Why Linux Is Not Yet Ready For the Desktop 1365
An anonymous reader writes "Every now and then a new- or old-media journalist tries to explain to everyone why Linux is not yet ready for the desktop. However all those men who graduated from their engineering universities years ago have only superficial knowledge about operating systems and their inner works. An unknown author from Russia has decided to draw up a list of technical reasons and limitations hampering Linux domination on the desktop." Some of the gripes listed here really resonate with me, having just moved to an early version of Ubuntu 9.10 on my main testing-stuff laptop; it's frustrating especially that while many seemingly more esoteric things work perfectly, sound now works only in part, and even that partial success took some fiddling.
Games (Score:5, Insightful)
Without the big labels like Valve developing their titles on Linux, you aren't going to see Linux widely used in desktop soon.
Re:Games (Score:4, Interesting)
The only reason there is a Windoze box in my house is that my wife is a quilter. The current version of Electric Quilt (AFAICT) will not run acceptably under WINE. There is no reasonable FOSS equivalent.
Re:Games (Score:4, Interesting)
you tried running it in virtualbox? it may still be technically running in windows, but at least you are limiting the 'damage'. if you don't give it network access you can do without antivirus stuff and probably make it run and 'boot' quicker than the real thing :)
also virtualbox' seamless mode will make it virtually... well.. seamless.. :D
Re:Games (Score:5, Insightful)
VMs on the desktop are a hack to make up for the shortcomings of Linux, not a solution.
It's extremely silly to even think that VMs are a viable long term solution, not just because the the topic is "Linux is not ready for the Desktop", but probably more because Mom and Pop will not install and configure a VM when Windows 'just works'.
Re:Games (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Games (Score:4, Insightful)
And how is it not a shortcoming of Linux when theres the stuff needed just isn't available like it is for Windows?
This kind of attitude just brings me to mind the linux fanboys who go about how great linux is, and when asked if theres equivalent for some soft they need they just answer "eh.. well, you dont need that. its open source you know!" or "if you continue using that goddamn Windows you're evil and support bad companies!!!"
And no, its not a troll. I've seen these things so many times (and I do use linux myself, but just for my servers usage)
Re:Games (Score:5, Insightful)
So, a flat head screw driver is a shortcoming of a philips screwn driver?
Use the right tool for the job. If windows is the one, then use it.
Re:Games (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I'd call not running on Linux a short coming of an obscure quilting application.
The gripe is all about perspective.
Re:Games (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I do have a hard time understanding why many Linux Lovers have such a hatred of Windows, and why they continually claim that Linux is better and can do EVERYTHING that Windows can do and more.
I'm sorry to say this, and I'm really not trying to be a troll (even though I'll most likely be modded as such), but Linux is worthless to a LARGE amount of end users for simple reasons (whether or not the end user is simple themselves doesn't really matter) :
A) Installation IS a pain in the ass for anyone who isn't a geek with a decent amount of experience. Hell its a pain in the ass for those who DO have a decent amount of experience, especially when trying a new distro for the first time that has a wholly different install experience.
B) Driver support sucks. Oh, sure, a lot of the big hw companies have usable drivers for Linux. But does that driver work well with your distro? Do all the features work with your distro? And what about the non-juggernaut hw companies. A vast majority of them don't have native Linux drivers, making it a super-headache to get the item to work in Linux.
C) Software selection leaves a lot to be desired. As pointed out in TFA, Open Office vs MS Office is just one of many instances where FOSS really takes a back seat. And most of the industry-standard software either doesn't run on Linux at all or works partially and only in a VM (which kind of defeats the purpose of using Linux).
D) Games. I don't think I really need to expound upon this one. We all know (even if some of you can't seem to admit it) that gaming on Linux SUCKS ASS because most games don't work on Linux.
Ok. Now I know that some of what I touched upon can be band-aided by using Wine and such, but come on. That's cheating. If the OS can't natively run the software, and has to do so in a virtual-Windows environment, why not just use Windows?
Oh, I already know what a lot of the answers to that question will be. "Windows has viruses and isn't secure!" or "Windows doesn't have good driver support either!" or even "Because MS is EEEEVVIILLLLLLLLL!!!!" Well, guess what. Windows SHIPS insecure, but once installed by any competent person who knows how to tweak the system, Windows can be as secure as any other OS out there. I've used almost every iteration of Windows, and starting with XP have never had a virus infection or security breach (and I download a LOT of crap from unreliable sources). That's not to say that a virus has never actually physically been on my system. Just that I've never had to format, reinstall, repair, or anything. Just delete the offending file, and maybe a registry entry or two. And I've had some virii show up that could have screwed me over royally. But because I tune my system the way I do, not much damage can be done, even if I intentionally download a virus (which I have tested several times). Now, I'm not saying I'm invulnerable. I know my system can get FUBAR'd by this or that virus or breach. But it's a safe bet that I'm more secure than any Linux distro out there (which I've proven via a friend who runs Debian, by betting his system would get FUBAR'd before mine after 3 consecutive days of surfing and downloading from some very disreputable sites. His system was tanked in two days, mine never got touched.)
Now, that whole paragraph above leads to the main point I'm trying to make. An average end user will not understand/like/want to go through the massive learning curve of Linux. Nor will they be happy with the horrible compatability. At the same time, they will not be happy with the virus-fest and crash-athon of Windows. But they will put up with Windows because 95% (I'm guessing) of software works with Windows, as well as 99.99% of games (not taking into consideration that many games don't work when shipped due
Re:Games (Score:5, Insightful)
Well presumably he already has a license for Windows so it wouldn't be terribly unethical to download new installation media (or use the media he already perhaps has) and use that license for a VirtualBox installation of windows.
Entirely legal? Who knows, hell if I've read that entire EULA. Ethical? Sure.
Re:Games (Score:5, Insightful)
Why install another whole OS, set up virtualization, get windows working and install the quilting application when just installing windows and electric quilt does the same exact thing? Would you ask hypothetical Joe Enduser and reasonably expect him to be successful in this task? He would likely give up in the hour, say his computer is broken, and would have the Geek Squad charging him out the nose to reinstall windows (fix) his computer, and whenever somebody mentioned Linux, would relate his horror stories, turning more users off from ever trying it.
And he would be totally justified in doing so.
Until there is a Linux distro that "just works" as well as an average new windows installation, there will only be niche uptake of Linux.
Re:Games (Score:5, Interesting)
Having just installed a dualboot box for my wife, I can tell you that it already does work better than a new windows installation. Ubuntu booted up with graphics drivers, sound working, hp scanner/printer/fax working out of the box. Windows booted up with no ethernet, low graphics mode, no sound, no printer/scanner/fax.
This is a very common thing these days. Linux driver support is miles ahead of Windows as far as 'out of the box' goes.
Re:Games (Score:5, Informative)
I would add that when I tried installing Ubuntu a month or so ago on the same laptop, it said my wi-fi card was working, but it would not work. It also would not let me install the proprietary nVidia driver. When I ran the nVidia installer, it broke X.
Re:Games (Score:5, Insightful)
You're comparing apples to oranges. In the situation where a computer is assembled and configured by professionals, then sold to end-users, any OS will Just Work out of the box. In the situation where components are sold to end-users who assemble and configure themselves, Linux is a hell of a lot easier than Windows to get running, and slightly easier to get running well.
I think the argument you're trying to make is that an OS that doesn't come preinstalled by major-brand manufacturers is unsuitable for the typical end user. Which I agree with--I'm a Linux user, borderline zealot, but there's no way Joe Sixpack can be expected to know how to install a new OS.
Re:Games (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. I was talking to my brother (who is a pretty smart person overall) about some computer problems he was having and he said he was out of memory. Being that it was a java program I was telling him to run, and knowing that his computer is several years old, I wasn't too surprised. So I asked him how much memory he had?
"1.3 Ghz?" was his response.
I tried really hard to not laugh as I realized he isn't a computer guy (he can type, but he's never built a system, etc) and I had completely forgotten this fact. It is so easy for us to forget that most people don't have the experiences we do. I wonder if people in other professions have this same problem? Do civil engineers forget most people don't have any idea how much stress a bridge can take? Do doctors forget most people don't know anything about prescription drug interactions?
General drivers (Score:4, Informative)
WinXP SP2 vs Ubuntu 7.04
Screen: default driver @ 800x600x16 vs default driver @ native resolution
Keyboard: default driver vs general driver
Sound: not recognised vs general driver
Wifi: not recognised vs Intel general driver
Printer: not recognised vs printer-specific CUPS support
Winmodem: not recognised vs default (non working) winmodem restricted driver
So... what is your point again?
For some reason, driver hunting for Windows is acceptable, but don't dare tell the guy trying Linux that Ubuntu might not pick up the play button on the side of the keyboard automagically!
Re:Games (Score:4, Interesting)
Thankfully I added NIC driver at same time which otherwise wasn't there.
Maybe this is a harsh bias, but I don't consider any problem that can occur between installation and fully working setup to be normal for any user. I was a big windows fan and I found Linux to be "hard". Every turn there was more documentation I needed to read. I thought the documentation was really good... when it existed (I have noticed a lot more "incomplete" documentation than ever any "bad" documentation. Bad documentation gets fixed really quick, because bad documentation is either bad because of content or structure, and in either case many small contributions can improve documentation quickly.)
When I last used Windows regularly (up until shortly after SP2 was released), I found it took roughly 2 days for an ideal setup with every little thing done properly. One time I managed to cut this down with a slip stream and having all the software on the DVD, but the next time I needed it, most of the software was out of date. The part I liked the least was that breaking one little thing, and your best / only option is to start over. In my personal experience, things rarely work one day and then not work the next in Linux without a clear or easily discoverable reason due to a known issue. If something is broken, it is easy to track down 1) whether or not the issue is fixable / has a work around, and 2) the level of skill / experience necessary to fix such issue. This QUICKLY tells you whether or not fussing with it is going to yield adequate results. Any 'consistent' installation issue (I tweak a new Ubuntu install quite a bit) I just throw into a script I keep online, and each "tweak" being its own function, the script is very portable, like comment out "setup fkey macros".
In practice, for me, I prefer cli over gui; nobody ever implements all cli / api functions into a gui, least of all Windows, and even when they do, tasks can not easily be automated, if at all. I guess I have had more of the feeling that anything I learn about Linux teaches me how to learn better and faster about Linux. When you learn a gui all you have learned is the gui. No matter how easy it is to use, it doesn't teach you about how the system works.
Ok, too high an expectation for regular users. Most the problems I see / hear are switching to Linux from Windows problems, not Linux problems. Certain "advantages" of Windows are directly related to Microsoft's monopolistic control over the environment (ANY other hardware, getting the right parts that will work with the system is normal and expected). With due diligence, educating yourself about Linux lets to do more. Maintenance and auditing is fast and easy at any level, once you learn it ("normal users" don't maintain their machines AT ALL even though they know they should, and I would bet most would ask "what's an audit?"). If you break it, just undo it; you don't necessarily need to "time-machine" backwards or restore from backup, or reload a saved state; just change it back. Worst case scenario, like killed grub or hosed your kernel to an unbootable state, just lock and load with a liveCD and fix it. Tinkering in good faith is never going to require you to reinstall from scratch. If you tinker recklessly and aggressively, there is a good chance you can be unaware of what you changed and how, and the amount of time to reinstall than track down the issue will be shorter.
I know I am a fan boy, but it is only after 1) Taking the time to educate myself about Linux, and 2) Decades of "WTF, ARE YOU KIDDING?!?" with issues with Windows that only seemed to INCREASE over time. Am I expecting too much? Evidently. MY problems, and headaches for that matter, were fixed switching to Linux. Ubuntu has given me enough not to need anything else, installed as host anyway (Gentoo VM is just too much fun).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Games (Score:5, Insightful)
What would be the point of emulating lots of software you use? and specially games, you even cannot as the fps would be like 1fps.
Unless linux can deliver me all of the things I need that I have in windows, I'm not gonna transfer. Hell, I prolly wouldnt transfer even then unless theres something better that I have in Windows (but yes, security gained by minor OS would prolly be good, but that would change in my scenario aswell).
And let me state, I use linux for various servers I own and manage. But it just cant give me the same use for me as Windows in desktop usage, from both work and gaming experience.
And no, my gaming needs aren't replaced with the freeware and some other games that are available for linux. I want to play the newest games like Left4Dead and Sims 3, and providing "alternative" for me doesn't cut. I want to play those games and not make a compromise, specially when theres no any need to.
Re:Games (Score:5, Insightful)
Some examples, in an ordered in no particular order list:
1. Multiple desktops. Stop the clutter at the bottom of the screen. Organising your work is as easy as pressing Ctrl-Alt-E (IIRC) or just Ctrl-(Alt)-<Arrow>.
2. Mouse wheel works on item however, not item focused. Want to scroll that document in a background window? Just move the mouse there and scroll away! You can also use the scrollwheel to cycle between desktops, tabs, windows, comboboxes and more.
3. An 'always on top' item in the window menu. If you need to copy data from app A to app B put app B at the top with two clicks (or a right mouse drag). No external bloatware required.
4. Middle click pasting. Now that app B is on top, select stuff normally from app A and middle click on the destination in app B. Voila': copy paste with the mouse only. And your Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V buffer (aka clipboard) stays untouched!
5. Notifications that get out of the way. Ubuntu 9.04 doesn't need no frikkin' baloons (and currently the method to bring them back doesn't work for me
6. If virtualization is good enough for videogames on a Mac (it is), then it is good enough for videogames on a Linux. (Non free; dunno about the free) versions of virtual box are able to use the processors' virtualization extensions and offer inbuilt OpenGL support. DirectX support is in the works. Hell, the (free) Ubuntu supported enterprise virtualization support doesn't even work without it.
7. Dual booting. You don't need to wipe Windows for that app you NEED to run in native Windows. Since you won't use it that much you can even not care on Windows to install all the damn bloatware like firewalls and antiviruses.
8. Installing, uninstalling and updating applications. So long as you keep true to installing EVERYTHING through whatever your distro uses to manage packages, 95% of that stuff is as hard as respectively checking boxes on, checking boxes off and clicking on "Install updates". No, you don't even need to mindlessly pound through wizards on the Next button waiting for it to become Finish.
9. Codecs. It is surprising how well codecs work on Linux, when you consider the not so solid situation on sound reproduction. Just downloaded an flv from youtube? No need for external players or convertors -- totem plays it out of the box. Totem will automatically prompt you to install missing codecs (see 8) when needed. Oh, and generally speaking, if you can play it, you can convert it to free formats like ogg or ogv.
10. Compiz. It's just too cool not to be mentioned, and AFAIK it predates the Windows and Mac equivalents.
Oh, an important thing to end this tl;dr comment:
Ubuntu is not a Windows skin.
It doesn't work like Windows.
It's *designed* not to.
If you try Ubuntu like a Windows skin you are going to fail. Full stop.
If you aren't interested in giving up on the way you work on Windows to approach different, not necessarily better ways of working then don't bother trying Ubuntu and while you're at it stop talking about it and just keep on going with Windows. Nobody is forcing you. Linux is all about choice.
Re:Games (Score:4, Informative)
Why would one who has windows license use linux?
They are masochistic?
There, fixed that for you.
Seriously, as much as I want to love Linux, and as much as I hate Microsoft, Windows gets the user experience down better than anybody except maybe MacOS. I've stopped using Linux on my personal laptop - installed because I got fed up with Vista's little quirks (should have rolled back to XP not Linux though) - in favor of my slower work laptop with WinXP on it because it just tends to work and I know how to do what I need it to do.
Linux is perfect for a home user as long as you meet a few criteria:
- You want to run servers but don't have the hundreds/thousands of dollars to lay down for a simple, effective solution (i.e. Microsoft).
- You are very technically inclined
- "Free" is significantly more important to you than "Easy" or "Simple".
- You are willing to put in the many, many hours you will need to learn the OS and how to configure it to do what you need
- You don't need or want any software or hardware that does not have a good Linux implementation/equivalent
There are others of course, but those are the big ones that come to mind for me. The last two in particular are why I can't use Linux. The first two are me, the third is true for me as well but not completely, and the last two don't fit me at all. I have a lot of better things I can be doing than spending hours trying to figure out why my sound doesn't work when I upgraded to a new version of my distro, discovering I have six different audio implimentations installed and only one of them will work.
Honestly, I could have copied my data and installed XP with less time and effort than it took to fix my sound in Linux, which broke after an update because things are not unified even in distros.
There is a reason *nix admins are few and highly paid in the server world, and it isn't because *nix is simple and easy. It's because *nix is very powerful for certain implimentations but it is notoriously difficult to manage. Until "notoriously difficult" becomes "easy" we won't see Linux on the desktop in any big scale. Ubuntu is better than any Linux I've used (and I've tried a bunch in the last 15 years), but it still doesn't touch XP, or really Win98 even. 95 it probably has beat though, heh.
Tetris is not for Linux (Score:4, Informative)
The vast majority of desktop computer users is happy with Minesweeper, Solitaire and Tetris.
The Tetris Company has never put out a product for Linux, except possibly the browser-based Tetris Friends. And it alleges [patentarcade.com] that workalikes such as Lockjaw and Gnometris violate its copyright, though this US Copyright Office document [copyright.gov] makes Tetris's claims look flimsy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never really understood that argument. While I was growing up, playing video games pretty much meant you had an Atari, NES, or SNES. I realize there were plenty of other consoles out during this time, but that's not the point -- in the past gaming was largely limited to consoles. Yet, for the past 15 years that has no longer been true. The gaming industry on the computer has grown by leaps and bounds. If there is a trend, its consoles that are on the way out, at least if you look at the past 30 years.
Re:Games (Score:4, Insightful)
In the 'early console days' games were far simpler and required less 'power' to run. You could pick up a relatively simple box and plug it into the largest screen in your house (your TV) and play away.
Games then started to become more complex and the focus shifted away from the largest screen in the house to the most powerful platform. PC Development was in its hey-day and developers moved onto the platform where they could write the most complex games to stay ahead of the market. The console's importance died out for awhile and PCs with their new fangled 3D hardware, bigger screens, etc. began to take over.
This brings about the third 'age' of gaming where now the console makers have ramped up hardware development. Suddenly the average PC is no longer the big dog in the house power wise. Specialized hardware has allowed the console to catch up and frequently eclipse the PC in game complexity. This has also conveniently coincided with the rise of the large format flat screen TV so now you can play the most 'complex' games on the biggest screen in the house again.
If I had to guess I would say the future involves more of a fusion of console and PC rather than a back and forth. I think we're headed to a world where your home functions on one (or several?) core boxes, whether you use those to kill aliens, do your taxes, surf the future web, or control the oven. But now I'm way off the original topic
Re:Games (Score:5, Informative)
From my link
The problem is that at this point is been over a year and we have seen no progress. So it's hard to say if they are hard at work or gave up for now.
Let the anti-M$ bashing begin!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Here's why... (Score:4, Funny)
Notice the ".ru" at the end of the domain of the "article". Russia, eh?
I'll tell you what's going on:
The Slashdot gang, desperate for traffic and the subsequent advertising revenue from said traffic, teamed up with the Russian mafia and they're writing these Troll articles. Now, nothing increases viewership like controversy and the biggest controversy among computers nerds is Linux vs. Microsoft and how Linux isn't ready for the desktop.
There you go.
Re:Here's why... (Score:4, Funny)
Interestingly, the article mostly works if you replace the word "Linux" with "Vista".
Wow.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow.... (Score:4, Funny)
I think it would have been funnier (the article) had it just said "Linux sux" and been done with it. It would have been shorter, amounted to the same gibberish from the same author, and would have saved us all a lot of time and we could have spent more time sitting here debating the merits of various operating systems.
That wooshing sound... (Score:5, Insightful)
... was the point of the article going over your head. The key phrase (from your own post) "hobbyist operating system". The point of TFA was that Linux isn't ready for the masses, not that it isn't ready for geeks. Sure, it "flies in the hands of a master". The point is that very few people are masters, and very few have the time or inclination to become masters.
Right. Which is why it's not ready for the desktop (at least for ordinary mortals).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm surprised it's not slashdotted!
Server: ZX_Spectrum/1997 (Sinclair_BASIC)
As to the article, I thought almost all of the points are "being resolved" but understand some of them actually require people to agree on things, which does seem to go against the freedoms of the people who don't!
Re:Let the anti-M$ bashing begin!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee Whiz! I didn't realize my desktop isn't working. Month after month and year after year it felt like it worked just fine.
The desktop is dead (Score:4, Interesting)
There is also the fact that web-based is the new way of making money from software. No piracy since its mostly server-side, lace it with ads and nobody complains about adware. Give it a few years and ads will no longer be served up by dedicated domains you can easily block.
If client side desktop computing is to survive the interface has to become more iPhony. Ordinary folk love the touchy feeley colourful, childish looking animated interface of the iPhone so the future is in projects like Hildon. I personally hate the iPhone's interface but thats alright, if its Linux or BSD I'll just install a minimalist window manager which there should always be plenty of.
Re:The desktop is dead (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also the fact that web-based is the new way of making money from software. No piracy since its mostly server-side, lace it with ads and nobody complains about adware.
But people do complain about not being able to access web applications from notebook computers while away from Internet access, such as on the road or in a restaurant that does not offer free Wi-Fi.
3G is still expensive (Score:4, Informative)
Here in Europe, we have these technologies called 'GPRS' and '3G' which mean you're network connected over 95% of the land area.
We have that in the United States, but in this recession, not everybody who owns a laptop has 720 USD per year to blow on a 3G plan in addition to what they're paying for Internet access at home.
3G is cheap (Score:5, Informative)
Re:3G is cheap (Score:5, Informative)
US prices and coverage are truly that high.
Verizon and Sprint have equal prices:
If you stay under 5 GB per month, you pay $720 per year, plus multiple various fees and taxes[1].
For 10 GB per month usage, you pay $3792 per year (plus plus).
Add 20 cents for every text message and 25 cents for every picture sent *or* received.
And a voice plan, if you need that.
For that, you get a service that covers around 2% of the geographical area. I.e. if you stay near large cities or major highways, you will likely be covered, if not, forget it.
Unlike in Europe, where coverage is measured geographically, in the US is measured as percentage of the population. Assuming that the population has zero mobility, live at work, and never ever go anywhere else.
The coverage in the US today is on par with what it was in the early 90s in Europe.
Heck, people over here still use pagers and cheques, and as recently as last year, you could still find prerecorded cassette tapes for sale in major stores. We're a 3rd world country, really. We just won't admit to it, because we live in a glass bauble and don't look outside.
[1]: Quoting Sprint: Monthly charges exclude taxes, Sprint Surcharges [incl. USF charge of up to 11.3% (varies quarterly), Administrative Charge (up to $1.99/line/mo.), Regulatory Charge ($0.20/line/mo.) & state/local fees by area]. Sprint Surcharges are not taxes or gov't-required charges and are subject to change. Sprint chooses to collect Washington State B&O Fee of 0.471% of your monthly billed charges to recover its costs.
Re:The desktop is dead (Score:5, Informative)
Parent poster not taking about corporate desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
The parent poster is not talking about corporate use, or geeks like us, he's talking about the folks at home. You know the other NINETY percent of the market.
Re:The desktop is dead (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll agree to an extent that Linux isnt a good desktop OS for people who are Windows nuts. I have used Linux for the past 4 years on a regular basis and there is a huge learning curve. Linux is great for the server environment and it blows Windows Server out of the water when it comes to ease of use and setup. As far as web browsers, theres a lot of kiosk companies that are running Linux with Windows as the guest os on their machines and taking care of a lot of issues that used to plague remote admin work for distributed computing platforms. Anything you can do in Linux can be done in Windows. Windows also has about 30 years of end-user time on Linux. I know it wasn't really adopted by a lot of my customers as a viable server until 2001-2002 time frame.
There is also the fact that web-based is the new way of making money from software. No piracy since its mostly server-side, lace it with ads and nobody complains about adware. Give it a few years and ads will no longer be served up by dedicated domains you can easily block.
I agree completely. Linux will always be there for the server backend platforms. Linux is great for serving the content. Look at its use in routers and embedded solutions. You couldn't get Windows bloatware to run nearly as effective as Linux does in small environments. I think Linux will overall end up winning in the server platforms in the long run. I'd take a linux server over a windows box anyday of the week just because of reliability. If you have the slightest clue how to setup a basic LAMP then Linux is the way to go. I don't think we need to push Linux to the desktop because people just expect it to work. I spend a lot of time in linux IRC rooms and i see a lot of newbs come in with basic questions that you could get by reading a howto. MS has made Windows so simple that switching to another OS other than a Mac would be hard for them. The other issue i have are the asshole hardcore linux guys that refuse to help people. I think thats really what keeps people away from Linux is because the community doesn't listen nor are they really worried about getting a larger userbase. There are some guys out there that help out where they can, and people appreciate the little bit of help.. In windows getting from A to B is clicking a few buttons. The same process in Linux could be from A to Z with every step needing to be complete and one error throws off the entire process. Until we as a community can stand up and be helpful and supportive and work with developers insteading of blaming them for the problems then Linux won't make it to the desktop and even hold water. Personally any chance I get I load a linux livecd and do what I need to do because for me its easier, but until its easy like Windows then we arent going to get anywhere.
Re:The desktop is dead (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the points that I see repeated over and over when comparing apples to oranges / Linux to PC is that there's a huge learning curve.
I hate to tell you - but there's also a huge learning curve when using Windows. My wife, who had never really used used a PC routinely, was let loose on my Ubuntu box after about 5 minutes of use. A week later I found she had customized her background, changed the icon set, was trying to figure out how to get a cat's meow when she started a program and was wanting access to the package manager so she could see what else she could do.
Her experience with Windows, a bit later was one she described as "frustrating" in that nothing was where she expected it to be.
In general, I think the rule of thumb : Linux is fine. Windows is (possibly) fine. Each to their own - I prefer a Linux varient (Ubuntu currently). Work & Home for the past 4 years.
Re:The desktop is dead (Score:4, Insightful)
The desktop/laptop is NOT dead.
The reason is simple: people don't trust computing "over the cloud," because your device will be essentially useless if you are in an area with little to no Internet connectivity. Besides, you can get a netbook computer for under US$400 nowadays, and with improving technology those netbooks will soon store as much as 250 to 320 GB of data on the hard drive in the machine itself, way more than enough to store local data for business documents, spreadsheets, and smaller presentation files.
Re:The desktop is dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the software I work(ed) with is still to get heavy duty tasks done are still very much on my computer. CAD, programming, mathematica-type programs... not that I want them all to be, just how it is with current internet pervasiveness and speed.
I like using Google Apps because I don't have to worry about keeping files updated across multiple computers. I think Google is safer than carrying a tangle of USB sticks about. If the file is that important or secret, I stick it onto a computer that has absolutely no net access, no modem, and no ethernet connected to it, no wireless, etc.
There are more reasons to like net apps than just being clueless. Besides the aforementioned syncing problem with files, services like mint.com provide, say, an iPhone user a convenient look at their finances impossible with a regular desktop/notebook unless you're really regimented.
That's a decent insight. However, I have no problem with people making money on software that way, as long as software patents don't block competition. What's more problematic with me is being at the whim of the software service provide at any moment to hold your data hostage and your account in their hands. I had enough experiences with ebay's arbitrariness to make me wary. That's why I do keep a backup of the google documents (and important emails too, as webmail is the essentially the same thing with the same pitfalls as any web hosted app, although more comfortable to many because it's been around a bit longer)
While the interface is important, I think many like the convenience and lack of carrying files around like I said earlier, and that will be hard to replicate for any desktop app.
Re:The desktop is dead (Score:5, Informative)
The future is web based.
Is it? After a typical month I am near my download limit for the month, and all it is is web browsing, email, and some file transfers. What is a web based solution going to do to bandwidth usage?
I've used Google docs for a quick project, and it has vastly cut and inflexible features compared to a spreadsheet installed on your machine.
Web based is too inflexible. Just my opinion of course.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
9.10? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first alpha of 9.10 was released a couple days ago with new kernel, new gcc, lots of new libraries... you should not be surprised things don't work well yet. Jaunty seems pretty stable to me. Minor issues with my intel video card, but works fine for all my daily work.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The first alpha of 9.10 was released a couple days ago with new kernel, new gcc, lots of new libraries... you should not be surprised things don't work well yet. Jaunty seems pretty stable to me. Minor issues with my intel video card, but works fine for all my daily work.
Yes, but you must not care to hear Biff bark...
The summary complains about sound, and the datapoints I have on Linux sound are this:
1998 - the LinuxSoundHOWTO makes derisive statements to the effect of "well, if you must have sound, these are the hoops you jump through:...", implying that real free beer swilling penguin huggers don't need sound, period.
2006 - Debian Stable with KDE - Turning on desktop sounds completely hosed one user account, never worked quite right and eventually crashed and burned to th
Re:9.10? (Score:5, Informative)
"I would think that it was released they should have it mostly working well."
No, I would expect 9.04 to be mostly working well (which for me it almost does - the regression in the intel video card support is ticking me off though). 9.10 is at early alpha - I would expect it to not work very well at all. So the submitter's complaints about issues with 9.10 are unwarranted.
Re:9.10? (Score:5, Informative)
Give that a try. I bet it fixes your problem; it worked awesome for me.
(I ran into an intractable network card issue with 9.04 though, which forced me to go back to 8.04 entirely, but at least this solved my video problem...)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I noticed with 9.04 that sound is now finally working properly again on one machine that had audio problems since Hardy. But my laptop can no longer play video with Xv - sometimes it seems that Ubuntu gives with one hand and takes with the other.
Sound and HDs... (Score:5, Informative)
It took almost 3 months to get the sound working on Ubuntu (TOS-link). Even to this day I'm scared that if I lose the system I'll lose the configuration- it required editing different accounts, adding new packages, modifying them in a non-standard fashion, adding options that weren't documented...
Windows XP? Put it in and the sound comes out.
I'll say the same thing about hard drives too- while the support is built in I still had to do some 20 commands to add, mount, locate, format, automount, edit the UUID manualy, fdisk....
Nothing better to kill 2 hours of your precious life.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sound and HDs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sound and HDs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Standard Asound driver.
You miss the point: I did get it to work. That means it could always work, from the beginning, but Ubuntu did not include the correct hardware recognition to set up the system. It also provides no easy method for me to report back those settings for others. If it was truly a manufacturer problem then I would still not be having sound.
That means the moment I got it to work I stopped fiddling- and every time I get the little red upgrade spot I hesitate and think: Is this the reboot that kills it?
Re:Sound and HDs... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are effectively saying I *should* use Linux
*because* hardware manufacturers have a problem.
Er. That doesn't make sense.
I don't care WHERE the problem is. I am a USER and
I want my computer to WORK. As a user I ought not
to even KNOW the difference between software and
hardware, let alone the feud between the
manufacturing organization and the Free
programmer. Let alone justify my use of the
software with some kind of support-of-the-little-guy argument.
I am thankful to developers, but those same
developers also tried to convince me
that Linux was more useful
than it really was and provided a half-baked
solution. They were not really honest
and you don't sound like you are going to be
honest with the user either.
I'd rather pay poolah and give no thanks
and get something that works.
And don't come with that "Free" is not "free"
kwap. In PRACTICE free and Free have turned
out to be the same thing.
Re:Sound and HDs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please stop talking about bad support of devices in linux, but talk about stupid hardware manufacturers.
Regardless of who's to blame, the fact remains that it's "a problem with Linux on the desktop".
I'm pretty much OS-agnostic. I ran a dual-boot Windows XP/Ubuntu 8.04 system for over a year and found both had their strengths and weaknesses. If I had to choose one OS, it would HAVE to be Windows (and in fact, I just scrubbed Ubuntu from my hard disk at the weekend, leaving Windows XP SP3 as the sole OS). All my musical hardware and software will only work under Windows or OS X and I ain't buying a Mac when I've got a perfectly stable and usable Windows PC already.
Bad device support is the single biggest factor working against Linux adoption on home machines. Not everyone with a PC can perform all their computer tasks using an office suite, browser and e-mail client. Lexmark printer ? Cellphone with only a Windows sync client on the supplied disk ? Ditto for a digital camera. TV tuner card ? Webcam ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sound and HDs... (Score:5, Interesting)
For most people, sound in Linux works, but it doesn't work well for anyone. By "work well", I mean MIDI and sound stream control. Windows, MacOS X and even (and especially) BeOS have the sound sewn down and are viable platforms for music creation. Linux definitely isn't and ALSA has inherent flaws that guarantee it never will.
But, since most Linux users aren't interested in making music, this is not an issue and is why Linux's sound model won't ever improve. It will make Linux a non-starter for a number of users, though.
not ready yet - and never will be (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're not using it now, you probably never will. As a long time (and current) Linux user, I have come across all these issues first-hand, as has every other Linux user, developer and advocate out there. That they are still problems even though they've been known for years - sometimes decades shows that they will never be addressed, or fixed.
Linux is a hobby systyem. The code is donated mostly by amateurs (or people working for rewards other than money - for example the recognition of their peers) and is therefore not within the normal disciplines of IT developemt. If you tell a Linux developer their code is crap - or the application they have written is junk, they'll just walk. As they will if you ask them to do things they don't want to: such as write a manual, fix bugs, add (or remove) features.
Basically guys, this is as good as it gets. Live with it or go elsewhere.
Wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is a hobby system
So wait, what does this mean, exactly? It's a hobby system that's cute to fiddle with then turn it off when I want to do "real" work? Like working with a database system that holds hundreds of millions of rows, used every day? That's in an Oracle database, running on a Linux machine.
Is my Tivo a "hobby" system? Does TomTom only make "hobby" devices ("you didn't get where you're going? Oh well, you know it's just a hobby system, right?"). I guess I shouldn't expect much from the routers, phones, and other devices that have put Linux at the core of their stack. I mean, it's just a hobby, right?
So what is a "professional" system to you? Windows? Sure, it's used a lot of professional capacities, sure there's a lot of software available for it, but are you saying it's somehow more "professional" than Linux? Why is that? Because it's written by Microsoft? Is Microsoft somehow more professional than Oracle or IBM?
Your post is breathtaking in its ignorance, and I know I'm doing myself no favors by feeding the trolls, but *come* *on*...at least a descent job of flame baiting would latch on to some obvious, specific weakness and exploit it, rightly or wrongly. This is post is just raving.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what is a "professional" system to you?
Simple: one that is reliable, cheap (talking about TCO, not "free"ness[1]). Has the tools I need to produce high-quality output. Is integrated - so I can work quickly and efficiently. Is secure, so I can prevent unauthorised access to my resources. That I can rely on to support the hardware I need/want to use. Is well suported and documented - so I can easily find out how to use it. Is stable, so I have the confidence that in 3 or 5 years time, the same applications will work. Works well with the other syst
Re:Wait....what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows' "reliability" is questionable -- it's come a way since XP, but Vista isn't what I'd call reliable yet. And spare us the TCO garbage. One day of my trying to hunt down a missing dll and then resolving the conflicting versions, or scrubbing a salesperson's machine of yet another couple of trojans and viruses, outweighs the "productivity" gains from Microsoft's offering.
Is integrated - so I can work quickly and efficiently.
I have no idea what this means, and I suspect I'm not alone. Next "point".
Is secure, so I can prevent unauthorised access to my resources.
Oh, yeah, Windows is highly secure and never lets unauthorised persons crack it. I'm not even going to bother providing links on such a laughable statement.
That I can rely on to support the hardware I need/want to use.
Agreed, Windows is pretty good about that these days, but no better than a modern Linux distro, particularly something like Ubuntu. I also note that Ubuntu usually gets things right out of the box, whereas on any fresh Windows install I have to spend an extra hour or two hunting down drivers from manufacturer's websites, installing them, and cleaning up the party favors they leave behind. Even then I was never able to get my Creative soundcard working under Vista, though it worked fine in Ubuntu (and, to be fair, XP as well, so I have no idea what the deal is). I ended up having to use the onboard sound because I just couldn't get it to work.
Is stable, so I have the confidence that in 3 or 5 years time, the same applications will work.
"Stable" can mean a few things, but it's certainly not "stable" by your definition. Tell that to all the people who won't migrate from XP to Vista, because their applications won't function properly under Vista. I guess you could argue that they can continue running XP but the counterargument is that they're nine years behind the times.
"Stable" also means, to me, that the OS remains relatively cruft-free over time, and doesn't lose performance over time. Microsoft is among the first to tell you to reinstall the OS every so often because Windows is guaranteed to slow down over time, regardless of what you do or how well you try to manage it.
Works well with the other systems I interface with.
Windows works well with other Windows systems. It doesn't work well with anything else. If you're strictly an all-Windows shop, great, but some of us are trying to get real work done.
Complies with standards so they will continue to work together in the future.
What standards would those be, exactly? Microsoft's own that are followed by nobody else? Frankly, Microsoft can't even maintain compatibility with its own stuff -- documents written under previous versions of Office won't open properly in newer versions half the time for example, then they introduced this docx and xlsx crapola to break even their own "standards". Microsoft dragged its heels in supporting ODF and then offered a completely half-assed add-on solution. Their HTML and CSS compliance still sucks as far as I can tell. POSIX compliance is unavailable in any version of Vista except Ultimate, and is only sort-kinda acheived in Server 2003. The list goes on. "Microsoft" and "standards compliance" are almost mutually exclusive terms.
Maybe I've been trolled, but I just can't make sense of your statements.
Re:Wait....what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is my Tivo a "hobby" system? Does TomTom only make "hobby" devices ("you didn't get where you're going? Oh well, you know it's just a hobby system, right?"). I guess I shouldn't expect much from the routers, phones, and other devices that have put Linux at the core of their stack. I mean, it's just a hobby, right?
I thought we were discussing Linux on the desktop, not as an embedded OS ?
Re:not ready yet - and never will be (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're not using it now, you probably never will.
This prediction is incompatible with the current trend, which sees a (albeit slow) increase in the Linux marketshare. At least at present new people are migrating to the platform, and I see no reason why this slow migration will stop.
Basically guys, this is as good as it gets. Live with it or go elsewhere.
This is incompatible with the rather obvious advances that are being made in Linux all the time. With every release it is indeed getting better and better. It's getting better both in the "standard" ways (all operating systems are adding new features, etc.) and in the "catching up" ways (Linux is now easier to install than most other OS, and is almost as easy to configure via GUI for a novice...).
Linux is a hobby systyem. The code is donated mostly by amateurs
This misses that fact that many major components of the Linux ecosystem (including the kernel, servers, databases, the major office suite, etc.) are supported by companies. Many of the primary developers on these systems (ever heard of this guy called Linus?) are salaried employees.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How very peculiar. I take it those thousands of developers and designers are suddenly going to pack up and pick something else interesting to do today, leavign Linux to languish in its current state.
As another long term Linux user (I remember the call going out across the 'net to ask for input on Linus' little project, and quite a few of us at my Uni deciding to get our hands dirty with it), I've seen it grow. It seems to do it in true evolutionary style; nothing seems to change much for a period of time
Troll -1 (Score:5, Insightful)
The TFA is a worthless troll, even more so than usual in these "Linux is not ready for the desktop" Slashdot articles.
It has the usual list of ignorant complaints (oh no, there is a choice of distributions, boo hoo! oh no, there is a choice of GUI toolkits, boo hoo!), but some points stand out in their sheer stupidity.
"Bad security model: there's zero protection against keyboard keyloggers and against running malicious software (Linux is viruses free only due to its extremely low popularity). sudo is very easy to circumvent (social engineering). sudo still requires CLI (see clause 4.)"
Really?
Who admits these articles to the front page anyway?
Re:Troll -2 (Score:4, Insightful)
Upgrading is problematic (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know why I bother upgrading. They say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and in the case of Ubuntu that has proven to be the case every single time because something always breaks upon upgrade. This most recent upgrade to Jaunty completely disabled my ability to put my laptop to sleep because the screen now goes dark and I can't see what is happening and what is stopping it from sleeping. No matter what I do I can't get the screen to come back on, so the only recovery is a forced shutdown via the power button. Now I can only shut it down and reboot it - so much for uptime statistics!
Anyway, something always breaks. This is, however, not so different than any other operating system upgrade. Unless you have well tested hardware, that is nothing too bleeding edge new and nothing too old (e.g. my IBM T-30 laptop) then it is likely you will have some problems each time you upgrade. I know I have had my share of problems when going from Win98 to XP that a few internet searches easily resolved. I guess it also helps when you don't upgrade that often - it has been years since I have touched my Windows installation and yet every 6 months I am upgrading my Linux and bitching every time when something breaks. I should just leave the freakin' thing alone!!!
He has a slashdot button... (Score:4, Interesting)
In the last paragraph the author talks about implementations of SMB and AD (active directory?) not being available, then excludes samba. I with he would say why. Samba seems pretty good in that area.
In addition I would like to say that my wife's corolla is crap because it can't carry 1000 kilos of stuff the way my van does. Also the Boeing 747 is crap because it has a bigger radar cross section than a B2 stealth bomber.
Re:He has a slashdot button... (Score:4, Insightful)
...but insists that reproduction of any kind is prohibited without permission. So I won't quote from the article. I will just refer to it.
You might want to refer him to the concept of "fair use".
It could work on the desktop... (Score:3, Interesting)
...if the OSS community was as honest (and constructive) as this guy [lunduke.com] it might have a chance on the general-purpose desktop against Windows.
Karma be damned; I thought that despite the provocative headline, it was a really refreshing criticism of Linux on the desktop.
full article... before it gets slashdotted (Score:3, Informative)
Why Linux is not (yet) Ready for the Desktop
Preface:
In this document we only discuss Linux deficiencies while everyone should keep in mind that there are areas where Linux has excelled other OSes.
A primary target of this comparison is Windows OS.
Linux major shortcomings and problems:
0. Premise: proprietary software will stay indefinitely. Full stop. You may argue eternally, but complicated software like games, 3D applications, databases, CADs(Computer-aided Design), etc. which cost millions of dollars and years of man-hours to develop will never be open sourced. Software patents are about to stay forever.
1. No reliable sound system, no reliable unified software audio mixing, many (old or/and proprietary) applications still open audio output exclusively causing major user problems and headache.
1.1 Insanely difficult to set up volume levels, audio recording ... and in some situations even audio output.
1.2 Highly confusing, not self-explanatory mixer settings.
1.3 By default many distros do not set volume levels properly (no audio output/no sound recording).
2. X system:
2.1 No good stable standardized API for developing GUI applications (like Win32 API). Both GTK and Qt are very unstable and often break backwards compatibility.
2.2 Very slow GUI (except when being run with composite window managers on top of OpenGL).
2.3 Many GUI operations are not accelerated. No analogue of GDI or GDI+. Text antialiasing and other GUI operations are software rendered by GUI libraries (GTK->Cairo/QT->Xft).
2.4 Font rendering is implemented via high level GUI libraries, thus:
2.4.1 fontconfig fonts antialiasing settings cannot be applied on-the-fly.
2.4.2 Fonts antialiasing only works for certain GUI toolkits (see 2.1).
2.4.3 Default fonts (often) look ugly.
2.4.3.1 (Being resolved) By default most distros disable advanced fonts antialiasing.
2.4.3.2 By default most distros come without good or even compatible with Windows fonts.
2.5 No double buffering.
3. Problems stemming from the vast number of Linux distributives:
3.1 No unified configuration system for computer settings, devices and system services. E.g. distro A sets up networking using these utilities, outputting certain settings residing in certain file system locations, distro B sets up everything differently. This drives most users mad.
3.2 No unified installer across all distros. Consider RPM, deb, portage, tar.gz, sources, etc. It adds a cost for software development.
3.3 Many distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software. User should never be bothered with using ./configure && make && make installer. It should be possible to install any software by downloading a package and double clicking it (yes, like in Windows, but probably prompting for user/administrator password).
3.4 Applications development is a major PITA. Different distros can use a) different libraries versions b) different compiler flags c) different compilers. This leads to a number of problems raised to the third power.
4. It should be possible to configure everything via GUI which is still not a case for too many situations and operations.
5. Problems stemming from low linux popularity and open source nature:
5.1 Few software titles, inability to run familiar Windows software. (Some applications (which don't work in Wine) have zero Linux equivalents).
5.1.1 No equivalent of some hardcore Windows software like AutoCAD/3D Studio/Adobe Premier/Corel Painter/etc. Home and work users just won't bother installing Linux until they can work for real.
5.2 No games. Full stop. Cedega and Wine offer very incomplete support.
5.3 Incomplete or unstable drivers for some hardware. Problems setting up some hardware (like sound cards or TV tuners/Web Cameras).
5.3.1 A lot of WinPrinters do n
Re:full article... before it gets slashdotted (Score:4, Funny)
You even copied the "No reproduction of any kind is allowed without express permission by the author." This makes me smile for some reason.
Chicken and the Egg (Score:3, Interesting)
The driver problem is a variation of the chicken and the egg.
Linux is not a large part of the desktop market thus many manufacturers do not bother writing drivers for them. As a result every time a new piece of hardware comes out someone has to have that hardware (so they care) and then cobble a driver together for it. As a result some hardware is not supported (or poorly supported). Then people say Linux isn't desktop ready because the drivers aren't up to snuff. Repeat.
I'm not saying the complaint isn't valid but sadly there is little Linux can do about it (short of creating a new project to keep up with every piece of hardware known to man). Windows on the other hand doesn't have this problem as every manufacturer on the planet makes sure to include a driver for windows. Mac escapes this problem since it's a hardware company and says we only support Mac products. It's a very unfair setup and I'm not sure if there is a way to break the cycle.
Again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like we've had this exact argument a thousand times. This list at least makes mostly good points. But it still misses the mark many times. Particularly annoying is the absolutism in so many statements, like:
This is obviously false. There are games on Linux. Many are open sourced, and some commercials games are available on Linux (e.g. World of Goo). Now I wouldn't have argued if he had said "Very few games." But instead he tried to make his point punchier by being absolute... and this weakens his whole argument by introducing lies.
And as usual the author prefaces by mentioning that this is some sort of relative comparison with Windows, yet points out problems that exist with all operating systems, like "A galore of software bugs across all applications", or "huge shutdown time" (I've timed it on dual-boot systems and for me Kubuntu was faster than Windows XP. YMMV.) and "poor documentation" (does Windows come with an awesome manual I wasn't made aware of? No. For both Win and Linux you end up searching online. Both have tons of 3rd-party documentation.)...
And then there are kind nonsensical complaints like "don't allow you to easily set up a server with e.g. such a configuration: Samba, SMTP/POP3, Apache HTTP Auth and FTP where all users are virtual" Does Windows let you do this easily? The heading said that this was an analysis of whether Linux is ready for the Desktop and instead the author injects one of his pet-peeves about configuring Linux as a server?
And then there are spurious assumptions used to justify complaints, like "Linux is viruses free only due to its extremely low popularity". We've had this argument many times... undoubtedly the low market-share of Linux helps keep viruses off the platform. But there is also plenty of evidence that it is robust security-wise (e.g. infection rates for servers). At a minimum it's not the settled question the author implies.
I could go on and on. No doubt this thread will tear-apart other statements from TFA. It's too bad, because many of the points made are very much correct, and deserve attention. But it seems that whenever someone tries to compile lists such as this, they end up not only making good points about what needs work, but throwing in their own anecdotal annoyances and personal viewpoints, which muddies the whole argument...
Why OSX isn't ready for the desktop. (Score:5, Interesting)
I did my research and found a TV tuner that would work under Linux so that I could run MythTV. How many tuner cards work with OSX? Linux is not Windows, but it doesn't mean it's not ready for the desktop.
Apple puts together hardware that works with their OS and now Dell and other OEM's are doing the same with Linux. If you want to run either Linux or OSX on older hardware you have lying around be prepared to hack (although much less with Linux). If you want to build a system from scratch, do your homework first and buy compatible parts.
I stopped reading halfway through. Its a troll. I could say Windows isn't ready for the desktop because there are no CLI utilities or scripting languages built in.
If you want to do something in batch like resize and auto-rotate a bunch of digital camera pictures you need to search for and download a program that does exactly what you want and hopefully not get a virus.
With linux, you whip up a little script that runs jhead -autorot and convert -resize.
A lot of times you need to do something specialized each time. Having a full blown GUI for each occasion doesn't make sense and neither does having something that is so extremely configurable because it would ultimately be complicated and confusing and still wouldn't handle the 5% of the corner cases.
The developers are not end users (Score:5, Interesting)
In my opinion, one of the biggest hurdles keeping Linux our of the domestic desktop market is the developers apparently can't put themselves in the shoes of the average user. In my personal experience they tend to hold the end user in contempt, but I realize that this is a fairly small sample of the community...
Like it or not, Windows and OSX have set standards for interface and functional transparency. It may not sit well with developers that they can't micromanage what the OS is doing, but the average user just doesn't give a shit and is unwilling if not incapable of tweaking the OS to accomplish otherwise simple tasks.
It needs to "just work." If you need to use the command line, it's broken for desktop use. If you need to manually edit a file, it's broken for desktop use. If an essential component for some software is not included and must be installed and configured separately, it's broken for desktop use. (That last one is a big, big problem for Linux!)
For all the faults Microsoft has with their software, at least they did the research and learned how Joe Shmoe uses a computer and designed to the lowest common denominator. That's how they ended up on top.
=Smidge=
Re:The developers are not end users (Score:5, Insightful)
the average user just doesn't give a shit and is unwilling if not incapable of tweaking the OS to accomplish otherwise simple tasks.
Absolutely. You've hit the nail right on the head. 95% of users out there are not going to RTFM, will not open the command prompt, and will not edit a config file. Not because they're stupid, or lazy - but because it's not their job. And the sooner developers realize this, the better.
It's not a question of "how can we make the stupid users figure out that 1% of the application experience so we don't have to code a step-by-step GUI configuration util for it?", it's a question of "how do we understand that the secretary/doctor/lawyer/manager *expects* the machine to work just like every other machine in his/her universe?".
The problem is not that the average office user / home user is stupid. The problem is that they're used to their coffee-maker, microwave, fax machine, and calculator being 100% operational out-of-the-box, and the computer should not be any different.
There is a significant difference in the mentality of Joe Q. User and Jim Q. Developer when it comes to the question of what's acceptable in a computer application, and until we IT professionals suspend our hubris for a minute and try to work out a solution that "just plain works", we'll keep running into the same brick wall and wondering why it's still there.
Of course, this is IMHO, YMMV, and so on.
P.S. Someone mentioned a dearth of audio software for Linux. Here's a small list: http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/sound_and_music/59815/#habracut [habrahabr.ru]
Google Transation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhabrahabr.ru%2Fblogs%2Fsound_and_music%2F59815%2F%23habracut&sl=ru&tl=en&history_state0= [google.com]
Seriously, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
But why are Linux enthusiasts hoping for a future of Linux on the Desktop (TM)?
I mean, I am the one of the mystic, claimed-by-some-to-be-nonexistent "Linux-exclusive" users you've heard of, and I like it with a passion. However I don't understand why people like me are busy trying to push Linux to the Joe Q. Users. Is it because that a Linux future must be better than something else? But how do we know for sure? Even if we were, then why should we be pushing it for some global acceptance?
And yes, I know the technical advantages of Linux that could be beneficial to average users. I know the ideals for which Linux claims to stand and I think they are fine, but on the other hand something being fine doesn't necessarily imply that we should be pushing it everywhere. You may want to share your joyful experience with your new shiny $DISTRO desktop but everyone has his/her own definition of joyfulness.
In other words, I value a future of Everyone Happy with His/Her Own Fucking Favorate Operating System far greater than one of "Linux on the Desktop". It's all about choice, huh? We are supposed to be the more technical-savvy group so we should have understood our own needs (which means I need what I need but I don't necessarily need what $BIG_GREED_CORPORATION tells me to need), AND that ours are not necessarily shared by others, right?
Thanks for listening to my rant. I apology for the time I made you wasted in reading this post.
Getting there, but not there yet. (Score:5, Insightful)
On the desktop,in the last couple of years especially, Ubuntu has driven it a long way forwards, and I enjoy trying each new release. But several fundamental things still don't work well enough and the help when things go wrong is still fairly awful.
Printing - still too hard to get up and running.
Wifi connectivity - my laptop 'just works' for any required length of time with a solid Wifi connection in Windows at home, but in several distros of Linux it has to re-establish a connection every couple of minutes.
Battery life on laptops still sucks relative to both XP and Windows 7.
Suspend/resume, and Hibernation/resume. In Windows I just fold the laptop and *know* it will close down cleanly, and come back when I open it. USB, sound, video - all will still be working when it comes back. Not so in Linux.
Yes, I as a computer user and engineer of over 20 years experience can get Ubuntu to work for me. But it's just too hard to be worthwhile. And it's a shame, but I certainly can't recommend the technophobe people I support (family, friends) switch to Linux as things are.
Printing not there yet? Are you joking? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect what you are really saying is that it is hard to get the cut price "designed for Windows" printers to work. Well, surprise! You can't blame a non-Windows OS for not supporti
Well, allow me to retort... (Score:4, Informative)
OK, so let's deconstruct this point by point. I've left one or two points out where I have no specific comments.
0. Premise: proprietary software will stay indefinitely. Full stop. You may argue eternally,
but complicated software like games, 3D applications, databases, CADs(Computer-aided Design),
etc. which cost millions of dollars and years of man-hours to develop will never be open sourced.
Software patents are about to stay forever.
Bold predictions indeed. True, I think proprietary software will remain, particularly in the vertical market; however a certain segment of software will become commoditised (arguably some of it already has been) and therefore users will expect it to be free or priced lower than cost.
1. No reliable sound system, no reliable unified software audio mixing, many (old or/and proprietary) applications still open audio output exclusively causing major user problems and headache.
1.1 Insanely difficult to set up volume levels, audio recording ... and in some situations even audio output.
1.2 Highly confusing, not self-explanatory mixer settings.
1.3 By default many distros do not set volume levels properly (no audio output/no sound recording).
Couldn't agree more here. ALSA has improved audio in a few areas but in all other aspects, from a user perspective it has only made things more difficult. Someone else commented recently on Slashdot regarding the BSD approach to this problem, it sounds like they have done a lot better by staying with/improving OSS. I really wish someone would stand up and take charge of improving Linux's core audio infrastructure instead of putting band-aids like PulseAudio on top.
2.1 No good stable standardized API for developing GUI applications (like Win32 API). Both GTK and Qt are very unstable and often break backwards compatibility.
I'm not sure this is really as bad as is made out. In between major releases, Qt and Gtk both take backwards compatibility very seriously. Qt at least is a commercial product, they have a commitment to maintain compatibility.
2.2 Very slow GUI (except when being run with composite window managers on top of OpenGL).
Too general to respond to - can hardly be true for all machines.
2.3 Many GUI operations are not accelerated. No analogue of GDI or GDI+. Text antialiasing and other GUI operations are software rendered by GUI libraries (GTK->Cairo/QT->Xft).
I thought that was the point of Cairo... ? Not my area of expertise though.
2.5 No double buffering.
No explanation of how this is relevant to an end user.
3.1 No unified configuration system for computer settings, devices and system services. E.g. distro A sets up networking using these utilities, outputting certain settings residing in certain file system locations, distro B sets up everything differently. This drives most users mad.
Honestly I don't think the average user is really going to care where a configuration tool stores its settings as long as it works; only a power user or developer would. Of course it would be nice if people would use the same tools. However, although it's taken quite some time to work in all situations, NetworkManager has vastly improved network configuration ease of use and has been adopted by many distributions.
3.2 No unified installer across all distros. Consider RPM, deb, portage, tar.gz, sources, etc. It adds a cost for software development.
True, but arguably as far as the packaging alone is concerned, if you target RPM and deb you're going to cover most of the distributions that actually matter to end users.
3.3 Many distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software. User should never be bothered with using ./config
Deja Vu All over Again (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot has been running "Is Linux Ready For The Desktop?" stories pretty much forever. We could go back several years and find threads saying pretty muh the same things.
The question is wrong. It isn't so much "Is Linux Ready for the Big Dance?" as it is "Is Anyone Gonna Ask Linux to the Big Dance?" For instance, while it may or may not be the fault of Linux that most hardware vendors do not provide linux drivers, the fact is that they don't. If someone can't use their hardware with Linux, pointing the finger of blame isn't going to make that hardware work.
Linux lacks many (most?) of the commercial products used by other platforms. Why? Because the perception exists that Linux users won't buy commerical products. Whether that perception is accurate is irrelevant.
My own take: The more tightly an OS is associated with a specific hardware platform, the eaier it is for that vendor to control the quality and reliability of the users' experience. Due to the nature of its development culture, Linux stands farther away from hardware platforms than do Windows and, obviously, OS X. The Unix-y ability to Linux to run on many hardware flavors is a double-edged sword.
A simple metric for Linux on the desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
At the time, I estimated that we were around the 50% mark toward that goal (lots of missing device drivers, buggy OpenOffice, no high-quality equivalent tools for photo editing, page layout, video editing, and much more). In short, anyone using a Linux desktop would need to have another machine to accomplish these other tasks.
In recent weeks, I have installed SLED 11, openSuse 11.1, Fedora 10, and Ubuntu 9.04 on several netbooks, notebooks, and boxes. My goal (once again) was to make one of these systems my everyday workhorse machine, one that I could recommend to friends and family for all of their computing tasks. While the situation is much improved from three years ago, we are still quite a way from reaching that elusive 100% goal. For myself and my family, I would guess that we are in the 80's, but gamers would give a much lower score.
Installation and setup is vastly improved. The desktop layouts, particularly GNOME, are reasonably familiar to users of other platforms. Individual applications, notably OpenOffice and Firefox, have come a long way. The usability of system update mechanisms ranges from the smooth (Ubuntu) to the challenging (SuSE). (Development tools are outstanding, but that isn't the issue here.)
However, I had to install restricted drivers to make wireless work, had to install commercially licensed Flash to be able to view many websites, and still found myself without programs for video editing, page layout, and photo editing that compared well with their commercial counterparts (e.g., Scribus vs. MS Publisher or Pages). Watching commercial DVDs occasionally required the use of terminal commands to download and install software, not to mention the associated legal issues. Webcams and microphones were unreliable at best, making it impossible to do video chat or broadcasting (e.g. uStream) with web-based applications.
So I renew the challenge to make it possible for average computer users to do 100% of their work using open source software. That means moving development efforts up from the operating system and infrastructure level to concentrate on creating high quality, easily used applications. That also rules out using WINE or VirtualBox to run proprietary apps.
Let's create personas and scenarios for different types of users, identify their needs, and build the needed applications and drivers. Let's also continue to push device makers to supply Linux drivers. Let's find a workable solution for Flash and SWF-based web content. (Gnash isn't quite there.) In that way, we can make some progress toward that magic 100% number that would allow people to do all of their computing on a Linux desktop.
Wine doesn't run everything (Score:3, Insightful)
Zero games? Tell that to World of Warcraft, which seems to work fine for me on Ubuntu, straight out of the box, through wine.
The article states that Wine does not run every popular video game designed for Windows. You just got lucky in your choice of games; families with children clamoring for a specific incompatible title don't have that luxury.
Re:Wine doesn't run everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wine doesn't run everything (Score:4, Interesting)
While I also play WoW under Wine and agree it works reasonably well, I have to ask a simple question.
One reason WoW works reasonably under Wine is that it will use OpenGL and is not tied to DirectX. Many of the WoW developers are actually using Macs so the application could not be dependent on DirectX. And yet, there is no native Linux client produced for it, only native for Mac OS X and Windows.
As popular as the game is, and knowing it can run on a *nix variant, Blizzard still won't produce a native Linux client. So why do you suppose that is?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Neither does Windows, in an annoyingly large number of cases.
Re:Some of it is dubious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1999 called, they want their article back (Score:5, Insightful)
1999 called, they want to know what percentage of desktop users are using Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every time I install Windows, it takes three or four hours to complete setup - install drivers, install patches, install cygwin, MS office and whatsoever, restore backup data, and I'm ready to work.
Every time I install Linux, it takes three or four days to complete setup - install Linux, install packages, change font configurations because the default rendering is so ugly, search on the net to figure out how I can get (insert some hardware here) working on my PC, search on the net to figure out why my PC do
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA:
12. Bad security model: there's zero protection against keyboard keyloggers and against running malicious software (Linux is viruses free only due to its extremely low popularity). sudo is very easy to circumvent (social engineering). sudo still requires CLI (see clause 4.).
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that one. Linux is viruses free BECAUSE of its security model! A program you run from the web will NOT change your root settings! If you get "infected" because you got the "I want to see the dancing bunnies" syndrome, you can still log in as root and fix your infected user account. Yes, an infected user will NOT infect other users!
Try that with Windows.
"sudo still requires CLI". Yes, but we have gksu and kdesu. I've been using it for years.
It's not the model that's wr
If not Ubuntu, then what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Very little. Not just because TINC, but because those who wold speak up for Linux know better than to equate Linux with Ubuntu.
Then with what distribution of Linux-for-the-desktop should the promoters of Linux-for-the-desktop equate Linux-for-the-desktop? If not Ubuntu, then what?
Re:The main reason (Score:5, Informative)
Mind you, I've used linux here and there since the 1.3 kernel (slackware then), and I've tried out just about every version of Ubuntu. This is the first time it stays in use.
Some things in TFA make me wonder though, like "Enterprise: no standard way of software distribution". How hard is it to set up a local repository(-ies), from where workstations get updates?
Finally, the next time someone posts and article about Linux and the desktop, please be clear which desktop we're talking about. This article seems to talk about all of them at once.
Re:The main reason (Score:4, Informative)
I strongly recommend you try Wine Doors [wine-doors.org] if you haven't already.
It's probably not included in the default installation because I think you have to have a Windows license to install some of the DLLs and such (then again, who doesn't have a couple of those sitting around?)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Solitaire doesn't count :)
Your argument for the fact that "there ARE games for Linux" is that there ARE games for linux. Are there cool games for Linux? I doubt it. Look at the most pirated games [google.com]... how many of them run on Linux? Why the hell would I install Linux if I can't play my favorite games? The coolest things about PCs is that you can use them to play games!
I like your shiny bullet list. Here's mine (I hope you haven't patented it already):