Exploring Linux Desktop Myths 1053
Krafty Koder writes "Over at Newsforge (Part of OSTG, Slashdot's Parent) there's an interesting article that attempts to dispells the myth that Linux isn't ready for the desktop or that Windows still beats Linux.
Three myths are explored - that Linux is harder to use, difficult to install and that there's not enough apps ."
Penguin Myth (Score:5, Funny)
Bonzai (Score:3, Interesting)
People LIKE Bonzi Buddy, and while the spyware would irritate them, they're really not aware of it.
Bogus conclusions. (Score:4, Insightful)
I deal with below average computer users daily (far below what everyone else here seems to deal with). I get MS Office attachments that do not format correct in OpenOffice, I get to visit webpages that do not format correctly in Firefox (at least not without some discomfort), and I don't hear anyone say "oh yeah, Linux, I heard of that."
When we mention DVD X Copy [slashdot.org] and people immediately post about DVD Decrypter and DVD Shrink (I don't see much mention of any good re-authoring tool for Linux as I don't believe there is one). When we mention that there is a new exploit for Windows out people for some reason feel the need to blame Windows instead of the users using it. Do you think that these same people are going to have a secure Linux machine, I certainly don't. When we mention that Firefox doesn't render pages correctly we get endless people posting that yes it does and that those that post that it doesn't are wrong! Until Firefox renders every page just like IE does the public isn't going to care for it (yes, Spyware, exploits, etc are irrelevant I'm sorry to say, remember these are the people that didn't patch against it in the first place because they don't even know or care to know what it is).
Linux will be ready for the desktop when it is as easy to install, run, and care for as carelessly as Windows users demand.
All of these are valid concerns, and often frustrating, but they fail to make the case against desktop Linux, because they fail to compare apples to apples. When you buy a new PC, Windows comes pre-installed on it. You don't have to go through the process that Linux requires. The hardware manufacturer already rejected modem X, figured out that Wi-Fi adapter Y is the one to include with the computer, etc. The OEM did all the hard work for you. Even when you give a user the Windows XP CD to install, he is already ahead of the game in that he knows the OEM already configured the hardware to work with XP.
Right and when you get new hardware, plug it in, and restart, what does XP do? Hey, holy shit user, you have new hardware, we need drivers! Oh wait, we have them right here, no recompiles or modules need to be loaded. It's a digital camera you say? Wow, would you like to open the files on the camera and work with Photoshop or some random preloaded Windows software or would you like to save them to a directory on your HD?
Remember that a lot of Linux users preconfigure their machines to work with Linux. My Kodak DX4530 camera doesn't work with Linux 2.4.x (I don't have time to figure out why my network cards aren't working under 2.6.x - odd that I have been running Linux for 10 years and I can't seem to get my configuration to work w/o thinking).
All the applications he lists (OpenOffice, Mozilla, GNU Cash) are no where near the level of their Windows counterparts. They are close but they are not the same. Yeah, you can always get stuff to work with your Linux software and I spent years doing just that. Regular Joe Blow User does not want to do anything but point, click, and go.
1) Buy a Windows box with hardware that is known compatible with Linux, just as if a manufacturer were OEMing the system using Linux.
This conclusion is bogus. Basically all hardware works just fine with Windows. It's not the same for Linux. Give me a break.
Windows works for just about everyone without too many problems. Linux works for people with some problems. General users do not want to deal with anything (interoperability, futzing, fixing, downloading, etc). They just want functionality built in that works w/o question.
That's why Windows will continue to reign supreme, at least for now.
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:5, Interesting)
Until Firefox renders every page just like IE does the public isn't going to care for it.
I hope that this day never comes. IE makes some bad bad mistakes in the way it renders and handles pages. Unfortunately people have built their websites around that IE functionality.
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing 1:
IE just kinda happens to have the browser market. This means that if it doesn't render right on IE, 97% of the population won't see it right.
If it doesn't render on FireFox/Mozilla correctly like 1% of the population doesn't see it right.
It is sometimes NOT POSSIBLE to get it to render ideally on both. Which browser do you think I'm going to support?
Thing 2:
About i in every 20 times I load a page that has a size-constrained table (you know, one where the table AND its rows have "width=" values) mozilla decides to render the middle part of the table completely broken. The top 100 pixels are right, the botton 100 pixels are right, the rest is all messed up. Hitting refresh fixes it. This is just a simple bug -- but its been around sice I first used mozilla, over 2 years ago. So shut up about stupid IE not being perfect, K?
-- Fareq
P.S. Your hope that Mozilla/FireFox never becomes fully compatible with the #1 player in the market (and not just #1, but with almost 100x as many users -- especially among that most important demographic -- those willing to pay for things, and who don't think that making money selling stuff is evil) is the same thing as hoping that Linux on the Desktop remains a toy eternally. -- The former guarantees the latter, you see.
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:5, Informative)
Block-level [w3.org] elements are those elements of the document language that, by default, are formatted visually as blocks (e.g., paragraphs). Inline elements are those elements of the document language that do not cause paragraph breaks (e.g., pieces of text, inline images, etc.).
That is why you get the extra space around the element. This is the intended behavior of form elements. If you want to get rid of the space, as mentioned, use a style sheet of margin:0; or display: inline;
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh?
Frederick Brooks wrote the Mythical Man Month, and he was right, but websites evolve and are maintained... and sometimes you simply must break compatibility in order to progress. I can't think of a better reason than to conform to standards in an applied effort to get rid of bugs.
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways, IE has to mimic the Netscape behaviour. Which was pretty whacked. Granted, IE did add some HORRIBLE flaws of its own, but most of the way it handles "miscoded" HTML is identical to the way netscape pioneered the mishandling of miscoded HTML.
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:5, Insightful)
This deduction is bogus... the hardware is built (and drivers written) with windows in mind. This damn near never happends with linux, yet.
This is like saying that a Chevy sucks because a Ford motor can't easily be used in it. Sure you can do it, but that's not what it was designed for.
The fact that so much hardware DOES work in linux is impressive as hell, to me.
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:4, Insightful)
He said that Linux is ready for the desktop but that the hardware is only an issue because Windows OEMs make sure it is interoperable before installing.
Linux won't be ready for the desktop until hardware is written with Linux in mind. That's the point, thanks for helping to clarify.
Which "desktop" is that? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it the grandma desktop where she does not add new hardware without bringing it into the place she purchased it from? Again, if this is the case, then Linux has been ready for a while.
The ONLY "desktops" that Linux is not ready for are the power-gamers (latest hardware and lots of playing with it) and the "Joe Six-chip" who purchases a Dell or whatever and then tri
Re:Call whatever you want. (Score:3, Interesting)
See, the responses to your question below are exactly the problem with linux. You made a compelling argument for why linux can't take over the desktop unless it becomes more user-friendly, and the response you get? Of course you can have it log in automatically. You mean to say you didn't know that a CS student in Sweden recently published a series of replacement libraries that you can install after recompiling the kernel? All you have to do is wade through the configuration text files and employ this parti
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:4, Interesting)
But let me mention this....
I just built a shiny new Athlon64 box with an nVidia chipset and nVidia graphics. WinXP installs fine. Then, I just load some drivers and everything works.
Now, if I wanted to install Linux, first I have to be paranoid about hosing my XP partition (oops). Second, if I want to use the nVidia drivers (which nVidia actually provides, bravo!), then all I have to do is RECOMPILE THE KERNEL! This is not a process that I wish to undertake, as I am not sure that I am competent enough to handle it. And I have been playing with Linux for a couple of years! I use Unix every day at work, and I am very comfortable around a command line. So I have had my new machine for a month, and have had Knoppix as the only Linux on it (which does not recognize the integrated gigabit ethernet port, so no web browsing for me).
So, it is possible to get all of my hardware working under linux? Yes. But, it is possible for ME to do this comfortably? No. Therein lies the difference.
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:3, Informative)
Uh... huh?? You lost me here. The NVidia installer provides a bunch of pre-compiled modules for certain kernel versions. If your kernel version doesn't match, then it tries to compile a module for you. No kernel recompilation is necessary.
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:4, Interesting)
The nForce3 ethernet chipset will be in the next kernel release, it might even be in the most current one, I'm not sure. Within about 6 months, it will probably be supported by whatever distribution you use. Consider that open source developers can't really do anything for hardware until they get their hands on it, so there's usually a time lag in support for bleeding edge stuff like yours.
Re:"why" is irrelevant (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even this isn't true. The OEM doesn't have to reject certain hardware as "not working with windows" because it all does. I don't get an OEM to build my PCs, I do it myself. When I'm putting windows on a box I just pick hardware based on what I need it to do and what it costs. When I'm putting Linux on the box, I have to factor in whether I can make the hardware work under the specific flavour of Linux I plan to use, and how much pain that will cause me. Numerous are the times I've had to compromise on a hardware choice (pick an older/more expensive/not as good component over a newer/cheaper/faster one)simply due to the lack of Linux support. Now I'm not blaming anyone here - it's often the fault of the manufacturers, and sure, I could write the drivers myself (well actually, I probably couldn't) but the fact is still that Linux causes me more problems than windows.
You can't install XP on an iMac. (Score:5, Interesting)
Riiiigggghhhhtttttt.....
So, let's see you install XP on an iMac. How about a G4?
Your definition for "all" hardware is "that which works with the version of Windows that I'm installing".
I have accelerated video cards that haven't had Windows drivers since NT 4.0. They came out of an old Alpha box.
"Now I'm not blaming anyone here - it's often the fault of the manufacturers, and sure, I could write the drivers myself (well actually, I probably couldn't) but the fact is still that Linux causes me more problems than windows."
Welcome to "marketshare". And this situation will not change until Linux has 50%+ of the desktop market.
But you are confusing "marketshare" with "ready for the desktop".
There aren't many DeLoreans out there. And you have to pay particular attention when purchasing parts for them (and sometimes special order).
But that does not mean they aren't ready to be driven.
wtf modded this "insightful"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, dude, but have never had anyone I've shown firefox to complain about the ways it's different from IE. Office you may have a point about, though about 85% of companies don't need MS Office and don't use most of its features.
Really? I don't. Can you name an
Re:wtf modded this "insightful"? (Score:5, Interesting)
My Kodak doesn't work in Linux. I plugged it into XP and it worked. Hmm. That didn't come preinstalled as I just bought it in December.
Really? I don't. Can you name any offhand?
The example I will continue to use is http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]. When it stops forcing a refresh to fix the sidebar then I will believe Firefox is "acceptable". It's amazing how many Firefox zealots ignore this with a brush off. General Windows users will not.
Sorry, dude, but have never had anyone I've shown firefox to complain about the ways it's different from IE. Office you may have a point about, though about 85% of companies don't need MS Office and don't use most of its features.
And again, you are dealing with people magnatudes higher in computer literacy apparently.
Re:wtf modded this "insightful"? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:wtf modded this "insightful"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a similar if not the same problem. I has to do with ad placement. When the ads are at the top of the page it renders fine. When the ads are on the right side the page is scrunched. That is, the story headings are pushed into the left sidebar.
The sidebars are always visible. Refreshing can change the ad placement, and thus correct the problem.
I suppose an ad blocker might make the issue go away, but most of the users the grandparent is referring to won't bother or know how to install to install o
Re:wtf modded this "insightful"? (Score:3, Insightful)
>Really? I don't. Can you name any offhand?
http://www.computergripes.com/firefoxsites.html
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not going to argue that Windows is more secure than Linux. But do you really think that all computer users are smart enough not to run as root all the time?
Linux presents choices. This is considered a good thing. However, choices are also confusing. What good is it to choose from 10 different distros if you don't know where to start, and can't tell any real difference? (Substitute "web browsers", "text editors", "window managers" for distros.) And then you have compatibility problems, which will at some point fade but at the moment present a huge challenge to the average user.
Re:Bogus conclusions. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not a Linux-killer. We have the same problem here, in a 100% Windows shop, with Remote Desktop connection. People don't understand why files they save to the HD in the RDC aren't accessible when they're using Outlook on their local machine.
Eventually I helped them map network drives and told them to use those
Reverse FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
Games though... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a solitary Windows machine at home for gaming. Lots of nice hardware to play great games. Until I can get Thief (1, 2, Deadly Shadows), Half Life, System Shock (1, 2), etc on Linux I'll be keeping my Windows machine for that purpose.
Before the fanboys start yelping about Quake/Doom3 being out for Linux: I don't care. I want the lowest common denominator for my gaming and that's Windows.
*Enought* apps. Just not the ones I use (Score:5, Insightful)
Minor Point (Score:4, Informative)
When you buy a new PC, Windows comes pre-installed on it. You don't have to go through the process that Linux requires. The hardware manufacturer already rejected modem X, figured out that Wi-Fi adapter Y is the one to include with the computer, etc. The OEM did all the hard work for you. Even when you give a user the Windows XP CD to install, he is already ahead of the game in that he knows the OEM already configured the hardware to work with XP.
Just a minor point, but the last time I ordered a new amd64 shuttle box, I requested it dual-boot XP and the 64 bit version of fedora core 2. XP was no problem, but fedora didn't support the SATA chipset contained within the box, so I either had to go with an older IDE based hard drive or just go with XP until the driver was updated by the manufacturer of the chipset. I chose to keep my snazzy new SATA drive and wait for linux to catch up. That was four months ago.
Sometimes the problem isn't that "most" people will have a problem with linux distros, but that the cutting edge technology folks aren't able to get linux support for simple things like chipsets. Once I get SATA support, I'll be the first to install a 64 bit version of linux. Until then, it's XP for me...
Re:Minor Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it funny that you bitch about Linux not supporting that cutting-edge chipset but don't bitch about Windows not supporting AMD64 extensions?
I'm really sick of those double standards. Here we have *exactly* the same problem in Windows and Linux (it doesn't take fully advantage of some cutting edge hardware), yet in Linux it's terrible, terrible, with Windows it's even worth mentioning...
Devices are still a clear stickiing point (Score:3, Interesting)
Other than that I think it is true that most of the FUD is just that - I use BSD and linux on the desktop exclusively
Apps! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to sound like a troll but it's really not a matter of enough apps but rather the right apps. Users and small companies may have a specific need that hasn't been addressed in the Linux circles. And frankly when you get into niche markets there will not be enough of a Linux user base to justify developing an app.
And this isn't even touching on the fact that Joe Sixpack doesn't even want to learn a new OS. If it was a simple matter of new technology being better thus being used we wouldn't even be discussing desktop OSs.
Real Conclusive (Score:4, Funny)
Big stretch here (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand how people can call windows bloated with features etc and not see Linux is 4 times more bloated with multple EVERTHING. I can't even count anymore how many times the Linux community has reinvented the wheel.
Now I know someone will post with the "options are good" rhetoric and yes they are good but you know what? Unified interfaces are better, it's why windows and OSX are successful on the desktop and Linux is not. That's the reality of it. Until developers start giving a shit about usability Linux will remain a third rate hack of an already outdated windows interface. I see ZERO innovation in interface design from the Linux folks. Everything attempts to look like windows and the xservers today are no different from the ones from yesteryear. I see no forward movement, just clone and copy behavior from unimaginitive geeks who fail miserably to document and/or support their own work. It's just that simple.
Re:Big stretch here (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows is bloated. Linux is modular. Windows has everything included. Linux lets you choose from a list of everything.
Re:Big stretch here (Score:5, Insightful)
"This means that an application compiled with one kernel in mind may not work with another one. For example, at the moment some distributions use the 2.4.x while others the 2.6.x kernel. An application targeting Suse Linux is thus not necessarily compatible with RedHat Linux even though we read the word Linux in both products. Each distributor compiles and re-packs the mainstream applications for their implementations.
So, at the end of the day, a "Linux application" is source code that you expect to compile on most distributions, and the kernel alone is not granted to make it compile, the host will probably need a concrete shell and a precise set of shell utilities. It's not uncommon to find out that a make script calls some shell utility that our distribution of choice doesn't happen to have."
First step to common linux exceptance: stop using the following words when you are trying to convince people that "Linux is hard" is a myth:
Shell
Compile
Kernel
2.x.x
source code
script calls
I mean i don't know about the rest of you, but my users get confused when i try to seperate "the computer" and "the monitor". Compiling 2.x.x kernel shell source code using script calls? Right. Sure. Let me get back to you on that one.
Re:My experience sucked ass. (Score:5, Interesting)
Big mistake.
By far, the easiest part was actually getting it to install. Mandrake has a fantastic install, and i commend them on that.
But I instantly lost functionality.
Things were annoyingly difficult to install. (command lines?! I havnt used those in almost a DECADE! Dont be an elistist here.)
It was slower then windows 2000. On all fronts. Opening programs, moving windows, even typing.
The applications did not play well with each other, at all.
Drag and drop never worked.
Configuring default settings was a pain.
Networking. Dear god. I spent 3 hours trying to get my network up, only to finally call my local network guru... who spent FOUR HOURS setting up my LAN. Which then stopped working when the computer rebooted due to a power outage.
Good luck trying to get a codec installed. Yeesh.
So I decided to go back to windows 2000, but only run open source apps on it.
Im here. Im totally willing to go open source only, but linux just BOMBED on me. It didnt work, and it was a struggle just to navigate.
You will not find a more willing computer user then me. Im serious. I WANT TO USE LINUX. But it just _sucks_ usability-wise compared to windows 2000.
(i would also like to thank the entire community for their help. you guys were awesome)
Re:My experience sucked ass. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet another user who blames Linux because he had a bad experience with some distro.
I remember when I first started off. It was Red Hat 8.X if I am not mistaken. I mucked the intallation so bad, I reinstalled it a few times. Then I got fed-up and installed ALL packages, yes, it did reach to a 3GB installation, but everything worked.
But to me, it was a learning phase. I have never used Red Hat ever again. I've moved from Mandrake to SuSE to Mandrake to at long last Gentoo now.
One distro does not reflect how Linux is. There are plenty of options out there. Be bold and explore! Find one that suites you. Rather than complaining about Red Hat, I moved on to a different distro.
Re:Big stretch here (Score:5, Insightful)
Which Windows? Windows ME? Windows 2000? Windows XP Home? Windows XP Professional?
I was under the impression most newbie-friendly distros had a clear default.
What's the problem? You can run GNOME apps under KDE and vice-versa.
Wake me up when Windows gets multiple desktops, a feature supported by competing operating systems for at least a decade. Or when you can just open a directory on another machine via SSH. What about the recent LookingGlass beta? Does that not count as innovation? What has Microsoft released that is similar to that?
Re:Big stretch here (Score:4, Interesting)
There's significantly less of a difference between all versions of Windows than between the various Linux desktop. I mean, not internally, and not from an admin point of view, but from that of a user. Specifically, in the versions you mention there are only two flavors of GUI: the Windows 9x look, and the XP look. Note that XP can be set to look like Win 9x, and many of the folks where I work have done that.
Also, your comparison is unfair, because the versions you mention span several years. Currently, there is only Windows XP Pro and Home available for the desktop, Win 2000 and ME are obsolete. Or conversely, there have been a multitude of versions of every distribution mentioned.
Re:Big stretch here (Score:5, Insightful)
WinXP is the latest version of windows. If you have a hard time deciding between new and old versions of the SAME operating system, bye the SAME vendor then you have larger problems. The fact you even tried this argument tells me you are part of the linux desktop problem and not part of the solution. Making rediculous comparisons like this does more for your ego than any OSS movement. It's called being ignorant my friend.
"I was under the impression most newbie-friendly distros had a clear default."
Here is proof of my point. "newbie" is an elitist term, try calling them "users" instead. You'll go much farther without the elitism. Oh and just because it has a default doesn't mean the apps conform to that default.
"What's the problem? You can run GNOME apps under KDE and vice-versa."
Hence the problem, UI inconsistency. Or did you just skip that paragraph in my post?
"Wake me up when Windows gets multiple desktops"
Virtual desktops is a horrible way to manage windows which is why Apple created Expose and why MS is implimenting similar tech into Longhorn. Wake me up when the UNIX developers design something more intelligent than virtual desktops, which by the way was a long long time ago. I ask, what have they done since? Nothing. "What have you done for me lately" is playing in the background, can you hear it?
These aren't Myths (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides that, it's ignorant to EXPECT an average computer user to just accept the fact that they need to start learning nifty commands XYZ - why should they? Why WOULD they? Most of the slashdot crowd probably learned it because they wanted to. Linux was something they wanted to use, and they wanted to learn to use it well.
All the average user wants is to be able to send an email, or browse the web for porno, or whatever. LET THEM
Different tools for different jobs. Use Linux if you want to be an uber-1337 power user. Use Windows if you just want to check your mail and surf porn.
Just like if you want to measure the height of a wall, all you need is a yardstick (Windows) - you don't need a damn laser-guided-super-gadget (Linux).
Sure, the super-gadget is arguably "better", but 99% of the people on earth don't need one, don't want one, and will never be inclined to learn to use one.
Why is that such a bad thing?
Re:These aren't Myths (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:These aren't Myths (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's useles to say that Linux is or isn't ready for the desktop without indicating who will be using the desktop. For your average webmonkey doing nothing more than browsing, playing java/flash games and sending an occasional email, Linux is more than ready.
Re:These aren't Myths (Score:5, Insightful)
But, you go on to say that most people just want to surf the web, use email, etc. "Regular users". Fine. I agree.
You fail to realize WHY there is so much linux development - it's not hordes of geeks wanting to be uber-1337 as you call it.
There is so much linux development because Windows is NOT good enough for the "regular users". It crashes, it subjects people to endless pop-up ad boxes, patches sometimes break things, the user interface is not consistant across the Windows product line, it is an open door to every worm and virus that comes along, it is exploited by every malware developer in the world, it can be turned into a spam relay / zombie / DDOS box.
In short Windows sucks - not for what it is, it is a pretty decent OS after all - but for what it could be. All the hackers trying to work with something on a shoe-string look at Microsoft - a company with 40 Billion+ in the bank, and getting richer every day - and think that after 10 years Windows isn't any better than it is because they just don't care.
Mozilla, starting from scratch, with only a handful of fulltime developers, and overtook IE in 2 years (in terms of functionality, robustness, features, and resistance to malicious attacks). Has anything Microsoft, the most powerful software development company in existance, done recently come close to that accomplishment? Have they shown they really CARE about the people who buy their products?
The average user would probably LOVE a linux PC that does all they want - whether in Gnome or KDE or whatever - and just works. No blue screens of death, no virus attacks, no popups. Surf, email, write letters, etc. No hassles.
And that's a good thing
Not Difficult to install? HA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Difficult to install? HA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Both installs after doing the minimum kernel/libs install attempt to go into a graphical install by default and on both distros on two different machines, it just hard locked when switching the video mode.
I forget what she had to do to make hers work, but I had to go through a complex recovery boot process to hand edit the X config file to finish the install!
I have installed every version of windows on dozens of machines (including the same machine as the failed linux installs) and the VESA graphic mode that the windows install goes into has
This is a prime example (and just one of many) of the very rough edges that Linux still has that most Linux geeks completely gloss over. How hard can it be to write a universal 640x480 or 800x600 VESA VGA driver? (I can anwser this because I wrote one myself for DOS, it's not that hard! Hint, TEST the video mode change after you issue it to see if it took before continuing! Do not trust the video cards query function to tell you if it can support the mode or not!)
If this had been my first Linux install, my jaw would have dropped, been left completely confused and dangling for a fix and I would have not taken a second look at it again.
Again, neither myself or my wife are anything close to stupid users and Linux can still be a very frustrating experience, to hell with Windows problems and comparisons, if Linux is so much better, why isn't it any better? (And frequently so much worse?)
I've called several times on people to stop patting themselves on their collective backs and get to work for real on some of these issues, but I too ususally get modded to troll when I do.
Bad Article (Score:4, Insightful)
When I say that Linux is not ready for the desktop, here's what I mean. The user interface is not as intuative and consistent as the Windows XP interface. Software IS more difficult to install on Linux, anyone who says otherwise is live in another world. There is no way I could explain to my Mom over the phone how to install
I think the Linux desktop has made a HUGE improvement over the last few years... KDE is looking really good!!! We're almost there, but don't push it until it's ready, otherwise you end up with Windows 95
Anti-Linux Arguments fall in two categories (Score:5, Insightful)
- Genuine technical shortcomings for specific applications (i.e. the infamous ext2 2GB file limit)
- "I can't be bothered to learn anything new"
Seriously, I'm glad some article is pointing out that the vast majority of criticism about Linux from an end-user standpoint amounts to griping that it isn't exactly like Windows.It's the same mentality that made people run progman.exe as their shell in Win95, and that gives me headaches from users who think their computer has been reformatted when their desktop colors change.
Newsflash, Linux is not Windows. Better or worse is largely a matter of opinion, but articles like those quoted in TFA are simply "different=worse" mentality and a clear example of pundits phoning it in. If you can't be bothered to learn something before reviewing it, I can't be bothered to read your articles or buy your magazine.
I hate to disagree but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Before you read this, know that I am a UNIX-lover of 10+ years. I eat, sleep, and breathe in Linux, Solaris, and FreeBSD. I love UNIX, I know how to use it, and I would never give it up.
The REAL myths are in his article:
His Myth 1: Linux is just as easy to install as Windows. -- My mom can install Windows (without any help from me -- I just tell her "If you don't know what to do, just click Next" -- and when she's done, she has a fully functional OS. The linux installation experience is dramatically more complicated, and it's unlikely the end-product will work right if it was done by a novice (he pretty much admits this).
His Myth 2: Linux has lots of great applications -- while Linux has lots of applications, most of them are designed by open-source developer 12-year olds with no concept of interface design, usability, or QA. High quality apps in the OSS world do exist, but they're not the status-quo. (this is a religious argument that I'm sure I'm starting here) -- but there are very few apps for Linux that my mom can use without calling me.
His Myth 3: Installing software is easy with Linux. I find this one the most intriguing becaue he blames the users for not knowing where to look. This only furthers my position that interface design is the most essential element to a user-friendly OS. Listen folks, if the users don't know where to click to un-install apps, that's a design problem, it's not the fault of the "dumb end user who doesn't know how to use the system". The point here is that the system is hard to use -- blaming the users for being too dumb to figure it out isn't the solution to convincing people the OS is ready for broad public use.
Re:I hate to disagree but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh, I had my parents install RH9 by themselves with only the advice you gave "If you don't know what to do, just click Next" and when they were done they had a fully functional OS, Office suite, paint program, web and email applications, and (for my Dad, who is a math lecturer) complete working TeX system, complete with editors desgined to work with LaTeX.
The end product worked fine, and they continue to use it very happily.
Really, everything beyond Gentoo and Debian (though I hear the new Debian in staller is much better) can be installed by just clicking "next" when you don't know what to do, and it pretty much always results in a perfectly functional system. The only time it presents difficulty is if you are trying to preserve an existing Windows install, but then you can't install an existing Linux install when installing Windows by "just clicking next", so...
Jedidiah.
Slow news day? (Score:4, Insightful)
When Win98 no longer boots people will look at upgrading. When TCPA makes Win98 boxes unable to connect to the network then people will look at upgrading. If Linux has a good presence and well-known software at the time then they will switch. It's going to be difficult to gain widespread adoption of Linux until people are forced to upgrade. Since 99% of the existing home systems meet the needs of 90% of the owners there is no need to upgrade.
As far as the home market goes the only thing _REALLY_ driving upgrades anymore are games. Only gamers need the additional processor cycles or the additional A/V capability. The superiority of Windows support is noted in the gaming world. The business market isn't going to take a widespread office adoption of Linux until a significant portion of the population is comfortable using it. This won't happen until there's widespread home experience.
Linux is in a "beat the clock mode". If it can't get into the mainstream soon the corporate interests will legislate it away. As long as it doesn't get stymied by political shenanigans it still has a chance to make Redmond shiver.
Linux beats Windows in installation land, huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
OoooooK. To the end user, it doesn't matter if the OEM did all the hard work or if the OS programmers did all the hard work. All that matters is if the USER had to do all the hard work. And apparently in the linked Mandrake versus Windows installation challenge article, hard work included hardware replacement! A quote from that article:
Honestly, how many users do you think are going to replace the damn motherboard to get Linux installed?
I'm not saying that most installations require you to replace a motherboard, nor am I saying that Windows is superior to Linux. What I am saying is that this is the least persuasive article I think I've ever seen on Linux-versus-Windows in the ease of installation category.
Linux for the desktop (Score:4, Interesting)
I see a few people here already using Mozilla as an example of why Linux is superior to Windows, but I can install Mozilla on my existing Windows desktops way more easily than I can wipe them and install Linux. Ditto OpenOffice. We all know that the vast majority of PC hardware shipped to enterprises came with Windows pre-installed. Companies are going to need a really compelling reason to replace that with Linux, and "I can run Mozilla" isn't it.
That InfoWorld special report also includes a review of four desktop Linux distros, BTW. Red Hat scores favorably, but Sun Java Desktop comes in second.
Re:Linux for the desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now there are Windows users who browse with Firefox, produce documents with OpenOffice, read their email with Thunderbird, and talk to their friends with GAIM.
At that point, what's stopping them from switching to Linux? When they reach the other side they can simply carry on with all the same applications. They still need a "why" to switch, but it needn't be as compelling a reason anymore:
Drivers (Score:3, Interesting)
I spent 5 hours getting the latest ATI driver working after suffering with with slow speed with the mesa drivers while running celestia. After I finally got it going, glgears and fglxgears ran great. Celestia no longer worked, nor did a couple of other 3d apps I tried to run.
I spent hours trying to get alsa to work and gave up, having to settle on OSS with no volume control support.
I just installed real player 10 last night. Doesn't work with firefox, and when I got it to run ran very poorly compaired to real player 8.
Etc.. Etc.
I like learning about the system, but when you follow instuctions to the leter and it still doesn't work like it should, it gets damned frustrating.
Not so much an article as a blog... (Score:4, Insightful)
The author's points are actually pretty weak, too.
He complains that people who say that Windows is easier to install and maintain are simply not comparing apples-to-apples. That seems unlikely, given that Windows is easier to install and maintain than Linux. That's a very broad category, and to be honest, I'd have to agree with them. That is NOT a fault of Linux itself, it is a fault of poor vendor support for the underdog OS.
Then, he tries to go on to state that there is plenty of software available for Linux. That doesn't address the counterargument. The original assertion is that there are specific apps (let me spell that, s-p-e-c-f-i-c) that are unavailable on Linux that the person is unwilling to lose. For instance, I cannot play Age of Mythology on Linux. I cannot play World of Warcraft on Linux. I cannot use MS word on linux. And before my detractors attempt to do so, I have to state that you *cannot* trivialize someone's choice of application, because they have time invested in training on how to use *that* application that they may not be willing to give up.
His third point... Was that really a point? It seemed like a half-hearted swing at the opposition.
I'm not saying that Linux *shouldn't* be the dominant operating system, I'm simply saying that it *isn't* and there are valid reasons why that is true. My firm belief is that if Linux wants to win the desktop war, you have to do two things: 1) Hit the competition where it hurts (in the wallet), and 2) Stop trying to convert the old. Its not gonna work. CONVERT THEIR CHILDREN.
Windows NOT easier to maintain (Score:5, Informative)
My experience with Windows is that, so long as nothing goes wrong, there isn't much maintenance. But, when problems arise, even finding documentation on how to fix things is a problem, despite its popularity.
Recently, I needed to change the subnet on the public side of a group of computers, including a Win2K server and some Linux boxes. The Linux boxes took 5 minutes each, and all the daemons adjusted to the changes with a simple 'service XXX restart'. Never even had to reset the hardware.
It also took 5 minutes to change the IP on the Win2K box... but it required a restart... and several very important things didn't come back afterwards (Exchange and RAS in particular). It took two days to track down WHY, because everything looked correct.
Turned out that the settings were correct, but neither Exchange nor RAS are tolerant of changes to the binding order of interfaces, and any significant change (like an IP) to an interface changes its binding order... making it invisible to both applications. This isn't documented in anyplace convenient; I only found it by tracking down specific error message text via GOOGLE, piecing together information off of several of the results, finally finding a very nice MSKB article on the subject... which hadn't appeared in the GOOGLE search results!
I'm now fighting a problem where this same machine has decided that its second and third net cards are deaf... They exist, they detect the network, Win2K says they're working, but the rest of the network can't talk to them. And the customer gets frustrated, while I try to find SOMETHING on the net that would explain the behaviour. I could have fixed this problem within an hour under Linux...
As Dogbert said, "We have the very best kind of evidence. Anecdotal!
Finally, someone discusses this topic! (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, I've been waiting for someone in the pro open-source community to write an article in defense of Linux on the desktop!
It's about time, I just wonder what took so long!
Now if only somebody would write an article about how insecure Windows is, the the truth would really get out and the big companies would certainly start switching!
Linux is not ready yet. (Score:4, Insightful)
No current Linux technology immitates this. There is no way I can currently download a self-executing shellscript wrapper or otherwise binary program that will install either system-wide or to ~/bin/$appname, with care taken to provide its own libraries, and giving me an easy link so I can remove the application folder, the installed support libraries, and any config files separately.
Linux has made great strides in getting the system installed, and the various distributions have creative solutions for getting the more crufty parts like X11 (which freedesktop.org is, thankfully, revamping to be much more accepting and dynamic of modern hardware), and in terms of user-application glue (remember how OS/2 Warp would remember which applications were open and all their states when you rebooted?) in ways that surpass Windows, the actual application management is still a horrible hack, largely based on designs from the mid to late 90s which don't really work in practice.
That is such an ignorant attitude. (Score:3, Insightful)
If they were tools which were more widesrpead, there wouldn't be a problem. We need a solution which is distribution agnostic and available to all, not just Mandrake or SuSE users. The proper setup would allow install on any OS, and provider their own uninstall wrappers. No need for distribution specific support!
Autopackage [autopackage.org] has been suggested to me, and it looks cool. It'
Dump your biased garbage right here please (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest problem Linux currently has (Score:5, Interesting)
But it's still not possible for Joe User to simply download an app and install it via an installation wizard like everyone is used to on Windows. You either run setup.exe there or some *.msi files and click "Next" a few times and you're finished.
Not so under Linux. I am a Linux developer myself, even earning my money as a Linux developer, and I know it's a tough problem to tackle in the Right Way(tm). But we should eventually try. The old installer from Loki games is a good example of how it should work (although I don't think it's the correct solution as there is no RPM or deb support in it). The really tough things here are first to get most projects to have support for such an installer and second for such an installer to support as many distributions as possible.
Of course Debian users will argue "well, just do an apt-get install foo", and Gentoo people will tell you to use emerge, but the point for Joe User is not to have to use the command line.
If we manage to deal with this problem I'll say Linux is really ready for desktop of everyone. I've set up the desktop that a few hundred people of the Bavarian Blood Donation Service use via their thinclients, so I know Linux is ready for desktop use if all the necessary applications are installed.
Hard is often a misnomer (Score:5, Insightful)
Myth, uh, Myths debunked. (Score:3, Interesting)
The argument goes basically, "I tried to install Linux and (insert from list below). Therefore Linux is hard and not ready."
Um, yes. On my server which is my only linux box, after install it can not and did not support my sound card. Not only did it not detect and install drivers, it didn't even bother to notify me (Mandrake 9.2) The drivers are still available for windows for this (aureal based) card. I spent 3 hours and after reading numerous accounts of not being able to get this to work, I gave up on it.
The author argues that "installation comparisons aren't apples to apples because Windows is Pre-Installed" OK fine. Boot a linux installable CD vs windows 2000 CD with a blank hard drive and see who wins. Besides registration, you can basically hit enter a bunch of times and windows will install. Installing mandrake, I fretted about journaling filesystems, partitions, etc, and I still didn't get my drivers installed automatically. So, point 1 in my experience was accurate entirely.
Myth #2: Lack of Applications
Well, certainly the fact that the applications ship with Linux distros is a bonus, but let's face the facts, there is a lack of major applications-- especially in the art world. The Gimp is nice because it's free and has some unique features, but photoshop slaughters it. Just plain slaughters it. The author admits games are a problem, and for the apps that do exist (and for free) Usability is a HUGE issue. My wife cussed me out on numerous occasions after putting OpenOffice on her system, and couldn't figure out how to do the things which were totally intuative in MS office. Free is great, but almost every commercial app on Windows beats its Linux alternative hands down. (except on price, of course.)
Myth #3: It's hard to install software
Compared to Windows? You bet your ass. With windows, you insert a disc and press enter a bunch of times. Everything else is spoonfed.
This guy's on crack. Every one of his Linux "Myths" is , in reality, pretty accurate in comparison to Windows.
I love the idea of linux. I like playing around with my linux server, but it's not nearly as user-friendly as windows.. sorry. And the most important reason that it's not viable as an end user desktop is that you can't take it to the local mom & pop computer shop or CompUSA and get support. (Admittdely, they'll probably just reinstall the OS anyway, and say "oh well," but at least they can do that!)
Okay, debunk this: (Score:3, Interesting)
(personally I must say, Unreal Tournament's (the orig.) textures suck.)
And guess what is the main motor of progress in computer industry?
I'd agree with the majority, but (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but Windows does not have huge ease of use. It has huge long term familiarity and many people around the place who kind of know how to do things. OS X does not have ease of use for a typical user upgrading from OS 9; considerable retraining is required. In fact, I can well remember when I had to migrate from Unix + Mac Os to Windows: it was a steep uphill learning curve, especially making networking work.
I keep making this point, I will doubtless do it again. Twenty years ago, Diesel cars were a rarity in Europe. Gas ruled. "Everybody" understood gas engines which were "simple". Diesel was slow, smelly, hard to figure out. Where's the carb? The spark plugs? Only Diesel used about 30% less fuel than gas engines, and had a few other hidden advantages.
Twenty years on, and in Europe Diesel technology is heading for 50% of the market in some countries. The reason? Cost, and it turned out that it was actually harder to develop better gas engines than Diesel engines. Development has taken care of the problems, and Diesel has developed much faster than gas engines over the same period. Now, even Jaguar has to have a Diesel. If, in the US, SUVs and large cars ran on Diesel, Iraq wouldn't be a US problem.Middle East oil? Who needs it?
So look at the broader picture. Which platforms really look to have the easiest development route and the real lowest long term cost?
Maturity (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux has been around since 1991 (13 years old)
How many people that use PC's now, could have intalled and setup DOS/Windows/networking in the 80's and 90's?
Patience is a virtue!
we are making great progress!
Competition, Plain and Simple (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't tell someone they should use Linux because it's easier (you know it isn't) or that it's better (they'll give plenty of reasons why it isn't). Get them to use it because we'll all be better off. Would they prefer it if the only car you could buy was a Ford? Some will say yes, but then ask them what would stop Ford from charging twice, triple, quadruple even, more than they do now? Nothing. But there are many car makers, so prices stay at an (arguably) reasonable levels. Why can you buy a Gamecube for $199(CAN)? Because they're 3 major players out there all vying for the same market and they're willing to sell at a loss to get more customers who will then buy games. That's a Good Think (TM).
Why is Windows very expensive and all pervasive? Because there's no decent competition. That, my friends, is a Bad Thing.
Ugh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Pre -1 Troll caveat: I have used Linux for many years, love it, but it is not without flaws. Please take these points under consideration.
Let's go through the standard arguments:
Myth - Windows is easier.
Fact - Windows is familiar. Recognize the difference.
Myth - (and this is a quote) "The only people dumb enough to buy the retail [Linux] applications would be, probably, Windows users who assume that they need to purchase it."
Fact - Firstly, calling Windows users dumb is just showcasing your immaturity. Secondly, they are conditioned this way. Marketing tells them that nothing is free. Even when they hear 'open source', it's no different than 'Cash Back' when buying a car. You don't actually walk out of the dealership with a bag of bills, you simply apply that cash to something else or a cheaper loan.
Myth - It's hard to install software in Linux
Fact - Wait a minute, this is true.
Here's something I noticed when reading: When he realizes that Linux just isn't ready for the desktop, he puts those reasons in two or three sentences and quickly puts a huge amount of text or a neat table out to distract you.
For example, Games. That is why Windows remains popular. Yes, it's a chicken and egg problem, but the fact remains that Microsoft knows that if there is any market where gaming is owned almost soley to themselves, it is the computer gaming one. They liked it so much they made a console about it, and regardless of the bleeding that XBox endures, it is a drop in the bucket to the money that they will continue to drain from users as their OS locks them into proprietary standards and advances.
The problem of installing applications gets a total of two sentences. Yes, two. Anyone who has ever hunted down some stupid, ignorant library or dependency and has screamed in frustration as they try to play follow-the-dependency, I hear your calls, I feel your pain. It is the reason I have stopped using Linux for anything but server operations.
I can't handle another game-less, hard to add programs to system that does everyone else great but fails spectacularly in the things I now take for granted: easy to install and remove programs (no gunzipping or 'make uninstall'), tons of games, and programs that actually follow easy to use UI or at the very least have a little thought behind their interfaces.
And did I mention documentation? Because as good as some programs are, some have abhorrently bad documentation, sometimes reduced to a few sentences boasting their coolness, shout outs to their friends, and an email address that may or may not work.
Myth #2: Lack of Applications -- Visio (Score:3, Informative)
The one big thing I still use Windows for is to run Visio. And I do some rather complex stuff with it at times, that simple drawing tools cannot compare to, such as programming my own shapes. Anyone have this for Linux (even commercial payware) or BSD?
And for those who are thinking of trying an exploit on me ... it's not connected to the net.
It's the Culture, Stupid! (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of the discussion going on here (and in the linked article) is of the form "Linux won't be ready for the desktop until it does X" or "Linux is ready for the desktop because it does all these things better than Windows.". This is all missing the point.
Yes, modern "end-user friendly" Linux distributions are pretty close to Windows in terms of usability, but that's not the point. Windows has infiltrated our culture. It has become synonymous with computing. It is assumed that if you have a computer, you're running Windows (or maybe a Mac if you live in a more liberal area).
The reason Mandrake (or Linspire, Xandros or others in that crowd) isn't good enough for Grandma isn't that the software is harder to use than Windows. It's that whenever she needs any kind of help or advice--be it from her ISP, her online banking tech support, the local computer shop, the kid down the street, the community college, mainstream books and all the other sources of information--it will always be Windows-centric.
Linux won't be ready for the desktop until the first response to a request for help is no longer "What version of Windows are you running?"
linux on the desktop : the holy grail of geeks (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been using linux for almost 8 years now. I was introduced to it the usual way: a friend came over with a slackware CD saying that if I was really tired of Windows and wanted something I could do with as I pleased, I should try this.
We're 8 years later now, and a lot of things have changed for linux. It's stepped out of geekdom and entered the corporate world, taking small steps at a time and the occasional leap. From a relatively small group of technologically very adept people, it has grown to become the new pet-OS of wannabe-geeks and even for a while Linux threatened to become a buzz-word for certain companies to shamelessly promote themselves on an IT market that had suffered a damaging blow.
Three years ago I was at a school that gave introduction courses in linux as a member of a jury for (pardon my bad English) practical final. I was judging several projects that were made during the course of 9 weeks of internships in companies, and over half of them were made using linux. Of the 10 groups that presented a linux project, only two of them were capable of presenting a flawless project.
What really got me at that moment was, that even though linux had come so far in those 5 years, many last year students hadn't even the faintest idea how their OS really worked. The argument most used for the use of linux was that it was free (as in beer), and someone even managed to blurt out that linux was actually a product from Sun. After three days of judging, I came to a startling conclusion. Many of the linux projects I had seen were dodgy at best, the students had very little grasp on the tools they used, and many webprojects failed to provide even the simplest security to their database as I happely added SQL on their URL and displayed lists of unencrypted passwords.
The Windows projects I saw however were a lot more solid. SQL Insertion failed on nearly every project, and most students were up to speed on the technologies they had used. Most of the Windows projects were finished, or nearly finished, while the linux projects seemed to have a lot of rough edges (in fact a girl actually told me : "Don't do that, that corrupts our database and we don't know why").
What does this have to do with Linux on the desktop, you might ask. Well, if 4 years of training in programming and networking hasn't even thaught you the simplest of hacks (SQL Insertion), and you're practically lost without a GUI to configure your networkcard (but manage to boast about your networking project), there is either a fundamental problem with your education or your unwillingness to use google. The truth behind it is "ease of use". MS Visual Studio comes with a bunch of tools in one package, a graphical XML schema editor, a graphical database management system, click-n-paint GUI creation, and to top it off each of those students gets 4 years of excessive training in all of those tools.
Linux on the other hand, has most (if not all) of these things, but students don't know them. Those that do have knowledge of these tools are often complaining that they ran into problems (again because of lack of training, or googling). Many have spent two days finding out how to install a certain program, and most just give up asking their supervisors for aid (which they often can't provide).
This is the problem with linux, and this is why the linux desktop will never be as succesfull as we hope it will be: our diversity in tools and lack of proper bundling. Distributions do a good job at providing us with defaults, but provide too much goodness. Most linux machines have at least 7 compilers and interpreters installed by default, 6 MP3 players, 10 office suites, and horror of horrors 2 desktop environments.
Teaching students all these things is an impossible task, and that's why they aren't prepared for the choices they have to make when they are going to actively use linux. And educating users on using office package A, while there exists at least one package for every letter of the alphabet each wi
X is to blame (Score:3, Insightful)
Talking about not comparing apples to apples... (Score:3, Interesting)
I know this isn't an original point, but it's a good one... What would happen to your poor Linux distros is Microsoft was allowed to ship whatever they wanted (assuming they properly licensed what they didn't own themselves)? You'd all be screaming that we need to drag their asses into court that same day!
Give me a break... Do you think Linux would have ANY chance WHATSOEVER if Microsoft was allowed to ship Office, Visual Studio, Flight Simulator and, hmm, let's say Norton SystemWorks? Short answer, in case your blind zealotry keeps you from seeing straight: NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, NO CHANCE.
Even if it didn't come bundled with PC's, which I don't think you could legally stop since an OEM could always just go buy Windows off the shelf and install it to their hearts' content, even if people had to install it themselves, Windows would still be king of the hill for a variety of other reasons (like a nice, clean, consistent user interface, like simplicity of software installation and removal, like the biggest software library out there as far the collection after you scrape away the crap software goes, and more).
Linux is great as a server platform. Actually, I take that back. It's not great, it's good. Seeing as how our IBM consultants are having trouble getting their own products to run on RedHat, and I've seen my share of Linux boxes crash for no apparent reason (and hardware issues were eliminated) and I've seen a number of Linux boxes not boot up again after a sudden power failure and WITH a journaled file system.
Linux on the desktop? No. Not now. Maybe never, maybe some day, but not now. I will offer one bit of advice that the community at large should take to heart if you ever really do want to challenge the leaders (not just Microsoft, I mean the application leaders as well)... Stop writing article after article about why Windows sucks and why Linux is better and start writing articles about what's wrong with Linux and how you can fix it, or just how you can improve it. Stop comparing Linux to Windows so damned much and judge it on it's own merits. Face the good (there's plenty of it) and the bad (just as plentiful) and stop the whining about how Microsoft competes in illegal or at best nasty ways and beat them at the game you all want to claim they can't play, that is, delivering the best solutions. Make the best software out there, and not just the best software as compared to Windows as judged by 15-year old whiz-kids, but the best products as judged by any neutral observer.
Do these things and you have a chance. Continue the crap your doing now, and forget it, you will be forever relegated to the nerd's OS and the back-office server platform that the geeks in the organizations want to run but the boys in the boardroom who write the checks will want to stay away from.
Harsh? Yes. Reality? Abso-fraggin'-lutely!
Re:OSTG? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:OSTG? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why linux isn't ready..... (Score:3, Funny)
make
curse
vi Makefile
make
curse...
continue until "make" works out
make install
Re:Why linux isn't ready..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why linux isn't ready..... (Score:5, Informative)
Why the heck vendors are sticking with their own crappy command-line-only installs is really beyond me. Only one I know of that uses IS for Linux is if you download the Java NetBeans Cobundle.
Actually, UnrealTournament 2004 may also use ISX. I remember some nifty Java installer....
Re:Why linux isn't ready..... (Score:3, Informative)
UT2004 actually uses the excellent Loki setup tools [icculus.org] that are now maintained at icculus.
Re:Why linux isn't ready..... (Score:5, Insightful)
That aside though, the main issue with source installs is that you end up with a mess - files all over the place. You can't remove what you just installed unless the Makefile happened to include an "uninstall".
Up until now I've been very happily avoiding this issue by using stow [gnu.org], but recently I found checkinstall [asic-linux.com.mx] which you run instead of make install. Checkinstall creates a package (.deb, or
"That's still too hard!" you say? Yes, quite possibly - but then the only real reason to be installing from source is if you have very particular needs (special configure options) or a need to be on the bleeding edge. Pretty much anyone who thinks compiling is too hard should be happy with binary installs. With things like synaptic, redcarpet, up2date, etc. around installing distro provided packages is a breeze. If you have to go outside your distro try autopackage [autopackage.org]. Yes, autopackage isn't finished yet, but they're at the stage where they have some test packages (install the latest version of inkscape via autopackage for instance), and what they do have is fantastic - think of it as installshield with advanced dependency checking resolution. All those third parties currently supplying distro specific rpms ought to shift their project to supplying autopackages, and certainly autopackage looks to be the way to go for any commercial vendor who wants to create a linux installer for their software.
Installs are still a little tricky, but the issues have been spotted, and are being worked on - and the solutions look better than anything Windows provides.
Jedidiah
Re:Why linux isn't ready..... (Score:5, Informative)
A large variety of useful applications are simply not available on things like the red hat network (so there goes up2date).
Up2date is great for upgrading packages that I already have installed during the first little while after I buy the operating system (at the moment, I think I have 3 years, but only because I bought "Enterprise Linux" which costs more than MS Windows, so there goes the cheaper concept.
Up2date will get me new software if I happen to know what the package name that I want is. For instance I wanted to install GVIM. The redhat network package for Enterprise Linux was compiled without support for the GUI, alas. This is what I had to do to get GVIM.
I suppose I could have gone to the VIM website, and download their version of the vim RPMs, and ran rpm --install on that. It probably even would have worked, but I don't know for sure that vim.org has the same RPM version, if it installs everything in the same place, and what up2date would think about that package. I have only been using Linux for approximately 2 years at this point, so it is perhaps understandable that a complete newbie like myself would find the various methods of software installation extremely complex.
Next topic: configuration
My biggest complaint against linux on the desktop is the extreme absurdity of some types of configuration. My linux workstation is my work machine, and so it has to do things like run apache and our application server (Interchange if you are curious -- http://www.icdevgroup.org).
Well... Installing apache was easy. Installing Interchange was hard. It requires nonthreaded perl, but a gazillion things require the existing threaded perl 5.8.3 that came with the OS. So, I build my own perl from source, and then copied into /usr/local instead of /usr, and then hacked at the Interchange source so that it looked in this new location...
Why not just uninstall the old perl? Because I can't. When I issued the
command, I encountered dozens of errors. And I couldn't upgrade -- they were the same version, just with different compiler switches set.
Oh, then I got an error that my system was set to the incorrect language encoding. I'm not 100% sure I understand what that means even having fixed it -- but here's what I had to do
Ok... so... exactly what does i18n stand for? Having a normal computer user find the i18n configuration file and hack at it isn't reasonable. Especially if you don't tell them that the error is in i18n. Now a normal user might not be trying to install Interchange, but hell, even our sysadmin wasted 4 hours figuring out what config file to change.
My point? Linux on the desktop is a freaking toy until a user can do everything they need to without opening a terminal or becoming root ever.
This includes installing software, configuring the machine, and running applications.
Incidentally, Windows crashes since I installed XP (2 years): at least 10, at most 15.
Linux crashes since I installed Red Hat Linux (first v. 7.2, now EL 3 WS, approx 18 months): at least 10, at most 15.
My definition of a crash is anything that goes wrong to which the only easy solution is either pressing the power button or typing "init 6".
Re:Why linux^H^H^H^H^H Windows isn't ready..... (Score:4, Insightful)
A large variety of useful applications are simply not available from Microsoft (so there goes windowsupdate).
Windowsupdate will get me new software if I happen to *only ever* use Microsoft software. Even this its useless.
This is what I had to do to get Microsoft Office for ONE computer:
Telephone 4 different suppliers for quotes.
Find out that there are loads of different versions.
Have a meeting about which one we can afford
Get Supplies to raise a purchase order
Get the directors to sign off the spend
Place the order
Get told they don't have any in stock, and so go to the second supplier
Re-do the purchase order
Place the order
Wait 4 days for the software to arrive
Find that you need "administrator" access to load the software
Schedule IT Support to come and install the software for me
Reboot several times, meaning I have to stop all my other work
Find that we also need to update the software as it is riddled with bugs
Get IT Support in again to provide the software updates
Reboot multiple times again
(good, it works)
Next topic: configuration
My biggest complaint against Windows on the desktop is the extreme absurdity of some types of configuration. My Windows workstation is my work machine, and so it has to do things like run IIS with Perl.
Well... Installing IIS turned out to be a real pain. Again we had to go through the whole procedure of getting IT in, finding the CD, rebooting, etc, etc.
Configuring the thing was also hard. It requires Perl, but that doesn't come with Windows, so I had to go and get Active State Perl. Of course, I can't do anything as a user, so yet again I have to schedule IT to come and work on my PC.
My point? Windows on the desktop is a freaking toy until a user can do everything they need to without having to get IT in and use Administrator privileges.
This includes installing software, configuring the machine, and running applications.
Incidentally, Windows crashes at least once a day, sometimes more. I've lost count of the number of times it has gone down because it has to be rebooted by IT.
Linux crashes? Can't say I've noticed any. I checked the uptime on our DNS server and it was 253 days.
And the Windows GUI is still freakishly slow, and everything is freakishly huge with hideous colours. I run at 1024x768 on Windows, 1600x1200 on Linux, and still the Linux desktop is more responsive, and everything is more intuitive.
One last little whine: I have approximately 10% success rate with software that can allegedly be installed without Administrator privileges.
More often than not there is no indication that some has gone wrong, it just doesn't work.
And I'm really freakin sick of you Windows junkies telling me that Windows is so easy that anyone can use it.
Re:Why linux isn't ready..... (Score:5, Interesting)
For slackware, you can download just about anything from here [linuxpackages.net], and just type "installpkg [filename]"
Gentoo, you'd emerge it, without downloading it first "emerge [package]"
RedHat, you'd get the package, and use RPM to install it.
Debian, you'd apt-get it "apt-get [package]"
Updates are even easy in Slackware. We have one server on our network which updates it's packages nightly, and then 100+ other servers collect their updates from a cron running "slackupdate.sh -nc -l 2". For us, it's much more polite to have our own repository, than to have 100+ machines beat up the publically available ones.
You can do something similiar with Gentoo or Debian. I'm not sure how RedHat handles these.
But, for the stuff that doesn't come in packages, ya, three commands are pretty easy. All things considered, it's faster to type those, than to unzip, and click the annoying click-throughs to get a Windows program to install.
People are afraid of the kernel, but hell, all you have to do is download the kernel, and use the pretty menu driven configuration to pick what drivers you need, and just a couple commands later, you have a kernel optimized for your machine. With Windows, good luck getting out all the drivers that you don't need.
Most Windows users that I've talked to simply won't get away from Windows because they're too lazy to learn something new. Hell, they won't stop using MSIE, even after getting the spyware or virus of the day because of it. One guy I know got a virus from a site because of an MSIE exploit, and continues to use MSIE. He was fighting with it for two days to get rid of the virus. He simply won't consider Mozilla/FireFox or Opera. Why? Because he's been using MSIE for years.
It's very similiar to the people who held out on advancing from Windows 3.1 for so long. Why change, when it does things they like? It won't be until the "killer app" shows up for Linux that doesn't work anywhere else. Unfortunately for this process, most people are porting their applications over to Windows, to let everyone enjoy, so the "killer app" probably won't ever be a Linux-only application.
Several large banks still run OS/2. Why? Because it works for them. You'll still find lots of people running Win98. Likewise, you'll find people running very old versions of RedHat, because they're afraid of upgrading.
We've only recently started a campaign to upgrade our old Slack 7.0 to Slack 8.1 servers to Slack 10.0. I made a bootable CD to make this easy. It takes 1/2 dozen commands (including mounting the cd and destination partitions), and takes 5 to 10 minutes. Users rarely notice the downtime, and appreciate than things are faster now. How much pain would I be in upgrading from say WinNT to WinXP?
Re:Why linux isn't ready..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a simpler set of commands for configuring, compiling and installing from source code on Windows?
Re:Why linux isn't ready..... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why linux isn't ready..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why linux isn't ready..... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree completely. However, and this isn't comparing apples to apples (as if you RTFA was what they were trying to do), when you do get free software for windows, it usually comes compiled and with an installer. There are a lot of reasons for this of course: no free compiler is included with windows, you can usually relatively easily make your compiled program run on any windo
Re:Good article (Score:4, Insightful)
Typical Slashdot post. No wonder it's done by an AC. This entire attitude that if you don't like and don't worship Linux you're nothing but a lemming or a troll is not only getting really old but it's also alienating the few out there who are willing to give Linux a try. It's really no different from the high school jock mentality. I've seen plenty of valid reason not to embrace Linux.
When are the fanboys going to accept that Linux is not the all-in-one solution to computing problems. Why you say? Because there is no all-in-one solution to the question of users and their PCs.
Re:Good article (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever heard of FUD?
If my huge corporation was facing competition, I would do anything possible to discredit that competition.
I would hire good writers to create multiple accounts on message boards, and these writers would be directed to create personas that were modded up as i
Also IM programs (Score:5, Insightful)
IM is becoming more than just instant transfering of text.
File transfers (GAIM sort of has this), webcams, plugins and games are becoming big reasons for IMs.
Sorry but saying "close enough" isn't good enough when the rest of the world can do it.
Re:The Gimp (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Linux is only harder to install because almost no one installs Windows themselves. (True, but that doesn't do you much good for a user with pre-installed Windows and a Linux install CD.)
2) It's not true that Linux lacks applications you need. It has everything I need! (Ooookay)
3) Installing software is easy. (Cue rpm/deb/portage flamewar.)
I loved the end, too:
If they wish to avoid appearing clueless, desktop Linux pundits should tackle their reviews of Linux with the following conditions:
...
2) Contact a local LUG or solicit volunteers to install whatever flavor of Linux you want on your system
Because, you know, it's only a meaningful review if you have a team of experts helping you out...
Re:The Gimp (Score:5, Interesting)
I use Photoshop, 3ds max, and Premiere every day I go to work. I've done that for 8+ years now. There is no collection of software on Linux that will allow me to get my job done to an equal level of quality and to file formats that I can share with my coworkers and get integrated into our final products (games).
Linux is not ready for my corporate desktop. The GIMP and Blender are interesting tools, I'll freely admit that. They are not replacements for industry standard tools like 3DS Max and Photoshop, though.
The author's marginalizing of apps he doesn't need doesn't at all imply that the apps aren't needed. The article is quite biased towards the author's views and needs. It does't present full picture of the problem.
Re:The Gimp (Score:3, Insightful)
You must realize that the two are intimately tied together.
When Linux is ready for and assumes the majority share of the Home Desktop then companies will begin to migrate to Linux on the general Desktop. When the general Desktop migration begins then Adobe will happily follow the crowd and write a beautiful front-end and contribute effort to projects like GIMP. Home Desktop is the controlling facet of the
Re:The Gimp (Score:3, Insightful)
Many times, Linux zealots will simply not add features because either:
Re:The Gimp (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Gimp (Score:3, Insightful)
are you taking the piss? in linux (KDE) everything looks the same and is easy to use.
in Windows every MS program seems to have a completely different design and the icons don't scale.
in Wordpad you need to go Edit->Find or Ctrl-F
in Notepad it's Search->Find with no shotcut
Scandisk, defrag etc. has no resemblence to any other programs.
MS Publisher
Re:Exploring the myths AGAIN?! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm seriously considering recommending Mandrake 10 to my mom - over Mac OS X.
The standard KDE 3.2 apps are extremely well integrated. The Mandrake Control Center is a match for the one in OS X, plus it provides an easy mechanism for finding and managing software. Sure, if you try to do complicated things or try out beta-quality software, it may involve digging around on the command line.
But for everyday tasks like web browsing, email, word processing, digital photo management, listening to CDs and managing mp3s, syncing a Palm Pilot, managing a calendar and a to-do list, burning CDs and DVDs, checking the weather, and instant messaging, Mandrake 10 with KDE 3.2 meets or beats the usability of any other OS - bar none.