When do you think Microsoft's monopoly will die?

[bluemoon]

There was a discussion about package manager and the issue of shared libraries (versions) conflicting each other.

I agree this is a problem on Linux.
Especially when you may interfere the package manager by manually install software from source.

Mac and Windows do a much better job ensuring application is self contained, and it's less likely to break application after updates.

[Octocontrabass]

I was downloading packages that were specifically built for the distro I was on from their repository; usually through the package manager that came with the distro itself.

And it still exploded on you? I've done all sorts of evil things to my Linux installations, but I've never seen that happen.

(Insert your choice of "it must be because I use Debian" or "package management in Linux sucks" here.)

[seuti]

Especially when you may interfere the package manager by manually install software from source.

Why not use a source based distro (eg. Gentoo)?

[Wajideu]

Especially when you may interfere the package manager by manually install software from source.

Why not use a source based distro (eg. Gentoo)?

Lol, I actually just recommended doing that if a person truly needed a desktop Linux distro. Only downside is that the installation process is like 75 steps long before you can actually get to a user interface.

If you must install Linux on a desktop, it's best to get a distro like ArchLinux or Gentoo and build your own Linux from the ground up.

[KemyLand]

Anyway, we all agree that Linux is not made for the common desktop user, but that's because it's Unix! Remember Unix systems have always been "technical". When Macintosh and Intel 386/486-based platforms raised (with Windows and MS-DOS in the middle), all of Unix tradition by the users went to the ****! Remember what IBM PC means? (IBM Personal Computer) It was meant to be used by someone who didn't had a CS degree.

As already said here, Ubuntu and OpenSUSE had already tried to "abstract" the Unix world to a common user, but that didn't succeed. I agree with DaemonR that Unix has something obsolete, that is, it's thought to be used by people who really know to work with computers. That's what MS tried to "repair", and that's the reason of its success.

If there would be a Linux distro which REALLY abstracted the Unix environment to the typical user (Distro + KDE - Packages), a common user could be able to use Linux.

PS: I dual-boot Ubuntu/Windows 8, and I want to say that Ubuntu's Unity is horrible! That's why I have my little KDE

[alexfru]

There was a discussion about package manager and the issue of shared libraries (versions) conflicting each other.

I agree this is a problem on Linux.
Especially when you may interfere the package manager by manually install software from source.

Mac and Windows do a much better job ensuring application is self contained, and it's less likely to break application after updates.

Well, while that may be true, I must admit that Ubuntu appears to do the update job a bit better in one particular case. One updater gets and installs all updates. On Windows every freakin app has its own idea of when is the right time to update. Getting asked about whether or not I want to install an update is awful UX because of the number of self-updating apps (silent updates are worse, though). But, OTOH, Ubuntu (12.04 LTS) updates have broken VM extensions/additions for VirtualBox several times now and I've found out that I have to update drivers semi-manually after that to fix things.

UX is important. And Windows and Linux worlds suck at it, each differently.

[iansjack]

Anyway, we all agree that Linux is not made for the common desktop user, but that's because it's Unix! Remember Unix systems have always been "technical"

OS X says that Unix can be made suitable for the common desktop user. And, unlike Linux, OS X Is Unix.

[Wajideu]

On Windows every freakin app has its own idea of when is the right time to update.

That's the idiocy of the programmers themselves, not Microsoft's fault. Windows has a scheduler for that particular purpose; which a lot of programs like Skype, Adobe Flash, Google, etc. do use correctly, while others mess with your configuration and add crap to your start menu. Either way, if you're really bothered by it, just type "msconfig" in your start menu and uncheck the programs you don't want in the Services and Startup lists.

[KemyLand]

Anyway, we all agree that Linux is not made for the common desktop user, but that's because it's Unix! Remember Unix systems have always been "technical"

OS X says that Unix can be made suitable for the common desktop user. And, unlike Linux, OS X Is Unix.

Yes, we agree that OS X is successfully has all requirements to be called Unix. But I think that's just a title, nothing more. When you are saying "OS X is Unix", you are really saying "OS X is fully Unix Complaint". We're talking almost only about interfaces! What's POSIX? An interface specification! Also, OS X is an abstraction over the REAL OS Darwin, that is made over XNU, that is a combo of Mach 2.5 and BSD 4.3. GOAL!

If XNU were a direct successor of BSD, it would have real Unix roots. But it doesn't. To my view, OS X is just not Unix-like, neither Unix.

[Wajideu]

One of the things I hate most about Unix based software is the incessant need to make everything an acronym.

Unix stands for "Uniplexed Information and Computing Service"; with the 'CS' spelled 'X'. GNU stands for "GNU Not Unix". "GIMP" stands for "GNU Image Manipulation Program". In other words, expanded, GIMP means "GNU Not Uniplexed Information and Computing Service Image Manipulation Program".

Let that sink in. An acronym of a backronym of a phoneacronym. I've long since come to the conclusion that the people who name these things just write a few letters down on a piece of paper that look cool next to each other then spend 10 minutes brainstorming the words for the acronym. God forbid they had decided on a name like "Paint" or "Sketch". Nah, that'd be too complicated. /sarcasm.

[KemyLand]

One of the things I hate most about Unix based software is the incessant need to make everything an acronym.

Unix stands for "Uniplexed Information and Computing Service"; with the 'CS' spelled 'X'. GNU stands for "GNU Not Unix". "GIMP" stands for "GNU Image Manipulation Program". In other words, expanded, GIMP means "GNU Not Uniplexed Information and Computing Service Image Manipulation Program".

Let that sink in. An acronym of a backronym of a phoneacronym. I've long since come to the conclusion that the people who name these things just write a few letters down on a piece of paper that look cool next to each other then spend 10 minutes brainstorming the words for the acronym. God forbid they had decided on a name like "Paint" or "Sketch". Nah, that'd be too complicated. /sarcasm.

I agree. It's just too tedious.

[iansjack]

Yes, we agree that OS X is successfully has all requirements to be called Unix. But I think that's just a title, nothing more. When you are saying "OS X is Unix", you are really saying "OS X is fully Unix Complaint". We're talking almost only about interfaces!

So what you are saying is that one of the few operating systems that has the genuine right to be called "Unix" isn't really Unix because it has a user interface that ordinary users are comfortable with. And then you are using this to argue that Unix can't present an interface that ordinary users can be comfortable with?

I can't argue with that sort of logic.

[Wajideu]

Yes, we agree that OS X is successfully has all requirements to be called Unix. But I think that's just a title, nothing more. When you are saying "OS X is Unix", you are really saying "OS X is fully Unix Complaint". We're talking almost only about interfaces!

So what you are saying is that one of the few operating systems that has the genuine right to be called "Unix" isn't really Unix because it has a user interface that ordinary users are comfortable with. And then you are using this to argue that Unix can't present an interface that ordinary users can be comfortable with?

Mac OS X is popular because they fixed the problems Unix has. Granted, it wasn't the best, but they put the user first. Linux could do the same thing. It just needs someone to put a foot down and throw out all the crap that doesn't work. There's like 100 flavors of Linux, so just toss the idea of compatibility out the window and make something that works and makes the user feel comfortable. And more than anything, make something that you will not have to update for at least a decade.

[KemyLand]

Yes, we agree that OS X is successfully has all requirements to be called Unix. But I think that's just a title, nothing more. When you are saying "OS X is Unix", you are really saying "OS X is fully Unix Complaint". We're talking almost only about interfaces!

So what you are saying is that one of the few operating systems that has the genuine right to be called "Unix" isn't really Unix because it has a user interface that ordinary users are comfortable with. And then you are using this to argue that Unix can't present an interface that ordinary users can be comfortable with?

I can't argue with that sort of logic.

No, I never said that.

First, I never mentioned ANYTHING about UIs.
Second, read a little bit before posting. When I say "interfaces" I'm talking about thinks like a libc or POSIX. An interface is a abstraction that an implementation must provide. An "user interface" is a type of "interface".
Third, I agree that OS X's GUI is great, but just never touched that topic, as said in argument #1.
Fourth, it has the right to be called Unix® just because the Single Unix Specification states so. Nothing more.
Fifth, do you think you can't argue with "that sort of logic", but I can with yours? No!

[iansjack]

i'm completely at a loss to understand exactly what you are arguing now.

Suffice it to say that OS X is very clearly Unix, with all the same interfaces that you describe, together with all the same utilities as Linux, but it is also heralded as one of the most user-friendly operating systems. (Not everyone will agree with that, but then not everybody would agree that Windows is user-friendly. But it is true that a lot of very computer-unsavvy people feel quite at home with OS X.)

I conclude from that that it is perfectly possible to produce a version of Unix that is useable by the average Joe, which was my original point.

Personally I find Windows, OS X, and Linux/Unix to be pretty straightforward OSs for anyone. Try OS/400 (or whatever it is now called) if you think Unix is complicated.