DISQUS

Maybe we should have a "git bookmark 1.0a" subcommand that does what "git tag 1.0" does, and then make "git tag 1.0" do the right thing.

Um...so what? Just more distractions from doing more substantial things while you play with your interface.

Um...so what? Just more distractions from doing more substantial things while you play with your interface.

It is a disease. We are pack rats of the digital age. I have several GBs worth of PDFs, code snippets and saved web pages on all kinds of subjects related to computing and not. I can't recall ever using any of it (really, maybe I used one or two bits of it), but still I can't resist collecting the stuff. The irony is that when I need something, I rarerly look in my stash even with Spotlight -- I go to Google instead. To curb this, I've been moving almost all of it into a single folder that I'll burn to DVD or put on an external disk, then delete it from my MacBook. I'm also thinking about disconnecting from the net most of the time at home and at work. Being connected makes it easy to distract oneself with email and surfing, and there are plenty of distractions without that.

I also have a ton of books that serve no purpose for me anymore, if they ever did. How many LDAP books do I need? Again, I go to Google, but it's still difficult to get rid of the books, although I had no problem giving away all of my Java books about six months ago which probably says something about Java (or about me).

It is a disease. We are pack rats of the digital age. I have several GBs worth of PDFs, code snippets and saved web pages on all kinds of subjects related to computing and not. I can't recall ever using any of it (really, maybe I used one or two bits of it), but still I can't resist collecting the stuff. The irony is that when I need something, I rarerly look in my stash even with Spotlight -- I go to Google instead. To curb this, I've been moving almost all of it into a single folder that I'll burn to DVD or put on an external disk, then delete it from my MacBook. I'm also thinking about disconnecting from the net most of the time at home and at work. Being connected makes it easy to distract oneself with email and surfing, and there are plenty of distractions without that.

I also have a ton of books that serve no purpose for me anymore, if they ever did. How many LDAP books do I need? Again, I go to Google, but it's still difficult to get rid of the books, although I had no problem giving away all of my Java books about six months ago which probably says something about Java (or about me).

Obviously there will be individuals who have no problems with Linux on the desktop. But, _in general_, Linux is still more difficult to maintain on the desktop for most people than Windows or Mac OS X. That's my opinion based on my experience and the experiences of people I've worked for and with.

While your individual experience may be different, I'm willing to bet that if you do know people who run or have run Linux on the desktop, they have either switched to something else on the desktop, or, if asked, will complain about the hassle.

The question to ask is: how many people do you know who _used_ to run Linux on the desktop but switched to something else? Because if they've already switched, you'll never know they used to run Linux on the desktop and did the switch. If all that's left are those who were able to run it without hassle, then we aren't able to see all those who quit.

One thing I think we can all agree with is the statement that when a tool we are using to accomplish other ends continually requires tweaking to keep it working, we would gladly switch to a different tool with which we can achieve those same ends but which requires significantly less hassle to maintain.

This is, of course, assuming that you aren't using the tool as a security blanket or religious symbol, in which case the tool has become an end in itself for that individual and the tweaking is simply a ritual addiction.

Obviously there will be individuals who have no problems with Linux on the desktop. But, _in general_, Linux is still more difficult to maintain on the desktop for most people than Windows or Mac OS X. That's my opinion based on my experience and the experiences of people I've worked for and with.

While your individual experience may be different, I'm willing to bet that if you do know people who run or have run Linux on the desktop, they have either switched to something else on the desktop, or, if asked, will complain about the hassle.

The question to ask is: how many people do you know who _used_ to run Linux on the desktop but switched to something else? Because if they've already switched, you'll never know they used to run Linux on the desktop and did the switch. If all that's left are those who were able to run it without hassle, then we aren't able to see all those who quit.

One thing I think we can all agree with is the statement that when a tool we are using to accomplish other ends continually requires tweaking to keep it working, we would gladly switch to a different tool with which we can achieve those same ends but which requires significantly less hassle to maintain.

This is, of course, assuming that you aren't using the tool as a security blanket or religious symbol, in which case the tool has become an end in itself for that individual and the tweaking is simply a ritual addiction.

Sorry Rick, didn't mean to go off on you like that. Regardless of your background, I'd still prefer to hear your experiences or responses to Dan's original declaration, not a response to mine.

Dan's thesis:

"... there will come a time in your life when you will grow tired of fixing your tools. This will likely lead you to Windows or OS X — both of which, if you avoid tweaking, offer much more stability through updates and patches than Linux desktops do."

Dan's thesis deconstructed and rephrased just in terms of the User Interface:

"The UIs for both Windows and OS X don't change over time as much as the multiple UIs for Linux."

and

"There is a single UI for Windows and a single UI for OS X while there are multiple choices of UIs for Linux."

and

"There are many more options in tweaking any of the multiple Linux UIs than are available in the Windows or OS X UIs."

leading to:

"At some point, you will realize that you are spending too much time and effort tweaking whichever UI you've chosen on Linux in an attempt to get it to feel integrated and for all the applications to fit cleanly in it that you'll eventually give up and move to Windows or OS X on the desktop because their UIs are already fixed and you don't have to mess with them."


If you apply this to other aspects of your desktop experience, such as upgrading, installing and deinstalling software, Linux, in general, requires more effort to manage and maintain on the desktop than either Windows or OS X. That doesn't mean it's not usable on the desktop, just that it requires more effort.

The question is, will you move to Windows or OS X because you eventually get tired of tweaking the Linux on the desktop and it's UI? If you've ever used Windows or OS X, quite probably. I did. I moved to Mac OS specifically to simplify the desktop so I could focus on using my computer as a tool for other things. I even began using my personal MacBook for all home and work related things so I wouldn't have to keep track of two systems. This year, I'm ditching the Mac version of MS Office as well as Windows XP running in Parallels. Next year, I'm quitting my federal government job of almost 20 years because they're going to force us to run Windows on the desktop and probably the server side too.

Sorry Rick, didn't mean to go off on you like that. Regardless of your background, I'd still prefer to hear your experiences or responses to Dan's original declaration, not a response to mine.

Dan's thesis:

"... there will come a time in your life when you will grow tired of fixing your tools. This will likely lead you to Windows or OS X — both of which, if you avoid tweaking, offer much more stability through updates and patches than Linux desktops do."

Dan's thesis deconstructed and rephrased just in terms of the User Interface:

"The UIs for both Windows and OS X don't change over time as much as the multiple UIs for Linux."

and

"There is a single UI for Windows and a single UI for OS X while there are multiple choices of UIs for Linux."

and

"There are many more options in tweaking any of the multiple Linux UIs than are available in the Windows or OS X UIs."

leading to:

"At some point, you will realize that you are spending too much time and effort tweaking whichever UI you've chosen on Linux in an attempt to get it to feel integrated and for all the applications to fit cleanly in it that you'll eventually give up and move to Windows or OS X on the desktop because their UIs are already fixed and you don't have to mess with them."


If you apply this to other aspects of your desktop experience, such as upgrading, installing and deinstalling software, Linux, in general, requires more effort to manage and maintain on the desktop than either Windows or OS X. That doesn't mean it's not usable on the desktop, just that it requires more effort.

The question is, will you move to Windows or OS X because you eventually get tired of tweaking the Linux on the desktop and it's UI? If you've ever used Windows or OS X, quite probably. I did. I moved to Mac OS specifically to simplify the desktop so I could focus on using my computer as a tool for other things. I even began using my personal MacBook for all home and work related things so I wouldn't have to keep track of two systems. This year, I'm ditching the Mac version of MS Office as well as Windows XP running in Parallels. Next year, I'm quitting my federal government job of almost 20 years because they're going to force us to run Windows on the desktop and probably the server side too.

By the way, I could be completely wrong about all of this. Yep. I could.

By the way, I could be completely wrong about all of this. Yep. I could.

I thought this was going to be a discussion around Dan's claim that there will come a time in your life when you will grow tired of fixing your tools, and that will likely lead you to Windows or OS X. Instead, it's turned into a "my OS is better than yours" and that's not even the point.

Paul, all you've said is that you aren't yet tired of tweaking your tools because your desktop needs are well-supported by Linux and the apps you run on it, and you aren't spending a lot of time tweaking them or messing around with upgrades that break features in those apps. Congratulations. You are the one person on the planet who is running Linux as a desktop or laptop and who spends less time tweaking and upgrading than a comparable Mac OS X or Windows user. I simply don't believe you.

Rick, my point was that between techies and business users, techies are the ones who are more likely to have a real choice about what they run because they are skilled enough to maintain their own systems. More and more of the techie group are selecting Macs over Linux because it's they're so much easier to use. Fine, this isn't scientific evidence--I didn't claim it was, and I'm not interested in debating it. I'm simply describing what I see and saying why I think it is so, much of which is based on discussions with these same people as to why they're running Macs. You don't have to believe it, but please don't tell me why I think what I do. I'd rather hear what your observations are and what you see.

For the record, I have 20 years of Unix experience as a sysadmin, network engineer and software developer. I've seen the Unix wars, I've installed and used DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP and all the patches. Ugh. I've worked on Cray's, SGIs, DEC's (VAX and Alpha), 386s, 486s, 586s, 686, AMDs, SunOS, Solaris, even the 3B2. I started running with Linux before it was 1.0. I started on the Sinclair ZX-80 almost 30 years ago, moved to the Atari 800, then the Atari 1040ST. I even have a C book from the early 80's, and a GNU Emacs manual from 1985. I've written 6502 assembly language. I've been to more conferences, both technical and business, than I care to remember. I've been around the block, and I've heard all the arguments for and against this or that OS, and all kinds of OS and language religious wars, and I'm fed up with all of them.

What have I learned? I've learned that none of us really know anything, and most of us believe our own bullshit. What I haven't learned yet is that it is impossible to have a good discussion on something like a human factors issue online without offending somebody's feelings about their fucking choice of operating system.

I thought this was going to be a discussion around Dan's claim that there will come a time in your life when you will grow tired of fixing your tools, and that will likely lead you to Windows or OS X. Instead, it's turned into a "my OS is better than yours" and that's not even the point.

Paul, all you've said is that you aren't yet tired of tweaking your tools because your desktop needs are well-supported by Linux and the apps you run on it, and you aren't spending a lot of time tweaking them or messing around with upgrades that break features in those apps. Congratulations. You are the one person on the planet who is running Linux as a desktop or laptop and who spends less time tweaking and upgrading than a comparable Mac OS X or Windows user. I simply don't believe you.

Rick, my point was that between techies and business users, techies are the ones who are more likely to have a real choice about what they run because they are skilled enough to maintain their own systems. More and more of the techie group are selecting Macs over Linux because it's they're so much easier to use. Fine, this isn't scientific evidence--I didn't claim it was, and I'm not interested in debating it. I'm simply describing what I see and saying why I think it is so, much of which is based on discussions with these same people as to why they're running Macs. You don't have to believe it, but please don't tell me why I think what I do. I'd rather hear what your observations are and what you see.

For the record, I have 20 years of Unix experience as a sysadmin, network engineer and software developer. I've seen the Unix wars, I've installed and used DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP and all the patches. Ugh. I've worked on Cray's, SGIs, DEC's (VAX and Alpha), 386s, 486s, 586s, 686, AMDs, SunOS, Solaris, even the 3B2. I started running with Linux before it was 1.0. I started on the Sinclair ZX-80 almost 30 years ago, moved to the Atari 800, then the Atari 1040ST. I even have a C book from the early 80's, and a GNU Emacs manual from 1985. I've written 6502 assembly language. I've been to more conferences, both technical and business, than I care to remember. I've been around the block, and I've heard all the arguments for and against this or that OS, and all kinds of OS and language religious wars, and I'm fed up with all of them.

What have I learned? I've learned that none of us really know anything, and most of us believe our own bullshit. What I haven't learned yet is that it is impossible to have a good discussion on something like a human factors issue online without offending somebody's feelings about their fucking choice of operating system.

I took Dan's article is an opinion piece, not as a declaration of scientific fact and not meant to apply to every human being who uses Linux. There are always implicit assumptions made in most things people write -- if we have to caveat every article or comment we post, the caveats would smother us.

I'm sure there are pockets of people who use Linux on the desktop and have no upgrade issues, and I'm sure there some of them who have a great workflow and love the apps that they use. Great, they should keep doing it for as long as they want.

But I agree with Dan--many people eventually get fed up with tweaking the tools. Look around at any technical conference and you'll see a large portion of the attendees carrying Macs. Look at any business conference, and you'll see mostly Windows. If it wasn't the operating system that was the issue, you'd think all the technical folks would be running Linux -- they are after all the ones who know how to use it best.

I took Dan's article is an opinion piece, not as a declaration of scientific fact and not meant to apply to every human being who uses Linux. There are always implicit assumptions made in most things people write -- if we have to caveat every article or comment we post, the caveats would smother us.

I'm sure there are pockets of people who use Linux on the desktop and have no upgrade issues, and I'm sure there some of them who have a great workflow and love the apps that they use. Great, they should keep doing it for as long as they want.

But I agree with Dan--many people eventually get fed up with tweaking the tools. Look around at any technical conference and you'll see a large portion of the attendees carrying Macs. Look at any business conference, and you'll see mostly Windows. If it wasn't the operating system that was the issue, you'd think all the technical folks would be running Linux -- they are after all the ones who know how to use it best.

There's really nothing to stop you from messing around with or tweaking any operating system -- you can download or buy apps that will change your Windows themes, make Mac OS do things differently and so on, and many people spend hours and hours doing just that.

The point Daniel is making (I think) is that at least on Windows or Mac, mail and other apps just work and you don't have to (usually) do anything other than input your account names, imap servers etc.

I've probably just stepped in it, because many will argue that you can install, set up and run mail clients and image programs on Linux. And they're right. But from my own experience, it has always been a hassle updating my desktop linux system, and I don't have that same hassle factor with Mac updates. Plus, the apps for the Mac tend to fit into their environments well, even the third-party ones, while apps for Linux and Windows are functionally and visually inconsistent from a UI perspective. So call me shallow.

I don't want to have the operating system in my face, I want to use it as a platform for doing other things, just like I want my fridge to chill my food without any assistance from me. I use Linux for all my servers because it's just plain incredible in the server role. But I use a Mac for my frontend because I have enough other distractions and my operating system interface shouldn't be one of them. From what I hear, Vista tells you about *every* event that happens on your box like an "overeager Boyscout". Really, I don't need that much information.

There's really nothing to stop you from messing around with or tweaking any operating system -- you can download or buy apps that will change your Windows themes, make Mac OS do things differently and so on, and many people spend hours and hours doing just that.

The point Daniel is making (I think) is that at least on Windows or Mac, mail and other apps just work and you don't have to (usually) do anything other than input your account names, imap servers etc.

I've probably just stepped in it, because many will argue that you can install, set up and run mail clients and image programs on Linux. And they're right. But from my own experience, it has always been a hassle updating my desktop linux system, and I don't have that same hassle factor with Mac updates. Plus, the apps for the Mac tend to fit into their environments well, even the third-party ones, while apps for Linux and Windows are functionally and visually inconsistent from a UI perspective. So call me shallow.

I don't want to have the operating system in my face, I want to use it as a platform for doing other things, just like I want my fridge to chill my food without any assistance from me. I use Linux for all my servers because it's just plain incredible in the server role. But I use a Mac for my frontend because I have enough other distractions and my operating system interface shouldn't be one of them. From what I hear, Vista tells you about *every* event that happens on your box like an "overeager Boyscout". Really, I don't need that much information.

Go read Barry Schwartz's "The Paradox of Choice". I don't want a bazillion choices, for the very reasons he states in the book. I don't care about 1000's of linux packages for my desktop system. But I do want a stable OS as my platform for development, and Mac OS X does that beautifully for me. I use Linux for all my server-related work, and it's perfect for that, but I'll never again use it as my desktop machine unless Macs go away and the only other choice is Windows.

Go read Barry Schwartz's "The Paradox of Choice". I don't want a bazillion choices, for the very reasons he states in the book. I don't care about 1000's of linux packages for my desktop system. But I do want a stable OS as my platform for development, and Mac OS X does that beautifully for me. I use Linux for all my server-related work, and it's perfect for that, but I'll never again use it as my desktop machine unless Macs go away and the only other choice is Windows.