How can Google be taken seriously if a) it runs it's own business on LAMP servers using mainly Python; b) develops a multi-threaded browser with a memory-conservative development API; c) call it all open source and d) make it available only on Windows?
Since Google Chrome is probably very good competition for the remaining users of Microsoft Internet Explorer (which apparently is some kind of a web browser) I'll refer you'all to THIS very interesting cartoon (hat tip: Joe) that will convince you, if you are a Windows user, to install Chrome. But if you are a Linux/Unix (including Mac) user, you are out of luck, sorry.
They say they are working on it. What I don't understand is why did this browser not START on Linux. Also, they were "working on" a version of Picasso for Linux as well, but all they came up with was a form of Picasso for Windows that was kludged to some WINE guts to make it work very unreliably.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Greg, the main thing is they can get a larger user base by targeting it at windows. More users = more hype= better prospects for the browser. Sorry to tell you, but most of the world is still on windows, and most developers work on windows applications too. The fact that it is open source means that us Linux users can get cracking on porting chrome over, which is definitely something Google wants. They just wanted to get the product out there to pique our interest in it, and then let the OSS community improve it. After all, the first Mozilla browser wasn't great either.
It's pretty easy to call it open source: they released the source code. Open source does not mean cross-platform (otherwise very little on Linux would be open source).
Why did it start on Windows? Maybe because they're looking to test out a concept and want it to reach as many people as possible? I'm as big a Linux (and OS X) fanboy as the next guy, but I'm having trouble getting at your argument here. Are you really claiming that the only way Google can be called "serious" is if it releases all of its software on Linux, or releases it there *first* for that matter?
Hey, if you're that worried about Linux development of Chrome, why not go over there and help out?
"We are so, so happy with Google Chrome," mumbled Mozilla CEO John Lilly through gritted teeth. "That most of our income is from Google has no bearing on me making this statement." - http://notnews.today.com/?p=57
I'm thinking (not surprisingly) the exact opposite. As you develop the product, an open source product, you start with the most dedicated Open Source community.
You can develop for more than one platform at the same time.
"How can Google be taken seriously if a) it runs it's own business on LAMP servers using mainly Python" that inferior business makes 20 billion dollars a year, so it's a hell of a lot more successful than anything you came up with.
BTW maybe they didn't release it on Linux because they want, like, actual people to use it.
How'd this get to be a scienceblog?
Uh, starting with the folks with the lowest expectations?
I think Google falls into the mindset at this point that many others seem to. Namely, they think that Linux was, is, and will be for geeks and servers, not for end users. The Linux developers work on the behind-the-scenes server issues, while the Windows developers work on the end-user product lines.
Exactly. Remember, the reason for Chrome is to drive more web surfers to Google's search engines, given that Microsoft is going to be using its hegemony to drive surfers to its search engines. It'd be pretty dumb not to go for the largest user base possible right off the bat.
Methinks Greg's let his annoying Linux fanboyness cloud his judgment--as he often does.
Windows has plenty of open-source developers too. And with the potential for many more testers (which is an important part of development) on Windows, it makes plenty of sense to start there.
They are.
Orac,
Where do you find time to hone your skills? At being an asshole? I mean, come on, man, you really do not like anything I write, yet you read it and complain about it. You can't stay away from my blog. yet you hate it. Seek help!
Why not just ignore it? Your blog is popular enough, considering ... you don't need the link love. I'm not doing anything over here that is touching your precious woo fighting (and I assume that you know what you are doing over there on your blog, though frankly I don't actually know whether or not you are full of shit or not about certain issues ... ). Did I run over your cat or something? Did a penguin fuck your wife or something? Or do you just have this thing where you want to be a troll, you like being a troll? Get a life, man.
Back to the issue at hand: Yes, no kidding folks, that Google or anyone else would launch a product for Windows is, well, utterly obvious. Duh. Double duh.
But there are both cultural and technical issues here that I don't think are being thought through, and that I as a blogger who touches on technology (oh, yes, I was originally asked to be a science blogger partly because I blog about this stuff ... little known fact that just occur ed to me for some reason, Chuck) I thought I'd bring it up. Yes, cross platform does not equal open source (no one has suggested that, yet somehow I'm admonished for saying it). But Microsoft ... that's the company that produces Windows ... is clearly a) very anti open source, b) very clearly anti Google and c) does not actually have 99 percent of the market as seems implied.
Furthermore, as I suggest above regarding Picasso, Google does not simply make a Windows product then later launch the Mac/Linux versions. In the case of Picasso, they totally dissed the users of the other platforms and did a totally amateurish job of it.
Question for you: When was the last time you had to reboot the computer you are using? For me, the answer was three years ago, when it was running Windows. Since I installed Linux on this laptop, I have not had to reboot once, and I use it all the time. Because I am using a superior operating system.
Because I'm smart, cool, and maybe just a little brave. And that's OK.
Winawer: Are you telling us that you KNOW that Google is developing for Linux and Mac as well? Yes, they have said they are "working on it" but as I've said, they told us the same thing regarding Picasso but this was not true. Please let me know what you have on this, if anything.
(You're all spies working for Google, I know it)
I was just about to get all up in arms (for fun) and point out that you already know where I work and that it's not for Google. Then I realized you don't have any idea where I work. Not for Google though. The perks aren't quite that nice.
Well, I know what you do for a living and I don't think Google does exactly that.
And you know I was mainly talking to Chuck, right? And what's his name.
I did say "for fun." And no, Google is set up rather precisely to not need most of what I do.
Plus they are a Python shop and if you were a programmer you would program in perl. I think.
Since Google Earth (which I use frequently), Google seems to have essentially abandoned actual cross-platform development in favor of trying to stick it to Microsoft by (they hope) wooing Microsoft's users away.
Picasa is an excellent example here. There's also whatever the heck that pseudo-Second-Life thing they announced a few weeks ago was, and now Chrome.
If they really intended to be developing cross-platform, they would, and cross-platform support would have been one of the design goals from the start. Instead, they seem to figure they'll just develop for Windows and maybe go through the effort of making "a linux version", sometime after they get around to reluctantly writing a Mac version, later on. From the point of view of attracting the large number of "least common denominator" users as quickly as possible this makes sense. From the point of view of attracting a "community" to be enthusiastic about helping to promote and develop it, the platform-exclusivity is Just Stupid...
In the case of Chrome, though, I wonder if the reason they aren't bothering is that they just figure we Linux and Mac users ALREADY have Webkit/KHTML-based browsers (Konqueror and Safari) readily available and running fine and are therefore far less likely to bother with Chrome even if it was available.
@ Greg Laden
"Since I installed Linux on this laptop, I have not had to reboot once, and I use it all the time. Because I am using a superior operating system.
Because I'm smart, cool, and maybe just a little brave. And that's OK. "
You're calling yourself brave based on "using a superior operating system"? And telling someone else to get a life???
That is definitely the funniest thing I've read all day.
If you actually give a shit about the "open source ethos" (for want of a better term), then maybe. If you're just using the "open source" label as a marketing tool and a means to avoid anti-trust lawsuits, not so much...
hibob: Read more slowly, think about what you read, and you may someday begin to comprehend. Then, you will still be able to find things to laugh at, but you'll notice people will also stop laughing at you as much.
I was telling my colleague Orac to get a life, not "everyone". Yes, it takes bravery, and more than average interest in learning, to run Linux. It is not a "push here stupid" operating system. Real computer users don't want a "push here stupid" operating system any more than real photographers want a "push here stupid" camera.
Dunc: Is that what Google is doing? Interesting idea.
Well, do you really think that Google is committed to the open source ethos? Or do you think they're committed to making as much money as humanly possible? Pick one only.
[Hint: they're a publicly-listed corporation, and as such they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders.]
I notice that it hasn't done their share price any harm...
Oh do me a favour... You think unpicking DCOM by spelunking in the registry doesn't take bravery and an interest in learning? ;)
The reason I don't run Linux is that I'm just not that interested in computers any more. I just want the damn thing to work when I turn it on. I have better and more interesting things to do with my time than learn a new OS.
It's just a fracking tool, dude.
I hate to see two of my favorite bloggers sniping at each other! Greg, I agree with Orac that Linux advocacy can be annoying to non-Linux users. As Dunc said, it's just a tool. I've been running Linux exclusively for thirteen years but after several disastrous attempts to convert others, I've come to the realization that Linux will never be Ready For Prime Time. It's a geeky intellectual hobby but unless you like to know how the guts of your software works, you are better off with a Mac.
And what's wrong with LAMP servers, Greg? This message comes from one!
Dunc, you are probably right about google. But wrong about Linux. I want a computer that works too, that is why I use the system I use (Ubuntu with Gnome). It just works.
Larry: No, I'm all for Lamp servers! My approach here is entirely philosophical. Dunc may be right about Googles motives, but Goolge tells us that they have a soul. SO, when I seem them seeling out and being hypocritical, I tell them. Just doing my job as a blogger (not that they listen to me, but that is not really the point).
The difference between google/mac/windows/linux (as representing a multidimensional universe of approaches) is really one of levels of denialism. Not denying that your operating system sucks and that for a small investment in learning you can move to one that works is brave. Larry, I applaud your bravery.
Oh, and while I'm here:
hibob:
greg laden:
[My bolds]
No further comment necessary, I think... Except, perhaps "EPIC FAIL". ;)
Oh right, should have read that more clearly. Sorry. Note to self: Don't read comments on blog before coffee.
Hibob is still wrong in essence, of course.
Yes, it takes bravery, and more than average interest in learning, to run Linux. It is not a "push here stupid" operating system. Real computer users don't want a "push here stupid" operating system any more than real photographers want a "push here stupid" camera.
It's posts like this that make Linux still sound like a scary religious cult, I'm afraid. Linux advocacy is fine, as it's a good OS (excluding gaming, of course), but questioning the intelligence of everyone who uses Windows does not seem like the best way to win people to your cause.
I don't question the intelligence of people who use Windows. Or macs. My brother and sister are both smarter than me, and one uses Windows and one is not only a Mac user but a Mac engineer/developer person at Apple.
There is nothing about a technology or a process that need directly reflect on the user. I drive an automatic but I can drive a standard. The standard is harder to drive (in that it takes more steps) but under certain conditions (that I don't encounter in Minnesota very often) would provide advantages. When I go to work in the bush in Africa, I drive a standard because it makes sense. I adjust.
The operating system is the same. Regardless of the OS inherent characteristics, an OS can be set up to be PHS or 'under the hood.' The OS that runs my chumby is Linux, vut I assure you that the chumby is a PHS object equivilant to the camera on my cell phone, maybe even less complex.
What I object to is the following: Consider an out of the box Windows installation on a typical machine and an out of the box Gnome/Ubuntu (say) installation on a typical machine, where in BOTH CASES the machine and the system have been matched (that is important). The widespread assumption among people who are windows users and not linux users, as well as people who claim to have "used linux back in the day but gave up" etc. is that the Windows machine "just works" and the Linux machine does not.
This is a falsehood of the most insidious kind, because not only is it untrue, it is destructive beyond what most people realize.
Now, when I use my chumby, I am not being a 'real computer user' ... in fact, over the last two weeks I went to three different places and took pictures that turned out to be important or interesting, but all the pictures were with my new cell phone. I happen to have a kick-ass digital SLR and excellent lenses, but I did not want to be carrying around the camera on these trips.
But, when I want to do serious photography, I get out the Nikon and put away the cell phone. When I want to do serious computer stuff, I would never dream of using a Windows computer because of all the flaws in the system, the overhead, the problems. I chose to focus on learning and knowing one system, as many other people do, and I've chosen the more powerful and reliable, and less expensive one.
In what way is this like a religious cult?
Crap - only the first para of my last comment should be blockquoted.
What, for pointing out that preferring a different OS is not actually a great sign of bravery? Greg, Greg, Greg... I do like a lot of your writing, but sometimes you can be such a tosser. You want to demonstrate your bravery, join the fire service or become a deep-sea crab fisherman or something. It's just a tool (OK, except when some tosser decides to use it as an in-group marker). It may say something about your views on process isolation and file system architecture, but it says sod all about you as a person - except for the fact that you seem to think it says something about you as a person, which in itself says that you're a massive tosser.
What next - are you going to argue that preferring Ogg Vorbis means that you are more handsome and charming than those MP3 troglodytes (who are all scheming and dishonest, plus they smell)?
Most people manage to grow out of this sort of thing in adolescence.
I look forward to your series of posts on how a preference for pistachio flavoured ice-cream clearly correlates with altruism, financial success, and a pleasant body odour.
Dunc, you are playing too much off of a joke I made that was perhaps too subtle. Have you heard of Al Franken?
No, what is going on here is that I'm pointing out a reality that should in fact make a lot of people very uncomfortable. And that is what is happening. Now we have concern (trolling) that my point is to link identity to operating system. Well, for Windows users, maybe this is the way it goes. And it feels very bad.
Yes, I prefer an operating system that is designed to work over an operating system that is designed to sell. That this is the basic choice is very painful to those who have bought in to the latter.
Dunc, you do know that bravery comes on a scale, right? The willingness to do something other than what everyone else is doing and to do it without someone holding your hand may not be at the same place on the scale as putting yourself in harm's way for a cause (which Greg has also done), but it's on the scale.
Talk about touching a nerve.
Oh, I see. Well, you know, well-known problems of subtle humour in a text-based medium... Plus there is an equivalent of Poe's Law for Linux evangelism. And Franken? Heard of him, yes. That's as far as it goes.
Not sure I'm following you there... Which reality are we talking about now?
I know you are, but what am I? Seriously?
Look, you can slate Windows on technical points all you like - God knows I have often enough. It's not a very good OS from a technical perspective. Hardly anybody cares.
Me, I'm in IT for one reason and one reason only - to earn money with as little effort as humanly possible. I really don't care about the technology. I have better things to care about.
Obsessive fanboyism really gets on my tits though. Especially when I see it from people who seem like they should know better.
Windows is like christianity in the US. It is the default, the presumption. I assure you that as a non-windows user this windows jingoism is much more annoying than any 'fanboyism' in support of the clearly superior operating system could possibly be.
Youtube does not have any of Al Franken's old SNL routines as far as I can tell. (Maybe that is because he's running for senate and 'big comedy' is helping out a little?) He had a routine as a guy who would do looking-in-the-mirror affirmation. And that's OK.
Among the types of people who are attracted to Linux are long-term UNIX geeks and gung-ho do-it-yourselfers. We shouldn't be moaning because Google Chrome only runs on Windows. We should be holding a betting pool on which of the next 14 days will be the day that somebody gets Chrome running under Linux.
To be honest, what mainly got my gander up was your hilariously auto-refuting slap at hibob...
Look, I'm mainly a web developer, and regardless of what I think the situation ought to be, the fact is that the vast majority of my end-users are on locked-down corporate Windows desktops with an out-of-date edition of IE, so that's what I have to target first and everything else is an afterthought. They may not have 99% market share, but I'm willing to bet it's over 90% (and in certain market segments, it is 99% or more). You can argue that it's shouldn't be that way until you're blue in the face, but all you'll have to show for it is a blue face.
I get that you really like Linux, and I'm willing to accept that it's technically superior. Betamax was technically superior too.
Anyway, we've had this argument before. Several times, in fact...
Indeed, how can anyone take Google seriously when they use MySQL, instead of a real, open-source database.
I don't question the intelligence of people who use Windows.
Apologies, but your "Real Computer Users(tm) use Linux" comment did seem to imply that people who don't use it cannot be Real Computer Users(tm). There are a few passable programmers/developers here on the Windows platform who I'd like to think might also deserve that moniker.
The cult reference was in relation to the frothing-at-the-mouth evangelism that some Linux fans exercise (although that has fortunately much reduced in recent years, I've found). It's only an Operating System, at the end of the day, but tell some people you run XP and they'll look at you like you've violated a cracker!
Google released Chrome on Windows first because there are more users available - for better or worse, that's how things are.
"questioning the intelligence of everyone who uses Windows does not seem like the best way to win people to your cause."
<flamebait>Yeah, you uppity awindowsists need to just shut up! This is a Microsoft country! Just like the founding CEOs intended!</flamebait>
Well, the Founding Fathers *did* put "One Nation Under Windows" in the pledge of allegiance, after all ;)
The real question is not if Chrome (beta) is ready for prime time (it is not.) What I find more interesting is that it appears to have all the trappings of a disruptive technology.
I wrote more about this idea here:
Google Chrome: Disruptive Technology
http://faseidl.com/public/blog/212172
@Greg-
Think about what you wrote: you haven't had to reboot your linux PC in three years. Where's the bravery in that?
I like Linux just fine, much more than I liked Irix or Unix. But to me, it takes more "courage" to do a windows install (slipstreaming to get rid of (some of) the bits you don't want, dealing with microsoft activation, dealing with the inevitable reinstalls after it gets borked, dealing with de-activation because you reinstalled too many times or changed too many components ...) than it does to just burn the latest live CD for your favorite flavor of linux and then hitting restart.
Did installing your OS fill you with dread and trepidation?
No?
Coward.
:)
hibob: Amen.
Linux rots your syntax. How can a blogger be taken seriously if he doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's"?
Pedant, perhaps by having significantly more to say than, "You misused an apostrophe."
Ehem.
Safari for Mac is a worse browser than IE 6 and 7 for WinXP. (Especially 7 -- there are one or two things that Safari can do and IE 6 can't, but 7 can.)
Safari, you see, just crashes, several times a week sometimes. It "quits unexpectedly" as the error message calls it. I have witnessed a single IE 7 (or, IIRC, 6 for that matter) crash ever, and I have never needed to reboot XP on my laptop except after system updates. On the big computer back home, I have needed to reboot, but only when my little sister installed malware that let a few viruses in. (One of the viruses kept coming back, but installing Service Pack 3 completely eliminated the problem.)
All this talk is missing what is probably the most important feature for the acceptance of Chrome by PC users in general: The "recently viewed" thumbnails feature. If this is not easily disabled, millions of deviant perverts (read, normal people if you're not christian), will live in fear of being caught having recently had their wank on and will opt to stay with the browsers without this feature.
Greg, if you had clicked on the link I gave in the first comment I made, you would see that you can go check out the code yourself and build it yourself if you want. The Mac port is further along than the Linux port, apparently, but they are both under active development.
To be fair, I guess that they *could* have just built the code to a certain point, gave it to the community, and decided to abandon it while telling people that they *are* actively developing it, but that requires a frame of mind more suitable for the "OMG! the moonz landingz wer fakd!!!?!" crowd. I don't live close enough to the Google campus to go and take pictures of people working on the thing, I'm afraid.
From the official Google Mac blog, I quote:
Good enough?
Dunc,
It may be true that most web users have the misfortune of using Windows and IE, but what developer in their right mind would develop using IE? Develop using Firefox, then test it with IE, Safari, Opera, Chrome, etc. Firefox has excellent plugins to support web development.
FYI, The US Government made the decision to target IE with Grants.gov, and they totally screwed Firefox and Safari users. Idiots.
- D
PS Wow, Chrome is fast, but it has trouble with SciBlogs. We'll have to get Mark Chu-Carroll to pester Google for us.
I do mainly use FF myself, particularly for the Web Developer toolbar, which is really jolly handy. But when you're developing a closed (intranet or extranet) application where the entire userbase is using a specific version of IE, there is really no point in using another browser - and it's actually asking for trouble. Screw the standards, you have to meet the clients' requirements. Also, if your project is using, say, the Infragistics NetAdvantage control library, it simply doesn't work properly in FF and you can spend weeks wasting time trying to make it work in a browser that will never actually be used in production.
The majority of web development is not public facing, so browser compatibility is frequently a lesser consideration, or not a consideration at all. Timescale is always a big consideration. If you can shave a week or two off the project by not supporting platforms that aren't going to be involved anyway, only a fool or a madman wouldn't do it.
I have never needed to reboot XP on my laptop except after system updates. Why do you reboot your computer after system updates? Linux hardly ever requires that. Windows is funny.
On the big computer back home, I have needed to reboot, but only when my little sister installed malware that let a few viruses in.
Malware? Virus? What is that?
(One of the viruses kept coming back, but installing Service Pack 3 completely eliminated the problem.)
Service Pack? Hmm.
Greg, if you had clicked on the link I gave in the first comment I made, you would see that you can go check out the code yourself and build it yourself if you want.
I am very glad to her that.
Dunc: I know of a lot of development contexts where developers simply informed the power that they needed to install the free Firefox in the user base or there would be problems, and then there it was ... in stalled. I'm not sure why a developer would not try to get the customer to use the superior (in this case cost free other than the very simple work of installation) client.
Dunc said:
I've not done any closed-audience web development for several years. The problem for clients such as this is that they are currently locked in to a specific version of IE. What happens when they do upgrade? Does their intranet break? I've always been one for recommending to clients that they ditch IE completely, if at all possible. When they complain about the costs, I remind them of the costs they will incur at some later date. What better time than now? The Corporate world has been sold a bill of goods by Microsoft (in my opinion), as have a large group of developers.
At any rate, I definitely sympathize with your frustrations as a web developer, having experienced them myself.
I switched to Linux a few years ago, and using Ubuntu with Gnome has removed much of the frustration I encountered with Windows. My wife switched as well, and truly enjoys Linux as an end-user. The only reason we have to set up a Windows install (probably on two external drives) is to run the forthcoming Diablo III.
Because when you're dealing with a major multinational FSO (such as HBOS or Citibank) it takes (at least) several months and large sums of money to get the simplest change to the desktop configuration approved, and there's huge institutional resistance to any change whatsoever. You start telling people like that "Hey, we need to roll out a new application to all 100,000 of your users across 25 different countries, because we think it's better than IE", they say "No, don't be stupid, go away - we'll hire somebody who's willing to do what we want them to", and your company loses a contract worth a couple of million bucks. And then you lose your job.
The "very simple work of installation" is often anything but, and to even suggest that is to reveal a stunning ignorance of how major corporate IT systems are set up and administered. For one thing, you can administer all the settings of IE via group policy. That's a big winner in security-concious enterprises. The sort of people I generally work with have had a team of experts tweaking their group policy for months to lock everything down as tight as humanly possible. When you're running a bank, you don't want your call-centre staff installing browser extensions. Or, indeed, doing anything at all except reading their scripts. A lot of these people have only just rolled out XP desktops, because it took them 4 freaking years to validate their configuration. And you want to ask them to install a new browser? Your feet wouldn't even touch the ground on the way out.
Of course, in some cases (small companies, non-profits... you know, kid stuff) you can do that sort of thing, and I do. But as an employee of a company of 25 people doing contract work for multi-billion dollar multinationals, when they say "Jump!" I meekly ask "How high, sir?"
Something you have to deal with if you're using an OS that has a big enough installed base to be worth attacking. Remember, the biggest vulnerability in any system is the person sitting at the keyboard, and I don't believe that any Linux distro has managed to engineer out that particular problem yet. (I've had this idea for years of writing a simple "virus" that does nothing more than phone home, and distributing it as a standard Windows installer called "virus.msi", plastered all over with warnings, attached to emails that say "Do not click on the attachment under any circumstances, it is a very dangerous virus", and see how many people install it anyway. I'd bet that the number is significantly greater than zero.)
That's what quirks modes are for. But still, I'm talking about people with upgrade cycles measured in decades.
I'd almost forgotten how slowly the big corporations move. I used to work for Alcoa (mid 80's to 90's), and remember the CICS system there. Repeat after me: "COBOL is your friend." WordPerfect on the VAX/VMS system (Wow, a DEC Alpha processor!) by way of the VT-420 terminals was the best thing since sliced bread. I guess that for the foreseeable future, the only large companies that will be anywhere near the leading edge of technology are the technology companies. The rest, that simply want a system that just works, will take the long slow road. Not much to be done about that.
Still, Linux of various flavors are making inroads, such as the French paramilitary police force replacing their 70,000 desktop Windows XP sytems with Ubuntu. Moving away from the licenses required for Windows is expected to save them over ten million dollars a year.
Yeah, I hear you can still make big bucks as a COBOL consultant. As for the French, I'm not surprised - buncha commies. ;)
WindowsXP SP3 sucks like jesus christ! It's at least a daily reboot, often more. How can a person get any work done that way?
I've run various and sundry Operating Systems so I know ;) Most are just plug and run, as long as you have hardware support. Now, some of the hardware manufactures don't want their hardware to be easily usable by the better Operating Systems so, just chuck them, get some better hardware often at lower cost too.
Now, you can't have a better OS and expect it to function exactly like Microsoft. You can't have a real tool and expect it to function exactly like a toy either. Learning the new functions of a better OS is certainly easier than it was to learn to use Microsoft and you have an almost unending variety of new tools that you can explore with the other Operating Systems.
If you want to throw good money after bad, over and over, then get with the Microsoft. If you want quality that you can build on, over and over, then get a quality Operating System.
And...screw Google use scroogle.org or one of the other quality search engines. For most common searching Scroogle is better. Well, if you don't want some company and their employees knowing you better than you know yourself, it is. Or, worse still, thinking they know you better than you do!
Doug, I appreciate your revelation of my stunning ignorance ... I had no idea.
I'm sure you are correct in every thing you say, especially about the part where the very large organization/institution is unable to adapt or adjust in any positive way in any kind of useful time frame.
Next time I hear someone talk about the power of the free market to adapt, adjust, and optimize, I'll send them your way.
Dunc said:
LOL! Funny you should mention that. The other day I changed my Ubuntu desktop to "Red Dawn of Ubuntu" with a little "Linux for Communists" under the logo.
Yeah, COBOL programming is still a very lucrative trade. I may have to dust off some old textbooks. I guess I could install OpenCobol in my machine at home to start.
Doug said:
That's still my biggest problem with Linux. I put together two identical machines this year for desktop systems (one for me, one for my wife), but only after I did plenty of research into Linux compatibility for the individual hardware items. If you're going to run Windows, it really isn't an issue (Yes, it can be an issue with Vista in some circumstances). The manufacturer invariably provides drivers for various versions of Windows. The same goes for Mac, to a lesser extent.
But what about drivers for Linux? A few of the hardware manufacturers have stepped up, but nearly all are opposed to releasing any of their source code. It's still a very secretive business. Granted, there are many open-source projects targeting specific hardware items, but it's often done in the dark with no assistance from the manufacturer. This situation will have to change dramatically in order for Linux to be "ready for prime time."
I did notice though that you can now buy an Ubuntu install package at Best Buy stores with 60 days of support (through a deal with ValuSoft). I wonder how many times they run into "That particular piece of hardware isn't compatible."
The French are smart enough not to have a shrub as their overlord.
Greg: What version of Linux are you running on your laptop? I'm running Ubuntu on three PCs here at home, though one simply serves as a router (uptime: 12:08:07 up 54 days, 5:25, 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.05, 0.00). I had to reboot it after a kernel upgrade a couple months ago.
One of my coworkers has taken up Ubuntu for daily use on his Dell laptop since I introduced him to Linux. He has since introduced it to a couple of his coworkers at another office. It seems that most of these people are computer geeks to a certain extent, but found Windows to be more frustrating as time went on.
How many people have you introduced Linux to, and what has been their response? Do you feel their response correlates to their level of geekness?
"Malware? Virus? What is that?
Something you have to deal with if you're using an OS that has a big enough installed base to be worth attacking."
Exactly - this is why the Apache web server has historically had so many security problems while IIS, with its much less significant market share, hasn't. (Um...right?)
(The "popularity" excuse always bugged me...)
Dan:
OK, when I said did not have to reboot, I did not count turning off the computer because I was done using it or a system upgrade. The computer in question started as Dapper then went to Gusty.. It remains at Gusty.
There are three or four people who read this blog who are messing around with Linux maybe because of some encouragement here. They may wish to chime in regarding their own geekiness.
My brother has messed around with it, but he is a developer (of sorts) in Windows, so he is not likely to change. He's been a geek since the IBM 360 was the hot new desk computer. And I mean desk, not desk-top.
My daughter is not that geeky in regards to computers, and she is utterly indifferent as to what computer she uses, and yes, her computer is a Linux. My wife is forced to use Windows at work, but when she needs to use my Linux computer she seems also fairly indifferent to the OS.
I don't think, frankly, that this is a matter of the kind of person who can/should use Linux. I think the issue here is the kind of person who is wedded to Windows to one degree or another for one reason or another, often because they are forced to because of their jobs, sometimes because they don't know of anything else, often, I'm afraid, because of a misplaced believe that the OS you use on your desktop/laptop matters a whole hell of a lot when you are mainly using "office" applications and the web.
Yes, I agree ... the popularity argument is spectacularly ignorant and even, if I may say, dumb as a doorknob. There may be a popularity/size of base effect, but it pales in comparison to the simple fact that Windows as a corporate product, and given it's design, is simply a vulnerable product. Linux/Unix/BSD, on the other hands, has a fundamentally different design (even though those three variants are different, at an important level of implementation they are similar) that simply provides more security. Linux is simply more secure than Windows. Its a no brainer.
Dan, many of the hardware manufactures are getting better at cooperating. I haven't had many hardware driver problems but, I usually wait several months before buying the new hardware (lower prices and better support.)
But, seriously now, when you build a computer from scratch there is a lot of hardware research anyway, regardless of the Operating System that you use. Do you feel you ended up with better machines, after ensuring that they would work with the linux kernel?
When buying hardware, I always make a big deal about wanting it to work with the good operating systems, by encouraging the salespeople to mention in their sales meetings that people want products that work with other systems besides Microsoft. I think it works :)
I think a lot of this comes from the fact that it is open-source. For example, open-source cryptography is seen as more secure than proprietary software because anyone can look at the source code to see what the software does. There won't be a "back door" because it would be noticed by the other developers. This fails when the number of people working on a project shrinks to just a few, or less. It fails in other circumstances too, noticeably with the SSH security issue in Debian earlier this year. When such failures occur (as they always will) they are immediately announced in the open-source community, but in the proprietary channel, who can say? If Microsoft finds a gaping security hole that the rest of the world is ignorant of, they can try to keep it secret while they work on it.
I have hopes that Google's Chrome project can benefit from the open-source community, and can't wait to see a running Linux version. I'm not much of a C programmer, so I don't think I could really be of much assistance with the project, but I do intend to keep an eye on the development process.
Greg, while I may know a thing or two that you don't, I am very confident that those couple of things are very few and far between :)
You provide lots of good and useful information!
Doug, I doubt that very much. I'm just making this shit up.
Strawman - I never said anything even vaguely like that. They may be able to change and adapt - but it won't be because some scruffy oik working for a sub-sub-contractor tells them to, nor will it be because FF has better support for W3C standards.
Do you make a habit of taking people to task for things they didn't say? That's at least twice in this thread so far.
Dunc? Are you cutting and pasting these blockquotes into the box from some other software? This is the second time the code 'looks' correct but is not. Must be a strange character somewhere in the closing tag that is not human readable. I simply retyped the closing tag here and it worked.
Oh, and I really thought you were saying what I said you were saying. And I think you were, even if you don't fully realize it. I mean, seriously, Firefox has been the superior web browser for a very long time. Why is ANY company still using it? When I suggested that a company should change that, you gave me a litany of reasons why a large company can not. I take that as very strong evidence of what I thought you said.
If you were not thinking what I was thinking you were thinking, perhaps you better start thinking it. That's what I think, anyway.
Nah, I'm just typing them straight in here... Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't - I'd always assumed it was just my lazy typing, brought on by years of auto-complete.
Don't try and tell me what I was really trying to say. To quote yourself: "Read more slowly, think about what you read, and you may someday begin to comprehend." If you want to argue with me, fine - but argue with me, rather than the voices in your head brought on by your sense of persecution over your choice of OS. I've just re-read the comments in question, and they seem perfectly straight-forward to me. But just to clarify: there are all sorts of issues which influence the choice of software platform in a corporate environment, of which technical superiority is merely one, and not a particularly important one at that. Manageability, marketing, and internal organisational politics are far more significant. I didn't give any reasons why companies cannot change such things (of course they can, should they decide to), only a small selection of the reasons why they typically will not. Finally, as a mere employee of a small-fry sub-contractor, I am not in any position to suggest that a major client revise their desktop IT strategies to fit my preferences.
Seriously, what's the CIO of of Nameless Multinational going to say at his next board presentation? "Oh, you know that 5-Year Strategic Plan I spent 6 months and half a million dollars drawing up? The one I list as my Headline Career Accomplishment? Well, some guy called Duncan who works for one of our sub-contractors' sub-contractors says it's wrong, so we're going to completely revise it." I don't think so...
I really don't see what's so hard to understand about all this. You've got training in anthropology, right? Forget the technology, and think about the people.
there are all sorts of issues which influence the choice of software platform in a corporate environment, of which technical superiority is merely one, and not a particularly important one at that. Manageability, marketing, and internal organisational politics are far more significant.
Well put, and that is EXACTLY my point. The free market ideal does not involve, for instance oragnizational politics. The free market ideal assumes that technical superiority and/or efficiency is the only important variable. Moreover, the free market ideal dictates that components of the company/institution that cause decisions leading to inefficiency are eliminated. But usually, as you know, they are enhanced and multiplied because the fundamental driving force with the free market is actually individual selfishness, and as the company grows beyond a certain size (obviously) AND AGE (not so obviously) the free market works at this finer-grained level and the company is parasitized. This is always ignored by those touting libertarian free market republican anti-regulatory ideals.
I honestly don't know if Beta was better than VHS ... as far as I know that is an urban myth .... But everyone is clear that Firefox is better than IE. The vast majority of the market is in the cororate/business setting. Why is the invisible hand of the free market not fixing this? Because of the reasons you cite.
More specifically, for ideal free actors to work in this system, information must be free, equal, and ubiquitous. This is not some ideal or philosophical statement, it is a statement of the conditions of a free-market driven economics model. Closed source development, shamanistic IT departmental structures, and marketing obviate such information flow. Thus, no ideal free actors, thus no free market dynamics.
the CIO of of Nameless Multinational going to say at his next board presentation? "Oh, you know that 5-Year Strategic Plan I spent 6 months and half a million dollars drawing up?
Exactly. He will say what is in his self interest, even if it is contrary to the development of efficiency at the corporate level .
I really don't see what's so hard to understand about all this. You've got training in anthropology, right? Forget the technology, and think about the people.
And your point is? I think you've decided in advance that I'm wrong and are not listening to a word I'm saying. Yet I think we are basically agreed, except the part where you are in denial about being part of an evil borg called microsoft.
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing... ;)
Hah! Compared to some of the people I work for directly, Microsoft ain't so bad. It's not like they've ever had trade-unionists shot, for one thing (AFAIK). But it's a job, and it sure beats working in a factory. I'm not in denial about it at all - I'm just realistic about my alternatives, and lazy to boot. If I could make what I make now working on The Other Platform for nice, fluffy, socially responsible organisations, without about five-to-ten years worth of retraining, I would. But to quote the inimitable Verity Stob: "Their money is as good as yours. In fact it is better than yours, because they have rather more of it, which is the only generally acknowledged metric."
It's just one of those things that you learn to put up with in life. I used to be an idealist, but I got so sick of being poor. As long as the borg keep sending the cheques, I guess can live with it. You may think that makes me a bad person, and you may well be right. Life's a bitch like that.
Dunc wrote:
I say that about my job all the time. As long as they keep throwing money at me, I guess I'll keep coming back. And no, it doesn't make you a bad person. Unfortunately, I think the attitudes of the corporations that many of us work for make us poorer (not necessarily in a monetary sense) as a society. Progress and innovation are for smaller companies, not the multinational behemoths with the majority of the cash.