Linux to Become #2 on the Desktop? 778
DiZASTiX writes "An article from Zdnet says Linux on the desktop has become a reality. It is now possible, for example, to buy a Linux-based PC (running LindowsOS) from Evesham. In the United States, Wal-Mart sells machines based on Lindows, Mandrake Linux and others. But though Linux may have its foot in the door, taking the next step to becoming a mainstream success is proving a more difficult proposition."
It's a good start though ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as people consider XWindows (XFree86) to be a viable desktop interface, I think Linux will stand no chance of dethroning Windows or even OS X.
'XWindows' isn't a desktop interface, it's a networkable cliet-server graphical display and input technology. KDE and Gnome (amung others) build upon the X Windows System to proveide a GUI.
I just happen to prefer Windows XP on my desktop.
Me too, I happen to prefer Windows XP on your desktop.
Took Microsoft 8 years to own the desktop (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing I can stand about Linux's GUI interface is Mozilla. And I can run that on Windows. Everything else - widgets and window managers combined - they just don't blow my skirt up.
For the record, my server runs FreeBSD. I considered Linux, but the variety of non-standard places to look for configuration files baffled me into choosing differently. I've got a handle on it now, but
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:4, Interesting)
Your mileage might vary, but I'm very interested in these projects...
Tiny change (Score:3, Interesting)
I havn't much kept up with the current situation, but don't they still only sell them on their website? This make it sound like you'll walk into any walmart and see them lined up right next to the windows machines. I think it's nonetheless a big step, but not as big as if they were being sold in store.
Ofcourse, it works like a charm on the desktop. (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux is most definately ready to bay the power users and people with more IQ than your average white trash this very moment. The clueless ones that holds their paper infront of the monitor and searches the [fax] button are nothing to sthrive for at this moment since they demand to much and returns nothing.
A Long Way To Go (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux is great for some people, but OS X has something for pretty much everyone. I'll take my Mac any day of the week.
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want Linux on a desktop, why do you need a GUI? Linux is not a GUI. XWindows/X11R6/XFree86, that is the graphical shell system for Linux, and it blows goats.
My stance is that until Linux has a decent GUI, it won't be a decent contender for Number 2 or Number 1.
Been running Linux on my desktop.. (Score:2, Interesting)
---
There's a good reason why Linux isn't #1 or #2. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't mean for this to come across as trollish; it's just that so many people here seem to want to dance around the issue of Linux's usability. I love Linux and it has many advantages over Windows, but its ease of use does leave a bit to be desired.
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:4, Interesting)
Just an idea:
In about six months or so, give the next version of FreeBSD a try as a destop OS. By then, KDE 3.1 should be nice and stable. KDE 3.0 is passable for a desktop GUI from a Windows standard. I'd place it at the level of Windows 95. KDE 3.1 is quie a bit nicer, and I would place it at the Windows 2000 level - if not close to XP in style and well thoughout icons/placement.
If you want a peek, goto kde.org and look at the screen shots.
FreeBSD kicks ass as a server. I love it as well.
OpenBSD for firewalls though...
Unrealized Potential (Score:4, Interesting)
So what is it? Microsoft knows it's coming. What's missing?
This is an exciting time (Score:5, Interesting)
Seeing those Lindows boxes at WaLMart kinda reminds me of the computing scene in the 80's. There were all kinds of different technologies coming out, and competing with each other. You could walk into any electronics store and find some brand of computer, peripherals and software for sale.
IMO It was a period of excitement and innovation. It felt good to me personally. There were so many choices to be made.
Open source, has that feeling of goodness about it. Change, innovation, choice.
What I'm trying to say is that this is the first time since the late 80's/early 90's that I feel good about consumer options for software.
It's only 1 OS on sale at 1 store, but it is a start. Hopefully other vendors will be brave enough to put together solutions, and stores will be brave enough to put them on the shelves.
I think it's time everyone stands up to the evil empire.
Sure, standardization was good. But monopolistic practices, forced licenses, security holes, bloated OS code, and applications is starting to suck. It's time to shake up the industry a little folks.
not enough apps? (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux just needs ONE major box shipper like dell to even offer it as an option-that's it, it'll "take" just swell. Have the same exact box, one has borg, the other has a penguin, with 100$ (whatever) cheaper price tag for the penguin, see what happens. Walmart is "cute" but it's not on the shelf, it's only on their website,and people shopping for computers on the web just ain't that likely to think of "walmart", nor is 100 buck a year lindows gonna cut it for noobs seeking a deal. At 20 or 30$ a year for a version "update" folks will goto AFTER they get it first right on their new shiny box and get to take it home and play with it. The command line is there for the 10% power users and geeks, and for 90% of the people it just ain't needed anymore, the gui works perfectly allright and there's tons of computing 'stuff' to do. Can't beat it with a stick, just need for one of them big guys to try it again in the mass produced boxes. The borg lawsuit is settled, they can "do this" now with little risk. the borg got warned off, if they try it again, they can get sued right outta their 40 billion in the bank, just needs one of those big companies to give it a whack again. The linux omellette is DONE now, you can take it outta the pan. From now on it's just "spice to taste".
Accurately measuring linux usage (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is able to at least count if not gather demographics for every desktop machine running Windows95 or above, regardless of whether it is licensed or not, through WindowsUpdate. Redhat is able to track usage of their distribution through their UpToDate software (which is becoming more invasive with every release) and other distributions include similar mechanisms, but there must be a reasonable way to gather overall usage statistics for Linux based desktops. It would be a worthwhile endevour, from a PR standpoint similar to the automobile manufacturers who take a loss on every sale of certain models in an effort to have that model garner the title of "Most popular car" of a certain class, for the simple PR benefit of being able to say that toy are the manufacturer of the most popular product in the marketplace.
Likewise, for Linuux, it is important to demonstrate increases in marketshare quarter over quarter in order to firmly demonstrate that the product (such as it is) remains a force to be reconed with.
For this reason it is important to be able to accurately measure the Linux desktop userbase. Systems like that of redhat, which require registration in order for the user to gain some other benefit (in this case convenient updates) seems somewhat draconiaf for the Linux crowd, but a system must be devised to allow for reasonable, varibiable notification of installation of a linux system (regardless of distribution) so that centralized statistics can be maintained for the simple purpose of combating the massive Microsoft PR juggernaut.
--CTH
Good enough for me (Score:5, Interesting)
The counter-argument is that I'm aware of the console utilities and don't represent the typical desktop user. OK, but I have my senior citizen parents, non-technical wife, and lots of kids using Linux without a second thought. For the most part, all of their computing needs for school and work are fulfilled by the RedHat system. The other thing that cannot be ignored is the price of this machine: ECS K7S5A MB + Athlon 1800XP, 40G HD, DVDROM, case, 256M memory all came to less than $400. This cost wouldn't be possible with a $190 Microsoft XP Home license.
DVDs play fine after a visit to freshrpms.net. MP3's work wonderfully and they sure seem to sound better than under Windows (largely because there are no pauses under Linux when the system does other stuff). OpenOffice's speed was an issue on my AMD K62/500. It's not noticeable on this 1.53g Athlon. The typical computer user spends the majority of their time on the web, checking email, and word processing. Secondary uses are usually games, and music (burning and listening). Hmm.. Except for the games, this system does all that perfectly well.
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I find the window managers used in unix desktops much more productive than anything MS ever came up with. Window shading, virtual desktops, and multiple workspaces (not the same as virtual desktops) just by themselves make the OS faster to use. Most people have to start closing windows when they start running out of desktop real estate. I just switch to another workspace and keep going. It makes development MUCH more productive, I can tell you that much right now. One workspace for reading API documentation, another (sometimes two) for writing code, and another for checking my email, surfing the web when I need another reference or a quick break, and for playing music. Depending on the app, I sometimes even use ANOTHER for testing the app.
Windows is far from having the best interface IMHO. It definitely has the most popular, but popularity rarely has anything to do with functionality. (More often it has to do with pressure to conform.)
Don't get me wrong. I think XWindows itself is a fucking joke. Shared memory doesn't help it's situation. Windows update speed is STILL an issue from time to time, and the current implementation of remotely running apps is getting old. What I'd really like to see is the ability to start a gui app from over the network, and dynamically detach it from your XServer without killing it. Letting it run headless in the background for a while, and then reattaching it on a different machine (or even locally on that previously remote machine) so that you can check up on it.
Basically, I want RDP with by the application granularity. Now THAT would be an advantage system admins! In fact, without that killer feature and without even taking shell scripting and regular expressions into account, unix desktops still beat the piss out of the Windows XP (and earlier) desktop environments. IMHO of course.
Name the #3 cola. Anybody? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can get "support" for these brands at any of my local stores. In fact, I have to walk farther to get a Coke than a Polar.
See, there's plenty of room for everyone.
Of course it isn't your fault you picked a bad analogy. ANY other field will be a bad analogy because the software "industry" works to its own peculiar set of rules.
Those rules are wearing thin and starting to break down though. It's Free Software that actually makes software *more* like cola, where anyone can come up with a recipe and join the game.
KFG
somebody fork enlightenment (Score:2, Interesting)
i don't understand how people put up with the limitations of metacity, kfm, and the like.. e certainly has its limitaitons [not that i've ever met rasterman, but...], still no body makes switching desktops or windows appearing look prettier..
my $0.02
P.S. whatever, spellin' nazis, get jobs
Re:This is an exciting time (Score:1, Interesting)
Oh, too bad we're living in the boring times of $90 120GB hard disks and iAPX86 universal compatibility.
The linux desktop will dominate corporate first (Score:3, Interesting)
Is the desktop so important? (Score:2, Interesting)
And let's face it: The "desktop computer" is a fad. Does anyone seriously think that we'll be chained to our desktop (or laptop) in 30 years? Of course not. Computers may become ubiquitous in the future, but not the clunky boob-tubes that Dell & MS have been pushing onto the compliant masses. The future of computing is "invisible" (ie. hidden) computers and a retarding desktop interface won't play a role in that future.
I love the work that has been done on X11, KDE and other UI technologies. Very useful work, indeed. But I hope most designers in the Linux realm will not be misguided into striving for the unimportant goal of desktop dominance.
I pray to God that stack-based computers fade from existance, but as long as they are here Linux (and the whole Unix tradition) will play an increasingly significant role. I'm not sure the same can be said for the MS-DOS/Windows tradition which has undergone four massive re-designs in 15 years...
Re:Why it will never be Number One. (Score:3, Interesting)
I continue to waffle on this one. Yes, X (BTW, it is X, X11, or the X Window System, never XWindows or X-Windows) has a lot of legacy code & features, and its network-centric model does affect its performance, but I think a lot of people are making a much bigger fuss over X than it really deserves. The XFree86 people have been doing an incredible amount of work lately, and things like fonts are finally getting fixed, while the performance issues were mostly fixed long ago. At this point, I'm not aware of any viable replacement for the X11 protocol (things like fb still need an X11 emulator for compatibility, since 99.999% of all *nix apps use X), so doesn't seem logical to throw X away -- and I haven't even begun to talk about the usefulness of the network transparency features...
I agree that this is important if Linux is to really succeed on the desktop. As much as I like having GTK and Qt apps side by side in Fluxbox, the average user would be completely bewildered by my desktop, and I don't begrudge average users their WIMP interfaces. However, the solution is not to "kill" either KDE or Gnome (fat chance of that happening, anyway) but to do what Red Hat has done with 8.0: re-theme KDE and Gnome with common widget sets, so that even if they're different under the hood, the apps look and feel the same. And it works... although I don't use it on my box, I think Bluecurve is a great idea for Joe User.
At this point, the only time you have to touch config files on a Red Hat system is if you're going to be using some obscure settings for some server. Really. Red Hat has created an amazing array of GUI config tools for every administration task under the sun, and they're remarkably easy to use. Need to share files with Windows boxes? Piece of cake -- configure Samba with SWAT. Don't like XF86Config? Use redhat-config-xfree86. Can't figure out named.conf? You can use redhat-config-bind for that! The advantage of doing it this way is that the config files are still there for people like me who actually find using them to be more efficient.
Done. RPM, DEB, heck, even Gentoo has support for binary packages! These days practically every app vendor supplies RPMs. Again, the only time you're going to have to compile anything from source is if you're using some really obscure app. Even then, it's not exactly hard: ./configure; make; make install. Someone who's taken the time to search out that rare program that they just can't live without will be patient enough to learn three simple commands.
Done. I don't know about all the other distributions, but Red Hat doesn't install or turn on any servers by default, especially if you choose the "Personal Desktop" or "Workstation" installs. With more advanced distributions, like my favorite, Gentoo, you generally have to know what you're doing in order to turn on a dangerous daemon, so you're unlikely to do it by mistake.
But they make it so easy! Just kidding. I agree with you here... as long as the open source community is seen as a bunch of squabbiling stoners and teenagers, it's going to have trouble being seen as a serious alternative. However, I think a lot of progress has been made and continues to be made, especially in the public eye. Of course, you can get a very different impression if you read Slashdot. Thank goodness Joe CEO doesn't...
To the 'X windows' bashers (Score:5, Interesting)
Those posts are getting tired. There should be a faq somewhere.
X is not a memory hog. The protocol is lean, think of when it was designed. It couldn't afford to be a memory hog. X can be 'fast'. X is very modular. X runs on embedded systems that have very little resources, and I mean *very* little.
Comparing the X network transparency to RDP is like comparing apples to oranges. Frambuffer based transparency eg. RDP work well on low bandwidth situations but push all the load on the server since the entire application and all the rendering is done on the server. This is a terrible design in thin client networks, and why citrix et. all take so much resources to deploy. I've seen Solaris boxes push a ridiculus amount of concurrent sessions while MS terminal services halt at a fraction of that load. It's not that MS did a bad job, it's just that the two approaches have their strong suits.
The bottom line is learn X before you diss it ( someone else said that ).
...cause X rocks!!!
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:3, Interesting)
I challenge you to access microsoft.com from a base install of NT4.0. It's not even possible to find the page to update the browser
Might be number 2 already (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that linux is already the number 2 desktop and just may be closer to Windows then anyone thinks.
Re:It's a good start though ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm coming to not care whether the public decides that Linux is a "desktop OS" or not. It's working wonderfully as a desktop OS for me.
Gotta long way... (Score:2, Interesting)
I installed Mandrake 9.0 on my sister's machine because Windows Me was just too resource hungry and spending $150 for win2k or winxp pro was a last resort... It seemed to support and have almost everything she needed: AIM, MSN, Yahoo! messenger, TV viewing and capturing capabilities of her ATI AIW 128 Pro card via xine, DVD playback, Samba, oggs, Mozilla, x-sane, and it was painless for me to install (well almost except for the initial lockup)... but then the fatal flaw... no support for her D-Link DWL-520+ 802.11b PCI card, and that's what killed the idea and had me reinstalling Windows Me again.
So what does it all boil down to? Linux needs to just plain support everything as quickly as MS can. Frankly if the Linux community can't get the major hardware vendors to take them seriously and give them the product documentation to develop drivers and such, then I see no reason to give it to my family. I'd sooner buy them all Macs with OS X, if I really cared to enrich their unix experience.
Just my $0.02
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:3, Interesting)
Umm...and this is different from Explorer *how* again?
Five years ago, that mattered. Today, things are autoconfigured and detected. The internals don't matter.
Configuration files are differently structured and found in different locations.
What have you had to mess with other than XF86Config? XftConfig is gone, and stuff belonging to xfs is for a separate program -- most people on a single user system do not use xfs. And more importantly, *why* are you? There are (granted, at long last) excellent graphical config utilities now. If you don't like the config files, you don't have to interact with them.
Trivial stuff like font installation has long been a horrible mess and is only slowly getting fixed (fontconfig etc.) - the defaults are still atrocious to anyone with a basic understanding of font usability
True.
Just look at their gopher-era homepage [xfree86.org] to get an impression about their professionality.
Looks damn professional to me, i.e. looks like someone who actually understands the design behind HTML made it.
Yeah, I know, HTML 2.0 should have been the end of web technology, but I am not only criticizing the looks here but also the lack of structure and meaningful information.
I've always had good success finding what I wanted on there.
Not according to Google... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's a good start though ... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's actually surprised me how little interest there seems to be among the more knowlegable of my IT peers. The lack of interest ranges from "It's not as secure/robust/logical as OpenVMS, Windows NT, real Unix, etc..." to "Yeah, it's cool and all... but I just don't have the time to learn everything you need to know".
As far as my non-IT computer literate friends, their interest ranges from "Linux? What's that? Does it run under Windows XP?" to "I've heard about it, but if it doesn't run KillerApp 8.0, it doesn't do me much good".
To be honest I don't really have any friends that are interested in Linux since I don't really know anyone who is as "into computers" as I am. I think it really comes down to the kind of person you are. I admit, my friends and family have experience with using Linux, but only through me. If they didn't know me, they wouldn't know anything about Linux.
The thing that I fear the most is that a lot of the publicity to "Joe User" could actually backfire. Imagine if Linux is touted in newspapers and magazines as the "Next Great Thing" and people go out and get machines with Linux that are poorly configured, insecure and on poor/cheap hardware. Then these people get pissed off and start spreading horror stories about their experience with Linux. It could happen no matter how well the systems are configured since Joe User tends to gravitate towards the "latest and greatest" hardware which isn't always well supported in Linux. When he plugs in his digital camera and nothing happens, it's going to make a bad impression.
Keep in mind that I am not saying that Linux is bad for the desktop, but I am saying that it's probably about the same as non-OEM Windows 2000 Pro installation for a generic user. It requires more knowledge than the average user has. At the moment, that could make Linux look bad to the average user. Something like Lindows on a Wal-Mart PC along with some caveats about what might NOT work would be OK. But, Joe Average might be more likely to go to Circuit City and buy a RedHat 8 CD-ROM and then get pissed off when they don't get it to work.
RedHat 8 has a great look, very well laid out menu system, task oriented/integrated interface and is very nice in general, but it has a lot of problems for some systems too: Lockups with certain IDE chipsets, memory leaks in the gnome-panel and gnome-terminal, problems with the Package Manager, etc... In fact CD-ROM 2 has failed for almost everyone I know when trying to install certain programs. Any average user who gives this a first try as an install is going to be very angry and this would be bad for Linux on the desktop in general.
What to do? Sorry... but I don't have an answer. It still seems to me that one of the problems in making a "Linux for the desktop" distro is that a lot of us (Linux users/developers) are so far removed from the average user that we can't see all of the things that could be stumbling blocks. It's hard to sit back and remember the days when you didn't know what formatting a disk was. But that might be what's required. Maybe a sit down with your friends and family to find out what they might not like about computers in general (to know what to alleviate in Linux) might help too.
Re:Linux is NOT ready for the desktop (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a normal computer, install a decent distribution of linux, easy to use like gentoo or red-hat
Change the name of the icons for the applications in this way:
OOwritter->MS-Word
Mozilla->Internet Explorer
licq->ICQ
kmail->Outlook Express
Evolution->Outlook
Gnucash->QuickBook
Home->Explorer
and see what you get.
I have to say it was quite impressive.
They all did everything they wanted on that computer, everything worked out just great and some of them didn't even notice the changes between applications.
That also covers the "people use windows because they're used to it". Ship a new computer with linux with apps named that way and people will use it and buy it.
Installing linux would indeed cost companies money, but that's not the problem since they would get all that money back and more quickly by not renewing licenses and upgrading to windows ++
Linux is pretty darn idiot proof... I've seen some stupid morons install it and run it just fine...
The category of people that has trouble with it is power-users because they need this one special windows application that makes them look busy or cool, or they want their GUI to behave in a very specific way and they have no idea how to configure KDE or Gnome to behave in these ways, heck, they don't even know what KDE or Gnome is or that they're using it right now.
So they just go back to windows saying that linux is nice but their cool application doesn't work on it and it's harder to configure.
On your last point however, you're right on the money... I don't see linux dominating the market any time soon either, but I see it coming along just nicely and I definitely see it stepping through that door.
Linux desktop is a great choice if.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your users are computer illiterate and need basic functionality and you want to make administration of these machines as easy as possible (both technically and politically).
Automatically boot to a window manager that has a "web" and "log out" feature. And maybe an xmms which runs against the company music fileshare. And maybe GAIM to keep in touch with other employees.
Fits the bill better than Windows, especially if your "killer app" is entirely web based, such as phpGroupware or heck, SQL-Ledger.
Also good for grandma who wants to get on the world wide intarweb but doesn't want the hassle of managing an actual computer.
Linux is good for the uber-technical and the totally illiterate. The in-betweens are more troublesome. They want more functionality but have already taken the time to learn Windows and don't want to relearn anything.
Re:Linux is NOT ready for the desktop (Score:3, Interesting)
libobscure.so.2
hahahaha! Damn. If I was drinking milk I would have spit it out all over my screen. That was funny.
Seriously, though, I think your statements may be colored by simply being used to Windows and paying the price that using it demands. I've been using Linux as a desktop at home and at work for some months now, and reboots and reinstalls are now alien to me. (Also, I have no problem with MS documents in Open Office).
Certainly, some features are annoying, and Linux has some drawbacks (FONTS!). I find you may be omitting some benefits to using Linux, such as OO's bullets/numbers toolbar. Also, once you've solved a problem in Linux, it stays solved. Windows' seemingly random crashes cannot be mitigated by any means, including calling Microsoft tech support. On the whole, Linux is easier to use, allows me to be more productive, and is infinitely more flexible.
It's my desktop now --could be yours (Score:4, Interesting)
Rip and encode CD's with Grip. Burn CD's with Gcombust! Default file format is ogg.
Edit web graphics and pictures I am sent with Gimp.
Open Office handles any basic data processing tasks I need. Documents, spreadsheets and other related things are handled just fine. Once in a while a document comes in a little mangled, but I can always read them. I make sure and let others know how they can send documents without worrying about translation issues. When they realize not everyone uses Microsoft Word, they wonder why. When they understand the cost of Open Office, they will begin to ask how. I am not ashamed to say I want to cut down on my basic computing costs in these down times.
Evolution for mail. I actually prefer this to almost any other GUI mail client. Evolution competes easily with the best of the win32 mail clients.
Ogle is a great DVD player. Simple keystroke commands let you forget you are using a computer to watch the movie once you are in full screen mode. Bonus feature is that you can basically play anything and skip the annoyances. Win32 players need to play catch-up here actually. I have shown this to people who ask if they can run it under windows!
Gaming is a little weak, but reasonable right now. The kind of games I like to play on computers are avaliable for the most part. Not all titles, but enough that I can find something to play. For the rest, there is always PS2!
I do remote support for both win32 and UNIX systems. SSH and VNC perform very nicely here.
For all of those complaining about X --get over it. X rules if you get hardware that is well supported. This is not much different from the win32 world actually. Consider I have a Matrox G400 in the machine right now. Under win32 this card is a dog. Guess what? Linux and X bring out all the performance this card can offer. Nice deal! The best part is this will only continue to get better.
Mozilla and crossover to handle internet content.
Xmms for music.
My family makes use of this machine and does not always treat it well. So, XFS journaling filesystem handles this. There are others, but I know SGI and XFS, so that was my choice. 4 kids and a wife that will all switch it off once in a while without me looking and I have had zero problems.
Acrobat reader for pdf.
Programming works just fine using gcc and OpenGL. If you consider all that one can do right now for nothing, this is really hard to beat. Anyone getting into programming as a hobby or perhaps career change is a fool not to explore this.
Learning how to compile software is one of the smartest things I have ever done. It is not hard generally and the benefits are huge.
I have two areas that are not very well addressed in terms of how I work. Authoring HTML content can be done easily enough, but I want to use Dreamweaver. So that happens under Wine. I also work with MCAD products. Some of those run on another UNIX, so that can happen on my desktop because of X. Others are win32 only so there are times I need to use another machine. (I hate dual booting. --Easier to just use another box and run VNC, or use VMware.)
I do run Maya for some parts of my MCAD work and it works just fine under Linux. This is another interesting case with regard to X window support. Under win32, that older Matrox will not run Maya well at all. Under Linux that card works very well considering its limitations. Hmmm...
Sure I am a technical guy, so I took the time to learn how things get done. If you are willing to work the way Linux does, there is a lot there for the taking. Before you all say that it's too hard for the masses, consider this:
You know about 10 years ago, I distinctly remember dealing with win95 and DOS program installation and configuration issues. I was paid many times to 'just fix it'. Hardware problems, driver problems, and other problems made things very hard for the new user. Things are a little different today, but not too different. Installing windows on a new machine can be quite the chore. Updating it and hardening it for the connected home user of today takes time as well. Is this really any different than what we expect people to do with Linux?
Linux can compete today. It competes on cost, flexibility and stability and capability. It does not do everything well, but it does many things well enough that a growing number of users can make use of it with a little help. Guess what? That is exactly how Win95 got started too. Took quite a few years of thrashing by everyone to get it all done.
The sad part? Most of us here bitching on
Lots of people want a computer that just works. They want to write stuff, read e-mail and use the Internet. Some of them want to enjoy DVD and CD media as well.
For many of these people, a well configured Linux install will do the task with little or no hassle. All they need is someone to set one up for them. Same as they do using a win32 varient now.
All this really means is we are a hell of a lot closer than we were just two years ago.
Going forward is simple. The community will continue to provide creative options which the distributions will eventually figure out how to best package. The big commercial applications are starting to show. (PTC, Alias WaveFront, MSC Analysis and others) Cost will remain low for good systems.
What do we need to do?
Simple, just know what Linux can do today and make sure you can make it perform. Show others what you are doing and let them know why.
Every day, another class of user will be able to realistically make use of Linux if they are willing to make some choices. New operating systems are hard, but that does not mean they are not worth learning --even for fairly average users. After all many of them went through this with win95.
We need to eat our own dog food with regard to Linux. Two years ago, I saw strong potential, but was not ready to use it full-time myself. Today that has changed. Now I can actually begin doing the real learning and from that teaching --same as it was with win95...
It is only a matter of time at this point --or lawyers.
corporate desktop takeover by Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
So does MS Office--they just hide the fact by doing it at boot time and eating up lots of your memory.
The API's are still changing with every kernel revision (check out 2.6! woohoo!) and soon may reach stability..
The Linux APIs have been stable since before Linux even was created. That's one of the big advantages of Linux.
Why do the developers always assume that I've got nothing better to do than compiling a kernel just so my sound will work,
Sound works just fine out of the box with Debian and RedHat. Just like with Windows, you need to make sure that the hardware you buy is supported by the OS you run. Don't blame Linux if you buy the wrong sound card.
Case in point: Linux is a pain.
Linux is a pain, but it's less of a pain than Windows in many circumstances. Windows is fine for home use and individual installations. But it's much cheaper to maintain a large network of Linux (or Sun, for that matter) desktops than a large network of Windows desktops. That's where Linux will dethrone Microsoft pretty soon. Home users come last--consumers are always the hardest nut to crack.