Advocates Join to Promote Desktop Linux 296
phatvibez writes "Cnet is running a story that says 'Several companies have joined to launch a consortium to promote Linux for desktop computers, a significant expansion for an operating system that today fits more comfortably on servers.' This is great news, I hope they actually do something and we see some great stuff come from this!" Another submission on this note: TweetZilla writes "According to ExtremeTech, Suse is taking a play from Xandros. Crossover Office and Plugin are now bundled into Suse's desktop to provide Windows and Office compatibility." Update: 02/04 18:18 GMT by T : Here's a link to the consortium's web site.
All KDE companies (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All KDE companies (Score:4, Informative)
Re:All KDE companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not this is a sound strategy, only time will tell.
Re:All KDE companies (Score:2)
Re:All KDE companies (Score:3, Interesting)
So much for redhat not bothering about the desktop.
Daniel
Re:All KDE companies (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not so sure that is the case, according to this article [crn.com] a RedHat Corporate Desktop distro is due out later this year.
The juicy bits for those who don't want to bother reading the whole thing:
Re:All KDE companies (Score:2)
I think it's more to do with not being in a hurry, and being realistic.
Linux on the desktop just isn't ready yet. I wish it were. That'd be sweet. But it's not. There are still fundamental issues with things like hardware support, Windows compatability (ntfs/wine), app packaging, dvd/multimedia support, consistancy, standardisation and so on. Not to mention that the desktop platforms (kde/gnome) themselves are still maturing.
In short, there's an absolute buttload of work to do first. The corporate desktop is a realistic short-medium term target. It's not ready yet, but I'd guess by the start of next year it will be. A lot of the current issues don't affect the corporate desktop - DVD playback? So what. Packaging? The administrator can install the apps. Hardware support will come once business customers start phoning up and asking for drivers. Redhat are busy working on app consistancy and app compatability issues.
So the corp desktop will happen first, and it'll still take years to gain acceptance, just like Linux on the server. Then maybe by the time we've gone through that, desktop Linux will be smoother than OS X, Wine will be perfect, hardware support will be 99% out of the box and we'll stand a chance of getting other kinds of desktop converted.
Redhat know this. Hence their general lack of enthusiasm for home desktop at the moment.
One thing that is needed. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that there are supposed to be some out there, but I haven't found any that really work at this point. Example: The Evolution connector "cheats", it reads and processes OWA pages.
Re:One thing that is needed. (Score:5, Funny)
Such programs usually prefer to be called "worms"
Re:One thing that is needed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One thing that is needed. (Score:2)
Such Killers exist, or will soon (Score:5, Interesting)
There are more an more alternatives every day.
Re:Such Killers exist, or will soon (Score:2)
Boy, don't I wish! Evolution is a shadow of Outlook. Don't get me wrong, I use Evolution, am not unhappy with it, but it lacks Outlook's journal and Notes function, and that's just off the top list of features. No support for PocketPC synching almost made it a deal breaker for me. I know it still does for many others.
I love Linux and am a big advocate, but there is nothing comparable to Outlook written for Linux yet. I get by with Evolution, after a fashion. Outlook is the only "office" app I miss from my Windows days.
Actually thinking of upgrading my iPaq to a Zaurus; does anyone know if Evolution will even synch with that?
Re:Such Killers exist, or will soon (Score:2)
KDE 3.1 version of Kalendar has an exchange plugin, and is better than Evolution calender.
Kmail is nice and clean, quick and not as quirky as evolution.
If you wan't linux on the desktop use the 2.5 kernel,(i've been using 2.5.54 for a few weeks no problems), it's a lot faster/smoother than 2.4, like shit loads....
now, if only they could sort out cut'n'paste.......
Re:One thing that is needed. (Score:3, Interesting)
(We're the same people who brought you WvDial, and a bunch of other stuff - check out open.nit.ca [open.nit.ca] for more of the projects that we have done.
Re:One thing that is needed. (Score:4, Interesting)
>processes OWA pages.
How do you know Outlook/Exchange is not doing the same?
Re:One thing that is needed. (Score:2)
Ethereal [ethereal.com] is a wonderful thing.
Re:One thing that is needed. (Score:3, Informative)
exchange replacements (Score:3, Informative)
Lotus notes [lotus.com]
oracle collaboration [oracle.com]
Bynari InsightServer [bynari.net].
There are others.
One step at a time (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about the way linux has grown as a server. From very specialized applications (five years or so ago: "did you hear XX company runs Linux as a print server??? wow!") to more and more general applications.
Right now Linux on the desktop is great for some fairly specialized folks. On one side, if you are an engineer/scientist who has always run a Unix workstation (hey, my "wordprocessor" has always been LaTex edited by Xemacs), then desktop Linux has been great for years. On the other end, if you want a locked-down machine that only browses and checks for e-mail, Linux is currently great.
The trick is to broaden the appeal of desktop Linux out in incremental steps. Get the administrative assistants at the engineering firm running Star Office on Linux and get rid of windows at an otherwise Unix shop. Some departments need only browser, e-mail and an decent Excel clone. Done. Some departments need to set up meetings on a firm-level Exchange server. Not 100% done yet, but already good enough for some and as it gets better a few more will switch.
The point is, think incrementally, think about heterogenous users and don't fall into the all or nothing trap. If Linus had listened to "it isn't ready until it runs on 64 processor machines", he never would have started.
Re:One thing that is needed. (Score:3, Interesting)
Lotus Notes.
The fact that IBM has yet to release a native client only shows how uninformed they are. The only reason that they use Linux in the first place is because it saves them from spending development dollars on their own *nix solution. While I'm certainly not complaining about this (both OSS and IBM benefit from this relationship), I'd really like them to be a 'pioneer' like they claim to be.
And why does this story have anything to do with Linux, which has nothing in the way of a graphical environment merged into the tree, as of yet. KDE/X and Gnome/X are the current leaders here. And those can be used on more than just Linux.
Gratuitous alternative desktop environment suggestion: don't let applications save user documents to 'just anywhere' like Windows does. Then, create a user-level system browser that keeps the user out of the stuff that is irrelevant to them.
With the current Windows environment, I see the same thing all the time. Although recent versions of Windows Explorer will tell user's that they shouldn't be picking around in PROGRAM FILES, the SAVE feature doesn't. So Joe User decides to start saving his office documents in C:\PROGRAM FILES\MICROSOFT OFFICE because that makes sense to him when he/she becomes accustomed to the PC for the first time. If this person only had the choice of saving it to a document store (of all or some of the PC's user's), this confusion wouldn't be there.
Then create a system-level browser that can view things at the file level - for people who need to do this. I certainly don't need this functionality more than 5% of the time and I support this for a living. Separate the user-level and system-level browsing.
And don't even get me started on a standard for program installs. Currently, a Windows install can put crap in the following places:
1) Start Menu
2) Task Bar
3) Quick Launch
4) Desktop
Not to mention the fact that most menus and folders are full of gratuitous advertising. There's no reason that Easy CD Creator needs to add a ROXIO folder in the Program Files or in the Start Menu. As a matter of fact, the start menu should have a UTILTIES folder in it and the program should be required to install a shortcut there and only there. A splash screen could accomodate the uninstall shortcut and related documentation. There's no reason that every software package get it's own start menu group...
Am I rambling? How do I contribute to usability improvements? Linux is at its infancy and has the chance to do everything right.
Re:One thing that is needed. (Score:2, Informative)
Plenty of clients, no server (Score:3, Insightful)
What about Gentoo? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about Gentoo? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about Gentoo? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about Gentoo? (Score:4, Informative)
I will say this, Gentoo does give the installer a sense of accomplishment. I felt proud once I had rebooted, logged in, and saw fluxbox come up.
As much as I like the idea of Gentoo (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the portage system and the fact that all the apps are compiled optimized for your system. You don't have to worry about dependancies since the scripts take care of it for you.
I don't like the fact that I typed "emerge kde" and 48 hours later , and after seeing numerous "cannot create file due to a permission error" messages fly by, it still hadn't "emerged". Granted it was compiling on an old Celeron-333, but it had 524MB of RAM to do with as it will. That was just for KDE, I had spent 2 days installing and configuing the system just to get fluxbox to come up.
I couldn't even get fluxbox to configure itself for any user other than root, had to go edit all the config files manually and the menu generator didn't work at all.
Compare this to most peoples experiences installing Mandrake, SuSE, and Red Hat (usually about an hour to 2 hours) and I think you can see why Gentoo isn't on the list.
I certainly don't want to run Gentoo down, they're just down I-25 from me.
Re:As much as I like the idea of Gentoo (Score:2, Insightful)
Please be careful saying this... they might get some funny ideas and stop catering to the power user
Re:What about Gentoo? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about Gentoo? (Score:5, Interesting)
URL (Score:3, Informative)
Not a whole lot of info posted there yet.
Other parties (Score:5, Informative)
Focus Should Be on Replacement Apps (Score:5, Insightful)
" SuSE and Red Hat are aiming Linux for developers and for employees using computers for limited functions, such as entering information onto a back-end system or fielding calls from customers placing orders by phone calls."
Even if an employee's job description shows limited computer use, employees also use computers for Internet browsing on breaks, checking their email, reading company memos in the company's standardized file format (likely Office), stock trading in off-time, pr0n, whatever.
In order to be successful, the group will hopefully make it clear that an OSS desktop can do whatever their MS desktop can do (and more), and cite examples from an overall workday of how something done in Windows is done in Linux.
Hope and pray... (Score:5, Interesting)
A good place ot start understanding about design huristics is www.humanfactors.com/home/default.asp
With that said, after coding GUI's in Swing for 4 years (doing other non-code stuff now) focusing on productivity and usability for the end-user, I simply love Mas OSX's Aqua skin and the design of most Apple products. Very usable. A pleasure to look at. And a guide for any GUI developer to learn from. Search Apple's site for a design guide.
Re:Hope and pray... (Score:2)
Keep thinking that. Designing GUI's isnt that hard. YOu just got to listen to the yeah's and nay's of your user crowd. If somebody says "WTF am I supposed to do", you did something wrong.
Most Open Source developers take criticism personally. If you talk bad about their baby, you're non-existant.
---A good place ot start understanding about design huristics is www.humanfactors.com/home/default.asp
---With that said, after coding GUI's in Swing for 4 years (doing other non-code stuff now) focusing on productivity and usability for the end-user, I simply love Mas OSX's Aqua skin and the design of most Apple products. Very usable. A pleasure to look at. And a guide for any GUI developer to learn from. Search Apple's site for a design guide.
I've not seen your gui's but I know about Apple. Something's about Quicktime where they TOTALLY DISREGARDED THEIR OWN USABILITY DOCUMENTS.
Still, you remind me of a Macintrash fanboy. I take it all critically. Apple usually makes good stuff, but QT was shit. MS has made tons of shit in UI designing, and plenty of 3'rd party apps for windows are also shit. And there's Sourceforge. I'd be embarassed to have my name linked on most of the projects at that site.
Groups Provides / Teaches Linux Desktop to Public (Score:5, Informative)
Free Geek, formed as a response to the growing problem of disposal of obsolete computers, has a program to take discarded computers, fix them up,
load them with Debian Linux with Openoffice, and then give them to those in need.
Parts of the program include mandatory volunteer time for those who wish the free computers. This volunteer time does include taking computers apart, testing the components, assembling the computers, loading them with a Debian image over the network, and then basic Linux training.
Many of the people who partake in the program have never had a computer in their life. Almost all of them are not linux/server/geek literate when they walk in the door. When they walk out, they at least know enough to use the computer for basic desktop functions as word processing, email, and using the web on the Internet.
This can show that at a grass-roots level, promoting Linux at the desktop can work.
Mark
How about a consortium.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now mod me a troll because I said something bad about Linux.
I installed linux twice... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I installed linux twice... (Score:2, Interesting)
In my experience, that's par for the course.
Re:I installed linux twice... (Score:2)
I could comment about how I just want my computer run, but to address your need- you might notice that Linux does run everything the specifications says it should. Of course it doesn't run MS Windows programs. Do you run Mac programs on your Windows computer?
Apparently freedom is not an issue for you. So why are you at
Re:I installed linux twice... (Score:5, Insightful)
The lack of software really doesn't bother me that much. all i did on windows is Battlefield 1942 and the webdesign stuffs. Now i use JEdit for java, text editing webpages, and Gimp for graphics. The only thing i'm missing is Battlefield.
The reason I always came back to windows in the past was out of laziness. First of all, it's really a steep learning curve, unless all you want to do is email and browse teh internet. Stuff like changing my resolultion, fixing my soundcard, and figuring out the file system held me back before.
Anyway, thats just my story. I'm sure there's a lot more people who try to switch, and for one reason or another just find it easier to give in and put windows back on. If there was more of a willingness to help newbies understand the basics without making them feel like morons, I beleive there'd be a lot more perminent switchers to linux.
Re:I installed linux twice... (Score:3, Informative)
Keep a few things in mind when dealing with the 'Read The F#@%!# Manual' attitude;
Offtopic, mod accordingly :) (Score:2)
I too have the "game issue" with Linux, my solution was to dual-boot and buy a Gamecube so I wouldn't have to deal with updating drivers and hardware every six months just to play the latest PC games. I could still play games that wouldn't run under WineX (except for Warcraft II, which REQUIRES Windows 9x...grrrrrrr).
Heck, I've GOT a windows machine that can't run the latest titles worth a damn even though I meet the specifications on the box.
The only apps I really notice missing from the Linux lexicon are the little greeting card/poster/calendar publishing apps like Printmaster and Print Shop that my wife loves to use. Heck, I often boot into Windows to use the Hallmark card creator to make birthday cards and what not. I haven't found a Linux replacement for those yet.
Re:Offtopic, mod accordingly :) (Score:3, Insightful)
# Financial software that has any compatibility with online banking
GnuCash 1.8
# Any kind of tax software
Do it online. 2 or 3 options there.
# Any kind of publishing/greeting card software (like you mentioned)
Agreed. This would be a good project for someone to take up. I bet some good KDE hackers could put one together in a few weeks.
# Any kind of "useful" office suite. By useful, I mean something that can be used anywhere by anybody. If I create an excel sheet or a powerpoint presentation, I can send that to anybody in the world and know that they can open it and read it
OpenOffice.org. And don't tell me it's not. And if for some reason it's not *yet*, it will be with 1.1 later this year.
# Any kind of children or educational software
There is some. Not a huge wealth of choices yet, but seriously, how much do they need? Isn't learning better done through books and toys anyway?
# Any kind of decent game that is has nothign to do with squashing Bill Gates while he is infecting computers with windows, or some freeking penguin on a skateboard. WineX doesn't count, too, because it rules out any of the latest games. A game console doesn't count, either. If I have all the hardware required to play games on my PC, why would I want to buy more hardware to play on a console just because I chose a crappy OS?
Bah. No one needs anything beyond TEG [sf.net].
# Antivirus/Security software
Huh? Linux has a fundamentally different architecture. Mail programs in Linux don't randomly execute every attachment they get. Distros ship with firewalls (which aren't even necessary if you don't run crap you don't need to run).
# Business/Accounting/Law software
There are choices out there for accounting, but granted, that category is well behind what is available for Windows. Fortunately, not everyone needs that stuff. Give it a couple years, it will come.
Re:I installed Windows twice... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, at least I tried.
Let's put it this way: I installed Windows twice after I thought I'd never want to go back. I went back both times. Back to OS/2 first, then back to Linux.
I started with Windows (like just about everyone here I guess). I wrote my school stuff with Word. I crashed and lost my data in win3.1, Win95 and NT4 like everybody else probably did at least once. I got hacked when I used the internet the first time in Windows 95. I searched for alternatives and found OS/2.
I went back to Win95 (b or c) when it came out because IBM didn't convince me to stay (OS/2 had convinced me, and I used it quite a long time - but IBMs marketing failures didn't). My small private BBS, which I started much later, stayed in OS/2 for about 4 years after that, until I moved and lost my ISDN lines.) I thought the 'new' Windows would be better, more stable, etc yadda yadda. I was disappointed.
I tried NT4. I was disappointed (my software didn't run, and the games we then played didn't either. Like Command&Conquer, which ran FINE under OS/2, even during a 33kbps BBS download).
I got Linux (SuSE 4.something from 1995) for Christmas in 1995 (I probably wouldn't have noticed it otherwise). I was disappointed by the usability (fvwm2) and the GUI but impressed by the number of (free) apps for it, which could do much of what I wanted (Staroffice was available, which covered the majority; and I had a licence for OS/2, which I traded for a Linux license; it wasn't free then). The only thing that I missed was FIDOnet software, and I had a feeling Linux then was suited more to developers and internet geeks, both of which I wasn't really. It wasn't comfortable, but it worked, and never crashed on my even once.
But after half a year my SuSE /usr/local partition was bigger than the rest of the system (because I probably was too stupid for the packaging system) and my system was quite a mess - probably self-induced, I experimented too much. I tried NT4 again - not all apps worked (eg. FIDOnet software was available for 95, but didn't run in NT4, and FEddy was available for Linux then. Don't even start asking about games, of which some even worked in dosEMU under Linux!). That was in 1996 IIRC.
After some months I totally trashed NT with a service pack install which crashed during installation. Then something snapped inside me - I wasn't about to trust my data to Windows again. Ever. I'd rather install something, ANYTHING, else (I wasn't far away from buying a Mac, if they'd been affordable to a student then). I experimented with several Linux distributions during holidays and found that except for Debian, all the 'big' ones were quite similar to SuSE - RPM packaging, no easy updates, etc.
I installed my Debian system during the 1996-7 christmas holidays (took me two days to get a useable system, with 'bo' aka Debian 1.3 IIRC). It took me about two weeks to understand the system and get everything running - I wasn't about to make the same mistake I made with SuSE.
But the reward was there - I haven't reinstalled since. I backup this system regularly. It has moved over two hard disk crashes, about 10 hard disk upgrades, uncountable system upgrades (eg. libc5->6, X11 3.x->4.x, perl 4.x-5.0-5.6-5.8, etc etc) and about a dozen machine upgrades (started with a P60/16MB, I'm now using an Athlon XP 1800+ with 256MB RAM). It doesn't become slower with every new program like Windows. (Windows wasn't really worth backing up because I had to reinstall it every couple months anyway.) When I remove things, they get removed cleanly. It doesn't have conflicts between drivers or software, unless I install experimental stuff.
About 1998 I decided to patch a server together with spare parts: I wanted to resurrect my BBS and an ISDN dialup. I copied my Debian installation to the second harddisk, removed non-server related packages (X11, Staroffice, etc), installed server-related packages, removed my /home from the first machine, mounted /home via NFS from the second, and there we were. In 2001 I got a laptop. Copied my installation over, removed some packages, added APM and ACPI, changed the X11 driver line and resolution, ready.
Well... I've used Windows for quite a long time. I am even now using Windows from time to time. As long as I don't have to maintain it and keep it running and the apps I need, it's fine. But as soon as you start doing serious stuff with it, Windows breaks in my hands. If I use Windows as I use Linux, it crashes, apps don't react, etc and people tell me that's "normal", even with Windows 2000, I'm supposed to be more careful and open less apps at the same time.
I don't accept that. When I work I'm not a "hacker" or "freak", I just like to get my job done (which often enough is creating a presentation with Openoffice or writing technical documentation or developing a website). But if I can't have several text editors, office files, GIMP/Photoshop or Corel Photopaint sessions and file manager windows open without the OS throwing up, I'm not being productive.
So: I went back to Linux. Maybe Windows is easier for the 'casual' user. But please don't suggest sandals to a mountain climber, even if they are more comfortable and look better.
(Oh yes: the OS installs tend to overlap, I had two harddisks and when I changed I installed the 'new' OS on the 'other' harddisk and kept both for a period of time, when possible. So don't nail me about the exact dates, I don't remember some of them either.)
And please don't start the "much more apps available for Windows" discussion: I'ts totally true, if you count a) all the things that Linux can do without extra apps, and b) all the viruses and worms. And anyway, who needs 4711 file managers/ICQ clients/graphics programs/..., it's much more efficient to cooperate and put all the good features into one product, which in free software tends to happen much more often than in the commercial/shareware world.
OK, I'm finished.
Go on. You can flame me now.
Re:I installed Windows twice... (Score:2)
Re:I installed Windows twice... (Score:2)
I think if we had the source code, we'd figure it out.
---What are you doing, exactly that "breaks" W2K?
Hell if I know, but I have similar problems. I have those problems with new devel drivers AND windows certified drivers. Windows just freezes occaisionally- as in total lockup, nothing moves, works. And I have a nasty login problem. It takes 1-2 minutes for me to get a login screen. And if it goes into screensaver mode, I have to restart. I've also had STOP! screens during install, and other weird places. Simple apps, installed as non-admin has hosed the system.
---I've been using it for years, and NT 4.0 before that, and I've never even *heard* of the problems that you're talking about, like having to open fewer apps, having to reinstall, Windows slowing down by just installing new things, etc.
Are you a casual user?
---It sounds like this is completely made up. I kind of doubt that you're the only person on the planet trying to open up multiple apps at the same time with W2K.
Open too many (or perhaps certain combinations) apps and your stability goes to shit. Crash explorer.exe and it comes back up. Crash it any more, and you might as well reboot. I also end up with hangs on the "Notwork Neighborhood" constantly. And the damn filemanager cant refresh in a timely manner when I put a cd in a drive.
---I mean really, this isn't even believable. You honestly think that out of the millions of people using W2K right this second, that you're the only one who opens up many different apps at once? And you think that all of these people are all sitting around happily with crashing computers when they can go buy RedHat at Best Buy? I definitely smell something, and it ain't roses.
__--YAWN--__
People learn how do deal with crashes because most people dont know any different.
And I swore I'd stop feeding the trolls... (Score:4, Interesting)
By the way, next time you flame, grow some balls and dont post anonymously...
Re:I installed linux twice... (Score:2, Insightful)
You cant brag about your months of continuous uptime in linux if you have to reboot just to play a game of $WHATEVER. You also cant tell people about the windows licensing dough they'll save. All you do is complicate their lives with more software they have to figure out.
Office apps will get linux into cubicles. That's what this latest 'desktop consortium' is aiming for.
99.999% hardware supported and a fast, reliable native API for game development (something better than SDL, less generic than OpenGL, and not a DirectX clone) will get it into the home.
Imagine a.... What's the word? (Score:4, Funny)
So how are they joined? How would one describe such a joining? Is there a term for it, perhaps? Since Linux has largely Western European roots, and has taken on somewhat mythic proportions to many of us, and these companies are doing something quite heroic... is there some character in Western European mythology, some hero, perhaps, after which we could name such a grouping, or cluster?
I sure wish I could think of something appropriate...
Re:Imagine a.... What's the word? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Imagine a.... What's the word? (Score:2)
Beowulf?
--K.
Desktop Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
What matters is having a financially stable commercial backer who has the resources to support large desktop installations with rapid deployment tools and on-site service workers. Then we will start seeing large corporations who have thousands of desktop PC's migrating to Linux en masse.
Re:Desktop Linux (Score:2)
Ooooh. I'd LOVE to see IBM do a modernized WPS for linux. Drag/drop customizations of fonts, bitmaps (only colors back in 1994), and full Object inheritence/manipulation across applications. That would be so very cool and I could die a happy man just seeing it once.
Hardware Support (Score:5, Insightful)
An avarage user would like to have that installation CD comes with the digikam that they just purchased. they are not savy enough to download 20 different tarballs and rpms to get it going.
Re:Hardware Support (Score:3, Informative)
I agree that for new hardware it can be tricky, but there's no reason that a printer manufacturer couldn't provide a new cups driver for their printer.
why do they always include this (Score:3, Insightful)
bullshit, installation might be, but not use. of course, windows instalation is a PITA. linux wins installation hands down. this is pure FUD. anyone with basic computer skills will have little trouble transitioning. in fact, the less skills, the better, since they will have not have to break lots of bad habits.
for those of us that have been using linux ON THE DESKTOP for a few years now, are happy to see this. this is a huge thing. m$ see's it too. it is now a real possibility.
linux is now a legitimate option
Re:why do they always include this (Score:2)
Once installation is as easy click, sit-back, and run. Then I believe people will be sold. Mozilla is the closest to this, but Mozilla isn't the norm.
Re:why do they always include this (Score:2)
Re:why do they always include this (Score:2)
What I would like to see in desktop linux. (Score:5, Interesting)
More hardware support! I have a Radeon 7500 AIW and gettin VIVO to work was evil and a half. Output to TV was worse, (framebuffer crashes and the like).
Multimedia support, Real One Player, Xine, XMMS, mplayer do alot here, but it could be better. Real One is slow and buggy (but better than nothing and now it has fullscreen support), Xine needs to be more user friendly (to be a desktop candidate) and mplayer needs a good, consistant frontend (at least it is stable and fast as hell though). I had no problem with command line though, and associating files with it in kde was a snap.
Video Editing needs to exist. Cinelerra is ok for now (I never got kino to work), but it is slow, unstable, and lacks many features (like chroma keying for green-screen effects). I did manage to create a video project though to completion on my box, but it was not easy.
What does Linux have that makes it a Windows competitor? One word, KDE. Konq is an awesome web browser and file manager (kills anything the explorer can do) Kicker is way more useful than the XP task bar, and themeing is easy. I would give Bill Gate's left arm for these featurs to be ported to Windows.
Oh yeah, Linux is also way faster than XP ever dreamed of being (gentoo w/ prelinking anyone?).
SecondSun
PS before I get anyone flaming me about GNOME, 5 years ago GNOME was slow and unstable. I went to KDE and have no other experience with GNOME, and I know nothing about GNOME. I am sure by now it is much different than it was back then and that it has many features, but I still use KDE exclusivly.
Re:What I would like to see in desktop linux. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What I would like to see in desktop linux. (Score:2, Insightful)
PS before I get anyone flaming me about GNOME, 5 years ago GNOME was slow and unstable. I went to KDE and have no other experience with GNOME, and I know nothing about GNOME. I am sure by now it is much different than it was back then and that it has many features, but I still use KDE exclusivly.
Let's imagine a corporate IT manager considering a large-scale Linux desktop deployment:
Before I get anyone flaming me about Linux desktops, 5 years ago Linux desktops were slow and unstable. I stayed with Windows and have no other experience with Linux desktops. I am sure by now it is much different than it was back then and that it has many features, but I still use Windows exclusivly.
This is good. (Score:2)
Primarily the focus for better compatibility with the windows world through a constantly improving and forward thinking wine layer.
Also, through combined pressure and possibly incentives (read bribes) to the HW manufacturers for linux compatible drivers.
Through better communication and interoperability across the two major desktops.
Finally, the combined efforts of a group of distros can concentrate efforts more wisely in tersm of help given to projects that need progression.
Very good overall.
Need Hardware Manufactors as Well (Score:5, Insightful)
If this consortium developes a friendly version of Linux aimed at desktop users and are successful at promoting it, they consumer would still have to install it on their system and in some cases configure hardware and whatnot.
If they were to work with Dell, or HP/Compaq were they would be able to ship "Restore" and "Recover" CD's with the machines, when something goes wrong, the user would simply be able to boot off the CD and restore the computer into the state it was when it was brought home. The operating system would be installed, all the hardware would be configured.
Is this a good thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
We, as knowledgeable computer users, want a more streamlined, less fluffed, more stable working enviroment. We know this, apparently others dont. Why this big push for Linux on desktops for the masses im not sure. It want created for this and making it like this is only going to make it bloated and unstable. Is this what we really want out of Linux? Do we want it filled with fluff and unwieldly apps just so Mom and Pop feel comfortable in it?
Now, I know someone is going to say "But you can install it like this and this and..." well that is true, but if the push is successful and it starts to seriously permiate the desktop market, don't you think that most if not ALL the major *nix distrubuters will start to package it like that?
Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is this a good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently I don't. I just got a few more data points, typed them into Excel and my p-values and graphs instantly updated. (The results got worse, but Microsoft can't be entirely blamed for that.) And I should be prohibited from having that kind of integration in Linux because -- why?
I dislike intrusive, counterproductive features ("It looks like you're writing a letter!") as much as anyone. But I appreciate well-thought-out usability and features (damn, Excel rules) and don't see why they should be shunned so you can tell yourself how hard-core you are. Hey, I've got an .fvwmrc file in my home directory. Doesn't mean it ever needs to be used again.
More useless committee fluff (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming anyone wants something to actually HAPPEN, how about a consortium to promote third party developers to port their applications to Linux?
Want a sign that Linux is really moving to the desktop? The sign will be when the major application developers (Quicken, Symantec, etc) care about porting their applications there.
How about this consortium produce a high quality porting kit for Windows applications, with high quality documentation?
Re:More useless committee fluff (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More useless committee fluff (Score:2)
Still, I agree that having familiar favorites would help bring "the masses" over.
One difficulty in doing this is convincing ISVs that a market exists. There is simply no good data on how many people use Linux on their desktops. So I write. I've written to Intuit explaining that I run Quicken Deluxe 2000 (the last version I bought) under wine, and that I will not upgrade again until there is a native one. Every time they send me an upgrade announcement, I write them again.
If every Linux user who wanted Quicken did this, we might see a Quicken for Linux before too long. (Although, given Quicken's ever increasing IE integration, I think it is becoming less and less technically feasible for Intuit, and it becomes less and less desirable for me).
Quicken is the last non-Free product I still use (I was never a gamer). Gnucash is fine, but until recently install dependencies made it a nightmare. It is pretty easy these days, since it is now packaged for most distros (both rpm and deb).
If you have a piece of software that you want on Linux, write to the vendor. Yes, even to Microsoft, if you want one of their products. I don't promise anything, but they definitely won't supply a demand they don't know about.
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
SuSE with Crossover Office: $129
Xandros: $99
Windows XP Home Edition: $99
I forgot... what's the point again? Why can't I install Windows XP and have 100% Windows compatibility, then install Cygwin-KDE for 100% linux compatibility?
I think it's great that Windows apps are running better and better on linux, but they run even better on Windows. I like linux and I like its software, but if you have to pay the same amount either way, I'd hardly call a $99 linux distro a reason to switch to linux.
Re:huh? (Score:2)
The problem is that Windows applications are not running better and better on Windows. They crash the same as 5 years ago. And they are still catching viruses and worms.
At some point the critical mass of commercial software vendors, who realized that fact, will achive some critical point and then we'll have more and more Linux applications working on Linux better and better.
At this time I run (sometimes, on some computers) Cygwin myself. But less and less often as I have less and less needs to reboot to Win2k :)
Re:huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that Windows applications are not running better and better on Windows. They crash the same as 5 years ago.
"Hi, my name is Todd and I haven't used any version of Windows since Windows 98, so obviously I'm qualified to pronounce the NT kernel unstable."
Flame on, dude. With attitudes as well informed as yours, the Linux community is sure to make progress on the desktop.
Re:huh? (Score:2)
They are both actually mainly out there for running Linux applications, strange as this may sound. I know it shocked me greatly. Still being able to run some Windows applications is just an added bonus.
If you just want to use Windows applications, then yes, you are better off with Windows XP.
Windows apps on Linux - the wrong approach (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference twixt Linux and Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this sentence points out something very often overlooked in the Linux vs Windows debate.
Linux doesn't really have a problem in co-existing with Windows. In fact, I am sure that it would be extremely compatible with Windows, if Microsoft would allow it. Microsoft discourages compatibility as a way of maintaining control.
With Linux it seems more like "we know our place, just let us exist and do our thing", but with Microsoft it is "we are the kings, we control everything." There would be no need for Open Office if the connectivity and document formats were open for Word/Excel. You'd have Linux people running MS Office! But no, it is their way, or the highway, so we have chosen the highway.
People complain that OSS is doing nothing innovative and is just copying existing successful projects like Office. Well maybe this time could be better spent by working with Microsoft instead of constantly having to work around them.
Consistency and Standarisation! (Score:2, Interesting)
Ultimatley, i think gnome office and koffice will beat open office into the ground because they are so much faster and lighter, and they are consistent.
Increased co-operation with the kde and gnome teams will help too, because all the tools are OUT THERE, they just need more organisation.
gecko lost out to khtml, and i think the same will happen to openoffice.
Not Impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
What would impress me, and truthfully, what I think would make a difference, would be for other vendors to join this consortium. Without application, game, and hardware vendors onboard, it is simply trying to sell some "fringe" applications ("fringe" being used for lack of a better word). Without it, it just seems quite incestuous.
Wrong Focus. (Score:2)
Here I go again.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is not seen by the end user (at least not many end uses I know do programming that interfaces with the kernel of their OS). They don't give a rats bottom about VM handling techniques, or guaranteed time to handle a device interrupt, or how many fromitz boards are installed in their consoles. What they want is to plug in their USB printer and have it configured automatically. They want their scanner to work simply. They want to email their spreadsheets with a single click or three. And they want that at a reasonable price.
What will get OSS software based systems (Be they Linux, BSD, GNU or any other OSS based system) will be ready availability of application software that will behave like the stuff they use now, and be available on store shelves WITH SUPPORT and complete documentation at a reasonable price (free is good). Most consumers like tangible things. They like a box for their software and they like to have a paper book to look at. It gives them something to hold on to and feel like they've spent money on something.
Developers and distro makers sitting around arguing about how to get a specific kernel adopted in companies is a waste of time. They need to strategise about how to market the rest of the system that end users actually care about, and they have little control over those other projects.
Think about this... if Linus T. had internal access to all of MicroSoft's code, and could re-write, extend and generally replace the WinXP kernel with Linux, would it be a victory? The answer is: No... Everyone is still locked in to MS software applications. The kernel is not the issue.
And if you don't believe it, look at Macintosh. They went from a proprietary kernel to BSD/Mach, the end user doesn't care in the end. They just want Word, Excel, Photoshop, et al to run as expected. During the transition there were some arguments about moving toBSD vs Linux or GNU or Be, but the longer, hotter discussions were always over "When will application ____ be ported?". The ___ was initially Photoshop, then we went down the list to Quark, Freehand, Pagemaker, etc. There were even more topics about how X looked, and how easy it was to work with. In most articles, mention of the kernel was a brief comment like "BSD/Unix based".
Re:Here I go again.... (Score:2)
Yeah, I think I'll go out and buy SuSE 6 cd Kernel distro. All the major possible kernel compile options included. Source is on 6'th cd.
ps: everything else sold seprately.
The Debian Desktop Subproject (Score:5, Informative)
"The Debian Desktop subproject is a group of volunteers who want to create the best possible operating system for home and corporate workstation use. Our motto is "Software which Just Works". In short, our goal is to bring Debian, GNU, and Linux to the mainstream world."
"Who's involved in Debian Desktop
App Installation main problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure,
I want to update a windows program, it's usually easy. I want to update KDE, xine or some other software and it usually takes me a lot more work. And please, agree to a place to hold files.
I think the KDE UI is better than XP and the Mac. With so many countries getting involved, hopefully many apps will come. Linux already has most of the stuff home users want (except big games). They just need an easy way to install and update them. That's it.
Re:App Installation main problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if all the thing did was automate the "./configure, make, make install" - it would go a long way to solving the problem (of course, there are number of pitfalls to all of this - namely security issues - many time you do the first two steps as a user, and the last as root - because typically the software gets installed into a path accessible only by root - although I know there is a way to pass path information to make). Being able to choose where to install the software easily, see how much space it needs vs. how much it is taking up, etc - plus having a way to easily uninstall - this would go a long way toward making things better.
Building such an app should be relatively easy - make it useable at the console and under X. Make it scriptable (so that developers can build the install scripts). Something makes me think that this should be fairly easy to implement.
There would be pitfalls (mainly issues involving library compatibilities and versions, and should the installer be a self-contained executable - and if so, how do you ensure that it always works regardless of the system). It is a hairy problem, but one that definitely needs to be solved.
You *can* use Installshield... (Score:2)
Re:App Installation main problem (Score:2)
I suspect that most businesses who are interested in Linux on the desktop see the fact that it can be complicated to install new applications (and more importantly the sysadmins can prevent installations) as a major benefit of installing Linux. Most businesses dream of simplifying their IT provision, and I would guess that it is a major source of work for Windows admins to repair PCs which have had outside SW installed on them. As a related issue, I hope this consortium considers the question of making it simple to change the user's wallpaper, while providing tools for the Admins to prevent the installation of SW.
The home desktop is a different issue. I suspect that most home users of Linux are people like us, who are geeks and like to experiment. So for us, the software installation question is important. On the other hand, I bet there are a fair few people like us who have become tired of parents/grandparents/siblings etc whose Windows PCs are no longer working who just install Linux because we know that Grandma or whoever knows nothing about computers and just uses the thing to write letters and emails. People like Grandma, who, in my opinion are going to prove a major market for Linux systems, need something like a business desktop. People like us geeks want SW installation to be Windows-smooth on Linux, but we're going to be in the minority, I believe.
Where's Red Hat? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Where's Red Hat? (Score:2)
Since Ximian in is on the list of members, this seems rather unlikely to be the case.
response to ExtremeTech editor (Score:3, Interesting)
If you demand it of SuSE, why don't you practice it here? Maybe enough with the "GNOME is preferred", "GNOME is better"? If GNOME is so good, why doesn't the default work well? If you can say "GNOME is preferred", why shouldn't SuSE say "KDE is preferred"? Fair is fair.
In Red Hat, all KDE wants is to not be *purposely* crippled. A default set-up of KDE in Red Hat would make *everyone* except GNOME lovers happy. A default set-up of GNOME makes GNOME people mad.
Re:response to ExtremeTech editor (Score:2)
Now to the extremely sad and biased view of what Red Hat has done with KDE. Please excuse my ranting, but I am really tired of this.
KDE in Red Hat has not been purposely crippled. Don't listen to Mosfet. He is extremely eccentric, and did not mix well with the KDE developers. But when he says something bad about Red Hat he is suddenly an authority on the matter.
The font-installer worked badly because Red Hat wanted to ship the new state of the art fontsystem, fontconfig. They might not have done as good a job as with GNOME, but the fonts were a lot better than in most other distributions.
They patched KDE so that it supported the new notification area. This meant that their Red Hat Network tool would not have to be written twice to show status reports in the panel of both KDE and GNOME. This is now included in the main KDE-distribution.
Their choice of theme is just a bull**** complaint. Since when was distributors forced to use the default theme? If you don't like it, change it.
Their choice of Mozilla as default Web browser is their choice. They found that Mozilla rendered more Web pages better, and they wanted to focus on one tool in each task. Konqueror is still there, and it is actually quite easy to change the default. The web browser launcher actually runs a shell script that wraps "The Browser Of Your Choice [tm]".
When it comes to the menu system, well Mandrake also created their OWN menu structure that is the same in both KDE and GNOME. Mandrake did a better job on this one, but this is hardly purposely crippling KDE.
KDE in Red Hat 8 actually works very well. The theme is more focused on simplicity rather than flash, but this is Red Hats choice. This IS free software, remember?
If you don't like Red Hat, don't use it, but this FUD is getting rather tiresome.
Consortium == Death Knell (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone remember the OSF or COSE or any of their products (Motif, OSF/1, CDE...) with anything but derision? Does anyone remember COSE, which was going to turn back the tide and bring Microsoft to its knees, at all?
Also, that website is a retina-searing chunk of ass. Way to convince me you can design a great desktop.
Update (Score:2, Informative)
xine/mplayer to provide media format compatability.
etc....
Hey look Linux can run office isn't a big selling point, you still have to pay a mint for office, and it's still office.
Hey look Linux can run openoffice and it works fine with office is. oh and here's wine/crosover etc.. so you can run any windows apps you need,
ROX should get involved (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux users first experiences.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've installed RH8 on my mom's computer (she's completely dunce with computers), and the interface has been so easy for her to use that she just kinda picked up everything on her own. (Not only that, but I can support her via ssh'ing into her machine) Is it hard to use? I guess if you're used to other OS's it's a little counter-intuitive, or if you are wanting to get into the advanced (or command line) portion of linux it's a little bit more difficult, but for the most part the robustness of window managers for X has made linux into a pretty good desktop OS for newbies.
As far as issues with support goes.. (on irc..etc..) do research before you ask questions. A lot of people who are spatting out answers to you lose patience when people demand an answer out of them. It's not their job to support you, so show gratitude. Google things up and learn how to search for things on groups.google.com A ton of issues people run into have been answered time and time again on email.
Newho.. that's just my $1.289
packaging is the issue (Score:2)
Make installing software on linux as easy as Windows and OSX. I want to double click on a package and have it install itself and any dependicies. I want a packaging system that I can use on any linux distro with the same package, and most importantly, that most software releases will use it so I don't have to wait for software X to come out for my distro if the source doesn't compile.
and yes I'm familiar with apt, emerge, and the fact the logistics of what I want are a nightmare.
Re:why reinvent the wheel? (Score:2)
Re:Dumbing down linux, so idiots can use it! (Score:3, Interesting)
When a large company decides on a desktop, we're talking about a huge sweep in user base, everything from the techies that grumble or praise to the pointy-haired boss that is looking for the 'Any' key.
I'm not talking about slick windows to do what easy enough command-line params could do. Desktops need to be turnkey all the time. Even the concept of a WM is going to spin people. I advocate removing most concepts from end-users reaching them. Hence, why Apple wants OS X to be a bit on the "can't get there from here" appearance.
Cookie-cutter, die-cut desktops have a huge market, and the dumber they are, the more easily they're adopted by the masses. WebTV, AOL, MS XP and countless other ideas prove this again and again.
mug
Re:Linux on the desktop (Score:4, Funny)