Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IBM Software Linux

IBM and Its Thoughts on Desktop Linux 521

Posted by Cliff from the let's-not-be-wishy-washy-shall-we dept.
Knuckles writes: "According to c|net, IBM will give desktop Linux a thumbs up at the Desktop Linux Conference in Boston on Monday. Sam Docknevich of IBM's Global Services group will give a speech titled, "The Time is Now for Linux on the Desktop." It seems that IBM will not go for the multi-purpose desktop, though, but for machines performing narrowly defined functions (kiosks etc.). However, basic office workstation seem to be included in this definition, according to C|Net" And in a classic case of the right-hand not knowing what the left-hand is doing, Realistic_Dragon adds: "IBM was leading the words of Red Hat's CEO in comments to the UK government last year saying that '...open source was not ready for the desktop'.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM and Its Thoughts on Desktop Linux More

IBM and Its Thoughts on Desktop Linux

Comments Filter:

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by rpozz ( 249652 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:35PM (#7430948)
    Do we like or hate IBM then?

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nucrash ( 549705 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:46PM (#7431007)
      We neither like nor hate IBM, we simply praise them for their support of Linux and other good things that they do and critique their patents of items that already exist and other stupid shit they tend to do.

      Zealots like and hate things blindly. Zealots usually turn a blind eye to the flaws of what they support. Don't be a zealot.

      The Slashdot community is far more intelligent than this.

    • If quantum mechanics applied to IBM (Score:5, Funny)

      by psifishdot ( 699920 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:56PM (#7431072) Homepage
      If quantum mechanics applied to IBM:

      |IBM>= 1/sqrt(2) |good> + 1/sqrt(2) |evil>

      Observing a Slashdot article seems to collapse this wave function. Thus, for any slashdot article, IBM is either good or bad.

      My constants might be a bit off depending on what SCO is doing.

    • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SultanCemil ( 722533 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @08:07PM (#7431126)
      You can't hate IBM for telling the truth - lets face it, Linux is NOT ready for the desktop. I handed my father a computer with Linux/KDE/openoffice installed and told him to do some simple business related things. He's a smart guy and yet simple things like checking his email, opening attachments, things like that - just didn't work properly. Until these things work seemlessly on Linux like they do under windows, people like him will put up with security holes to have a working system.

      Let's face it, the vast majority of people are not techno-philes, and don't need/want to deal with vagaries like the command line. Simple things like product installation and uninstallation are almost impossible to do easily in Linux.
      • What is this Bullshit? Why is IBM, Redhat, and every other company going out of their way to make the statement "Linux is not ready for the desktop" Tell us something we all dont already know stupid, of course we know Linux is not ready for the desktop IBM, what is your plan IBM to make Linux ready? This sounds like some bullshit Microsoft would say but why is Linux going out of their way to say this? I'll explain. Its not that Linux is not ready for the desktop, its that IBM is not ready for Linux on t

      • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by antiMStroll ( 664213 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:46PM (#7431600)
        ...things like checking his email, opening attachments, things like that - just didn't work properly.....don't need/want to deal with vagaries like the command line.

        Maybe having your dad start with Pine was a bad idea. Must have been, because neither Mozilla Mail or Sylpheed have ever posed a problem saving attachments. Or was your dad unfamiliar with the new desktop software you presented him and he stumbled because it wasn't Outlook? All software requires a period of acclimation. He'd have the same troubles with OS-X.

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by blakestah ( 91866 ) <blakestah@gmail.com> on Monday November 10, 2003 @12:06AM (#7432198) Homepage
      IBM has always pursued a LARGE number of patents, and has largely used them defensively. Until it uses a patent against a linux user, I'd let the jury stay out. Companies LOVE getting IP in patents, it gives them options. Then they can decide to use them or not.

      IBM has poured an enormous amount of money into linux development, and this has already benefited all linux users.

      On the desktop, there is no reason why not. Mac built a good desktop over Unix is just a few years - in linux most of the tools are already in place. A well packaged solution is not far away at all - it would just take a concerted effort to provide consistency to the users - this would mean far reaching attention to detail across all packaging for the linux solution.

      And this is really what separates something like OS X from something like RedHat. OS X attempts to provide consistency and attention to detail across everything they package, RedHat and other linux distros just throw in the kitchen sink and leave it to the users to sort out the inconsistencies.

      It won't take long.

  • 1st post (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    IBM is for the corporation. It can be remotely managed, its stable, all they need is office and email that does not get boggged down with MS Virii.

    • Doomed to failure (Score:4, Interesting)

      by t0ny ( 590331 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @08:45PM (#7431314)
      This is just going to be a rehash of the "Network PC" project that IBM was trying to push thru a few years ago.

      At that time, they contended that you were better off paying for a term server with 8-12 thin clients connected to it; instead of paying ~$1200-2000 per desktop, you would pay ~$5-10k for the server, and ~$200 per thin client.

      However, since there really wasnt a significant savings in hardware (most of your savings were due to lower admin costs), hardly anyone jumped on board. Also, around this time the first sub-$1000 computers started coming out.

      Linux on the desktop? Hardly. IBM is just recycling the Network PC.

    • IBM's Stealth Microsoft Killer (Score:4, Interesting)

      by elfuq ( 89094 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @12:48AM (#7432304) Homepage
      IBM sell a product called WebSphere Portal Server. It's reasonably inexpensive for the Enterprise Portal space, they have been getting fairly competitive on software pricing recently.

      But here's the hidden little feature. As a sample portlet included with the server are server-side portlets that read and write Word, Excel and Powerpoint documents.

      They don't do it perfectly, not yet, and IBM is not doing a lot to publicize them. And they certainly won't be competing with a full-featured word processor or spreadsheet application.

      But take a large corporate customer, who's users need to be able to read, change and create Office documents, but the vast majority only needing the base functionality, why would you be buying each of them an Office license when you can get it for free with your $20,000 Intranet Portal.

      As Tim Thatcher, program director for IBM WebSphere Portal emphasises, these productivity components are not a stand-in for Microsoft Office. "We're targeting the users who don't need all the features of Word or WordPro," says Thatcher. "Businesses realise it's not cost-effective to deliver a full-functioned desktop to every user. On a manufacturing floor, for example, a factory worker in the breakroom can jot a letter off the kiosk using the built-in portal applications."

      http://www.eos-solutions.com.au/news_sept/news_sep t1.htm [eos-solutions.com.au]

  • Linux for security (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Davak ( 526912 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:37PM (#7430956) Homepage
    There's an opportunity for desktop Linux in "running a fixed-function machine like a kiosk or ATM, a transactional workstation like a bank teller's station, or a basic office workstation that runs applications that drive business processes," the IBM agenda information said.

    Bravo! Use it in places that you want to be able to lock down. I'm so tired of people trying to lock down windows boxes! Sure anybody can install anything on a win box... that's why it's bad for public access.

    Our hospital records program runs on the web. Linux and any ole browser would save our computer guys tons of time.

    Oh, well... Good luck.
    • I'm so tired of people trying to lock down windows boxes!

      And it pisses me off when I walk through an office/computer retailer and all the monitors have their screensavers frozen with a dialog asking for a password. What's the point of displaying a computer if all the customer can see is a bloody screensaver?

      • Re:Linux for security (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Spoing ( 152917 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:59PM (#7431092) Homepage
        And it pisses me off when I walk through an office/computer retailer and all the monitors have their screensavers frozen with a dialog asking for a password. What's the point of displaying a computer if all the customer can see is a bloody screensaver?

        It annoys me too, though I think that that's intentional. You can't muck with the system (irking the sales staff) and you have to ask a salesman to take a look at it...leaving them a chance to 'sell' you on a product. I could be wrong!

      • Hmm, I always assumed that happened because some customer had set it to lock as a prank, and the staff couldn't be bothered to fix it...

    • Re:Linux for security (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:58PM (#7431087) Homepage Journal
      I see a "internet kiosk" in front of my school being hacked for at least a 3 months. Some soft already installed, popup commercial spam, "smart monkeys" (program to generate clicks on the web to earn you money for "login time" with spyware), etc. All under Windows. I've seen a bankomat nearby with error popup. I've seen dull, dead windows desktop on a "commercial bigscreen". I've seen BSOD on railway station screens. I've seen info booth with train schedule rebooting. I've seen SMS boxen on walls frozen, with some Windows requester unable to gain focus. I've seen a shopkeeper rebooting his cash register, booting W98SE. Gosh, I even surfed the net from the bank "account checking" booth after the app died during heavy rain that broke net transmission, leaving me with desktop and basic apps.

      If Linux is to crash on that things, I'll gladly give it a try and would like to give it a try. Maybe Linux is not ready for that stuff - we don't know. But what we know: Windows is not ready for them, for sure!

    • Same here (Score:4, Insightful)

      by The Tyro ( 247333 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @08:01PM (#7431100)
      Our hospital is also an all-MS shop (this is dictated by the national company that owns our hospital)... I know most of the IT guys and they would LOVE to be able to use some linux, particularly in the server room. Alas, policy is policy.

      I don't think linux is bad on the desktop... heck, I use it for my desktop about 50% of the time. For what you're talking about (simple web-based apps), linux is just as good a client platform as MS, and probably better, if only for the security concerns you already mentioned.

    • I'm so tired of people trying to lock down windows boxes! Sure anybody can install anything on a win box... that's why it's bad for public access.

      It's not that hard. Don't make the user an administrator takes care of 90% of it, and some judiciously applied NTFS permissions take care of the rest. It's getting to be a pretty tired argument, for those of use who've been using NT since 3.51 securing workstations isn't a big deal.

      Now, if you're talking about Win 9x/ME, I absolutely agree. They have no place

  • Not Ready my ASS (Score:5, Funny)

    by ryg0r ( 699756 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:38PM (#7430962)
    I've been waiting for something like this... Now all I need is an opensource Car. [quote from RedHat install] Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?? [/quote] I hate using my can opener just to the check the oil.
    • There was an open-source car named the Hypercar or something, but no one manafactured it, just stole its ideas.

    • Re:Not Ready my ASS (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )
      heck.. i just did a debian installation on my other computer(that was previously pretty slow, now i got 450mhz k6-2 in it). it was quite some time from the last time i had proper linux desktop(i've had installations from time to time but mostly on shitty hardware on which i didn't bother to do too much desktop things apart from irc and mp3). the biggest hurdles i had was the amount of stuff that went so smoothly and easily! i spent some time looking for where i could tell artsd to use alsa for output(didn't

    • Re:hood welded shut (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Technician ( 215283 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @01:51AM (#7432473)
      Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut??

      If they built it as low maitnance and as reliable as my fridge (The compressor is welded shut) I would love it. Too bad they can't make one that will last for 15-20 years and needs no service except dusting off the radiator once in a while.

  • money talks (Score:2, Funny)

    by viniosity ( 592905 )
    ...open source was not ready for the desktop'.

    It's amazing what a $50 million investment in Novell will do for ones attitude.

  • People, stop arguing about Linux, IBM, SCO! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:41PM (#7430976)
    Who wants free software when people are ready to pay such a fortune [ebay.co.uk] for Microsoft products!

  • Why do we always think there's only one solution. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MurrayTodd ( 92102 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:42PM (#7430984) Homepage
    As much as I love the "go Linux rah rah rah!" mantra, why not just go to asking "What's the best tool for the job?" For the computer-illiterate home user, Windows is fine (I'd advocate a Mac, but maybe the user LIKES having a zillion games and utilities and viruses available for download). For the corporate desktop where things should be locked down, Linux with OpenOffice may be a good bet at a good price.

    If you're a power user, Windows is definitely out, Linux is a good bet, OS X is a good alternative. It seems to me whatever your personality is, one of the options will be your natural best fit.

    And isn't it kinda nice that things work out that way?
    • I would argue that if you are trying to replicate the functions of a conventional windows workstation under Linux, yes you are crazy. I have a Gentoo workstation at home as my primary box largely because I have some exotic older hardware that XP does a crappy job of supporting. That and I have a really understanding wife who is a computer teacher.

      That said, the Windows "fat workstation" approach is crazy. Corporate networks would be better served by going to a thin-client architecture. In that respect [Li

    • "For the computer-illiterate home user, Windows is fine"

      No, they're the worst ones to have it. They are the ones whose box gets taken over and use to spread worms, and DoS attacks.

      There is no reason for the average home user to not use Linux, except that they need to do their work at home. Which is how Microsoft became so wide spread in the first place.

      OSX is too expensive. you can put linux on existing Windows box, for OSX you have to upgrade the entire system.

      I wonder, how many programs can run on a m
      • > "For the computer-illiterate home user, Windows is
        > fine"

        > No, they're the worst ones to have it. They are
        > the ones whose box gets taken over and use to
        > spread worms, and DoS attacks.

        Yes, yes, yes! Despite rumors to the contrary, there are plenty of people who use PCs at home, don't know a lot about them, and who don't have a requirement to play the latest and greatest games.

        Their apps typically consist of:
        - a Web browser
        - email client, which may be a Web browser that they use for Web
  • So what, IBM said linux wasn't ready for the desktop - last year. That was a year ago! Linux has made quite a few strides on the desktop since then - and MS has dug themselves even deeper into their grave since then, as well. The time is now for linux on the desktop, if there is to be a time. There needs to be positive motion or someone else (Apple) will step in to try and take that market.
    • Personally I don't see what the problem is. For the last two years I've been working at Hill AirForce Base in Utah and they have a Microsoft ADS network. My RedHat 9.0 laptop intergrated just fine in that environment.

      I was able to get email from exchange, mount the home directory or any network server share and write/read files, access any of my Solaris/Linux servers I managed and so on. Oh, and I submitted my timesheets from OpenOffice 1.1.0. They were in excel format btw :-)

      Not ready for the desktop

  • Ready, but.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by slavitos ( 666569 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:44PM (#7431001) Homepage
    This is a little OT, but since they are so upbeat, I have to report that kernel used in Suse 9.0 has problems with IBM's own ThinkPads. Pressing the Fn button causes keventd() to go crazy eating up 100% CPU and the computer has to be painfully and slowly rebooted.

  • Open Source is Not Ready (Score:5, Informative)

    by Davak ( 526912 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:45PM (#7431005) Homepage
    Boo on the original posting!

    This has nothing to do with open source on the home user's desktop.

    The article "Red Hat: Stick with Windows at home" [com.com] describes why home users should stick with windows (or macs or whatever open source.)

    This article is dealing with linux on the desktop when a system needs to give its users a closed, locked-down interface!

    Apples meet oranges.

    Davak

  • Linux isn't ready for the desktop...well duh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:48PM (#7431016)
    Unless you're a total Linux zealot, you'd see that it's not ready for the business desktop. If it can't inter-op with other Windows desktops with ease (and don't go on about open office, evolution, etc...they're buggy and not proven at all), then it's not ready.

    As for the home user, it's definitely not ready. Mom and pop can't go to walmart and buy games for their kids, greeting card software or proven money management software and run it on Linux.

    • I have a very traditional type business - law office - and we run Linux on the desptop just fine. My partner is not what I would consider computer litterate but she could do all the basic Windows Office tasks before migrating.

      We have been open almost a year now. Over that time - with no guidance, instruction, or demonstrations - she has figured out how to change her desktop wallpaper (her kid's pictures of course); has become addicted to multiple desktops; out of the blue told me she "likes this permissions thing" because if she gets somewhere she shouldn't be, nothing bad happens. We have Openoffice connected to our MySQL database for merges, use an HTML/PHP approach to data entry/display.

      This whole thing about Linux not ready for business is just bunk. Even with windows, in a big corp. environment, the IT division sets up the computers and tells the worker droids not to change anything (at least that is what happened to me at my old jobs). While it might be more difficult for grandma to set up a Linux box, I would expect an IT person to be able to do it with ease. For the end user, KDE or Gnome is going to be a similar experience to Windows - someone will tell them: "click on this, click on that, do your job."

  • Pre-announcement Stories Suck (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:48PM (#7431019)
    This is obviously a really important story with great implications for all Linux desktop users. Unfortunately, the speech is tomorrow, and the CNET article this story links to is incredibly vague about what IBM is actually going to say.

    It's frustrating to see this story posted tonight -- there's no reason why this story couldn't have waited until the speech was delivered.

  • IBM workstations (Score:2, Interesting)

    by maxdamage ( 615250 )
    So, does this mean we will start seeing IBM workstations with linux on them? I personaly cant wait to get a thinpad without having to pay micro$oft 20% of the cost :P

    • So, does this mean we will start seeing IBM workstations with linux on them? I personaly cant wait to get a thinpad without having to pay micro$oft 20% of the cost :P

      Right, instead we'll be paying the 20% to Redhat [redhat.com]. Thats right. If you have anything beyond a single CPU processor, you gotta' buy the one that costs at leat $1499 (Advanced Server). And if I remember right, the fee's are a YEARLY fee for updates, whereas Windows gave windows updates out for free. I'm not sure how this is BETTER.

      I know

  • Who's Desktop? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NerdOfSteel ( 661709 ) <aaronpowell@NOSpaM.gmail.com> on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:51PM (#7431038) Homepage
    That's the main question, I think. I'm pretty computer literature, work as a web developer/designer/programmer and all that, but I've always been a Windows user. Recently, when it came time to reformat my notebook, I decided to just try out Linux because I was curious. I went with Suse. It installed fine, but it was a pain in the ass to get it to recognize my screen size (1600 x 1050), it refused to see my wifi card, and the touchpad wouldn't work. Fair, enough, I can deal with all that because it's a notebook after all, the drivers aren't at all standard. But the actual user experince... well, honestly, yuck. The main thing that made me get rid of it was just how crappy everything looked. Widgets were clunky, interface fonts were either too large or too small, everything was jagged, and the web looked simply terrible. I installed Firebird to see if that'd make browsing a little nicer but no luck. Fonts were huge, tiny, and looked like placeholders instead of something any sort of attention to detail had been put towards. Then I tried upgrading the software. It came with Open Office 1.0; I wanted 1.1. But it didn't look like it was going to happen until I felt up to compiling my own binaries. If someone as tech savvy as me isn't willing to do that, I can guarantee my parents sure as hell won't be up to it. End result: I got rid of Linux after a day. It wasn't worth the huge amount of effort required to do anythign with and it was ugly and clunky enough that it got in the way of everyday use. I realize all of these can be improved and I'm sure in the future they will be. When that happens, maybe I'll give Linux another try. But for now, it isn't anywhere near ready for the average user's desktop.

    • Nice troll, but Open Office supply Linux binaries. Installation instructions are here [openoffice.org]. Shouldn't be too difficult for a computer literate chap like yourself.

    • Re:Who's Desktop? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by transient ( 232842 )
      I just wanted to throw in some agreement in the midst of all the fanboys. For some time I've been trying to put my finger on what it is about the various window managers and desktop environments that drives me insane. I thought maybe I just needed to get used to it, but you're right, everything just looks crappy. Stuff basically works but nothing is polished. The open source community has some great programmers but they wouldn't know style if it mugged them.
    • Why did you have to compile OO? Couldn't you download some RPMs and install them?

      I agree that Linux is not for everybody. It's definately not for people like you. You should stick with a Mac, you'll have the lots of problems with windows too.

    • Re:Who's Desktop? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fiddlesticks ( 457600 )
      > If someone as tech savvy as me isn't willing to do that, I can guarantee my parents sure as hell won't be up to it. End result: I got rid of Linux after a day. It wasn't worth the huge amount of effort required to do anything with

      Funny. Just put fedora [redhat.com] on my parents' desktop. It was a real easy ride - here's why

      Me: mum, dad, your computer's OS (W98) is old. You remember when my brother spent *SIX HOURS* messing with windows to get that new printer installed? Thet's gonna be the same for every new har

      • 2 kinds of users (Score:4, Interesting)

        by dmaxwell ( 43234 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @11:10PM (#7431979)
        Desktop Linux fits two kinds of users very well. The first kind are like your parents. Once it is set up, they don't mess with it. There's maybe seven icons that get clicked all the time and thats it. You did luck out with the garden design software.

        The second type mess with the system constantly but are comfortable doing things like editing text files and resolving dependencies. Whatever comes up technically gets handled.

        There is a third type of user thats still a problem. These users want to continually add and remove software and hardware from the machine. The thing is, they don't know a thing about computers and don't want to know. Such users can usually get about two years out of a Windows install before they have someone straighten out the mess the machine is in. Sure the machine is likely hosed by then but they got some varied service out of it before bunging up the registry or the dlls. A MacOS (Classic) install will sometimes last longer under such use although OS X hasn't been out long enough for me to see the full range of brain damage it's users can inflict. I've even seen them buy whole new systems because it is easier than backing up data and reinstalling. These people aren't necessarily gamers.

        Those users tend to HATE Linux. Linux will either totally rebuff such users or they'll do everything as root one time too many and completely hose the system. Lindows and Mandrake attempt to cater to them but screw it up by either having them run as root all time (yes, the option is there to create a regular user account. These users WON'T do it.) or being overly flaky. When I used it, Mandrake was crashy enough to make think I was running Windows 98 again.

        Others have pointed out that work needs to be done on hardware detection/configuration and software installs. I think it will get there but those are the two things that really screw Linux as a consumer OS.

  • Specificity is the key (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stemcell ( 636823 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:51PM (#7431041)
    This seems like a pretty sound analysis - Linux is ready for the desktop in many areas. However it's still not ready as an integrated multi-task appliance in the same way that windows is.

    I like to use my PC for lots of stuff, it's still tricky for me to do some things on Linux, lots of programs still don't interact well (cutting and pasting being the first thing that springs to mind, cue flames.....) but for certain tasks it's excellent (web services) and for many it's perfectly adequate (office / multimedia).

    More people using linux to do some jobs will start to want to do other little jobs on it too. Whether we like IBM this week or not, this can only be good for user- and developer- share and linux profile.

    Stemmo

  • Novell Linux (Score:2, Interesting)

    by charnov ( 183495 )
    I will go back to linux on the desktop when Novell releases their desktop linux (they already own all of my favorite pieces).

    And, oh yeah, NO MORE X WINDOWS!!!

    Apple did at least one thing right.

    • Re:Novell Linux (Score:3, Insightful)

      by squarooticus ( 5092 )
      What do all you people have against X? X rocks: it has network transparency, widget-independence, and has proven incredibly efficient and flexible. I will never give up X, until something with a strict superset of features appears. You can go with a crippled OS X or Windows-like GUI, but I will stay with X.

  • IBM Desktop Distribution? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bedouin ( 248624 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:55PM (#7431068)
    Imagine if someone like IBM marketed their own Linux desktop distribution. I'd say they have the power to standardize some of the things that make Linux so confusing for new adopters (multiple desktop managers, shells, KDE vs Gnome, etc). Think Lindows, except not a toy, and with a huge company backing it. Home users are not going to adopt Linux in its current very chaotic state. These options are nice for nerds, but your mom doesn't really want to search through fifty open source apps while installing to see which one she likes the best to write a one page document for work.

    A reputable company like IBM could give Linux some serious pull on the desktop (they already have in the server world).

    • Re:IBM Desktop Distribution? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@nOSpAM.etoyoc.com> on Sunday November 09, 2003 @08:17PM (#7431171) Homepage Journal
      Linux needs one good way of doing things.

      At present you have KDE and GNOME which set about to rule the entire desktop in 2 entirely different ways. Each of them employs an application toolbox that is so handy and candylike that developers are hooked on one or the other. We have several different sound packages, each mutually exclusive. Printing is a pick and choose proposition. Scripting is a pain because it seems that everyone has a favorite language the requires its own interpreter.

      If we put aside our holy wars and worked towards one system we would be better off.

      We need a Desktop Czar in the same vein as Linus is to the Kernel. Someone to assemble the application side of OS. One shell. One scripting language (preferably the same interpreter AS the shell). One compile and build system. One package management system. One file layout. One printing system. Some one needs to stick their neck out and say "This is how it is will be done."

      And if we don't do it, Bill, IBM, or Novell WILL.

      • Re:IBM Desktop Distribution? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dalutong ( 260603 ) <djtansey@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Sunday November 09, 2003 @10:22PM (#7431780)
        This "we need one unified desktop" argument always puzzles me. It is impossible.

        "Get rid of all the little windows managers..." It's impossible.

        "Get rid of all the different text editors." It's impossible.

        "Get rid of all the different shells." It's impossible.

        GNU/Linux is about choice. Because it is about choice, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of the choices. No one person owns all of this. No one person can ban any of this. It's like saying, "let's just get all people to agree on one idea and one path for the future." It doesn't work; it is impossible.

        This is because it is not compatible with the fundamental rule that people can make choices in their lives. The Free Software World works by the same priciple. That is why it's impossible.

        So let's start working with what we CAN do.

        People are not stupid. They do not need everything to look precisely the same to figure it out. They figured XP out even though it was blue and the control panel had a different layout.

        Look at http://www.freedesktop.org. THAT is a good idea. Have the distributions put some pressure on the desktop systems to conform more fully to that. Put some pressure on them yourself.

        The people who have some authority in other areas, like printer configuration and on the available printing systems, should make similar guidelines. We should then support those guidelines.

        And these guidelines can be collaboratively developed, as freedesktop's are.

        Distributed systems can be as effective as controled ones -- they just run under different rules. The key is collaboration and respect. If the developers feel they are being respected and that they have a say in how a standard is developed then a third party can develop a standard that all concerned parties can appreciate, respect, and follow. The fourth party, the community, can contribute by support such efforts at dialogue.

        So let us think about what IS possible, rather than wish for something that is not. Option number two will not die, so let us find a new way of thinking so that it doesn't have to and that is is BETTER that it doesn't. Poison into medicine.

        Tata.

      • Re:IBM Desktop Distribution? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by groomed ( 202061 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @11:49PM (#7432139)
        This is like a proposal to take down all those ugly, messy websites, and recode them to comply with the most strict interpretations of the very latest W3C standards, and everybody will live happily ever after.

        It's nonsense. Because the messiness and ugliness follows directly from the ease with which people can (try to) fill a niche. Take away the messiness and ugliness, and you take away half to three-quarters of the software. And with that all the vibrancy.

        To get back to the World Wide Web analogy: if HTML had been more formal, there would be fewer junk. But there also wouldn't have been a Web as we know it. The Web as well as Linux have been successful because they are extremely open and free. Not because they provide "one way of doing things".

        And if we don't do it, Bill, IBM, or Novell WILL.

        So what? We're not in the same race as them. "We" don't have the same goals.

  • It isn't that bad. (Score:3, Informative)

    by rune.w ( 720113 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:57PM (#7431080)

    I don't want to look like I'm defending IBM but if you read the quoted article from The Register carefully, you'll notice that IBM said that OSS was not ready for the desktop in 2002. It was because of the delay of the British Parliamentary Commitee in charge of revealing the study that we came to hear about it till now. Yet, I must agree that this news, and the their recent investment in Novell makes IBM look bad.

    R.

  • Linus Says Linux Desktop is Where It's At (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Beg4Mercy ( 32808 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @07:58PM (#7431084)
    In this interview [oetrends.com] (posted on Slashdot a few weeks ago) Linus says he is most interesting in desktop Linux. He says servers are not very interesting. He says Linux on the desktop is the only part he cares about. Just look at the article I linked to and read the question about Linux and the Desktop.

    My point is that Linus, for me, kind of debunks the idea that Linux is intended for the server. Linus clearly says it's not. And now we have IBM giving a thumbs up for Linux on the desktop too. This is cool.

  • here we go again (Score:2, Interesting)

    by agwis ( 690872 )
    Wow, lately this is what the linux community sounds like:

    linux advocates: we're ready for the desktop!
    big corporations: no, not quite yet...

    linux advocates: we're ready for the desktop!
    big corporations: no, not quite yet...

    linux advocates: we're ready for the desktop!
    big corporations: no, not quite yet...

    linux advocates: we're ready for the desktop!
    big corporations: no damnit! Your only good for servers and maybe now kiosks.

    What exactly is the holdback anyways? Pretty gui's, drivers, advertising, what?
    • Twisting the learning curve from one that looks like "sqrt(x)" to windowsish "x^2" (from "beginning hard, later very easy" to "Look how easy it is... until you see how hard it is") or at least to y=x.

      Average IQ of 100 is simply too low to get past some beginning stages of Linux - before you start being productive. Linux is made by intelligent people for intelligent people and idiots simply get lost.

  • Killer app (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stile 65 ( 722451 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @08:04PM (#7431116) Homepage Journal
    I think there have been two things keeping Linux from taking the desktop by storm.

    The first, and possibly most important, has been the lack of anything like MS Outlook for the Linux platform. Security flaws aside, it's a great way to keep everything organized - from e-mail, to scheduling, to notes, to tasks, etc. I looked at Ximian Evolution, but it doesn't allow public folders. A lot of our customers love those public folders - particularly for scheduling things. That's one of the grievances some of our customers have with Groupwise, too.

    Now, though, I see Kontact/Kolab ramping up as an integrated groupware solution that will be distributed with KDE, already one of the two most popular desktops for X. Once this starts being adopted as a groupware solution by companies, IMO, corporate desktops are going to see a lot more Linux. I also think it will propel KDE ahead of Gnome (because Evolution, again, IMO, doesn't stack up to Kontact).

    The other thing, and I haven't looked closely for it, so it may already exist, but that's an easy development tool for X. Visual Basic-style. Make something easy for your run-of-the-mill Joe to code halfway useful applications in, make it integrate well with an Office suite (preferably KOffice, since Kontact will work well with it), and make it free and open-source. Better yet, provide easy ways of migrating legacy VB/VBA code to it. Wham bam thank you ma'am, Linux on the desktop.
    • Not only do you want boring office software, you also want it to be just like Microsoft's office software. But then why not just use that?

  • IBM vs. MicroSoft (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SkArcher ( 676201 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @08:08PM (#7431130) Journal
    This is pretty much and open declaration of War: MS have declared an interest in the Big Iron market [slashdot.org] (IBMs home turf) and IBM are declaring support for Linux on desktop.

    The gloves are off, SCO are irrelevant (OK, even more irrelevant) and even Novell and Red Hat will be only minor players in what is about to come forward.

    Anyone noticed the strong ad campaigns for Windows server on TV recently?

  • smart move (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nuckin futs ( 574289 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @08:11PM (#7431141)
    IBM backing Linux on the desktop, at the same time providing processors for Apple's OS. Playing it safe by supporting both sides. They are doing the same thing right now, producing PPC chips and selling Intel based hardware at the same time.
    • In great most cases Apple and PC are two separate niches of market and neither Apple users will switch to PC (no matter what it runs) nor opposite. Plus I really haven't heard ANY voices about "kiosks" running on MacOS :)
  • Ok...left hand not knowing what the right is doing....because of two comments a year apart. Interesting.....

  • Not quite yet (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GrouchoMarx ( 153170 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @08:18PM (#7431178) Homepage
    "Desktop GNU/Linux", that is, Home User not Kiosk mono-function uber-toaster (like a kiosk), will not be viable until all of the following conditions have been met:

    - The user can add a new PCI card and install a driver for it
    - The user can insert a hotplug device (USB or Firewire or even Bluetooh) and get a fixed, known location in the file system for it, the same one every time
    - The user can click on any audio file and it will "just play"
    - The user can click on any video file and it will "just play"
    - The user can drop a CD into the CDROM drive and play it or rip it
    - The user can drop a DVD into the DVD drive and it plays, including the horrible and ungodly menu
    - The user can drop a CDR into the CDROM drive and burn a random selection of files to it, with long file names on by default
    - The user can hook up a TV Tuner card and be able to play video from a cable box / antenna or a VCR.

    And all of the above must be possible WITHOUT the user EVER seeing a command line, and without ever hearing or reading the word "compile."

    Some of those are already available with the right distributions, and nearly all are possible in some way or another, but they require violating the two cardinal rules of the Home User: "I can't type" and "compiling is something only developers do". Fixing some of the above issues requires alterations to the kernel itself. Others just require improvements in user-side software, others are an issue of driver distribution and open vs. closed source driver availability.

    Whatever, the origin of the problem doesn't matter. The why is not at question. But all of the above MUST be taken care of before GNU/Linux can be considered "ready" for Joe Home Desktop User. Until then, we're just spinning our wheels.
    • And all of the above must be possible WITHOUT the user EVER seeing a command line, and without ever hearing or reading the word "compile."

      All software comes from source. The point of open source is not to be rid of things like pre-compiled binaries and manual driver loading, but to be allowed to compile and be hackish if desired. It says nothing about automation, which ought to be left up to the distros to control (I guess; who else?).
      • This is exactly why Linux will never, I repeat, NEVER make headway in the desktop market in its current state.

        The conflict between actual usability and the fanatic ideals of Linux advocates means we'll always have GUIs designed by programmers and non-artists whose primary concern is "the point of Open Source."

    • Re:Not quite yet (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tuffy ( 10202 )

      - The user can add a new PCI card and install a driver for it
      - The user can insert a hotplug device (USB or Firewire or even Bluetooh) and get a fixed, known location in the file system for it, the same one every time
      - The user can click on any audio file and it will "just play"
      - The user can click on any video file and it will "just play"
      - The user can drop a CD into the CDROM drive and play it or rip it
      - The user can drop a DVD into the DVD drive and it plays, including the horrible and ungodly menu

    • Re:Not quite yet (Score:3, Informative)

      by zurab ( 188064 )
      I don't know what software you are using, but in my experience:

      - The user can add a new PCI card and install a driver for it

      You got the first part right - add a new PCI card, but I haven't had to install anything after that - it's automatically recognized and available. And, yes, before I buy hardware, I make sure it is supported in Linux.

      - The user can insert a hotplug device (USB or Firewire or even Bluetooh) and get a fixed, known location in the file system for it, the same one every time

      Been doin

    • Re:Not quite yet (Score:3, Insightful)

      by labratuk ( 204918 )
      Sometimes I think people who use the phrase '...not ready for the...' should be hung up by the balls.

      More specifically I think a lot of people are living in a reality distortion field where everything 'just works' on a windows system. Especially when they look at linux. For some reason a switch is flipped in their brain which says: 'let's compare this to windows, which is perfect in every way.'

      Now from what I can remember from windows (it's been a while):

      - The user can add a new PCI card and install a d

  • OSX Linux on the desktop (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Twid ( 67847 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @08:18PM (#7431181) Homepage
    I'm biased, but it seems to me that for the small price difference between an Apple with OSX and a linux desktop, an enterprise customer is probably better off with Apple. With OSX, they get:
    • Standardized, supported hardware with real enterprise support contracts available
    • A large base of consultants to choose from
    • A good desktop and laptop solution. Does IBM support Linux on their laptops this week? Which models?
    • The ability to run Microsoft Office, Open Office, and most other open source productivity packages
    • The ability to centrally manage authentication and workstation management using OSX server


    The list goes on from there. A base model 17" eMac, which is perfectly suited to the average productivity worker, is only $799. Bump the RAM up to 256MB for a few dollars more and you're done, it will all work right out of the box.

    Compared to the pain of getting a Linux system up and running and then supporting it, going Apple seems like a no-brainer in enterprise IT environments.

  • About time... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by donnz ( 135658 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @08:25PM (#7431209) Homepage Journal
    ..IBMs stance on the desktop highlights one of the problems with their "support" of OSS (the other is their IP stance). The last presenation I attended they trotted out the "not ready for the desktop" line. I think they see that Linux helps *them* sell servers but helps *other* people sell PCs. Just look at the little sticker on their portables. Funnily enough, Sun's presentation took exactly the opposite line!

    It would not be before time if they change their tune...

  • Finally! (Score:5, Funny)

    by SargeZT ( 609463 ) * <pshanahan@mn.rr.com> on Sunday November 09, 2003 @08:25PM (#7431210) Homepage
    My god! They've OK'ed linux on the desktop? I'm so relieved. I can finally start using it!

  • Home Users go with the Flow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Beg4Mercy ( 32808 ) on Sunday November 09, 2003 @09:34PM (#7431538)
    Home users use Windows because everyone else uses Windows. There are other reasons, but we all know this is the main one.

  • This is SO ironic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ksw2 ( 520093 ) <obeyeater&gmail,com> on Sunday November 09, 2003 @10:13PM (#7431735) Homepage
    We just had Bob Butler (IBM executive) speak at our Linux user group meeting. He gave a huge pitch on Linux in the enterprise, but when I asked why his presentation was running on Windows 98 he got really defensive (actually, he got downright insulting) and made several comments about how Linux isn't ready for the desktop.

    And now, two days later, this! LMAO.

    • Re:This is SO ironic (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If Mr. Butler wants to be paid for his trip he needs to have something which runs Internet Explorer. The IBM expense accounting package requires it.

      And if his Internet connection doesn't work when he gets back he had better be able to demonstrate that fact with Windows (or AIX), not Linux. The helpless desk does not support Linux.

  • So IBM, do something about it... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by compwiz ( 21231 ) on Monday November 10, 2003 @09:01AM (#7433601)
    I like IBM. I think they make great servers and great laptops. I just bought one of their T-series laptops. Their laptops work a lot better with Linux than most other major manufacturers that I've seen, but that's not enough. Pretty much all of the hardware on their laptops work under Linux, but marginally. The Winmodems they include are a real bitch to set up and may not even work fully, and the wireless MiniPCI cards they include either do not have drivers out for Linux or require a lot of work and/or binary-only modules to be useful. I also haven't seen anything released regarding their hard drive protection system, which is based mostly in software. ACPI support, of course, is not totally there in the 2.6 kernel, but it's making a lot of progress.

    IBM, put your money where your mouth is. Intel might not give much of a shit about Linux on the desktop, but you say you do. Use your power to get Intel to develop Linux/BSD drivers or even release specs to all of the hardware they release as soon as they release it (e.g. Centrino). Release all of the specs to the hardware you include, fund drivers, do whatever it takes to get everything you release fully supported in open-source operating systems.

  • Desktop Linux NOT ready for prime-time (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) <semi_famous&yahoo,com> on Monday November 10, 2003 @09:23AM (#7433712) Homepage Journal
    After a bear of a time trying to install the SuSE 9.0 AMD64 edition on my system, I have to weigh in and say that Desktop Linux still has a way to go.

    It's come a long way in terms of having a decent office suite, playing video and Flash, etc. But the hardware support still needs help, and that's not going to come entirely from community efforts. It needs better OEM support in the form of drivers, and better support in the OS for separating the drivers and the kernel, so the drivers are commodity software that are as easy to install as in Windows.

    My hardware isn't exotic, but to even start my SuSE install, I had to buy and install an IDE hard drive because SuSE wouldn't even regognize the drives in my on-board RAID existed. It's not that it couldn't access them. It couldn't even see them.

    Once I set up a somewhat complicated dual OS, dual drive boot, it recognized my sound card and printer okay, but it wouldn't recognize the on-board LAN and I could not find an easily installable driver for that anywhere.

    Between hardware mods and hunting down info on the www and usenet only to find out that drivers for my balky hardware didn't exist, it took me the better part of a day to install SuSE.

    And without networking, it's a pretty useless installation.

    Now, the reason Windows XP works flawlessly with my hardware is because Windows is fully supported by the OEM's, who have provided drivers for their hardware. Granted, those are 32-bit drivers and the AMD64 version of Windows is lacking in driver support too.

    The difference is that Microsoft is taking time to debug and let drivers trickle in and isn't rushing an incomplete release of their AMD64 version to market for $119.95. SuSE did. Can you imagine the day when someone would point out Microsoft as being more responsible and less buggy than SuSE? It's come.

    The Linux community is making a yeoman's effort to support all the hardware Windows does, but without OEM support (i.e. drivers), it's not easy, and without the hardware support, it's hard to have broad-based market penetration.

    It doesn't help that SuSE, with a reputation for being easy to install, puts out a crappy, high-priced distro. I feel WAY more ripped-off and abused by SuSE than I ever have by Microsoft. Did you ever expect to hear someone say that either?

    Maybe in a corporate environment with standardized hardware that has been pre-screened for Linux compatibility, desktop Linux has an immediate future. But that's not going to get Linux widely adopted in the SOHO market. People look at Linux and think horror stories like mine are the norm, not the exception to the norm, and that's because these stories are still way too common.

    IMO, the Linux community and the OEMs have some serious improvements to their cooperation to execute before desktop Linux is ready for prime-time.

    -- Greg

Slashdot Top Deals

"For the love of phlegm...a stupid wall of death rays. How tacky can ya get?" - Post Brothers comics

Close