Linux Desktop Summit 2004 Review

An anonymous reader writes "I had the experience this week of attending the Linux Desktop Summit hosted by Michael Robertson's Linspire, Lindows, or whatever you want to call it these days. Irregardless of what you call it, it's Linux, and the general consensus from vendors and attendees was, "We're here to stay." I have to say that this was an interesting convention. Keeping in line with the Linux community, there was more of a sense of community rather than the typical "Choose our product" ambiance, With a few exceptions of course."

You've got to keep in mind...

[222]

that profitable companies using / pushing linux are essential for it to gather mainstream acceptance.
I know it may leave a nasty taste in your mouth to witness the commercialization of linux, but really, its something we should not only get used to, but push.
Im sorry, but the trailing sentance in the article posting made my inner penguin frown...

Re:Converting Users

[tjwhaynes]

In my experience it is not as simple as that. Most people have resistance for change. When they have got used to one operating system it is not easy to teach them to do things in a different way. And Linux is still behind Windows in terms of usability, which I think should be the first priority for future Linux development.

Actually, I'd disagree on both points. Most people wouldn't notice if you swapped Windows XP and XPde on their machines until they realized that their desktop had been running for a couple of months without a virus attack bringing their system to its knees. A developer would notice almost immediately but I suspect that if you kept the menus similar enough, most people would just pick up and go.

On useability, I'd say that GNOME was streets ahead of Windows for simplicity and usability (I don't use KDE so I can't compare there). Consistent look and feel across all HIGified GNOME apps, intelligent prompt buttons in prompt windows (and some serious gdesklet eyecandy :-) ) make it an easy system for a user to grasp. I find Windows XP to be a mess of animated icons and swooping flashing windows ruining my concentration in its default form, and I feel palpable relief when I get back to a Linux box with its calmer, faster and more comfortable setup.

Usability is partly a function of what you are used to. But switching isn't nearly as tough as a lot of people seem to think (or fear).

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I'm the archetypal IT Guy(tm) who moved to a rural area to escape PHBs. Naturally the work is nothing difficult, mostly Windoze donkey work for the locals, with the occasional slightly-more-demanding job for an energy company or whathaveyou tossed in now and then. And I agree with you that Linux would be a great alternative for most people who want to do nothing more with their PC than send an e-mail to their sister, or browse a few websites.

Unfortunately there's one fly in that soup. Games! That's the problem. It's not browsers, or mail clients, or office applications or multimedia players, all of which are available in generally superior versions for Linux. It's games.

I'd save everybody a vast amount of aggravation if I could just install Linux and be done with it, but I can't because most people have games they want to play, and they won't run under Linux.

And I'm not just referring to kids: most of the over 50s around here have MS Flight Simulator (we live near a large airfiled, and are surrounded by pilots, ex-pilots, wannabe pilots, etc); they've often spent hours and hours downloading big mods for it over crappy dial-up lines and they aren't going to like being told that they wasted the effort.

Nor do the vast majority of Windows users want to dual boot: they will say, quite reasonably, "why should I have to do that?"...

Re:Software installation

[alienw]

What distro are you using? My copy of Mandrake 10 comes with a shitload of precompiled packages and includes a nice graphical package app to manage and install them. Also, newbies should NEVER have to compile source code. That's what binaries are for. What we really do need is something like an extension of the LSB that would provide a standard binary API that is consistent across versions and distributions.

Re:MOD PARENT FUNNY PLEASE!.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in this discussion it's both on-topic and insightful. And funny.

Re:Slashdotters LOVE to say this

[killjoe]

Why would an end user want an installer API?

If people don't want choices companies are happy to take the choices away for them. Redhat, sun, linspire and to lesser extent suse all give the user a cohesive system with a pre-chosen set of software. The user does not ever have to think of what desktop or browser to use because there is one default one installed. They all also handle updating and installing transparently for the user. This is especially powerful with click n run where the user is presented with a list of available software and they click on the one they want and it installs magically for them.

I really don't understant your point of denying users choice. Maybe you mean users should not even have the option of installing software that competes with the defaults. Is that it? Should they be prevented from surfing the web and finding alternatives or should they be prevented from installing alternatives if they want to try one?