The True Challenges of Desktop Linux 505
olau writes "Hot on the heels on the opinion piece on how Mac OS X killed Linux on the desktop is a more levelheaded analysis by another GNOME old-timer Christian Schaller who doesn't think Mac OS X killed anything. In fact, in spite of the hype surrounding Mac OS X, it seems to barely have made a dent in the overall market, he argues. Instead he points to a much longer list of thorny issues that Linux historically has faced as a contender to Microsoft's double-monopoly on the OS and the Office suite."
Re:mac is linux (Score:3, Informative)
No, UNIX is the umbrella. Linux is a kernel under that umbrella. OSX is an OS under the umbrella. Stop trying to rewrite computing history.
Re:mac is linux (Score:5, Informative)
If it's "all about the kernel", then why would you include OS X (which does not use a linux kernel) with the things we call "Linux", which do?
here's a thought: educate yourself on a topic before speaking about it.
Um....no. (Score:5, Informative)
Linux is not BSD. BSD is not Linux.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why do FOSS library folks hate ABI compatabilit (Score:4, Informative)
It's funny you say that.. The important Linux Desktop APIs have been stable for over a decade. Look at GLib 2.x and indeed the entire GNOME 2.x stack, it hasn't been broken. You can still run an application compiled against GTK+ 2.0 on any modern distribution.. Obviously, it will have the same functionalities that it had 10 years ago, but the same can be said of Windows or OSX.
And well, GTK+ 3 has a slightly different API, etc, but so is WinRT or many of the newer OSX APIs. And Well, GTK+ 2.x is parallel installable, so you can keep using it more or less forever.
Hi, my name is Anecdotal Evidence. (Score:5, Informative)
I was a Linux user beginning with Redhat 3. I went through Redhat, Mandrake, Fedora, Gentoo and Ubuntu. I've also used Solaris for a daily workstation.
Then I was assigned a Mac at a new job (running Tiger), and have never used anything else for a desktop since. I've had no reason to. I still keep an Ubuntu box in the house, but it's a server.
My name is Anecdotal Evidence, it's true, but whatever. I went Mac, and never looked back.
Re:Why do FOSS library folks hate ABI compatabilit (Score:4, Informative)
I think that you are thinking of "API": Application Programming Interface. I don't think that is what Christian Schaller is referring to programming interface compatibility but to binary compatibility of software packages between Linux distributions.
Let's say that you have a Fedora RPM for an app, and you wish to run that under Ubuntu.
While you can convert the raw RPM to DEB format, you can not auto-convert the binary files within the package.
The binary programs in the RPM have most likely been configured at compile time in a way that it has dependencies on libraries that are different on Ubuntu.
On Windows and MacOS, respectively, there is only one distribution, and therefore they do not have this problem.
But yes, API compatibility between versions of a library is also a problem.
Re:mac is linux (Score:5, Informative)
OSX is not Linux. It is a UNIX (i.e. BSD-derived in this case), while Linux is UNIX-like, i.e. a clean (sort of) room re-implementation.
Re:mac is linux (Score:4, Informative)
There is no argument, you are simply wrong. OS X does not use a Linux kernel.
Re:mac is linux (Score:2, Informative)
Linux is a kernel. Nothing more, nothing less. What makes it usable are 3rd parties that bundle it with other required components.
OSX is a complete system as shipped from one vendor. If you want to talk kernels, there a Mach kernel in OSX.
Same for BSD, its a complete system shipped from one 'organization', not just a ( important ) core component.
Re:mac is linux (Score:3, Informative)
Ad hominem much? You know, it really takes away from the power of your argument... So do typos/grammos.
No. What he said is pretty much true. Mac OS-X uses a heavily modified BSD kernel. It is 100% not Linux. Also, I don't see anything wrong with suggesting somebody check their facts before posting. Saying something is ad hominem doesn't make it so.
Attempting to discredit somebody's point by criticizing their grammatical and spelling errors is, however, ad hominem. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Why do FOSS library folks hate ABI compatabilit (Score:5, Informative)
That idiot-proof method you wish for is already there. It's called a package manager and every major distribution has one. Ok, so it's not recompiling the software for you on the fly (in most cases) but that's because someone else has done that for you so you don't even need to think about it. It really couldn't be easier, either by GUI or CLI.
Re:mac is linux (Score:4, Informative)
Mac is certified, official Unix. (from your opengroup link)
Re:It is a lot simpler... (Score:5, Informative)
One of the biggest reasons that Linux hasn't made it on the desktop is poor Video Game Support!
Maybe it was a concern 10+ years ago when if you wanted to play the latest Doom you had to have a PC. But things changed, starting with PS3 and ending with a number of other usable consoles. I got PS3 here, for example, and a bunch of games on BlueRay disks for it. Since then I stopped playing on a PC, except a few old games that I care to remember now and then.
But I don't run Linux on my desktop - even though I'm well aware of Linux and I run it on a few servers here and elsewhere. I simply have zero reason to do so. The Windows tax, about $50, is paid at the time of purchase of a box, and I cannot imagine suing MS to get it back. Besides Win7 is pretty good as it is. IMO Win7 is better than a typical Linux distrubution. All the software is available for it; most of it is free enough. As the geeks get older they also get richer, and they value their time more than money; they learn that the money can be earned, but the time cannot. If a piece of software costs $100 (say, Quicken) and takes 5 minutes to get from nothing to a fully functioning system it is better than to spend $0 and waste weeks trying to cobble together a comparable solution. (Comparable? With WebConnect? Hard to believe; I haven't checked on GnuCash recently, though.)
So why in the world would a generic, average user want to use Linux? What are the advantages? In some cases I can understand that Linux can be easier to administer remotely, like when you are building a computer for your grandparents. But VNC is an option on Windows as well. Resistance to viruses? Perhaps - until a virus for Linux shows up. Anything else that a common man would care about? Something for what a common man would wipe his $50 investment clean and install Linux? I don't see a convincing reason to switch at all. Microsoft was wise enough to hide its tax well; on top of that if you go to Fry's and look at a computer with Linux, the price is the same - the money just goes not to MS but to the place where that Linux box was assembled. The customer does not feel a difference price-wise, but he feels a lot of difference usability-wise. That's why Linux on desktop is going nowhere; MS wares are cheap enough and good enough. Some even say that they are better than Linux (see above) but that may end with release of Win8.
This is also the reason why Linux on servers is alive and well. MS charges a lot of money for even an entry level server ($800 for a Small Business Server, IIRC) - this money will buy you a lot of stuff if you don't care about windows-specific functions like the domain controller or SharePoint services. Apache is even easier to configure than the IIS. Still, many businesses buy into SBS just to get MS Exchange.
no one killed the linux desktop (Score:5, Informative)
Its just to much of a pain in the ass to deal with on a daily basis, and I have been fighting it for at least a decade