Slashdot Log In
Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:00 AM
from the crushed-by-osx dept.
from the crushed-by-osx dept.
El Lobo writes "For the Linux desktop, 2002 was an important year. Since then, we have continuously been fed point releases which added bits of functionality and speed improvements, but no major revision has yet seen the light of day. What's going on?
A big problem with GNOME is that it lacks any form of a vision, a goal, for the next big revision. GNOME 3.0 is just that- a name. All GNOME 3.0 has are some random ideas by random people in random places.
KDE developers are indeed planning big things for KDE4 — but that is what they are stuck at. Show me where the results are.KDE's biggest problem is a lack of manpower and financial backing by big companies.
In the meantime, the competition has not exactly been standing still. Apple has continuously been improving its Mac OS X operating system. Microsoft has not been resting on its laurels either. Windows Vista is already available. Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Desktops? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Desktops? (Score:5, Funny)
When the user dislikes the GUIs that actually attempt to be (somewhat) user-friendly, just feed him/her a GUI that is stepwise worse and more user-hostile than the last one.
"What's for dinner honey?" - "Caterpillars and worms. And if you don't like it, we have wooden splinters, glass shards and iron filings."
Parent
Depends on what you're used to eating. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey there is hope for the Linux desktop yet! For a few years now Microsoft Windows users have been fed a very steady diet of worms. Lots and lots of worms. Thousands of different kinds of worms. And Windows has been able to serve them up faster than McDoe's could ever hope to serve up a Big Mac!
Really, MS and the Linux desktop are simply leapfrogging over each other...in 2001 we got a prettied up desktop in XP, in 2002 GNOME and KDE leapfrogged over them with a major version, in 2007 MS will bring Vista to the unwashed masses and I imagine in 2008/2009 Linux will get more greatness from GNOME and KDE.
This is a pretty lame indictment of the Free software community if you ask me. The author of the article makes a great deal of noise about there being six or seven years between major releases of GNOME and KDE, and seems to have glossed over the fact that MS went over five years themselves, despite having thousands of developers and billions of dollars to throw at it. Furthermore, calling XP a major release is questionable...it was by and large window-dressing to Win2000 (and technically it WAS a point-release from 5.0 to 5.1 wasn't it? I think the SP2 upgrade was probably almost as significant as 2k-to-XP too...). Really, MS will have gone almost EIGHT years between major releases.
Besides, I question the focus on the numbering system as a measure of progress--I've found that historically Free software products progress faster and have more significant changes between major releases. Nobody would say that from kernel 2.0.x to kernel 2.6.x there has been a lack of progress due to the fact it'll be something over a decade after 2.0 before a 3.x.x release. Projects like the kernel and Apache (and, yes, the desktop environments) have reserved the major release number for very fundamental, architectural overhauls. If Windows was a Free software project I do not think it would be numbered like it was--Windows 2.x would've been 1.x releases, 3.0 through Me would've been 2.x and NT 3.1 through XP would've been 3.x releases. For what its worth, I think that although Apple has been the pacesetter that Linux is still easily out-pacing Microsoft in terms of modernising the desktop overall, despite the whining about lack of "major releases".
Parent
Re:Desktops? (Score:5, Insightful)
BUT, IMHO I think there is more behind the scenes that has yet to be done, and it has nothing to do with "themes." What is lacking is a cohesive and comprehensive framework that allow all applications / applets to work together and communicate with each other seamlessly. We have a whole bunch of parts right now that are mostly independent with few exceptions. For example: I have a mail notification applet that pops up a summary new mail, and I can click on the notification to launch my mail client of choice (which happens to be Mutt.) What the applet can't do is launch mutt (or attach to an existing instance) opening the current message that I clicked on. Obviously that is a very minor nit, and there are much bigger problems to tackle... Bonobo on Gnome is a start of that framework. KDE has it's own competing technology.
Take sound for instance... There are many competing frameworks (ecasound, jack, esd, etc.) Many applications only support one or two, and frequently the interface is buggy and doesn't work correctly. Good luck getting sound from Gaim, Mail notification, MPlayer, desktop sound effects, and Amarok all working at the same time. Can it be done? Well, yes, I was able to get it to work but it was Very painful. I seriously doubt the majority of linux users would be successful (newbies would be doomed.)
I guess my point is that we can either pretend that all is fine in the Linux desktop world, or we can look at what the other leaders in the market have done and realize that we have a lot more to do. With all the fractured alternative technologies to solve the same problem, I don't know if it the goal of everything working together seamlessly can ever be reached. That won't stop me, personally, from using Linux however. It will probably stop the enterprise.
Parent
Re:Desktops? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Desktops? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Desktops? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's pretty funny that the article is titled "Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?" When was there a bubble to begin with? Doesn't there have to be rather widespread adoption or growth to constitute a bubble? Has the Linux desktop ever gained more than ~1% of the desktop market?
Parent
But only Gnome and KDE are integrated by distros (Score:4, Insightful)
Paradoxically, with Sun, CDE seems to be better supported. I have a few ancient sparc-II systems. They have Solaris 10, but I still use CDE because, even now (or rather 1/2006 edition of Solaris 10), Sun does a better jobs of integrating some of their tools into CDE than their newer Gnome Java Desktop thingy, even though Sun is making a big push to move everthing over to Gnome. (Besides, Gnome runs dog slow on those ancient boxes). I could install fluxbox or WindowMaker on those boxes too, but the menus would be empty.
Parent
Lord, I hope it hasn't... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, I'm guessing they won't even have 'net connections unless they can leach off their neighbors- doubtful- so who knows for certain how much they'll use it for. Even if I have a winmodem that will still function after 8 years of idle sitting (static bags, yes...) I hear there aren't any drivers for them.
So yes, I hope the linux desktop growing somewhat- there's definately room to improve on Windows and a little competition never hurt anybody.
Overreacting some? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No one is talking about Metacity [wikipedia.org]. They're talking about the GNOME Desktop Environment [wikipedia.org], a complete desktop shell and software bundle.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now we have HAL, DBUS, udev, beagle and xorg composite extension.
If you put all of this things together the desktop experience is much improved.
Also, many of this things result in the same sort of functionalities that have appeared in OSX and Vista, but they dont necessary belong to KDE or GNOME.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comparing 6 years ago to today, Linux has made just about zero progress on improving user experience when it comes to hardware configuration, software installation, and system maintenance. (You know, the stuff that people who are honestly evaluating Linux as a desktop OS always complain about.) The only thing I've really seen move forward is the
Re:Red-haired child (Score:5, Informative)
The 90's called, and they want their "I tried Linux but couldn't install it" angst back.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Face it, Linux' opportunity has now been officially pronounced to have come and gone, so now it's Microsoft and ONLY Microsoft.
After all, their street address is One Microsoft Way!
It's more than just a street address, it's a prophecy!
Ridiculous... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
GNOME less random than it appears (Score:4, Interesting)
Rename please... (Score:5, Insightful)
The change in emphasis shouldn't be a problem, by now we are all experienced enough to know the answer.
Yes! And I love it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes! And I love it! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
A Few Things (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Simple Hardware Support. I know this moves beyond the desktop environment and into kernel type stuff, but I want the desktop to pop up and say "You have new hardware" and then guide me along the correct path towards setting it up. This is really more of a service, perhaps one provided through a closesly monitored and updated website.
2) Better QA for all end products. Most of the time, I'm quite happy with gnome. Its the features and addons and enhancements that I add that don't always play nice. Perhaps a documented UI standard that other developers can adhere to, and a simple set of interface libraries that make desktop environment integration brainless for basic tasks. Maybe this stuff already, but for whatever reason, a lot of OS desktop software seems to be of poor quality and stability (major players excluded.)
I want to mod the article flamebait... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a pointless article. It's entirely emotional and opinionated. It has nothing to say besides "Linux Suxxors". What the hell?
I don't think there's any point to responding to this, but I feel compelled to put my two cents in. People like to complain about something being "user friendly". I'm actually really tired of that phrase. I don't think Microsoft's stuff is very user friendly. I keeps making me do stupid repetive tasks that cause me carpal tunnel syndrome (from repetetive mouse clicks), keeps making me answer the same stupid questions over and over again, keeps reinstating the stupid sample photos and subdirectories into the one part of the OS that should ostensible by mine (the "My Documents" folder), keeps forcing onerous, impossible to read EULA's on me, keeps preventing me from doing legal things I want to do because they don't want me violating their copyrights... the list goes on.
What most people mean when they say "user friendly" would be better called "newbie friendly", or "neophyte friendly", or maybe "diletante friendly". I use Linux on my desktop becuase it's more friendly to the stuff that I want to do, and for the most part lets me do thing the way I want to do them.
Oh, and nice job calling linux on the desktop a "bubble". As george orwell statet, a writer mixing their metaphors is a sure sign that they aren't actually thinking about what they are writing.
Re:I want to mod the article flamebait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux has a problem with it UI for Desktop usage. There is a saying "anything is easy after you know how to do it" Guess what most people know how to use Windows so Windows is easy Linux desktop is different so the say it is hard, these people also think OS X Interface is hard too, but less so then Linux because Microsoft tends to copy much of what OS X does so they are more familiar with it.
They can be very smart people, smarter then any one of us possibly. And still have trouble with Linux UI because is is so poorly designed. There are some simple things that can be changed in Linux that can make it more User Friendly, but because they don't want to admit Linux is flawed that called these changes as "Dumbing Down" or say that is why the old way is great.
Here are some simple fixes.
Give good names to the features. Give programs names that anyone know what they are.
for example GIMP -> Graphics Editor or Photo Processor. Most people don't care if the program is GNU or not or if it is a native K application or Gnome application. So Just give the program a name that we know what it is. If they want to know what it actual program is so they can get new versions outside the distribution There is a Help -> About Appname to get the real name and the version.
Which leads to the next problem...
Common Menus. Menus need to be in a familiar order. File, Edit, View, Tools, Help. Are common command to change settings they can go to Tools -> Options to reconfigure the program for user settings. If the program has a GUI interface there should be a GUI front end to editing the configurations.
Easy installation of programs. The tools out there for installing apps are great for server use. But for desktop use they are a big pain. Things like install the application and the Icon to the application is in the GUI menu, with the correct icon. Desktop users shouldn't need to hunt down dependencies to get the application to work nor can you assume your application will be part of the distribution list) People want to go the web site download a program and run it.
Setting up extra hardware. Even if the person does some quick research to see if the hardware is supported by Linux. Plugging it in doesn't mean it will do anything. OS X and Windows when you plug in a camera or other hardware will load a default application which you can change who the default it. Or at the very least pop up an icon for that device. vs. Plugging in a device and gussing what one of my thousand entries in
Linux has stalled, in the desktop and Linux developers and supporters are failing to see this. Dismissing the problem, or insulting the people who point out the problems doesn't fix it.
Parent
I disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
While the author of the article feels Linux hasn't grown, I believe it has. It is not only fully on par with Windows, but I feel considerably more feature-rich, easier to install (for some distros), easier to maintain, has better performance, and has gained in two major areas.
1 - Windows app compatibility
2 - Gaming
Linux is very much a viable and reasonable desktop alternative to pretty much anyone on the planet today, where as that hasn't always been the case.
If that isn't significant growth, I'm not sure what is.
And let us not forget the strides that are being made in desktop search (programs like Beagle) and the 3D Desktop like Compwiz. Linux is beginning to innovate, and the big boys are trying to follow suit.
actually (Score:5, Funny)
A big problem with GNOME is that it lacks any form of a vision
Actually gnomes have the ability to see in the infrared spectrum, and get +2 to constitution / -2 to strength.
Re:actually (Score:5, Funny)
I was going to rate this a -1 Troll, but then I realised trolls were another character class altogether.
Parent
Bah, Humbug. (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is FUD, pure and simple. "Linux is Dying", "Linux is Insecure", "Linux is a Toy", "Linux is for Hobbyists" and "Linux is a Rabid Communist Terrorist Cancer that will steal your money, destroy the economy, kill your cat, burn your house down and crash your car" are all pseudo-ideas that came, were disproved and disappeared.
These days it's "OMG! Linux is Not Ready for the Desktop!!!". This, too, shall pass. Remember: even Mighty Microsoft, the saviour of the American Economy, has a finger in the Linux pie now. Soon, they will stop screaming and throwing feces at Linux and admit the inevitable: they don't stand a chance.
What do Linus and his lieutenants say? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey here's another example - what if I want a fricking kernel dump when my system crashes? What, I can't dump it to disk like Solaris and every other enterprise UNIX does? I have to send it over the network (which comes to a host of problems which I won't go into here)? Yes, yes, I know about the problems of doing this for a variety of hardware, but this is the sort of thing I'm talking about
Linux is not there yet for high-end enterprise, although it is getting there. Linux should concentrate on that, which it has been doing, which is good. Trying to crack Microsoft's desktop monopoly while the high-end is up for grabs is dumb. Take the high-end and then go for the low end. Of course, people are free to work on the Linux desktop if they wish. But I'm glad the core team is concentrating on making Linux a real enterprise UNIX system.
Was that even an article? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, KDE's "only" developing as fast as MS (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.cuug.ab.ca/past-meetings/meetings.06-0
Assuming KDE 4 does come out in 2007, that'll be exactly 5 years behind KDE 3, about the same time from XP to Vista. They're developing as fast as a $100 Billion corporation, exactly how much more do you want?
The headline on this article is certainly senseless - in a "market" overwhelmed by a monopoly provider, there can be no bubbles to start with, at best you can incrementally develop a market share in small fringe areas where the monopoly's hold is weak. Mostly meaning non-US regions concerned about a lock-in by a foreign provider, especially governments. Also, particularly poor customers that can't avoid the $50 MS "tax" by piracy, because they have to play honestly, like educational institutions.
And in those areas at least, there's been slow but encouraging growth through 2006 and prospects for more. That's only a "bubble bursting" if you were deluded into imagining some take-off point of explosive growth was coming.
the future, not the past (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Gnome: Plenty of money, few developers
2) KDE: Plenty of developers, little money
He also argues that because we're only seeing point releases from Gnome, progress there is slowing down, while in KDE, we no longer have significant point releases because everyone's focused on KDE 4, though there hasn't been any visual results yet out of the Plasma project.
In my opinion, this article is a lot of worry-worting. Sure, Gnome and KDE could *always* use more cash and developers, duh. But are the projects hitting some sort of dead end or breaking point where they'll cease to be effective? Hardly. Will they be able to surpass Vista and/or OSX in functionality? Depends on what you're looking for. Even now, some people prefer Windows, others OSX, and others Linux. Most people just put up with Windows, actually.
Thom is really into OS development, but I'm not sure how technical he is, so I think he may be more interested in what happens in the visual department. KDE 4 has little to show there, but a lot in the libraries that Plasma will sit on top of. I'm especially excited about Kross, which rivals MS's (as yet unreleased) Monad/Powershell.
What's unique about KDE4 (and why we really need it in addition to Gnome) is that it's going to be installable on Linux and BSD as well as Windows and OSX. That's pretty innovative if you ask me.
I don't think Plasma in KDE4 is going to bring about the radical changes some may be hoping for. There have been some interesting posts in discussion boards for both Gnome 3 (Topaz) and KDE4 for radical shifts, but usually these people are directed to look at Symphony OS, since most suggestions seem to revolve around creating a task-oriented desktop or else merging the desktop and browser into one environment.
All in all, I see nothing wrong with Gnome and KDE taking a more evolutionary approach. This is natural for any software so mature. The OSS kernels aren't going to see HUGE gains, just incremental improvements, but over the course of a year, you can see a lot of new innovations, just as you will with Gnome and KDE. An evolutionary approach to software development might not be as exciting for journalists and fans, but it sure makes more sense from a technical perspective: release early, small, and often.
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with many linux users is that they fail to realize that your "normal" computer user is NOTHING like they are. Linux CAN succeed but it really needs a set of standards to follow. People don't like inconsistency. They really don't even like choice. They don't want to have to choose one of the 300 active distros. They want "Linux" and they want it to work as easily as Windows does.
Parent
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, that was a bit harsh, but someone had to say it.
Parent
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:5, Insightful)
First I think part of the problem, is your average geek would prefer speed and efficiency over simplicity while non-geeks prefer the opposite. Personally I spend most of my time at the command line so I think things like apt-get install are great, however most non-geeks get worried as soon as you tell them to open up a terminal window.
I'm sure you were trying to be funny but really, geeks don't hate non-geeks, they just don't see the problem and thus no reason to fix something that isn't broken. They would rather focus on developing something cool.
This is also why I tell people who are looking at new computers to buy a mac. This way, they get an easy to use computer with all the nice GUI elements that apple provides, and when I have to use their computer, I still have access to the terminal and all the UNIX goodness that is under the hood of OS X.
Personally I would love for Linux to come up with a GUI that is as easy to use as OS X. (Yes, yes, Ubuntu is easy to use but it's still not on par with OS X... some people can be really dim) However, I think most developers don't really know how to solve the problem.
Oh, and you got it wrong, most uber-geeks hate non-geeks trying to be geeks...
Parent
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:5, Insightful)
For example 1959 was the peak of streetcar use in America. Ford+General Motors+Firestone+Standard Oil formed a cartel to buy and shutdown every streetcar company in USA to increase their sales. Sometimes they were secretive. Sometimes they were brazen as the "motorized" America. Fast Forward Sixty years we have, urban sprawl, decaying urban centers and extrodinary dependance on imported oil. When oil and energy consumption was synonymous with economic growth, when "what-is-good-for-GM-is-good-for-America we let the monopolies run rough shod all over us.
Now information is power, we are in the information and communication age. And we are letting information/communication monopolies run rough shod all over us. And we called those dissenters luddites/poverty-lovers/socialists. We call these dissenters geeks/uber-geeks/out-of-touch. History repeats itself.
Parent
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
nah, it shouldn't be dumbed down. That is the wrong approach. It needs to be made smarter and by that I mean make the user think less about the details. I used to hate to have to update a linux box just because I had to figure out all the dependencies (I am not a Linux guru, just a very experineced users (13+ years)). Things like Yum, apt-get, what ever, take alot of the pain out of it. U
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what people hate to admit is that in order to sell Linux to the masses, it's going to have to be dumbed down.
I don't think usability and power are diametrically opposed. You don't need to "dumb down" Linux to sell it to the masses, you just have to make the workflow easy by default.
The dumbed-down side of it is that there is no compiler... But then again, my mom doesn't want, or need, one.
Not having a compiler doesn't directly make Linspire any easier for your mom. The only thing it does is theoretically make developers that want to reach that market provide a binary, but I'd not wager even many of them to that, rather than let the distro do it themselves.
I'm not bringing this up to "bust your balls" but because I think this is a really important consideration that is often overlooked. You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see compilers used to improve the usability of Linux, rather than be removed to "dumb down" Linux. Here's my ideal software install/management system. Take a nice, package manager and integrate it with the OS. Have it set up with at least one nice repository of software by default, with the ability for users to add more repositories. This provides for finding and downloading a lot of software and keeping that software up to date. Combine this system with OpenStep so that all normal software is a contained package that can be installed globally or within a user account and can be installed and uninstalled via drag and drop. More than that, it is easy to store and move applications via thumb drives, CDs, e-mail, IM, etc. Augment OpenStep by adding repository information to it, so that even if you only have an application on a thumb drive, the next time you use it the system can look for updates. Further augment OpenStep's existing set of binaries for different platforms with a subdirectory for source code, licenses, and build instructions that let the OS build a customized binary at its leisure and without the user having to do anything. Use the compiler to make it faster and easier, rather than removing it. Build your toolset with an official software registration service to make ACLs a practical security solution.
So where does this get you? If you're thinking of Linux strictly in terms of a server OS, this gets you unnecessary bloat. That is why this will probably never happen. If, however, you're thinking of Linux as a server and desktop and possible embedded OS, then it gets you ease of use and flexibility. Disk space is cheap these days and the ability to drag and application onto a shared server, or automatically upgrade to a new laptop with a different architecture, or IM a program to a friend who uses a different OS, and have it just work... is a huge win, in my opinion. For servers or embedded applications where disk space counts and optimization is more important than ease of use, this same system can work fine and nothing stops the OS from stripping out and discarding unused portions of the package. There are already tools on OS X that go through and do just that for people with disk space constraints that want to recover the space taken up by Intel or PPC or 32 or 64 bit binaries. Even then, since it references the repository in the package, making a shared binary work is easy (but a bit slower) so long as you have an internet connection.
The problem with many linux users is that they fail to realize that your "normal" computer user is NOTHING like they are.
Actually, the majority of Linux users and contributors are pretty focused on Linux on the server, and are not all that interested in it on the desktop. Of the 20 or so regular Linux contributors in my office right now, only two I know of are running it on the desktop. A few are running a BSD, a couple are running Windows, and the remaining majority are running OS X. And that is one of the reasons I see Linux on the desktop having less support than it used to. While there are some great, motivated projects, like the OLPC project, a huge numb
Parent
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh?
So all those *nix admins responsible for a few dozen, a few hundred, or a few thousand systems are doing what? Using their company-provided MacBook or Windows desktop to ssh into the server? Running X remotely? Using Cygwin? Shuffling their chairs around or plugging in VGA cables or serial cables so they can sit at a connected monitor to get some work done? Investing in elaborate KVM setups?
Maybe you need to rethink your conclusion as "not interested in the desktop." I'd suggest the reality is that there is no overwhelming desire to write GUI applications to replicate what is traditionally done in a terminal window so that novice users will find things "easier". Unfortunate for some, maybe, but the reality is that *nix is designed around the concept of a terminal. Gnome, KDE and friends are mostly there to provide wallpaper.
Here's a tip. Many of us do use *nix as a "desktop". At the same time, most of us know there is no real distinction between desktop and server. Except for the wallpaper, perhaps.
Parent
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me paint you this very real picture (someone I know): you own a computer store. You do have Linux on some machines. Customers come in, they look at it. They're curious. Oh, so this is "Linux" (notice? they've heard of it; they might even know it's open source - the term free software, in English, I'm not so sure is a good one - it sounds unprofessional.). They want to know if they can still have MS Office. Can their kids play games? Windows games?
But here's where things start to go wrong: you are not allowed, for instance, to install CodeWeavers http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/ [codeweavers.com] for them to see MS Office inside Linux, or Transgaming's Cedega http://www.transgaming.com/index.php?module=Conte
There's no way you can prove to Joe Dad that he doesn't need Windows, but that he can still have the Windows software he needs. That he will save money, by not having to pay for the expensive MS OS, and that he will gain in security, and save in antivirus software. In fact, your deal with Microsoft may even specify that if you even suggest that, you'll be in breach of contract.
To make matters worse, Microsoft (and Intel, BTW), will shove you a lot of money to promote your store (as long as you flash their brand names), even give you money for advertising.
So, you see, this is not such a simple world where "the best technology wins" or "as long as we have standards." This is much more than that, it's a marketing game. Linux, PC-BSD, etc, will have to start with the corporate desktop, where money matters. Unfortunately, Windows users are in a deadlock, because the FLOSS community has not been able to come up with competitive Office solutions (please, do not say OpenOffice.org is that solution - people who say that have no idea what they're talking about), including integration with the said hypothetical suite.
Parent
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. The real issue here is not that Linux desktops need to progress anywhere. I use both Windows and Linux for hours a day and they both have their share of frustrations and joys. Your Quake example is a joke, since most people don't care about playing games like Quake on their computers. You might have a point if you use a more realistic example of software that simply is written to run on Linux at all. But so what? There's lots of great Linux/Unix-only software that I can't run on Windows. Although, I must say that I think the free software aspect of most Linux software makes it much more likely that a Windows port exists for good Linux software than a good Linux port exists for good Windows software.
The problem for Linux on the desktop is not usability or availability of games or a host of other problems at this point. It's things like lagging support for new versions of ubiquitous software, like Flash. It's the non-existence of any Quicken products for Linux. It's the fact that OpenOffice is a relative new-comer and MS Office/Works products have been around since the 80s. At most major computer retailers, the only operating system you can buy pre-installed on a machine is Windows. The average user never installs an operating system. Mac has a devoted base of people willing to pay a premium price for Apple products, why I'll never know, since Apple's offerings have been an inferior price-to-value proposition since at least the release of Windows 2000.
Apple is able to be profitable by serving a niche that is almost more fashion-driven than anything else. For the rest of the world there is only one choice: Windows. Linux isn't on the table. Not because of any real reason why average folks couldn't be just as happy with it, but because the perceived cost of a new computer doesn't include a component for operating system and applications expense. The bundling is the problem. The fact that MS has overwhelming market share is the problem. The fear of trying something new is the problem. People are already scared of their computers--even many IT professionals I've met seem to have limited understanding of how computers actually work. People know Windows, so they stick with Windows.
Until the consumer is informed that their hardware purchase includes a hefty charge for a Windows license and is offered Linux as an alternative (presumably at a different price point), they are not going to know or care about Linux or why they would want to consider it. They're already paying for Windows so they have no incentive to care about anything else.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You what now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Up until now there has been no need for a big leap.
Can you really have a "big leap" with the Linux development model? With Windows, Microsoft can develop an OS for 5 years and keep lots of things under wraps. When it finally hit's people's desktop, if people like the improvements, there's a big "whoa" factor. There are a whole lot of changes.
But if Windows was open-sourced with no secrets, and had a 6 month release schedule, I suspect it would all feel like a whole lot of little incremental upgrades and bug fixes. There wouldn't be much anticipation or many surprises. The upgrades feel more mundane. Like you said, though, there have been substantial improvements to desktop Linux distros since 2002, but when all those improvements are trickling out every 6 months over a 5 year period, they just don't feel that big.
Parent
other incremental improvements (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
In the hands of a techie or Joe Blow user?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mac OS X has a wonderful GUI, there's no point in arguing that. However, it's somewhat overrated. It does have a lot of bells and whistles, but when I first bought my Mac, I didn't really think it was as intuitive as they say. Or functional. For instance, Safari doesn't hava a fullscreen mode (I get around that using Opera). I miss having 4 diffferent desktops I can just switch to using the keyboard, for instance. Etc. (Maybe
Re:OSX (Score:4, Informative)
Right now OS X isn't as good an option for a lot of people.
Of course it isn't the best solution for everyone. It is just a better workstation than Linux for most people (in my experience).
The biggest thing is that the vast majority of Linux targeted desktop software (of which there is a vast range, even if you just restrict us to high quality and Free) either doesn't work or is horribly clunky.
This is sort of amusing. The vast majority of OS X targeted desktop software doesn't work at all on Linux. So that leaves us in a situation where one OS can run both sets of software (some of it not optimally) and the other OS can only run one set. Not exactly a win for Linux.
It's better than running on top of Cygwin but really not very much and *that means it's not UNIX, it's a pretty, closed bauble that effectively hides all of the good bits*.
You ideas seem pretty slanted. OS X is as much UNIX as Linux is, they're just different, partially incompatible, implementations of it. OS has some ability to run Linux software in a compatibility mode, that is not perfect. Linux can't run OS X software, pretty much at all.
If you don't believe me go and look at every OO.o release thread and see the Apple users asking for a better native port.
OpenOffice has come along way recently, but the important thing is it is almost 100% developed by Sun, which relies upon Xwindows. How well does Omniplan or Word for Mac work on Linux? You don't hear many people asking for it on Linux though, since most people using OS X, just don't care if it works on Linux.
In the mean time Linux has graphically caught up, application wise is only missing much, and is free. Why bother to switch at this point?
I'm a Linux on the desktop user and an OS X on the desktop user. For that matter, I run Windows too. My primary workstation has been OS X for quite a while because it has numerous wins over Linux. For starters, it runs a lot of really good software Linux does not. Photoshop, InDesign, Omnigraffle, iTunes, etc. Second the OS does a better job of handling those applications. The CLI and the GUI are integrated more smoothly than any Linux distro I've ever used. If I move a directory via the GUI, terminals that navigated into that directory update instantly. Applications and the OS share services smoothly. My Web browser, IM client, terminals, e-mail, word-processor, pro layout app, etc. all access the same spellchecker and grammar checker and language translation services and scripts and statistical package, etc. Third, the benefits of OpenStep mean I can use fat binaries that work on different systems and I can IM or e-mail them to friends, or transfer them when we don't have internet access and they work without any hassle. Fourth, with an OS X laptop I can run Linux and Windows in a VM to use any applications that don't have a port, or where the port is of poor quality. This means I have one machine instead of three and I can access all the OS's when I'm using my laptop at the coffee shop because I was too lazy to go to the office. Fifth, upgrading an OS X machine is years ahead of Linux. When I switched from a PPC mac laptop to an Intel mac laptop I plugged in a firewire cable and pushed a button. Then I went to lunch. All my user accounts, settings, authorization keys, applications, files, etc. migrated automagically. Migrating to a new Linux box and getting everything in its proper state usually takes me several days of messing around. And the best part is, since Linux and Windows are now in VMs, I never, ever have to to that again on any platform. When I get a new machine, I'll be taking a full Linux (Kubuntu) and Windows (XP) install with me, pre-configured and divorced from the hardware, with one button press. Until Linux distros duplicate that functionality, they'll have a hard time winning me back.
Now I'm not knocking Linux. It is an excellent server OS and a capable desktop. It beats OS X and Windows on a number of points. I'd lo
Parent