Bob Young says Linux won't rule the desktop 526
Wee writes "I just came across this interesting Yahoo interview with Bob Young
in which he says that Linux won't rule the desktop but will instead focus on replacing legacy Unix systems and enhancing Linux's embedded presence. He makes some pretty good points. The oddest quote: "So our opportunity is not to replace Microsoft on the PC. If you've got a perfectly good working PC, why you would go through the angst of replacing it?". Not sure where to start answering that one. My wife (a dedicated Win32 user) liked his car analogy. I need to get her to read 'In the Beginning was the Command Line'..."
but (Score:3, Funny)
yet...
Re:but (Score:2)
Sigh (Score:2, Insightful)
Friggin' astonishingly original viewpoint.
Re:Sigh (Score:2, Informative)
Alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Alternative (Score:3, Informative)
I use Windows when I have to, such as syncing my Sony Clie (pilot-xfer is working on supporting it), playing DirectX 8 games (Transgaming is working on supporting that), and running MS Office when absolutely necessary (otherwise, I'm loving StarOffice 6 and KOffice.)
Linux has become an alternative for me, so I use it. Many others are discovering the same thing. It did replace Windows as my primary desktop, but only because I was willing to take the time to learn it, and willing to tolerate some of the lingering annoyances. It's getting better all the time, too.
--SC
Re:Alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
This is where Linux is a big win in the server market, and why companies like Dell and (apparently) RH are targetting those markets. It's hard for Sun or HP to compete, when their low-end servers (up to 4 procs) are sometimes 4 times as costly to buy as a commodity x86 server.
But on the other hand, the desktop market is already deeply steeped in cheap, commodity x86 boxes. What OS an enterprise chooses to put on it really boils down to support, since the few hundred bucks for a license doesn't really show up on the balance sheet after the first year. Maintenance, however, keeps going (and it's cost rising) as the box gets older.
It's going to take a strong, stable company that can attract enterprise buyers and managers to sell the Linux desktop into the environment. So from what I see of this, RH is saying "Don't look at us just yet."
Hmmm. Maybe IBM?
Re:Alternative (Score:2)
That's why companies shouldn't be looking at replacing Windows desktops with Linux desktops. They should take a look at replacing Windows desktops with thin clients that connect to a Linux server.
Key Largo has hundreds of these whatsits connected to one commodity Intel-based server. Instead of administering hundreds of PCs, they administer one server, and have a pile of disposable clients. Not only does this drastically reduce client license costs, but it also drastically reduces maintenance costs.
Want to upgrade your client OS? You only have to touch one machine. Want to install a new application? You only have to touch one machine. Want to increase performance for a CPU intensive application? You guessed it, you only have to touch one machine.
Throw in a Citrix box for legacy Windows applications, and you are set.
RedHat has always been smart about understating their position. They didn't even talk about replacing commercial Unix until it became obvious that the industry was headed in that direction. Bob Young was simply pointing out that RedHat isn't dependent on Linux taking off on the desktop.
Re:Alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alternative (Score:2)
to individuals and corporations who can't (or don't want to) afford the licensing fees and the cost of upgrades.
Hmmm... as if any of our new potential users of Linux have much choice in the matter of upgrade. (Kind of like the choice Aunt Tilly has of just accepting IE that came with her PC, or downloading and installing Netscape over her 28k modem:)
AFAICT, consumers consider an OS part of the computer and would no more want to muck around with the OS than they would want to change motherboards, another essential part of a PC. All they want is to make sure than whatever shrink-wrapped application they bought several years ago will run on their PC.
Corporate users (don't you just hate the new word "prosumers") usually have even less choice about their desktop operating system. Corporate IT wants to keep costs down by enforcing uniformity and, despite the costs of MS OS's, are afraid of the fact that "everyone uses Word" and we can't make another choice.
In almost every other venue where corporate purchasing decisions are made, there is some uneasiness about sole suppliers, or being restricted to a single vendor. But in the arena of PC operating systems for the desktop, this healthy attitude is somehow suspended.
A few reasons to switch from MS to Linux: (Score:3, Interesting)
You would switch away from Windows for these reasons:
1) You don't want to be on the upgrade treadmill, in which you pay money to Microsoft every year, and continue to get software that needs more upgrades. One upgrade at $180 may be acceptable, but $180 per year amounts to $1,800 in ten years.
2) You don't want an operating system with a single point of failure: the registry. The registry is a primitive database that is, in practice, not maintainable. If something goes wrong, the suggested fix (from Microsoft) has been to re-load the operating system and all your programs and configurations and driver upgrades.
3) You are worried that some of the security risks of Windows were deliberately put there for surveillance, by order of the U.S. government. It puzzles you that the United States Department of Justice case [usdoj.gov] is being settled with little or no penalty to Microsoft. Would the U.S. government do something this sneaky? Here are links to 600 pages of articles that say yes: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
4) You want the flexibility that comes from owning the source code. You may never use the source code, but if you have a big company, and you find some kind of problem, having the source code may be the answer. For example, if there is a bug in a driver for 1,000 pieces of equipment you own, and the manufacturer won't fix it soon enough for you, you can fix it yourself.
5) You want to avoid invasions of business privacy forced on you by Microsoft. Microsoft is requiring that the location and owner of each copy of its XP operating system be disclosed to Microsoft.
Why replace it? simple... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why replace it? simple... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why replace it? simple... (Score:2)
My point was that the "good enough" theory to development, ie "Why should we try to make Linux a desktop OS when Windows is Good Enough?" is a flawed question, not only one that shouldn't be answered, but one that shouldn't be asked.
He sees what industry leaders see (Score:2, Insightful)
The future is in the palm of our hands, literally. Small devices are going to be the key to explosive sales in the coming decade. And who is positioned well here?
WindRiver (though talking to an engineer from a company who did business with them, they have LOUSY developer support)
Redhat (it doesn't hurt to be the leading Linux provider in the world)
FSMLabs (creators of RTLinux. Even if they aren't the integrators, they are poised to be exceptional support)
Microsoft (you didn't think the giant was sleeping, did you?)
Re:He sees what industry leaders see (Score:2)
The only question is whether Microsoft will get themselves in there. They aren't doing so great if it's the handhelds that grow into the killer devices, but they don't seem to be doing so bad with Xbox. Be very worried.
By the way, the author of this article is a liar and crazy if he thinks I'll believe his wife liked the car analogy. Who would marry him?
Re:He sees what industry leaders see (Score:2)
not sure the movie... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it's the Life of Brian... Yeah, where the mobs of people where following him around, claiming that silly and sensible things he would say where completely something else, in the end not listening to reason? Well.. sounds like the linux community.
hehe, RMS could play the guy who sits in the pit for silence. Well, at least with looks.
Re:not sure the movie... (Score:3, Funny)
RMS could play the guy who sits in the pit for silence
I, for one, wish he would.
Re:not sure the movie... (Score:2)
Re:not sure the movie... (Score:2)
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What?! Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Brian: Now, @#$% off!
[silence]
Arthur: How shall we @#$% off, O Lord?
Heh.
Re:not sure the movie... (Score:2)
"Follow the gourd!" "No, no, follow his shoe!"
...
"It's a miracle! Juniper berries!" "Of course they're juniper berries! They're juniper bushes!"
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows works. It may not be perfect, but it gets the job done, especially when the job is pure entertainment. That's why I have a computer at home, and I bet that's why a large majority of home computers are bought. I also have a linux partition on there, but I haven't booted into linux in over a year. I simply have no need for it, and everything I use my computer for can be done without problems under windows.
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux and Apple are in a similar situation. Both are "niche" players in the tech industry. Neither has to "conquor" MS in order to be successful. Many so-called "pundits" claim that Apple will never survive unless they start courting the enterprise market. Many among the legions of Apple fans believe the same thing, however, they overlook the fact that Apple is an extreamly successful company within their selected niche of the tech market.
Linux does not have to conquor the desktop in order to be successful, as has been demonstrated over the past few years by the number of companies that are using it as a Server operating system. It (an I am using the word it to describe the body of developers that contribute to and maintain all of the Linux code) simply has to focus on what it's doing right- providing a good alternative to Windows & Unix servers, and to continue to improve in that market.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrary to popular belief (at least here), Linux is just not ready for the everyday person's desktop.
I disagree, Windows has only one advantage over Linux and that is games. This may be a problem on the home desktop, but on the business desktop, it is not relevant. In every other area Linux has an free or nearly free alternative. Email, web browsing and content creation all have usable and in some cases outstanding programs. Even Exchange Server can be replaced, to include shared calenders (easy to implement with Apache/PHP) and address books (LDAP). I have helped a few small businesses convert to a Linux Based desktop for all employees, some do complain for a little while, but then they get back to doing whatever it is they get paid to do, especially when the CEO pointed out, it was either convert to Linux or face other budget cuts and possibly layoffs. I have yet to see anyone not be able to figure out how to use StarOffice. Frankly, someone who can't figure out StarOffice is probably not someone you want working for you anyway. With the sole exception of games, Linux is ready for the desktop. As a side note, I am just the opposite of you, I have a Windows partition on my system, but I haven't booted into it since I did the install, about 8 month ago. I am thinking about killing it and using the space for something useful.
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, here's a couple:
* I launch an app. For whatever reason, it fails to start. Smart apps like Galeon and Evolution provide this functionality (Xine, for example), but most other will simply not start with absolutely no explanation why. Lack of feedback is incredibly frustrating for users.
* I'd like to install a program. Witch a clever app like urpmi or APT, I can easily type the name of the app I want and downlaod / install it. its a great way to find Linux software. But to do that, I had to learn that `update' meant refesh the list of avaliable software, as opposed to `upgrade' which meant to upgrade my system. And that `rpm' handles queries of what's installed, but I should use a seperate program called `apt' to fetch and install stuff. New users shouldn't have to learn things like that. Where's our equivalent, of, say, the QNX installer? Something that has a bug button called `refresh list of available software', integrated help, that has clear labels and handles everything you need toi install apps, whether local or from repositories, in one app, as well as allowing end users to simply *browse* what's available. Synaptic can sort of do that, but it does a very poor job. I haven't looked at the other APT frontends but Synaptic supposed to be the best.
* And...
- My hard drive can be melting but Linux won't tell me.
- My system could be slowing to a crawl because of a scheduled task and Linux won't tell me. -
- My system administrator could be telling me to get the hell of the network as he's about to bring our server down for maintenance but Linux won't tell me
This is because KDE, Gnome, Blackbox, FVWM and every other user environment won't tell you the things you NEED to know unless you're running xconsole all the time. No messages, no `hdc is melting', no talk, nothing. The end result is that horrible things can happen behind users backs with generally no explanation from the interface. This is *really, *really* poor.
* Lack of understanding of basic user needs, especially for command line apps. `Hi, there's no man page for this, you need the info page'. Well then show me the fucking info page, you're a computer, its not that hard. People still write apps which say `you need to be root to run this'. How about talking to some generic library that can work out if I'm allowed to su to another account with the permissions (typically root, hopefully not), and *ask me* to enter in the damned password. You know I want to run the tool, you know I can run the tool, so let me run the fucking tool.
Anyway, that's my morning rant over and done with. Hopefully someone with the requisite skills is listening (I'm more of a sysadmin and I make a pretty poor programmer). If anybody ever changes anything based on this I'd be uber grateful, and if you're wondering, I'm slowly workign to changing it myself.
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Interesting)
That's true. My complaint is that they shouldn't exist in the first place.
The reason the GUI doesn't report anything, is because its not its job.
So its the console's job to print these messages, but not Xs? Why is that so? What is it about desktop users (who almost invariably use X) that makes them not need to know that hdc hasn't been reponding for the last five minutes?
As for system updates, RedHats up2date and Ximian redcarpet are as easy to use as it gets, point, click and drool, while it downloads.
up2date doesn't handle installing packages off one's hard disk, cdrom or any local source. Its only repository is Red Hat updates. So I'll discount that as an option. Up2date is a maintenance tool, not a general multi-purpose software installer, which is sorely needed.
Red Carpet OTOH is great, but unforunately I can't find a way of creating my own Red Carpet repositories like I can with APT. If you can provide me with a link to such information, I'd be very grateful.
chmod +s
Exactly. I don't want everyone to be able to run the program I just want people who can run the program be asked for the relevant passwords rather than having a nasty `Kpackage needs to run as ROOT!' message thrown at them. Its not necessary and confusing for end users. Again. smart tools like the aforementioned Red Carpet and all RHs setup tools do this, but many don't.
As for the man pages, I am sure a short shell script to check for a man page, info page or something in
Exactly. Lets call it `help', and ship it with every Linux distro. Unfortunately that's not currently the case, which is my point.
Doing small things like this makes a big difference to end user experience. But thanks for your post - you've been a lot more polite than the other fellow who responded.
Mike
Re:Makes sense (Score:2)
I'd have to disagree with you, strongly, every time my room mate installs a game that fucks over something in Windows and *I* have to spend 4 hours fixing the goddamn thing.
I used to think it was just because I hadn't done Windows in a while and was out of touch. So I told her to get her help elsewhere. The next time it happened she recruited some folks she knows who do Windows support for a living. 2 weeks later, she got her computer back...
Linux has no shortage of applications and Wine is actually robust enough to run Lotus Notes and a growing number of games now (I like that the Wine solution is actually slightly painful, as the better the Windows emulation is, the less incentive developers will have to target the native platform.)
The current drawbacks are political ones, not technical.
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I've built a few web/email/writing letters to grannie machines for various people, and not only was the result pretty much indistinguishable from what said people were expecting (NOT exactly like Win, mind you -- far more usable; have someone who's used to using Macs show you how to configure the Gnome UI sometime), but the whole experience was less of a headache for me than MS would have been. 15 minutes to install a base system, pop in a CD and let apt figure out how to install the 10 or so packages the user will really need, get a sandwhich and spend another 10 minutes tweaking configs and its done.
Re:Makes sense in a lazy thinking way... (Score:3, Interesting)
No.
Example: install Ximian Gnome, which supposedly represents the 'friendliest' Linux GUI.
Now try right-clicking on a compressed .tar or .tgz file. You'll notice there is no option to decompress such files.
These are very common in Linux land, you'll need to decompress them all the time.
If you use Ximian Gnome and need to decompress that file, you'll need to hop out to the command line and issue a command. If you're new, you'll also have to read the help to learn the appropriate arguments.
That is not user friendly.
Re:Makes sense in a lazy thinking way... (Score:2)
Yes, I do think compress/decompress should be built right into the OS. Compressed folders should be transparent to file-management tools -- that is, when you download a zip or tarball containing multiple compressed files to your hard drive, it should look like a directory, the files contained should be listed just like a directory, and the same commands should move files in and out. But no OS that I know of is actually there yet, and if Linux distros include a command-line program that decompresses standard compressed files, that's better than Windows.
OTOH, I can download (nearly) free GUI compress/decompress tools for Windows, even if the OS integration is not as good as I could imagine. Do such tools exist for Linux? And if they do exist, why in hell aren't they in the standard distros?
Re:Makes sense in a lazy thinking way... (Score:2)
Now try right-clicking on a compressed
Well, I'm not sure Gnome qualifies as the friendliest. There are a number of things KDE does better, and this is one of them. In konq, you can right click on a compressed file and either uncompress it right there or open it in Archiver and uncompress it anywhere you want.
And yes, XP does now have unzip capabilities built in, as well as the cd burning software.
Not to get to OT, but another problem I had with Nautilus was that if you opened up a directory with a lot of pictures in it, it would eventually throw up its hands and say there were too many files to read. KDE never did that.
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Redundant)
Tell that to Oracle. They are replacing their big Sparc boxes with commodity Intel-based servers running Linux.
If Oracle can do it, you can bet that you can too. In fact, you can bet that if you don't use a combination of commodity Intel-based servers and commodity Free Software to lower your costs your competitor will, and his overhead will be that much lower than yours.
The days where big-iron Unix users could afford to laugh at Linux are over.
Sorry to say... (Score:3, Insightful)
And the extreme amount of zealots there are out there is bound to scare ANY corporate type away. The world is just not ready to handle a way of looking at things that doesn't include much financial analysis and is not documented in a very idiot-proof, procedural manner.
Re:Sorry to say... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh what's that? They'd rather put up with him than with you?
Re:Sorry to say... (Score:2, Interesting)
In my opinion, if OS wants to score big-time corporate recognition faster than it has currently, they should get all the out-spoken OS people they can find along with all the most-respected OS developers and put them in a room together. All the non-zealots should tell the zealots to chill out because they aren't helping much. Then they sit down like a corporation, decide what their goals are, and then all - AS ONE VOICE - preach to the masses what the goals are. It won't be easy, but if it could be done, Linux would get to where everyone wants it to go a lot faster.
Why we should not try to be a corporation (Score:2, Insightful)
We are not a corporation, and should not try to be one.
Not beeing a corporation is the OS movements greatest strenght! Not beeing a corporation we can do things a corporation can't. We stay free.
And the movement is, unlike a corporation, almost unkillable...
The day the OS community speak with one voice is the beginning of the end.
Re:Sorry to say... (Score:2)
Repeat 1,000 times: Competition is good. Competing Open Source would be even better.
Re:Sorry to say... (Score:2)
Really? It wouldn't happen in a corporation? Who do you go to above the CEO? You might say the Board or the shareholders, but I'm sorry, I don't see developer disputes in shareholder meetings. You're stuck with the CEO's decision. After all, it's often his company. Just like this is Torvalds kernel.
If you don't like it, fork. That's something you definitely don't get to do at a corporation.
Re:Sorry to say... (Score:2)
That's the beauty, folks (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually do think Linux stands a chance on the desktop, but it has yet to mature. Microsoft has almost 20 years of experience with making a desktop oriented OS, which is why they are good at that. However, they have only had to think about security since 1995 when they opened their eyes and saw the Internet, and seven years later they are still having major problems in that area.
Linux only has five or six years of desktop momentum (KDE and GNOME) and I think we've achieved more for Linux on the desktop in those years than Microsoft has achieved regarding to security.
And as long as some people will want to embed Linux, others want to make it part of high-availability clusters and yet others want to make it a desktop OS, all of those features will survive and fill a nice if not become very vital. :)
Re:That's the beauty, folks (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is, most of the heavy lifting has been done already. As you say, the momentum is in Linux's favor. Networking's going well, a plethora of devices are supported, and people have much Free and free software to choose from. All we need for a desktop-ready Linux is a bit more chrome, a simplified configuration environment, and probably a bit more commercial quality support/software aimed at home and small business users and gamers. Or am I oversimplifying things?
Re:That's the beauty, folks (Score:2, Insightful)
Just in the last few months we have good doc & xls compatability with StarOffice. (Not writing, only reading) This makes it finally *possible* for the desktop replacement in an office. Moz is a nice browser now too.
If one looks how fast the major desktops (kde/gnome) have come in the last five years--and extend that to the next five, we will have a very user friendly gui. Has W2K->WXP gui improved much? I don't think it has because it can't improve that much more! There are diminishing marginal returns here and while we are currently behind MS in ease of use, we are approaching that point.
For the same reason that many businesses don't buy the most fancy chairs for their employees, some won't want to spend on the most fancy GUI. We're cheaper with fewer virii and that counts for a lot in your average office.
Re:That's the beauty, folks (Score:2)
I disagree. Microsoft really only has 6 years experience making a truely desktop oriented OS. They started that with Windows 95. (even though I used Win2 and Win3.x, looking back they were a joke and not really user oriented) Maybe you're thinking of another company that has had such experience since 1984.
how about (Score:2, Redundant)
A super simple GUI with only the most basic features and most commonly used features from email, web, file browsing, etc. and screw all the rest.
How hard can that be to learn, or even to write for that matter?
Re:how about (Score:2, Informative)
- IceWM [sourceforge.net]
- QVWM [qvwm.org](for those addicted to Windows)
Re:how about (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounds like that would be possible, IF you sold preloaded hardware + software, that is a PC built to your spec with Linux and (say) Star-Office already installed, completely set up, and impossible to graunch short of reading the manual until one finds the admin password. (This is sort of like how OEM's sell PC's with Windows + Office, only leave out the crap add-ons, please...)
To send out a CD that will install on any PC without the user scrambling around to find drivers for his hardware, etc., just isn't possible -- even with the thousands of programmers MS put on trying to integrate all the drivers into the Windows CD's, there are still quite a few PC's where Windows install requires considerable user intervention.
Linux is great, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Better car analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
I always preferred the more abstract one: "Automatic transmissions exist. They are convenient. The car shifts for you. But sometimes a standard transmission is better. You want manual control. You want to rock the car out of a snowbank. Or maybe you just feel more comfortable with that extra degree of control while you're driving. Sometimes you want to be the one deciding when to shift, not the car. Maybe you don't want to pay the extra $800 for automatic transmission. Maybe you don't want to overcomplicate your car with the extra bits. That's fine."
That's called choice, and it's all lots of us have ever wanted.
Why the car hood analogy works... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is relevant to people.
When I buy a car, I COULD tinker with it. However, I can take it to the dealership for repairs. I can also take it to my local mechanic for repairs.
That last part is key. With a closed source OS, say, Sun Microsystems's Solaris (I won't participate in the Linux vs. Microsoft masterbation that goes on here), I need my bugs fixed by Sun or not at all.
Sure Sun's source availability lets me fix it myself if I'm a huge customer, but if I only have 10-25 Sun workstations/servers, how many Solaris hackers to I have. However, if Sun denies the problem, I am screwed. I may NEVER touch a line of source code in the Linux kernel, but if I need a driver and the hardware makes won't write it, I can hire someone else to do so.
The trick is that I don't need to hire Redhat. I can call 1 of hundreds of Linux programmers and offer them $X to fix my problem. This makes Redhat cheaper (competition) and not the only option.
If I need a solution to problem A, I like having lots of people that I can call. Sure Redhat is the biggest, but there are others. With Microsoft's shared source or Sun's screwy license, I can't necessarily hire others to do things. With GPLed or BSDed code, I can hire ANYONE I want to solve my problem.
Alex
Re:Better car analogy (Score:2)
What makes you think an "automatic transmission" for Linux is so far off?
Re:Better car analogy (Score:2)
I don't. But I also expect that if that ever happened, then it would come with something that cars still don't have -- the ability to switch between automatic and standard whenever you choose. Not having to pick one or the other, exclusively.
ok, an opinion he has (Score:2)
Re:ok, an opinion he has (Score:2)
Re:ok, an opinion he has (Score:2)
The problem is inertia (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem that any number of underdog OS's have these days is overcoming consumer inertia. What I mean by that statement is this: once a set of products has hit a certain point and gains consumer acceptance, it is very hard to change the direction that that market is going. Microsoft has done this again and again with both its operating systems and its application suites, both of which are very closely tied together and tend to pull each other along.
What Young is doing is trying to get Red Hat into those markets where there either isn't consumer inertia toward a product or where the market is unsettled. If he can gain acceptance, then his end goal (making money through pushing Linux) is achieved. All in all it is a pretty smart move.
What Linux needs in general is a robust set of applications that consumers can use transparently with Microsoft products. If attractively priced, this could conceivably pull users to the OS, especially in light of Microsofts new licensing trends.
2 more cents down the drain...
Re:The problem is inertia (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The problem is inertia (Score:2)
If that is the case, he should have stated so more clearly. Instead of saying "Linux will never rule the desktop" (which is not true), he should have said, "RedHat is focusing primarily on the server and UNIX workstation markets." IMO, what he said is almost a means of trying to make RedHat look better by cutting down Linux overall.
Of course this isn't really about Linux anyhow. It's about desktop environments that run on Linux. I don't think the hard-working KDE folk would share his pessimism.
Why must the desktop have a monopoly? (Score:2)
And one of them raises his hand and says "But, I just don't like this. can I have something different?"
The answer would be no, wouldn't it? Wouldn't that suck as much as the current microsoftopoly?
I don't care if my officemates or my parents or my wife runs Linux. I want the choice to run Linux (and continue to interact with them). I want Linux to be allowed by Microsoft to generate a reasonable enough market share that software vendors work with us, produce drivers, etc.. That's it. I'm not interested in replacing one monopoly with another one.
People shouldn't create linux desktops (Score:2)
where's the real vision? (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux is a fine desktop replacement, no worse than Windows or MacOSX. If someone wanted to take on those systems, they needed figure out how to bundle Linux with hardware, attract more developers, and market it. But that isn't even the question.
The real question is: after companies like RedHat have extracted much of the value of Linux and other open source software, where are they going to go? What is their vision for the future? "Replacing X with open source software that magically appears" isn't the answer.
In fact, I doubt that in another 10-20 years, we will even have desktops in the traditional sense, and embedded devices will look very different as well. What kind of vision does Young have for that? Not much, it seems.
Thanks, Bob. (Score:2)
Desktop. (Score:4, Flamebait)
Gee, I don't know how anyone can say that. Between the consistent user interface, the ease of setting up printing, and the huge game library, Linux is a cinch to take over the desktop computers of the world.
*crickets*
--saint
(I'm just bitter -- still trying to set up CUPS.)
Well he would say that, wouldn't he? (Score:2)
"Hey, Microsoft, over here! Point all your fire power at us!! We're trying to steal your cash cow!"
I would like to be able to quote an ancient Chinese saying at this point, but I can't remember any, so I'll make one up: "The stupid young stag challenges the dominant male at every opportunity, and gets his young antlers broken. The wise young stag waits until his antlers are strong, and knows he can win." Whatever.
frustrating (Score:2, Informative)
Despite the progress made by people like Ximian, there is just way to much stuff in the way of new users trying to get familiar with Linux.
Even in something very recent (RH 7.2) I still find the following problems:
And let me clarify, I don't mean that it is not possible for Linux to do these things, only that it is not intuitive for a new user to do so.
Now there are certainly those who would argue that they prefer the system not do so much on their behalf, I agree, which is why there should be a toggle - both the new and advanced user can be satisfied! Right now, they are not.
Re:frustrating (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, learning is hard, and choice is bad. My mistake. The current party line is "Free Software will never rule the desktop." I stand corrected, Ye Mighty Slashdot Gods.
And besides, Bob's affiliated with a company that decided to abandon the desktop as soon as the stock market went bust. Thanks for developing GNOME, guys; however, we just don't think you'll ever amount to anything. Thanks for playing anyway.
Bah. RH used to be good for the world of Linux. I'm not so sure anymore.
Why does it have to be 'answered'? (Score:5, Insightful)
The desktop wars are over. Move on to the next thing.
So Microsoft has won the "desktop" wars. So what? Do you really think that in 5-10 years, people are still going to be using bulky beige boxes to connect to the Internet? No, they are going to be using everything from home entertainment consoles to cell phones to PDAs.
Some of you may remember the days when a "personal" computer was a joke. "Computers" were those giant hulking things that took up an entire room and required their own cooling system. As Bob says, "Microsoft did not convince people to unplug VMS from their Digital VAX systems in 1979. They took advantage of a major shift in technology toward the PC, and they became the de facto standard on the new technology model, being the PC."
The shift in technology now is smaller, faster, wireless, and pervasive. The idea of 'turning on' a computer to 'use the Internet' will become old-fashioned more quickly than you can imagine. By the time a majority of people think that Linux will be ready to rule the PC world, PCs will be the passe way to connect to the Internet. Microsoft is already expanding in this field with the XBox and the tablet PC (which, IMHO, is a natural evolution of the computer.) Anything that is wireless is huge right now.
This whole desktop war is silly. Linux is its best when people don't even know or care what OS their products are running. Look at TiVo. Do I care that it runs Linux? Nope, because it works flawlessly and doesn't require me to know arcane command line tools. TiVo rocks not because it's Linux, but because it does its job and does it well. That's the problem I have with Linux zealots -- they want Linux regardless of whether Linux fits the job or not.
Why is it necessary to force people to relearn something? Instead of parroting Microsoft, let's be innovative. Let's put Linux into the greatest, coolest new devices (TiVo, PDAs, cellphones.) Let's look at where the market will be in 5 years instead of being hyper-focused on beating Microsoft today. Otherwise, Microsoft and the rest of the world will move on, and Linux will be left behind.
(More about this in my journal. [slashdot.org])
Re:Why does it have to be 'answered'? (Score:2, Interesting)
Do any of you remember, Paradox was the best DOS & Windows PC database around. Then MS got access and office 4.3 and 95 out the door. They got the OEM's to ship the software "free" (leverage) and MS Office became the defacto standard. (By the way, there are lots of other stories just like this one, I just offer this up for example.) Paradox disappeared! Sure, the WP/Novell/Corel/Borland disaster didn't help things, but the DB never disappeard, it was always available. In fact, the language behind Paradox (follow-on to PAL) has to be the most sophisticated scripting/programming language I've ever seen in a desktop DB. It's still light-years ahead of Access. [But I digress...]
We have to challange MS in some fashion that will prevent it from leveraging it's stanglehold elsewhere. How to do that, I am not sure. We must be sure not to fight the last war, and loose.
The PC isn't going away, sure there will be lots of specific use devices, and breaking the MS monopoly there is VERY important, but we have to also respond on the Desktop too.
As to not "being hyper-focused on beating Microsoft today" - I agree. I could really care less about MS. All I really want is decent competition. If RH/Linux (I'm sure that made RMS's skin crawl!) becomes the next standard, and they have no competition, it's be as sad as MS is now. But, beating MS is a means to and end. By beating MS, there is a window opened that allows many options to actually become options. That's the point.
Anyway, good post, I do agree with most of the points. To reiterate, we have to break the monopoly to be able to really offer a competitive alternative. To do so, I think will have to be challenged on the desktop. It might not be a direct challange, but it will have to even out the playing field. Is that Linux, or some other alternative? I don't know, I just know that there's going to have to be some decent, realistic, and viable alternative otherwise, we'll be saddled with MS for a LONG time to come.
Cheers!
Re:Why does it have to be 'answered'? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're forgetting one fundamental feature of the desktop that sets it apart from all other computer implementations out there. The fact is, the desktop computer is our best general purpose computer.
All of the next-generation devices you mention are all specific-purpose machines. The desktop, on the other hand, has proven to be extremely extensible and flexible, capable of doing so much more than any of the piddly devices you talk about. The general purpose computer is what lets things like Gnutella and other exotic technologies develop, flourish, and become of our accepted culture.
Without the general purpose computer we become locked into the device, along with its limitations and controls. We can hack the general purpose computer to get around artificial limitations. We can't do that with appliance-computers.
For this reason, we cannot forget the desktop. Until another solution comes along and gives us at least the same power the general purpose computer does, we will keep on using them, because they can do so much, uninhibited by the machinery underlying them.
It is because of the general-purpose desktop computer that we have the information freedom we do today. General purpose computing, I strongly believe, is the driving force that we need to concentrate on.
Re:Why does it have to be 'answered'? (Score:2)
Microsoft is trying in their usual, bumbling way. If RedHat wants to be part of the future, they need something a little more visionary than "replace UNIX" and "don't replace the desktop".
PC's are NOT dying (Score:2)
Do you really think that in 5-10 years, people are still going to be using bulky beige boxes to connect to the Internet?
How many times have we heard the "PC is dying" routine?" For the past 10 years, we have seen multiple occasions where the PC was on it's deathbed, but yet it still exists today. Hell, by now I was suppose to be running a network computer, using office via my web browser, and getting all my content from "PUSH technology." I do agree that there will be many different ways to connect to the Internet, but the PC is here to stay. The more Internet devices we acquire, the more we will need a PC to manage these devices.
You are fooling yourself guy. (Score:4, Insightful)
You are obviously not aware of the poor bastards in our faultering economy that have to deal with the license or upgrade taxes from Microsoft.
IT managers had a taste this year of a slow economy, and when things are bad, the Microsoft tax treadmill on say, 200-300 desktops is a significant piece of money employers would like to use to pay raises, bonuses, health insurance and business opportunities to expand upon. Which, I would like to note, their competitors can't if they have to ship that money to Microsoft.
My entire company in fact, BETS that my competitors will buy into
WILL BE MY CUSTOMERS.
The desktop battle, was won by Microsoft, true, but anyone who says the war is over has never worked in a all IT Microsoft shop in a bad business climate.
The server room battle is now going on, and Linux is winning this battle. Once Linux is firmly entrenched in the enterprise server room...
THEN we will turn our expertise and knowledge and better value all around, towards the desktop.
Uncle Bill and Stevey boy are going to wake up one day and find themselves in a world dominated by Java virtual machines that run everywhere and typically more than not, servers, pda's, cell phones, etc are also running some form of Linux underneath them.
It is already happening.
Those companies that refuse to follow suit will not be able to stay in business against those companies who adopt open source technologies and processes.
Ultimately the new business model for IT is based around people and not hardware or software like it has been for the past 10 years. That is what open source is about.
People/technology not a gadget or a widget.
It is comming, be ready for it.
-hack
Re:Why does it have to be 'answered'? (Score:4, Interesting)
As for embedded devices, I'd actually really rather not see Linux there. I'd rather see a kernel better geared to embedded devices. Something extremely small, modular and effect, similar to 3DO's now defunct M2: extremely compact, fully reentrant kernel, a unique memory design where applications could read memory everywhere but write only in their own space, a file system similar to the Newton's, etc. Then let Linux be the digital hub. Hell, Linux already makes a good server, and is that not what we're looking at it becoming in the future? Imagine a world where your house is wirelessly networked, and the job of the desktop is essentially to keep everything syncrhonized. That's a server job. It's also one where you still need good desktop software. Sounds like an ideal place for Linux to me.
So the desktop wars may be in some sense over, but we'll still be using desktops for a long time to come, and I think that if Linux wants to compete, it needs to ensure it can go there.
Should Linux even try to dominate the destkop? (Score:4, Insightful)
Today's desktops are stressing ease of use and wide application arrays more than anything else. Stability is in there somewhere, but MS has gotten pretty darn good with Win2K and XP, especially if you stick to their office suites.
Linux is NOT easy to use. Sure, it may be easy for US to use, but imagine a secretary, an HR guy, or (God forbid) the boss trying to use it on a daily basis. Give them XWindows and they'll be somewhat happy, but even the best XWindows setup pales in comparison the features and eye candy you'll find on Win2k and XP. And before you belittle that, remember who the end user is. You and I may not care for it, but the vast unwashed masses out there DO. They will demand it, and they don't give two damns about how configurable your window manager is. They want a box that's pretty and functional. Linux does not currently fit that mold very well.
What does Linux do well? It's an awesome server. It stays up longer than Ron Jeremy and Peter North combined, and a competent admin can tweak and tune it all over the place for practically anything. Trying to force that into the desktop market is the classical definition of fitting a nice, sleek roung peg into a very square hole.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Linux may one day dominate the desktop, but it will not much resemble the Linux we know today. Do we really want that? I'd love to see Linux succeed and trounce MS, but I don't want it to compromise the core principals that make it so good today.
Re:Should Linux even try to dominate the destkop? (Score:2)
All that is well and good except...M$ doesn't play well with others and Gates has a real megalomania problem. He isn't satisfied with making more money than the gods, he must CONTROL everything.
There would be no problems is M$ would simply stick to making their OS good enough for Joe Idiot but they insist on illegally killing off any and all rivals, even if they are not HUGE and seriously dangerous rivals.
All would be well if the final judgement against them prevents Gates and Co from using their monopoly to continue to lockin or tie into other areas where they seek monopoly. If the judgement required certain APIs and protocols to be released for ALL, PERIOD, then all would be well. M$ could STILL dominate the flat desktop market, with most people still using it, but there would be nothing to prevent me, you, Joe-or-Jane Shmo from using linux (or other) if they wished and STILL be able to properly interact with their coworkers and family.
Most people, out of inertia, would not jump ship but those that did would still find themselves on the same ocean and still able to communicate with other ships.
Re:Should Linux even try to dominate the destkop? (Score:2)
no problem, I see it done every day. and thousands of people do the same every day. Linux is not hard to use, I dont know why you think that or are compelled to feel that way. but If the sales people here can log in (same as windows) read and send email (same as windows, but without the virus capabilties) connect to the web (same as windows) use productivity software that allows them to make files that anyone on the planet can open and read (advantage over windows) and use the 1-2 vertical apps we have here (under wine but still one click launching) and then tell me 2 weeks after deploying the ximian desktops that their computers have never been so reliable and easy to use, then I have to say that you are dead wrong. They use it, the receptionist uses it, the sales people use it (the same mential power as a small salad bar collectively) and the HR people happily use it.
I'd say it's a sucess and is easy to use. it took 5 days to get people to quit whining about things that weren't real (where's network neighborhood! do you need it? no, well shut up) and realize that now we can replace their entire pc in 10 minutes and they didn't lose anything (gotta love terminal servers) not even little jessie's barmitspha photos on the desktop...
I'd say it's a smashing sucess on the desktop... it just takes sysadmins and IT people with balls and management that will back them up... 2 things that are ultra rare in today's world.
Re:Should Linux even try to dominate the destkop? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a harmful myth that we tend to perpetuate. In the first place, remember that Linux is an operating system. Most users will not interact directly with the operating system; their use will be mediated, typically by a shell for expert users and a GUI for expert and novice alike. Moreover, the novice especially will tend to limit his or her shell/GUI interaction to launching applications. The application interface is the primary interface that most users interact with. Bash presents a very difficult interface to novices. X presents a difficult interface to novices. But so does Windows.
Basic Win32 functions like copying files, launching programs, and locating files are more difficult to many novices than it might at first seem -- just watch a novice or even a moderately experienced person use windows and see how they typically use rote memory to start up their applications, with which they are typically far more comfortable. Watch what features they never use, even when it would improve speed or help keep their computer running longer. How often do they run scandisk? Back up the registry? Customize the start menu to put commonly used programs on the main menu, rather than having to cascade down two or three levels? See what happens when you change the default load/save directory in Word -- many users are not able to find their files if you start them off in a different directory.
Given this, it is far more critical that the application present a good interface than the underling OS or shell/GUI. In point of fact, most applications written for Linux have interfaces that are not well-suited to novices. Applications like MS Office are better, but they still suffer from menuitis and featuritis. I believe that, if you could overcome the natural resistance most people have to trying something new once they have managed to learn how to coax some marginal productivity out of their current applications, there would be a tremendous market for a simpler, more straightforward version of Office that implemented all of the important features in a transparent and intuitive way, while eliminating or at least hiding many of the more marginal or downright dangerous features (like the ability to easily, often accidentally, add footers, borders, and other formatting that can't be equally easily removed, without knowing what they are and how they got added in the first place).
Whether this suite ran under X or XP would probably make little difference to the average user. As long as you set it up for them, show them how to turn it on, turn it off, and start the apps they need, the underlying OS or GUI really doesn't matter all that much.
Most people don't use Windows either; they use applications that happen to run on Windows. While Linux may be a hard sell on the desktop, it could succeed simply by being invisible and letting the user concentrate on the applicaiton. If Linux had a killer desktop app, it might stand a chance on the desktop.
Re:Should Linux even try to dominate the destkop? (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft is who they are and honestly, could probably care less about Linux now. They realized that some users valued stability over style, and are working on that.
I bought WinXP (Home, upgrade). Mainly because I expected it to be a POS and I wanted to be a participant in a class-action suit against MS. However, MS did it right. I have some programs that wreck under XP, but I've never had the entire OS go flaky or unstable. I've had that happen on EVERY previous version of Windows, including NT4 and 2000. The interface does the job of getting all the hardware config crap out of my way, since I don't want to have to deal with that stuff at home (I deal with highly technical stuff for 8 hours a day) but I could tweak it further if I wanted to. It's just as wide open as NT under the hood. Sure, I can't recompile it, but thank %DIETY% I don't have to.
MS wins when you just want it to work. That's 99% of the people in the world. Linux hackers are an extreme minority and
I also have a Red Hat box on my network doing SMB for file and print sharing and for those rare times when I want to program at home. It's 7.2 and installed without a hitch, supporting all my hardware. If this was still the slackware days when I had to roll my own kernel after booting from a boot/root floppy combo I wouldn't have even bothered.
Re:Should Linux even try to dominate the destkop? (Score:2, Insightful)
I sincerely hope you do not actually belive what you just stated. Anyone who believes that setting up a Linux box is easier than setting up a Windows box (for the average human being, not a supergeek) obviously hasn't done so in a while. While I don't like Microsoft's products that much, they have gone out of their way to try and make the setup and use of their product as easy as possible for the end user. My gripe is that in doing so they've frequently made life HARDER for folks who DO know what they're doing, or they've larded it down with features that I'll never, ever use. But you cannot deny they've done quite a lot to make their product appealing and easy to use. Mac folks would disagree, of course, but let's not get into that right now.
Linux, on the other hand, has held onto its roots of the command line. For servers, this is just fine, but this simply will not do for the desktop. CLI's are not a good interface for secretaries, bosses, and the average computer user. Never forget that in the average company, I.T. is outnumbered by 10 to 1 or 20 to 1. The vast majority WANT the features that you scoff at, and their buying power is substantial. You and I may not like it that way, but we cannot change this reality.
Lies... (Score:5, Informative)
Bob Young says:
So our opportunity is not to replace Microsoft on the PC.
ZDNet reporter Matthew Broersma says:
Red Hat chairman Bob Young says Windows will continue to rule the desktop!
What a crock! That is NOT what Bob Young said. He said that they have an opportunity to expand their business in new directions. Directions that will be of more benifit to RedHat and their customers then "the desktop".
Bob Young continues to impress (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux != Red Hat Linux (Score:3, Troll)
Yeah, sure, I don't see Red Hat Linux ruling the desktop. I installed one not so long ago as a development platform, simply because that's the standard in that company. But truth is, for the desktop, it's crap wehen you compare directly to SuSE. Mandrake is supposedly also excellent on the desktop, just as some of the other distros. My SuSE 7.3 rocks for the desktop, and it's way easier to install than, say, W2K.
Don't go saying Linux is not ready for the desktop when you just know Red Hat or Debian or LFS or so. There are distros out there that _are_ ready. Just go and test them.
N.b. I'm not debunking Debian etc - I love those, but not for the desktop. (Running SuSE, Debian, Red Hat, have tried Mandrake and others.)
Focus? You must be kidding. (Score:3, Funny)
The headline is misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
Two points (Score:2)
2) When Windows becomes so proprietary and expensive to develop for, deploy and own, and when Linux remains cheap and open, we might find a critical shift in applications development.
Right now the factor is who is willing to buy commercial software for Linux. It already has an edge in development, but lacks some necessary catalysts to start the transition.
So while I agree that Linux may not rule the desktop any time in the near future, I wouldn't say that it still isn't a possibility for the long term.
This is why Red Hat is just an average desktop (Score:2, Interesting)
That may be smart business, and it may be a lost cause. It is certainly the reason Red Hat is just an average desktop among Linux distributions.
SuSE is better, Mandrake is better, the new desktop focused Lycoris and Elx are better.
I like what Red Hat has done for Linux, and if they want to stay in the server space, I wish them luck.
Someone else will fight on the desktop and I'll be fighting with them.
I use Linux on the desktop. (Score:2)
At work, I wouldn't have access to Excel or Photoshop without hassling management for licenses, either. As a programmer who deals with the web, minor needs for software that fulfills these tasks come up.
Bob Young wasn't talking about me. Let's not confuse having the best software possible with market dominance.
Do we really want it to? (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux won't replace MS unless... (Score:2, Insightful)
Where do people go to get support for Linux? The user forums? Those are all populated with two types of people: the newbies trying to get help, and the uber-geeks that look down at the newbs and loose interest half way through a fix to a problem.
How can people find out what is installed and where is it on their computer? There are ways to do this, but no one has made it easy.
What about uninstalling those programs?
Until the ease of use issue is dealt with, Linux won't rule the desktop.
Why is this so complicated? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why everyone complicates this so much. If you want to capture the desktop market, then you have to cater to what the desktop market wants. That can be summed up in three words: Easy To Use. Here are a few examples of things that aren't easy to use:
- So many configuration options that you don't know where to start, and need a year's education to finish
- A selection of desktop environments, each with a corp of zealots telling you that theirs is better
- A broad base of information that you have to (a) go out and find on the internet, and (b)search through to find your answers.
- Installations with prerequisites that you have to figure out how to find and install yourself
- User account management
- Video, sound, and network card installations that require you to know the model of your card.
If you're attempting to create an operating system with a broad selection of options, you should remember to include the option to not have to mess with these little details.
Unfortunately, this requires the programmers to figure a few things out for the user, and most of us just don't want to do that. Somehow we're always surprised to find out that the user doesn't want to do our work for us.
Mythological Beast
Meanwhile, somewhere in space... (Score:2)
Good value (Score:3, Informative)
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
On the server side of things they are on the "they fight at you" stage.
On the client, they are at the "They laugh at you", but that is _second_ stage. Considering that focus on the desktop came after focus on the server that is good enough for me. Actually, the relevance of this arguments about the linux desktop is that MS is starting to see scenarios where they stop laughing and start fighting coming closer. Otherwise it wouldn't be news.
I was running Windows as my primary desktop and Linux as my secondary until three months ago. Now it is the opposite. I have got vcl (www.videolan.org) for dvd viewing and xine (xine.sourceforge.net) for all the other video formats. Mozilla for the web. Kmail for mail. Open Office for those nasty MS office files you get sent. And I play wolfenstein (my preferred game) and all of Id games and a lot of free ones on Linux. I use kinkatta and jabber fot instant messaging.
The packaging systems are improving, so I only have to use urpmi against a ftp server everytime I need something.
And kde is getting better and better.
So basically, Linux can do almost all that Windows will do and I get control, and source code, and no crappy restrictions on things like givving applications to my friends, activation, content rights management, etc.
In fact, it is much better value. And I think a lot of people thinks the same way.
That from a home user point of view. If you look at goverment needs, where they can save so many $$$ by not having to pay and audit licences, and use open data formats, Linux has a lot of scope there as well (see korean, chinese, german, french and UK goverments at different stages of linux use on the desktop).
Car Example (Score:2)
The real place for Unix on the desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not talking about the secretaries and the suits. Too many times I have seen programmers and even sysadmins fire up Windoze and then spend the rest of the day inside of a telnet window.
Linux distro folks are missing out on selling Linux to the world of Unix hacks whose organizations simply cannot afford a fleet of Unix workstations. Yes, I know the Sunblades are only $999 but Sun seems uninterested in advertising this fact and most IT orgs already have plenty of PCs so the cost of conversion is nothing.
The last place I worked the corporate IT side told engineering after much bitchin' and moaning that they could use Linux but they would get no support. All the folks programming for the web stuff and the complete systems engineering group went to RedHat.
Right now, I work for an organization about to move both software and systems engineering to SuSE linux the hold up being corporate buy-in.
You might not think this market is that large but think really hard about it. There are many IT groups that use Unix as their primary Server OS. Within those organizations they have many developers and admins who work primarily in those *Nix environments. If there was no market for these groups then companies like Exceed would have died years ago.
_______________________________________________
Do what works (Score:3, Interesting)
One aspect of freedom is choice -- in this case, a choice of applications, a choice of tools, a choice of where your money goes. And just because Linux works well for many applications -- even on the desktop -- does not mean that Windows is *never* a good choice.
I'll lay out some cases in point from my own collection of computers.
My home has more computers than people now -- and in terms of installations, Linux is running about even with Windows. Of my three machines, two are Linux boxes (including my dual-processor IBM workstation and the Toshiba laptop), while the third is a high-end Windows 2000 box. I use the Linux workstations for software development, research, newsgroups, and simulation work, with my e-mail, word processing, and gaming on the Win2K system. It works beautifully; I don't have any hassles when clients and family send me Word files or PowerPoint presentations; why go through the effort of making such things work under Linux when I can have a Windows box at hand? On the flipside, the Linux workstation has vastly improved my coding environment, giving me scientific and exploratory applications Windows can't match. As for the laptop -- well, it ended up running Linux for strange reasons, and I now find it useful to have a portable penguin system.
My wife runs Windows 2K on her rather basic system. She spends her life in e-mail with organizations and companies that are Windows-only; if the Red Cross sends her a disaster plan as a Powerpoint presentation, she can just run it using... uh, Powerpoint. She also games like the rest of the family. I never was fond of emulators (including Wine) -- if you need Windows, why not just use Windows? Good lord, that's like doing all your "Linux" development under Cygwin... (no insult to Cygwin, of course; great product, but not a "real" Unix).
As for my daughters -- the 6 and 11 year-olds share a Windows 98 Pentium 133 that does nothing but play their education titles. No point to Linux there.
The eldest daughter runs a dual-boot system, playing games and learning Photoshop and 3DStudio under Windows while experimenting with Python, Gimp, and 3D rendering with Linux.
Okay, I understand and sympathize with the desire to rid the world of Windows; some days, the Microsoft monopoly makes me want to wipe Windows from all of my systems. I've howled invectives in the direction of Redmond... but then again, I taught my kids some new language this week while trying to get a damned onboard SCSI card working with the latest Linux kernels. Damned aic7xxx driver...
Nothing is perfect; nothing is absolute. Religious zealotry -- of the RMS variety -- turns me off, because I know that brains turn off when beliefs take precedence over rationality. It's not that I disagree with RMS so much as I find his attitude grating and disturbing. Free and open software is taking over my home without excessive conflict; we're doing it when and where it works, and not to win some ideological war.
Freedom is about choice -- if the Linux advocates truly believe in choice, they'll stop attacking those who choose Windows. Make Linux the best it can be, and stop worrying about what Microsoft is doing.
Re:Hurry! (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux is ready now for the corporate desktop if the company sets up good standards. It is a huge advantage especially with XP's eXPensive licensing schemes. I'd love to work tech support for an office running Linux.
Re:Linux won't rule the desktop, but it could (Score:2)
Re:Linux won't rule the desktop, but it could (Score:2)
There are. Mandrake and the forthcoming Lindows are kde-centered. You can load Gnome or any other, just like all linux distros, but the DEFAULT is KDE. There may be others I'm missing (Yellow Dog?).
I'll be interested to see how Redhat feels about Gnome once it is sold out to M$ and becomes centered on .NET. This would appear to go against the very grain of what RedHat has always been - devoted to open standards. .NET is NOT open as most of the APIs are not released and M$ is NEVER going to let anyone else fully implement it. They will publish only what is necessary for some app makers and other systems to be able to minimally play but they will hold back key aspects and require $$ or keep them to themselves to provide for more lockin.
Gnome is doomed. RedHat loves Gnome. Gnome is moving away from a GPL-system to a M$-based .NET focus. KDE is the only similar game in town. KDE will eventually become the default RedHat GUI environment too. Thanks to da Izca, the guy that WANTED to be an M$ lackey but couldn't ONLY because of a visa problem. The barbarians are already beyond the gates and tearing through the city.
As for the desktop and Young...I don't care what he THINKS so long as he doesn't hinder/hold back from anything that could allow linux to take on the desktop. That is, not just focusing on the barebones that make servers work, but also work in the nice things like wordprocessors of good quality and interoperability, etc. The things that are needed on a desktop but not on a server.
So far RedHat provides and works with all that stuff that isn't server-only so they are turning their backs on the desktop, regardless of what Young says.
Re:Way to go Bob (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)