06.22.08
Posted in News Roundup at 5:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
GNU/Linux
Laptops
- Did Microsoft Fake XP on XO Press Media?!I
f you look at the photo on James U’s blog post, you can really tell the difference – his image has the XP screen looking way more natural. And if that were the only trespass, who really cares, eh?
- Starting out with the [Linux] Eee PC
- Comment: Why netbooks are here to stay
This was big news in the industry as Microsoft knew this would be jumped on by the tech press and described as a u-turn in a potential PR nightmare, especially considering the lack of popularity of Vista.
So why did they do it? Not just for revenue reasons – in order to avoid Linux getting a bigger toe-hold in this vital emerging market, primarily made up of young users.
Eye Candy
Play
Reviews
Short Ones
F/OSS
- Why Is Proprietary Software So Bad?
The majority of the Linux users out there are for pure FLOSS (Free Libre Open Source Software). That is, they only want FLOSS software on their machines. This movement really took off mostly because many of the original Linux and UNIX pioneers were firm FLOSS disciples.
- Open Source Government: France beats Italy 4-0!
- Top 10 Best GTK Applications Not Included in GNOME
- Free/Open-source File Managers
A computer program that provides a user interface to work with file systems is called a file manager. It is considered as one of the most important software applications since its main function is to speed up interaction with files. The most common operations of a file manager are create, open, edit, view, print, play, rename, move, copy, delete, attributes, properties, search/find, and permissions. Others have special functions such as network connectivity and the ability to extend operations utilizing user written scripts.
- Business family, open source community
- Devunity: Open community for open-source developers
- Building IT Support for Open-Source Model
- Google spice brings out open source aroma
- IcedTea: The First 100% Compliant Open-Source Java
- Is Open Source Good for the Java Developer?
- Building Open Source Acceptance
- Our Constitution – The Open Source for Freedom
- Can open source save Yahoo?
- Sun aims open source model at emerging markets
- Drupal’s Creator Envisions Web Publishing’s Plug-and-Play Future
- Lou Dolinar: Alternatives to Microsoftware
Firefox
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, IBM, Microsoft at 1:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Got to perfume those bad deeds…
The horde of Microsoft apologists is quite a scary force. Among those who attempt to rewrite history we also have Microsoft Jack, whose comments about the inaccurate BBC article are rather telling. How about this one? █
“I’d be glad to help tilt lotus into into the death spiral. I could do it Friday afternoon but not Saturday. I could do it pretty much any time the following week.”
–Brad Silverberg, Microsoft
Update: To say more on that placement ‘article’ from the BBC, be sure to see this new critique.
I don’t think the producers of the show realised the significance of this admission, since they quickly cut to another segment. Reading between the lines, Gates is essentially confessing that he would not have progressed had he and Paul Allen not found the source code. Without this knowledge, and without this opportunity to understand and experiment with how the internals of a computer worked, Gates and Allen would have been severely constrained in their ability to found a software company and develop products
I would go so far as to say that Microsoft owes its very existence to this access to source code.
To anyone with a passing familiarity to how things worked back then, this comes as no surprise. Source code was expected to be free, and this in turn nurtured a generation of computer hackers. But whereas Richard Stallman saw the amazing potential of this freedom and wanted to preserve it for all, Bill Gates appears to have perceived it as an advantage for himself that he must deny to others.
“Thanks to Mr. Gates, we now know that an open Internet with protocols anyone can implement is communism; it was set up by that famous communist agent, the US Department of Defense.”
–Richard Stallman
“There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don’t think that those incentives should exist.”
–Bill Gates
“There’s no company called Linux, there’s barely a Linux road map. Yet Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it. That is, it’s free.”
–Steve Ballmer
Related articles:
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, GPL, IBM, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Novell, Oracle, Red Hat, SLES/SLED at 1:03 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
In Part 1, we wrote rather cautiously about Oracle’s relationship with Red Hat and then reiterated known facts about IBM. This is where it gets trickier because we now introduce what’s not sufficiently substantiated but nonetheless worthy of consideration. It seems to have received a nod from Novell.
Some Background Information
Who is Ron Hovsepian? According to Wikipedia, “Hovsepian held management and executive positions at IBM Corporation over a 17 year period, including worldwide general manager of IBM’s distribution industries, managing global hardware and software development, sales, marketing and services.”
Our sources are close enough to Ron Hovsepian himself and it’s interesting to note that he was appointed and made CEO between the time that IBM helped Novell acquire SUSE (Hovsepian Joined Novell in June 2003 and in November 2003 Novell bought SuSE) and just shortly before negotiations with Microsoft began, namely around May or June 2006. Hovsepian was appointed CEO in June 2006 when he replaced Jack Messman. Pay careful attention to the proximity of dates.
Linux as Power, Not Freedom
According to the Linux Foundation’s annual conference (the Summit), which last took place in Austin, representatives might insist that they only care for Linux solutions, not desktops. Novell says that too: “solutions”. In other words, the key element which is Free software, with the GNU GPL at its very core, is viewed as a nuisance, as though its kind of stands in their way. Proprietary or Free, to the big vendors it’s all about power, not freedom.
Richard Stallman’s philosophy and the accompanying licence are seen as discomforting to those who want to produce “solutions”, so ways of working around the licences seems desirable. While every company is acting selfishly for sure, some remember to respect their supplier (volunteer programmers) and recall what they came from. Mutual honour is definitely a prerequisite to the success of this relationship.
Over at IBM, with Irving‘s departure (he retired quite recently, having put the company’s focus on GNU/Linux and Free software), one can only hope that the leadership is still truly dedicated to the cause. Bob Sutor makes some solid migrations to GNU/Linux, but he still uses non-Free platforms sometimes. Being a decision-maker, he has impact.
Prelude to Assumption/Hypothesis
We finally turn our attention to the theory of a large-scale collusion — a gentle one nonetheless. At the heart of it we picture a battle played by executives and lawyers behind some people’s backs. Our source never really took the allegations of the OpenDocument Foundation working for Microsoft in disguise too seriously, but they did hurt the ODF cause a lot. Before that, Gary Edwards was leading a small but influent band of OpenOffice.org forkers and disruptors.
According to our source, a lot of what’s at play is related to Novell. Factors and forces that include Novell, Microsoft and ODF are part of it, and surely enough IBM feels bitter with Novell’s ambivalent yet receptive approach to OOXML. The same goes for Sun. We know this for a fact. Miguel’s OOXML affinity, for instance, is a big pain in the neck to them.
Novell informed several different ‘camps’ of FOSS developers about the agreement with Microsoft before it got signed. Mono and Samba developers, for instance, knew about it in advance and had time to voice their opinion. Jeremy Allison told us that he regretted not protesting more loudly.
Ron Hovsepian and other top executives tried to explain to leaders of several projects (primarily those impacted by the Microsoft deal) what that agreement all about. It was essential in order for friction to be reduced before the bomb is finally dropped. After all, Novell needed to make sure that, at least in the future, if possible, these projects will could continue working with Novell. It’s collaboration under Microsoft’s claws.
People who are associated with the FSF knew about this deal in advance as well (at least 2 of them). The legality questions — specially w.r.t. GPLv2 — was explained, but the wound was well understood by Hovsepian et al who disregarded it. There was too much at stake and the GPL wasn’t a priority high enough.
The Theory
Some believe that he idea of the Novell/Microsoft agreement came from IBM and Oracle. They went to Novell with the following plan: Microsoft would be very much interested in two things with Novell: polluting/diluting the Linux brand and message (Microsoft could also have a dent in the Linux market). This is always overlooked,
“Microsoft is very much interested in Novell’s IP. Remember SCO?”Microsoft is very much interested in Novell’s IP. Remember SCO? Remember e-directory? Remember Netware, Groupwise, etc? Well, Novell has a very nice IP portfolio that many companies of similar yield cannot enjoy. In short, that agreement was a boon for Microsoft but we all know this.
From the other side, the whole plan was a poker game that would tie down the hands of Microsoft with Novell and in the end neutralising Microsoft’s IP while IBM and Oracle could attack.
“Perhaps”, says the source, “and I would tend to buy into that option, Novell was quickly overthrown by Microsoft’s dance of the dead. I don’t know.
“The ultimate plan was to strangle Microsoft’s IP and that it was all the idea of IBM and Oracle.”
Take this part with a grain of salt and decide for yourself if it makes sense to you. It sure seems to have struck a nerve with Novell’s CEO.
A Reader’s Take
One reader who was intrigued with the first part about possible secrets behind the Microsoft-Novell deal wrote:
“It sounds as if the whole point of that deal was the patent protection element that Microsoft supposedly slipped in at the last minute and to which Novell didn’t really agree and sloughs off as unimportant. I’ll have to wait and see.
“The comment I really wanted to make here is that I am not really surprised at all at IBM’s involvement here. First, in the days prior to Microsoft’s monopoly, IBM had a similar monopoly in the market for mainframe hardware. They employed similar tactics to Microsoft to fend off competition that wanted to make compatible hardware. See Amdahl. It was IBM who coined the tactic of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Part of the reason Gates took such a hard-core stance in the anti-trust case was that he saw what happened to IBM after they complied with the anti-trust decision that went against them.
“I suppose it’s a bit unreasonable to think that a leopard could completely change its spots. While IBM has undeniably done some important things to promote Linux, one should never forget that their motivation isn’t out of any love for free software. They use Linux as a competitive tool against Microsoft. There is no love lost between these two companies. Consider what happened with OS/2, which was originally a joint project between IBM and Microsoft. Even more recently, consider the time when Microsoft announced their Palladium project, which is embodied in Vista. IBM came out and tried to assuage the fears of the Linux camp that they would be locked out by announcing support for “Trusted Computing.” In the current scenario, obviously without knowing any of the details, I suppose I would nonetheless be safe to say that the Novell-Microsoft deal is something that Novell gets credit for initiating – “coopetition.” That used to have such a nice ring to it, but not anymore.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Europe, Law, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Open XML, OpenDocument, Patents, RAND at 7:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Same ol’, same ol’
A few days ago, Microsoft appeared to have admitted defeat. The benevolent activists at <NO>OOXML seem to suggest that we must use this to advance and increase the momentum of ODF, adoption-wise.
McKee said what he said as part of his initial opening remarks and did say it as part of a bigger sentence though. So it seems to be an explicit corporate message.
It is time to disseminate the idea that OOXML is dead and that ODF is still the “lingua universalis” for office documents. But the resistance of Microsoft to ODF and its OOXML campaign is also very helpful and essential for the domino project’s success. If Microsoft surrenders prematurely we get difficulties to further grow the community for open standards.
For ODF to win is one thing. The fight for justice after systematic abuses must not end, either. Having witnessed the “greatest scam of computing history”, let’s have a quick look again at where we stand.
Microsoft vs The System
Four important appeals withstanding, the legal fight in the UK [1, 2, 3, 4] seems to be far from over.
The UKUUG officially voiced many of the objections that were flying around at the time (and still are):
* The BSI approved fast tracking OOXML in the absence of a revised draft despite over 1000 comments to the original draft.
* Doing so undermines wider faith in the standards bodies themselves.
* Fast tracking approval in the absence of a single implementation of the format—even from Microsoft—is hard to justify.
* Rejection of the fast track is not rejection of the standard which should be given greater consideration before approval.
* Fast tracking a proposed standard requires a high level of consensus. Something distinctly lacking with regards OOXML.
Heise Online too has published an article covering the very latest.
Microsoft claim that their attempt to establish OOXML as an ISO standard is in the spirit of open standards and interoperability. It is seen by its opponents as Microsoft’s attempt to retain ownership of document formats in the face of the adoption of ODF – the Open Document Format, an open standard already accepted as an ISO standard. OOXML is deemed unnecessary and has been criticised because of the size, imprecision and incomprehensibility of the Microsoft specification document, a document seemingly designed to make it almost impossible for any company, other than Microsoft, to write applications that are OOXML compliant.
Alain Williams, Chairman of UKUUG, said, “We are concerned about future generations being able to access today’s electronic documents. That can only happen with fully disclosed document formats. To ensure continued profits, Microsoft prevents effective competition in word processors by keeping file formats secret. Adopting OOXML would be like setting to sea in a sieve, Lear’s Jumblies might make sense of it, but I can’t.”
The newer and more disconcerting news actually arrives from the US Department of Justice at the moment. Being heavily influenced by Microsoft, it’s hardly surprising that it bends Microsoft’s way and even “applauds” it (according to CNN) for something rather useless and discriminatory. Groklaw has the details on this one and here are some takeaway messages.
Same old, same old. Move the goal post. Vaporous promises. And that is what I fear they will continue to do with OOXML, if it’s ever approved, because they can. Who will stop them? ISO? They seemed to fall into Stockholm Syndrome long ago, the few that were not replaced with Microsoft folks. What is the effect of Microsoft changing the protocols in the compliance work?
For those who do not know or remember, Microsoft pretty much took over ISO (seniors fled). Yet the development above is disconcerting mainly due to RAND. Sadly, it’s not much better in Europe [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].
Microsoft vs The GPL
WIPO seems to be at it again [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. We previously discussed Microsoft’s deliberately-introduced incompatibilities with the GPL and also spoke about its plan to expand, where required, the adjunct laws onto the EU. Watch this report that WIPO will discuss next week and pay special attention to the bits about RAND inside open standards.
(iv) Open Standards
121. Among technology standards, there is particular interest for “open standards”. While there is no universally accepted definition of that term, all open standards have the following common characteristics: (i) the specification is publicly available without cost or for a reasonable fee to any interested party; (ii) any IP rights necessary to implement the standard are available to all implementers on RAND terms, either with or without payment of a reasonable royalty or fee; and
You see? “Open Standards”, according to the above, are permitted even if they are not compatible with Free software.
Interestingly enough, Miguel de Icaza, who is apparently at Microsoft at the moment (he may have come back by now), seems to think that Microsoft forbids access to GPL code. Talk about intolerance. Here it is a portion from his own message:
…from what we know about Microsoft policies (right or wrong) their employees are barred from looking at code under certain licenses (GPL being one of them…
This seems insane. It does make you wonder how Microsoft feels about those selected Novell engineers who see Microsoft’s source code (as confirmed by Justin Steinman, who said this to Matthew Aslett last year). It all boils down to those SCO-type allegations.
One could think further and speculate wildly. If Miguel had worked for Microsoft, he would not be able to tinker with (or poison) GPL software. He did want to work at Microsoft just before he started GNOME, did he not?
The context in which the above was said is an older discussion about ODF and OOXML. In response to the arguments made by de Icaza — all in favour of OOXML — Slated had this to say in USENET (we were given permission to post it in full):
That’s because most of the conclusions de Icaza draws seem to be based on Microsoft propaganda rather than facts (e.g. “the ODF specification is incomplete”).
His bias is palpable, and for equally obvious reasons, given how much time he spends inside the belly of The Beast. However this also means his inside knowledge of Microsoft (both in terms of technical workings and attitude) is very useful to those seeking an insight into how they actually operate.
“If that’s actually true, and Microsoft engineers are not permitted to view GPL sources, then how exactly did Microsoft manage to implement ODF in MS Office?”This “GPL ban” is one such example, and is especially interesting given the Vole’s subsequent support of ODF in MS Office (ironically to the exclusion of their own OOXML), since according to the ODF antagonists (i.e. those steered by Microsoft) it is unimplementable without consulting the sources to OpenOffice.org (see OP), hence the assertion that it’s “incomplete”. If that’s actually true, and Microsoft engineers are not permitted to view GPL sources, then how exactly did Microsoft manage to implement ODF in MS Office?
Hmm, how easily the bigots’ inconsistencies are unearthed.
The specifics of the claim upon which de Icaza seems to base his (Microsoft’s) entire anti-ODF position, is that it excludes definitions for maths formulae [1] (e.g. in spreadsheets), which as explained by the OASIS ODF Technical Committee is beyond the remit of a technical description for an XML format [2]. IOW it’s like the W3C drawing a distinction between markup (HTML) and layout (CSS), and rightly insisting that the two remain separate.
A comment was submitted concerning the inclusen(sic) of a grammar for spreadsheet formulas which conforming implementations should support. While we think that having interoperability on that level would be of great benefit to users, we do not belive(sic) that this is in the scope of the current specification.
The natural (and most technically correct) solution is to have a unique specification for formulae interchange, and that is already being addressed with the draft OpenFormula [3] specification.
Again we witness Microsoft’s utter lack of comprehension of standards, as they stuff (what should have been) a document specification with irrelevant material, much of which is proprietary to Microsoft [4] [5] [6], in addition to a vast litany of technical problems [7]. But then what should we expect from a company that views “standards” as nothing more than a means to lock customers into their products, and subsequently ensure sales of future versions with planned obsolescence?
We are of the view that the format appears to be designed by Microsoft for Microsoft products, and to inter-operate with the Microsoft environment. Little thought appears to have been exercised regarding interoperability with non-Microsoft environments or compliance with established vendor-neutral standards
Having created this monster called OOXML, Microsoft then used bribery [8]; threats [9]; blackmail [10] [11]; and vicious smear campaigns [12] [13] to force OOXML into fast track acceptance, and all with the hot and eager assistance of Miguel de Icaza, Jody Goldberg, Jeff Waugh, the Gnome Foundation, Novell; and other Free Software “advocates” in the “We love Microsoft” cheerleading camp [14], assistance which they gave under the laughably weak pretext of “drilling for docs” [15].
Indeed de Icaza was so determined to help force through this ODF-killer, that he even attempted astroturfing COLA shortly before the final vote, bringing his pal Jesper Lund Stocholm with him for moral support. The timing of this appearance could not have been more obvious.
Context
Well given Microsoft’s apparent lack of enthusiasm for implementing its own (sub)standard [16]; Stuart McKee’s recent comments about the death of OOXML [17]; the final acceptance of OOXML being stalled by formal complaints by NSBs [18]; and the European Commission’s ongoing antitrust investigations into the Microsoft’s criminal behaviour in this process [18], it looks like de Icaza and friends completely wasted their time, and further isolated themselves from the rest of the GNU/Linux community, for absolutely *nothing*.
But don’t waste your pity on their self-induced ostracism. I’m sure their new (crime) “family” Microsoft will welcome them with open arms, if they haven’t long-since already done so. █
____
[1] External link
[2] External link
[3] External link
[4] External link
[5] External link
[6] External link
[7] External link
[8] External link
[9] External link
[10] External link
[11] External link
[12] External link
[13] External link
[14] External link
[15] External link
[16] External link
[17] External link
[18] External link
From the Campaign for Document Freedom
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Patent Covenant, Patents, Red Hat, Ron Hovsepian, Samsung at 6:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Unsurprisingly, the anti-Red Hat deal [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] which Microsoft and Novell had signed did not leave Red Hat too happy. Nevertheless, the new CEO has not said much about Novell. In the following new article he finally explains the difference between Novell’s approach and Red Hat’s approach (as Charles recently did).
Tell me more about the settlement.
What was impactful and important about it was we not only protected ourselves and our customers, we protected all upstream and downstream use of the technology. A lot of times, not to pick on anyone in particular, but Novell in the Microsoft settlement didn’t protect all their upstream and downstream users. We’re not just protecting ourselves, we’re protecting everyone who uses that technology.
Are patent disputes a common problem for you?
It’s always one of the issues, how do you handle patents with open source, because of the necessity in open source to protect up and downstream. It’s a complex set of legal issues. We generally don’t run into it that much because open source is really good at working around patent issues. It doesn’t take up a lot of my time.
Red Hat seems to be tuned in to developers’ needs a lot more than Novell is, the latter being a mixed-source company [1, 2, 3, 4] with a non-Free (non-libre) mindset. As such, this self-serving attitude is only to be expected in the future. Remember:
“Our partnership with Microsoft continues to expand.”
–Ron Hovsepian, Novell CEO (2008)
If the following comparison is anything to go by, Novell is to Free software what Nokia is to open source.
SUSE used to be a solid and stalwart promotor of free and open source software. The commercial boxsets had the best and most extensive collection of manuals and tutorials in the field, showing it understood the need of new W2L migrators. For Novell it was good thinking to buy SUSE and use it to salvage it’s declining Netware business. Corporations are driven by other sentiments than the communities of developers, as the recent remarks of Nokia’s VP show. Corporations will enter into strategic partnerships to protect or expand their market share and thus the partnership between Microsoft and Novell does make sense. But I am also raising my eyebrows at the attempts spearheaded by Novell to port Microsoft-based technology (.Net and Silverlight) to Linux (Mono and Moonlight).
Speaking of Mono, Nokia’s gadgets and Microsoft sellouts, never forget Samsung + Microsoft, which we last mentioned yesterday. Samsung is one of the companies that pay Microsoft for Linux in its gadegsts. It’s better to avoid it. Mono is believed to be part of this deal [1, 2, 3], but there’s insufficient evidence. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Europe, Free/Libre Software, Law, Patents at 5:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Value your freedom or you will lose it, teaches history. “Don’t bother us with politics,” respond those who don’t want to learn.”
–Richard Stallman
One small step at the time, our Freedom appears to be taken away. This time your attention is required due to the introduction of a roadmap leading to contamination of patent systems (i.e. inheritance of the pressing issues at the USPTO [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], including BM and software patents).
TEC is a funny process. The EU Commission basically bows unilaterally in to aggressive US demands in order to demonstrate its ability to act without getting anything substantial in return from the Americans. The agenda is largely set by the TABD, i.e. large industry stakeholders based in the US. At the press conference Verheugen admitted the lack of competence. Apparently Council members were not fully made aware of the deliberations. Also the consumer group token formally attached to the TEC process, the TACD, were Nelly Kroes open standardsnot in possession of the road map document. Its counter part TABD, the transatlantic business dialogue, comprising mostly American multinationals and no SMEs, seems to define the agenda for the transatlantic trade talks and openly tells so.
If such ‘harmonisation’ is imminent (Charlie McCreevy being one of its motors [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]), then it’s worth comparing it to and thus learning from the dreaded expansion of DMCA law — Hollywood’s fantasy and a big peril to Free software. Canada may be under DMCA siege at the moment (Microsoft plays an active role) and Israel gets pressured too.
Israel wants the US government to know that it won’t implement laws banning the circumvention of DRM and it won’t rewrite its ISP safe harbor rules; furthermore, neither of these issues should have any effect on trade relations between the two countries.
[...]
Canadian law professor Michael Geist wishes that his own government would respond this forcefully to the Special 301 process.
There are some more troublesome developments in Europe at the moment. We’ll get to them in a moment. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, KDE, Mandriva, Novell, OpenSUSE at 4:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Necessity, luxury, or none of the above?
OpenSUSE is not the best one can get. For advanced users, as consistently argued in some press, OpenSUSE may be a decent choice, but for those who are new to GNU/Linux (not platform-agnostic either), OpenSUSE is just another option. The connection with Novell does not help.
As we argued yesterday, many people write about their fresh installations, which they have not had much time to evaluate. Here are some of the writeups that shine light on the weakness of this latest release.
Here is one who agrees that prior experience may be needed.
The time now is 6:00pm… and I’m tired… and guilty… because I haven’t done much of my ACTUAL work. But still, this was fun, and openSUSE looks good, looks really good. But like I said above, the distro is not for the faint-hearted or pure beginners. I have installed openSUSE earlier, and that experience helped (because openSUSE is not like other distros). I’m still a newbie or a noob, though, and so, I have struggled where others might fly through. Still, I think the distro looks/feels solid and I can’t wait to actually start working with it… tomorrow!
Kevin Dupuy, one who belongs to the OpenSUSE Project, expresses some displeasure as well.
I don’t see the value add for PackageKit vs. our own updater. Unless this is all about being as close to possible to GNOME upstream, in which case I don’t think that’s a case for which we need to be degrading user experiance. It is a desktop enviroment, we are supposed to be free to change it in whichever way we would like to make it better, and more openSUSE-ish. And although I’m reserving full judgement on openSUSE 11.0 GNOME until I get the full edition and live with it for a few days, I’m unfortunately not that impressed with it as of yet.
There are some more such examples. Bill Beebe, who has been writing about SUSE for a long time, has a few difficulties too, but some are not SUSE’s fault.
I’ll probably break down and purchase a copy of Mandriva. I haven’t purchased a boxed distribution since openSUSE 10.2. I want the comfort of the complete distribution with all the necessary codecs on DVD when I overwrite Ubuntu on europa.
Lastly, there’s some criticism of YaST, not having adopted Qt4 yet.
Frustratingly for a nitpicky user like me, not all the applications bundled with OpenSUSE 11.0 KDE4 have been ported to KDE4 yet- so they stand out like a sore thumb. Some essential applications- like Konqueror- have been ported, but others- like YaST- have not. They still work but it’s not as visually pleasing as it would be if it were all KDE4.
The other nags appear to be related to a ‘development phase’ KDE4, but that will hopefully get sorted out soon. It’s not an OpenSUSE issue. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA