[LUAU] Intel Doubles Down on Linux

[Jim Thompson]

On Jul 24, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Jimen Ching wrote:


>> Die, X, die.  Now.  BitBlt on wheels is so last century.  I don't  
>> want fully generalized mediocrity.  Just have it not suck.
>>
>
> Spoken like a true Mac user.
>
> I noticed this pattern in all of the complaints from users of X and  
> Linux
> (or Unix like OS's).  The complaint isn't as much about X and Linux  
> (the
> kernel), as it is about the X and Linux _applications_.
>

My complaint was directed at X, not its applications.


> The reason why you and other Mac users prefer Mac's is because it  
> provides
> a single interface.
>

The reason I prefer a Mac is that I don't have to fsck with it to  
have it work.


> Steve Jobs is anal enough to force all Mac software vendors to  
> follow a single UI guide.
>

Jobs has very little to do with it.


> Unfortunately for X and Linux, these systems aren't as anal about  
> UI guides.
>

X never had a "UI Guide".


> As a result, every application has a different interface.  Sure  
> environments like KDE and Gnome try to
> enforce a standard.  But Unix/X developers aren't as anal as Steve  
> Jobs.
>

Again, its not Jobs per se.   Moreover, Apple has lost a lot of the  
UI consistency that it had.


> Don't get me wrong.  I agree with you.  I couldn't care less about  
> the 101
> different 'themes' that Gnome provides.  But the fact remains.   
> There are
> enough people who _do_ care about variety that there ARE 101 themes in
> Gnome.
>

There are themes for Windows and MacOS as well.


> Thus, this variety is not likely to go away, unless you also want
> these theme developers to go away as well.  Variety is the main  
> driving
> feature of Linux and X.  Complaining about it won't change that.
>

You are aware that variety can be bad for you, right?

Have you read "The Paradox of Choice"?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/sim-explorer/explore-items/-/ 
0060005688/0/101/1/none/purchase/ref%3Dpd%5Fsxp%5Fr0/002-5933325-9694414

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/excerpts/2004-01-16-paradox- 
choice_x.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec03/paradox_12-26.html

Choice is generally good, but too much choice, and worse, uninformed  
choice, is bad. It's no different than politics, choosing a text  
editor in Linux without any knowledge of how they work is like voting  
without any research into how the candidates stand on the issues.


> Since I'm on my soap box, let me just vent one more issue.
>
> <soap box>
>
> I don't understand why people need to point out that Unix and X are 30
> year old technology.
>

Did I say anything about the age of Unix (which is over 30) or "The X  
Window System" (which at most is now 20 years old)?

X originated at MIT in 1984. The current protocol version, X11, was  
released in September 1987).   X11, which I'll bet is all you've
ever known, isn't even 20 years old yet.


> Do these people realize that cars still use combustion engines that  
> were developped almost a century ago?
>

They do, especially when discussing electric cars, powered by fuel  
cells, batteries or even (plug in) hybrids.
By the way, the basic theory for two-stroke engines was established  
by Sadi Carnot in France in 1824, whilst the American Samuel Morey  
received a patent on April 1, 1826 for a "Gas Or Vapor Engine".

The Italians Eugenio Barsanti and Felice Matteucci patented a first  
working efficient version of an internal combustion engine in 1854 in  
London (pt. Num. 1072). Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir produced in 1860 a  
gas-fired internal combustion engine not dissimilar in appearance to  
a steam beam engine. Nikolaus Otto working with Gottlieb Daimler and  
Wilhelm Maybach in the 1870's developed the four-stroke cycle (Otto  
cycle) engine.

So by any measure, the internal combustion engine was invented at  
least 125 years ago, and thus over a century old. (*)


> Why aren't they complaining that we aren't using anti-matter or  
> something?
>

Its pretty stupid to rely on a process where > 70% of the energy goes  
out the tailpipe as waste heat.  The only reason that the internal  
combustion engine is still so popular is that the (perceived) energy  
costs are cheap when compared to the alternatives.

Of course, cheap oil is coming to an end soon enough.


> This just shows the gap in the CS world between those who  
> understand and those who
> don't.  In this day and age, you'd think the gap is narrowing.  But  
> it seems to be widening...
>

Excuse me?   Was that an attempt at insult directed at me?
Several years ago, Linus Torvalds shared his new kernel with an  
audience employing technologies that would ultimately serve as the  
building blocks of the internet as we know it today. His kernel, a  
fully open sourced collection of code, invited developers from around  
the world to write their own applications and share their code too,  
to attempt to create best of breed applications. That much is  
undisputable.

Somewhere along the way, there became a nearly religious belief, some  
sort of wacky zen centering around "choice" being the key to the  
success of Linux. The monks who preach this gospel are all over the  
net. But I've never seen it that way. I've always felt as though I  
don't want to spend my time trying to decide which word processor to  
use. I don't want to flip flop between Kontact and Evolution, Gaim  
and Kopete, Abiword, KWord, Open Office.org Writer, etc. Applications  
are merely an aside to productivity, the key is a comfortable,  
cohesive system. And that is acheived with the input and  
contributions of the masses.

Along the way, I think we've gotten confused. Some stand for choice  
when it's convenient, like in Linux distributions, but not when it's  
painful, like in adherence, or lack thereof, to standards. Some vice  
versa - they believe in a free for all, with a Darwinistic belief  
that the best will win out. We rarely permit our OS installations to  
limit our choice, yet insist on an immediate cease of non-standard  
behavior. Funny that Linux survives by having a single maintainer  
deciding what goes into the kernel and what doesn't, the near  
antithesis of too many of its followers, who feel as though the  
removal of some quirky option is unacceptable, and the inclusion of a  
specific rarely used app is a necessity. How is it that we contradict  
ourselves so much as a group pushing towards the same goals?

Communally, I feel we should be aware the strengths of Linux. Linux  
is a superior system, but isn't always treated like one. Some would  
say "People won't use Linux because it's too confusing," and the  
retorts are heard from miles "It works for me." The trick to Linux  
isn't just to get hardware compatibility and drivers, but that's part  
of it. It isn't to have a pretty GUI, but that's part of it, it isn't  
to have a polished, consistent system, but that's part of it.

No, it's all of those things, plus one more, ultra important thing:  
it's a flexible, adaptable system which can be whatever you need it  
to be. Linux needs to flex. But more than that, Linux needs to  
unflex. The people that CAN use Linux often are. It's the people that  
can't that we need to start paying attention to. Linux - in a general  
sense - needs a good starting point that doesn't call upon you to  
make a zillion decisions. And that, I'm beginning to think, comes  
from removal of choice.

Users cannot be overwhelmed by Linux or they won't use it.  
Applications attempt to become compatible by relying on standards.  
When Linux doesn't behave in an expected way, there are dependancy  
problems, failed compiles, kernel panics, and packages that don't  
work across distributions. When a web page fails to adhere to  
standards, some browsers sometimes misrender the pages, making them  
only a part of the browsing experience. When an application doesn't  
write to open formats, we end up with the disaster we have today - a  
zillion Microsoft Word documents that still don't open and format  
properly in anything but Microsoft Office.

There is a line from the movie The American President that says "The  
symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to  
be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in  
protest." Choice is golden. But part of choice is the ability to  
select the unpopular path. Part of that choice is the ability to  
remove choice or not follow standards. And part of it, I believe, is  
the choice to quietly not use the software that doesn't meet your  
individual needs. Unfortunately, it appears that choice complicates  
things for those who are learning, and adds to the experience of  
experts. The paradox of technology, it would seem, is to accept  
choice as both a good thing and a bad thing at once.

jim

(*)  Wankel first conceived his rotary engine in 1924 and finally  
received a patent for it in 1929, making the Wankel engine "almost a  
century" old, but I doubt you were speaking of the Wankel rotary engine.