have been possible. personal computers, the technology within them ( processors, memory, etc..) and the evolution of the DOS revolutionized the business world and eventually the rest of the world as well.
What does any of this have to do with Linux you ask? Well, DOS(Desktop Operating System) was directly intended to work on independent computers, but, other Operating Systems wanted to take advantage of the independent, smaller hardware and still perform server roles and functions with them.
Novell was one of them. They had Netware which was an multi-user, network oriented Operating System scaled down to work on a PC sized computer. Unix, which was mae to run mainframes, had it's progenies like Minix, which was a version of Unix scaled to fit and run on PC's also.
Linux came from the nix family line to do it's thing on modern PC's. It is a networking OS scaled down to perform the same functionality and services that a full blown Unix might, on a smaller scale.
Windows evolved from just a command line OS to adding a GUI ( anyone remember Windows 3.1?) all the way to the newest Vista and beyond. it's purpose was targeting the individual using a computer. Joe Public sitting in his house, playing a game or checking email with no one else logging in to that machine at the same time.
Windows was made uniquely for the user desktop. It's entire goal was to make home computing with personal computers easy and productive for anyone sitting at a desk or kitchen table, etc...
As time has gone on and to remain competitive, Windows has added some network and server functionality. They even created their own version of Windows to be a server.
Linux, as a variation of Unix, started off as a Network OS. It has since worked to add desktop capabilities to be more competitive in that market.
It stands to reason then, there are inherent problems for a Windows to become truly adept at networking and problems for Linux at becoming smoothly a desktop OS. They weren't originally made for it and are being tweaked and adapted to add something that wasn't in it's original consideration developmentally.
Most of it has to do with expectations. Incredible and vast amounts of work have gone into Linux to make it a reliable and fully usable PC desktop. When you consider how much of the work has been done voluntarily and then those coders essentially donating all that work they do to the common cause, it is amazing Linux has advanced to the capacity and capabilities it has. Especially when you consider other offerings have multi-million dollar corporations paying millions of dollars to coders to produce something similar.
This is part of what makes Linux and institution. It relies not as much on money but on people. individuals who because of their contributions, take a bit of ownership in the whole. They are proud of the accomplishment an contribution s not only they make but of others doing the same thing. To see so many users adopting it and praising it validates their feeling of accomplishment and ownership of something tremendous.
It rises above because those that are part of it, those who make it grow, make a point to keep it growing, advancing, developing.
Is it the "best" OS ever made? in truth, no it isn't, neither are any other existing OS's. Is it one of the best ones out there, absolutely.
It's adoption rate in the educational world, the business world and the consumer world validates that on a daily basis. The very fact that people harangue and ask for it to be improved is because it has already proven to be reliable and something they want, they now want to smooth it out and advance it even further. They demand more of something they have expectations from. This is something that comes with time, exposure and acceptance.
Linux is not going anywhere. it is reliable, dependable and extensible. We ask for it to improve because we know it can improve as it has risen to meet expectations so many times before.
The next time you log onto the internet, it is very high odds that it is a Linux server hosting those pages or services you see. When you are at work, there is a very good chance that files and other services taken for granted are being provided by a Linux server.
And now, as we sit down at our desks and workstations, it is growing more possible that it will be a Linux desktop you will sit down to.
Maybe it doesn't seem like it's happening fast enough for you, be patient, nothing takes the business world overnight. As businesses adopt Linux on the desktop, schools will to prepare future workers to be able to use it then of course, it will move into homes moreso because people will be so familiar with it from work and school.
I referred earlier to Linux as a 'collective" and much like the Borg, "Resistance is futile". It might take a day or a decade, but soon enough, Linux WILL be there.
The proverbial "LAMP" ( Linux, Apache, Mysql, PHP ) is more than an acronym, it's practically the definition of the internet web server.
There is little doubt to the presence and ability of Linux in the server/business world.
Now, when we discuss user desktops, that's another story entirely. Linux, being so heavily based on Minx and Unix subsequently, is a Network Operating System. Yes, a NOS. If you haven't learned by now, acronyms are the stuff of legend in the computer world and we won't stop now.
One of the largest competitors, nay, the dominator of the business user desktop, is Microsoft Windows. This article won't go into the hows and whys of it's gaining said dominance, we will only say that there is no arguing that it is the big dog in the desktop arena.
Going way, way back to the times before Windows was what it is today, there was DOS ( Desktop Operating System) the acronyms and terms of both DOS and NOS are not as young as one might think and actually go back a very long time.
The NOS has been around since Unix at the least. Before there was ever a personal computer, an Apple or Windows, there were networks. Huge mainframe systems that ran connected terminals in various locations, almost always in the same building or location. Giving rise to the idea of the LAN, ( Local Area Network).
Now I am not giving a history lesson per se, just trying to get the gist of the ideas out here for the sake of discussion. Suffice it to say that after many years and many people working hard at it, the personal computer was born, hatched or otherwise brought about.
What is a personal computer? It's a computer that can operate and exist apart from a server that would otherwise provide it with the ability to boot and function. It operates entirely independent of another computer.
One of the first independent, Operating Systems to make that happen was DOS. You can research the history of DOS on your own. Let's just say it allowed people to own and operate computers in locations now that otherwise wouldn't have been possible. personal computers, the technology within them ( processors, memory, etc..) and the evolution of the DOS revolutionized the business world and eventually the rest of the world as well.
What does any of this have to do with Linux you ask? Well, DOS(Desktop Operating System) was directly intended to work on independent computers, but, other Operating Systems wanted to take advantage of the independent, smaller hardware and still perform server roles and functions with them.
Novell was one of them. They had Netware which was an multi-user, network oriented Operating System scaled down to work on a PC sized computer. Unix, which was mae to run mainframes, had it's progenies like Minix, which was a version of Unix scaled to fit and run on PC's also.
Linux came from the nix family line to do it's thing on modern PC's. It is a networking OS scaled down to perform the same functionality and services that a full blown Unix might, on a smaller scale.
Windows evolved from just a command line OS to adding a GUI ( anyone remember Windows 3.1?) all the way to the newest Vista and beyond. it's purpose was targeting the individual using a computer. Joe Public sitting in his house, playing a game or checking email with no one else logging in to that machine at the same time.
Windows was made uniquely for the user desktop. It's entire goal was to make home computing with personal computers easy and productive for anyone sitting at a desk or kitchen table, etc...
As time has gone on and to remain competitive, Windows has added some network and server functionality. They even created their own version of Windows to be a server.
Linux, as a variation of Unix, started off as a Network OS. It has since worked to add desktop capabilities to be more competitive in that market.
It stands to reason then, there are inherent problems for a Windows to become truly adept at networking and problems for Linux at becoming smoothly a desktop OS. They weren't originally made for it and are being tweaked and adapted to add something that wasn't in it's original consideration developmentally.
Most of it has to do with expectations. Incredible and vast amounts of work have gone into Linux to make it a reliable and fully usable PC desktop. When you consider how much of the work has been done voluntarily and then those coders essentially donating all that work they do to the common cause, it is amazing Linux has advanced to the capacity and capabilities it has. Especially when you consider other offerings have multi-million dollar corporations paying millions of dollars to coders to produce something similar.
This is part of what makes Linux and institution. It relies not as much on money but on people. individuals who because of their contributions, take a bit of ownership in the whole. They are proud of the accomplishment an contribution s not only they make but of others doing the same thing. To see so many users adopting it and praising it validates their feeling of accomplishment and ownership of something tremendous.
It rises above because those that are part of it, those who make it grow, make a point to keep it growing, advancing, developing.
Is it the "best" OS ever made? in truth, no it isn't, neither are any other existing OS's. Is it one of the best ones out there, absolutely.
It's adoption rate in the educational world, the business world and the consumer world validates that on a daily basis. The very fact that people harangue and ask for it to be improved is because it has already proven to be reliable and something they want, they now want to smooth it out and advance it even further. They demand more of something they have expectations from. This is something that comes with time, exposure and acceptance.
Linux is not going anywhere. it is reliable, dependable and extensible. We ask for it to improve because we know it can improve as it has risen to meet expectations so many times before.
The next time you log onto the internet, it is very high odds that it is a Linux server hosting those pages or services you see. When you are at work, there is a very good chance that files and other services taken for granted are being provided by a Linux server.
And now, as we sit down at our desks and workstations, it is growing more possible that it will be a Linux desktop you will sit down to.
Maybe it doesn't seem like it's happening fast enough for you, be patient, nothing takes the business world overnight. As businesses adopt Linux on the desktop, schools will to prepare future workers to be able to use it then of course, it will move into homes moreso because people will be so familiar with it from work and school.
I referred earlier to Linux as a 'collective" and much like the Borg, "Resistance is futile". It might take a day or a decade, but soon enough, Linux WILL be there.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Versatility is a good thing
It is amazing when one stops to consider the variety of different types of environments that people use computers in.
There is the "Home" environment" where people expect to do things that are more entertainment and communication oriented.
The "Work" environment" which includes a diverse number of sub environments within it. Workstations, job specific like artwork or financing, etc...
The "School" environment" which is another environment yet again. It will also consist of both workstations and "typical" installs, but the user environment has widely different needs due to age and experience than a business would.
Then there are the "mixed" environments. Combinations of some already listed. For example, some people operate a business from their home, so they expect to do both work and home tasks on the same machine. The spinoff possibilities can go on for a long time.
Depending on the type of environment and "whose" environment it is, will determine not only what OS and software is used, but how it is implemented and accessed as well. Each environment has it's own unique set of needs and requirements for function, access and interaction.
Different "types" of users will be accessing computers and systems in a variety of roles in these complex environments.
For those who choose Linux, the needs and user requirements, as well as who is administrating the computer or network and their experience and capabilities will also determine which distro will be used.
No one distro fits every environment. Most Linux distros have a "target" niche, group of users or environment they build toward.
The wise administrator will do their legwork before just blindly installing a given distro. They will investigate and try out a variety of distros to see in what environment they are best used in. To learn which "user group" they work for best.
There are a huge number of mixed environments in which multiple OS's are installed in various machines, departments and areas not only because of financial decisions, but trying to match the best OS/distro to the environment as much as possible. The better the match, the more productive those machines and users will be. In the long run, this actually improves ROI and perceived user productivity.
One of the factors that comes to the forefront of the discussion when investigating and having to choose a distro or distros is what Desktop Environment is implemented on the distro. There is KDE, Gnome, XFce plus the variety of window managers that are often deployed alternatively as well.
One of the things that makes careful investigation necessary is that not only are the DE's different from each other in general, but various distros implement and 'tweak' the DE's differently as well.
The Gnome you see on Ubuntu is not entirely the same Gnome you see on Fedora, which is not the same way it is implemented on PCLinuxOS, etc...
The same goes for KDE. There is the "stock" install, which is the most default implementation which some distros include, then there are variations and modifications made to the appearance and presentation of it that other distros make they hope will be an improvement in some way for the target audience they are trying to reach.
Herein comes some of the endless, mindless arguments that can be found on forums everywhere on which distro is "best" or which DE is "better" than the others.
If one tries to determine that a given DE is "horrible" based on their experience of just using one or two distros, then that person is woefully ignorant of several other implementations that might address their concerns used in other distros they haven't seen yet.
Some distros and DE's lend themselves particularly well to a certain function or environment. Gnome for example, in my own estimation is often implemented best in business and large rollout workstation environments.
KDE, I find, is particularly more common and accepted in Home environments because the target user group is used to interacting with maybe another OS that KDE "feels" more like than Gnome or Xfce might "feel" in that environment with that user group.
Xfce really lends itself best to laptops and low power machines or environments where the DE is less important or depended on perhaps, like on servers that utilize a GUI. ( spare me the argument on whether a server should use a GUI or not, this is not the article to discuss that.)
Again, not only is the DE itself to be taken into consideration, but how does a specific distro implement it? Does it just toss in the "stock" version? Does the distro modify it in some way to make it more usable or functional in a given environment or by a specific group of users?
Ultimately, what all this boils down to is that there is no single "best" distro or DE in the Linux community that can or is capable of filling all the wide and varied needs of the multitude of environments and users out there.
This is indeed the true strength of Linux and it's ability to be modified and customized. Having 300 plus distros and a variety of DE's isn't a negative thing. It demonstrates that Linux can be tightly integrated and implemented to uniquely if almost any given user base or work environment we come across.
All it requires is for people who consider using Linux to educate themselves for making a commitment. Which is something almost everyone agrees is a good idea before implementing something so involved as what Operating System to use.
People insist on test driving a car before they buy it. They will possibly test drive a large number of cars before deciding on which one to buy. "Try it before you buy it" is a universal concept in the consumer market. it intends to educate the consumer about the nuances and specifics that will help that person decide if the product they are trying out will be the best long term fit for them.
If people will go to so much trouble for other consumer decisions they make, why wouldn't they educate themselves equally in which OS they will use likely every day, in a variety of ways?
There is the "Home" environment" where people expect to do things that are more entertainment and communication oriented.
The "Work" environment" which includes a diverse number of sub environments within it. Workstations, job specific like artwork or financing, etc...
The "School" environment" which is another environment yet again. It will also consist of both workstations and "typical" installs, but the user environment has widely different needs due to age and experience than a business would.
Then there are the "mixed" environments. Combinations of some already listed. For example, some people operate a business from their home, so they expect to do both work and home tasks on the same machine. The spinoff possibilities can go on for a long time.
Depending on the type of environment and "whose" environment it is, will determine not only what OS and software is used, but how it is implemented and accessed as well. Each environment has it's own unique set of needs and requirements for function, access and interaction.
Different "types" of users will be accessing computers and systems in a variety of roles in these complex environments.
For those who choose Linux, the needs and user requirements, as well as who is administrating the computer or network and their experience and capabilities will also determine which distro will be used.
No one distro fits every environment. Most Linux distros have a "target" niche, group of users or environment they build toward.
The wise administrator will do their legwork before just blindly installing a given distro. They will investigate and try out a variety of distros to see in what environment they are best used in. To learn which "user group" they work for best.
There are a huge number of mixed environments in which multiple OS's are installed in various machines, departments and areas not only because of financial decisions, but trying to match the best OS/distro to the environment as much as possible. The better the match, the more productive those machines and users will be. In the long run, this actually improves ROI and perceived user productivity.
One of the factors that comes to the forefront of the discussion when investigating and having to choose a distro or distros is what Desktop Environment is implemented on the distro. There is KDE, Gnome, XFce plus the variety of window managers that are often deployed alternatively as well.
One of the things that makes careful investigation necessary is that not only are the DE's different from each other in general, but various distros implement and 'tweak' the DE's differently as well.
The Gnome you see on Ubuntu is not entirely the same Gnome you see on Fedora, which is not the same way it is implemented on PCLinuxOS, etc...
The same goes for KDE. There is the "stock" install, which is the most default implementation which some distros include, then there are variations and modifications made to the appearance and presentation of it that other distros make they hope will be an improvement in some way for the target audience they are trying to reach.
Herein comes some of the endless, mindless arguments that can be found on forums everywhere on which distro is "best" or which DE is "better" than the others.
If one tries to determine that a given DE is "horrible" based on their experience of just using one or two distros, then that person is woefully ignorant of several other implementations that might address their concerns used in other distros they haven't seen yet.
Some distros and DE's lend themselves particularly well to a certain function or environment. Gnome for example, in my own estimation is often implemented best in business and large rollout workstation environments.
KDE, I find, is particularly more common and accepted in Home environments because the target user group is used to interacting with maybe another OS that KDE "feels" more like than Gnome or Xfce might "feel" in that environment with that user group.
Xfce really lends itself best to laptops and low power machines or environments where the DE is less important or depended on perhaps, like on servers that utilize a GUI. ( spare me the argument on whether a server should use a GUI or not, this is not the article to discuss that.)
Again, not only is the DE itself to be taken into consideration, but how does a specific distro implement it? Does it just toss in the "stock" version? Does the distro modify it in some way to make it more usable or functional in a given environment or by a specific group of users?
Ultimately, what all this boils down to is that there is no single "best" distro or DE in the Linux community that can or is capable of filling all the wide and varied needs of the multitude of environments and users out there.
This is indeed the true strength of Linux and it's ability to be modified and customized. Having 300 plus distros and a variety of DE's isn't a negative thing. It demonstrates that Linux can be tightly integrated and implemented to uniquely if almost any given user base or work environment we come across.
All it requires is for people who consider using Linux to educate themselves for making a commitment. Which is something almost everyone agrees is a good idea before implementing something so involved as what Operating System to use.
People insist on test driving a car before they buy it. They will possibly test drive a large number of cars before deciding on which one to buy. "Try it before you buy it" is a universal concept in the consumer market. it intends to educate the consumer about the nuances and specifics that will help that person decide if the product they are trying out will be the best long term fit for them.
If people will go to so much trouble for other consumer decisions they make, why wouldn't they educate themselves equally in which OS they will use likely every day, in a variety of ways?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
