A Glimpse at the Linux Desktop of the Future

hisham writes "Every now and then we see articles pointing out "what's wrong with Linux on the desktop." This one gives a nice overview not only of the problems we all know, but also where to look for solutions (app dirs, smarter filesystems) and what's out there (projects trying to change the face of Linux, like Klik, Zero Install and GoboLinux). Still, it usually boils down to things that Mac OS X already has or that are/were touted for inclusion on MS Longhorn. Fortunately, the major desktops stopped playing catch and are focusing on forward-looking Linux projects, like KDE Plasma and Gnome Beagle. Interesting times ahead."

Dear Linux

Dear Linux,

At first, I really admired your lofty goals and pure-hearted ambitions. You spoke of freedom. You spoke of choice. You spoke of a world without limits.

But over the years, you have stagnated. Sure, you make a robust server and I'll always have a place in my heart (and my production racks) for you. But you have failed to thrive on my desktop.

Why, just last year, I tried to get you to work with my 23" Apple Cinedisplay. I was ready to return to you full-time after a long desktop-linux hiatus, if only you could have displayed properly on that Cinedisplay without screwing up the resolution. I didn't want to run you in 1024x768 on a 1920x1600 screen. Nor did I want to run 1920x1600 worth of desktop in a 1024x768 resolution where I'd have to roll the mouse all over the place to screen-off to the rest of the desktop.

And should I even mention the fiascos with various sound cards that you just didn't want to play nicely with? Or of the hardware that you were supposed to be "known-good" on that you chose not to work with at the most inopportune moments?

After seven years of courting, you still didn't achieve desktop prominence in my life. In fact, the only switch you encouraged me to make was away from you and toward a platform that "just works".

See, I've recently decided to shove you off the desk and turn you into a fileserver for my massive collection of porn, MP3s and ripped movies. Apple has found a way to give me a beautiful, slick, useful, enjoyable interface that makes everything you offer look like a rejected Fisher-Price prototype. And it slaps this onto a powerful BSD core. It's the best of both worlds. More, when I plug something into it - be it an iPod, 23" or 30" cinedisplay or anything else, it just works. I don't have to spend five days playing with LineModes in x86free.conf or massaging device drivers. I don't have to spend more time configuring and installing things than I do using them anymore.

As I said, you'll always have a place in my production racks. There, we'll always be friends. But when it comes to my desk... I think we should really stop seeing each other. In fact, I already have. I've moved on. And my new desktop is more than you could ever hope to be. Maybe someday you'll grow up and realize that "free as in freedom" and "screw the corporates" rhetoric, nice as it is, doesn't justify sub-par computing.

Maybe we can try again some day. For now, I need my space.

Re:Dear Linux

The executive summary of this goes something like this ..

"X-Windows Sucks"

Re:Dear Linux

Sound chipsets often don't work in windows. However, I've found double clicking a setup.exe file and clicking a few dialog boxes is a bit faster than going through the configurations on various Linux distributions.

With that said, however, things with Linux distributions that aren't SuSE or Fedora seem to be coming together fairly quickly. The last time I had a Linux system running in my house was about 8 months ago (Gentoo), and I did have sound problems (the Gentoo documentation wasn't updated, and the method they have for installing emu10k1 with the 2.6.x kernel is flat out wrong - but I wasn't aware of that at the time). I spent a few days working on it. That's a few days vs. a few minutes (including downloading the right drivers from Creative (in my case)). It's alot "slicker" on Windows, but, again, things are getting a lot better in the Linux world. I have faith they'll eventually catch up. But not unless people honestly admit there are flaws and they need to be rectified. Too many fanboys are zealously arguing that any criticism of Linux is amounting to blasphemy. How can things get better if any criticism is immediately denounced as FUD? Just because something works fine for them doesn't mean it works fine for everyone.

Re:Dear Linux

As a sibling stated, this IS a Linux problem. Is it a kernel problem? Absolutely not! Is it problem with the "Linux Experience"? Absolutely. I don't blame any of the open source developers for this. I do, however, blame the current environment. Whether you - or anyone - in the Linux community can do anything to rectify this situation is completely moot. The question is "do new users frequently run into these problems?" - and the answer is a resounding "yes!"

So then people say "use a more userfriendly distribution!" - a valid response. Until you start to realize that eventually, when the user DOES outgrow the bundled packages, they're going to have to start installing applications themselves. Even Fedora (Core 1) had dependency hell issues at times with various applications. Was this the distributions fault? No. It was the application-in-question's fault for not being able to keep up with the thousands of Linux configurations out there. It's their fault, but it's completely understandable that they often times run behind. That doesn't change the fact that it's often completely fucking impossible for someone who ISN'T a master of Linux to figure out the problem. With the more user-friendly distributions (like, say, SuSE), you go from extremely-easy-to-use to wtfomgbbqh4x. The learning curve from "novice" to "master" is absolutely insane. If Windows learning curve is y = x, then the general "Linux experience" learning curve is y = x^7. Is it any one person's fault? No. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do I have a way to fix it? No. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

Re:Dear Linux

Actually it's more like. Linux sux because apple doesn't write a driver for their monitors.

Typical anti linux rant, blame linux because vendors haven't written a driver for something and worse are using the legal system to prevent other people from writing drivers too.

Re:Dear Linux

Why should you have to google for something though ?

Re:Dear Linux

Why should you have to Google for something though ?

And why should have to figure out what hardware you're using (because Compaq won't tell you), figure out your specs, download drivers that weren't intended for your specific machine, and reboot several times to do it? And all this, just to get my video card to have a refresh rate that I can't see change as I scroll or type. It was more like watching a bad flash animation of a windows desktop, than actually using Windows. Such was my experience with Windows XP. In fact, from what I understand I'm not the only one that goes through this. Anyone with hardware not in the five year old windows hardware database will have similar issues. Then my pad and pen didn't work, so I have to track down drivers for those.

Linux on the other hand...
Much better hardware support. All around, it was just better. With no effort on my part (and no need at all to search Google), Fedora Core 3 picked up and installed everything (except the scanner part of my printer/scanner combo... I'm still working on that). And it worked. In fact, certain pieces of hardware work better under Linux than they do under Windows. Case and point, I can get higher resolution on my NVIDIA graphics card than I can using windows on the same box. My tablet and pen are much more sensitive, and make it easier to do complex diagrams and doodles. In Windows, I had to re-learn how to draw in order to use this technology.

I do have to hand it to the guy who wrote the article. I can't tell you how sick I am of know nothings that complain endlessly because their one in a million hardware configuration didn't work with Linux, and then they go on to tell the whole world that Linux sucks as a result of it, and nobody should even bother installing it. When these same people start talking about usability and things like "Buddy Icons" it's especially funny.

Although I wouldn't put this guy into the same category. At least he's proposing a solution, or set of them. But I can't say I agree with his assessment of the problem.

Re:Dear Linux

This reminds me of a statement a former employer (in the audio production biz circa 1994) made to me. He was a hardcore Mac user and so was I, but I was moving to Windows because of cost. I told him that I'd been researching the set up of a DOS/Win 3.1 box and S.A.W. (Software Audio Workshop) for my home project studio. If I went with a Mac to do four track audio, I would have had to spend at least $10,000 to do four track audio with Digidesign ProTools. That would have been for a pretty paltry system. Seeing that I'd just spent $4000 on a PC including all the hardware and software I needed to do desktop publishing and the basics for audio, I figured that another $399 for S.A.W. was justifiable. I hated Win 3.1. But... I have to say that once I got the system tuned and S.A.W. and Cakewalk were set up, the system cranked out the tunes. Sure, it wasn't as elegant as the Mac, but I still was able to do work and got a few clients.

I told him about my early experiences and said how going from Windows to Macintosh for the OS and Protools/M.O.T.U./Studer to S.A.W./Cakewalk for the audio apps took "some getting used to". His response was, "If it takes some getting used to, then it's crap. Software should never take getting used to. You should just start using it and never have to look at the manual". At the time, I was a little annoyed because I saw this as a closed-minded approach to audio production. Yes, the Macintosh was far better at the work, but learning to do this stuff on Windows armed me to go much farther and blow away any Mac user in the audio realm. Not to mention that now that I do my audio work on Linux, I have a huge growing array of tools at my disposal. I think people who have the attitude that learning something new shouldn't require any... um... LEARNING are just plain stupid.

Re:Dear Linux

Not really, I'm at the stage for leisure I like to plug it in and "It just works". Last thing I want to do is type into google "How do I make my monitor work pretty please", then read through 12 pages of other people saying "me too, omgwtfbbqlol", to find on page 13 ohh this isn't able to be used with video card y due to z problem, feel free to write your own code... etc etc. Bugger that, plug monitor in, open system preferences -> displays -> select res I want and settle back to do something "useful" with my time.

Re:Dear Linux

Sibling brings up the good point. If someone has to go to the internet and search for a way to get around a problem, the system has failed him or her and he or she is working around it. Fair enough it's difficult for open source projects like Linux to get these things to work, since it often involves reverse-engineering and the like, but this is not the user's fault, and blaming them for not wanting to use something that's horrible to use is far from productive.

Re:Dear Linux

I agree: if you're searching, something has gone wrong. But when I choose an OS, I would rather have a methodology that I can use when something goes wrong, rather than simply have to give up.

There are a couple aspects to the 4 computers I've installed Gentoo on that were what I would consider "slight problems". Were they annoying? You betcha. But at the end of the day (literally), I have scanners, fully accelerated Xorg, NFS, USB 2.0, Firewire, wireless networking, SATA, sound, DVD burning, and hosts of other "cool" features working completely flawlessly and with excellent stability on all 4.

And I really appreciate Linux for that...it was the community that so many lovingly refer to as the "omgwtfbbqlol" posts that make that possible. Sure, there is your fair share of those types of posts, but when I have a problem, there are literally thousands of people on hand whose problem are similar that I can learn from. In the one case where this wasn't so, I did the work to figure the problem out, and I posted it for others to read, learn from and refine.

Neal Stephonson said in well In the Beginning Was the Command Line. He was describing the state of operating systems, and had an analogy with car dealerships. Windows was the coventional "everyone has one" stationwagon dealership, Apple sells hermitically sealed, sylish, almost "magical" cars, BeOS weighed in with "fully operational Batmobiles", and finally, Linux, which isn't a dealership at all, rather a little camp set up with lots of tents. In the camp, the people are building tanks, and giving them away free by the side of the road. They have a "PR guy" with a bullhorn, trying to alert the customers going to the other dealerships of their product:

Hacker with bullhorn: "Save your money! Accept one of our free tanks! It is invulnerable, and can drive across rocks and swamps at ninety miles an hour while getting a hundred miles to the gallon!"
Prospective station wagon buyer: "I know what you say is true...but...er...I don't know how to maintain a tank!"
Bullhorn: "You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!"
Buyer: "But this dealership has mechanics on staff. If something goes wrong with my station wagon, I can take a day off work, bring it here, and pay them to work on it while I sit in the waiting room for hours, listening to elevator music."
Bullhorn: "But if you accept one of our free tanks we will send volunteers to your house to fix it for free while you sleep!"
Buyer: "Stay away from my house, you freak!"
Bullhorn: "But..."
Buyer: "Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"

The moral? That one line about "But you don't know how to maintain a station wagon, either!". The reason I took all this space setting this up is that this an extremly important point. All the people that point ou that newbies don't know how to use Linux are correct. What they're forgetting is that they don't know how to use Windows, either. I'm not here to debate the point, but any self-respecting computer geek can tesitify to the number of Windows-related support calls they get from family and friends. Why do you think they make a "No, I won't fix your computer." t-shirt? A hint: they aren't talking about Linux machines.

So, finally, my point: the argument that you finally "give up and get an OS that just works" is a cop out. There are no operating systems that "just work". Once you accept that (and I have, after working for years with Windows, Mac OS X and various flavors of Linux), the question then becomes whether you want commuity out there to help you. I find that when I google for a Linux issue, I'll get 10 times the documentation I will for problems in Windows, and maybe 20 times as much as I will for problems in Mac OS X. And that's worth a lot to me.

When my wife's scanner stopped working under OS X, it was black magic. One day it worked, the next, it just stopped. No logge

Re:Dear Linux

Fair enough it's difficult for open source projects like Linux to get these things to work, since it often involves reverse-engineering and the like, but this is not the user's fault, and blaming them for not wanting to use something that's horrible to use is far from productive.

Agreed. However, there's another side to this too. When you choose your hardware to run Linux on, you have to know what you are choosing.

I'll give you an example from personal experience. I once had a wireless desktop PCI card, purchased before I started using Linux. This card turned out to have four different revisions of the same model, and three different possible chipsets, some of which worked without fiddling, others of which required some firmware-loading, driver-compiling hackery to function. I spent a week or so with no internet access and eventually got it working, but when I decided to reinstall Linux with a new distro, I knew what to do. I went to google, found a site with the manpage for one of the most well supported wireless drivers under linux/*bsd and read the list of cards it was known to work with out of the box. I went to ebay, purchased one for around 30 dollars, and from then on I have had zero problems with wireless under every version of Linux I've run on it since. The only configuration I've had to do is a WEP key when one is needed.

The point is, things "just work" on a Mac because they are programmed well and polished so that they do so, but they also work with a MUCH smaller hardware set. You wouldn't go out and buy just any old piece of hardware and expect to plug it into your Mac and have it "just work" - you'd make sure it had Apple software or drivers first, wouldn't you? Linux as a whole does its best to come up with at least SOME kind of support for the majority of the hardware out there, but the quality varies as much as the hardware itself.

If you decide Linux is for you, then make the decision to buy hardware that you can be sure will work well under Linux. I have had almost no issues since the day I figured out that it was worth thirty dollars to me not to spend hours screwing with my wireless card. Take the time to find out if your hardware is going to be a beast to work with, and if it is, consider whether A) it's worth it to you to screw with it, B) it's worth it to you to buy something else that you know will work without hacking it, or C) it's worth it to you to run Linux instead of Windows (or buy yourself a Mac), if neither A nor B is an option.

Re:Dear Linux

On the other hand, I've had to reinstall Windows 3x this last year...

Well there's your problem! All the Windows 3.x versions sucked! Get with the times and upgrade! ;)

Re:Mac OS X didn't work this morning

Conclusions?
1/ Mac OS X is not all that great

Way to go for the 'ole "Proof by Small Example" there.

Re:Mac OS X didn't work this morning

No offense, but the problem you just suggested seems like one of those "whooptie do" problems.

Mac OS X is designed like any other platform to be a lock in platform, that is, it uses the same file format everywhere. Even iPods are formatted HFS+. This doesn't mean that it's impossible to burn a disk or reformat an iPod, it just means that you *NEED TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE PLATFORM TO USE IT*.

Just because the way you use computers isn't the same as the way Mac users use their computers, doesn't mean your opinion is magically better than theirs. It means you are looking for something else. If you like compatibility, stay on Windows. Everything in the world runs Windows. If you like to tinker, use Linux. If you just want to use your damned computer, use Mac OS X. It's that simple.

Wait, Windows can't read HFS+, so Macs suck!?

Who the hell modded this up? My mac reason FAT32 just fine. It is the fault of Windows for not bothering to support HFS+. As for toast, your coworker is a dolt. There is an option right on the screen that says "Burn for Mac", "Burn for PC", or "Burn for Mac and PC". It's very prominently displayed, and in fact, you can't even turn it off.

Re:Dear Linux

Here's a summary of Slashdot headlines over the past few years:

1995: Linux will be ready for the desktop next year!
1996: Linux will be ready for the desktop next year!
1997: Linux will be ready for the desktop next year!
1998: Linux will be ready for the desktop next year!
1999: Linux will be ready for the desktop next year!
2000: Linux will be ready for the desktop next year!
2001: Linux will be ready for the desktop next year!
2002: Linux will be ready for the desktop next year!
2003: Linux will be ready for the desktop next year!
2004: Linux will be ready for the desktop next year!
2005: Linux will be ready for the desktop next year!

I really think 2006 will be our breakthrough year!

Re:Dear Linux

But guess what? My parents and my grandma and my little sister don't want to write their own operating system or applications. They want to use them. And since linux is still lacking, they're willing to pay for others to deliver (more or less) what they want.

Telling your customer "if you don't like it, do it yourself!" is a really bad way to handle business and a terrible way to build a user-base. This is precisely what linux's problem is. It's a bunch of primadonna developers developing things the way developers want to. And developers tend to throw every reason at you for why you don't want what you're positive you want (of course, that's usually just bullshit; they just dont' want to put in the extra effort to do what people really want and would rather talk you into wanting what they want you to want).

The solution isn't telling end-users to become developers. The solution is tellign developers to start developing for the average end-user that they claim to so desperately want to reach.

Pre-Loading Linux

The biggest stumbling block to Linux on the desktop is that it is not pre-loaded by computer manufacturers such as Dell.

The average user would do just as well with Linux pre-loaded as they do with Windows pre-loaded. Add to that the lack of viruses and spyware and any productivity lost due to being in unfamiliar territory would possibly be more than made up for by the less-attacked environment.

Re:Pre-Loading Linux

The average user would do just as well with Linux pre-loaded as they do with Windows pre-loaded.

Until they had to install an application, wanted to play their favorite videogame or upgrade their hardware.

"Hi grandma. You did what? You bought Quicken at OfficeMax today? Um... You do realize that doesn't work on linux don't you? No, I'm sorry grandma, that only works on a PC or a Macintosh. No, you totally wasted your money. But it's okay, you can totally get the same kind of program for free on linux! You just have to download it and install it. Well, your bank probably won't support it and it probably won't even connect to your bank and you'll have to do everything manually, but... it's free! . . . . Okay, grandma. You have to su to root and then apt-get update; apt-get upgrade. But first, make sure to edit your apt.sources file to point to the security branch so you'll recieve all of those updates. Okay, done? Good. Alright, now you wanted to get an account ledger application to track your banking, right? Okay, apt-get install aptitude and then run aptitude from the command line. After it loads up, start scrolling through the list of applications until you find something that sounds like it will do what you want. Oh - found one? Awesome, grandma! Now you need to press + and then g and g again . . . . . . . Huh? Wait, what'd it say? . . . . Oh, crap. No, apparently one of the dependancies didn't update properly. Okay, we need to remove and purge it and start all over again. Do you know how to use dpkg grandma?"

Re:Pre-Loading Linux

It's only funny because it's true, sadly.

For projects that use it, one click installs do exist on Linux, via the autopackage installer [autopackage.org]. And they are actually one click too (well, OK, two clicks) because there's no Next->Next->Next style wizards involved. Why not watch the Flash demo [autopackage.org] to get a feel for how it works (it's a bit out of date now, things are slightly slicker these days).

One of the biggest problems autopackage has is simply that developers don't know about it. Whereas every Linux developer has heard of RPM, virtually none have heard of autopackage because it's so new (it only went stable in April).

If you like what you see there, spread the word or even better, write patches! The best kind of product is the one that sells itself, after all, and whilst autopackage is already quite nice for the end user we're still busy untangling the ball of wool that software distribution on Linux has become.

Re:Pre-Loading Linux

First is user acceptance. There are those that prefer a central repository for all their software needs, rather than going through the 'hassle' of navigating to the developers website,

Yes, absolutely. Actually this camp of people tends to split into two quite different types:

• Those who like the "name that package" style of user interface. I'd be the first to admit that I like this UI too, it's very convenient and powerful when you know the name of what it is you want (of course, if you don't, then Google smacks apt-cache search around any day).
• Those that actually believe in fully centralsied repositories

Obviously autopackage will never please the latter type, but this is in my experience a vocal minority. Usually when people say they like apt, what they mean is they like the convenience of the command line for when they know what they want.

There's no reason you could not implement this UI on top of autopackage using a DNS style naming/lookup service. It would not be hard to do, and if anybody is reading this message and wants to help implement it let us know. We already have basic blueprints for such a feature.

Second is developer acceptance and support. This is the same as you said, but with an added clause. When developers use autopackage, they need to advertise it as the optimal choice for users browsing their website.

Totally. We have a PHP developer who has written some code that auto-selects which packages to show the user based on their User Agent string. I still need to drag it out of him and get it documented, advertised on the website etc. I keep meaning to write an article or somesuch on website design for open source projects; far too many people link directly to their SourceForge download pages which is awful UI.

Third is vendor acceptance.

So there are two types of vendors here: software developers, both open source and commercial, and distribution vendors.

I think it's fair to say that distros like Fedora and Ubuntu will give up yum and apt over their dead bodies. They're unfortunately sold on the idea of centralised packaging.

On the other hand, the "first time setup" procedure isn't all that hard, unfortunately the UNIX non-security system of +x bits gets in the way but after you run your first autopackage succesfully that's no longer an issue. Autopackage is taking off amongst the indie software developer community, especially the open source gaming community. Again we simply need more people - developers are wanted, but any enthusiastic Linux users who want to help spread the word are also quite appreciated and we can put them to work.

Re:Pre-Loading Linux

I blame grandma for having an idiot grandson.

I would just ssh in, and fix things myself. Over the command line. I believe quicken works with wine. Remote admin (even over slow connection): one of the hidden beauties of linux.

And if you say that grandma does not have an internet connection, I will say that you are just a greedy bastard. Go buy your grandma an internet connection, and forward her a bunch of pictures. As a bonus she will actually know someone cares.

Re:Pre-Loading Linux

But then you're just ripping off the competing desktops out there. Worse than that, you're essentially just emulating them and running their apps (more or less). So what is the point of not using them in the first place? Other than "no viruses (yet)" and "it's free-(ish)", there's nothing.

And both of those are easily answered in favor of Windows right now:

Computers come with anti-virus suites and Windows. And as far as the user is concerned, it was "free" with the hardware. And as far as the OEM is concerned, they passed the cost on to the customer - so they couldn't care less.

There's just no reason to bother. Windows is "good enough" for everyone involved. Linux is not about a "great desktop experience". Linux is all about tolerating a (currently) inferior experience in support of ideaologies. Those who continue to use it in the face of so many problems and frustrations do so out of stubborn rebelion. Nothing wrong with that, but face it - when you are running Linux on your desktop, it's more of a statement than an experience.

Look at VoIP. It's taking off like mad. I know clueless AOL people who have signed up for and use Vonage (or similar services). Why? Because they want a good cost/performance benefit. Their phone bills drop from $200/mo to $20/mo and their services and benefits expand (they can now call anywhere in America/Canada without additional costs and outside of the country cheaply). They see the benefit immediately and VoIP, at this point, pretty much "just works". You plug the adapter in. You plug the phone in. You're done.

If Linux was truly a better experience, people would flock to it. All the moreso since it's free. The idea that people won't try linux because "if it's free, it has to suck" is laughable. When was the last time you knew someone who hated a bargain?

Great idea!

Now how about fixing the things that I and others see as the real PITA of linux. Lack of standardization adoption for filesystem layout, software installation and configuration?

Dont believe me those problems exist? go ahead and enable MDKKDM to allow remote X terminal logins. It's massively different from XDM, GDM and KDM on it's own, oh and where the hell are the config files? certianly not where most other X configs reside (the fault there started with KDM's decision to create a new standar for themselves.)

to hell with pretty, clickey, easier to use interface. Fix the problems we have that cause even seasoned vetrans to pull their hair out.

Whats wrong? I

Linux needs to get its act together

Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.

Re:Whats wrong? I

you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod ...

If only all Linux applications were that simple to install.

You are oh-so-right.

Sadly, you and I are probably going to get nailed with "flamebait" or "troll", but you are essentially correct. If we were still in the day of DOS where we have to fight with IRQs and DMAs, what you mention would probably be more tolerated by new users. When I taught Solaris, I found that the people who adjusted to it the easiest were (no surprise here) mainframe users! I even taught one lady who was in her 70s how to use Solaris, and she did better than most of the rest of the class!

As would be expected, the Windows generation had the most difficulty converting. Thanks to Windows' dumbing down of the interface, people have come to expect the simplicity of throwing in a disc, letting it install, reboot if necessary, and the app is there. Issues like permissions, libraries, kernels, and so forth are going to be completely foreign concepts to the last majority of computer users that are out there.

And can you imagine what most people will think when you tell them that Linux runs X? "You mean, Linux is pornographic?!!" (That's called humor. I know that that's a foreign concept to many Slashdot mods.)

Obviously, education is the key, but that also assumes that the user is willing to learn. Not all of them are, and that's fine. Let them eat Windows. But until Linux does dumb itself down for those who fear the command line, people will look at it, them look at Windows, and switch back to Windows because of the sake of simplicity.

Alternately, I wish that more companies would offer PCs with Linux preinstalled right there in the store with a Linux desktop right there. Let the people see what Linux can do; let them get a feel for it in the store. Maybe they wouldn't feel so afraid of it. The Linux desktop is very nice as of late. MEPIS Linux v3.3.1 has one of the best desktops I've seen when it comes to user friendliness. I've actually been able to convert a few people to give Linux a try because of it. (Not many, mind you, but it's better than none.)

Beagle == Spotlight?

Am I missing something? How can it be forward looking when its already integrated into Mac OS X (Spotlight) and an add on for Windows (Google Desktop search)?

Choice

Linux...the CHOICE of a GNU generation!

Some good points here.

I can see some of the points here. However, for most applications, I do not go about the ./configure, make, make install routine. I simply load my app manager (YaST), choose the app I want and it is installed.

I think the KDE and Gnome desktops are very usable with a few minor tweaks. As I often mention, my 60+ year old mother uses KDE just fine. And, hey, she's not gotten any viruses or adware.

Now, I realize that the *nix desktops are not perfect and there are some serious hardware issues, due to manufacturers bending over for big Bill, but these things are slowly changing.

Desktop icons

In the bit on desktops he writes:

Everything else should be kept off the desktop. In particular, it is rather important for the system to NOT have desktop shortcuts in order to prevent the common glut of special offers and installers.

But everybody I know likes to clutter their desktops with icons. My wife does it in Gnome. My workmates to it in windows and KDE. Everybody does it.

Yes it may look ugly and cluttered but so is the physical desk I work on. That's life. Shouldn't we stop telling users how to organise their data?

Re:Desktop icons

Hello, Mr. Smith. You might want to reread my article. Immediately after the sentence you quoted is this:

For the purposes of easy to access files, it is in the user's interest to allow selected files to appear on the Desktop. In the proposed interface, the Desktop would be merely a label used by the system to identify which files should appear. As a result, the right click menu and/or toolbars can provide the user with the option to add or remove the file from the Desktop.

It tends to help to read the entire article before commenting. Don't worry, though. You're in good company. A large vocal user base has been misinterpreting my ideas since they've been posted. I'm working on a followup blog to see if I can hammer a few of these misunderstanding out. ;-)

Mods? How about a few points so that this correction will appear on par with parent post?

The future's here baby !!!

My plan9 desktop [proweb.co.uk], (at 50% zoom) the open window is a vnc to my X desktop with 9wm running.

The problem with some users...

is that they do not want something that is like windows, they just want windows. I've seen people that prefer to do very complicated things on windows rather than running a couple of unix commands. Most people do not "choose" to use linux, they just learn one way to do thing, and this will be "the way" to do things. They are more sure to use windows than you will ever be to use linux, as a superior entity (the computer seller) imposed it to them. Instead you choosed to use linux, you know that there are many OSes, so you'll never be 100% sure that linux is the right choice over all other OSes. How strange is world we are living...

Oh no. Not the Dock.

I've never been a big fan of the Dock on OS X. It has a lot of problems, famously enumerated by Tog [asktog.com]. I'm a big fan of OS X for a number of reasons, but the Dock should go.

If you want the user to be able to determine what Taskbar/Dock type thing they want, you might want to check out DragThing [dragthing.com] as a third option, which lacks the visual style of the Dock but works a whole heck of a lot better.

I'm not a big fan of highly customizable interfaces, but man I wish I could just turn the Dock off once and for all.

Change the people, not the software...

I know they are various issues for linux on the Desktop, hardware beeing the most proeminent. I remember the first time I tried to install linux... The installation program asked me: "Do you want me to set the symbolic link ?" ( ln -s /usr/linux-blahblah /usr/linux I guess ) Well, install has gone a good way since. The real problem is not here, the real problem is people. Yep. Most people don't understand crap using a computer... They use learned sequences of actions to use their apps but have absolutely no clue of why they are doing so. Most people WILL get very confused if you switch their windows taskbar from botton to top. Try that, really. They don't know how to orientate in the city, they just know that to go to work they should take right right left left right straight ahead for 100 meters, left left and right. Should they take a wrong turn they will be completly lost. Most people have a hard time with mac or with windows... geez, most people have a hard time with a microwave ! You can't be ahead in technology and easy to use for everyone. It's like asking a quantum physic book to provide new theoretical breakthroughs and then complaining that your grandmother can't understand it.

Seamless Vs Extensibility

One seldom commented disadvantage of tightly integrated desktops like Gnome/KDE is their lack of extensibility. Yes, you read that right:) As a 10+ year Linux user, the biggest advantage I've felt of using Linux is its extensibility in the 'UNIX way' - using pipes, scripts and files. The more you change these interfaces into object-oriented/middleware derived ones, the more difficult and annoying it becomes for UNIX hackers to script them - which destroys one of the main purposes of being on UNIX.

With the evolving desktop, people stop writing general purpose tools that abstract data and functionalities as simple files and scripts, and instead write their stuff for specific desktops. One good example is synce [sf.net] - a program to sync WinCe devices with Linux, which integrates well into Evolution, but has no 'dangling interface' where you can just snoop in, get your data and do what you want with it. File-oriented interfaces were a given with most Linux apps till very recently. And as their number/dominance diminish, I wonder if Linux hackers will slowly switch to other UNIXes just because they'd be more UNIX-like.

I had answered on my blog

two days ago, i'd like to know what do you think about. [blogspot.com]

My Biggest Linux Complaint

My biggest complaint isn't with the distributors, but with the software developers: they still hae this 1990's mindset that it's perfectly acceptable to ask the user to compile their package (and about a million obscure dependencies you've never heard of) in order to get their software to work.

If you want to target your software to the desktop (and I mean the windows audience), then give me a goddamn binary and let me use the damn software now, not three hours from now.

Already posted on Linux Today

FYI, this article has already been ripped to shreds in the comments at Linux Today:

here [linuxtoday.com]

Two stories

1) I recently decided to get with 2002 and buy a USB memory stick. Trying it out on the three platforms I use:

• MacOS X -- Plug it in, and it works.
• Windows XP -- Plug it in, and it works.
• Linux -- Plug it in, grep dmesg for information, create a mount point, guess exactly which partition to mount, and it works. And then I edited /etc/fstab in vi so it'll be even easier next time!

The crazy thing is that that actually was a huge win for Linux! Dealing with USB devices didn't used to be nearly that easy! But it still is a long way from being usable for any normal person.

2) My Linux Waterloo, though, is updates. I have two Linux systems: a TiBook with Yellow Dog, that has an irretrievably corupted RPM database, and a Gentoo whitebox that I can't push through to Xorg and 2.6. (The latter was switched to Gentoo after Mandrake package management imploded.)

It's been a fun ride, but I've spent enough time on treating my computer as a hobby. OS X has pretty much taken over for all my actual computer use outside of work.

Learning curve too steep

I recently installed Fedora Core 4 at home to run a local DNS server, DynDNS daemon, MythTV and a few other things. I'm pretty savvy with Linux and sysadmin for a living (as well as programming) so you could say I have an affinity for problem-solving.

That said, I have struggled in recent days getting everything I've wanted to install working correctly. Largely this has been due to GCC4.0 incompatibilities (many apps just don't compile at all from source without patches), but also because lots of exotic RPMs (Myth being a prime example) have not yet been built for FC4.

A lot of things I have had to compile manually from sources when I had originally set out to use yum to manage everything (I've recently been converted to the ease-of-use and practicalities of RHEL and Redhat Network).

Another poster commented that Linux is perfectly capable as a desktop OS - until you need to install an application, play a game or upgrade their hardware. Joking aside, this statement is 100% accurate.

In my endeavours trying to install all of my "exotic" applications like a movie player (xine), NZB downloader (klibido) I have either run into problems where the currently available RPMs are buggy [sourceforge.net], or the sources just don't compile out of the box. How can any non-technical person be expected to deal with this?

If you contrast this with Windows, I think the only time I have had a failed installation with a piece of software I have downloaded has been when it has required .NET Framework, and I haven't got it installed. At no time have I ever downloaded something and it started telling me that various specific versions compiled against specific architectures are missing, and I cannot continue.

Linux will need to standardise itself a lot more if it is going to be a force on the desktop. RPM/yum/apt-get and so on is a step in the right direction, but its still voodoo for most people. Unfortunately I beleive this standardisation is in stark contrast with what most techies (myself included in some way) believe the strength of Linux to be - i.e. diversity and the "joy" of compiling things manually.

Linux hardware support is a mess.

My experience is that linux hardware support is the killer issue - and it betrays an expert-only attitude in the linux community. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Mostly it almost does and there's some trick you need that, in a commercial OS, would be taken care of, but which in Linux is buried on some website that you might find if you're good at using google - and which will then require, at the very least, command line use and text file editing. The comments will imply that it's a common problem, not to worry, just edit this file... run that command... etc. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Bollocks.

If I need a new version of a driver, I need to be able to grab it as I can on Windows without recompilation. That's unacceptable. The NDIS wrapper implementation is a good example: it works and mostly well, but to get support you have to mess with the command line and text files or even scarier stuff. What you should do is be told to insert the CD that came with the device and have linux do it for you.

The office apps are already on linux; it's already fast; much of the UI and desktop is already user friendly. Installs have issues, yes, but they're down the line and mostly hidden from the user. The user is neatly kept in their home directory. Hard disk management is complex, but not much more so than Windows and partitioning is nicely automated in most installs.

I like linux a lot and use it regularly. I don't actually believe, though, that it can currently compete against commercial OSs without a massive change to some of the attitudes about what's acceptable, and a resulting change to the way Linux works. Hardware is the area where those attitudes seem to be totally exposed to the end-user.

This guy hasn't tried Debian or Knoppix.

Knoppix is a linux distroy anyone can use, the automated hardware detection etc is supurb. The DVD 4.0 version does demonstrate a lot of the incompatability issues he's talking about though. because knoppix has ~6 gigs of applications (they're compressed on the DVD image) many of the applications are broken.

Debian is the distro Knoppix is based of of, so it has really good hardware detection, but the 'stable' version is using the 'older' proven stable detection routines. That means it doesn't configure everything perfectly, for instance I had to enable DMA on my dvd-rom, and I had to use k3b to 'configure the system' for cd/dvd burning*.

I also have the advantage of having prior experience, So I know how to install flash support for my secondary browser, and how to configure java, which isn't included in debian because it's not FOSS. Plus I knew that the FOSS drivers suck compared to the proprietary ones, so I knew where to find them, and I knew what settings to set in the 'install' script for them, because I've been messing around with X11 config files for years now...

So basically, initial set up is probably beyond most users, but the same is true of windows. Most windows users can't even install applications by themselves, and when they try to the end up with a million spyware programs.

Debian is 'ready' for the desktop. The installer is painless for geeks, and simple enough for rice boys. A few noobs might even get lucky with it. The stable version while old, has a very simple gui based app finder that anyone who can use download.com can learn how to use.

*= Because i'm lazy. I wasn't going to muck about trying to figure anything out.

the best of all worlds

Why doesn't someone try to combine the best of linux and make a decent distro? Something like:

• Gentoo's portage
• Knoppix's auto hardware detection and configuration
• Slackware's BSD-style rc.scripts
• Mandrake's installer and partitioning tool

There's a lot of stuff in the Linux world that could tackle the most common Linux concerns, but no one has tried combining them. Why not? Linux will not advance on the desktop without some realization that no distro is perfect, but by taking from multiple distros one can get pretty close.

Goodby Apps, Hello Data

I want my Linux desktop to get away from the focus on "applications". I want to deal with my data, not the tools I use to deal with the data. I want to open "documents", or pages, or multimedia collections of data. I don't want to have to remember which applications I use to edit or view them. I don't want to have to pick one tool, and exclude the rest. If I need to edit the text of a page, retouch the images, then upload it to my server, then serve it, I don't wnat to have to open the page in a series of different, mutually exclusive contexts. I want to open the page, and have combined menu items (or other GUIs) for all the operations from which I'll select to work on that collection of data. Or add new data. I'm really tired of feeling like I'm the janitor for a bunch of applications, finding/opening them in the right sequence, having to choose which app I'm working in, with its shortcut keys, default window positions, and exclusions of operations I'll have to do "later", when I open the other app to do those other operations. Then return to this app when I need to do these kinds of operations again. I can't even keep a single document open in multiple apps, alternately using them on the single doc, because each doc has a single datatype that's tied to a single app (or a few), and each open doc has its own saved instance - which doesn't refresh the open instances in the other apps.

Linux uses apps which mostly have three tiers: storage, engine and UI. They've got lots of IPC, mostly standardized. The desktops have more IPC options, too. I want a desktop which lets me find multimedia documents by bookmark, metadata searching, or virtual hierarchical views of my storage. When I open a doc, it can include live data, including data updated in realtime from distributed storage (or generation, like web services or streams). I want to work from menus (or other GUIs) that contain all the valid operations for all the valid datatypes in the doc. When I want to add new datatypes, I want to add from GUIs integrated with the doc scope in which I'm working. When I want to store my doc somewhere on the network, either as a resource, or a person, I want to merely send it to that object name, with its default transport (SMB, NFS, email, WebDAV, FTP, HTTP-PUT, SMS/Content-Disposition, whatever) automatic, unless I select another. I want to subscribe to versions of multimedia docs across the network. And I want to diagram how data flows through my document components into each other, including filters and logic, with dataflow/workflow templates that are just other docs that people with whom I work send around.

No more "apps". The Mac paradigm that Jobs swiped from Xerox PARC was supposed to be "doc centric". Apple and IBM started a grand partnership, Taligent, to put "OpenDoc" on every desktop, but they gave up when HTML and the Web supposedly offered a simpler, more popular way to do it. But it's 2005, and I'm more expert in operating a stable of complicated apps, each its own little world (with rickety bridges to some, but not all, other worlds), than I am in my own data. Let's slice up the apps into their features, each with their GUIs hanging out, then rebundle them into a desktop "meta-app". Which is the sole context, representing many different nonmodal contexts, in which I have to work on all my data.

Here we go...

The same ol' arguments from windows users. You know what? I've seen people who were clueless about computers, being more perceptive to linux than windows users. Windows users react, because it's different, and they usually refuse to read even a single paragraph of a help file, because that's how they're used to from windows.

From TFA:

Installing Applications is complicated
I hear this argument all the time and it really is starting to annoy me. It's just different from windows, that'a all.

A typical windows installation:
You first need to download the installer application or insert the cd where the app resides.
A window pops up welcoming you to the installation, you click next.
Then the program's license pops up which you need to click accept and click next.
Then you need to choose whether you want another installation target folder, other than the default C:\Program Files\ and click next.
Then you choose the name of the start menu group and click next.
Then if the program installs any DLLs which are outdated you'll be asked whether you want to keep or overwrite the some2423_app.DLL or not and click next.
If all goes ok, you'll click next for a few more times before finishing the installation by...clicking Finish

A typical linux installation:
Depending on your distribution you type:
apt-get install thisapp
or you might have to type yum install thisapp
or emerge thisapp.
In all cases, the app will be downloaded and installed for you. That's it.

Directory structures can be confusing to navigate
No they're not. It's just different from windows, that'a all.
/bin for binaries /sbin for system binaries. whats so confusing about it? Oh, I see it now, C:\Program Files for binaries and C:\Windows\System32 for system binaries is better, yes?
Or maybe the fact that you have your kernel and boot loader in one place under /boot is confusing? maybe it's better to have them scattered all over the place like in C:\boot.ini and in C:\Windows\System32 as well as in the registry?
Or maybe the slash(/) is confusing? Although you use slash for URLs and pretty much anything, why not use the backslash for browsing directories like in windows, eh? Better, yes?
I'd say that *nix directory structure is the standard and anything else that uses backslashes and obscure directory structures is plain wrong and confusing.

Interface is confusing and inconsistent.
No it's not. You're coming from windows, that's all. Infact I can find hundrends of inconsistencies with the windows interface. Like for example to shut down your pc you need to click Start. Huh?
And if you're talking about how desktop enviroments are different, like Gnome and KDE, well, they're meant to be different! Use the one you like. There is no reason why everything should look the same. You want simplicity and ease of use? Go with Gnome. You want eye candy and many options to tweak? Go with KDE. You want fast response times(if you're on old hardware)? Go with Fluxbox or IceWM. You want super duper eye candy and fancy effects while you don't care so much on stability? Go with Enlightment.
There's something for everyone, and I think this is alot better than trying to fit all sizes in one shoe.


Steep learning curve required to understand system functions.
Oh, common! How much easier can system functions get? Is it easier on windows? If so, why? Maybe because you've spent so many years learning how to use every system function? Do the same on linux (RTFM/learn) and then come back and tell me if it was at all difficult. You see, it's different but it's not difficult. Don't expect to know-it-all on your 1st day. And don't expect to "just figure it out" without even reading a single sentence of a help file.
When you started driving, did you just took the car into town, expecting to just figure out things without trying to learn? Didn't think so. But you w

SymphonyOS???

I can't believe no one has mentioned Symphony and it's eadically different interface. SymphonyOS [symphonyos.com]

Do it right

My input requirements:

1) Don't confuse eye candy with usability. A corrolary is don't confuse trendy with usability. OSX has a lot of eye candy, but it's usability really isn't all that stunning if you look at it objectively.

2) Don't make the unwashed newbie your core audience. Newbie friendly isn't synonymous with usability. Everyone grows up, and no one stays a newbie forever. It's hard to believe, but it's true. You don't want to frighten away the newbie, but neither do you want to force him to abandon your desktop in disgust once he graduates to an intermediate or advanced user.

5) Don't dump legacy functionality. Just because you don't use the network connectivity of X11 doesn't mean no one else does either. If you haven't noticed, "the network" is getting bigger and more heterogenous every day. If I can't use your desktop over the network, it's going to suck.

4) I don't use Linux, so don't make a Linux-only desktop. Most of you developers know this, but unfortunately there's enough of you that don't to make things a real pain in the butt.

Re:Comparisons with OSX and Windows

I don't care if OSX only has one desktop environment. If I were on linux or solaris or any other system, I'd still only be using one desktop environment. I may have the choice to use others, but I'd settle on one and use it. Well, guess what? I settled on OSX so it doesn't matter if there are alternatives to it or not. Plus, it's pretty damn configurable (functionality-wise).

As for linux on the desktop not being the focus of developers . . . that doesn't matter. If I need a truck to haul things in, don't bother trying to sell me a mini-cooper. Telling me that the manufacturer's focus was on little sporty roadsters and not hauling vehicals is not relevant, if I'm looking for a hauler and not a roadster. My needs are my needs and the developer's justifications for why it doesn't meet them does nothing to... well... meet them.

LIkewise, I don't care if linux is free. My time isn't free. This is precisely why, after seven years of heavy linux use, I finally decided to move away from it this year. Great - I saved $129 on the operating system. But how many hours have I spent troubleshooting, maintaining, fixing and configuring it? $129 is only a few hours worth of work at the office and I couldn't even begin to calculate the value of my time that I've put into getting linux to work properly over the years.

In short, don't make excuses for why linux isn't ready for the desktop. Don't try and justify why I shouldnt' need the things I need or why I should put up with inconveniences. If you want linux to spread and be more popular, do things that make people want to use it. I've been using linux for seven years. I've been using computers since my VIC-20 in 1984, when I was seven years old. I'm a software engineer that works almost exclusively on solaris at work and have used a dozen distros (preference to Debian - which is what I run on my production server and Slackware which I haven't used in years). I've also used Windows a fair deal. A little 3x, a bit of 95, a bunch of 98 and onward.

If a hardcore techie and geek and long-time linux user is tired of dealing with linux and moving away from it, what do you think you have to battle against to get your average-joe to move to linux?