The Next Leap for Linux

Nrbelex writes "The New York Times is taking a look at the state of Linux. "Linux has always had a reputation of being difficult to install and daunting to use. Most of the popular Windows and Macintosh programs cannot be used on it, and hand-holding — not that you get that much of it with Windows — is rare. But those reasons for rejecting Linux are disappearing." The article discusses major PC makers' newest offers and compares them to their Windows counterparts."

Less keystrokes

to install debian than to type in the windoze license key.

Re:Less keystrokes

If I had mod points I would make you insightful. I have less problems with my mother's computer now that she has Ubuntu and I didn't have to walk her through the install. When there is a problem all I have to do is ssh in and fix, I do this while she's still using it.

Re:Less keystrokes

Yes that is all you have to do to fix it, but what does she have to do to fix it? The problem isn't that linux is intimidating for the average /. poster. It is that Linux is pretty freaking intimidating for the average computer user.

If acceptance of linux is something that the community wants, then it needs to realize that Windows biggest flaws are also some of its best advantages. Afterall, its so easy to install programs on Windows that they practically do it themselves ;)

The ubiquitous nature of windows makes it very easy to fix your machine should something go wrong. Part of it is due to the fact that there are very few versions of Windows, part of it has to do with the vast user base that windows has. You may not like how MS got there, but dislike of the situation won't change the problem.

To those of you who know how to use linux, remember this: While windows may have a steep learning curve when it comes to administrative work, with Linux the curve is a brick wall for most users.

Re:Less keystrokes

When something goes wrong with my mother's Windows-based computer, what does she do? I'll give you a hint: It doesn't involve fixing it herself.

How is that any different than Linux, with the exception that with Linux, I wouldn't have to leave my house to go fix her computer?

The only reason I've left her on Windows is that she plays those Reflexive.net games. If they played on Linux, and were easy to install (there's nothing easy about Wine, and it only works on these Reflexive.net games some of the time) then I'd switch her over. Heck, I could even install the games for here remotely, if they'd run afterwards.

Re:Less keystrokes

You can actually do remote assistance invitations on Windows, or install VNC on her computer.. I'm no lover of Microsoft, but that's kind of a poor reason to choose Linux over Windows?

Re:Less keystrokes

You appear to be confused about the term encryption. The stream of data that makes up your VNC connection is not encrypted. A man in the middle could watch your entire VNC session, or even inject mouse & keyboard events or take over control of the remote machine. O.K: it's unlikely. But it isn't much more secure than a Telnet session.

The poster below has the right idea: tunnel the VNC session over SSH (which adds the needed encryption) and then only allow the VNC server to accept connections from the local IP address (I.e. from the SSH server on the same machine).

Re:Less keystrokes

That's cool, but in using cygwin, ssh & VNC to support the idea that it's easier to securely admin a remote Windows box than to admin a remote Linux box, you just proved that you need extra steps to do the same thing...

Under Linux, you obviously don't need cygwin, and an ssh server is usually installed and ready to go after a default install of most distros. VNC is just as available for Linux as for Windows, although most Linux distributions give you quick access to many VNC flavors through their default package managers, so you don't even have to manually download and install files.

Of course, under Linux, you can just install an NX server/client, which does have its own setup headaches, but once it's installed, using it is just as easy as Remote Desktop. You don't need to establish an ssh connection, then tell the client to tunnel through that connection; it handles all of the ssh stuff automatically and transparently. And with the latest version of NoMachine's NX server/client, you have the option of establishing a new session (even while someone else is running another local or remote session), or attach to a currently running session.

Re:Less keystrokes

If Windows is so much easier to administer than Linux, why does it need Remote Assistance?

I don't know about the rest of you who serve as help-desk for a wide circle of family and frineds, but the average user is completely lost if he clicks an icon and nothing happens. The only reason Linux isn't making inroads against MS on the desktop is that you can't go down to Best Buy and find computers with Linux pre-installed.

More than 60,000 Windows programs won't run on Linux. Partial List here. [viruslist.com]

Re:Less keystrokes

How hard would it be to get a unified package management system?

I feel absolutely qualified in answering your question...

"Very."

You're welcome!

Re:Less keystrokes

Opera.

Windows XP: Go to opera.com, download the Windows installer. (This is chosen automatically, so you just have to click 'Download' on the front page, and then 'Download Opera' on the next page.) Save it to the desktop. Double click on the new file on the desktop. Click Next until you can click 'Finish'.

Ubuntu Feisty: Go to opera.com, download the Windows installer. (This is chosen automatically, so you just have to click 'Download' on the front page, and then 'Download Opera' on the next page.) Save it to the desktop. Double click on the new file on the desktop. Click ... No wait, that's it. It's done.

Wow, Ubuntu is easier! Maybe you shouldn't have let me pick the program. While there -are- programs that are harder on Linux, any that provide a .deb file are now as easy as on Windows.

Why not just select "Applications"->"Add/Remove...", select the "Internet" category, Check "Opera" and hit "Apply"?

Far easier than navigating and downloading through a web site, and updates are handled automatically.

Re:Less keystrokes

Step 1 on Linux could be any of:

• apt-get program ... done.
  
• urpmi program ... done.
  
• Search for it in Synaptic or aptitude.
  
• yum install program ... done.
  
• emerge program ... done.
  

Also, if you think troubleshooting Windows is easy, you probably haven't done it much. Try installing WordPerfect Suite, Corel Draw, Photoshop, Crystal Reports, PowerTerm Pro, Lotus Notes, and PagePlus on 10 PCs. Crash half of them by cutting power. Then, troubleshoot the DLL hell and disk corruption that results.

Troubleshooting Windows may be easier for you than troubleshooting Linux. That's not an objective measurement. I'd say both have their strengths and weaknesses in troubleshooting. One of Linux's biggest strengths is that so many production server machines so rarely need troubleshooting in the first place. I've never had a Windows server run for three months without downtime, let alone a year or two.

Desktops of both kinds are more likely to need troubleshooting than servers, because you have more finger-poking happening. A well-administered Linux desktop is safe from lots of this, while most Windows desktops still have to be run as administrator to get real work done. Microsoft is making progress on the limited account front, though. On Linux at least you can remove and reinstall a particular package without trashing the libraries in use by other programs, and without rebooting to release any libraries still in use by other programs. Microsoft's registry is probably a really good idea for the OS, but making it a central
repository for every application is a mess. /etc is a much better solution, and is easier to fix when something goes wrong.

Re:Less keystrokes

The ubiquitous nature of windows makes it very easy to fix your machine should something go wrong.

Really? Sorry, but that's just not true. In fact, the famous Geek Squad usually fixes all Windows problems by re-imaging your box (which may solve the problem, but also wipes all your data, which is not cool at all, and not REALLY a true fix.) It would be like hiring someone to fix a leak in your roof and you come home and find that the roof was replaced, but now all your personal possessions in your house are gone.

To really fix windows problems requires a fairly significant amount of skill / knowledge that MOST end users (and Geek Squad employees) simply DO NOT HAVE. If this guy's mom runs into problems on Windows, she will call him anyway.

Once a Linux box is properly setup and running (which I admit may be a bit of a challenge if you have certain bits of "Windows Only" hardware) it is LESS likely to have problems than a Windows box in the first place.

Re:Less keystrokes

but whilst still wiping all the other software that you've installed that doesn't come with the default installation - if I've spent a year picking this and that out of yast and installing it, so that a bunch of clever gizmos are just there when I come to need them I don't want to be having the whole lot wiped out (because they're not installed in /home) when everything else is re-imaged. And what about stuff that I've compiled from source and had to spend 1/2 a flaming day hunting down the dependencies for because developers STILL can't be bothered to include everything you need in the archive? If you re-image you'll wipe that out. You'll probably also re-image with a new version, so instead of having to find all the pre-compiled bits and move them back into the relevant places so they can be run useably, you'll have to recompile everything as well, and if you have to do that, you'll probably spend forever chasing dependencies down again, or at least making sure to compile each in the right order.

I really don't have experience in yast, but I'll warmly recommend to try out Gentoo, if you're not intimidated by the thought of it. There's really not such a thing as a "default installation", but everything you've installed is recorded in the "world file", which is a great help in rebuilding a system. Just save /etc and /home, and you'll get really far. Of course, this has next to nothing to do with re-imaging the box, but for someone like you it might work nicely.

I'm running the stable branch (I don't have enough time for the bleeding edge) and the problems with dependencies have been few and far between. The only piece of software I've needed that I haven't found in Portage (the Gentoo package repository) is Alpine, which is still in alpha stage anyway. Of course, you'll have to compile. And you'll have to compile a lot. But typing './configure', 'make', and 'make install' has pretty much become a thing of the past, 'emerge' does it all for you. And I've never had to move the installed files anywhere. And 'equery' tells you to which package a file belongs to, and which files belong to a package, so you can easily figure that out as well.

Conclusion: The bits of your linux installation that you'll want to save aren't confined solely to /home, they're buried all over the place. at least with windows you can make sure to save all your installation files in one place and back that up as well.

You have a point in that /home is not the same as your linux installation, but I'll argue that, for most people, their personal data is way more important than the installation anyway.

Re:Less keystrokes

Fewer of your cheek, please.

The fact that it's on mainstream press..

Itself means Linux has made a good 'Next Leap'. Seriously! Until a few months back, the only Linux news used to be about the SCO case, Microsoft - Novell patents FUD etc. The nature of the GPL has meant that the cat is now well out of the bag, and the mainstream press outlets are compelled to sing the Penguin March.

Poor network performance in Vista, the OOXML vote and now, the Excel 2007 calculation howler have made bad press for Microsoft. Not a day passes on Digg without Ubuntu articles getting over thousands of Diggs. So now, the NYT, Forbes, Gartner, Yankee and the rest must join the Linux bandwagon. Or be left behind.

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

You're right about the mainstream press 'Next Leap', but apart from the Excel 2007 "problem" I don't see Digg, Vista's network performance, the OOXML fiasco or all those freedom politics helping to get non-techies to consider switching. Even the Excel trouble didn't get too much bad mainstream press 'round here.
Linux's biggest mainstream advance over Vista will probably stay it's lower price for the next few years.

Re:The fact that it's on mainstream press..

Itself means Linux has made a good 'Next Leap'. Seriously! Until a few months back, the only Linux news used to be about the SCO case, Microsoft - Novell patents FUD etc. The nature of the GPL has meant that the cat is now well out of the bag, and the mainstream press outlets are compelled to sing the Penguin March.

I don't disagree with you that the mainstream press' recent positive attention to Linux is demonstrative of Linux on the desktop becoming a success story of its own, but I don't really see what the GPL has to do with it. The license itself makes no difference as far as 'compelling mainstream outlets to sing the Penguin March.' All that matters in this regard is that Linux can get the job done and is proving itself as a viable desktop operating system. The license may have contributed to that by invigorating the developer base (a matter that's up for debate), but the GPL really has nothing to do with Linux's success -- the success is a result of the hard work of developers, testers, documenters, and community volunteers that help spread the word.

So now, the NYT, Forbes, Gartner, Yankee and the rest must join the Linux bandwagon. Or be left behind.

These groups don't have to do anything of the sort. They merely report on trends in technology. If one of those trends is Linux, so be it. They'll report. Gartner and Yankee in particular aren't going to end their Microsoft bias anytime soon though.

Hardware still an issue

Based on my experience with Ubuntu, I'd say that the biggest issue is by far hardware vendors. When given ideal hardware Linux will pretty much "just work" but there is a lot of hardware that is not just less than ideal, but quite frankly unusable. I eventually bought a new PCI wireless card because I couldn't get my existing one to work, even with ndiswrapper.

Unfortunately there really isn't a whole lot the developers can do to change this unless hardware vendors start opening their specs. The good news is that a lot of vendors do realize that having the FLOSS community write the drivers is pretty much the cheapest way to outsource development. As a bonus these drivers tend to be a lot more stable as well.

Re:Hardware still an issue

Hardware? Really? My biggest problem with Ubuntu (currently running the 7.10 beta) is with developers trying to squeeze in the latest and greatest upstream versions at the last minute, causing regressions and general strife and turning what could have been the Windows killer into an embarrassment for anyone who's trying to promote Linux.

Re:Hardware still an issue

Because 8.04 will be a LTS release (Long Term Support), and it is expected that the Ubuntu developers will be conservative with the feature set they allow into 8.04. As such, if you have a feature that is somewhat experimental, you need to push it now (to get it tested and polished before 8.04), or wait until 8.10. At least, that's the theory. In practice, I am fairly certain quite a few experimental features will find their ways into 8.04 anyway.

Managing releases at fixed date and coordinating with upstream project release is probably the toughest challenge Ubuntu is facing. But on the other hand, this is exactly what gave it the edge in the distro war. So far, the execution have been pretty good and Ubuntu reap the benefits.

Correction

But those reasons for rejecting Linux are disappearing.

Those reasons disappeared years ago, what needs to disappear now are stories repeating them.

Re:Correction

The same reasons still exist... a lot of the professional software used by many folks, still only exist on windows, and hardware vendors are not quick to support linux.

Its been that way since i installed slackware 1

Impact of the article ...

From TFA: "Linux is best for technically savvy users or for people whose needs are so basic that they will never need anything other than the bundled software"

Which basically translates to not for me for the average person, being neither a geek nor wanting to have the self-image of being 'basic'.

CC.

The article contradicts itself.

"for people whose needs are so basic that they will never need anything other than the bundled software" ... translates to not for me for the average person, being neither a geek nor wanting to have the self-image of being 'basic'.

Of course, the article itself already stated:

"An Add/Remove function actually makes finding programs easier with Linux than it is for Mac and Windows. Without having to go to Web sites, it lets you browse through categories of software. It took me only seconds to find several additional music players, a PDF reader and other programs. In addition to downloading the software, this feature installs it and finds any necessary additional files."

It's a holdover from Windows/Mac, where installing software can be hard and requires some technical knowledge. The author still subconsciously thinks of installing software as 'difficult' even though they've actually seen the evidence that on Linux it's not. On any modern desktop Linux, software installation is no more complicated than "I want this program. Gimme."

Re:The article contradicts itself.

we'd really need wine to be easier to handle and more feature-complete to satisfy those users too.

Nope, that's a trap [wikipedia.org]. OS/2 was essentially 100% Windows 3.1 compatible, and what happened? Developers thought, "Why bother writing an OS/2 native app when I can just write a Windows app and be compatible?" So OS/2 never got any apps to speak of. And we know where it is today.

Linux needs those alternative, native (or at least cross-platform) apps.

Evolution of Linux

I first got linux running back in '97 with Mandrake 5 point something, and back then I used it more with a 'shove it to MS' attitude. Things were clunky, slow, and broke easily in the GUI side back then. Definitely needed xkill as a shortcut, accessible at all times. X was a nightmare to configure and good luck getting sound working. OSS was 'the next big thing' for dealing with sound cards. *shudder*

10 years later, there are some things that are still a bit rough around the corners, but at least now I am using it full time because I find it genuinely more usable and I can get a lot more work done using it than I ever could on windows. It is more stable, and short of accidentally hitting the switch on the power-strip with my feet, never have to deal with system crashes or BSODs.

Right now, we are starting to see some 'really' neat things taking off like next-get UI's (compiz/beryl) and zeroconf that when refined over the next many years will undoubtedly make Linux systems the leader of the OSs. Additionally, due to the compound effect when more users switch over, more companies will release more goodies onto 'nix.

Over the next decade I really think that there will be massive proliferation of Linux desktops and that maybe finally the IT industry can start the long journey to finally rid itself of nasty kludges presented by Redmond year after year. Of course though, we will have to watch out for self contrived idiocies such as political breakdown within the wizard circles (kernel, KDE, Gnome, Mozilla, etc) and also try and sanely resolve niggling issues like the current GPLv2 vs GPLv3 dilemma.

So far since my indoctrination to the Linux world I have seen such vast improvements it boggles my mind, and I expect nothing less for the next 10.

It is as difficult to install windows.

Most people buy windows pre installed. But anyone who had gone through a full install of Windows knows how difficult it is. When Redmond releases the next version and calls it an upgrade some chumps try to buy the install disks and attempt upgrading their machines. Or more frequently, a virus or something hits and they only thing that will really eradicate it is to format the hard disk and reinstall the OS. Even with a restore disk specifically created for that machine, many of the prompts during the restore process and install process are arcane and most users can't do anything other than accept the defaults. So why people harp on "Linux is difficult to install?", compare Linux install to windows install. Or compare pre installed Linux to pre installed Windows.

Another disappointing thing about the article is that it positions Linux as a "cheap" alternative. The main point of Linux is not that it is cheap, it could be or it might not be. The real power of Linux is avoiding the vendor lock.

Difficult?

Difficult to install? That's only for Linux from Scratch. All other distros are easier than Windows to install. Have you tried to install Windows XP on a new machine? It's a pain in the ass... remember to have a floppy drive before trying it.

Re:Difficult?

It seems you never did an advanced installation of Windows XP for hardware with RAID or SATA controllers not supported by Windows...

Thank you

"200[x]: The year of the Linux Desktop?"

I've found that title to be reliable for knowing what year it is, as it has worked for the last 5 years in a row. ;)

Re:Linux must tackle this first

Everybody I have asked to edit some configuration file has loathed the idea.

I know what you mean! My elderly parents have no problem navigating to HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run and tweaking a REG_SZ value, but ask them to open up Gedit...

(Yes, this was sarcastic.)

Re:Linux must tackle this first

It sounds absurd when you say it, but there's actually a lot of truth to that. I've walked elderly people through their registry before and not had a problem. "Click HKLM. Now click software. Click Microsoft. Windows. Now click CurrentVersion. Now click Run. Now double-click on that, type this, and click OK."

This was back in the early days of XP, when a lot of home users had Win9x. I also had to walk them editing some text files like config.sys on occasion. Getting them into the editor was easy, but then..."No sir, you don't need to read me the whole file. Yes sir, I know exactly what we're looking for here. Alright, do you see a line of text that starts with 'buffers'? No? Okay, move your cursor to the end of the last--click the mouse there--right. Okay, now press enter--yes, it should start you on a new blank line. And I want you to type 'buffers=10'. Yes, b-u-f-f-e-r-s. No, don't spell equals, use the sign. Two horizontal lines, to the left of your backspace key. Correct. And the number ten, as in one zero. Yes. Now you want to save that and exit notepad. Yes, overwrite it. No, that won't break anything so long as you did exactly what I told you to do.

The point-and-click interface gives people a sense of security. It makes them feel like they're in control without being at risk of REALLY screwing things up. And there's some truth to that: changing a switch by editing a number in a GUI field is a lot different than editing a text file. You aren't risking breaking the configuration by deleting a slash or a hyphen...the only way to break it is with a configuration that doesn't work.

I would like to see a more unified control panel for the Linux GUIs that allowed you to tweak text files without having to dive into them. It's one of those things that would provide a bridge between being able to use the OS and being able to get the most out of it for your particular requirements. As with all things Linux it has drastically improved in recent years, but it wouldn't hurt to do more.

COULD THIS BE!?

The Year of the Linux Desktop!?!?!

Probably not.

There's not going to be some sudden revolution to Linux, its going to come gradually. There won't be a Year of the Linux Desktop, I'm thinking one day we'll all look back and marvel about how mainstream Linux snuck up on us.

I doubt this article will get any more than a couple dozen people to try it. But its a start.

What amazes me is how rapidly its improving. The Kubuntu install I'm using is only a year old, but the new Gusty Beta is so much different it might as well be a different OS entirely. How much does Windows improve in a year?

Oh, that's right, they take SIX YEARS to improve, and ended up with Vista.

(K)ubuntu is out pacing Windows so bad its only a matter of time before it overtakes Windows in all fronts. I mean, the automatix problem they're talking in TFA is supposedly already fixed for Gusty, and there's a ton of other features that people will love.

And yeah, and takes days to get an XP reinstall into a usable state too, with drivers and Firefox and updates and anti virus and antispyware and office suites and media players that have to be installed.

Seems to me people who ask the question "is Linux ready for Mainstream?" compare it to a perfect Windows that I've never seen in person.

And to bring things closer

I've found this lovely project. It's called Wine-Doors, and it's a Package Manager for Windows programs under Linux. Like Apt-Get.
Seems to work pretty well, too.
http://www.wine-doors.org/wordpress/?page_id=5 [wine-doors.org]

NO! Not Automatix!

Automatix IS NOT recommended for Ubuntu! It tends to screw things up preventing correct updates to the next version.

Codecs are now installed automagically whenever you attempt to open a media file for which you do not have the correct CODEC.

Automatix IS NOT recommended.

Re:NO! Not Automatix!

Not only is Automatix not recomended, but it is almost completely irrelivant and unessary.

On a fresh 7.10 install:

Add/Remove, Show all packages, "restricted". Install restricted package.
You now have installed: Java6, Flash9, video codecs, lame, dvd playback, ms fonts, and more.
No command line, no downloading of a 3rd party unrecomended script. Just easy. Compare that to Windows.

Even going outside of the package manager, most people find there is a deb for their distro (eg. Google Earth).

I removed the "Made for Windows" sticker and replaced it with a "Powered by Ubuntu" sticker. Ubuntu 7.10 is the release that has replaced Windows for me.

"Ready for the Desktop"

"They" have been saying for 10 years now that Linux is ready for the Desktop. It will be ready for the Desktop when the public says it is. Not supporting DRM or getting scary "constitutes a CRIME" messages when trying to play music and movies doesn't help. Pushing "OpenOffice" as a free *clone* of Microsoft Office doesn't seem to be fooling people either. It will only take a user 5 minutes to realize it lacks the Mail functionality or even comes close in speed of Microsoft's Office. I am looking forward to Ubuntu 7.10. I still won't see it as a replacement for Windows - but it is definitely an alternative to it. Linux for me has excelled as a great tool/utility OS and a server OS.

Re:what?

Troll away, but I think it's safe to say that Linux has taken far more leaps than any other OS since OSX and XP were first released.

It's nice to see an article that at least touches on the shortcomings that hold Linux back as a desktop operating system AND about what is being done/needs to be done to resolve those.

I think this sums it up nicely:

After using the operating system for writing, Web surfing, graphic editing, movie watching and a few other tasks, it is easy to conclude that Linux can be an alternative to the major operating systems. But since common tasks like watching a movie or syncing an iPod require hunting for and installing extra software, Linux is best for technically savvy users or for people whose needs are so basic that they will never need anything other than the bundled software.

However, trying Linux -- especially if you boot it from a CD -- is a great way to find out what a lot of open-source adherents are so excited about.

Linux is easy to start using, especially distros like Ubuntu that bundle a lot of good apps into a near-turnkey solution. I don't think any other OS is quite so functional immediately after install. Linux is also a dream for the technical-minded power users who love to customize and control every aspect of their digital workspace. Where Linux falls short right now is in the middle ground: going from the basic install to a system that is functionally competitive with Vista Home Premium or OSX without being one of those powerusers is a daunting task that can--and will, given time--be made easier.

Articles like this coming out of the mainstream media can seem like fluff with very little content to the avid Linux community, but they need to be taken seriously. They're a good indication of what the outside world wants to see in the next round of distros, which gives the developers at least a hint of a way to expand the userbase. Based on this article and others like it, I'd suggest two things:

1) Make media easier to start using. I'm sure there are a dozen distro teams working on this right now, so I'm probably preaching to the choir...but it needs to be said, lest no one say it at all. I've had issues making media work in Linux recently, and am sticking with Vista at the moment because I can't find a few consecutive hours to devote to troubleshooting the matter.

2) The current method of documentation is quite informative, but a bit dry and sometimes difficult to absorb due to the format. The Linux community would be greatly benefited by solid tutorials based on the documentation and FAQs that are spread all over the internet. I'm not talking about a text file tutorial...I'm talking about a video, or even (if it's possible) a custom live cd distro for the purpose of instructing users. However it can be executed, the end result should be advancing the skill level of the user beyond that which they might reach with the current documentation. (disclaimer: I have a personal interest in this, as I tend to stall out on Linux projects because I have trouble finding some crucial piece of information that might be better taught than read.)