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:It's a good start though ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Careless aggression of marketing put Microsoft where there are today.
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.
Re:It's a good start though ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I really fail to see why so many people seem to care so much about whether or not "mainstream users" are using Linux on their PCs. As long as it works for you, and you can get done what you need to get done, why worry?
I use Linux (curently Mandrake 9) exclusively at work. I do have XP installed under VMWare, but hardly ever use it. I'm a Java programmer, writing server-side code for websites, and so have no need for Windows; Linux does everything I need. For those few doc files that OpenOffice can't handle, I have VMWare & XP.
At home, I recently bought (yes, bought) a copy of XP Pro. That's because I play a lot of games, and until I can walk into a shop and buy any game I want knowing that it'll work under Linux, I "need" Windows.
I used to care deeply about getting people to use Linux, especially my fellow programmers (I was the first non-sysadmin at my company to install Linux on their PC, having finally gotten the go-ahead from management). Over time, though, I came to realise that it really doesn't matter.
There are enough people passionate enough about Linux that I need not worry about it dying out any time soon. All the hardware I need to use is supported, and I can get development tools for most languages for it (even C# is being worked on!). Why should I care how many people I've never met and never will have any contact with are using it?
The right tool for the right job, but also, the right tool for the right person.
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:It's a good start though ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yeah, but not for free. (Score:3, Insightful)
The "Zealots" don't care one way or another about whether they have "24/7" support, because they've happily fixed their own problems for years, and anyone brought out on a support call would be someone very much like them.
CIOs care very much, because they may not *have* a Zealot handy, and are interested in covering their ass (not to ensure that the *system* keeps working...to have someone *else* to blame if something hypothetically goes wrong).
Re:Yeah, but not for free. (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to Microsoft that only charges $250.00 + per incident?
Linux is NOT ready for the desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not a huge advocate of Linux on the desktop (yet)
I want to be, but I can't (yet). [grin]
Here's the problem:
To put Linux on the desktop, we're asking them to give up the comfort, familiarity and applications of Windows. For what benefits?
Poor applications. Quoting an e-mail I received: "But a lot of it - and mainly the GUI stuff - is still lagging behind, being a slower and buggier version of a half-decent program on Windows. And priorities are wonderful - when we build a GUI application, the most important thing is that it's skinnable. Bugs? Features? Competition? Who cares?! It's skinnable!"
The same writer continues... "And for the biggest question: Mr. Rupert wants a financial software for Linux (his son installed it for him). So he calls his son over to install a simple financial software - just something which can calculate his loan repayments. His son opens google (or freshmeat), and finds 31 financial programs. Each has a different set of features, of course. He downloads and compiles each of them (ah, yes, the rpm was compiled using an ancient glibc version, and no, Mr. Rupert doesn't know what glibc is). The only two candidates which could actually be compiled (and didn't require libobscure.so.2) and actually have this option in their ugly programmer-designed-GUI menus die as soon as you choose the option. That's right - the operating system is stable as a rock, but the programs die immediately. What's Mr. Rupert going to use? hmm.... Maybe a respectable program from a respectable company (on Windows, of course).
But wait! John Rupert (the little 15 year old) can program - he's got some C tutorials, and he's written a few small programs. Why can't he write the program for his father? And the 32nd version is on its way."
We need to work on this stuff. Linux still isn't ready for the desktop [glowingplate.com].
Re:Linux is NOT ready for the desktop (Score:5, Informative)
- Linux GUIs are faster and faster at each version. Gnome2 for example was totally re-coded with performance in mind and behaves much better now, KDE 3.1 (still a release candidate but still) on this box is working SO much faster than XP did on the SAME box !
- Since I've been running linux on my desktop, I have not yet had one problem reading any PPT, DOC, etc... documents... not once... sorry. And I get a lot of ppt and doc files sent to me daily
- I have had problems with some applications, contacted the mailing list, and the solution was sent to me a few minutes later... no RTFM.
- I use Evolution for my email/calendar/tasklist/contact management stuff, it has everything I could ever use and more... I have used kmail in the past, I've never had any real problem with it.
- Recent linux distributions based on more recent and less backward-compatible glibc usually have some kind of package management system that will not only save you from searching on freshmeat, but also install directly the application for you.
emerge gnucash
apt-get install gnucash
synaptic->gnucash
and so on... You have now installed the latest version of an excellent financial software, which, may I add, will read files from other windows software like Quickbook or Quicken without a glitch
- I use daily applications for all my needs, none of them are poorly written at all. licq is stable as a rock, xmms plays music just perfectly, evolution still handles my emails (without a virus or worm or anything like that infesting my computer), mozilla works like a charm and KDE 3.1 is just a dream. Although all those applications work in a much superior fashion than equivalent applications on windows, they ARE skinnable indeed
- Companies such as the Kompany, RedHat, Suse, etc... actually DO have some marketing people that make your desktop look just like you want it to look like as a user and to behave.
My desktop right now looks simply amazing, yet is really fast and everything is at hand. My girlfriend uses it every time she comes, all my friends really love the way it's set up and even my mom used it and didn't have a problem doing everything she needed to do.
- and for the support thing, companies like Suse, RedHat, Mandrake, etc... DO offer commercial (cheap) support for pretty much all the applications shipped with their distributions, in fact, and I speak from experience, these companies go way beyond that by helping out users with applications not "officially" supported, and also collect bug-reports and offer patches to the original developer of the software to fix the problem for them (http://www.redhat.com/bugzilla) for example.
- Whoever wrote that has NO idea of how much a business license for Microsoft Windows costs... it's not even close to $200. Tell this person to add many zeros to that number.
I think linux is still very young on the desktop OS market but it's doing a great job and I'm very impressed by how fast it's moving forward... KDE, Gnome, Evolution, OpenOffice, etc... all these software are working on a new development version right now that's purely amazing... I can't wait to see what it will be like by the end of the year 2003 !
Re:Linux is NOT ready for the desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm actually an advocate of linux on the desktop (yes I am) and it seems those points you mentionned don't make much sense, here's why.
I'm an advocate of Linux on the desktop, too. I can't wait to see it. But from the perspective of an *average user*, I'm still convinced that it isn't ready. We *need* the average user to feel *more* comfortable working at a Linux desktop than a Windows machine, especially since he's gonna have to deal with a Windows world trying to suck him back into its comfortable embrace... at least until we've finished the takeover of the desktop.
- Linux GUIs are faster and faster at each version. Gnome2 for example was totally re-coded with performance in mind and behaves much better now, KDE 3.1 (still a release candidate but still) on this box is working SO much faster than XP did on the SAME box!This is good. I cannot corroborate it using a pre-compiled distro. Why am I using a pre-compiled distro? Because that's what Joe Sixpack is gonna be using. More optimization is needed, and more carefully made binaries are required from the major distros; especially Red Hat in the current #1 off-the-shelf position.
I think part of the problem is that we need developers to try actually using the pre-compiled binaries of their works which end up being shipped with the Red Hats and the Mandrakes of the world.
- Since I've been running linux on my desktop, I have not yet had one problem reading any PPT, DOC, etc... documents... not once... sorry. And I get a lot of ppt and doc files sent to me dailyMost of them have formatting problems, cannot handle inline images (properly or at all). Table support from Word 2000 is lacking. I know this is a serious pain in the ass to reverse engineer, but it merely frustrates end-users who are already gonna be pissed off about having to learn something new when their company moves to Linux.
- I have had problems with some applications, contacted the mailing list, and the solution was sent to me a few minutes later... no RTFM.You're not Joe Sixpack. "How come it says I cannot save my file in /bin? Huh? I didn't log in as root, whoever that is." Screams of RTFM or "Get a life" would abound on mailing lists or IRC, whereas a 1-900-DRONE would calmly answer, explain, and the user would be supported. Sure, the example I cited is an operating system issue instead of an application issue, but it's a problem every bit as simple, stupid and pervasive.
- I use Evolution for my email/calendar/tasklist/contact management stuff, it has everything I could ever use and more... I have used kmail in the past, I've never had any real problem with it.KMail is great, the only programming complaint I've had with it is that it silently dies if it runs out of disk space. But the spellchecker is right out of 1995. We have to match feature-for-feature to be adopted. You're not going to sell Linux/KDE (or Linux/Gnome or OpenBSD/AfterStep or whatever) by screaming from the hilltops, "ALL THE FEATURES OF WINDOWS 3.1!" in a Windows XP world.
Evolution was too slow to be usable on my PIII-500. That's insane. It's just an e-mail client, not a genome sequencer, for Gawd's sake!
- Recent linux distributions based on more recent and less backward-compatible glibc usually have some kind of package management system that will not only save you from searching on freshmeat, but also install directly the application for you. emerge gnucash apt-get install gnucash synaptic->gnucash and so on... You have now installed the latest version of an excellent financial software, which, may I add, will read files from other windows software like Quickbook or Quicken without a glitchIt's a good start, yes.
But the biggest problem is that if a feature which an Excel user would take for granted is lacking, it's a negative perception. Most users will already resist the change to something new and "strange".
We've grown up with the idea of piping the output from one program to another; it's the Unix way. But it's *not* acceptable on a desktop system. You don't do your spreadsheet in OpenOffice Calc, then save it in some format that Gnumeric handles so that you can use the point-and-click data analysis tools, then open int up in OpenOffice again. If you're paying a secretary $20/hr to do this, it doesn't take more that a few months to make back what you would have spent to install Windows on the machine.
- I use daily applications for all my needs, none of them are poorly written at all. licq is stable as a rock, xmms plays music just perfectly, evolution still handles my emails (without a virus or worm or anything like that infesting my computer), mozilla works like a charm and KDE 3.1 is just a dream. Although all those applications work in a much superior fashion than equivalent applications on windows, they ARE skinnable indeedI don't know how well Evolution handles e-mail. My main machine is over the hill, but easily captures video from my TV card in real-time. I find it hard to believe that responding to e-mail in Evolution should require such a fast computer as to be unusable on a machine which will capture NTSC video at 29.97FPS with 16 bit stereo sound with 0 dropped frames... (unless I open Evolution while I'm capturing video).
Mozilla is great. It's fast, attractive, and it works well. The only problems I have with it are fault tolerance (delete your JRE without telling Mozilla, then try to use a website infected with applets; it crashes with no warning), lack of ability to send a mailto: link to anything other than Mozilla's mail client, and the inability to tailor the browser string to be whatever I want without recompiling (at least one website I *have* to use will ban you if your browser doesn't say "MSIE" in its string).
- Companies such as the Kompany, RedHat, Suse, etc... actually DO have some marketing people that make your desktop look just like you want it to look like as a user and to behave. My desktop right now looks simply amazing, yet is really fast and everything is at hand. My girlfriend uses it every time she comes, all my friends really love the way it's set up and even my mom used it and didn't have a problem doing everything she needed to do.For sure. This is a good step. But part of the problem is with the overall look of it. Red Hat 7.3, for example, with probably the biggest marketing department in the Linux world, comes with a highly saturated eye-straining blue background [kde.org].
Contrast this to the relatively neutral backgrounds of Windows and Mac environments, and it looks more like we're trying to sell a product than design something useful out of the box.
Even XP's default meadow is less eye-straining.
If some Joe Sixpacks can't figure out how to move the Windows taskbar to someplace they like better, do you really think they'll change the backgrounds and skins to something less displeasing? The desktop's defaults must be *neutral*, *inoffensive* and *non-eyestrain-inducing* out of the box with *every* distribution.
- and for the support thing, companies like Suse, RedHat, Mandrake, etc... DO offer commercial (cheap) support for pretty much all the applications shipped with their distributions, in fact, and I speak from experience, these companies go way beyond that by helping out users with applications not "officially" supported, and also collect bug-reports and offer patches to the original developer of the software to fix the problem for them (http://www.redhat.com/bugzilla) for example.Who do you call when you need support with OpenOffice or xine? I haven't tried either; I've got the luxury of being able to pursue the source code.
I do know that at one of my former employers - a huge defense contractor staffed by engineers and computer scientists - we spent a lot of our IT budget on calls to Microsoft looking for support on how to create PowerPoint slides with embedded video and other dead-easy things like that.
Sucky as that may be, it's reality for lots of organizations. We have to address that.
- Whoever wrote that has NO idea of how much a business license for Microsoft Windows costs... it's not even close to $200. Tell this person to add many zeros to that number.Sorry. $299, according to the Microsoft website, for Windows XP Professional, in single units, as a standalone operating system instead of an upgrade.
It remains that the purchase price is a very, very small part of the total cost of ownership.
I think linux is still very young on the desktop OS market but it's doing a great job and I'm very impressed by how fast it's moving forward...This is true, but let's stop kidding ourselves about it being ready. It's not ready for the desktop yet [glowingplate.com].
Linux has made amazing strides since its inception a mere 10 years ago. It's already a secure and stable server operating system, with mature tools for sysadmins.
But it's still at workstation space. We can take heart; it's more usable on the desktop than a $30,000 Sun workstation, but it's still not ready to supplant Windows yet.
The biggest obstacles are not the Linux kernel, or even Linux itself, of course. The obstacles are a fast, feature-filled and stable desktop metaphore (be it KDE or Gnome or whatever) with good *USER* applications readily available. (Don't even bother sending me flames telling me that vi is the greatest word processor ever made because Joe Sixpack isn't gonna even gonna figure out how to bring up the help screen.)
KDE, Gnome, Evolution, OpenOffice, etc... all these software are working on a new development version right now that's purely amazing... I can't wait to see what it will be like by the end of the year 2003!I can't wait to see what it's like 20 years from now.
I've been waiting 15 years to see the end of Windows.
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.
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.
Re:Linux is NOT ready for the desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
However, when we say it's not ready for the desktop let's be clear about who are our target users. Are we talking about business or home use? Both have very different needs.
There are office packages for Linux that will do everything that a business needs and there are mail clients and web browsers and various financial packages both open source and proprietary that will do nicely.
No, I think that we are VERY close to being business desktop ready. It's the home user that I think will be harder to please. Mostly in the area of games. Linux has proven to be a vary capable gaming platform. Quake 3 is still very popular and has a native Linux port that has better frame rates than does the Windows version (See Tom's Hardware for benchmarks.) My point being that the lack of gaming support is not a technical issue but rather a financial issue. We are kind of in a catch 22. We need users (who are willing to pay for programs) to draw large software shops to write popular applications but we need large software shops to write popular applications to draw users who are willing to pay for applications.
I know that Linux has a ton of applications and a lot of them are very high quality. However without these application getting any publicity no one but us geeks know about them.
Microsoft is doing it's best to stop the spread of Linux and open source software but they will lose the battle eventually. With their enormous resources they may be dead and still twitching for a long, long time. If they were smart they would see the writing on the wall and adapt. But there are too many egos at stake and they are too entrench in the old style of control to do so. It would be better for them to bend like the reed instead to trying to stand like the oak. Oh well, it is for them to sort out.
Anyway, look for Linux to start taking the desktop within three to five years. Maybe not in the United States first but security issues will start to move other governments away from Redmond's OS and to open source. There is no other way that they can be sure that the software does not include backdoors mandated by the US for spying purposes. Any foreign leader who knows about the presidential jet that we sold to China knows that the US government will order companies to install spying devices. It would be foolish to believe that we would order these devices put on a jet but not order Microsoft to put spying abilities into the versions of their OS that gets sold out of country. (Or maybe even within the US also.)
too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:too late (Score:5, Informative)
People who want a UNIX desktop but still want to run Photoshop, Quicken, Office, etc.? MacOS X can.
Re:too late (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, (actually that first paragraph was half-serious), has everyone forgotten that every six months (since 1986!) Ziff-Davis predicts that Apple will be brankrupt by the end of the year? Clearly, they know what they are talking about.
Only just recently they have started claiming that Linux will take over the desktop; which, as a Linux advocate, I think is just silly. Then again I'm just a programmer, not a journalist. At least they have finally realized that it won't *ever* have a larger desktop user base than Windows. I don't ever expect them to realize that open source simply cannot tackle proprietery software until we have some sort of major economic and social revolution.
Without support for mainstream media (WiMP, QT, Flash 6, Real), Microsoft Office, and DirectX (negotiable, but witness how many games use the "industry standard" OpenGL), Linux can't even get a seat to watch the game, let alone actually play. Sure WINE is an incredible and useful hack, but it'll be another 2 years at least until setup and compatibility are useful to semi-computer-literate folk, forget about grandma. By the time WINE is ready for the mainstream, Microsoft will make sure it is illegal, at least in the US. Cleanroom reverse-engineering is only semi-legal now, thanks to the DMCA. Even if WINE is legal at that point, it would in and of itself remain a reason to develop only for Windows.
Every OS has its place... and its zealots. Linux and OS X are fantastic in their dedicated niches. Windows XP, as much as I hate to admit it, is a fairly versatile and well-rounded OS. It blows my mind to see free-software supporters drooling over some huge publishing corporation *speculating* that a free software product *might* gain market share. What market? It's free, so there's no market, at least not in the traditional sense of the word. What are the bean counters counting? Some people sound like they are just itching to sell out. Hint: the moment you sell out, you eliminate your most sought-after advantages.
I know this is Slashdot, but can we please try to be realistic? The computer indutry is and always will be extremely volatile, but Microsoft, Apple, and Linux have endured the test of time. They are here to stay, all for different reasons. They all take repeated beatings that would demoralize and sink many other companies/organisations/communities. Just use what you like/need, or any combination thereof.
(No, I'm not new here. Yes, I have a Linux box in my closet. Yes, my cable modem router is a Linux box too. Yes, they both run Debian. Yes, I will miss boot-floppies. Yes, the box on my desktop runs OS X. Yes, I use Windows Evil License Edition too, but only at work. No, I never clicked 'Agree', although yes, I clicked 'Submit'.)
Re:too late (Score:3, Informative)
MPlayer is awesome. I guarantee it can play every single video file you have on your computer right now, and every one you're likely to come across surfing the web. When did you last try it? Yes, it supports Sorenson now. And WMV. And Real. And DivX. All out-of-the-box, all in one player, with no DRM, auto-updaters, horrible licenses, or advertisements.
Star/OpenOffice opens Microsoft Office documents perfectly. Other open-source office efforts are leveraging this code to produce their own document filters.
Cutting-edge games are still a problem. But there are lots of people who don't play games on their computers other than Solitaire and Space Cadet Pinball. And computer games are becoming less relevant as consoles become more and more powerful.
I'd say the Linux desktop's time is near. The pieces are falling into place.
Isn't this title silly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. (Score:4)
Riiight..because Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X are the only Operating Systems in existance [google.com].
Re:Right. (Score:2)
Re:Right. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Right. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isn't this title silly? (Score:2)
Am I the only one who read the title and initially thought they were saying Linux on the desktop is crap now?
Re:Isn't this title silly? (Score:5, Funny)
not even mentioning that the average lindows installation lasts about 15 minutes before it's replaced with a pirated version of XP.
you can't get accurate numbers from sales. maybe from browser stats.
Oh no, number two jokes. (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know, it's been a long time since I ran an M$ O$. Here is a good run down of Number Two:
There you have it, number two on your desktop. Cross platform and all, so long as your PC does not blue screen, even M$ users can enjoy this post.
I believe it (Score:2, Funny)
#2 don't mean nothing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Number 1 is everything, there IS NO SECOND PLACE. Just ask Mac Users. It has to be MS Word, Excel spread sheets, etc.
The fact is #2 is a far distant second, and any user of a PC doesn't want "second rate" suite" on his desktop.
You have to give FULL COMPATABLE options, and until people want something other than .doc or .xls like .a general format that is open, there is no second.
The ONLY chance you have is to make pdf (yet another commercial format, not acceptable) or .rtf, or something... Until that gets to be number 1, there is no second place.
You have to win the generic formats before you can win freedom from Microsoft.
Re:#2 don't mean nothing... (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously, we are pretty well off, fast machines, better OS, Mac versions of Office and the like are better than on the PC.
As for office formats, I have two open source office progs downloaded here which read
So yeah, my machine could be Microsoft free right this instant. Office Mac is that only thing I have right now from M$ (ditched IE for Chimera months ago).
Plenty of Games on the Mac, I think more big titles have come out in the last two years than in the history of the Mac itself. So no trouble there either.
For everything else, there is some software that can handle it on the Mac and most of it is better than equivalent PC software and with OS X, a lot of great open source projects have come into the Mac world as well.
So yeah, you can be M$ free and more than happy with it. You can also be #2 or even #3 and happy as well. The bottom line is, it matters what you do with your machine, not how popular it is.
Re:#2 don't mean nothing... (Score:2)
Eventhough you said #2 is nothing, yet it is an *important* milestone for Linux. Look... in order to beat #1 from essentially nothing, being #2 is an achievement of its place.
Being #2, companies *will* consider making drivers in Linux and thus will further propel Linux popularity.
Being #2, people will *at least* linger at Linux and study whether it is a truly viable alternatives as vaunted by many.
Being #2, world governments *will* consider adoptions wishing to be free from Microsoft's shackles.
In short, there are *lots* of possibilities of being #2. Don't vanquish it, but keep the zeal burning -- lest the true goal of being #1 won't be reachable.
Re:#2 don't mean nothing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets compare computers to cars for a second. Do you think Porsches are the most sold cars in the world? Probably not. And yet, I haven't seen Porsche complain that their sales are disgraceful.
Being the most used product in the world doesn't make it the best product in the world.
Until recently, Apple has thrived on innovating great technology (Luxury), and not making affordable quick'n'dirty computers that sell.
I use Linux on my desktop at home and it works fine for all my needs. Maybe Linux doesn't need to be #1 on the desktop.
Linux shouldn't be about being #1 on the Desktop, Linux should be about being the first to introduce a UI even better than the Desktop that both Apple and M$ have to copy just to keep up.
BSD on the Desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:BSD on the Desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
Caveat: Apple brought a BSD-core, with a pretty Aqua GUI on top to the desktop. Not to be pedantic (although I am going to be), but OS X's desktop has little to do with BSD.
Took Microsoft 8 years to own the desktop (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Took Microsoft 8 years to own the desktop (Score:2)
Whats your point? I wouldnt care if it took linux 20 years to 'rule the desktop' as long as it does it
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.
PROOF AT LAST!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Ofcourse, it works like a charm on the desktop. (Score:2)
Yes, you are obviously one of those that wants linux to be free, come with a technician 24/7 free of charge and be paid to use it.
Sorry but linux cant afford you, go on using something else.
Re:Ofcourse, it works like a charm on the desktop. (Score:5, Insightful)
IE a killer app, of what, security? There are plenty of browsers now that has gotten way ahead in features, adherance to standards and functioning. IE is actually lagging behind right now.
Office is something that most people use to write letters and occasionally some spreadsheets. Its overkill in 90% of the userbase. Most people could cope with notepad if they could just read what other sent them in doc format. Being able to read other peoples Office documents is the number one reason people use Office.
Open Office and a bunch of other replacements exists already and more is coming this way fast. The browser is perfect now in linux, next stop Office Applications!
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:A Long Way To Go (Score:2)
about 20% of the people I know use Linux all the time. There demographic is varied, from homemakers to software engineers, to people who use computer only from email.
I can count the number of people I know who use a Mac on one hand, with no fingers.
"Why spend time in emacs messing with config files just to make stuff work."If this were 1998, that would be a true statement.
You like using your appliance, please go right ahead.
Re:A Long Way To Go (Score:2)
It must have been a while since you had a look at linux based desktops and were having to "mess with emacs config files". Things have come quite a way since then: hopefully if you choose to check back and run a linux box you will be pleasantly surprised.
BTW; I have 2 Linux Desktops, 2 Macs here, 2 Amigas, 1 Acorn and a few Sinclairs here - I love diversity!
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:There's a good reason why Linux isn't #1 or #2. (Score:2)
It's unfortunate, but true. I also use linux - and love it. I use it enough to know very well I could (with minor sacrifices) dump my Mac and use nothing but Linux.
I also know that I'm not in the majority, and the people who are not into using-computers-for-the-sake-of-using-computers have a completely different set of priorities than I do. My clients, relatives, friends who aren't geeks, workmates - don't want to "use an OSS system" or "use a free OS" or "use an elegant solution" or "use what is technically brilliant". They want to click and type and send emails. They want to press a button and have their digital pics up. they want to "download the internet".
Any OS can do that, but only one has the absolute mass to continuously carry itself through mindshare of people who spend 99.99% of their lives NOT computing.
Easier to who? (Score:3, Insightful)
As for how easy the operating system is to use for the standard home user, that can be debated rather easily, and again, if you worked IT and actually dealt with this stuff, then you would already know everything that I was about to say. It isn't easier, it is more famailar. You're stupid, congrats.
Well, let's compare Windows XP and RedHat 8.0. (Score:2)
OK, I have my monitor, keyboard, mouse, sound card and speakers, printer, graphics card, scanner, modem and digital camera.
Windows is compatible with all of it.
Linux is compatible with all of it but the modem and the digital camera. The only reason I can type this now is because I got an external serial modem to replace my softmodem, at a cost of £70 - or about $110.
So, from my POV, Linux probably won't be as compatible with my existing hardware as Windows XP without cashing out.
Unrealized Potential (Score:4, Interesting)
So what is it? Microsoft knows it's coming. What's missing?
This is an exciting time (Score:5, Interesting)
Seeing those Lindows boxes at WaLMart kinda reminds me of the computing scene in the 80's. There were all kinds of different technologies coming out, and competing with each other. You could walk into any electronics store and find some brand of computer, peripherals and software for sale.
IMO It was a period of excitement and innovation. It felt good to me personally. There were so many choices to be made.
Open source, has that feeling of goodness about it. Change, innovation, choice.
What I'm trying to say is that this is the first time since the late 80's/early 90's that I feel good about consumer options for software.
It's only 1 OS on sale at 1 store, but it is a start. Hopefully other vendors will be brave enough to put together solutions, and stores will be brave enough to put them on the shelves.
I think it's time everyone stands up to the evil empire.
Sure, standardization was good. But monopolistic practices, forced licenses, security holes, bloated OS code, and applications is starting to suck. It's time to shake up the industry a little folks.
not enough apps? (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux just needs ONE major box shipper like dell to even offer it as an option-that's it, it'll "take" just swell. Have the same exact box, one has borg, the other has a penguin, with 100$ (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".
Re:not enough apps? (Score:2)
It already happened. Gateway and Dell. It was a flop. The programs were discontinued, as far as I know.
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
#1, #2, and "everybody else". (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people look at the computer world the same way. You support the #1 platform, and maybe the #2 "to be diverse", and everybody else can go hang. It's _hard_ to make a business case to support anybody else, it's a case of diminishing returns with each new platform and the slope is STEEP.
The macintosh has been #2 since the mid 80's. Platforms like the amiga and OS/2 learned this. Pure java only got attention because it ran on Windows too. Even when the macintosh wasn't particularly significant (just before Steve Jobs came back), people were used to THINKING of it as #2, and targetting their retail software developent and hardware driver support that way. It will come as a surprise to a lot of people when it loses that spot. Confirming it will be news, and not just in the geek world but magazine covers and television evening news.
Now these days, the macintosh is a unix platform. If the mac loses its #2 position on the desktop, Jobs will just claim "we're unix, #2 is unix and that's us". Okay. Jobs does NOT want to give up the marketing advantage of being the "designated alternative", but WHEN the macintosh loses the #2 spot, he may be graceful about it since he does have a fallback marketing position. (You may have notice that on the tech side, he's trying to diversify into the server space.)
But right now, porting to linux without first porting to the macintosh is a really hard sell in a corporate environment, and after the mac port you have to sell linux AGAIN. (P.S. Try doing that sort of thing in the gaming environment, where windows as #2 to the playstation.)
Rob
(P.S. The "desktop" niche is dying, the laptop niche is what everybody should be worrying about. And apple's still doing REALLY nicely there...)
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
Linux Has Always Been #2 On The Desktop (Score:2)
Slashdot--straight lines for scatological humor, stuff that splatters.
Why, just the other night I fired up Mozilla, X froze, and waddya know--Linux did #2 on my desktop.
Come on, join in. It's easy.
Why it will never be Number One. (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple fact is that X-Windows was never intended to do what we expect it to do these days. It was not designed to be an end-user desktop. While it does have neat abilities, like being able to access workstations across a network, end users don't care about those. End users care about the desktop being fast and responsive. Two things that X-Windows is not. X-Windows also knocks the claim that Linux needs less processor power and RAM than MS Windows right into the dirt.
Before Joe Sixpack will use Linux there needs to be a standardization of the UI. A standard that ALL graphical programs adhere to. No if ands or buts. One standard. While the myriad of widgets and environments give power users and geeks the freedom to tweak their systems or programs enay way they want, all of this "choice" just confuses the hell out of the end user. While MS Windows might not be completely consistant, it is enough that the average user can get used to it. Almost every Windows program (save for those nightmares with skins) look and act like Windows, in a manner that most users expect.
Yes, this means that either KDE or Gnome will have to die. End users don't want to have to chose what UI they use. They want one interface they can learn and be done with it.
No end user wants to edit text files. Nor should they EVER have to. This is 2003, not 1975. The days of rooting through a confusing mess of directories for boot scripts is (or should be) over.
No end user wants to compile anything. Ever. Sure, power users and old-hand Linux users might enjoy it, but they are not the people we are concerned with. Until a MS Windows user can effortlessly install ANY program with just a few mouse clicks they are going to stay away.
End Users do not care about running FTP servers and web serves from their desktops. Why bog down a system with all these useless processes they are not ever going to use, and that leave these system more vulnerable than a Windows 2000 system?
Nothing, but nothing turns off a potential Linux convert than having to dig through piles of posts, to Usenet or forums like
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:Why it will never be Number One. (Score:3, Insightful)
XFree86 evolved together with Linux. Today it's fast and stable. Choose FVWM2 or other simple environment to see. KDE and GNOME are still young, but litterally tomorrow (GNOME 2.2 and KDE 3.1) they promise to become adult. So, the problem is almost solved. OpenGL is probabaly the rest to solve.
The Adoption Of A Single, Standardized Interface Design.
Typically you choose you desktop at the installation time (each commercial leading distro have one by default for you ) and you have it consistent untill you change your opinion. So, the choice is not a bad thing, once you have a choice to do not choose :)
Make Graphical Setup "Wizards" For Everything.
Working on it. Compare most of commercial leading distros with what they had two years ago. Today we've got Webmin and several ncurses-based, gnome-based and kde-based configuration wizards/dialogs. Not bad.
Binary Distributions For Everything.
I didn't recompile kernel after installation RH and YDL in their last releases. All modules has been pre-installed and ready for being configured to start. Seems the problem is solved at least in leading commercial distros.
Workstation Configurations With Dangerous Deamons (ftpd, httpd, etc...) Turned Off By Default.
Check latest RH. Solved.
Linux Evangelists Stop Insulting MS And Its Users.
Solved. Linux evangelists now mod-up good criticism about Linux and good feedbacks about Windowz, when it's construcive, logical, proved.
Now ./ has another problem:
MacOSX Evangelists Should Stop Insulting Linux And Its Users.
Seriously, try just to ask "why OSX?" and you will be immediately mod-down without even any attempt to answer for your question. In best case you'll get several similar to each other comments like "OSX is cool!" without any explanation of it.
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:DVDs? (Score:3, Insightful)
wild guesses (Score:5, Insightful)
I also don't see any good way to determine Linux's market share.
But paid shipments tell us absolutely nothing. It's possible that Linux's share of the desktop is much higher, because it's still pretty hard to find intel boxes without Windows on them, so people buy Windows boxes, erase Windows, and install Linux. It's possible that Linux's share is much lower, as well; some people probably buy a low-end intel machine with Linux preinstalled from Walmart or Fry's, then erase Linux and put a bootleg copy of Windows on it (or install a copy of Windows they bought before for a different machine).
And finally, we don't know what's the percentage of dual-boot users. That means Windows' market share plus Linux's market share could easily add up to more than 100%
the sound of the Empire collapsing (Score:4, Insightful)
One small observation, in fact, has led me to reconsider the whole Open Sores development model. Why do the developers always assume that I've got nothing better to do than compiling a kernel just so my sound will work, or tweaking directory names just so my libraries won't clobber each other, or other stupid things that are a complete waste of time for anybody besides a developer??? Don't they know ANYthing about releasing "gold code" by now? I wonder if anybody in the crowd (besides the sound driver authors) even have working speakers attached to their machines. If it weren't for Mandrake, nobody would have working sound without a non-trivial amount of tweaks. Speaking of tweaks.....
Most of all, though, I just want automount to work right. Windows has had that feature for - oh, about 8 years now. Is this so much to ask?????
I suspect that if people really wanted Linux on the desktop then we'd have USB support that rivals Win95 OSR2 by now.
Case in point: Linux is a pain. Linux is a server OS. Forget about dethroning MS, it ain't gonna happen.
Re:the sound of the Empire collapsing (Score:3, Insightful)
You're completely right that Joe Average wants nothing to do with recompiling kernels. But since you seem willing to tweak directory names when necessary, why not try Gentoo [gentoo.org]? The Portage system they have developed is pure genius, as far as I can tell. It does all the directory tweaking for you!
IanRe:the sound of the Empire collapsing (Score:3, Informative)
Holy FUD.
I can't comment on everything you said (I don't run mandrake). However:
Your arguments were relevant 5 or 6 years ago. And OO.o boots in about 5-6 seconds for me.
So seriously. At least try a distribution that tries to meet your standards before you condemn all things linux.
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.
Re:the sound of the Empire collapsing (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, Windows Update is great! MS has really got that one nailed down. Applying hotfixes to your os is as easy as pie now.
I'm also really glad that MS has a tool that keeps the thousands of software packages I could have installed on my system up to date with just a couple of simple click!. I can update all my office software, my compilers, editors, media players, etc. Why the hell would I want to try and track down updates to the 40 different apps I use every day when Windows Update does them all in one?
Oh wait, Windows Update updates my OS and my browser, which is apparently part of the OS. Nothing more. Face it, urmpi, or whatever, might not have been perfect but there is NOTHING like it in the Windows world. Debian has now got over 3,000 packages which all seem to play quite well with each other via apt-get from my experience, and I can update every single app in two single commands. I could make it one and put a shiny icon on my desktop if I felt like it, but I don't.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they seem similar, but even Windows Update doesn't update all of your MS software in one fell swooop. Shit, on an outdated box it'll take 3-10 reboots to get Win2k up to speed. That's nutty -- I just upgrade an old Debian 2.2 box to Debian 3.0 without a reboot, and nothing broke. Not a single app out of the 300 or so installed on it.
As soon as Windows Update can do my OS, my browser, my development environment (Visual Studio), my DB management software (SQL Server Enterprise Manager) and my office software, we'll have something to quibble about. I can understand that it doesn't update my standard text editor (vim), as that's not an MS product, but even their own stuff doesn't have a one-stop shop for all their software updates.
That's just sad, considering many Windows advocates proclaim that they simplified the desktop by making everything just like every other application. Please -- give me a break.
Find any app that'll do that on Windows and just watch it crumble. You might say it's impossible because Windows has too many apps, which I would agree with, but it can't even update the MS software on it's own. Sad -- just sad.
Justin Buist
Murder by death (Score:2)
"In my book, you'll always be number 2."
Great movie.
The linux desktop will dominate corporate first (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Don't push for linux on the desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to see the success of alternative OSes, don't push for linux on the desktop - push for open standards and cross platform programs. Right now, I can sit down at a linux machine or a windows machine, and use Open Office, Mozilla, the Gimp, Blender, and a ton of other programs. That is good.
I don't want to be tied to Microsoft. That doesn't mean I want to be tied to Linux either. (Although Linux would be a gentler master then windows). I prefer to have applications divorced from the data files which are divorced from the underlying OS. I don't want YetAnotherAudioApp that has its own enhanced file format that isn't cross platform. I want mp3s, I want oggs. I don't want to save my work in the unknown Microsoft Office whatever .doc format. Hell, I don't really like saving it in Open Office's .sxw really, but I know if its in .sxw, I could figure out the file format without too much difficulty, and at least Open Office is cross platform.
If you don't keep data in proprietary formats, its harder to get screwed in the long run.
Not according to Google... (Score:4, Interesting)
Lame, lame, lame. (Score:3, Insightful)
These never were the goals, and they will never be the goals. Posting articles like this makes it look like this is some kind of war, which it is not. Who the hell cares if M$ owns the desktop? The point is not to be #1, it is to make good, free (as in speech) software, for the sake of making it. It is an artistic endeavor, not a business endeavor, or haven't you all even looked at gnu.org [gnu.org]? As long as there are artists, there will be an audience that wants to see what is being created. And, beyond that, there is the joy of creating. All of this talk of an OS battle completely misses the point.
B
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.
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.
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.
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)
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...
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:2)
hahah, you're going to kick me
No, that's a great choice if it fits your needs!
Seting up X11 has really gotten better on almost all Linux distibutions and Unix like OSes. Mandrake is actually easier than Windows XP! No hunting down drivers for odd chipsets! FreeBSD has a GUI based setup that is rather odd, but gets the job done.
The GUI front has really progressed quickly in the last 18 months. It's literally gone form complete suckyness to darn-right OK. In the next 6 months, if the curent pace is kept, XP will look lame.
BeOS was darn fun - It's still impressive. It really sucks that Be isent around to kick around.
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.
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:4, Interesting)
Your mileage might vary, but I'm very interested in these projects...
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:2, Insightful)
To me, "desktop" signifies a tightly-integrated set of design concepts, executed in mostly-stable code, creating a fully-graphical computing experience that enhances your work. I've only ever seen one OS pull that off - BeOS. Windows XP comes close, but on Slashdot that might not be a valid opinion
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:4, Insightful)
You are correct, and they would be much better off if they didn't. For a networkable client-server GDI XWindow System works wonderfully. For a a desktop system it's farking horrible, relatively speaking. Many of it's "FEEL" issues, the least of which have to do with performance and usability, carry over into the "upper layers" and are noticable in KDE and GNome. That is to say, the flaws that are easily felt in XWindows alone still peek through KDE and Gnome, leaving me to believe the problem is with X, not the other way around.
The way Mac went with OS X would be a great way for a free alternative clone (of OS X) to go. X just has too much support(...well...) for people to give up on it no matter how much it sucks for a personal computer desktop environment. Linux will never have the share of users it deserves until everyone can collectively break the mindset that X is the Unix desktop. Unfortunately, for the moment X -IS- the Unix desktop and that's why Linux holds 2nd place in a one horse race.
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct, and they would be much better off if they didn't.
I humbly disagree - the three things that suck about the free X Windows System, in my dumb opinion, are: sucky mouse cursors, screwy anti-aliasing, shitty fonts and buggy alpha channels.
Fortunalty, all these problems with the X Windows System are being fixed as we speek. The trauma of removing X11 and replacing it with somthing else (somthing else that probably has suckyness of it's own) is probably more than just fixing X11.
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:2)
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:5, Insightful)
That has ever been the bane of Linux and is partially why it is such a poor choice for the desktop. Geeks say, "yes, but you can do that by doing. . ." and then list off a done of archane processes no regular human would remember or expect to know unless someone told them.
I like Linux and OpenBSD a lot. Use them a fair bit. But lets be honest. Typically installing software, doing updates, and so forth are *difficult*. Further getting things the way you want is as well. The problem is that Geeks who are used to doing that stuff have made fairly difficult things second nature. They are sufficiently used to it that they have a blind spot when it comes to the difficulties involved.
Making a good desktop computer involves much more than a nice windowing system. It means never having to play with a dozen text files listing archane commands. It means not having to buy an O'Reilly book when you want to do something. It means things work in an intuitive, expect fashion. Both Apple and Microsoft realize this.
Linux is powerful. But easy? Ha.
I've not used Lindows, but I halfway wonder what will happen when Grandma wants to run something that requires an upgrade.
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why Linux will take the corporate desktop long before the home desktop.
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:2)
No, They wouldnt, And neither would we(the users).
If KDE and Gnome were each standalone apps that both reinvented the wheel for everything, You wouldnt be able to run Gaim in KDE, konquer in Gnome, or any gtk/qt apps with a better(for power users like myself) wm [fvwm2, *box].
Luckily KDE/Gnome are on top of X, so everything is nice and crossplatform.
MOD PARENT DOWN! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! (Score:2)
Most people criticizing X Windows don't know what they are talking about. Usually the talk is about the user interface which is in fact implemented by something like KDE or Gnome, or even simpler stuff like a plain window manager. Sure I don't think neither KDE nor Gnome is perfect yet. They are still too unstable. And in every revision the interface is improved in some way while it gets worse in other ways. Why can't I just configure the interface to get the best from every version? And finally they are way too much bloat, they gets slower and slower as I upgrade to newer versions.
But if we take the talk back to X Windows that is a really good design. Network transparancy works like a charm. It is portable, interoperable, and extensible. What more can you ask for? Surely XFree86 is not always perfectly stable, but it never caused me enough trouble to make me care enough about it to track down the problems. All I know is that once in a while it crashes on VC switching, but except from this minor glitch, it has been working just fine since I upgraded to RH7.2.
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is the name of the X Window System ANY different from the name of Winamp (which many call "WinAMP" or "WinAmp"), the name of the Mac (which many call the "MAC"), the name of Microsoft (i can't even begin to list the number of "alternate" spellings for this), the name of Windows (which many call "Windoze" or "Winblows"), the ellipsis ("...", which most fucktards write as ".."), any mispunctuated or misspelt word or sentence, the abbreviation "etc." (which many write as "etc" or "ect")... why don't you take time out of your zealot lives to correct all THOSE typos every single time they come up? Really, what the Hell is the big deal with "X Window System" that it needs to have a dozen persons pointing out its proper name in every discussion?
For the record, i'm not trolling. I truly don't understand why that has to be brought up so often. How does choosing not to write out "the X Window System" == "little credibility"?
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:3, Funny)
Heh. Mission failed.
Re:X-Windows ... eww, smelly (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, it does the job of being the foundation of a basic desktop system. After installation and proper configuration (which most distros get right by now), most users won't even notice the difference. There are specialized libraries for direct rendering, and games performance is not an issue. Driver availability is OK and getting better.
The problem is that X is such a mess that the traditional open source collaboration model doesn't work too well. There are only relatively few people hacking on the project -- it doesn't even have a Bugzilla and according to Keith Packard, one of the real X gurus, doesn't want one because there aren't enough people to deal with the bug reports. Just look at their gopher-era homepage [xfree86.org] to get an impression about their professionality. 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.
X would be fixable in a dedicated corporate effort (if IBM got their act together and started pushing LOTD it would not be an issue), otherwise open source will slowly evolve it into something more usable. Whether a competing GUI system will reach this state sooner remains to be seen.
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
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.
Re:Linux as No. 2 (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, as apple.com base major decisions on 'oooh look what I read on slashdot'.
Apple knows (Score:2)
I also think they are in a 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' position with OS X/x86. If they don't release it, then the price differential between PCs will just get larger and if they jump onto the PC platform and compete directly with MS, then Office and IE for the mac will go probably away. I will just continue to use Linux and Windows because they do what I need. If Apple ever gets the nads to come out with an OS that runs on my hardware, I'll buy a copy. That will be about their best bet for holding onto the #2 spot for desktop systems.