Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst? 677
El Lobo writes "For the Linux desktop, 2002 was an important year. Since then, we have continuously been fed point releases which added bits of functionality and speed improvements, but no major revision has yet seen the light of day. What's going on?
A big problem with GNOME is that it lacks any form of a vision, a goal, for the next big revision. GNOME 3.0 is just that- a name. All GNOME 3.0 has are some random ideas by random people in random places.
KDE developers are indeed planning big things for KDE4 — but that is what they are stuck at. Show me where the results are.KDE's biggest problem is a lack of manpower and financial backing by big companies.
In the meantime, the competition has not exactly been standing still. Apple has continuously been improving its Mac OS X operating system. Microsoft has not been resting on its laurels either. Windows Vista is already available. Many anti-MS fanboys complain that Vista is nothing more than XP with a new coat, but anyone with an open mind realizes this is absolutely not the case."
The bubble was never there. (Score:0, Insightful)
Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in
User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"
So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.
Overreacting some? (Score:4, Insightful)
Rename please... (Score:5, Insightful)
The change in emphasis shouldn't be a problem, by now we are all experienced enough to know the answer.
A Few Things (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Simple Hardware Support. I know this moves beyond the desktop environment and into kernel type stuff, but I want the desktop to pop up and say "You have new hardware" and then guide me along the correct path towards setting it up. This is really more of a service, perhaps one provided through a closesly monitored and updated website.
2) Better QA for all end products. Most of the time, I'm quite happy with gnome. Its the features and addons and enhancements that I add that don't always play nice. Perhaps a documented UI standard that other developers can adhere to, and a simple set of interface libraries that make desktop environment integration brainless for basic tasks. Maybe this stuff already, but for whatever reason, a lot of OS desktop software seems to be of poor quality and stability (major players excluded.)
I want to mod the article flamebait... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a pointless article. It's entirely emotional and opinionated. It has nothing to say besides "Linux Suxxors". What the hell?
I don't think there's any point to responding to this, but I feel compelled to put my two cents in. People like to complain about something being "user friendly". I'm actually really tired of that phrase. I don't think Microsoft's stuff is very user friendly. I keeps making me do stupid repetive tasks that cause me carpal tunnel syndrome (from repetetive mouse clicks), keeps making me answer the same stupid questions over and over again, keeps reinstating the stupid sample photos and subdirectories into the one part of the OS that should ostensible by mine (the "My Documents" folder), keeps forcing onerous, impossible to read EULA's on me, keeps preventing me from doing legal things I want to do because they don't want me violating their copyrights... the list goes on.
What most people mean when they say "user friendly" would be better called "newbie friendly", or "neophyte friendly", or maybe "diletante friendly". I use Linux on my desktop becuase it's more friendly to the stuff that I want to do, and for the most part lets me do thing the way I want to do them.
Oh, and nice job calling linux on the desktop a "bubble". As george orwell statet, a writer mixing their metaphors is a sure sign that they aren't actually thinking about what they are writing.
You what now? (Score:2, Insightful)
In my experience this has now switched around. There have been no big upgrades (except Beryl) but there have been so many little ones it makes my head hurt. Kubuntu 6.10 on a powerbook looks *better* than the latest release of OS X. All the hardware is supported (including the shut-the-lid-and-it-goes-to-sleep-in-0.5-seconds suspend mode). We have more (useful) 3D effects (blur behind transparency is GODLIKE), more desktop widgets, better support for fonts.
There is better support for advanced networking, connectivity, roaming. There is better support for media, both video aand audio. Hell, there is even better support for the iPod than there is in OS X. The desktop (even with integrated KDE/Gnome) looks more consistent and with window shading, katapult app launcher, better virtual desktop support, sensible ways to organise windows and all of the rest of the features is miles ahead of where it was in 2002.
Up until now there has been no need for a big leap. The incremental improvements have given us the desktop Linux we wanted so badly back in 2002. I'm excited to see what the next generation of innovation will bring (a break from the me-too Windows/OSX style desktops) but Linux today is already cutting edge.
Bah, Humbug. (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is FUD, pure and simple. "Linux is Dying", "Linux is Insecure", "Linux is a Toy", "Linux is for Hobbyists" and "Linux is a Rabid Communist Terrorist Cancer that will steal your money, destroy the economy, kill your cat, burn your house down and crash your car" are all pseudo-ideas that came, were disproved and disappeared.
These days it's "OMG! Linux is Not Ready for the Desktop!!!". This, too, shall pass. Remember: even Mighty Microsoft, the saviour of the American Economy, has a finger in the Linux pie now. Soon, they will stop screaming and throwing feces at Linux and admit the inevitable: they don't stand a chance.
Re:Desktops? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's pretty funny that the article is titled "Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst?" When was there a bubble to begin with? Doesn't there have to be rather widespread adoption or growth to constitute a bubble? Has the Linux desktop ever gained more than ~1% of the desktop market?
OSX (Score:2, Insightful)
I've been a fanatical Linux fanboy since about '95.
Today, I own a MacBook Pro and run OSX. My servers run Debian. But for the desktop, OSX is what Linux will never be: A Unix with a state-of-the-art GUI.
Re:What bubble? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux (Score:1, Insightful)
Someone needs to sitting you down in front of the two desktops and slap the shit out of you as they step by step go through every single detail of OS X...
Drag and drop application installation...
Drag and drop between desktop and application and application to application and both in conjunction with Expose...
Text, fonts, spellchecking(could spend an entire day just on that one vast area alone)...
Even just basic functionality like a standard way for app notifications to the user
An OS X user could sit in front of an OS X and KDE desktop and generate a list thousands of items long in just simple basic functionality that KDE fails at.
KDE is a shitty and amateurish desktop that is barely functional enough to be used in a locked down business environment where users are limited in what they are allowed or need to do.
Re:You what now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Up until now there has been no need for a big leap.
Can you really have a "big leap" with the Linux development model? With Windows, Microsoft can develop an OS for 5 years and keep lots of things under wraps. When it finally hit's people's desktop, if people like the improvements, there's a big "whoa" factor. There are a whole lot of changes.
But if Windows was open-sourced with no secrets, and had a 6 month release schedule, I suspect it would all feel like a whole lot of little incremental upgrades and bug fixes. There wouldn't be much anticipation or many surprises. The upgrades feel more mundane. Like you said, though, there have been substantial improvements to desktop Linux distros since 2002, but when all those improvements are trickling out every 6 months over a 5 year period, they just don't feel that big.
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:5, Insightful)
But only Gnome and KDE are integrated by distros (Score:4, Insightful)
Paradoxically, with Sun, CDE seems to be better supported. I have a few ancient sparc-II systems. They have Solaris 10, but I still use CDE because, even now (or rather 1/2006 edition of Solaris 10), Sun does a better jobs of integrating some of their tools into CDE than their newer Gnome Java Desktop thingy, even though Sun is making a big push to move everthing over to Gnome. (Besides, Gnome runs dog slow on those ancient boxes). I could install fluxbox or WindowMaker on those boxes too, but the menus would be empty.
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:3, Insightful)
nah, it shouldn't be dumbed down. That is the wrong approach. It needs to be made smarter and by that I mean make the user think less about the details. I used to hate to have to update a linux box just because I had to figure out all the dependencies (I am not a Linux guru, just a very experineced users (13+ years)). Things like Yum, apt-get, what ever, take alot of the pain out of it. Updates are on my mind becuase I am installing a new Fedora Core 6 box at the moment and that is way easier than manually traversing a depdedency tree.
But there are other areas as well. Stop trying to mimic the Windows paradigm and make the UI smarter and more efficient. Is there a better way to manage multiple windows than tabbing through them? Is there a better way to launch an application? For example, if I want to write a letter, I have to open an application, then create a new document, then write the letter. Why not have have a short cut that says "Write a Letter" that does all that for me. Ok, that is a simple example, but the point is make the UI more intuitive. It is not a trivial task. Another example. I use Outlook for email, calendar, tasks, everything. Know what I hate? When I get an email from someone, I might want to add them to my contact list. Right now I have to right click the address, lookup the contact, find out they are not listed, click OK, then right click, add the contact, then fill in the information. Why not have a button that ask if I want to add the contact when the lookup fails? I could probably write up some VBA to do that, but why should I?
These may seem like trivial tasks, and individually they are. Implementing one or two would not make me swtich OS's, but if there was a smarter computing paradigm that makes me more efficient, takes the onus of managing my computer out of my hands, then that would be great. Make the computer smarter, not dumber.
Another "journalist" pushing his opinion... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux (Score:1, Insightful)
Good question, but the wrong question.
The answer is probably... very little if anything. But the right question is:
"What can Ms. Average User EASILY do, without tech support, on OS X that she can't do on KDE?"
The answer is probably... almost everything.
I am a rabid Linux fan, a supporter, and Linux-based systems provide the bulk of my salary. But my attempts at evangelizing the non-technical into using Linux over the years have been dissapointing. For the ultra-unsophisticated user, no problem. You set up a desktop with browser, email, and Open Office links and they are done. For the techies, no problem, we love yum and rpm and chasing down dependencies and all the other great adventures that come with Linux, and we are delighted by the fact that we are locked out of NOTHING by the platform. But between those two extremes, it is indeed pretty bleak compared to the competion from OS-X and (choking) Microslop.
Re:A Stinging Indictment Of Desktop Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Mac OS X has a wonderful GUI, there's no point in arguing that. However, it's somewhat overrated. It does have a lot of bells and whistles, but when I first bought my Mac, I didn't really think it was as intuitive as they say. Or functional. For instance, Safari doesn't hava a fullscreen mode (I get around that using Opera). I miss having 4 diffferent desktops I can just switch to using the keyboard, for instance. Etc. (Maybe things I like having in my FreeBSD?)
OTOH, the wide screen definitely helps the usability factor - and this has nothing to do with Aqua vs. KDE. It's a design choice by Apple.
KDE is beautiful and very, very functional. Konqueror simply rocks, I love the way it displays all the documents (like PDFs - although I wish you could actually _read_ a paper's first page by passing the mouse over it). Mac OS X doesn't do that (AFAIK, but I still have to RTFM - but it should do that as default behaviour). KDE is cluttered, but all it takes is some commmon sense in order to provide the user with the "correct minimal."
Now, GNOME is just stupid: outdated human interface guidelines; two bars that just make you waste vertical space; not tweakable enough. And slow (I mean, Object Oriented programming in C has got to be slow, right?). Pretty, but...
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. The real issue here is not that Linux desktops need to progress anywhere. I use both Windows and Linux for hours a day and they both have their share of frustrations and joys. Your Quake example is a joke, since most people don't care about playing games like Quake on their computers. You might have a point if you use a more realistic example of software that simply is written to run on Linux at all. But so what? There's lots of great Linux/Unix-only software that I can't run on Windows. Although, I must say that I think the free software aspect of most Linux software makes it much more likely that a Windows port exists for good Linux software than a good Linux port exists for good Windows software.
The problem for Linux on the desktop is not usability or availability of games or a host of other problems at this point. It's things like lagging support for new versions of ubiquitous software, like Flash. It's the non-existence of any Quicken products for Linux. It's the fact that OpenOffice is a relative new-comer and MS Office/Works products have been around since the 80s. At most major computer retailers, the only operating system you can buy pre-installed on a machine is Windows. The average user never installs an operating system. Mac has a devoted base of people willing to pay a premium price for Apple products, why I'll never know, since Apple's offerings have been an inferior price-to-value proposition since at least the release of Windows 2000.
Apple is able to be profitable by serving a niche that is almost more fashion-driven than anything else. For the rest of the world there is only one choice: Windows. Linux isn't on the table. Not because of any real reason why average folks couldn't be just as happy with it, but because the perceived cost of a new computer doesn't include a component for operating system and applications expense. The bundling is the problem. The fact that MS has overwhelming market share is the problem. The fear of trying something new is the problem. People are already scared of their computers--even many IT professionals I've met seem to have limited understanding of how computers actually work. People know Windows, so they stick with Windows.
Until the consumer is informed that their hardware purchase includes a hefty charge for a Windows license and is offered Linux as an alternative (presumably at a different price point), they are not going to know or care about Linux or why they would want to consider it. They're already paying for Windows so they have no incentive to care about anything else.
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:5, Insightful)
For example 1959 was the peak of streetcar use in America. Ford+General Motors+Firestone+Standard Oil formed a cartel to buy and shutdown every streetcar company in USA to increase their sales. Sometimes they were secretive. Sometimes they were brazen as the "motorized" America. Fast Forward Sixty years we have, urban sprawl, decaying urban centers and extrodinary dependance on imported oil. When oil and energy consumption was synonymous with economic growth, when "what-is-good-for-GM-is-good-for-America we let the monopolies run rough shod all over us.
Now information is power, we are in the information and communication age. And we are letting information/communication monopolies run rough shod all over us. And we called those dissenters luddites/poverty-lovers/socialists. We call these dissenters geeks/uber-geeks/out-of-touch. History repeats itself.
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:5, Insightful)
First I think part of the problem, is your average geek would prefer speed and efficiency over simplicity while non-geeks prefer the opposite. Personally I spend most of my time at the command line so I think things like apt-get install are great, however most non-geeks get worried as soon as you tell them to open up a terminal window.
I'm sure you were trying to be funny but really, geeks don't hate non-geeks, they just don't see the problem and thus no reason to fix something that isn't broken. They would rather focus on developing something cool.
This is also why I tell people who are looking at new computers to buy a mac. This way, they get an easy to use computer with all the nice GUI elements that apple provides, and when I have to use their computer, I still have access to the terminal and all the UNIX goodness that is under the hood of OS X.
Personally I would love for Linux to come up with a GUI that is as easy to use as OS X. (Yes, yes, Ubuntu is easy to use but it's still not on par with OS X... some people can be really dim) However, I think most developers don't really know how to solve the problem.
Oh, and you got it wrong, most uber-geeks hate non-geeks trying to be geeks...
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is the author is one of these people that are the cause of marketers demanding n+1.0 releases to give the perception of great advancement. In Gnome 2.0, I think they reached the fundamental model that to me seems to be pretty much where they want to be, but that hasn't meant it didn't change drastically since then. Some of those 'bits of functionality improvements' have been fairly significant, and critical to a desktop platform, and keeping pace with OSX and Windows visual effects capabilities (i.e. Cairo and working toward Metacity compositing). From things as basic as a persistent clipboard, to things like numerous overhauls of nautilus, the mime-type systems, menu editing, embracing the freedesktop standards, new file chooser dialogs, and extending their platform to include more system administration standardization and various necessities (i.e. a screensaver consistant with the desktop).
Though there are some significant differences between gnome 2.0 basic layout and gnome 1.x basic layout, keep in mind that at least to this point Gnome major version is tied to the basic toolkit, which has essentially achieved the basic functionality they needed. Gtk 1.x was ass ugly, and not flexible enough to cleanly adopt new rendering strategies, and gtk 2.x corrected it and improved flexibility that has so far avoided the need for gtk 3.x.
Same for KDE, though IMHO, gnome spent more time struggling with what they wanted their vision to be, while KDE early on were content with their results. When I went from KDE 2.x to 3.0, it didn't feel significantly different. Again, they tie their major releases to their toolkit, QT. If QT never released 4.0, the 'revolutionary' 4.0 features for the most part would be in a KDE 3.n+1.
All this assumes also that all desktop 'innovation' can only come from the main progression of the GNOME/KDE projects. Compiz and Beryl have shown the way to advanced compositing with AIGLX/Xgl/nVidia-specific calls, for those OSX/Vista effects (and more). Ubuntu ties its release closely to the Gnome schedule, but the focus and integration of things in and out of gnome is critical to a good desktop system. Thanks to all the work in Gnome, the kernel, and other people and distros like Ubuntu doing the work to pull it all together,my desktop is as functional and nice looking as OSX or Windows. I can insert and remove media, and have it mounted and unmounted with ease, I can put my laptop to sleep and have it reliably wake up. I never want for a Windows desktop.
My only regret about the linux desktop is that GNUstep is not progressing more quickly. There are things about the NeXT/OSX interface strategy I really like, but GNUstep, despite some strides, progresses slowly overall and even with theming (Nesedah looks fairly nice), it is hard to get it to look nice yet clean.
Re:I want to mod the article flamebait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what people hate to admit is that in order to sell Linux to the masses, it's going to have to be dumbed down.
I don't think usability and power are diametrically opposed. You don't need to "dumb down" Linux to sell it to the masses, you just have to make the workflow easy by default.
The dumbed-down side of it is that there is no compiler... But then again, my mom doesn't want, or need, one.
Not having a compiler doesn't directly make Linspire any easier for your mom. The only thing it does is theoretically make developers that want to reach that market provide a binary, but I'd not wager even many of them to that, rather than let the distro do it themselves.
I'm not bringing this up to "bust your balls" but because I think this is a really important consideration that is often overlooked. You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see compilers used to improve the usability of Linux, rather than be removed to "dumb down" Linux. Here's my ideal software install/management system. Take a nice, package manager and integrate it with the OS. Have it set up with at least one nice repository of software by default, with the ability for users to add more repositories. This provides for finding and downloading a lot of software and keeping that software up to date. Combine this system with OpenStep so that all normal software is a contained package that can be installed globally or within a user account and can be installed and uninstalled via drag and drop. More than that, it is easy to store and move applications via thumb drives, CDs, e-mail, IM, etc. Augment OpenStep by adding repository information to it, so that even if you only have an application on a thumb drive, the next time you use it the system can look for updates. Further augment OpenStep's existing set of binaries for different platforms with a subdirectory for source code, licenses, and build instructions that let the OS build a customized binary at its leisure and without the user having to do anything. Use the compiler to make it faster and easier, rather than removing it. Build your toolset with an official software registration service to make ACLs a practical security solution.
So where does this get you? If you're thinking of Linux strictly in terms of a server OS, this gets you unnecessary bloat. That is why this will probably never happen. If, however, you're thinking of Linux as a server and desktop and possible embedded OS, then it gets you ease of use and flexibility. Disk space is cheap these days and the ability to drag and application onto a shared server, or automatically upgrade to a new laptop with a different architecture, or IM a program to a friend who uses a different OS, and have it just work... is a huge win, in my opinion. For servers or embedded applications where disk space counts and optimization is more important than ease of use, this same system can work fine and nothing stops the OS from stripping out and discarding unused portions of the package. There are already tools on OS X that go through and do just that for people with disk space constraints that want to recover the space taken up by Intel or PPC or 32 or 64 bit binaries. Even then, since it references the repository in the package, making a shared binary work is easy (but a bit slower) so long as you have an internet connection.
The problem with many linux users is that they fail to realize that your "normal" computer user is NOTHING like they are.
Actually, the majority of Linux users and contributors are pretty focused on Linux on the server, and are not all that interested in it on the desktop. Of the 20 or so regular Linux contributors in my office right now, only two I know of are running it on the desktop. A few are running a BSD, a couple are running Windows, and the remaining majority are running OS X. And that is one of the reasons I see Linux on the desktop having less support than it used to. While there are some great, motivated projects, like the OLPC project, a huge numb
Re:I want to mod the article flamebait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux has a problem with it UI for Desktop usage. There is a saying "anything is easy after you know how to do it" Guess what most people know how to use Windows so Windows is easy Linux desktop is different so the say it is hard, these people also think OS X Interface is hard too, but less so then Linux because Microsoft tends to copy much of what OS X does so they are more familiar with it.
They can be very smart people, smarter then any one of us possibly. And still have trouble with Linux UI because is is so poorly designed. There are some simple things that can be changed in Linux that can make it more User Friendly, but because they don't want to admit Linux is flawed that called these changes as "Dumbing Down" or say that is why the old way is great.
Here are some simple fixes.
Give good names to the features. Give programs names that anyone know what they are.
for example GIMP -> Graphics Editor or Photo Processor. Most people don't care if the program is GNU or not or if it is a native K application or Gnome application. So Just give the program a name that we know what it is. If they want to know what it actual program is so they can get new versions outside the distribution There is a Help -> About Appname to get the real name and the version.
Which leads to the next problem...
Common Menus. Menus need to be in a familiar order. File, Edit, View, Tools, Help. Are common command to change settings they can go to Tools -> Options to reconfigure the program for user settings. If the program has a GUI interface there should be a GUI front end to editing the configurations.
Easy installation of programs. The tools out there for installing apps are great for server use. But for desktop use they are a big pain. Things like install the application and the Icon to the application is in the GUI menu, with the correct icon. Desktop users shouldn't need to hunt down dependencies to get the application to work nor can you assume your application will be part of the distribution list) People want to go the web site download a program and run it.
Setting up extra hardware. Even if the person does some quick research to see if the hardware is supported by Linux. Plugging it in doesn't mean it will do anything. OS X and Windows when you plug in a camera or other hardware will load a default application which you can change who the default it. Or at the very least pop up an icon for that device. vs. Plugging in a device and gussing what one of my thousand entries in
Linux has stalled, in the desktop and Linux developers and supporters are failing to see this. Dismissing the problem, or insulting the people who point out the problems doesn't fix it.
Re:I want to mod the article flamebait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Gnome has a vision (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that the differences in the different versions of Vista are minimal compared to those between various Linux distributions. The Vista editions are ranked, too, such that that the more you pay for the more features you're given -- while all the software is handled identically and there really isn't much of a difference ostensibly to the end user. Between distributions (let's assume for the sake of argument that they're free, although there are some that aren't), the differences lie in preferences -- desktop environment, package management system, themes, default installed software, etc.
Saying that the different editions of Vista offer a real "choice" to the user is undermining the meaning of choice. "Choice" in this case really comes down to how much money you want to fork over.
Woah! OSes vs Windows managers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft releases Vista FIVE years after XP
Mac OS X has a version released at certain intervals(1 year or 6 months? Whatever.)
Those 2 WINDOWS MANAGERS are release with small updates at certain intervals. Compare the original release of KDE 3 to the release right now: BIG difference. Speed, usability and lots of stuff have been improved over time, it's numbered the same but is NOT the same.
Will Vista release small upgrades like that over time? No. They'll release security upgrades but that's about it.
Not only is this article pure shit because of points people have raised before, it's pure shit because it views Linux WINDOWS MANAGERS releasing from a commercial OS point of view.
Oh, and if KDE is releasing a major upgrade within 5 years, why should it be wrong? Microsoft has done so with Vista. The difference is, KDE is still releasing small upgrades while XP hasn't changed one bit(except for Media Center).
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's like saying people don't like getting teeth removed because they're not used to it.
I remember reading that Santa was gay. It must be true.
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't have to worry about or remember schedules in most European towns either, as most street car and subway lines run on a 5 or 10 minutes interval, sometimes even 24/7 (and you don't have to worry about finding / paying for a parking spot either).
Depends on what you're used to eating. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey there is hope for the Linux desktop yet! For a few years now Microsoft Windows users have been fed a very steady diet of worms. Lots and lots of worms. Thousands of different kinds of worms. And Windows has been able to serve them up faster than McDoe's could ever hope to serve up a Big Mac!
Really, MS and the Linux desktop are simply leapfrogging over each other...in 2001 we got a prettied up desktop in XP, in 2002 GNOME and KDE leapfrogged over them with a major version, in 2007 MS will bring Vista to the unwashed masses and I imagine in 2008/2009 Linux will get more greatness from GNOME and KDE.
This is a pretty lame indictment of the Free software community if you ask me. The author of the article makes a great deal of noise about there being six or seven years between major releases of GNOME and KDE, and seems to have glossed over the fact that MS went over five years themselves, despite having thousands of developers and billions of dollars to throw at it. Furthermore, calling XP a major release is questionable...it was by and large window-dressing to Win2000 (and technically it WAS a point-release from 5.0 to 5.1 wasn't it? I think the SP2 upgrade was probably almost as significant as 2k-to-XP too...). Really, MS will have gone almost EIGHT years between major releases.
Besides, I question the focus on the numbering system as a measure of progress--I've found that historically Free software products progress faster and have more significant changes between major releases. Nobody would say that from kernel 2.0.x to kernel 2.6.x there has been a lack of progress due to the fact it'll be something over a decade after 2.0 before a 3.x.x release. Projects like the kernel and Apache (and, yes, the desktop environments) have reserved the major release number for very fundamental, architectural overhauls. If Windows was a Free software project I do not think it would be numbered like it was--Windows 2.x would've been 1.x releases, 3.0 through Me would've been 2.x and NT 3.1 through XP would've been 3.x releases. For what its worth, I think that although Apple has been the pacesetter that Linux is still easily out-pacing Microsoft in terms of modernising the desktop overall, despite the whining about lack of "major releases".
Re:What do Linus and his lieutenants say? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Desktops? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:3, Insightful)
All this broad stereotyping is foolish. I'm sure some IT geeks like to feel elite by doing things the complex way. But most of us just want things to work, like non-IT people.
I believe most Linux developers fail to make easy GUI applications for common tasks for three reasons:
1. GUI apps are hard work, time consuming, and less interesting than other projects. Once I have my computer up and running, I empathize with people having a problem configuring their MP3 software but I don't find writing a GUI app to ease the setup that exciting.
2. Unless you have a huge cross section of equipment, time, and software available (i.e. a business atmosphere) for testing, it's likely you'll miss things. It's all too easy to write a printer setup application that works fine with HPs and Canons but fails with a particular Epson model. Or make a nice graphical installer for a movie player that breaks with a particular version of GtK. Or a nice application for managing your music files that has the display go fuzzy at a certain display resolution.
3. GUI software requires a graphics or windowing library or engine of some sort, which involves extra work, longer build times, and extra dependencies.
So a command line app is much quicker to write, faster to compile, faster to distribute, and easier to test. I want Linux to become more popular, and I want it to become more popular because it's more free and also more easy and intuitive than Mac or Windows. But there's no hiding from the reality that a user-friendly GUI is a lot of extra hard work.
Re:Desktops? (Score:5, Insightful)
BUT, IMHO I think there is more behind the scenes that has yet to be done, and it has nothing to do with "themes." What is lacking is a cohesive and comprehensive framework that allow all applications / applets to work together and communicate with each other seamlessly. We have a whole bunch of parts right now that are mostly independent with few exceptions. For example: I have a mail notification applet that pops up a summary new mail, and I can click on the notification to launch my mail client of choice (which happens to be Mutt.) What the applet can't do is launch mutt (or attach to an existing instance) opening the current message that I clicked on. Obviously that is a very minor nit, and there are much bigger problems to tackle... Bonobo on Gnome is a start of that framework. KDE has it's own competing technology.
Take sound for instance... There are many competing frameworks (ecasound, jack, esd, etc.) Many applications only support one or two, and frequently the interface is buggy and doesn't work correctly. Good luck getting sound from Gaim, Mail notification, MPlayer, desktop sound effects, and Amarok all working at the same time. Can it be done? Well, yes, I was able to get it to work but it was Very painful. I seriously doubt the majority of linux users would be successful (newbies would be doomed.)
I guess my point is that we can either pretend that all is fine in the Linux desktop world, or we can look at what the other leaders in the market have done and realize that we have a lot more to do. With all the fractured alternative technologies to solve the same problem, I don't know if it the goal of everything working together seamlessly can ever be reached. That won't stop me, personally, from using Linux however. It will probably stop the enterprise.
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Specialization (Score:3, Insightful)
X is supremely lightweight. It's the widget libraries (gtk, qt, etc.) that are hefty, but even they aren't all that bad
compared to what Microsoft and Apple are doing.
From where I sit, it looks like the Linux desktop, technically, is doing just fine. It's the inertia of the market
(people don't like learning new things) that needs to be overcome.
Is Linux right for everyone? Of course, not. But it is right for a growing subset of everyone.
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem numero uno with Linux being as accessible as OS X or Windows is right there: "dumbed down". The idea that making an OS easy to use and install for Joe or Jane Average Computer User means sinking to a level of intelligence lower than that worthy of someone running Linux is, IMO, the main reason that Linux remains something for the geeky or curious. For the record, I use OS X as my main OS. For the record, I also run Ubuntu Linux on my old G3 laptop. My experience with Linux has been interesting: I've learned a lot of things about the OS and OSes in general. I have compiled software, hunted down dependencies, edited .conf files and tweaked xorg.conf to get direct rendering going. And, while all of these things have been fun to me because I have learned things I didn't know, none of them would have been interesting to me if I wasn't curious.
For someone who just wants their computer to be a tool, all of the things I had to do would've been a pain in the ass. And the Geek Machismo one sees on Slashdot--the idea that if you aren't willing to edit config files then you shouldn't really be using a computer--rests on twin assumptions, neither of which I believe. The first is that anyone who isn't willing to dive into the internals of their OS doesn't really deserve to use the thing. This idea, that pedantic technical knowledge implies a general superiority, isn't unique to computer geeks; I see it in audiophiles who feel that someone who buys a $199 WalMart stereo shouldn't be allowed to listen to music or foodies who think that olive oil from the supermarket renders a meal inedible. In all aspects it is wrong, elevating a narrow slice of personality above all else. It's really just a fuck you to anyone who doesn't have the knowledge.
The second assumption is that someone with superior technical knowledge will want to use it at all times, and I think it, too, is bullshit. My dad, an aerospace engineer, has been using computers longer than most people posting here have been alive. He is fluent in several computer languages and has written his own finite element analysis [wikipedia.org] software. At home he uses a Dell with Windows on it and doesn't want to mess around it more than he has to, because he's at home and has better things to do. I think both of these assumptions need to be abandoned before Linux really goes mainstream.
In other words, the problem really isn't with the technology. It's with the presentation and the preconception of what people who use the computer value and want to deal with. For Linux to be really successful on the desktop some group needs to really think about marketing and catering to stupid end users who still think it's a cup holder. And, more than that, some group will need to make the decision that the people who think the CD tray is a cup holder are the most important group of computer users out there. Because it's the people who get harshed on Slashdot, the people who don't use IRC or never touch the command line, who really decide success or failure in the marketplace. Simply put, there are many, many, many more of them than there are of those who will ever compile Beryl from source.
I know I've conflated Slashdot and the Linux community somewhat, and I know that although there is some overlap they are not one in the same. My comments about geek machismo are intended more for those here whom I see exhibiting that trait. For the record, the Ubuntu community has been great and has answered a lot of my questions to the best of my ability. However, for Linux to be truly mainstream it's going to have to be "dumbed down" even more. A lot of the tweakability is going to have to be hidden away behind GUIs like the BSD stuff is in OS X. And people who gladly use AOL and think that the computer is a magic box are going to have to
Not everyone can choose. (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I have never liked the Mac interface. I haven't spent that much time with it, but it has always frustrated me. For work, it is Windows - it just makes doing THAT particular job easier. I just want the right tool for the job. I am just glad I know how to use more than one tool. I don't really care if Linux gets mainstream acceptance, I just like it for what it is. (sometimes) Sometimes it frustrates the hell out of me, but that can happen with technology in general. It might be easier to set up printer sharing over your home network on Windows, but there are lots of other things that are easier on Linux. Think I didn't curse a bit when I upgraded my Kubuntu version recently, and had to re-hash out all of the X and Nvidia crap? Hell yes... but once I got it sorted out (again) I am back to being very happy with Linux. I like it despite its flaws, and I choose to use it. Not everyone can make that choice.
Choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Today I have 3 very solid choices (more, possibly, depending on how you count your linuxes) and we can all find the right environment for us. I love that, on my new computer, I can run OSX, Linux, and Windows, not just on the same box, but even at the same time. When I work from home I have OSX on one screen and Windows XP running in parallels connected to my work desktop. Theoretically I could probably hook up a third monitor and have a Linux desktop running too, but that'd be a wee bit of overkill (and I don't have nearly the desk space).
It still frustrates me though how much support is given to windows to the total exclusion of all else. I understand the business reasons for it, but it does drive me nuts that I have to dual-boot my computer just to play a game. But we are making progress I think, and perhaps growth in OSX may help Linux down the line, encouraging developers to write software that can take advantage of all platforms more easily.
Re:Bah, Humbug. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Desktops? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The bubble was never there. (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh?
So all those *nix admins responsible for a few dozen, a few hundred, or a few thousand systems are doing what? Using their company-provided MacBook or Windows desktop to ssh into the server? Running X remotely? Using Cygwin? Shuffling their chairs around or plugging in VGA cables or serial cables so they can sit at a connected monitor to get some work done? Investing in elaborate KVM setups?
Maybe you need to rethink your conclusion as "not interested in the desktop." I'd suggest the reality is that there is no overwhelming desire to write GUI applications to replicate what is traditionally done in a terminal window so that novice users will find things "easier". Unfortunate for some, maybe, but the reality is that *nix is designed around the concept of a terminal. Gnome, KDE and friends are mostly there to provide wallpaper.
Here's a tip. Many of us do use *nix as a "desktop". At the same time, most of us know there is no real distinction between desktop and server. Except for the wallpaper, perhaps.
Open minded about Vista (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly there are features that were added and features were improved. No one can doubt that. For the average person most of those feature enhancements have already been thwarted. You can still install malware and that malware can still damage your system through IE. The feature for escalating privs from the basic user to the admin level privs is old hat for Linux, mac, and unix.
On top of that there are some extremely serious issues with DRM particularly around content protection.
Vista essentially has little more. I have seen the refinements of programs and I see the 3d effects and I have used these since the beta release, but one thing is abundantly clear. Vista is nothing more than XP with a new interface with a few security enhancements copied from other operating systems that are already exploited or easily turned off, making them useless.
The requirements for additional hardware are excessive and the costs are outrageous.
Essentially you get forced into using Vista in the next couple years with all the DRM, content protection, microsoft proprietary features and rules, constant spying on you and what you are doing even with your own content, a anti-piracy feature that will harm more legit users than pirated copies, with enormous cost increases in hardware for the average home user not to mention on top of the costs associated with the purchase of the OS. From that the users get less choice. They loose more control of what they do on their computer and their computer is being used against them to control what they do on their computer.
Linux doesn't do any of this. You can grow with linux. You can increase your usage and incrementally increase your hardware without additional software costs. You don't have to report to anyone about your legitimacy and you can choose from any number very good software products such as open office and firefox. No one will check your machine daily, weekly, monthly to see if you should be using it or not and no one will threaten to shut down your computer. You won't have to report to microsoft every 6 months to prove that you are legit when you were legit 6 months ago.
I think 2007 is the year of linux if we can rid ourselves of the zealots and create a stable desktop with easy to install programs with alot of power. With Microsoft's super huge massive monopoly that is completely uncontrolled and not accountable to anyone we'll see many more people adopt the desktop of linux.
Ballmer knows this. That's why he threatened Linux. Microsoft is very afraid of the success of Linux because I blows their content protection monopoly out of the water. This is the very same reason Microsoft is fighting so hard to take over the DRM market. They know that DRM is to data what the OS/API is to applications. You get control of that OS/API and you control alot of other markets. You get control of the content protection and DRM and you control markets far outside of the computer.
The worst thing that could happen over the next 5 years is to have people adopting Vista. Please, promote linux in your community with your family and friends and tell them what microsoft is doing with content protection and DRM. The more people that know these details and see the linux side of things will join Linux and make it a larger stronger community.
Reading the recent commercial publications about Vista it is clear that many of these magazines and trade journals have been glossing over the negative aspects of Vista and over-emphasizing the copy-cat features of Vista. They degrade our trust in them by doing this. When you read an article talking about how User Access Control works remember that you have been using it in Linux for a long time, and when you see the nice 3d interface remember the high hardware costs
Re:OSX (Score:3, Insightful)
Point still is: For a desktop, I will choose OSX any day. For a server, give me Linux. For special-purpose machine, I'll also prefer Linux most of the times, because I can customize it better. But I much enjoy putting the hours I used to spend on resolving dependencies manually so I can compile this latest release of something into more personal projects instead.
Also, both KDE and Gnome suck. And I mean suck as in "they are almost as bad as windos". Inconsistent in many places, way too much me-too-copying (the K menu. Right. Take the dumbest idea from windos and copy it. I still think the designer of the K menu should be shot, together with the designers of the "Start" menu).
Linux's strengths are also its weaknesses. Yes, I can choose from 20 different window managers and 2 different desktop systems. But that also means not everything works with everything else, and stuff breaks randomly left and right.
Don't get me wrong, Linux is great. But while we (yes, I include myself, I used to be lightly involved with Gnome) tried to put Linux on the desktop, Apple lapped us.