Perens: Unite behind Debian, UserLinux 745
An anonymous readers writes "Infoworld is running a report on the Desktop Linux Conference, at which Bruce Perens suggested that in order to get Linux to the enterprise desktop, the Linux community should base their efforts on one single distribution... based on Debian.
Perens went on to say that enterprises will be willing to pay Linux companies to engineer versions of Linux to suit their needs, but that the base distro should remain free. He suggested that by 2006, 30% of enterprise desktops will run Linux." Here is a wired story with more information about his proposed UserLinux project.
That would never work... (Score:5, Insightful)
That would work... (Score:2, Insightful)
For a home user, who cares.. for business its a hindrance..
Re:That would work... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That would work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Good Idea!
There should be a "simple" Linux that is designed for home users to use to turn an old PC into a fileserver.
I'm thinking something that will install Knoppix style, load a simple config wizard that will setup DHCP, Samba in NT emulation mode, etc. Such a thing is very doable with linux, we should make it one click to setup (Byte me, Amazon!)
Then, in the future, if the user wants to, he can begin fiddling with things directly.
I'm talking p
Re:That would work... (Score:2)
You mean for lazy employees who don't observe due diligence or the proposal process and just go with whatever looks good, its a hinderance. For everyone else, they look at the facts, narrow it down to a few choices based on input from outside, then analyze the pros and cons of each of the remaining sources, and make a final proposal, which is then reviewed and either approved or declined. Too bad theres so few of the latter, might have saved a number of
Re:That would work... (Score:2)
Re:That would work... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a geek, and I really don't care about choice. As far as I'm concerned, there's only a handful of good distros out there, and even then, that's stretching it. I'd consider Red Hat, Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian, and Slackware. Everything else is window dressing for those that want "choice". In fact, now that I think about it, Gentoo, Debian, and Slackware aren't very user friendly, so just lump those in with the other "choices" too.
Start maintaining mach
Re:That would work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mhh, I'd suggest you go in other direction. For example, why not install Debian or Gentoo on a friends computer, and then teach them to use apt-get or emerge. Or maybe, tell him to give you a call if he ever has a new need (game, whatever). Then you can tell him: type "emerge doom3" or "emerge whatever". Of course, you'd leave sshd installed and will cron update on already installed packages.
You don't even need to explain anything to the user. Really. Now if you only had mentioned Slackware or the likes, yes, that one I will only install on some servers and make sure they are lightweight, and vulnerabilities do not pop-up. These babies work GREAT, but must be babysitted (though I've found I really know what's going on and no side effects will be expected).
Re:That would work... (Score:5, Insightful)
The system is a vanilla install with some extra game packs, Evolution, Mozilla, and KDE. Nothing fancy.
If my kid can do it with next to no training aside from a basic understanding of how to use a GUI based operating system, I have a hard time believing adults who have been working with computers for several years or more would have trouble with it.
When it comes down to it, people like to complain about change, so they make excuses about why they aren't adopting linux. "But it's harder to use," "It doesn't have enough software," "It doesn't have any GUI tools" are excuses I hear all the time.
If they would simply try a current version of linux, maybe use it for a week or two, they would find that none of these excuses are true of modern linux distributions.
Re:That would work... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just to give you a little background, I've been running Linux at home, starting with Slackware, moving to Red Hat, and trying out Debian, for 7 years. I've managed a remote datacenter of 10 Linux boxes with nothing but ssh and the occasional use of a cyclades terminal server for when things get really fubar (like the nfs server got a little hosed and i couldn't log into anything remotley). So I'm no stranger to building my own kernels and configuring hardware by hand, I just find Debian makes it so much harder than it needs to be.
Re:That would work... (Score:5, Funny)
Better games? Better games?
Go out and buy her some commercial games, you old cheapskate. Expecting a seven year old to be happy with just Solitaire verges on the abusive.
I call bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows XP blue screens? What are you trying to run it on, a p200? I think I've seen my win2k install blue screen like 2 or 3 times in as many years. I've also never seen (or heard people complaining about) XP blue screening.
Oh, but maybe it's all those memories of windows 95/NT from when she was what, 4?
Re:That would work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost any "perfectly average eight year old" child will be able to learn new things at an almost frightening pace. In fact, there is a good chance that it will not even need any manual, howto, or whatever. (Marginally example: my 3 year old son handles the CD player w/o problems. And I did not tell him how it works ...). Children are curious,
and curiosity is a major part of that thing called 'intelligence'.
Its the fourty years old grown-ups that are not able to handle Debian. Actually, they can't handle Windows XP either, but at least with WinXP, they think it is their fault ('everybody says it is user-friendly, so it must be me'), while with Debian they will inevitably blame Linux.
Re:That would work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, to live in your world! (No, really, where is this place? Tell me! Please! :( )
I'm constantly told exactly what software to use by managers who like to micromanage. Only seeing a nitch, filling it, and then announcing that the problem/issue is solved do I get to have any choice.
Re:That would work... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the story header: "at which Bruce Perens suggested that in order to get Linux to the enterprise desktop"
Thankfully, that excludes geeks like you (and me). Business has absolutely zero to do with such small quibbles on whether or not we geeks have choice and everything to do with what is a good business decision. There are points at which the two intersect but they are not either mutually inclusive or exclusive.
Human tendency especially among the informed/educated is to think to one's condition. "That isn't what I would want/do so it will fail." That line of thinking is usually not conducive to successful businesses.
"How will the business people know that UserLinux is the one true distro any more than they know that Debian is the one true distro now?"
Because if everyone in the Linux community unites behind one version for the defacto business standard, then they will know. Keep choice for those that want it. For those that don't give a flying four-door (insert your favorite four-letter) about whether it uses KDE or Gnome or OOo/Hancom/KOffice or for that matter what the hell it runs. They just want something that works.
In fact, while I am at it, this is what businesses want (I know because I run one):
Web Browser (again, flavor DOES NOT MATTER)
-Related browsing technology (Java, Flash, etc)
-No Pop ups
E-mail
-No Spam
-Easy attachments, etc.
-Free from virus concerns
Office Software
-Maximum compatibility desired (MS Office, Word Perfect, etc.)
Custom/Special Application compatibility
-This is the big showstopper
-Like it or not, there are businesses that will NOT consider Linux because simple apps like ACT 2000 will not work
-Wine/Codeweavers integration is a must
Central Authentication/Access Control
-It may already exist. I honestly don't know.
-Must work as simple or close to Windows Domains
-Must dictate what applications/security/settings are available to users that log in
-Must provide a central point to push new apps/bug fixes
-Should NOT require physical access to a machine EVER except for system problems
Windows Update-like mechanism (See Red Hat Up2Date)
-Again, this should be automatic to the end-user but updates pushed by admins (after proper testing, etc)
-Updates should be pushable by group (so that prioritization is possible)
Integrated Virus protection/Firewalling
-Just because a plethora of Viruses/Worms are not out there now doesn't mean they won't be later
-The Firewall settings should be set upon logging in (see the above)
Hardware Support
-No, we businesses don't care if we have the source for a scanner driver as long as it is free and works
-Again, do not confuse your condition to that of a business. Free first. OSS second.
ISV/Vendor Support
-Widely document the standard system
-Provide migration documents for migrating Windows apps to Linux
-Provide documents to train programmers that are Windows-centric to think on a Linux-level
There you go. My rendition of what it needs. I am sure there is more but those are the things I have encountered in Enterprise computing that without, Linux will NEVER unseat windows in a reasonable amount of time.
Feel free to tear my assertations apart.
Good post (Score:3, Informative)
Your list is not only accurate but pretty complete. With these things, almost any workplace can use Linux.
Here's the thing: All of those capabilities exist in the Linux world, but they are not all integrated seamlessly into any single system. They can be, of course
Re:That would never work... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easier to fork your own custom distro if all the packages out in the wild follow the same standards.
Re:That would never work... (Score:2)
Re:That would never work... (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, much of what goes into the four big distros is culled from the little ones-but the little ones often aren't suited for all-around use because they are developed with very certain featuresets in mind.
If I hire you to work on my network, I don't give a shit if you want to use some obsc
Unite behind Live CD's (Score:5, Interesting)
No gcc, no including twelve different versions of AWK; just the kernel, KDE or Gnome (pick just one), OpenOffice, games, and all the rest of the shit that makes everything go.
Right now, when you say "Linux" to a layperson, they don't know what the fuck you're talking about. A Live CD is a painless way for them to find out.
We can rebuild him. We have the technology.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:5, Informative)
Just to run it.
You can boot from a Live CD, play with Linux, then reboot, take the CD out, and resume your regularly scheduled programming under Windows.
This is the beautiful thing about Live CD's. If it's done right, the user is completely insulated from all the usual crap we have to do to make Linux work, and without assuming any risk whatsoever from the experience.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:2)
So they boot CD run Linux. The average user is going to be expecting a program, not an OS, even if you tell them that. They'll just think that it is a new desktop theme for Windows that doesn't work quite right. Sure, its free, but what does that mean to them? As far as they're concerned, they got Windows for free when they bought their PC.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:3, Funny)
I try not be so damned pessimistic about these kinds of things but I spend all day supporting these monkeys and I've reached the conclusion that there's almost no hope for them.
Some people will pick up on the differences but they're in the vast minority. Still I guess a few is better than none at all.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:2, Informative)
Good stuff - I've been running it as my primary distro for months now.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:2)
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, note that the most popular Live CD's either are Knoppix [knoppix.net] or are based on Knoppix. Knoppix itself is based on Debian, so supporting Debian is supporting Live CDs.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly why would someone running XP Home/Pro migrate to linux?
There has to be a killer reason to switch, maybe someone hit by one of the worms lately might, but that's still a minority of home users.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:2)
I'm guessing of course, but most novice users who are running XP are doing so because that's the OS that came with their machine.
But how many people are struggling along with their 386/486/Pentium I/II/III boxes running 95/98/98SE/ME or even NT/2K? And hating it? Because it's slow as shit?
Anybody who's even put Linux on their box that they just replaced knows exactly what I'm talking about. A lot of times it seems like Linux on
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly why would someone running XP Home/Pro migrate to linux?
Here are a few reasons that I've seen:
Those are off the top of my head, and from comments from real Windows users who are using/toying with Linux. I'm sure you can think of some more if you work at it. Few of the above reasons are adequate to justify a switch on their own, but several of them taken together often are.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:5, Interesting)
If Windows XP was NOT bundled with their computer OR they had to pay extra for it, then I believe that a small portion of the "mass" would switch. The same small "mass" of people who drive an extra 10 miles to Wallmart to save 10 cents on their soft drinks.
I was just having a discussion with a teen age relative of mine who loves Microsoft because one of his relatives works there. He has NO intention of ever using anyting but Microsoft. So I broke it down this way.
He will spend $600 for Office, $100-$300 for Windows XP. So lets go low and say that is $700. I won't go in to continual upgrade cost, but it should be mentioned. So he will spend $700 or more than someone who runs Linux and Open Office. Both would do the job for what he needs. So if he went with Linux he could....
1. Buy a new PS2 and some games AND
2. Buy a better video card AND
3. Buy a better hard drive AND
4. Buy a faster processor AND
5. Buy a new GameBoy with Games.
So I asked him... Wouldn't you like to have all that stuff? I do with the money I saved by not running Microsoft Office and XP at home. (I don't own a gameboy but he got the idea).
Cost does matter with Linux a lot for the masses. There needs to be a distro out there that is free or near free. There is a huge Linux market for the PC users who shop at Wallmart...
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
The best thing to do is exactly what you did, educate people and hope next time they do opt-out of having an OS installed.
Only time will tell.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
If most people didn't like Windows, they wouldn't need to accept it at all, because they'd already know they didn't like it.
The fact that you're arguing that people do need to accept it seems to imply precisely the opposite.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to do that. Now, if I touch anything on a Windows system outside of work, I make sure that the software isn't a petri dish waiting for a plauge. Firebird has been a welcome replacement for IE, and OpenOffice is also something folks tend to appreciate.
Discussing the problems with HTML email and how spammers abuse it also helps.
When they load on crap spy ware, I tell them not to do it -- remove it *once* -- and then if it happens again tell them to remove it themselves. The only help offered are pointers of where to go and a reminder why they really really don't want to load crap. Less is more for most Windows users.
Along the way, you bet I mention that these problems aren't a problem for me -- ever -- and why they aren't. Facts not propaganda.
why the hell would anyone NOT want to give all those things up especially on a box that is most used to surf the net and read emails?
Well, you're not really helping them by fixing these problems so often. They don't see much of a downside if you're thier tech support -- after all, you are the one dealing with it.
I know it's hard not to "help", though you have to ask if you are helping or drug-dealer-like providing a quick "fix" leaving the core problems intact.
Replacing Windows would be ideal, though in the short term get them to use software that isn't motivated by the pushy-salesman's idea of being helpful. Most open source projects are there to be helpful, not to sell you an upgrade and special 'deals' with partners through spam, deception, or simply changing all your default settings.
Remember to tell them you can't keep fixing thier computer if they can't use it properly. If they protest that they are ignorant and you are such a great computer guy -- ignore it and teach them the right way. If they protest the lessons do not cave in, cut them off!
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:5, Interesting)
As a new Linux user myself, I'd suggest KDE over Gnome if you want to draw new people in. Gnome is an excellent interface, but by my experience KDE seems much more familiar to someone who is used to the Windows environment, and overall it has a somewhat more polished feel to it. That familiarity will make your average user who's never used anything but Windows before much more likely to try it out, rather than giving up from the start because everything looks different than what they're used to.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:5, Interesting)
"Before settling on Ximian, Siemens evaluated plain vanilla Gnome and KDE as well. Siemens found KDE to be more "Windows-like" than Gnome, but that led to problems when non-technical users expected a more Windows-like experience. Gnome, particularly Ximian's version, was "different enough" to set user expectations that the experience would be less like Windows, which led to fewer adoption problems"
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say no to this suggestion. I used to run a customized version of KDE with the Windows look-and-feel. However, my non-techie room-mate didn't want to use it. For him, it was all rubbish on the screen, bloated and all. Don't get me wrong, KDE can be nice if you customize it as you want it to be.
So, instead of me telling my room-mate that it was what I used and basically forcing him to use it during the time when he
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:2)
my Linux newbie comment (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been patiently trying to build up and use my Suse 8.2 system.
My biggest complaints so far?
- I don't want to have to do black magic command line crap to install my NVIDIA drivers
- Although I definitely agree with the root/user separation, its a pain in the a$$ to keep getting assaulted with a root password prompt when I want to change a system setting (flame away)
- many of the programs don't seem polished; that is, they seem to crash at odd times or don't do what they said they would when I hit 'ok'. (??)
- the interface needs to be more polished for the average user who doesn't want to understand the technical aspects of what a link is or what HDA1 is...
I LOVE that Linux exists, and I am growing to love it more....BUT...I am not an "average" user. I am somewhere in the haze between advanced Windows weenie and low level Linux novice.
I don't care how many LiveCDs you ship to my father-in-law or my wife (as examples). If they can't install drivers and programs, configure their systems, and navigate their PCs _easily_ and through the GUI _only_ you won't have an ice-cube's chance in He11 of getting them to use Linux. Oh - and if they can't buy software (games) for it at Best Buy you're screwed too.
Average users want a tool that looks pretty, does neat things, and makes their lives easier/more entertained. They don't give a rat's behind about shell scripts, Xfree, Xserve, CUPS, gcc or whatever. It just confuses them and turns them OFF to the product.
Hope you find these comments contructive - they are not meant to assault.
Re:my Linux newbie comment (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyhow, I'll be 100% honest, if they want to use their PC to play games, Linux ain't where they should be. I've said this prolly 80 times before. I play games on my Linux box but I know / understand / accept that the selection is going to be limited.
I use to be all for Linux conquering the OS market but as time went on I came to understand that there's some desktop real estate that Linux shouldn't want to own. That segment is the home user that *thinks* they know what they're doing but really only know just enough to make a mess. I'd be happy to see Linux push MS out of the data center, off corporate desktops, and limit them to the mid range home user segment that's the source of 95% of all support problems.
Re:Unite behind Live CD's (Score:3, Insightful)
I still don't think the average user has any incentive to try Linux out. They don't feel the costs of Windows licensing because it came with their computer. They've been conditioned to expect the occasional email virus or system crash; to them it comes with the territory when using a computer.
Linux needs a killer app for the desktop market. Work-alikes fo
OT: Open Source (Score:5, Funny)
Debian minus freedom (Score:2, Informative)
"UserLinux would only depart from Debian for software that is not open source"
so, UserLinux will be Debian + proprietary software. A dissapointing step back in my opinion.
Re:Debian minus freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
A step back from what? Right now most US companies running a supported Linux in the enterprise are running Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and it comes with (or with support for) all the products they need, Ie. Java, Oracle, PowerPath, etc. etc. etc.
This is the same "argument" that RMS uses, Ie. It's better to have nothing than something. Life doesn't work like that, people always go for the path of least resistance. Hell even debian wasn't stupid enough to not have "netscape" available when that proprietry and the only real browser. Saying "It's not free" doesn't solve the problem of "I need, now" (and "need" is relative, some people "need" to be able to play proprietry games, etc.).
Re:Debian minus freedom (Score:3)
> A step back from what?
We have a complete Free OS and we have tonnes of Free Software. Some people will run proprietary on top of that Free OS. We can accept it but why should we be promoting proprietary software?
Great idea, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great idea, but... (Score:2)
So an enterprise won't run on a mix of testing and unstable, but it will run on the same software provided by someone else if they call it stable? If you are running an enterprise system, then any software used should be adequately tested. With debian stable the amount of testing you have to do drops to a minimum, with any other distro (where the packages are going to be far younger as is the source upon which they are based) you need to do a far more comprehensive test to establish the stability, secur
I was thinking.,. (Score:2, Insightful)
IN OTHER NEWS (Score:5, Funny)
Bill Gates made an interesting proposal that everyone use windows.
Scott McNealy outlined a plan he has in which everyone uses Solaris.
Larry Ellison, in a widely-publicized press conference, stated that everyone should give him money.
More on these sudden and shocking developments as news unfolds.
Odious (Score:5, Insightful)
With all due respect to Bruce.... (Score:4, Insightful)
In some respects I can see RedHat's position regarding the desktop, because for the majority of desktop users, Windows isn't "broken" and why switch if you don't have to? Servers are cake to argue because Linux IS so superior in many ways and that aspect is very easy to demonstrate.
Probably what it will take to get Linux on more desktops is M$ trying to strongarm organizations and organizations doing exactly what Munich did, switch to Linux and then use WINE.
That's exactly what the CIO of the defense branch I am working for is doing right now. Evaluating WINE because he is just fed up with the tail trying to wag the dog and the bad news for M$ is that the CIO doesn't think they are so unique anymore.
Re:With all due respect to Bruce.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens when the corporate backers of UserLinux decide that bills can't be met and they have to concentrate on an enterprise version? Bills don't pay themselves and there are reasons why RedHat isn't doing the consumer version anymore.
Debian, as a UserLinux, will survive the corporate onslaught precisely because it is free. Much as the Linux kernel will survive in the absence of corporate backing. That is the power of open source software.
Red Hat isn't doing a consumer version because it cannot afford to, because it must answer to shareholders, because it is commercially driven to profit. Debian suffers none of these drawbacks.
However, if Red Hat Enterprise were based on Debian, Red Hat would have minimal overhead in procuring a similar consumer version, while retaining all the benefits of a consumer presence. There is an enormous amount of work being put into the Debian distribution, and commercial entities that recognize and take advantage of it have the potential for great benefit.
Re:With all due respect to Bruce.... (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is that the UserLinux corporate backers are large IT *users*, not developers like Red Hat. If that is the case they don't need to make any profit on it - they want to save money by using it themselves.
Get a few big companies with hundreds of thousands of PC seats and each company's share of the investment to develop this kind of desktop distribution starts to look small compared to what they spent just on handling the latest MS virus.
no, unite behind Gentoo! (Score:2)
I for one think that it's a horrible to "unite" behind one distro. One thing that makes Linux great is the diversity that allows people to experiment, and everyone benefits.
OTOH, it would be nice if there was a single specification vendors could support, eg. the LSB.
Wishful thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
Perens has no follow through... (Score:2)
Then he started Debian - but dropped out. It was brought to fruition by others years later.
So Bruce, why should we follow you on this effort? Why should we believe your going to follow through with this effort considering your lousy track record?
Good thinking. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's where I'm off to (Score:4, Interesting)
Whilst reading all of the recent dropping of Red Hat Linux and purchasing of SuSE etc. I did wonder if this would lead to a boost for Debian. Take the Fedora project, for example. It seems madness to contribute to this over Debian, since with Fedora you really are just beta testing Red Hat Enterprise edition for them - the whole 'giving back to the community' thing is better handled by Debian since that is not meant for feeding back into commercial distributions.
So yes - I have to agree. Debian would seem to be the way to go following the absorbtion of the big names. Let Red Hat do its own work in getting rpms ready for RHE 16.8 or what have you - concentrate your efforts on improving things for the community at large instead.
Cheers,
Ian
Nice soundbite, Bruce (Score:2)
The Holy Wars Thread (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe we should keep working on the LSB specs so all the distros can interoperate?
Re:The Holy Wars Thread (Score:3)
Always respectful, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that the community needs to collectively focus their attention on one single distro. I just think that one single distro needs to rise above the rest and earn market acceptance as a solid desktop. The strength of Linux is that I can use a different distro suited to a particular task. If I need a quick solution for IDS, but don't have some powerful hardware, I can quickly setup snort and Acid on a Debain box and get it going. If I need a quick packet filtering firewall with easy to manage tools (for the IT staff here that isn't very Linux knowledgeble) I can setup Redhat 9 in about an hour and a half.
Somewhere in the near future we need a desktop distro that is every bit as good as Windows is when it comes to the desktop. Then I can say "when I need a quick desktop for someone that just needs web access, eDirectory, and Lotus Notes out of the box, I can use insert distro here."
Re:Always respectful, but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, when free markets make decisions about what should rise above the rest, that decision usually has nothing to do with what product is actually the best product. Instead, success in the market too often is based on factors such as what product is first to the market, what product has the strongest sales force, what product gets the most press, and what product works with the most other products that have decided to choose just one to be compatible with.
PHBs have started to turn to some form of Linux. As more and more do, do we want to let them make the decisions about which particular form to go with? Or do we want to at least influence, if not outright make that decision? Do we want them using a distribution that locks them into a single vendor, or do we want them using a distribution that can be supplied to them competitively forever? You know they can't make good long term business decisions because of their shortsightedness in areas of technology. They rant and rave about how business concerns need to be addressed, and then they go off and make stupid decisions that end up costing the company more and exposing them to new risks.
In as much as I think Bruce Parens' statement is a bit self-serving, I do think he's right, and that we need to center around not just a free kernel, but a whole free distribution. That's the only way to ensure minimal risks and costs for business use of Linux systems.
Why does nobody get this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fed up with all this blather about Linux on the desktop. Is it ready yet? What needs to be improved? Why hasn't it happened yet? etc. etc.
There is one thing that is going to get Linux on the desktop, and one thing only. That is that the big PC manufacturers (principally Dell and HP) start to seriously promote and sell desktop PCs with Linux already installed.
If that doesn't happen, then Linux on the desktop will probably never happen to a significant extent.
Re:Why does nobody get this? (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, the problem with Wine is usability. It takes a good deal of learning to do it yourself. Linux PC sellers just need to provide a gui-based way to install pre-tested versions of Windows pro
do i need educating? (Score:2, Flamebait)
one of the number one reasons i don't like debian is that packages in the stable branch are typically full point releases behind! have you seen the version of vi in their stable branch? holy, say hello to
Re:do i need educating? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can have stable, or you can have bleeding-edge. Debian gives you both options (three, actually).
Perhaps Debian could release more often (and you could volunteer to help with that), but there's a lot of situations where one just needs something stable; and when Debian says "stable", it is. Most people don't want to be upgrading to a new version of their operating system more
Re:do i need educating? (Score:2)
You can just go with testing, it's a lot more stable and consistent than your typical distrib (Red Hat/Mandrake/Suse) and it is fairly up-to-date.
[ Disclaimer: I use unstable on my machines, but it has not really caused any problems ]
Re:do i need educating? (Score:4, Informative)
on production servers, security is a high priority while new features can take a back seat. if a new hole or exploit is found in some service, will the 'STABLE' package be upgraded for protection?
Yes, in fact security updates are where 99% of the updates come from in Debian-Stable. Here's how it generally works (slightly oversimplified):
All this happens in a time comparible to (or often faster than) the security updates from the big commercial distros.
This is how Debian-Stable maintains security and stability. For more info, check out the Debian Policy Manual [debian.org]. A strict and careful policy is how Debian makes sure that things just work, and makes the distro a joy to administer in an enterprise setting.
Debian certified for Oracle, etc., would be great! (Score:3, Interesting)
Ever Tried Debian? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think you have used Debian. I love Debian because I can put the bare minimum on my machines and then build up from there whether it be Gnome or KDE or a strict web server box with no GUI. To build it up all I have to do is grab the packages I want with apt. I can roll my own distro in a way.
Not to mention Stable, Testing and Unstable are really all different distributions anyway.
Anti-Redhat FUD but still a good point (Score:5, Interesting)
Truth is that Redhat Linux 10 was released several days ago, and for trademark reasons it is called Fedora Core 1. Anyone who has used Redhat 8.x or Redhat 9.x, will be able to tell that Fedora Core 1 is Redhat 10.
I would love to see one internet based community developed meta-distrution of Linux, with one comprehensive package repository. This would be the Linux standard. Then companies that want to make a newbie-friendly Linux could cherry-pick the best software packages, make custom themes, and tweak everything and also provide support.
In my opinion, the thing that Redhat 8 through Fedora Core 1 do really great is that they cherry-picked a nice set of software packages, made a nice theme for the desktop, and put everything together into one nice coherent package.
Note that the good things that Redhat does with its distro do not conflict with having a Debian-foundation, and the fact that Redhat has decided to fracture the internet community because it refuses to have Fedora Core 1 be a customized Debian is just plain silly!
Other distros have shown the power of using a Debian based core: Knoppix, Libranet, and Lindows, to name 3 distros, all accomplish something slightly different.
1. Knoppix is a live CD based Linux distro with completely automatic hardware detection. Knoppix is a great toy, a great way to advertise Linux, and it makes for an uber rescue disk.
2. Libranet aims at being a general purpose desktop/server distro, and it adds value by greatly simplifying the installation and maintenance of the OS.
3. Lindows is supposed to be a newbie friendly / user-friendly Linux distro that emulates the look-n-feel of Windows. It is aimed at a large target market of casual computer users that want to save a few bucks.
So please tell me why Redhat couldn't use a Debian foundation for Fedora Core? All they had to do was create a small community layered ontop of the Debian community. Their job would be to cherry-pick software packages from the comprehensive apt repository that Debian already has, and integrate it all into one coherent system by tweaking settings and theming applications.
In conclusion, lets drop this Redhat ditched desktop Linux crap, and focus on the fact that Redhat is duplicating effort by not basing their community developed distro on Debian. It is starting to remind me of Christianity with its many demoninations.
Re:Anti-Redhat FUD but still a good point (Score:3, Flamebait)
Note that the good things that Redhat does with its distro do not conflict with having a Debian-foundation, and the fact that Redhat has decided to fracture the internet community because it refuses to have Fedora Core 1 be a customized Debian is just plain silly!
Why would Red Hat do this? Red Hat already had a great foundation to build on, Red Hat Linux. It's far ahead of Debian in most areas... so regress a couple of years to build on Debian? Why? The opposite would make far more sense.
Surprising? (Score:2)
Aside from their departure, it really seems like free Red Hat has just been slowly turning into Debian anyway. Most RPM-based distros I know no
Bad idea (Score:2)
One weakness as well as strength of Linux has always been the ability to choose. There are so many distributions that you can choose the one that fits you best, that you like best.
Focusing on one distribution has the advantage that this single distribution really would get boosted, but it would limit our choice.
I for one don't like Debian, for several reasons. Don't get me wrong, it is a very good distribution but I don't feel home on it for several minor reasons. So what, that's why I chose another distr
Debian as the reference system (Score:5, Insightful)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=69340
One of the main reasons why GNU/Debian is perfect for a reference system, is that stable doesn't change that often.
Debian Woody (3.0) was released July 2002, with an update December 2002. How many version of Mandrake, SuSe, Gentoo or RedHat has come out since then?
If you are a developer, you really don't want a moving target like the other distributions. You really want to have stable target over some period of time.
Note that, even if Debian becomes the reference system, it doesn't mean that RedHat or SuSe, Gentoo can't have never libraries or KDE, or GNOME on their system. It just means that at the very least, they need compatible libraries installed by default.
And no, LSB is not enough. That is just a voluntary paper, and with no reference system, you still would have to test the major distributions to make sure your program is working.
With a working reference system, like Debian, you would only need to test against one distribution.
Re:Debian as the reference system (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
For this purpose, commercial distributions such as SuSE and RedHat exist.
One size does not fit all.
The market will decide as and when Linux is ready for the corporate desktop, and in what form.
Microsoft is doing a marvellous job already of comitting suicide due to over-pricing its software, shoddy quality and vulnerabilities to malicious code.
Linux has been doing just fine for my personal computing needs since 1996. If corporate America (or anywhere else for that matter) wants to enjoy the privilege of using Linux, it can make like the rest of us and make an effort.
20-30% My ass... (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporate america isn't based around the concept of "Free Software" it is based around Revenue Generation, using the right tools to get the job done and providing an IT infrastructure support revenue generation, sales force and back-office.
Linux doesn't have any sales force automation tools. Sure you can install Oracle 11i on Linux, but even then your talking servers. Oracle 11i doesn't even support linux as a workstation.
Until ACT is ported, until the average sales person can do everything he/she needs to do and very easily, linux will make "0" inroads into corporate america.
It is all about supporting your sales force, your R*D departments or whatever your business's revenue generation is from. Linux just doesn't do that right now and surely won't do that within the next 3 years.
RedHat has bailed the desktop market and gone for the workstation, but even then that is a UNIX workstation level NOT an "end user" level. Suse is making inroads, but not enough to do 20-30% market share.
I'll repeat myself again. Corporate America is about supporting your revenue stream. Linux simply can't do that at this point. Tools are built around simplicity, ease of training and what is common knowledge. Your average sales person only uses a PC when needed and does everything with a Cell phone, note pad and over a few beers at the local bar. Linux can't replace this. Especially Debian.
Debian needs to be brought up to date (Score:3, Interesting)
I need a stable release that evolves a few times a year, so that I can read reviews and decide when it's time to migrate to keep up to date. Debian only offers the choice between a year-old distribution several major releases out of date that nothing will compile on, and a testing release that moves on a daily basis, often jumping several versions back or eliminating a package entirely.
I also need a GUI installer, so I don't have to hold people's hands through the install. Nobody should ever have to use dselect, unless they're migrating from DOS.
The thing that upsets me the most about Debian is that the stable release is not always stable. The package for Galeon has been broken for a year now. The download manager for the Woody version crashes constantly, though the bug in Galeon was fixed well over a year ago. My choice now is between the unstable stable version and the completely unstable unstable version that stopped working entirely for me around 1.3.9 (yes I filed a Debian bug report). The testing version has since disappeared.
There have been numerous stable Galeon versions since last year on two separate branches, but I don't have an option to roll back to a useful version because stable is hosed and testing is gone. This ultimately caused me to give up on Galeon and just download the Firebird binary and install it by hand. So much for the wonders of apt-get.
Debian needs to either step up its glacial pace or make testing an honest milestone release before Perens starts touting it as an industry standard. I'm thankful there's still competition from organizations that put Linux usability over Open Source ideology.
Re:Debian needs to be brought up to date (Score:3, Interesting)
I think of Debian as sort of an OEM distribution, like the Linus kernel, which gets various value adds before it is released in, for example, Red Hat. Similar with, eg, OpenOffice.org vs StarOffice.
Products like Lindows, Xandros, Progeny, Knoppix and Libranet are based on Debian, and are clearly trying to enhance "Linux usability" and include more uptodate revisions of packages. Further, Knoppix is a foundation for other products like Morphix.
Larry
Re:Definatly (Score:2, Insightful)
best package installer hands down
Re:Standards (Score:2)
try explaining to the PHB why it takes 5 days to install the operating system. if he's your average office type, he won't believe you. if he's a compiler engineer, he really won't believe you.
Re:Standards (Score:2)
Also, Gentoo's "compile your own" philosophy is not that great when you have to care for lots of computers.
Re:Standards (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Standards (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a problem with this. Gentoo's advantages are not just that you're running quite-recent versions of everything custom-compiled for your architecture, but that it has a better-standardized arrangement of daemon configuration files and better (although not perfect) handling of init-script dependencies. It's possible to run serious production servers that need recent-version daemons using Gentoo defaults for compile options and with a nicely-rationalized
Mind you, Debian is good if you want a server that's not cutting-edge, that's real stable, and that doesn't do much that's fancy. But Gentoo is less trouble and performs better if you have clients who you've sold on using today's technology, rather than that of several years ago.
Oh, and desktops in particular run much better when the stuff is compiled for your specific hardware, and the feel of responsiveness is a major factor in making power desktop users feel comfortable and happy. People whose work involves seriously drafting documents or analyzing spreadsheets don't want a Cadillac, they want a Porsche. Gentoo is a Porsche, Windows a Cadillac with factory defects, and Debian is a mid-level Ford. Debian-for-the-desktop perhaps for your Aunt Maud who writes the occassional letter or e-mail (and even then, doing a Knoppix install to the hard drive will give her something happier than stock Debian), but Gentoo is what's needed to make the power users who demand the most from desktop machines - and who often have a loud voice in corporate computing policy, since their offices are close to the CEO's - happy.
Re:Standards (Score:2)
Debian also manages package dependancy hell a bit better AFACT.
I recommended debian for a large project for this reason, though I did later curse it soundly for my personal installation.
Maybe when sarge installer is working a bit better I'll try it again.
Re:Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably because debian takes the GPL and licensing issues seriously from the start.
Debian also manages package dependancy hell a bit better AFACT.
I recommended debian for a large project for this reason, though I did later curse it soundly for my personal installation.
Maybe when sarge installer is working a bit better I'll try it again.
It does not surprise me that a person who recommends dogfood to his customer without trying it first is wrong on this point. All the source based distributions maint
Re:Standards (Score:2)
Re:Standards (Score:2)
Because, at this point, Debian has a proven track record years ahead of Gentoo?
Re:Why Debian (Score:2)
i'm sure that Debian is usable as a Desktop OS for 'anyone' - but, can 'anyone' install Debian??
Re:We're almost there (Score:3, Informative)
- built-in p2p
+ Why?, use gAIM or Kopete. Are you referring to the MSN nonsense that's forced upon users in XP?
- better CD burning tools
+ with 2.4.21 you can use K3B with ATAPI CD burners which gives you 95% of what you get in Nero
- better attachment handling
+ this is a tricky one, define better. I'm assuming you mean Outlook like attachment handling. I'd want anything like this disabled by default but there's likely to be a point of contention there
I'm not questioning your choice o
Re:CD Burning K3B (Score:2)
Re:CD Burning K3B (Score:2)
The amazing thing (for me) is that I've now dumped a Xandros installation onto four people (two home users, two business users) who were used to Windows 98 and XP previously. It took me exactly 1 hour to install each system, entirely painless except for a NIC issue on two notebooks, solved by using a PCcard NIC.
Xandros is Debian, and has slightly outdated versions of some packages, so I've been updating OpenOffice to the latest release for the two business users.
After several
Moron? (Score:2)
The funny thing about "desktop computing" is that despite 20 years of relentless progress, what the vast majority of home and business users need and want is quite simple. The true requirement for a mass-market PC (80-90% of the PCs in existence) is very simple: surf web, read email, play media, make documents, chat. Make it cheap, fast, simple, and safe, and you have you
What is an OS (Score:3, Insightful)
My OS isn't a toy to play with, it is just something that lets me run my applications.
I had the same debian/stable box for about 4 years, it died. Put the drive in a new machine, rebuild the kernel and I'll probaly run the same install for another 4 years.
That's a good thing.
Re:I want to try Debian but... (Score:3, Informative)
Forget about installing stable/unstable, instead download Knoppix [knoppix.net] which is a complete Debian distro on a bootable CD. You boot the CD, which then autodetects all your hardware, then you run the knx-installer script to install the whole thing on your harddisk. You don't have a choice in what packages to get, but after installation you can easily remove (and add) others.
Re:Use KDE for Userlinux please. (Score:3, Funny)
Gnome's biggest problem is that the goofballs who are writing it just can't stand to see 1000 bytes of replicated code. As soon as a function is used by more than one program (even if one of them is in developement and won't be available for years) they go "oh no we need a shared library!". They do this before they even debug the function, so instead you have a whole string of shared library versions and you a