Linux *Won't* Fail on the Desktop? 861
HanzoSan sent in a story claiming that Linux will Succeed on the desktop, and not
just the server market where it already has had much success.
I think that the latest version of KDE has demonstrated
that it can compete, but with the increasing
dependance on file formats that have no support on
Linux, it's going to be awfully difficult. That
said, Linux has been my desktop for many moons,
and I don't plan on changing it (Maybe
If Apple released TiBook's with 3 mouse buttons I'd
at least have an option ;)
Linux on the desktop... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Linux on the desktop... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linux on the desktop... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comparing the 'useability' of Linux to the MacOS is laughable. It really is. Why do you think people pay a premium for Mac hardware? For the performance? It's for the UI, and the UI alone.
So I don't think I'm being particularly unkind to Linux to suggest that it has a long, long way to go to be comfortable at all to the average Mac (or Windows for that matter) user.
Remember, one of the first stages in solving a problem is accepting that it exists. Denying it to everyone you meet isn't going to make it go away.
Re:Linux on the desktop... (Score:3, Insightful)
The corners of the Mac are ignored, save for some lame option about screen savers. The buttons of the tile bar on the Mac OS X are close togother, rather that on opposite sides, making that part difficult. The cut and paste on the Mac is rather difficult, being a combination of mouse and keyboard, rather than pure mouse use.
The few times so far I booted into OS 9, it's been pretty bad (for reasons other than the UI), so I haven't learned much about that.
Compared to the Windows box that I use for games, though, the UI on the Mac is wonderfully advanced.
Universal File Formats (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Universal File Formats (Score:5, Insightful)
This is how chaing to a universal format starts and spreads.. Non lazy IT admin makes a change... now if only another 50 IT admins do this... DOC would be a rarity within months.
Re:Universal File Formats (Score:5, Funny)
Trying to figure it out as we speak... (Score:3, Interesting)
Working with Word 2000, they pretty much allow anything to be scripted, including MOST of the options. There's actually an Options object, which is accessable from the Application object. It consists of 160 some odd properties which can turn on a number of options, but I CANNOT change the default Save option. Oh yes, it's there in the Diaglog box, and I can change the default Open format to RTF from the Options object, but I CANNOT change the default Save option.
There are 20 some options dedicated alone to "Format As You Type", how often auto save kicks in, Grid Distance, Hebrew Mode, INS Key For Paste, RTF in Clipboard, etc.
But there is no option for changing the default save to RTF.
Seems to me Microsoft doesn't want an easy way to give IT administrators an easy way to change the default save option for hundreds of machines.
Steve
Re:Universal File Formats (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the real problem is that most people are way too lazy to learn even a slight variance in what they do, let alone a huge one like change their OS:
luser: Where's Word?
bofh: KOffice.. right there on the toolbar.
luser: But it doesn't say 'Word'
bofh: It's the same thing.
luser: I like Word.
* bofh renames link to say "Microsoft Word" *
luser: Thanks!
Re:Universal File Formats (Score:3, Insightful)
We have 25000 desktops. Not very practical to change them all "in case one day an individual client needs support". If that happens (and in our business it's extremely unlikely) we can sort something out just for them.
- You will protect yourself from macro viruses
Outlook - now that gives us virus headaches. Office - not really. Virus scanners at the perimeter do a pretty good job, likewise document quarantine. I'd like to see something done about outlook, but if we tried to replace it with a plain & simple mail client there would be uproar from the users and the whole of IT would probably be fired! They're hooked on the groupware stuff.
- If Microsoft takes office in a direction you don't like, you won't be tied to it.
If that happens, we can change then. Right now I don't see a good reason to.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no MS fanboy, and if we had 25000 blank machines waiting for software there would be a strong argument for installing open stuff. But the cost of conversion is massive, and immediate benefits minimal. Please note I'm just a lowly developer, I don't get to make these decisions
Re:Universal File Formats (Score:3, Informative)
RTF was not developed as a language from the ground up, it's just a way of saving MS Word documents in a non-binary format.
If a language definition came along for RTF, that developers could know for sure that their application was generating valid RTF, it'd be a lot easier for everyone.
Invalid RTF can easily crash MS Word (just don't close a table, Word dies...) because it's such a hotchpotch format, even Word cannot test the file for validity before it crashes.
Whilst RTF is useful for interoperability, it's not that much better than MS Word format in some cases. An OpenDoc standard, which MS adhered to, would save everyone megabucks and megastress.
Re:Universal File Formats - one solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I also setup drop-box directories for employees to put old word docs and a vb script generates an RTF version.
You can do the same with other "common" proprietary file formats. We also have a few windows boxes setup that can be accessed via VNC to run various legacy / proprietary apps (I thought about writting a proxy that finds the next "free" machine automatically."
While this doesn't totally eliminate windows, it cuts it way down. The document converter alone eliminates 95% of the reason to use Windows.
For people with a larger need for Windows, VMWare can be useful.
Re:Universal File Formats - one solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Universal File Formats - one solution (Score:3, Informative)
Office is not licensed per user, it is licensed per machine. A single workstation that has 20 people walking up to it and using Office needs only one license.
A desktop machine that has 20 people accessing it via VNC or any other means needs 20 licenses.
There is no Concurrent Licensing of Office.
You are in violation of your End User License Agreement.
Despite how reasonable, practicle, and "fair" you idea seems, it is illegal. Not for any technical or moral reasons, but because of a silly EULA.
All that said, I like your idea of a drop-box directory to convert
Thank you.
Re:Violating the EULA? (Score:3, Informative)
I do not know what you are speaking of when you say "virtualize" the screen. The method of access is irrelevant. VNC on Windows to a Windows machine is exactly like running a single user session of Metaframe or Terminal Services. I only mentioned concurrent because the original poster might be thinking he is within his rights as a user because the copy of Office is only being used by one person at a time. That is not what the EULA for Office is about.
The EULA reads:
Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your other computers over an internal network; however, you must acquire and dedicate a license for each separate computer on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed or run from the storage device. A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be sahred or used concurrently on different computers.
See, Microsoft doesn't care how you do it, what you are virtualizing, or whatever clever tricks you have created. The simple fact is that different machines are all running the same copy of Office.
Financial Stuff and Quicken (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't believe people are _that_ afraid to try an OSS office suite. Maybe a little intimidated, but not truely scared.
I think the real resistance, the real fear, will show up when you try to get people to give up Quicken or MS Money in favor of some OSS replacement.
IMHO, people will be much more worried about looseing their banking info, check book ballances, account numbers, payment histories, and other financial information... By comparision to worrying about formating of a frigging .doc vs. a .rtf, which do YOU think they will worry about more?
Re:Universal File Formats (Score:2, Funny)
(Alternative for the cuss-o-fobe: Read That File)
Re:Universal File Formats (Score:5, Informative)
Repeat after me:
HTML is not a "page-design" language."
HTML is not a "page-design" language."
HTML is not a "page-design" language."
CSS, OTOH, does provide for specifying the positioning, style, etc. of printed documents as well as stuff viewed in a browser. In fact, with software that supports it, you could have one document with a completely different appearance on-screen and on-paper, each optimized for the characteristics of the medium. (You wouldn't need "click here for the print-optimized version of this page" links on a page.) It's anybody's guess, though, as to how well the printing-oriented features of CSS are implemented in current browsers.
Mindshare (Score:3, Insightful)
It really comes down to a balance of money, intellectual property rights and giving users the tools they want. Let's hope that the U.S. doesn't squander it's lead in this area because of a lack of options.
Hmmmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps that might be a good idea. The big advantage of free software is the fact that this could be done. You can't beat the price. However, people do not have the same awareness of Linux as they do AOL.
How about an ad-campaign a la IBM Infrastructure commercials [slashdot.org] to explain Linux in plain English? Without awareness, few would be likely to pick up the CD.
Re:Hmmmmm... (Score:2)
AOL was something that (in theory) could be removed.
you put Linux on there, you can't just click "Uninstall" and have it go away.
Just what we need, 50,000 pissed off people killing all the penguins in sight b/c we are wasting 5.0G of their precious MP3 space.
I don't think it would be a good idea at all. Put the money into commercials supporting Linux (like Good Morning America for LUG's).
That's my worthless
Re:Hmmmmm... (Score:3, Informative)
It has correctly found my win95 (way back on my p75 in '96), win98, win2k and winxp partitions on various computers over the years.
I suspect RH, SUSE and others are equally adept, and probably have been for years, but I've never used them on a dual boot machine.
IMHO... (Score:2, Funny)
The other thing is Linux will have to become more like a the black box that other OSes are. Everything is hidden and little to no knowledge of what is going on is required.
It is unfortunate but if you look at other technologies, similar things have occurred. For example, look at the automobile. The complexity of them has gotten to the point that the average driver has little idea of the inner workings and they don't really want to know anyway. I realize this is a bad analogy but hoepfully it makes some sense.
Whose desktop are we talking about? (Score:3, Redundant)
I would be mightily impressed if a distribution of Linux was released that my mother could use easily.
Re:Whose desktop are we talking about? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Whose desktop are we talking about? (Score:4, Informative)
If you're not using a Slackware 0.1a, you will be able to find some admin apps to manage your packages in your GNOME or KDE menu
Compare comparable things : if you want to install something from the source under Windows, some actions a bit more complicated that next-next-next-finish are involved : your dad would have to launch MSVC++ and hapilly compile every new release of Word.
Re:Whose desktop are we talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
my mom.. I email her a file... she copies it to her KDE desktop and double clicks on it. it asks for the administrator password and it is done.
I walked her through that once, and now she does it on her own...
What kind of alpha-ware are you making your dad install that isn't available as a rpm or easy to install binary package? I've eve seen a couple of apps now bail on rpm and use the Loki installer now...
please get him off of slackware, an advanced linux distro and give a newbie the braindead distro... redhat. it works great and is easy.
Re:Whose desktop are we talking about? (Score:3, Informative)
There is really no reason why we can't have binary compatability between x86 distributions. What's really missing is a common packaging format. One that actually includes ALL nonstandard required libraries, and is self installing. (Meaning that it is a self installing executable that has no non-standard library requirements.)
The difficulty really comes in trying to determine what libraries are standard and which are not. I'm currently thinking of basing this on the Linux Standard Base. It seems to have a lot of weight with the large distro makers. (Hell, RedHat is a contributer!)
But you are absolutely right. Linux needs a "next, next, finish" installer. Trust me, it is on it's way. Just be patient.
Re:Whose desktop are we talking about? (Score:3, Informative)
As Ed[1] would say, "Fud fud fud FUD FUDDY FUD-fud-FUD!"
This hasn't been an issue since, what, 1998 or 99? Download file (to desktop if you want). Double click on RPM file. kpackage fires up and installs it for you. You can even use apt on any non-braindead distribution and let the software elves install stuff overnight for you, just like Windows Update (well, maybe without the instability).
Console windows, gzip, tar, make, etc. aren't factors in the real end-user experience of Linux these days, and haven't been for years as long as you use your distribution's app packages. It would be nice if someone wouldn't bring up the whole damn "packages are hard" thing every time this article gets written, because I get tired of typing up this reply every time. In this aspect, Linux is as hard as you make it. Just because you like to do it the hard way, and that's the only way you know to explain it to dear old Dad, doesn't mean that that's the only way.
Now, if you want to get code from different distributions running on yours (SuSe->RedHat, for instance), or you want an app that's only distributed as source, then you do have to do more work. Just like if you wanted to take an app for Win 3.1 and run it on Win2k, or if you wanted to compile a Windows app from source. But there's documentation (often voluminous), and 90% of the time you can get by if you can just read and follow instructions that any 10-year-old could. Heck, building from source is almost as easy as installing that Mac OS X distributed computing app :)
[1] See you someday, somewhere space cowgirl!
Re:Whose desktop are we talking about? (Score:3, Interesting)
Have your dad try Ximian Red Carpet. No console, no arcane commands, and so easy he'll probably be asking why there isn't something like this on windows
Re:Whose desktop are we talking about? (Score:5, Funny)
Windows:
Linux:
As you can see, the Windows method is much more user friendly, and takes much less time. Linux will never succeed as long as it is so difficult to install programs.
Re:Whose desktop are we talking about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mac OS X:
Drag application to Applications folder
You usually even get all localized versions. Anyone want to compare uninstalling?
Re:Whose desktop are we talking about? (Score:4, Interesting)
I would be mightily impressed if a distribution of Linux was released that my mother could use easily.
The problem is, those features that make the Linux desktop attractive to the geek is exactly those features that make it difficult for otherse to use. My mother doesn't want to hear about command lines, and permissions, and filesystems and the such. She just wants to log on to AOL.
Will the development of a desktop for the masses involve such massive changes to the basic concepts of Linux so as to make it unattractive to the the geek? And more importantly, will the geek willingly "dumb down" the distribution for the desktop. I will have to say no. Linux exists as it is today because we have designed it for our own use, not for Aunt Tillie.
So then it falls on the commerical companies to develop a Linux distribution for the average person. Lindows is the first attempt at this, but even they have been hampered by the unique semantics of a POSIX system (permissions!).
I have resigned myself to the fact that Linux will never reach widespread popularity on the desktop. However, I do know that the platform of tommorrow will *not* be the desktop - it will be the palmtop, PDA, or set top box. The world is obviously moving to a more embedded and more distributed environment. Luckily, thats where Linux shines.
Don't waste your time getting Linux on the desktop. Instead, spend your time getting rid of the desktop itself.
Re:Whose desktop are we talking about? (Score:4, Interesting)
This itself is part of the problem. Everyone expects a very complex system to be EASY. Computers inherently are NOT easy!
Honestly, I think the automakers are the only ones who ever successfully pulled off this paradigm well; cars are extremely complex, but even the most dimwitted person can understand how to start the car, push down on the gas or brake pedal and turn the wheel.
I don't think however that you need to dumb-down the distro. Linux should do this, IMHO:
On install, after you pick the install type (Workstation, Server, etc.), pick the install type (basic or advanced). If you pick Basic, it makes everything as easy as humanly possible; no status displays on bootup, just a nice graphic with a loading bar. If want to see if eth0 came up correctly, you should do an advanced install. And of course, you can change that in X itself too. If you pick basic, it doesn't even put a shell on the main KDE bar, nest it down somewhere. Put the Office Apps on the desktop, Web Browsers, Media Players, and thats IT. If you're a geek, Advanced install or Advanced mode let you do everything you currently can under Linux.
Geeks are happy, regular users are happy, and Linux looks good to everyone.
Re:Whose desktop are we talking about? (Score:3, Insightful)
From The Humane Interface by Jeff Raskin:
There are many tasks that can be done on a computer which are inherently simple and the UI should reflect that.I don't think however that you need to dumb-down the distro. Linux should do this, IMHO: On install, after you pick the install type (Workstation, Server, etc.), pick the install type (basic or advanced).
Again from The Humane Interface:
Raskin then goes on to explain in further detail that the Beginner-Expert Dichotomy is false. He adds almost at the end of the section: a well-designed and humane interface does not have to be split into beginner and expert subsystems.There is substantial proof that UNIX can be user friendly and it comes in the form of OS X. Despite what some other posters have said, OS X adheres to UNIX traditions extremely well (they changed /home to /Users). The only other major changes were using NetInfo for OS management instead of plain text files and the system init procedures. Both those changes were made for technical reasons (right or wrong) and are not used directly by the great majority of users.
The real problem that Linux has with being user friendly is that it is being created by people who are hopelessly unqualified to do user interface design (note that I fit this category) and that it has no standard for the way a user interface should look and feel. Now, the GNOME and KDE projects are making great headway and I'll bet that they've picked up a lot of talented designers over the years so that the brains trust is now adequate to solve the first problem. However, these people need to take the plunge and completely change the interface if it is required (a point echoed by Raskin).
The second problem will be extremely difficult to solve - it does not have to involve ridding the world of either KDE or GNOME but does involve treating them as largely different OS's that are compatible. There should be pressure on developers to develop both a KDE interface and a GNOME interface so that the user experience with either desktop is consistent. Another option would be to define a set of APIs that maps to both GNOME and KDE as native interface elements depending on which is currently in use.
This is the kind of thing that Linux has to do to be userfriendly and hence be successful on the desktop. If you think that these suggestions are unrealistic or impossible, you're saying that Linux can't make it on the desktop - I however disagree. Linux has achieved many impossible things before and in time I think it will achieve end to end user friendliness if the developers are serious about achieving that.
It's more than just KDE (Score:2, Insightful)
Grrr! Stupid mouse remarks! (Score:3, Offtopic)
Aaaaaargh! With OS X you can use a 5 button mouse if you'd like! Just go and buy one! Can we please let this rest already!
Re:Grrr! Stupid mouse remarks! (Score:3, Insightful)
TiBook. TiBook. TiBook.
That would be a laptop, which implies a built-in mouse. He wants a laptop with a built-in three button mouse, instead of buying an external mouse and dragging it around with him.
Re:Grrr! Stupid mouse remarks! (Score:3, Insightful)
Software should allow the user to modify the way that input devices and peripherals interact with the hardware.
I can make my Wacom tablet pretty much behave like a mouse if I want to and that is definitely not the original intent of that device. I really don't care for multi-button mice, so i only ever use the left button and still use keyboard modifiers. Let's say someone is completely used to using a multi-button trackball? If the machine only comes with a 5 button mouse and not a 3 button trackball, does that mean that the hardware is broken? No, it simply means that the user has to go out and purchase a new input device to better suit their needs.
Apple makes a one button mouse/trackpad because it suits the needs of the vast majority of their trarget market. Wintel machines ship with a multi-button mouse because it satisfies the needs of the vast majority of their target market. Linux and *NIX users seem to need mice with 2 to 5 buttons and sometimes a scroll wheel. Seems kind of strange that the people who need a GUI the least are the ones who are pickiest about mice.
It's not about what's best (Score:4, Insightful)
Pre-emptive anti-flame (Score:4, Funny)
For the Apple enthusiast's in the audience, you do know Taco is just pulling your leg. Right? Right?
For convenience (Score:4, Funny)
The Key to Linux Success... (Score:5, Interesting)
StarOffice/OpenOffice: they need to iron out the last few bugs and market it, for crying out loud! Not just for Linux, but on Windows as well, so that they can wean the business sector off of MSOffice.
Games: despite what many "serious" computer users will say, the PC industry was built on gaming, and gaming is what keeps pushing the hardware improvement cycle. Serious Linux players such as IBM and HP should give substantial (if discreet) grants to efforts such as Transgaming's WineX so we come out with a complete DirectX API for Linux.
Marketing: the different Linux players, big and small, should pool some of their resources to create a "flavorless" marketing organization who promotes the Desktop use of Linux (without specifying a distro in particular). The goal is to challenge common misconceptions about Linux: that it is hard to use, that there are no apps, that it is not graphical, etc., in a series of cool, professional looking ads in print and televised media.
Aim for the Business Desktop first: more people will consider switching at home if they've been "coerced" into using Linux at the office first, only to realize that it was as easy to use as Windows, and a lot more stable.
Don't install so many apps by default in common distros: personally, I don't mind it, but Windows users might be overwhelmed by the choice. Let them choose their browser, e-mail client, office suite, etc. during installation, or with a post-installation "setup" program.
I do believe that Linux has a very good chance of becoming more widespread on the desktop...the fact that it can't be bought off by Microsoft is a big plus! But I'm not kidding myself: the Linux revolution might have better chance of taking place abroad first (Europe, Africa, Asia) - and given America's (and, by extension, Canada's) annoying record of always doing everything different than the rest of the world, it could still take some time here...
Re:The Key to Linux Success... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't disagree with you, but the problem is... who spends money to market a free consumer/business product that they've already spent a ton of moolah developing? I'm sure it's hard enough for companies to justify spending money to continue developing products they're just going to give away (or sell for little more than the cost of media and docs), but to have to drop money on *advertising* them as well starts seeming like throwing good money after... other money.
At the same time, remember the IBM OS/2 Fiesta Bowl sponsorship? Different situation, but not totally. What a disaster of a promotion, although history seems to show that IBM couldn't market a cure for death.
The Games Myth (Score:3, Insightful)
I see this "the PC industry was built on games" line frequently, and with all due respect I think it's dubious at best. If you measure the personal computer revolution using applications as roadmarks.
The "Windows PC" is largely carrying on the CP/M heritage. Games only sell machines to hardcore enthusiasts. For the majority of computer buyers, a range of applications sell the machine and games are just icing on the cake. (Games arguably sell video cards for PCs.)
The Linux gaming world is likely to always be like the Mac gaming world. It's there, but people clearly aren't going to the platform to play games that they can also play on Windows. They're going to be going to the platform for something they need to do and that, objectively or subjectively, is better on that platform.
The enthusiasts will come to Linux already (they already are, and most of them are on Slashdot). To get regular users as Linux desktop users for its own sake, appeal to their sense of need with something that done more elegantly, effectively or more easily on Linux than it is on other platforms. That's why Linux is doing well on the server side--and it's a major component of all things Macintosh.
Build a tool ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the classic call to arms of Unix, way back when. "Build a tool that does one job, and does that job well." And then make the tools work together. Unix was originally built for programmers, but there is no reason to believe that "ordinary users" cannot benefit from that philosophy as well.
I say, go back to first principles, and we all win. It worked for hardware in the 1980's with the advent of RISC technology. Software too has become too bloated.
Re:Build a tool ... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course there are reasons. (Score:3, Insightful)
All those tools need to operate in roughly the same way or else the user will have to learn a lot more.
All those tool developers need to remember that 99% of their market is for that subset of features that the dedicated application needs. Thus, adding much more will bloat it with complexity and size that simply does not reward the user.
All those tool developers all need to setup their applications with the majority of the users tasks in mind so they don't force the users to do more work than is necessary.
All those tool developers should provide a certain amount of interoperability besides just file formating and such. e.g., How does the user perform an "undo" after one tool has been applied?
All those tools need to agree to collaborate on support problems rather than pointing fingers at other tools.
The point is that creating seperate tools in this fashion is simply not appropriate for most applications. The organization and development costs for this "tool" methodology to make it appropriate for the end users totally exceeds the costs to produce a superior application under the "traditional" unified application framework. The analogy that I'd make, in response to the "tool box" analogy, is what tool do most users, that actually use tools, actually carry with them? A leatherman (and maybe a limited toolbox at home). The toolbox is too bulky and ackward in most situations where a leatherman (or like tool) is totally appropriate.
What you are doing is laughing at the Swiss Army knife that is MS and kin that tries to be everything to all people and assuming that the toolbox is the best solution because the swiss army knife is almost useless. Well it's not impossible to devise a better unified tool than both for most users. Its name is the Leatherman
ls | mc (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Build a tool ... (Score:3, Informative)
function spellcheck($string){
$word = new COM("word.application") or die("The spellcheck function requires MS Word.");
$word->Visible = 0;
$word->Documents->Add();
$word->Selection->Typ
$word->ActiveDocument->CheckSpell
$word->Selection->WholeStory();
$correcte
$word->ActiveDocument->C
$word->Quit(false);
$word->Release();
$word = null;
return $corrected;
}
Mainly Windows users on Slashdot anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
Linux wannabies
Admittedly, if a corp says uses this, you have to use it.
It'd make a good poll.
How many people are using Linux **right now** as they view this page.
Re:Mainly Windows users on Slashdot anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
That may not be a fair question. I'm viewing this on my lunch break at work, and the company has standardized on Windows. But my home is full of Linux & Mac computers. I spent last night using my SuSE 7.3 box: I downloaded skins for XMMS, I surfed to mp3.com and slashdot.org using Mozilla, and played a game of Risk. So what should slashdot count as my "real" computer? My "lunch break" computer or my home computer?
A major problem with the article (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think RMS is going to like that one.. :)
Seriously though, I think there's one major issue which the article writer has forgotten: fear.
Many (most) IT directors think that 'No-one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft'. If they go with Linux and it's a failure, it could well be their neck on the line; if they choose a Microsoft option and it's a failure, well everyone already knew Microsoft were crap, but what choice did we have?
The only way this can be combated is with slow erosion of the Microsoft market - it used to be that "no-one ever got fired for choosing IBM", so it's certainally possible to topple the Microsoft monopoly - it just isn't going to happen overnight.
It needs to be more snappy (Score:2, Interesting)
However, when compared to windows, everything appears to be very slow. Launching of windows, getting visual feedback, it's all a bit snappier on windows, on the same pc. I think most people that come from a windows world trying linux+KDE or something will be disappointed with the speed of operation.
Maybe in a couple of years, with processors in the 100GHz range this won't matter anymore (although a new layer will be added by then to slow things down even more) but for now I see a lot of hurdles to overcome
To Do list (Score:2, Interesting)
I use SuSE 7.3, and love it, but there are a few things that were somewhat difficult for me to figure out, and I can't imagine what the non-techie user would do about these things.
-printing: it is currently a shade less than a nightmare to configure printing in linux. I believe this varies wildly depending on what printer you are using. One false move, and your printer starts printing a million pages of gibberish.
-Internet connectivity: I think the biggest hurdle for this one is the evil WinModem. Also, some ISP's just plain don't have a clue how to help users set up connections using linux.
Some other ideas:
-I have no idea how this one might be implemented, but some sort of "sanctioned" place for technical support for users would be good. I think one central place would give users some comfort instead of being told that they need to find their technical support on newsgroups.
-We can always use more support from hardware manufacturers. This seems to be getting better and better all the time!
-Lastly, the ubiquitous Games! We need more!
barnisinko
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ugh, more garbage? (Score:3, Insightful)
the number one important thing that linux needs is a decent installer. Loki gave us one in their final death throwes.. it's awesome. and the like of KDE,gnome and EVERY app should drop what they are doing and start adapting it to their app.
To hell with making some minor bugfixes this week, get an installer on your app that even a lobotimized monkey can use.... that's the loki installer.
Re:Ugh, more garbage? (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess is a huge percentage of the post-install boxes are on the internet. I know the kde group believes that the responsibility is for the distro's to resolve those issues, but I disagree. I have a redhat 7.1 box that just doesn't need upgrading, because I have switched it over to Ximian Gnome desktop. Thats right, there is nothing really different about that older version of redhat than running on a ximian desktop on top of Mandrake 8.1. It's great, my box is always current and I don't need to play the bi-yearly distro knuckle-shuffle.
I get to choose the distro I am most comfortable with , and red-carpet keeps me up on the security updates, software updates , etc. It's just plain and simple nice.
I don't think I will be upgrading my home / primary workstation to Mandrake 8.2 because Ximian works fine. I am also tired of chasing down RPMS and playing the dep game.... Ximian has just got it right on that one, and it's all in the packaging and distribution.
IMHO KDE is superior in technical ways, but I am now using Gnome because of the superiour distribution and packaging and the warm feeling of knowing I am getting updates on a weekly basis.
One word... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know flames will fly, and not a lot of people believe in it, but that's what MS has a big advantage in. People watch TV. People see MS ads. People might occasionally see an apple ad. People only see IBM's Linux Server ad (and the common person has no clue what its about).
Also, maybe having some local demo's in malls. Just to let people play with it, like they do in bestbuy, etc...
See what its like so you don't need to be afraid...
If someone made a good commerical ad and had demos in public places that showed how pretty it is, how inexpensive it is (people will need to buy it for the support), and how there aren't licenses and most everything is free, then you'd have a "general layman interest."
That "general layman interest" is a catalyst Linux needs. Its powerful. That's when people "try" things. Isn't that all we're asking for? Just "try" it??
From the article (Score:2, Insightful)
>a quality GUI system for configuring hardware and a
>standardized system for installing and removing
>software. Developers must be persuaded to provide
>Linux drivers, especially for "Winmodems," and to
>port their software products to Linux.
Agreed on the need for a GUI "system properties" type hardware configurator. KDE's hardware configuration leaves something to be desired. (Specifically, it doesn't offer much in the way of actual configuration options. If you want to do any non-trivial fiddling with your hardware, you might as well go straight to a console, 'cause you're going to need it anyway.)
As for installing and removing software, it would be good to have a more-or-less universal software management system. The two current contenders are RPM and Debian's apt-get, of course. Both have advantages and disadvantages -- for example, it's more common to find fresh builds of programs in
In addition to persuading companies to release Linux drivers for their hardware, we also need to convince them to open-source the drivers. I seem to recall ATI already did this. There is even less reason than usual to make your driver proprietary; after all, the driver is useless without the hardware to match. People would still have to buy the product in order to get use out of the driver, and in the meantime students could study the driver code to learn about low-level hardware interaction. And stuff. (nVidia, are you listening?)
Linux hasn't failed (Score:2)
Linux is on my desktop, and it hasn't failed me yet!
Fix installs, first (Score:2)
I mean, what the Hell are dependancies to the Winbox user? And why should they care? Apt-get is close, but not enough.
Eyecandy is all well and good, but if they can't install programs easily then it's not going to work.
Not just the pretty desktop and apps (Score:2, Interesting)
I recently helped a fellow CS grad student install Linux on his laptop. KDE looks pretty, Netscape 6 runs great, and emacs handles all the text editing he needs. But frankly, I find it hard to advocate Linux to replace his Windows partition entirely.
It's really the distribution taken as a whole that counts. This includes drivers, program setup, configuration, etc.
We ran into some stupidity when installing Linux. When the computer goes into suspend mode and then wakes up, XFree86 would hang. In order to play games, he has to kill off aRTs daemon to get reasonable performance; and if he kills it off, he'll have no sound in KDE. When configured for DHCP and the laptop is disconnected from network, system start up would take a long time (older Windows also have this problem, but not 2000 and XP). There are a few more problems like these, and they really look silly to my friend who has been a long time Windows user.
I told him a Linux system is a pain to set up the way you want it, but after it's set up it'll rarely choke on you. This has generally been my experience running Linux every day. Fortunately we had most things working and he's happily dual-booting between Linux and Windows.
Where is Linux's "Digital Hub" Strategy? (Score:2, Insightful)
I've never bothered hooking it up to my Linux box. I'm sure nothing would happen.
Where Apple goes, often most of the industry follows. Jobs' "Digital Hub" strategy is dead on once you've seen it in action. It makes a computer really useful for the home user.
For the business, I am increasingly in doubt. Microsoft file formats are so common it's futile to try to use Linux in the office. If the free office suites do the job, fine. But I think the only place Linux will succeed are in custom installations (like the Burlington Coat Factory point of sales units) or where cost is essential (like the city using Linux for offices in the Florida Keys).
For the business user on the go, Linux won't make it unless there is a desktop with the kind of commercial development behind it like Apple's or Microsoft's. The level of integration and consistency of interface needed is far, far away in the Linux world.
Lycoris? (Score:2)
I've at least seen the others, but has anyone used this Lycoris distro? How does it stack up?
--saint
Linux On The Desktop Is Viable Today (Score:5, Interesting)
The interesting thing is that I throw people on it without any training to see what happens.
F.ex. an eleven year old girl sat down and logged in (I gave her the password) and configured it just the way she liked it.
She installs software and plays games, does research online and writes school reports without ANY help from me. She's not trained on computers either, just not afraid.
I've thrown grownups on it too, and as long as they are not afraid of trying, they think it looks great and is easy to work with.
So I don't know that it's not ready, except for thoses who don't understand or are against change. I agree that it is not quite where windows is at, after all these years, but don't throw it away either. Many offices could readily change and have the tools they need using Linux, and gain the stability and speed we come to love.
It just does not cover ALL desktop needs.
Re:Linux On The Desktop Is Viable Today (Score:3, Insightful)
The single common denominator I've seen so far is that all Windows users switching to Linux, expect Linux to _BE_ Windows. They want to right-click on the desktop and get "Properties", and they want a "Start->Run" paradigm. They try to "de-configure" the Linux machine to live and breathe like their previous Windows environment, instead of learning why Linux _EXCELS_ past Windows, and exceeds where Windows fails, they just want Windows.. on Linux.
People who are too lazy to learn a new environment, are not going to be users you want helping to contribute to the advance of Linux in general.
Linux requires work. Linux requires time. People need to understand there is no "Linux, Inc." that manages this. It advances at the speed of.. well, nothing. Whenever something needs to get done, it gets done... or doesn't.
Migrating users also need to understand that Linux _IS NOT FREE_. It costs money, lots of money in fact. Time, bandwidth, servers, payrolls, salaries, equipment. Just because something doesn't work, or "sucks", does not mean that it will get fixed. I see literally _THOUSANDS_ of people complaining about Linux problems. When I ask them if they have reported the issue, they say "No, I'll just wait until it's fixed". _THIS_ is the real problem with the "professional" quality of Linux. We have talented programmers, documenters, packagers. We just don't have talented users that provide _USEFUL_ feedback so we can improve the software we write every day.
Linux is ready for the desktop, and has been for years. Are migrating desktop users willing to learn how to use Linux on the desktop? Not yet.
Re:Linux On The Desktop Is Viable Today (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh I see, it's the users' fault.
As soon as they stop acting so st00pid Linux will take over on the desktop.
People don't want to learn a new environment unless there's a concrete benefit to doing so. Not supporting "Right click/Properties" just to be different or for the convenience of developers makes Linux a little bit harder to learn. Add up a bunch of these subtle interface incongruities and your users will feel furstrated, upset and angry [joelonsoftware.com].
Linux brings more to the table than a re-arranged GUI with different colors and fonts. So why not try to match the familiar (Windows) interface on commodity OS elements (copy/cut/paste keystrokes, file property menu location and other common right-click behavior, basic File menu commands and Edit menu commands, even task bar/dock and start/apple menu) in as many cases as possible while adding subtle, unobtrusive improvements to interface components where Linux can excel (paticularly software upgrades, since most apps upgrade for free under linux and can almost always do so online, and doo dads like a graphical uptime monitor that highlight Linux' strengths).
Mac Mice (Score:2)
Yes, because when I buy an IBM/HP/Gateway/Dell/etc/etc/etc/etc I never replace the mouse that came with it because it's such a perfect mouse in every way.
If that were the case, there wouldn't be such a huge market for different mice. Yes Mac ships with a crappy mouse. So do all other computers. Get over it, get off your lazy ass and buy a $10 fucking mouse.
"I can't consider buying a Mac because it doesn't have a good mouse" "goatse.cx" "I'd love to see a beowulf cluster of" "Cowboy Neal option". PLEASE RETIRE THESE MEANINGLESS ANACHRONISMS!
(rant mode off)
Love Linux but Installing W2000 (Score:2, Insightful)
1. No NOTES client. We use LN for e-mail and many DBs. Tried VMWARE desktop 3.0 -- too slow, frequent lock-ups (which require the blue checking HD deal -- and take time). Also didn't like the smaller screen (tried the full screen mode and this locked up both the VM and linux twice). Tried hitting LN through a browser (works, but doesn't have a fraction of the features and ease on the client).
2. Limited support for Netware. Only way to map to a network drive was to use the console to do ipx_configure and ncpmount -- it works and I can put it in my start-up script, but not easy for the average user
3. Never did get the network printer working. Tried HardDrake MANY times with MANY settings and never once had anything exit the printer. Even worse -- no messages at all about where my test pages might have gone (even an obscure queue not found message might have helped in my trouble shooting).
4. Getting sound working was a trial. After buying a new sound card and disabling the MB on-board sound, I still needed to purchase the OSS driver to get it working, but don't play around with the controls or you will have what sounds like a 78 piled high with dust. And volume is all over the map Xmms needs my volume WAY UP, but the Mandrake boot song WAY LOW - forget and you are blasted out.
5. Not being root all the time is the mantra - and yet everything I tried to do seemed to want me that way. SU all day long. No SU editor - I guess you need to evoke a graphical based editor from a console where you've logging as SU. Maybe I'm an idiot
Enough rant
And yet it is still too complex for my average windows type user. So even though I feel like a turn-coat -- I am back to W2000 (actually NT4 has been a pretty good and bullet-proof OS for me over the last couple years) and a dual boot Drake 8.1 for development.
X must die! (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the real problem remains X(Free): it's too heavy and it doesn't provide any form of widget directly.
Maybe I am wrong but what we need is a linux kernel with a decent, fast, reliable and self-contained GUI (please don't forget the "classic" tty shell such as bash).
What we get today is a GUI with tons of layers (CORBA, DCOP, QT, GTK, and so on...) that reduce the performances and create a lot of problems during compiling because the incredible number of libs dependencies.
If someone needs X, well, he could use it in "rootless" mode on the GUI as already happen in Mac OS X.
A simple installer should complete this visionary desktop-oriented distribuition of Linux.
MacOS X beat ya to the punch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong. I don't hate Linux. Its a daily part of my life...as a server OS that maximizes my old i386 hardware. I won't be using MacOS X Server either. The PPC hardware is too nice to stuff in a closet. It begs to be used by human hands.
I think its time for hard core Linux zealots to really examine what a beauty MacOS X is. Pop over to CompUSA or an Apple Store, shove the crowd in front of the new iMac to the side, click on the Terminal icon and see what a pure UNIX experience is really like. After that, I think your fear of Steve Jobs and his magical black turtleneck will go away.
Note to CmdrTaco: If I hear another mouse button joke and Mac from you, I am going to hand Ms. Fent an original iMac hockey puck mouse so she can beat you into submission. The PowerBook G4 has USB, take some of that dowry and buy one.
Re:MacOS X beat ya to the punch... (Score:3, Interesting)
Pure. I am doing the same in my company. I am about to present the most radical idea ever to management. Dump Microsoft. With the press lately, Gates is helping me out with my business plan. Thank God for Microsoft arrogance.
It's a long shot. (Score:5, Insightful)
I just got finished setting up three computers with Windows XP Home from Dell. Computers really are a commodity now -- the Dells were gorgeous, easy to open, and functioned perfectly for a cost of $588 each (shipped!) Google "Dell refurbished" for other good deals. But I digress.
I set my mother and my dad's secretary up with the new computers (two at the office and one at my parents' house.) Keep in mind that Windows XP is about as far from Windows 98 (which is what they had) as you can get while still being Windows, and Office XP is somewhat different from Office 2000.
With two clicks I had set up a system whereby they could connect the secretary's 56k modem (my parents live/work in the middle of nowhere) to the Internet and have everyone else's computer connect through hers. I then set up remote disconnect -- where it shows the icon in your system tray and you can connect and disconnect the modem from any computer in the office. Windows XP comes with a nifty disk that you can put into any Windows computer (besides Windows 2000) and set up the connection sharing.
With another few clicks I had set up the Files and Settings Transfer Wizard, which uses Ethernet or a serial cable to connect to the other computer and download settings (fonts, favorites, etc.) I even backed up other programs and had them transferred automatically.
When my mom plugs in a digital camera, a wizard pops up and shows her all the pictures on the camera. She can then copy them to a disk or to the hard drive. She can print 4x6s, 3x5s, or wallet prints from the OS. Burning files to a CD is as easy as selecting the files, dragging them to the CD drive, and clicking Write To CD. Yes, folks, Windows XP may have a whole host of Big Brother issues (most of which I turned off upon installation), but it sure is easier to use. The whole experience reminded me of the Macintosh.
Compare this with installing Linux. Even setting up Linux to see NTFS drives is a pain, let alone transferrring files and settings (since that is most likely what you are going to want to do upon installation.) I've used Mandrake pretty extensively, and even it has some weird problems (like asking which version of XFree86 you want to use, and not automatically detecting the monitor and setting a reasonable resolution.) It took me hours to figure out how to get Mandrake to change to a lower resolution (Ctrl + -). There is little documentation. And this is on Mandrake 8.1.
There is just a lot of stuff on Linux that is poorly documented and/or buggy, and that carries over to the Windows versions of open-source software in a lot of cases. Netscape 6.2 (which I am using on a daily basis) is easily one of the worst email clients I have ever used. It won't let you switch on-the-fly between text and HTML mode. Attachments randomly refuse to open. At least it's stable, which is more than I can say for any version of Staroffice (5.2 or 6.0 beta.) Save a file as Excel format? Crash. Open a large file? Crash. Apply special formatting? Crash. I'm running Windows 2000, so no, this has nothing to do with Microsoft. A favorite quote of a co-worker also on this project is "Yeah, I use StarOffice to open documents, but if I want to get any real work done, I just use Excel."
It's not there, and after seeing Windows XP (which, BTW, has no activation bull if you buy it preinstalled), I'm not convinced that it ever will be. I will happily use Linux on the server, but I consider Windows an excellent client OS.
See my post history / journal if you want more info.
Fragmentation is a bad thing (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not an indictment against freedom to choose! But it's been my observation that most people (especially the tech-unsavvy) don't want to have to choose if at all possible. They want one desktop, one word processor, one of y.
For Linux to break the M$ stronghold, distros will need to provide two things: (1) A "simple" install which provides the typical user with the minimum (ideal: zero) number of installation options, and (2) an "expert" install option for those of us who want to tweak our systems to the nth degree and not use an install process aimed at the LCD of the population.
Distro vendors themselves will need to agree on what a "simple" install is comprised of...and use the same components. Otherwise, we're back to square one on the fragmentation issue. Developers can make this process easier by putting aside their petty disagreements and pooling their energies to make production-quality software a reality, rather than the endless stream of beta-version software that never seems to quite make the jump to release-quality.
Device drivers... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Developers don't have a way of providing a universal device driver that will work under any release of a kernel. Heck, a device driver for 2.4.10 won't easily work in 2.4.17! Exactly how is a device manufacturer going to release a driver (either open source or binary) that an end user can *easily* install? As it is right now, device manufacturers who support Linux have to do so with little added expense. Mostly because most of the people using Linux are technically adept enough to get their devices drivers working. But if Linux gets more popular on the desktop, the cost to device manufacturers of supporting Linux is going to dramatically increase as end users aren't able to install their device driver by themselves. I think this is going to be a limiting factor on Linux's popularity.
Until a device manufacturer can easily install their device driver in to just about any running linux kernel, I don't see them jumping on board to provide linux drivers. Until that happens, I don't see linux making much headway on the desktop.
I don't like this. I run debian on every computer I own. I'd really like to see Linux become popular on the desktop, but I think it has to overcome many hurdles. One of which is easily allowing device manufacturers to install their drivers.
$.02.
I've said this before... (Score:3, Insightful)
Enter the kernel. Here there's no such thing. Just try running a 2.2 module under a 2.4 kernel, for instance. People tend to upgrade their kernel just like they upgrade any other part of their computer, and the interface is a real moving target.
A hardware manufacturer has a tough time when he wants to distribute a binary-only driver. They'll need to recompile and twiddle their driver every time a kernel release comes out, which is becoming more and more frequent these days. Binary drivers also seem to be viciously resented [debianplanet.org] by the open-source community; if you refuse to release your hardware specs you're an information fascist. It's so bad that we've now got this kernel license mess, where some modules refuse to let you link against them if you're not GPL. Read the f***ing GPL: there's an exception against GPL 'infecting' other code from within core services like the os kernel. Even Microsoft, evil as they are, doesnt mind what license your software running on their system is, so long as you don't touch theirs.
A popular approach these days seems to provide a GPL'ed 'resource manager' module which exports a stable ABI for accessing that device. The proprietary bits are then packaged up into a library or XFree86v4 module (which by the way is a much more stable proposition, with binaries being not only stable but crossplatform on x86. Linux is just as low-level and really ought to take a page out of their book). However this is no better than Microsoft DRM: it is code written for political, not technical reasons and it really does not need to be there.
Face it, Linux the kernel will succeed not when the scheduler runs like greased mercury, not when they finally decide which damn VM to use, but when they (a) provide a stable kernel services interface and (b) give hardware vendors a choice about how they can let you use their hardware (what if they've got good intentions but have licensed technology from someone who made them sign an NDA?). Isn't there a bit in the GNU manifesto about Free Software being there to promote choice for the user?
Oh, man... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Quite a few distributions of the Linux desktop are close to becoming products that can successfully compete against Microsoft Windows."
Translation: It's still not there yet.
"Each system can be installed without harming Windows."
Indeed, that's the first step. The second step is to automatically transfer / map "My Documents", "Favorites", "Fonts", etc. I haven't yet seen a distribution that will willingly copy over files from Windows, but Windows XP will willingly copy files and settings from any other Windows computer via Ethernet. Linux needs this to have a successful dual-boot audience, and it would be nice for system upgrades as well.
"With closed-source systems, users are stuck with programs and upgrades they cannot change."
Who says? I regularly contribute my feedback and bugs to everyone from Microsoft to MySQL to Trillian. I pay for the products, and I send in every bug report / feature request I find. In most cases, I don't want to program it myself anyway. If many people request a feature, it will be there. And often the programmers come up with a more intuitive way to impement it than I would have. I'm okay with this, and so are the majority of users.
"The Microsoft approach limits a user to available software. With Linux, a user can grow."
This makes no sense. There are development tools aplenty for both Windows and Linux. If your company uses Windows, chances are high that someone, somewhere, has an MSDN subscription and has the suite of Microsoft's visual development tools that they would be willing to let you borrow. Of course, you can also use third-party development tools (some of which are free) for both OSes.
This article should never have made it to ZDNet. Sometimes I wonder whether ZDNet scans article submissions for "Linux" and just posts those, knowing it will generate heated debate. Ths article is really flamebait -- it says nothing new, and it makes both sides come up in arms. Too bad. *sigh*
Linux on the Desktop... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd personally like to see a facility to make it easy to install something you might have missed during the original install. For example, Joe user installs Linux and when its all over and done with he wishes he could connect to a file share on his Windows box. He remembers seeing something about Windows connectivity during his install but doesn't know how to get back to that dialog or what the package was even called. His choice is to either reinstall or go to a newsgroup and ask for help, which leads me to my main point.
I think the linux community needs to lighten up when it comes to "newbies". Linux users should think of themselves as evangelists and when a new user asks a question not be so quick to flame them for not reading the HOWTO before coming to them with such a trivial question. If you go to your local church and ask an elder or a member of the clergy a question about somthing that has you confused do they jump up your ass for not reading the bible first for the answers? No, they are happy to see that you are interested and they try hard to help you. Why can't we be the same when someone approaches us with a question about Linux, no matter how trivial it may be? I'm not saying we should be there to answer all their questions, but in the process of answering their first questions we might want to show them where to find the answers so the next time they can help themselves. We just need to be more tactful when educating new users.
The distributions are doing a good job, the developers are doing a good job, now it is time for the users to do a good job. If Linux is to succeed on the desktop it is up to the users to give it a good image.
Just an observation. (Score:3, Interesting)
As an experiment I recently gave my mother, who has _never_ used a computer, a new Dell system with Redhat 7.2 installed. I taught her how to use it and gave her a few books to help her along the way. Results, she is now a productive and happy user of Linux.
See, to her MS or Linux makes no difference. She would have to learn either but since she didnt have years of bias towards MS products both OS are completely interchangeable to her. She can surf the Internet, use word processing, and play music, and the price was right!
Linux has come a long way and is getting better everyday. Maybe LUGs should proactively promote and manage Linux machines in schools with kids who don't have the bias yet, and establish Linux as the defacto standard.
Just a thought.
Poorly Written Article (Score:4, Insightful)
"Unfortunately, many computer users are unaware of the extent to which they are "jerked around" by companies that sell a license restricting the freedom to use their software."
Well, it would seem that Linux doesn't stand much of a chance if people continue to remain unaware of that issue. He's not suggesting here that they are becoming more aware or ways that they can be made more aware, he's simply stating a set back to the cause. So hardly a proof that Linux will prevail. Next he says:
"Recent announcements by Sun Microsystems, regarding its expanded support for the open-source community and its decision to provide its own Linux distribution, are welcome news. "
Excellent! So all of the Solaris desktop users may move to Linux. I'm sure we welcome all 3 of them to our happy community. Next he goes on to list hurdles that Linux needs to overcome but doesn't provide any evidence that they ARE being overcome which is somewhat important if he's trying to proove his title. So then he moves on to say:
"No one would buy a car with a welded-shut hood, yet we continue to buy software that way. The Microsoft approach limits a user to available software. With Linux, a user can grow. If a tool is missing or awkward, someone can get under the hood and fix the problem. "
The funny thing is that increasingly, especially amongst the more expensive cars, it is becoming impossible to do any real work on them yourself. Sure, you can change the oil and other fluids but beyond that many cars are impossible for the average person to do work on. Finally, he says:
"
Two paths are before us. One leads to increasing proprietary control, protectionist measures and legal threats, while the other leads to open source, freedom and accelerated innovation. I, of course, choose the latter because it is "win-win." Vital innovation, new markets and vastly improved customer service win the vote readily over the purveyors of proprietary hoarding. "
To summarize, he seems to be concluding that Linux will prevail despite some hurdles because it would be really good if it did and really bad if it didn't. Wow, that's all the evidence I needed, kudos to linux, your victory is well in hand!
This is really a poorly written article and is little more than another puff piece about how Linux is the right choice, and windows is the wrong choice. It shows no new insights on the chances of Linux surviving and only points out the same issues to be dealt with that only about a billion other articles have pointed out.
Installing OS == Rebuilding Transmission (Score:4, Insightful)
We can apply this to OS's by comparing the OS to your transmission. I know ABSOLUTELY nothing about cars. That's why the transmission in my car is fine with me. If something goes wrong, I take it to the shop. If it completely dies on me, I buy a new car. I don't have the expertise - nor do I want to learn how - to rebuild my transmission. The average computer user doesn't want to worry about their OS. It's just supposed to be there and work. Installing a new OS is like rebuilding a transmission, and the average end user doesn't want to do it.
That is why Linux cannot succeed on the desktop until several events happen. 1) Linux must be installed at the OEM level. Computer have to come with it preinstalled. 2) The GUI has to be completely object oriented, easy to use, and easy to configure. News flash: XFree86 is NONE OF THE ABOVE. Look at how Apple took BSD to the masses. They didn't try and build an interface for X Windows. They built one ON TOP of BSD. That's what Linux must do. We can't rely on X Windows because it has too many shortcomings. 3) Applications 4) Unique features and enhancements not found on any other platform. As it stands right now, very little is innovative within the Linux community. Sure, the way things are done might be innovative. But, it all boils down to the Linux community trying to duplicate the things that Microsoft and Apple have already done. If Linux is truly to succeed, there needs to be some reason for users to switch.
Perhaps this will help the rise of linux desktops (Score:3, Interesting)
Business desktop or home desktop? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Free vs. free. Let's face it, that's the way it is for most home users. Either that or it's a sunk cost from when they purchased their machine, and people don't mind violating copyright. Unlike companies BSA is unlikely to pay a visit to them too.
2. Rapidly changing interface, particularly in the graphics area (DirectX, OpenGL). The interface for business application changes far less often.
3. More legacy applications. Companies generally have more legacy data, which can be converted. Recreating the API for running the apps is considerable more complex and buggy.
4. Faster application turn-over. Most business applications are continous developments, while games are released, then left for a sequel. By the time Linux game comes out everybody's waiting for the sequel, while people would be interested in Linux Officepack 2 even if Windows Officepack 3 is out.
5. Fewer competent users. Having a bunch of Linux admins who work full-time with Linux is better than a bunch of home users, even with many powerusers. Of course they are there to work and not do Linux development, but qualified people identifying, analysing and working around problems (one way or the other) still helps more than "I click and it doesn't work".
Kjella
Linux will win in corporate environments (Score:3)
- low cost (all the following features are free the cost extra on Windows)
- easy to use in "thin client" setups, VNC, terminals, etc. Admin all GUI desktops on one or two servers ("on" not "from")
- ease of preventing users from installing applications. Save data to partitions mounted "no-exec", wipe and restore $HOME on each login, etc.
- XFS, ext3, KDE, mozilla, VNC, X (yup X is going to be the killer app it was never allowed to be - yes it *will*). Mark my words and when you are shokced to discover at a future place of work that you have a legacy Windows desktop running *inside X* or that a suite of custom applications your employer purchases comes with a "remote viewer" (aka X).
- lack of applications (this is a *GOOD* thing) You don't want users downloading and installing the latest Windows vid player, virii or whatever else.
Office apps are dinosaurs soon to die. Who sits around writing long documents with MS-Word these days? Do companies mandate that everyone install their own copy of Excl because spreadsheets are better than Web apps or do you fill out your expense reports using
And even if those old fashioned type docs are used where do they end up? On the Web. The browser is the OS these days - even Microsoft wants everything to run on
Plus things like 100-200 day uptimes on servers with 400 users doing GUI logins from 96 X-terminals help to push the use of of Linux on the "desktop" (only, *where is* the desktop?).
Things like a Sun server with 64 CPUs a GiG of RAM surrounded by el cheapo Linux diskless workstations will become very normal in gov't a business
And once again
... it was one of the primary success factors for Windows 3.1
Re:Well, what's the DESKTOP killer app? (Score:3, Insightful)
The opportunity to not be tied to endless EULAs, support contracts, pricey upgrades. To create an environment how *you* want it, not how someone else thinks you want it.
I'd rather be incompatible between versions *for free* thank you.
Re:Well, what's the DESKTOP killer app? (Score:2, Insightful)
---
Extra! Extra! Read all about it [slashdot.org]! Slashdot editors censor dissenters [slashdot.org].
Re:Well, what's the DESKTOP killer app? (Score:3, Interesting)
The home market isn't all that relevant. It's the enterprise desktop that's the real prize, because it has a much shorter sell-cycle, because you get lock-down without a lock-down by moving to a *nix desktop, and because it's only necessary to train to specific work-related tasks, not how to install driver X or game Y or cutesy-apps Z.
Re:Well, what's the DESKTOP killer app? (Score:2, Insightful)
If IBM, Sun, maybe Corel or Redhat were to bid on it, MS couldn't complain that it got a raw deal (although they will anyway), and Office will be ported to Linux.
As a bonus, it will be pried open so that maybe MS will have some incentive to fix it. I'd switch OS's just to get the pagination to work!
Re:Well, what's the DESKTOP killer app? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well, what's the DESKTOP killer app? (Score:3, Interesting)
Porn. Get the various streaming media formats supported on Linux. Get the various video formats supported. Get the various "features" of broken web-browsers supported in Linux browsers. Once all the features of porn sites are easily accessible using Linux, then success will come.
Re:Well, what's the DESKTOP killer app? (Score:2, Insightful)
Mozilla has a 'quirks' mode which does just that. Unless you declare strict html in your dtd, Moz will default to this mode.
Re:Well, what's the DESKTOP killer app? (Score:5, Funny)
If what you say is true, then these guys [netscape.com] are visionaries.
Quote: "The goal of the Pornzilla project is to make Mozilla into a great porn browser."
Note that the project has "Members" (apparently they're not trying to be funny here) as well as a "throbber" feature (whatever that is, I don't really want to know).
The wonders of Open Source...
For streaming media and video: Crossover (Score:3, Informative)
Plus, it's cheap. Try the demo [codeweavers.com] and then buy it [codeweavers.com].
Re:Well, what's the DESKTOP killer app? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a geek, I like to think I'm a good geek, but I can't even bring myself to think about recommending Linux to someone who doesn't know what they're doing, or at least have someone who does living with them. It's hard enough to explain that when scandisk pops up they're supposed to leave it alone and let it do what it wants and just say "ok" to everything. But try explaining to them how to e2fsck
I've seen a quote floating around on here. Something along the lines of Unix being user-friendly but selective about who it makes friends with. I think it's going to be that way with Linux for a little more time.
-Sara
Re:If TiBooks had 3 mouse buttons?!?! (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think you understand, people buy laptop computers to be mobile. If you are forced to use a external mouse then that makes the computer much harder to use "anywhere".
Re:If TiBooks had 3 mouse buttons?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot Political Correctness (Score:2)
$FREE_OS *Won't* Fail on the $OS_APP_TYPE ?
Posted by $EVIL_EDITOR on $DATE
from the $LAME_BYLINE dept.
$KARMA_GRUBBING_USER sent in a story claiming that $FREE_OS will Succeed on the $OS_APP_TYPE, and not just the $OTHER_OS_APP_TYPE where it has already had much success. I think that the latest version of $WINDOW_SYSTEM has demonstrated that it can compete, but with the increasing dependance on $PROPRIETARY_STANDARD that have no support on $FREE_OS, it's going to be awfully difficult. That said, $FREE_OS has been on my $OS_APP_TYPE for $LENGTH_OF_TIME, and I don't plan on changing it. (Maybe if $ALTERNATIVE_COMPUTER_MANUFACTURER released $COMPUTER_TYPE with $FEATURE I'd at least have an option
Re:shell / file manager integration (Score:3, Interesting)
KDE 2.2.1, open a Konqueror window, Window->Show Terminal. Been there for a while, since KDE 2.0.1 I think. (Unless you meant something different by "integration", which you probably did, since that's a really slippery word and you should've defined it better.) Never used it much since I always have a konsole open anyway.
I've never seen the ability to launch a command line shell set to the directory you're currently viewing in the file manager.
Shoot, that's in there too: Open a Konqueror window and choose Tools->Open Terminal (Ctrl-T). Been there since KDE 1.1.2 IIRC, and probably since before then. KDE 1.1.2 came out sometime in 1999.
If you could have a window that was half-command line, half-file manager, such that when you changed directories in one half, it would change directories in the other?
That is the default behavior for the command lines you launch with the "show terminal/Ctrl-T" command in Konqeror, and probably has been there since 2.0.1. You can turn it off by clicking on the "link" icon below the terminal window scrollbar.
Everything you mentioned is available, it either seems so obvious or so "why would anyone want that?" that no one bothers to mention it. Oh yeah, it would also confuse the newbies. HTH anyway.
Re:your mom and dad don't count (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, but lots of people want to do video editing, manage their photo albums without configuring DV camera drivers and other simple tasks that, yes, can be accomplished using LInux if you are a fairly adept user. However, there are millions upon millions of people who never want to have to compile a kernel, deal with drivers or use a terminal.
Again, I think KDE and Gnome are pretty decent desktop environments and are only getting better. However, until the UI behaves as consistently or stably as Mac OS 9, Mac OS X, or shudder, Windows it's just not going to take off. The core of what's needed is there. It's just that pretty much most Linux development is targeted at creating a user experience based around the desires of programmers and networking people.
Yes, Linux is a desktop OS, but it's main strengths are still in the back end arena where the lack of an inconsistent UI is not that much of an issue.
I use Linux at home. Mostly for teaching myself new things, but when I need to get honest work done, I switch over to my trusty PowerMac and fire up applications that I know are going to behave and perform in a very consistent and predictable way. KDE and Gnome are still just a little too rough at this point for the average user, which, yes, includes those millions and millions of parents out there who are going to be spending their disposable income so that their children can have computers. Hopefully, some of the kids will be adventurous and try installing Linux or OS X or NetBSD or BeOS (if they can find it).
Linux is NOT going to take over the desktop but I sincerely hope it has a long and fruitful run serving people faithfully.