Slashdot Log In
Stopping Linux Desktop Adoption Sabotage
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Oct 18, 2005 04:25 PM
from the fair-play-is-for-the-birds dept.
from the fair-play-is-for-the-birds dept.
Mark Brunelli, News Editor writes "Outspoken IT consultant John H. Terpstra believes that Microsoft and electronics manufacturers are working together to hinder the adoption of Linux on the desktop. In a three part series, he tells a story about how two guys trying to buy Linux desktops found they were overpriced, and lacked certain tools. He then describes how Microsoft uses its considerable resources and the law to create such roadblocks. (Part 2, Part 3)"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not Forever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not Forever (Score:3, Insightful)
MS won and is a monopolist and will do everything to keep people in. Until people leave software developers will only target windows. People dont care about oses and use whatever comes with their computer.
This is how ms won.
Re:Not Forever (Score:3, Insightful)
For many, Vista will be the OS that fixes their problems. I've tried several times (without luck) to switch to Linux, but what would typically be a simple task in Windows (i.e. installing video card drivers) becomes an exercise in frustration in Linux.
Now, before you inevitably mod me down as a troll, hear me out...
You know what the #1 thing is that's working against Linux adoption? Its open nature. Yes, it's fantastic that everyone and their mother can potentially modify it to their liking, but how man
Re:Not Forever (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know where to begin - virtually everything you said is total bullshit.
"what would typically be a simple task in Windows (i.e. installing video card drivers) becomes an exercise in frustration in Linux."
Wrong - installation of Linux is easier than Windows PROVIDED the hardware is supported - which is the point of the article. If the manufacturers refuse to support Linux because they are being bribed by Microsoft (and incredibly charged by Microsoft for developing drivers, why they put up with that is insane), Linux has a problem, sure. The Chinese will solve that one in due time and put the US hardware manufacturers out of business in the process, as the article states. US IT hardware manufacturers (ARE there any who don't buy components from Asia?) are doomed. Resellers like Dell will go down as well.
Meanwhile, the only REAL hardware problems with Linux relate to stuff that is extremely new or stuff that is incredibly old. People who want to use Linux shouldn't buy a video or wireless card that came out last week, it's that simple.
Another thing that needs to be done is that the big corps who DO support Linux - like IBM - need to start leaning on the peripheral manufacturers. Here, again, I expect IBM's deep connection with the Chinese will produce results.
"how many different distros are there, and how many of those distros can you typically find easy-to-install driver/software packages for?"
Utterly irrelevant. Nine-nine percent of the existing distros are used by people (read: geeks) who happen to like installing new distros. Any NORMAL consumer will end up with Red Hat/Fedora, Mandriva, SUSE, Sun JDS, or possibly Debian (and maybe Linspire) - for all of which there are easy-to-install software package management systems and available software.
The average consumer has never HEARD of any other Linux distro and never will. In fact, the main issue with the uptake in Linux is simply the fact that ninety-nine percent of the computer buying public has STILL never heard of Linux at all.
"And for something that's supposed to be free, I find it quite amusing how many distros' developers end up devising some under-handed method to charge for their work."
Clueless. Linux is supposed to be free-as-in-freedom. It does not have to be "free-as-in-beer" - but ninety percent of the time it is if you have the bandwidth to download a few CD ISOs or you can afford twenty bucks to buy CDs on eBay. Virtually all the big distros make their money on various methods of support. Why is that underhanded? Nobody said they have to work for free even if the software is free. Is it better that Microsoft charges a minimum of $100 for their OS (and we're talking the obsolete Windows 98 here) and THEN charges a couple hundred for support?
"Insightful", my ass. There should be a mod for "clueless and arrogant" - or maybe "Windows shill."
Parent
Re:Not Forever (Score:5, Insightful)
In Linux, the problem with video drivers is simply lack of manufacturer support. If the manufacturers would spend a week porting their drivers (this isn't rocket science), there would be a very easy way to install them. I don't understand why IBM doesn't do what Microsoft does - offer financial incentives to make a driver by picking up part of the development cost (which, again, can't be that huge.)
No, Linux is not "uber-1337". There is no reason UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITIONS of lack of vendor support that it should be expected to be able to run anything. Given vendor support, the issue goes away. So what's your point? The article was about WHY it is this way, and has nothing to do with the underlying quality of the OS.
So Mandriva doesn't make it easy to find the free download page - big deal. This is hardly "under-handed", it's just lame. Compared to Microsoft's business tactics, this doesn't even show up in an electron microscope. I'm not even sure it's deliberate - it could well be simple "geek moron" behavior, as I've mentioned before. Begging you to join their Club before letting you follow the links to the download page is just that - begging.
As for $20, that's on eBay. There are plenty of places you can get entire distros for $2.50 a CD. And testing ten different distros to see which is "best" is both a waste of time and only suitable for geeks. I occasionally download a live CD to see if something is interesting, but I have no particular desire to replace my Mandriva 2005 LE until Mandriva 2006 shows up on the public mirrors in a few weeks. Ninety percent of Linux is identical between distros - the remaining ten percent has to do with configuration utilities and package management utilities, plus whatever additional packages the distro wants to include as the default. Basically of no interest, unless you want a distro optimized for some subset of interest, such as multimedia or security. And since you can install anything on anything given ability to install from source (and that difficulty is heavily overblown), it's mostly irrelevant - especially since, as I said, the average consumer has never heard of these distros and wouldn't know what to do with them if they did.
And again, since ninety percent of distros are unknown to anybody but professional Linux-installation geeks, it's irrelevant how they charge for it. You're basically paying for the hobby of installing Linux, not the software, anyway.
None of this is relevant to why Linux isn't being used by the average consumer. Far and away, the main reason is a combination of ignorance of the existence of Linux and inertia by those who really don't particularly care what OS they run - as long as it's working for the present and for the minimal tasks for which they use the computer.
The only reason corporate America hasn't switched is less ignorance of the existence of Linux than it is ignorance of the benefits of open source over the long run, versus the inertia of sticking with the crap their people already know and to which they're wedded by bad IT decisions in the past concerning infrastructure design. That, and the lack of enterprise apps, which take time and organization to produce, so Linux doesn't have that many - yet. The latter problem will go away within ten years as OSS Java infrastructures make developing enterprise apps easier. We're already seeing that to some degree in a couple of enterprise areas such as CRM.
The only real usability problem Linux has is the same one Windows has - a lot of software is produced by what I call "geek morons": brilliant guys at writing software to do something cool, but completely incompetent at either producing a useful GUI or producing documentation or both.
I had to learn both Linux and Windows over the last three years, and as I've said numerous times before, there isn't a penny's worth of difference in usability or learnability between them. It's only hard to learn one or the other if you've already learned one.
I still use Windows most of the
Parent
Re:Not Forever (Score:5, Insightful)
In which case, Microsoft wins by default. With the largest installed userbase, they will still benefit from a full migration to web services. You will still need an OS to get to the internet regardless of whether everything is web-based.
The push for Linux will only come from the education market. When more children grow up in a UNIX-based world, then their preference will drive their purchase. It worked for Apple and Microsoft.
Parent
Re:Not Forever (Score:4, Interesting)
My point is that web apps free the user from the OS. The OS is still needed and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. The OS however becomes irrelevent when your cell phone can open a web based app just like a desktop with Windows can.
As for you second statement I believe you are again incorrect. Colleges are where Unix was more or less born. That didn't result in a mass migration. In fact the opposite happened at the same time most probably due to hardware expenses.Parent
Re:Not Forever (Score:5, Informative)
Get her a copy of Knoppix and by age seven she will be knocking out bash scripts.
Linux is what my daughters started with and what they prefer to use. One is sixteen and the other is eleven.
Parent
Re: Not Forever (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not Forever (Score:4, Informative)
Most "sales" of XP come from pre-installed setups.
People go out to buy a computer that can run all the software in the local PC world or game store - at the moment, that is a Microsoft OS.
Times are changing though, and more space is being given to the alternative OS's.
Its kind of like the time when "PC" software was nowhere to be found and all the stores were filled with Amiga/ST stuff.
Windows will not be dominant forever, it will be replaced just like everything else.
Parent
Genius (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, this guy is a genius for his insight. I really should read what he has to say now.
Re:Genius? Who knows. Smart experienced guy? Yes. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
So your company is being overcharged to fail? (Score:3, Interesting)
This would be worthy of Federal Prosecution.
Re:So your company is being overcharged to fail? (Score:3, Insightful)
The doj tried that and no pc manufactor dared go up agaisnt MS out of fears they would be priced out of windows and office. The only thing they could go on was an email from balmer talking about cutting off netscapes air supply.
This is just business as usual.
It's just 2 guys but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's just 2 guys but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
HP Website not all that linux-friendly (Score:5, Interesting)
It went something like this...
I started customizing the zv6000 laptop, choosing XP Home, knowing that I probably wouldn't get reasonable tech support without having it installed (never mind that there wasn't an option to not get it). As I got to the end, I looked around for a way to request custom partitioning of the hard drive. No dice. So I cancelled the order and wrote to HP Shopping and asked if they could do a custom partitioning job because I wanted to create a dual-boot system.
The response I got was that they couldn't do it and that they were sorry the web site didn't suit my needs.
I responded by asking if they could sell me a blank laptop and provide the installation media on the side, since it was included, and I didn't feel like trying to reinstall the recovery partition for Windows. This is why you don't get installation media... they put it all on a partition on the hard drive that only the Windows installer can use.
Their reply was that they were contractually obligated to sell the laptop with the latest version of Windows installed.
So I told them that they just lost a sale because of their contractual obligations, and that I would take my money elsewhere.
So they replied again with how they were sorry that the website didn't suit my needs and that they would notify the appropriate people.
Now they've pushed my buttons... so I tell them that this is not about a web site, it's about a person sitting there running an FDISK command and watching the install take place instead of just using a ghosting program. I also tell them that I would've been willing to wait an extra couple of weeks, knowing I was asking for a truly customized job.
In the end, I did get an HP laptop, but got it from CompUSA. I got the HP L2000, and for about $40, the tech desk people there were able to do the customized partitioning job for me, reinstall the version of Windows that came with it, and leave me with blank, unformatted partitions to use for Fedora Core 4 x86_64. The tech guys there knew exactly what I wanted to do, understood it, and thought it was really cool. Yes, I need ndiswrappers to get the wireless card to work, and I have to download a driver for the ATI graphics card in there (both are available via a yum archive at livna.org).
Now if only we could get Macromedia to release a 64-bit version of the flash player and Sun to do a 64-bit verison of Java... (yes, I know about the OSS alternatives... doesn't change the fact that they need to do it).
Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly (Score:5, Interesting)
Is HP right for not including REAL Windows install disks?? NO. HP should realize....hard disks fail. To a regular AOL/Joe Sixpack type of user, mailing the laptop back to HP or taking it to a service center is perfectly acceptable when replacing a hard disk. To us, we look on it as a opportunity to upgrade the feeble disk it came with. In any case, HP and many other manufacturers SHOULD ship REAL install media....not this crap that accesses a windows recovery partition. They should also stop shipping SPYWARE with there machine as well.
HP's website itself works FINE in Firefox. The website itself is Linux friendly. Not being able to ship you a custom solution should not be a judgement of thier site. Face it....Windows DOES have the marketshare. If you don't like the website that they make you use, then you are free to go to a dealer that IS able to satisfy you. Being mad at them because they won't do your custom job is stupid. Finding a manufacturer that will do whaty you want and supporting them rather then HP is the sure fire way to get HP to change thier ways. What you did by buying from them anyway is VALIDATE thier planning! If a company can't do what I want, I tell them to pound sand.
Parent
Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly (Score:3, Interesting)
I promptly ditched XP Home and installed XP Pro
Re:HP Website not all that linux-friendly (Score:5, Insightful)
By ultimately giving your money to HP anyway, you truly showed them how much it matters whether they offer custom build options for power users like yourself.
Not at all.
Parent
Why do we still post this garbage? (Score:5, Interesting)
The author says we should believe: "Obviously, there are forces at work in the IT industry that cause retailers to choose not to participate in being more profitable." Right. Global conspiracy, obvious. Try again. The only thing that is really obvious is that the course of action he is suggesting (selling Linux systems in mass market brick and mortar retailers) is deemed unprofitable for these stores.
Sure, Walmart sells Linux. But only online, not brick and mortar.
Re:Why do we still post this garbage? (Score:5, Insightful)
The major electronic retailers function as gatekeepers. There are thousands of products out there that they don't put on their shelves, so much so that simply getting a product on the shelf at Best Buy is a huge accomplishment for a small hardware or software vendor.
The primary issue is one of space and inventory turns. Best Buy expects that every foot of shelf space bring in some amount of revenue, and they stock products that will maximize that revenue. A product that only moves 5 copies a month will always lose out to one that moves 5 a day.
Computers with preloaded software take up a lot of space. I suspect that most models don't even give you a choice of XP Home or XP Pro, and XP Pro is far more popular than Linux. But every different SKU to stock means additional inventory headaches, so only the most popular choices are going to be in stock.
Now consider some of the secondary factors. People buying a PC with Linux are going to be less likely to buy additional software. They arguably don't need things like Spyware or Virus products, and much of what they want is OSS and available for free anyway. So the chances for upsell are greatly reduced, and follow on sales are going to be less.
Retailers will offer Linux boxes if the numbers justify it. Show them a way to make a buck and they will be all over it. But at the moment they don't feel it is profitable to do so. No grand conspiracy, just economics.
Parent
Re:Why do we still post this garbage? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Is it perhaps because the most likely answer, that retail stores would lose money selling Linux systems due to higher difficulty of making the sale, higher support costs, higher return rates, and lower volume?"
Not to get all empirical on you or anything, but if history is any guide, it's likely because their OEM sales and partnership agreements require that they push MS into a place of such prominence that all other alternatives remain hopelessly unattractive.
Don't feel compelled to pay any attention t
Short version of this story (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Before buying hardware, especially laptops, spend an hour googling or otherwise studying what IS supported. The morons in the story buy stuff and then find out compatibility. Fuckin' DUH!
Re:Short version of this story (Score:5, Insightful)
kashani
Parent
Re:Short version of this story (Score:3, Interesting)
"
The roadblock is money. There's no incentive to support a niche market for consumer
Re:Short version of this story (Score:4, Informative)
In most cases it's illegal to try and write drivers for hardware you don't have specs and permission for. DMCA sees to that.
If you have problems with drivers then you need to yell at the hardware manufacturer.
Parent
Re:Short version of this story (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not placing blame for it, and, indeed it's getting a lot easier to throw it on just about everything now. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be an issue to run a modern operating system on modern comodity hardware and researching "computer stuff" is something that your average pc user is not going to do, and in many cases isn't really capable of doing especially since most people only use their computers for email and the web.
I believe Linux is ready for much more buisness use, but until my mother can deal with it easily, it won't be ready for mainstream home desktop use.
disclaimer: I am the editor of a technical and open source magazine, a software developer, and have been a network analyst. My views are my own and not necessarily those of my employers or clients (past or present). In all fairness, I use Linux and even help others switch, but I realize that there are currently some limitations for its widespread home use.
Parent
Complaints (Score:4, Informative)
Good MSN with all smileys, filetransfer, videochat.
Support for all streaming media in your webbrowser.
All multimedia files supported (without having to add (unofficial) repositories to have support for win32codecs and such).
Oh yeah, for the transition, full NTFS writing support.
Apart from that, my friends, mother, sister and girlfriend really like linux.
Re:Complaints (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Complaints (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but when I, as a Linux user look at a fresh Windows install/reinstall I note a lot of things missing...
1) No decent photo editing software. Sorry, gotta pay extra for that, or download it. 2) No decent office suite. MS Office is an extra, that you have to pay for. 3) No decent web browser. Anyone who says that IE is decent deserves a punch in the mouth. 4) No video editing software. That's another extra you have to pay for with Windows. 5) IRC? Nope...gotta go download it somewhere. 6) CD/DVD burnin
More a fault of the limited userbase (Score:3)
Many electronics companies don't see why they should devote developer time or make technical resources available when it's such a miniscule market.
Over time things will improve.
FUD alert! BullShit! (Score:5, Informative)
I LOVE Linux. Long time Debian user, I know that I simply couldn't use computers and be as happy with them if I was stuck with only choosing Windows and propriatory applications.
I am a GNU, Free Software, ra-ra-ra type of guy. I probably seem like a nut to many people.
But I don't beleive that it's a consperiacy against Linux. I beleive it's just complacency, laziness, apathy, and other crap like that.
It's not that they care and conspire, it's that they don't give a shit and MS nudges here and there very rarely.
Hardware manufacturers work their asses off making sure the everything works with Windows well. They generally dont' do jack shit about Linux because it doesn't contribute to their bottom line. (it could if they felt like it. No linux support = no Linux-related money = no reason to support linux = no linux support, etc etc etc.)
This is why it's important to support hardware manufacturers that support Linux. Stuff like Ralink-using Wifi cards that use the rt2500 and related chipsets. http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Mai
And specificly requesting Linux support is the only way to go. Seriously. Buying random hardware and expecting it to work in Linux or expecting that your Dell laptop will work 'just because' is foolish.
This guy is spreading fud. There are certainly hardware companies that dislike the idea of free software. They dislike having to tell end-users how to use the hardware or releasing minimal REAL documentation on the hardware. Well then, fuck them. Don't buy their shit and if you do don't cry when you can't get it to work with ndiswrapper.
PS. Don't buy wifi cards with Conextent, Broadcom, Texas Instruments using chipsets. Avoid them like the plague. Modern 802.11g that work in Linux well are Intel Wifi setups and Ralink rt2x00 based chipsets. Intel 'Sonoma' platform with Intel Video and Intel wifi should work well in a modern Linux setup. Avoid ATI and Nvidia if you can, and if you can't and need the 3d horsepower always choose Nvidia.
What Linux needs for the 'average' user however is pre-installed support from a major manufacturer. The most likely canidate would be HP right now, but it seems to me that it's going to take a relative unkown to realy break through and start making buckets of money from this sort of thing. Maybe a successfull company that produces hardware specialized for Linux clustering or server work can step up to the bat and do it. (not talking about IBM.)
It is certainly possible to get a very nice computer for inexpensive that will work in Linux without having to resort to e-crappo hardware to make it cheap.
Taken from Murphy's (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheaper with Windows pre-installed because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now consider support. If you are a Windows user -- preferably an XP user -- and you call Dell or HP for support, theoretically all of the drivers have been tested, most issues have been noted and posted to a knowledge base and chances are good that the tech at the other end of the line will have reasonable experience in helping you solve the problem.
Conversely, if you buy a barebones systems and run into problems, Dell will have fewer Linux techs who can help, these techs will be more expensive to retain and _your_ level of competency will have a huge impact on the length and outcome of the support call than if you were a lowly Windows user.
Perhaps if you could purchase with an iron-clad zero-support option, then Dell could justify dropping the price. But probably not. Dell is probably just as greedy and unwilling to pass the savings on to the customer (if they don't have to) as most other companies. This is also true of many open source vendors. Whether it's Dell, RedHat or IBM, they'll work hard to extract money out of us one way or another.
Here's another reason that the author overlooks (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time a new release of Mandrake (now Madriva...at least this week) came out, I went and bought the pro package, even though I could download it for free. I figured it was necessary to show support so they would maybe expand the selection.
Then it slowly disappeared. It has now been replaced by racks of more Windows stuff.
Not long after it disappeared, I asked him why. The basic answer was because aside from me and 4 or 5 other geeks, no one else was buying it. In fact, many people straight-up asked him "why should I buy this from you when I can get it legally and still for free on the internet?"
Stores are in business for one thing, and one thing only...to make their owners (stock holders) money. Any product that doesn't turn a certain level of sales disappears. Quickly.
To get the big box retailers to carry Linux, they are going to have to be shown there is a market there AND THEY CAN MAKE MONEY DOING IT. Thousands of people can talk the talk about wanting Linux, but in the grand scheme of actually spending money on it, its a very tiny segment of us that does so.
The moral of this story is that if you want more retailers to carry more Linux, then people need to step up with their wallets and actually buy some of the stuff that is already out there.
I still get every new release of Mandriva, but now I do it via the Mandriva Club since I can't find a retailer that carries it locally. And my club membership costs me almost as much yearly as a Windows XP Home license (and I don't have to have a new license every year). So Linux does cost me money, but I want to show support so that's okay. More people need to be showing their support with pictures of dead presidents (or what ever is on the currency in your country for non-US readers). Only then will Linux offerings and support increase.
I want hardware, not software (Score:3, Interesting)
I couldn't care less how much linux is on the shelf at best buy. I'm a BSD guy by choice, so I wouldn't have a use for it anyway. Put all the Windows software on the shelf you want, I don't care.
I want hardware that will work. When I want a wireless adapter for my laptop I want it today, with no hassles otherwise I'd buy it mail order. So I often find myself in Best Buy looking at some box, and wondering if it will work on my system.
My solution: research. First I find out what will work with BSD, a
Hardware Makers (Score:4, Insightful)
2 % use Linux.
I can write Windows drivers for my device and keep 98% of my userbase happy.
I can write Linux drivers for my device, and keep 2% of my userbase happy.
If the cost of writing that Linux driver is more than I would make back in profits, why would I ever do it?
Business decisions......
Re:Hardware Makers (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hardware Makers (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's assume that you make hardware. You have a lot of competition, and you have 10% of the market. Nobody offers Linux drivers. All of a sudden, you decide to offer the drivers, and your market share goes up to 12%. All of a sudden, Linux has added 20% to your business.
If you are a monopoly, then you have little to gain. If you are a fringe player, then Linux support can differentiate you from the pack.
Let's talk another benefit. If a person runs Linux, then there is a 95% probability that they are pretty good at technology. If you offer Linux drivers, all of a sudden you have made a friend
Parent
All smoke, no fire (Score:3, Insightful)
Where? I couldn't find that anywhere in the article.
Generally, support for Linux sucks in hardware retailing. There are at least three possible reasons for this:
1 There are good commercial reasons why it isn't profitable to support Linux.
2 It would be profitable, but companies lack the vision to see this
3 Big bad Microsoft is conspiring to keep it this way.
I was hoping to see evidence for number 3, but all I saw was the article questioning whether 1 could be true (but without in-depth analysis - how much would Linux support cost, and how many sales would it gain?), and the
Another bit of FUD here... (Score:4, Interesting)
Micrsoft is hindering Linux on the desktop? Excuse me while I laugh myself into an asthma fit.
The regular slew of updates to KDE ALONE will screw up the average KDE installation bad enough and quick enough to make you want to strangle everyone who works on it. Gnome which is supposed to be so much less cool than KDE is five times more stable in my experience and two times less useful. Of course so is a hammer by comparison to a vertical knee mill but at least the hammer does what it is designed to.
I use Fedora Core 3 as my regular desktop and only log into XP when I have an absolute need. I've made Quake run with sound in less than an hour USING the idiotically bad and largely conflicting and contradictory documentation on the net (woot! I can translate geekoid!). I got SSH working with public keys in ten minutes. I regularly customize my FC3 boxes and rework them rather than the lazier nuke and pave method. So... I am not a Windows newbie-to-Linux here.
The ONLY thing killing Linux on the desktop is Linux. XOrg and XFree86 and their ongoing back and forth pecadillos, KDE's zealot army of moronic children screaming the leetness of their preference, Gnome's less than stellar array of boosters, and both desktops' having little to no clue towards stability and regularity are merely the tip of the iceberg. The neverending foreverwar over what goes in the kernel, the endless bs of how drivers and hardware abstraction should work, the "ooh isn't this cool" phenomenon of distros spreading like mold based on their purveyors' egotistical desire to have some note in the history of Linux... All of this and more is what is killing Linux on the desktop.
It's like the movie Braveheart. The penguin sallies forth to do battle with the incredible menace and its own supporters backstabbing, squabbling, infighting, and inability to arrive at a common vision and stick with it do it in. Penguin meat anyone?
Re:Another bit of FUD here... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe anyone still goes through that kind of hell. There's a reason that SuSE doesn't update KDE between versions, and its to avoid that kind of inter-version breakage you experience. The full upgrade of the next SuSE revision incldues the next KDE, and it'll upgrade smoothly, too, assuming you have not tried to self-upg
They could be friendlier (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you find stable laptop distributors, it's practically IMPOSSIBLE to determine whether you can run Linux on it because they usually won't tell you what's actually inside. Like, is that a Broadcom or a Atheros 802.11 wireless in there? It makes a *huge* difference.
If you don't know what kind of chipsets a laptop has in it, you can't do the research. Easy as that. You have to wait for someone to buy the thing, try installing a flavor of Linux on it, and report back what their successes and failures were.
Even if HP or whoever doesn't support the hardware directly, it'd be nice to know what kind of hardware is in there to begin with. I don't need them to hold my hand. I just want to know what I'm buying.
About Time... (Score:5, Interesting)
But, I'm tired of being treated like I don't exist: Linux "made it" on my desktop years ago, has run for all of our family's needs (internet, chat, email, games, graphics design, programming, and YES office document use too!), will continue to "make it" on our desktops forever. And we're ALL sick of being discussed as if we were unicorns: "Do home Linux desktop users exist? No, that's just a fairy-tale. It's physically impossible to run Linux on a desktop, because it's just a teletype terminal you have to write the kernel from scratch every time you start it and it doesn't even use a monitor and mouse, it uses punched cards instead." This is all bandied about like it was common knowledge, taught at our universities, discussed with great seriousness in the tech publications, and carried as a confirmed opinion amongst many of my fellow Slashdotters, even.
If you can bear to have your whole reality re-defined, click here: http://www.lynucs.org/ [lynucs.org] . Behold: Linux desktops! Running on monitors! Note the "taskbar" on the bottom, JustLikeWindows. See the applications open on the desktop, they have a bar at the top with the little "x" thingie to close them and the little box thingie to full-screen them and they use jpg images for wallpaper, JustLikeWindows. Note the scrollbars on the sides of the windows, JustLikeWindows. Note the little icons that you click with the mouse to launch a program or open a file, JustLikeWindows.
Do you suppose, if they spend all this time making all this software...dozens of different window managers and hundreds of distros...that maybe, somewhere, just maybe, somebody could actually use them for anything, at all, at all?
So, the real story is, "Linux struggles daily against Microsoft to survive - and even thrive! - but we'd all be better off if there was less fighting in the world.", not "Linux has been killed by Microsoft. Alas, poor Tux, I knew him...almost." Get it right! Discuss us like we're dead, and we're likely to rise up and prove how alive we are!
Needs update (Score:3, Funny)
[X] Copy/Paste "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux"
Re:Has made it? O.o (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Has made it? O.o (Score:3, Insightful)
If people were really serious about desktop Linux, they would have long ago standardized a bundled package format like NeXTStep's
These k
Re:Has made it? O.o (Score:5, Informative)
All Debian derived systems (like ubuntu [ubuntu.com]) use apt/dpkg, Fedora/RedHat uses yum (or apt4rpm), Suse uses YaST and Gentoo uses portage. All of these will find dependancies for you and generally do the right thing - if the package is available, it will be installed and configured properly.
The only place where this is not true is when there are legal roadblocks (like DVD playback) to using the software in a free OS. Most commercial distros are able to bypass this however, since they pay a fee to the IP rights holder for the use of that IP.
In any event, you can't have checked software installation very recently. Today it's easier on linux than it's ever been on Windows.
Soko
Parent
Re:Has made it? O.o (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but that's bullshit. I can't remember the last time I installed something on Windows that wasn't as easy as clicking "next" a few times. I'm not saying that installing stuff on Linux is hard, I'm just saying that in my experience it's not "easier than it's ever been on Windows".