Slashdot Mirror
SuSe CEO: 'Linux Still Not Ready for the Desktop'
A lot of people have been submitting the interview with SuSe CEO Roland Dyroff, in which he states the Linux is not ready for the desktop. Sounds bad, right? Well, if you read the interview, it makes much more sense - he talks about company adoptions of Linux, but also addreses issues of hardware drivers and such. But with the upcoming release of the GUI Managers and the rising number of pre-installed Linux boxen, I think we're getting closer.
I used to use Windows, then I dual booted with Win95 and Linux. I found myself using Linux so much I deleted my Win95 partition, and replaced it with BeOS. Lately, I've been using BeOS so much, I hardly ever touch Linux. I went from Red Hat to Open Linux to SuSE and now Mandrake (holy shit Mandrake 7 is actually pretty good _I_hated_5.x thru 6.x)
I've tried programming in both X and Win32 GDI. In terms of architectural elegance and ease of programming, X wins hands-down. However, that said, the standard Linux desktop applications are simply horrible from the perspective of a user, in terms of both stability and features. X is a powerful and elegant windowing system, but it is possible to write bad software with it too.
Of course my desktop is ready for Linux.
I've installed Exceed, after all. It's as ready for Linux as any machine running Windows 2000 ever will be!
But sorry, I elected to install FreeBSD instead, on my X-app server. It's really nice.
I think that ease of use if the biggest issue for Linux. It's infinitely more configurable than Windows and/or the Macintosh, but it's not a simple OS to use. Until it's simple to setup, until configuration is relatively easy, and until cutting-and-pasting between applications is seemless, I don't believe that the average user will want it for a desktop OS. Personally, I'll stick with FrameMaker, Quantrix, and OPENSTEP on my Turbo NeXT station.
As a side note, I've not seen a big reliability difference between Linux and Windows. I've been running NT for over 2 years and have only experienced two BSODs (both due to hardware failures). OTOH, a friend has a Linux box that he crashed daily. Yes, it's anecdotal evidence, but so is the "Windows crashes 3-5 times a day" statement (which I HAVE experienced with both '95 and '98).
>Sometimes I wonder if some of you actually USE Linux.
I do (somewhat *NIX and C literate) and my girlfriend does (not *NIX literate and frankly does not care). SuSE 6.3 on a legacy Pentium that we would have had to recycle. I know that there is stuff going on in that box that I should know more about, but as long as it runs and we can back up the important data, I am not going to sweat it. Works most of the time. Netscape is going to hose the system at some point in time I am quite sure, but otherwise things are smooth. Surfing, writing emails and word processing/spreadsheets (Star...) and printing. Installing the printer was a pain, but it does what it is told now. It is ready for our desktop
Now if only we had a single API for object interaction. I'm sick of not being able to drag from KFM to Gnome apps or to my windowmaker doc *sigh*
The best os/2ish combo I've found to date is KFM + windowmaker. Or try DFM if you don't need all the URL stuff that KFM offers.
It's complicated to say "how to think *nix"... I've been using *nixes for over ten years now, and I can do it... I think the most important point is to know HOW the OS works. Not just what it does, but the nuts and bolts... For that, something like Andrew Tanenbaums book on Operating System Design and Implementation is a good starting point... And this is the sort of thing that the average user won't want to do... But when was the last time an average user, or even an experienced user saw a windows error message and said to themselves "I understand that... It's obviously failing because..." They generally don't, they put it down to broken software and reboot. To say where to start troubleshooting your mysql problem is a little bit weirder. Firstly, you should probably try running strace on the process, and seeing what it's doing when it barfs. It sounds like it might hate a configuration option. If it reads one in then barfs that is your problem. I hope this helps
Why do people keep saying that Linux is not ready for the desktop? I'd say windows isn't ready for the desktop. Neither it nor macintosh come close to linux running window maker. It the way the icons work make it alot more intuitive, its clean and small, and fast. There are more than enough apps (lyx & staroffice, nedit, Eterm, xmms, gimp, on and on). It never crashes, and when it does, the rest of my system survives.
yep. soon it will be ready for mass consumption.
I'm not a advocate (for gnome or kde). The fact remains: I have not been able to crash any one of them for a long time. Let's kill the rumor that gnome is unstable, becuse it's not.
It is? You can copy/paste text between everything (except things that can't select it n the first place).
Well, I just copied the above text, and pasted it into the message box just fine, but then I started up kedit and hit paste and nothing happened. So then I typed something in kedit, copied it, went back to netscape, hit paste, and it pasted the above text a second time, not what I had copied in kedit.
Even if it did work correctly it's still fucked up in that you can't use control-insert to copy and shift-insert to paste in many programs. It will work in Netscape, but only if you remember to use the left control, pressing right-control-insert will lock it up.
And I'd understand the right-alt being a meta-key if only this meta-key actually did something.
Linux not yet ready for the desktop? Wasn't that obvious the whole time? Tell us something we don't know.
Insightful, did the moderators that voted for this article run Linux?
//begin rebuttal
I actually USE Linux. I am neither a student or a scientist. For me Linux isn't great and powerful it's stable and flexible. I can click on a PDF and have it open in my choice of applicationsl I find copy and paste in Linux much simpler than I did in Windows. Although there is no OLE. I have a choice of 3 printer drivers in Linux for my printer. And I could have quite a few spools for my printer if I saw fit to do so. "breath"
I can actually go on and on myself! Linux has quite a bit for someone willing to look around some. Aa few things I do on my Linux system include word process, I have a few of those on my system. Surf the web, I have a few browsers on my system. Listen to Real Audio, I hear they are finally porting the newer stuff. I don't have Microsoft Outlook Email I'll have to muddle by with Sendmail. I'm not a Smooth Fonts user and I've never met one. Although I have my choice of about 4 ttf font servers.
I don't have Windows installed, I don't play games. I use my computer as a tool, maybe that's why Linux and I get along so well? I speak for no one but myself.
BTW just because Netscape crashes it doesn't bring down my whole system I can simply xkill it and restart it.
//end rebuttal
Look you want to play games go right ahead and run Wintendo. Really I think that you'd be better served by a good gaming console though in the long run. Once you decide that what you do on your conputer is too important to be interrupted by a system failure though I suggest you seriousy consider an alternative OS. Linux is one of a number of choices.
Well at the last LinuxWorld Expo that I went to Hewlett Packard was there in a big way with a large kiosk, and there I saw that they have a rather large website dedicated to Linux now. Although they did make a few crappy WINprinters that only work in Windows. If you have one of those shame on you!
And yeah the more you learn about Linux it does get sweeter and sweeter. Take the money you'll save by not buying WIN2k and get a new printer that is supported by the OS. Always check the hardware compatibility HOWTO before layinng down the money. Any manufacturer that can support Linux knows how to support their product. YOu'll find them competent under any platform.
Im a electrical-software engineer that writes real-time embedded software for our company's small instrumentation on Linux. Im using Linux because of it's technical merits in this area, but Im embaressed by some my fellow Linux users.
Let me just say it: Many of the "pushers" of Linux are freckle faced, pompuous, arrogent, insecure, immature little nerd-geek, powerless, never-been-laid, dictator wannabes [whew] that areent going to win you many converts.
Most of this sort seem to be sysadmins, tech support people, and programmer wannabes who think they are part of a "sophisticated" class of computer user because they use Linux and other people arent as "enligthted" as they are.
Heres some attitudes (in quotes) my responses:
"The "average Joe" user is too "dumb" to use Linux"
Response 1) There not "dumb", they just have other priorities. They want to plug in a digital camera and download and print pictures, NOT edit config files with vi or emacs, write programs, and learn what makes operating systems tick.
Response 2) Maybe the UI programmers arent "smart" enough to design an interface that a these types of people can use easily.
"Everything about "Winblows" sucks"
Response 1) Yeah, except that you can a) Play the latest games b) Get software that will never come out on Linux c) Have an standard, easy to use Desktop
Response 2) From Sales 101 (a lesson never learned by Amiga and OS2 folk) : You will almost never convert people to a new tool by insulting the tool that they use. When you insult someones tools, you are indirectly insulting them for using them, plus you come off looking like a pompous ass :)
"We only want "sophisticated" users in our "community"
Response 1) Fine then dont whine when developers wont port software because of the market share. After all, your little group of "sophisticated" users is not a significant portion of the market.
"XXX did something we dont like, lets "slashdot" them"
Response 1) If you want "Linux" associated with "Terrorism" then fine.
Now, im sure not all Linux users have these attitudes, but a very vocal minority seems to...
Thoughts?
Well, for Word/Excel 100% compatibility you need Windows 98 (Not 95, not NT, not 200 - 98), and the exact version of Office that the document producer was using (right down to having the same office assistant)
For the other things, they should be encluded with GNOME. Look for a scheduler/calender as:
CNN is asking: "Do you have Linux running on your desktop computer?"
Then you better go catch it!
I hate getting crankcalled by CNN...
Just a little comment. Eazel is currently working on the new file/ftp/... manager for gnome, nautilus. Don't confuse gnome with eazel.
If I'm going to be responsible for keeping a bunch of workstations, run by a bunch of novices running happily I would much rather be able to lock down the OS. The novice doesn't need to futz with sysadmin and should have no capacity to fubar themselves.
Windows is the ultimate "let your end users fubar themselves" OS.
Nevermind the fact that I can remotely admin a Unix box from ANYwere so long as it's still connected to the net.
I don't have to worry about trying to communicate to an end user about certain visual widgets that might not be where expected, or not there at all. I also don't have to worry about their lack of diagnostic skills. I can just do it all myself: short and sweet, from the comfort of my own office.
www.berlin-consortium.org/
One thing for certain, ESR isn't Noah Webster.
Who cares what the Jerkin' File says?
They can't even get 'cracker' right. Probably because while the crackers were defeating copy-protection schemes for fun and profit, the people involved with the Jargon File were changing the ribbons on their Teletype or DecWriter.
Leave it to the Lemming brigade to find the single weakest way to criticize KDE rather than stating something of substance. If you've got something resembling a detailed critique of KDE (or any of the other Desktops), but all means blurt it out.
Although, you are likely just repeating someone else's bad rhetoric.
I have heard it said that Star Schedule from StarOffice is _very_ good groupware. And that Exchange is horrid beast that can be economically and much more reliably replaced with HP's OpenMail.
I am just repeating stuff I've read--not an expert opinion.
"XFree86 4.0: This will make hardware accelerated 3D under Linux much faster. Unfortunately, there are still only like 3 chipsets that support hardware 3D under Linux, so I hardly think this is going to springboard Linux into the gaming market that it is still so crucially lagging in. " You forget that Macs made a huge rebound in gaming with only a single decent hardware 3D chip (Rage128), which still wasn't all that good. I know quite a few people who would switch to linux if they could just play Quake3 and UT at decent framerates. Somehow, the draw of not crashing just can't overcome the need to rail...
Not to strange though. It emululates the hardware... So you get Linux + windows + some additional stuff, simply put...
> I am glad though that someone is *DE-HYPING* Linux.
I agree. It's far from the ultimate solution for all people. You still have to know a lot more about hardware/os/... than joe user, to use it. Linux have however made great leaps for the desktop user since i started using it (kernel 1.something...).
Tell that to developers, hardware manufactutors and gamers. By the time the PS2 is released here, PC's will have about caught up. 6 Months later, the PS2 will look old, and we'll laugh about it's lack of anti-aliasing, lousy fill-rate, and mediocre triangle rate. By then, we'll have XFree86 4.0 and we'll just chuckle as those who play on the miserble low-res crap called a TV.
Of course that doesn't begin to touch on the problems you see when many backgrounded apps are loaded into Windows conventional memory pool. You know the amazing phenomenon of adding gobs o' ram to a machine that's slow and getting no general speed up of Explorer.exe--the machine is swapping just to display the top-level components of "My Computer" with a PII 350 and 128 megs of ram. If most Winlusers had that shit explained to them, they'd be alot less impressed with Bill "Invented Internet" Gates and his turd-minions in Redmond. "You mean to tell me that no matter HOW MUCH ram I buy for this machine, those startup apps are going to keep it this slow ???? 'Fraid so, sir. "Whut kin ah do about it ?? Them apps won't install any other way!" Well you can stop buying shitty MS operating systems and believing everything you read in ads, ...sir.
Those are not a real security issues on the regular desk top environment. The root/su set permission for those are nothing but a hassels.
Also, auto mounting and unmounting of dev are must have features; again, without getting root/su involved.
Then, a lot of the stuff should not be installed by default, like all the windows managers...It's too much. Who needs more than one windows manager, really? Do you think most SOHO needs to install the whole inetd and sendmaild in order to use e-mail?
Sounds/graphics supports should be compiled into the kernel by default, as well as optimized for 586 and up processor. Let's face it, old 486 with 8 MB RAM are rather useless other than being used as router/firewall for SOHO.
Don't get me wrong, I'm using Linux 100% already, and wish Linux all the lucks, especially SuSE Linux, my favorite distro for a long time.
I also hope SuSE will leave out the German language stuff from the N. America distribution. As well as fixing Yast2.
But the default/basic security is a GREAT idea from SuSE.
No one will read this, but I have noticed the last few months that the 'news' posted here is getting rather stale... I used to see stuff posted here just about the same time as other sites, but now it seems to be a 1 or 2 day lag or so... We need to get a 'FRESH news for nerds...' site going
Great, all we need are MORE idiots who think that LINUXCONF and SWAT are cool.
When Windows desktops implode, the sysadmins must trot down to where the smoke is coming from and unfuck things. That means you need MORE sysadmin staff on salary and they're spending time in situ where they can fix ONLY ONE problem at a time. Now let's think about that bearing in mind the frequency w/ which user=root sytems implode vs. user=user; root=root systems.
Whichever system can CONVINCE management that it offers truly the lowest cost of ownership, all things considered, should be the responsible choice going forward. I can't see that there's much of an argument on TCO frankly given the stable, secure, free beer nature of linux. Altough I'll grant that there's any number of ways the responsible choice can be DENIED, INVEIGLED, && OBFUSCATED, by slick well-funded marketting.
Whether a Linux based solution can meet all needs of a company for their corporate desktop is a different question, and one which isn't something that can be laid at the feet of Linux developers and distros really. The apps either suit you or they don't. If you're requuirement for an office suite is that it says MS Office2000 on the outside and has a dancing paperclip on the inside, well yeah you're going to be finding that Linux doesn't measure up. If on the other hand you haven't pledged your plump, pink behind in troth to Microsoft, then you'll find you can probably do well going with StarOffice or maybe Corel soon and start saving your money on the OS licenses at the desktop and server, the office suite, and the maintenance. If nothing else you can rest easy knowing there isn't a gun pointed at your head that will CERTAINLY be cocked and loaded sometime w/in 12 months as you enter the next mandatory upgrade death march.
When a company rolls out desktops based on Linux they're not going to be exactly the way they looked to you when you installed them from a Redhat cd or other. They'll burn their own cd based on customized install and configuration, and kickstart that across the network.
Corel is "nice looking" and hides complexity, Redhat, otoh, doesn't bother to hide complexity from you....You can't find a way to be happy with that array of options??? Wait, Wait, you left out, "Debian makes it too stinkin' simple to install new packages" Maybe you need to be told what you need by an authority like Steve M. Ballmer, but I'm betting that companies are going to start reviewing the desktop question and deciding it's a *solved problem* for which they no longer need to shell out ever larger tranches of USD to get the same functionality, plus a little tweak here and there, whilst tying themsleves in knots reimplementing ..
Honestly, 99% of the stability issues come in when admins do not do their job. Ergo, when Linux becomes desktop popular it will be the OS of crash, considered unstable, etc. because the level of sys admins combined with the number of installed apps will serve to do the inevitable -- any OS will crash when admin'ed wrong.
HI I'M NEW HERE, JUST FOUND THE PAGE FROM AOL YOU KNOW. ANYWAY I WAS WONDERING SINCE THIS IS A HELP SITE COULD GUYS TELL ME HOW TO KEEP MY MOM FROM SEDUCING ME. SHE DOES IT ALL THE TIME AND IT IS REALLY ANNOYING. I DON'T WANT TO FUCK UP AND DOWN MY ROOM ANYMORE. CAN YOU HELP???
Joe the shipping manager could install Litestep on W98 and as IT manager there wouldn't be much you could do to stop him. Actually you gain control and efficiency using Linux as long as you're not giving Joe root. He's a nice guy and all, but really he just wants to get his stuff done and won't be needing root for that.
Talk to Bynari Systems. They have an exchange client.
...that doesn't require special libraries (Motif/Lesstif, Qt, and GTK) just to do decent widgets, and so on.
You are missing the point of X! Motif, Qt and GTK are not 'special' libraries. They are the implementation of the USER INTERFACE. What are you proposing really? We should dump X and start from scratch, and build what, X? Or some kind of Windows clone that doesn't really buy us anything, except that we can say that it's not X and that it's fresh new code?! I have true-type fonts working just fine in my X setup.
It does graphics in the kernel, which is dangerous, and fast.
<p>Graphics aren't anything particularly special and there's no reason why it's particularly "dangerous" for have them anywhere in the system if proberly implemented. Also user space can be as fast as kernel, FWIW
Well I have to admit that Gnome became much ...
more stable with October Gnome --
it only crashes once a day now and reboots have
become very rare, too
Go kill yourself, you ignorant cosmopolitian selfish individualist little coward.
Wait til you have a bunch of shit loaded on your Windows system that wants to load "handles' into the conventional memory pool. Many, many people have seen their "screamer" PII's turn into shitbawxen overnight because their preferred apps are gumming up the works with invisible handles loaded from the frickin registry--and not even from startup folder where they could find it and do something. Nothing about this in the so-called MS help mshtml--& no fucking wonder !!! Whereas a Linux install on the same machine will stay relatively unchanged in its apparent speed even as diskusage heads towards the high side of 90% THIS I have seen with my own eyes.
What you see when you observe that Windows is "faster" is the fact that Windows puts the video drivers in the kernel, which makes it draw really fast, ask yourself if that performance is "free of charge', though. If it draws fast, what other thing might be getting starved for CPU? Along with other possible problems, video drivers in the kernel make the fast drawing Windows box crash really fast too.
The X server you've seen is not accelerated, i take it, and your box is lofi which makes X drawing really slow. To take machines of my personal experience, a k6-2 350, a PII 350 and a K6-3 450 with Riva TNT servers (also unaccelerated) are "fast enough", but they're about to get a shitload faster. When XFree86 4.0 comes out, if your card is supported the apparent speed of your desktop will improve greatly. If it's not supported, you may want to find one that is.
Ever read "The Inmates Are Running The Asylum?" Well, one of the premises of this book is that programmers just suck at writing interfaces. That other people besides programmers in software companies should create them (QA, Tech Support, Implementation, etc.) Programmers are very good at thinking the way the computer does, and this makes them inherently bad at thinking in human terms.
I've found this to be quite true. The more reclusive and socially retarded the programmer, the worse the interface is. We are called "geeks" for a reason. There are VERY few truly intuitive interfaces. The most significant of them being web browsers. Everyone seems to understand them. Is this a function of their simplicity, or the fact that the web is one of the only truly useful computer resources? I have no idea.
Another premise of the book is this. That interfaces must be created before a line of code is written. Why? Because getting programmers to change working code for mere usability reasons is not really going to happen. Working code is pretty much set in stone.
As for Linux being ready for the desktop? We're back to this inane discussion where a bunch of programmers and SysAdmins tell us some uselessly obscure and anecdotal tales about where Linux works as a desktop? Get a fucking grip man! Get out of your fucking programming cave and take a look around!
I think Linux geeks really underestimate Microsoft here, as Windows just destroys Linux on the desktop. Linux doesn't even have a decent web browser yet! Or any applications worth a fuck. Believe me I've dreamed for days about having a M$ free desktop, but it's not happening any time soon.
Win2k Pro has been scarily good for me, and I'm going to stick with the superiour product despite my OS Religious tendencies towards *BSD, and sometimes Linux. I think Linux geeks need a serious dose of reality and humilty here, because this whole issue really is hilarious to me.
X on Linux is basically a toy at this stage of the game. The fact is users just are barely staying afloat as it is. I'd hate to see what would happen if Windows was taken away from them. Believe it or not, adding something like AOL would probably do wonders for the Linux desktop!
My guess is that M$ is going to dominate the desktop for as long as the PC remains a valid idea. The "information appliance" market is wide open however, and Linux has potential to really clean up there. The irony is that with this scenario most users will never even know that they are using Linux. They won't need to care, as it should be!
Yes, Corel Linux!!! It is designed for Windows users. Anyone who has doubts about Linux for desktops should take a look at Corel Linux.
Frankly I can't understand the logical structure of your last question. how to make a disjunctive cinjuction of two expressions which are essentially identical?
My only problem with this argument is that if the average Linux user is a fair bit better with computers then Joe Q Public and the average Linux developer is a LOT better then Joe Q Public.. Why the hell is Joe Q Public the target audience all of a sudden?
Joe Q Public is a term used by both the companies that want to sell Linux and the people who just want to destroy M$. But are we ever going to appeal to JQU? When the OS is written by hobbyists for hobbyists? By hackers for hackers?
It's not like anyone can steer the direction of Linux. Well, I shouldn't say that. Companies like Red Hat, hiring hackers to make Gnome.. That's steering Linux in a way. But at the same time, it's still a level above the competition in complexity and configurability. Why? Because Joe Q User isn't who's downloading and installing it.
Sorry for my lack of point.
Actually Gargle in KDE you can change all the system fonts to truetype. It's one of the things I do eventually setting up a new KDE user. Not the first thing but I never forget to do it. look in K control panel. You'll still have some non-Kde apps that won't have the nice fonts but most stuff you see on a regular basis will be as nice as WIndows.
Linux is COMPLETELY ready for the desktop. KDE and GNOME are both suitable environments for anyone that is even barely adept at using a computer. I would argue that it's M$ Winbloze that's not ready for the desktop...at least with Linux you don't have to spend 10 minutes out of every hour waiting for a reboot.
NT client license + client access + server license + Office + backoffice And none of these can be considered a finite amount--you can't know what your total really is because you'll never stop paying once you're committed to be MS centric: Bugfixes between releases cha-ching !!! Now your OS "where business needs to be anyway" has doubled the amount of required RAM per machine cha-ching !!! Ooops, upgrade time again...put on more staff....Cha-CHING !!!
Of course if you're the outside consultant, those "chachings" are your dinnerbell.
"This richness of features means that in theory companies could move from Microsoft Office to StarOffice without losing features. Some things are actually better in StarOffice. StarSchedule, for example, is a server-based calendar that can be shared over a network using HTTP, a trick that is beyond Microsoft Outlook unless you install Exchange. Note that you need the CD version to get the scheduler."
cd version of StarOffice $9.95 from Sun
HP OPenMail is free for organizations with less than 50 seats or something like that. ~ ~ ~ ~
"The ONLY users I see Linux fit for right now are students doing research and scientists."
Fortunately opinion doesn't a reality make.
I'm neither s student doing research or otherwise.
Also not a scientist so I guess I better re-format my hard drive and install windows so I can fit your narrow minded view of who Linux is, and isn't for.
Fortunatly regardless of all the ranting and hand waving that goes on on this site. People (average or otherwise) are trying out Linux. Some are pleasently surprised, some aren't (same for any os). The people who will carry Linux forward fortunately don't read "./" or the newsgroups so I guess we can gloom and doom all we want, and pretend that we speak for everybody (the masses, average user, etc). It will not make a difference.
"The reason why this is so important is not because the average joe is "dumb", but because the average joe thinks it's a waste of time to fumble with config files and xservers. Only a very small group people actually enjoy this. Most mortals just want to get their work done, go home and look at porn on the Internet."
Once again we speak for the masses, average (joe) user,etc.
1-The average joe proably doesn't know about config files, or Xservers so how can you pretend to know what he/she thinks about them?
2-"..and look at porn on the Internet." Damn stereotyping no they go home and read the articles in Playboy.
Thanks, It is for posts like this that I come here for. Even though I know most of this stuff already, it is helpfull to see such a concise review, as I am still learning. BTW, I have been using the GIMP for about a year. It was its existence that helped me make the decision to abandon NT for good. As I understand it the GIMP was designed, originaly, for web use. Hard copy support is only now being developed. Thx Again, B.B.Wolf (to lazy to find my pswrd)
there is a transition from downloading to installing that should be easier--not automatic, just easier. Like you click on link for software page in browser and if the link ends in
The other thing is that Linux people tend to name their programs after programmer's traditions for short incomprehensible filenames that are easy to call from the cli once you have committed their names to memory and learned how to keep them separate from the other short jibberish programnames that are really close in spelling. A sample:
TkWineSetup geticonset noweb2lyx test-mktime wmsetbg getstyle tkwine wsetfont dfm gl-info reLyX tkwine.conf wxcopy dfm-trash.tcl icepref runfgfs wdwrite wxpaste est-epsilon lyx runfgfs.bat wkdemenu.pl xnmap exm nedit runnow wm-oldmenu2new xsane fgfs nmap seticons wmaker get-wraster-flags
Thus even when joe-user's cdrom is put on autorun/automount as it is in the most recent KDE version, joe still is looking at hundreds of packages whose names are utterly meaningless to him and hell to keep separate once he begins to learn the language of linux. ...sssh, gimp's sleepin'
Here by contrast are a couple of pkgs from the same directory whose names are joe-comprehensible:
opera
sketch
artstream
and from another place on my filesystem:
Netscape
gimp --yes this one is an acronym too, like all the "bad" names, but it attaches to something beyond, it has a referent in regular language
StarOffice
Normal people can't really learn the first set of utterances. This second list is how they need to talk to their computer. It doesn't to be the only language spoken in the linux community but it should get more prevalent. Maybe the geek-speak will never subside or be bridged by gui projects sufficiently to let the normal people in the club, that would a loss for linux in my opinion.
"frankly, the average linux-programmer lacks the skill to make joe use linux."
True, but once we send them all to Marketing school (MS a co-sponsorer) and give them lots of money to throw about, that problem will be solved.
Hey! If it can work for the big boys, it can work for us.
"That's just it. The people we're talking about don't want to "learn Linux". They want to surf the web, type up letters and documents, balance their checkbooks, play games."
You mean they can't on Linux? DAMN!
**********************************************
For Sale
One slightly used copy of Linux
Will trade for heavily used copy of windows.
Inadequite OS's need not reply.
**********************************************
That's just it. The people we're talking about don't want to "learn Linux". They want to surf the web, type up letters and documents, balance their checkbooks, play games. They're focused on the task. Unfortunately, most of the Linux community (including yourself) is focused on the tool used to perform that task.
Well...I'm an average joe and I'm beginning to explore linux via Corel and RedHat. Since I've been with MS since DOS 2.0, I find it difficult to transition from DOS to Linux (text mode)...nonethless I'm doggedly determined to learn. In the meantime, X-Windows helps to ease the pain of transition. I only wish I could migrate Quicken along with my other applications. I also miss the recovery options when I crash my X-server experimenting with higher resolutions!
This is true... Microsoft made a tradeoff between speed and memory useage in Win9x. As a result Windows 9x does better in low memory systems than Windows NT (the "non GPF" OS). And most should admit that X requires about the same amount or memory as windows for the same or (about) equal tasks.
What upcoming release of GUI Managers?
Is this yet-another-window-manager?
Anybody have a URL for this project?
Well if the computer is crashing on a *clean* install of windows after 2 hours then I guess the sytems *does not* work and you shouldn't shipping them to your customers (who will be using windows if they are like the other 90% of the world). Makes since to me...
to dump a bowl of steaming hot grits down my pants? thank you
No, taking a big stinky crap on something in order to denigrate it in front of a huge audience isn't criticism; remarks are criticism.
Here are some remarks: X based guis lack integration with the underlying OS. Not one has a single comprehensive "control panel" type menu to launch the individual configuration apps that can thoroughly configure the OS to an "intermediate" level of settings.(Don't ask me to define intermediate--I'm a beginner)
At some point the boundary between GUI project and Distro has to be critically addressed: after all most DesktopEnvironment/FileManager/WindowManager projects aren't coding for a particular distro or even a specific platform. It's up to distro's to take the packages and tie them together, even plug them into their own "master configtool" and put all in plain view of a newbie user so they won't be 12 weeks into the Linux conversion experience and still wondering where the hell the hardware configuration tools are all at.
Here's another--about Linux's shity looks: until you run KDE at 1600x1200 it looks oddly proportioned like a clunky child's toy. Sorta X-TRA LARGE TINKER TOYS FER GIRLS AND BOYS. The toylike icons in the panel don't help that impression. It can look slicker and adult at higher res. What team Kde can do about this I have no idea but they should definitely work on putting their onscreen elements on a slimming diet as most people don't have 1600x1200 at their disposal. Gnome well Gnome really does look like shit I'm afraid. maybe that's what the poster meant, if so he should have been more specific. I understand that Apple has outsourced the graphic design of their OS (don't mean Aqua) from a firm in Atlanta. Redhat should definitely give them a call. Whatever I do with Gnome, I'm stuck with a Start button and panel the size of Monica Lewinsky's ass and an iconset with absolutely no design behind it at all. Theme it however I will, everthing grey --and you becone aware that there's a lot of gray in Gnome--looks not like the grey of metal or the pearlescent gumdrops of Aqua, but like the grey of clay and general dinginess. Some of the general icons include feet and fungi for chrissake! I've tried to like Gnome--I'm still trying to find out what I can do to customize the panel. And the technology is great I'm sure, (except GMC which can't die soon enough AFAIAC) but no matter what I do i cannot stand to look at it. My brother is a graphic designer and a Mac loyalist of course, when he comes around I'll show him my Linux box running KDE, or IceWM, or the console even, but I'll be damned before I let him see me running Gnome.
Here's another: no distro/ GUI (that I'm aware of--but then I've only tried various guis on RedHat and Debian) has really worked out the home user scenario, where the "admin" is also a primary user of the system. In order to add/remove software currently a user who is only sometimes the admin is forced out of GUI desktop mode into a xterm shell or logout of their Xsession and log in as root. This bites because they're not supposed to be casually using the system as root, but the logoutloginlogoutloginagain crap encourages them to take this risk. Our guis do not allow for enough authenticated access to root's functions to approved users. KFM-SU excepted. Of course, in the classical Unix model, they're not supposed to have access at all !!! but that is what su and limitations on su to members of group wheel is for, that's what sudo is for too--desktop projects used in Office/home environments aren't in a classical Unix environment anymore{1}, but distro's and GUI projects aren't making much evident progress towards integrating the available tools and bridging the gap between old and new into a "user experience" that makes sense.
Speaking of hardware, Linux and the GUIs that run on it have just got to get modern on the hardware detection/configuration thing. I mean they must improve so that people who aren't able to reel off module names and kernel major and minor char #s from memory and dma's and io ports can adjust hardware after initial setup. I know it's getting better at the lower levels--GUI tools need to reflect this.
Those are just some sample remarks of the kind that would convince me of the honesty of someone with a gripe about his end-user Linux experience. OTOH, if they say "it looks like shit," or "I hate it 'cuz Office doesn't run on it and I love Clippy's sweet ass", then they don't get much more that a glancing read from me.
{1} C'mon what percentage of deployed Linux _desktops_ are really admined by someone other than the guy sitting in front of the monitor?
The backspace, insert, and delete keys work properly in Suse, that is, they work the way they do in Windows. This makes it ready for the desktop.
The Applix Office package is just fine. My pitch is that it is just like MS Office, except that it doesn't have any features you don't need.
Hurry back, before the story goes out of rotation.
Go back to sucking Bill Gates' hot FUD, jerkoff.
score 0: Offtopic, serves you right, karma whore. Bwhaahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
leavbe it to the linux nerds to discover that the plural of box is boxen, not boxes. I've often wondered where boxwn came from. How fascinating.
I don't find it hard to use - I've grown so used to it that I find Windows hard to use. At least BeOS and OS/X have a decent shell to retreat to ;-)
Most of my really non-technical (don't own a computer) perceive little or no difference between Win32 and X "desktops" especially using KDE or KDE2. Of course they couldn't set it up themselves, but they have no trouble using it.
I am glad though that someone is *DE-HYPING* Linux. I remember the days of the "silent stealthy Linux" - the surprise was an advantage. A lot of end-use type people's expectations are way too high and we should drivethem down and then pleasantly surprise them.
Linux desperately needs a good GUI. The stuff that is out now doesn't cut it. Have a look at the OS/2 WPS! Now, that's something. I won't move to Linux until I see something similar. Until then, Linux is still crap.
Windows on the desktop, and linux in the datacenter?
Gnorpm
Gftp
or dead simple http interfaces?
I mean what would it take to link Gnorpm into Mozilla as a helper or plugin? Redhat's up2date program uses Netscape as pkg selector already.
He can't see the new world coming, that's ok. I can't either but I know it's going to be different from the shrinkwrap world we've been in.
I use Linux as my desktop OS and it's... very nice. I really like it. But only for a couple reasons:
1) I don't get any explanations for why my programs crash (in X, that is!), namely Netscape (only one that crashes, and it makes up for the rest). This is nice because I don't like to know things anyway.
2) Mac rules.
3) Windows rules.
4) Linux sucks.
5) My dog... rusuleckss.
I realize this post is rather useless, but I feel the need to express my opinion that you, sir, are completely correct. No one has even come close to being as correct as you, recently. This kind of truth is rare.
I'm being serious here. There's no need for me to go into why he's so correct - just read his post and trust me, he's right.
"frankly, the average linux-programmer lacks the skill to make joe use linux."
Exactly.
Hotmail is hosted on a Linux box
actually, it's hosted on FreeBSD.
You forgot to add that the streets would be paved with gold, babies would never cry, and we'd all have attendants to rub our feet while we worked at our happy-joy-joy Linux workstations.
Yep, the slow adoption of Linux is holding back all progress of Western Civilisation. Uh-huh.
You spelled "Viva" wrong, and you suck a lot because nobody cares about any otehr country 'cept the United States. They don't even care about Canada. Are you French? Good, congratulations, you're irrelevant. How about English? Welcome to irrelevant. Now stfu and face the truth - or cry like the wittle jealous queer you are.
I take it you're a foreigner...
America rules. And yes, I say "America" meaning the UNITED FUCKING STATES because when people say America, they don't even think about North/South America - they think about the important one.
Unfortunately, the fact that all the K-apps (a term that all the formerly open apps where a K is slapped on the front of the name and it becomes KDE-only) have the look and feel of something for the Commodore-64 means that the wonderful, robust KDE shell will only seem feature rich to those who've not yet reached puberty.
You are speaking theory only. OK, wise 'Linux Advocate' please tell me where I can get Quake III for Linux that I can get 80 frames per seconds, or where can I download a font server that does font smoothing so I don't go blind from looking at the courier font at 12pitch, or where can I get a gui email client for Linux that is NOT in beta that IS intuitive?
I have played Q3 for Linux on my Athlon under X and it is super fast for running on an X server, but doesn't compare to direct rendering (not here yet)
I used to use a beta gui email client for Linux until it ate 90 messages (I knew it was beta, it's ok)
I know how to change font sizes, etc in netscape, but it just isn't the same as Windows font engine (yet)
I had to buy Heroes of M&MIII b/c there are only about 5 commercial games available for Linux.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux.
I use it at home, I use it at work, I am learning Clanlib so I can contribute to the Open Source movement, I always brag about how well it stands next to any other OS for stability, etc...
Your bud, in case you didn't realize it, is 90% of the computer population, and they want the stuff to just work. They will deal with the occasional lockup/crash (not that Netscape under Linux doesn't) but everything in Windows, as of RIGHT NOW, works. Period.
These people aren't running web or file servers, they want to power their computer on, open Outlook Express, send 80 people a chain letter, and get out of there.
I am curious, what E-mail client do you use?
Don't forget the planned celebration of the 100,000th lame sarcastic post on slashdot!
His use of "vive" was correct. The expression is "vive la ". So shut the fuck up, nationalistic motherfucker. Patriotism is one of the last (and perhaps greatest) sources of ignorance that needs to be wiped from this country.
At least KDE has the guts to be commercial.
Gnome is just another ego and publicity stunt by large companies cashing in on Linux.
You don't.
You're right. Why walk into Wal-Mart and buy commercial apps, when you can download wobbly alpha-grade sharewareish apps off random FTP sites all over the place?
Freshmeat alone provides more fine, robust perl scripts for parsing web logs than the average Wall-Mart customer would ever need!
And that isn't even beginning to enumerate the huge choices available in graphical CD-ROM players and clock-skins.
Indeed. You just have to be careful what Excel files you throw at it, and you can make fine endorsements like the above commenter.
Merely being able to read and write Office-format documents isn't going to transform Linux into a desktop-marvel. It's fashionable to claim that this is the only thing holding back adoption of Linux on the desktop. But the truth is, anybody who thinks that companies are going to load a time-sharing server OS on each employee's desk is very, very deluded.
Carry on, though, if it keeps you amused.
My god, someone as old and crufty as I am.
Seriously though... it continues to amaze me when people talk about "market strategy" and "user-friend interface" in reference to Linux. Been using Unix for a long, long time and am very happy with it.
So, so many of these newbies to the world of Linux and Un*x think we old-timers are all about revolting against M$ and capturing some illustrious home market. No, not me at least. Unix gets the job done. Period. When it stops fulfilling my needs, off it goes from my systems.
I could care less about the global equity positional strategy of RedSplat. All I know is that my systems work. That's all there is to it.
Microsoft doesn't generally "insist" that every copy of their software be paid for.
You might have missed it, but Microsoft generally gives a sly nod to individuals pirating their apps, because it breeds evangelism. In fact, some of their whiney competitors have complained about this in the past.
Yep, you're right. Any OS formerly known as a Unix is now to be called Linux. Thus, Hotmail runs on Linux, not on a real Unix OS.
One wonders if cluefulness is contagious sometimes...
Even Microsoft and Apple think user logins and the concept of using a superuser login to install things is acceptable. They've finally come to the realization that you need security partitioning to maintain a stable system.
It'd be a shame if someone went to a bunch of effort creating a root-only version of Linux, because by the time it was available, the user base will be comfortable with the concept of logins.
If it's an SE/30 NetBSD will run on it like a champ.
Linux need not apply.
According to MS, hotmail is hosted on many different types of OSes. It started with FreeBSD, then SunOS, NT and not that many Linux machines, though.
I couln not agree more :-) Please moderate this above post UP!
:-(and I cant afford to produce a proto-type)
Iff I may add: Not only is Linux NOT ready for the desktp, the PC isn't ether. Read that again! The Home PC is NOt ready for useful assistance in our day-in day-out work.
The old PC technology has been going in the wrong direction for too long.
Is there anyone out there (I don't even care if it's Microsoft) that has the "guts" to start over?
I hate the qwerty keyboard, no one will fix it
Computers could be amazing. I do beleve that 100%. But for some reason they are not. Sad.
The internet is the garbage can of the 20th century. Care to comment? berndorf@powersurfr.com
Its already implemented in X. the Xfree86 DGA extension provides direct framebuffer access similar to DirectDraw, and access to input devices similar to DirectInput. Direct3D can be replaced by the faster and more capable OpenGL (if you have a 3dfx, or you wait till DRI matures). As for DirectPlay, that was a bad idea to begin with, and very poorly implemented too, so I hope linux doesn't do anything similar. Alsa + AlsaLib does all you get out of DirectSound.
Looks like all Linux needs now is a DirectSound3D equivalent and we're golden.
Corel's Linux is a step in the right direction for the desktop.
I am most pleased to note that you enumerated things properly:
you get the applications you want, you get Linux applications
I didn't think anybody here would be brave enough to separate it into 'the apps you want, and Linux apps' openly on a non A.C. account.
We're proud of you. You've figured out what people want.
(it isn't Linux apps, btw)
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host =hotmail.com
My mom uses Windows 95 on her Thinkpad. She's used the same install that came on the machine for the four-odd years she's had the machine. It hasn't crashed, it hasn't needed to be reinstalled. Every once in awhile we have to root out some of the junk so there's space on the hard drive, of course. As far as I know, it's never crashed for her, either.
I wish some of you would try to tell her she should expect the machine to crash at least once a day. Maybe she'd feel guilty and figure out something she can do to make it crash. She's pretty smart, though (used to be a church secretary, so she knows how to center text, and type left and right justified margin text using an Electric typewriter). I think instead she might decide that everything you Linux folks say is bullshit.
>Tell that to developers, hardware manufactutors and gamers. By the
>time the PS2 is released here, PC's will have about caught up. 6
>Months later, the PS2 will look old, and we'll laugh about it's lack
>of anti-aliasing, lousy fill-rate, and mediocre triangle rate. By then, we'll have XFree86 4.0 and we'll just chuckle as those who play
>on the miserble low-res crap called a TV.
And who cares? You seriously think that people are going to run out and dump another $1000 or more into a new computer system just to play the new crop of PC games on? Because if past history is any indication, that's exactly what you PC gamers are going to end up doing. For folks like me who aren't interested in your kind of gaming, a Playstation 2 will do just fine.
>XFree86 4.0: This will make hardware accelerated 3D under Linux much
>faster. Unfortunately, there are still only like 3 chipsets that
>support hardware 3D under Linux, so I hardly think this is going to
>springboard Linux into the gaming market that it is still so crucially
>lagging in.
Dude, the PC gaming market is *DEAD*. The only people who don't seem to know it yet is you PC gamers. Go take a look at the magazine newsrack at a bookstore. I think either Time or another magazine has a cover story on the Playstation 2. That's how mainstream the Playstation 2 is going to be and it hasn't been released in the U.S. yet! Most people running linux are going to buy a Playstation 2, rather than buying the hardware you gamers seem so fond of. I'm not going to buy a new soundcard or videocard anytime in the near future, because I don't need either.
Yadda, yadda. You weren't amusing the first time. Moderate 'em down.
Creed
where are the moderators when you need em??? MODERATE THIS UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
i thought I had no sig?
Cry Me a River. Why should we care about lusers who don't know how to utilize resources. Dumbing down Linux makes it bad bad bad bad bad bad .... lynx rules i am leet and stuf and more stuff and i like cli it will live forever
.{redmist}.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
I have to agree linux is not desktop material much like any server OS.
..........sig...........
It gets me so psyched whenever I hear about advances in Microshit loosing it's domination of the desktop market. I hate Microsoft with a passion, because I feel like I'm a slave of them. With linux it's more like Linus Torvalds is like my Harriet Tubman and Linus is like my underground railroad.
SuPz.orG
I have heard the following too many times to count, and yet, I am still clueless as to what kind of logic the Linux community uses in a conversation such as this.
Linux Power User "The beauty of Linux is that the user can custiize and configure it any way they want to suit their needs, without anyone interfering.
Linux Newbie - "Well, I want a easy to use GUI based environment under Linux."
Linux Power User- "Fuck that! Linux should never be easy to use! How else could I ease my insecurities by claiming I can use such a nonintuative OS! I will oppose all efforts to make Linux easy to use."
Linux Newbie- "Hold on a sec while I pre-order OS X!"
I totaly agree! The biggest thing holding me back from deleting my windows partition is the fact that I just can't stand to surf the web and read stuff in general in X, its soo damn ugly and unreadable, and there don't seem to be any good fixes yet.
Something really must be done about this.
NH
I think this guy has more credibility than you. No companies will use staroffice or applix until it can flawlessly use MS documents. Don't forget powerpoint and excel. 90% of the world uses office. Don't even mention gimp, it has not made a single dent in photoshop sales.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
linux is stupid
get over it already.
Thank You,
Troll King
Thank You,
Troll King
Subscribe
If somebody was smart, they would create an OS using the Linux or BSD kernel and add all new apps/packages on top, maybe model it after BeOS. Like "HomeBSD" or "DeskBSD". A nice SLIM OS, 100MB or so. And I wouldn't call it GNU anything just to piss you off. Since the Linux kernel is modular (I'm not sure about BSD's) it will never become *that* outdated, but (im sorry) these old funky ass *nix tools have to go. A slim GUI with a slim *NIX command line,, no backward compatability burdens, no memory sucking overhead, no designed-for-networking-now-lets-make-it-do-games X interface. Oh, yeah, thats it . . . "You might be a geek if you change your OS more than your underware" "You might be a geek if you're at a party and when someone asks what kind of chips you like, you start ranting about the Athlon" -------Bill "Foxworthy" Gates
Oh yeah, Wal-Martware. Who can do without Wal-Mart's awesome software selection:
- "My (Professional!) Funeral Invitation Designer,"
- "Point n' Click Law Degree in 24 Hours!"
- "Beavis Bacon Teaches Typing!"
Oh! You just have to have that 3D flower arrangement designer program, what computer would be complete without it!I use linux on the desktop. I like it because everything is language oriented; I can put together little commands into fancy things that the creator of the little commands never imagined. This flexibility, nay creativity available from working with language orientation kicks butt. Yes, I'm an engineer by training; that doesn't mean my desktop doesn't count.
Sometimes I wonder if some of you actually USE Linux. I would like to hear from 1 person who provides technical support to people that thinks Linux is, as of right now, ready for the desktop. The ONLY users I see Linux fit for right now are students doing research and scientists.
I use Linux at my desktop, laptop and server boxes, and I am neither student, nor scientist.
Yes, Linux is great and powerful, but it is lacking alot of interoperability and intuitiveness. I would like to see you explain to the users I used to support why copying and pasting between different programs is different..
It is? You can copy/paste text between everything (except things that can't select it n the first place).
Or how about why since they use Linux they can't click on a PDF and have it open in their browser
They can't? Any desktop environment that has file manager allows it.
, or why they can no longer install printer drivers
If Ghostscript drivers exist for their printer, they can, and if they don't, they can stick their printer up manufacturer's ass because they shouldn't buy unsupported hardware in the first place.
, or how to switch paper trays on LPD printer queues... *breathe*
They can't becauase this is what queues are for -- to separate print jobs that have different filters or output devices. Learn to use lpr or, better, lprng, and stop blaming your own incompetence on software.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
You're right. Why walk into Wal-Mart and buy commercial apps, when you can download wobbly alpha-grade sharewareish apps off random FTP sites all over the place?
Spoken like a true troll, who never actually seen them.
Freshmeat alone provides more fine, robust perl scripts for parsing web logs than the average Wall-Mart customer would ever need!
Average Walmart customer is a moron, who shouldn't have computer in the first place (and most of Walmart customers actually don't). The person who actually needs a desktop computer is another story -- there are a lot of useful for him things listed on freshmeat.
And that isn't even beginning to enumerate the huge choices available in graphical CD-ROM players and clock-skins.
Are you by any chance the famous inventor of Ethernet?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
First off I'd like to state that I've been using
Linux exclusively on my personal machine
for 3 years and everytime I have to go
near a windows or mac box I want to barf, _however_...
I'd have to agree that linux isn't ready for the
desktop. Or rather the average desktop
user isn't ready for Linux. It's a blade that cuts
both ways.
I've given computer newbies preconfigured setups
with spectacular results _only_because_ they
don't/can't change any setting. This is actually
ideal in a business setting, but heres two things
to consider for "world domination" that IMHO aren't changing any time soon.
Firstly, linux just isn't appropriate for every
task (but what is). Second, not only are
people dumb, but they're proud too
As an example of the first case, consider using linux
for making music. Pre-emptive multitasking
just isn't good in that context.
"But theres realtime patches" you say
Bzzt, you have to a)know about them b)know where/how to get/apply them.
Then theres a matter of no good sequencer for midi.
Rosegarden? Editor is _weak_, its also not pattern oriented.
Jazz/Jazz++?, a little better but you need
specialized hardware, close but no cigar.
Forget about hard disk recording. SLab? Try to
shift a sample by a few or repeat paste.
Ecasound? Surely you can't be serious
And as far as the second case goes, people being dumb/proud,
go browse the questions at Question Exchange
Oh the irony. The very next article below this one in my display (threaded, highest scores first, threshold of 2) was:
Nothing against Randy, though, cause I use the "Mom" comparison as well.
Geoff
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Linux has *tons* of great Office applications. It just doesn't have "Microsoft Office" yet. And whose fault is that, really? Also, the way wine is coming along, expect Office to work better under Linux anyhow... Of course, we still have WordPerfect, StarOffice, Applix, and even a lot of Linux-specific office suites that even Windows doesn't have... (and for real work, nothing beats TeX. :)
Preinstalled boxes don't have funky hardware issues, because the vendors pick the right hardware. I've tried to install NT on machines that could be sold preinstalled with NT, and I still couldn't configure it! Why? Because they probably got it to install *once* through black magic, and saved that image forever after for the rest of their installs. There's no shame in having a "supported hardware" list when the vendors don't do all of your work for you. And even so, Linux *still* supports more hardware than NT does...
All that having been said, it sounds like SuSE is doing a great job, and I'm very happy with SGI's commitment to Linux. Even if they're doing it out of self-interest, I don't care as long as it benefits the community as well. And that's a lesson that Microsoft should have learned 20 years ago, before they alienated their power users... If they had, and admitted their shortcomings up front, maybe the community at large would be more sympathetic towards them.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Hmm. That sounds like a lot of work, especially for a home network.
I guess the initial goal would be to design the network such that the other machines get updated from a central one, (or they all mirror each other in some way) or put all the important stuff on the networked drives.
I'm sure there are software packages that could help you out here. I'd probably do something funky with locate and cron, but maybe something like AutoRPM would work better.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yep. Once either X or the applications support pretty, anti-aliased fonts this won't be a problem. Until then, though, they'll just look ugly.
I don't have a problem with most fonts I see, but some pages look pretty bad in Netscape (I have it set to only use my fonts now) and the fonts in The GIMP look *way* better than the rest of X (they're well-rendered, and anti-aliased). The word processors in X look pretty painful, but usually I just use them to add formatting, so it's no big deal.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
With all due respect, sir, you may be wrong. I support a large network of windows machines & run a few nix boxes as well. We have this one magic NT server that is freakishly stable. It has NEVER crashed in the two years that it has been here. We have to reboot it every six months because of a weird memory leak in the back-up software but it certainly has never crashed. Very, very rarely you will come across one of these magic boxes. You scratch your head and puzzle on it for a moment and then move on. The rest of the NT servers crash on a regular basis (two or three times a month.) My primary linux box has crashed four times in the last year, mostly because I did something stupid to it. My secondary name server(RH 6.1, BIND 8) has never crashed. So to call this guy names and to insult him without access to the facts may be just a bit of an over reaction.
When I open a .deb package with my web browser, I'm prompted for my root password. Then the package is installed and a menu item is added to my WindowMaker destop menu automagically.
Every time I go to an IDG Linux article I see that logo and think, "Finally, they've gotten toaster Macs to boot Linux! Where's that SE gone to?"
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Go ahead and say Linux is not ready for the desktop. If I was running a company I sure wouldn't run mission critical desktop applications on Linux. You pay for each minute someone spends learning or dealing with bugs. This may change in the near future though. Corel Office will be closely watched. Corel will be releasing both a Desktop and Developer Version of the OS.
If someone were to ask me what the best use for Linux is besides as a server I'd say for teaching people how to use a computer. Especially for kids. Rather than having your kid brainlessly clicking on that Explorer logo to surf the web or spend endless hours mindlessly playing games, hand them a empty computer and a Linux CD. If they really want to play with a computer they will learm a heck of a lot more in Linux than Windows. Sure they may be spending time on the web or playing games, but at least they will be encouraged to learn more about the computer.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Depending on scanner type, there's a program called SANE that'll let you use the scanner in Linux. My UMAX Astra 1200S (SCSI scanner) works fine under SANE. xscanimage even works as a GIMP plugin.
For printing, if you have an inkjet like the HP 722c I have, use PPA to get it working (NOW DOES COLOUR!).
My hatred of Microsoft products comes from hard, painful experience.
This is why I went to Linux from WFW instead of to win95.
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
---
>>
>> I know about gnucash, but I do online
>> banking, so Quicken is the only method I have
>> at my disposal.
This is the reason I bought VMWare, and I have not been disappointed.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
kangarooski:
:-)
# 449972
:-)
``At any rate, GIMP has absolutely no CYMK support at all.''
It supports the colors and the variances themselves because they are free
The situation is not so bad for the user with svga and a consumer-market inkjet printer. Are we talking about using gimp as the last (or only) step before a 4 color press? Or on a machine that is actually controlling the printing press?
Nothing stops the creative computer user from buying a pantone system, doing a color separation and getting your pallettes from that. Obviously the problem here is the proprietary (and huge) data, troubled with the lack of colordepth of the pc. Downright flat compared to ink. cmyk colorspace is not even a proper superset of rgb. I'm sure it's easy to test this. You can certainly make a more subtle variance in some colors of ink than you can represent in rgb.
And rest assured that there are colors that you can display on a monitor that can only be approximated in print. But that's still really not the hard part.
While you can manipulate RGB values to blend colors, the range of the same colors from the printer might not be what you expect, or even blend, and because of this, I suspect the software must support this system at a level a bit more fundamental than paint-by-numbers.
The algorithms themselves will have to be aware that transitions between colors must be mappable to the correct colorspace too.
At least print doesn't have to deal with 3-d (much, yet).
Gimp is the free software of the free press, or the cheap press; you can use it for publishing but you do have to do the final color proof by eye (and experience).
No matter what press you run, your color saturation is going to vary in way that will
probably never be easy to convert from cmyk to rgb. ("uhh, how will this look with soy ink on rice paper?")
They don't claim that it's even possible using only gimp, and make honest recommendations about taking your work to the printer, that makes sense from the starving (or soon to be starving if the print job isnt right) artist no matter what software you use to create your original work.
The give f'n good m about this @
http://manual.gimp.org/manual/GUM/Prepress.html
On a not-entirely-unrelated point: the pdf's at
www.color.com supposedly cannot be read by export versions of ghostview. whazaaaaaaa? I can't even read about this stuff without giving into control.
But, this is process print control, which is rocket science. I know what a bitch it was to use the (analog, manual) color systems on enlargers in the 70's.
kang> there is a lot of support
kang> for Photoshop and the Mac, but not for GIMP
kang> or Linux.
The penguin hasn't caught up with the applecore in the publishing world (yet).
Hopefully soon we'll have folks running their G4's and osX. Maybe the display will have a real alpha channel, and maybe it'll come with a pantone license. (hmpf, is aqua an xserver? >64 bit colordepth? how about display postscript while you're at it?...)
I imagine it will be nice to run a gtk-based desktop on a g4 powerbook. Somebody, somewhere
is working on the mach port of all the stuff the unix world is raving about.
While Gimp hasn't made inroads into the commercial printing world, as you say, I believe it has been literally frisbeed around the world. Didn't need roads. (Well, places without roads usually don't have printing presses, but at least gtk is free).
Yes, I want also want photoshop on my mac!
but not without the other tools, including gimp.
Is there a huge culture out there constantly pushing its limits, extending it, improving the interface? Can Joe Blow build modules to extend photoshop?
macnix.com
xincam.org
regards,
james "publishing experience extends to band flyers" mcgill
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
There are also minor cosmetic issues, such as that the GUI is 4-5 years behind Windows (no antialiased fonts and all that), but those aren't necessities.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
I was just in a debate with a fairly anti-Linux person today. He will move to Linux when he can "walk into Wal-Mart and get any application on the shelf for Linux." Of course, the software usually exists, except in the gaming market, and that's changing radically these days. Maybe some sort of CD distros of useful Linux software would make a dent in this.
Creed
If your going to build a Linux box check the supported hardware. Even Win2K doesnt support everything. I bought some cheap 100mbit cards with the tulip.c drivers. The floppys even had linux drivers.. I was just lucky, your millage may very.. -Brook Harty
Any distro that has a mascot named Geeko, has got to do some introsepection and realize that its not ready for the mass-moron, er mass-market.
If we're really not ready for the desktop market yet, well, when we "get there" in the media's eyes we are really going to kick ass. They'll realize how nice it is to be able to work without crashes and losing work.
Hmmm... Like NT 4 you mean? I know, you could debate the description 'server OS' for NT (grin), but that's how the PHBs see it. So they are already installing 'server OSes' on a user's desktop. Your point was?
Linux will be missing out on quality if it doesn't have a large share of the market. I don't give a shit about 90% of users having linux on their PC, or grandmothers using linux, I just would appreciate it if I could view those cool movies on the web, and get great support for my hardware. That won't happen without it being a desktop OS with large market share.
Already, I am missing out on many things on the internet like video, sound, certain javascript, and sites that simple don't work in netscape. This is just the internet, something that is supposed to be portable. People who make web sites forget that not everybody has Windows, asx and quicktime players, and IE.
Also, what about hardware. If linux didn't have a large market share, many companies would just ignore it, and not give out specs or drivers for the system. Just look at video cards. I had to ditch my TNT becuase it had crappy support. Just a year ago, this kind of support would have been considered great. Just now we support for 3d sound cards.
No matter how hard linux programers try, and how good the applications become, even if linux gets free applications that are better than windows counterparts, it won't do good if half of the web won't look right, and half of your hardware isn't working correctly.
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
Different beasties. VNC runs over the network, which means it can be pretty slow depending on the graphical intensity of the application.
You got me on the price. I was quoting the student price. Didn't realize the regular price was so high. I'm sure they would negotiate that down for volume orders, though.
I wouldn't be quite so nuts over the issue of free-ness. VMware is a cool hack, and it really does add a lot of value to corporate environments. If you don't want to pay for it, don't pay for it, but that doesn't lessen its contribution to Linux as a way to get into the corporate market.
Keep in mind that MIS peeps are often badly overworked, and it's a no-brainer to spend a couple hundred per seat if it off-loads a lot of support hastles.
I agree that it could be easier (MacOS X, MacOS X) but I think that your statements about reworking the filesystem are off base.
I also have to mention MacOS X again, if Apple can make UNIX easy enough for Mac People then we should be able to do at least as well. I feel like I should repeat that last sentance!
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
Linux is not ready for the desktop (we should do a poll, perhaps?).
I think the principal reason is that despite its great price, ethic, and even now its expanding range of available software titles... it's still a different interface. MS Windows is just the default way that a computer works, to the most of the computer using population. Until X can emulate that (and then progressively lead away from that), Linux will never hit the desktop in a big way.
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
Indeed, is there point in telling newbies to go get the latest buggy GNOME or KDE while Linux is much stronger in CLI department? Some will say that newbies won't fall for this.. I say, how do you know if you never tried?
Unfortunately there is no effort to make CLI easier to use, even though much can
be done in this direction. Imagine user typing mail at the command line and an
intelligent mail client checking that it's run the first time on this machine by
that user and asking if the user would like to see a tutorial. Tutorial shows h
ow basic things are done, ie sending, deleting, saving messages, and how to get
help on more advanced features. Note that tutorial is much easier to make in com
and line (and you can make it really small, new screen coming up every 4 seconds
will only have a few changed lines.. so you can have something like a script th
at says "sleep 4 seconds then erase line 4-8, 16 and write in them: "
this sort of tutorial will be really easy to write. Now imagine how much harder
would it be to do something like this in GUI. That's why it's almost never done
in GUI - the only exception I can think of was a 3d studio max tutorial I've se
en. Not to mention that you can make the CLI tutorial interactive easily.) Indeed, is there point in telling newbies to go get the latest buggy GNOME or KDE while Linux is much stronger in CLI department? Some will say that newbies won't fall for this.. I say, how do you know if you never tried?
Unfortunately there is no effort to make CLI easier to use, even though much can be done in this direction. Imagine user typing mail at the command line and an intelligent mail client checking that it's run the first time on this machine by that user and asking if the user would like to see a tutorial. Tutorial shows how basic things are done, ie sending, deleting, saving messages, and how to get help on more advanced features. Note that tutorial is much easier to make in com
and line (and you can make it really small, new screen coming up every 4 seconds will only have a few changed lines.. so you can have something like a script that says "sleep 4 seconds then erase line 4-8, 16 and write in them: "
There are 2 programs whose functionality cannot be fully transferred to CLI - netscape and gimp. So, instead of having buggy GNOME or KDE we can have a simple w
indowmanager with 3 buttons: netscape, gimp and xterm.
CLI advantages: easy to develop, faster, smaller, there's tons of stable functional CLI programs already that has been years in development.
CLI disadvantage: not as pretty (unless you use a transparent aterm with cool root background).
What is this obsession over GUIs? I can see a newbie being lured in by purty looks but why are serious people developing apps like gnotepad, etc? Dreaming of world domination? Can anybody explain this to me?
PS after I finished writing that and tried to post it, lynx crashed. I had to scroll up in aterm to copy/paste the stuff I've written to a text file and then go to
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
Doh.
-- ATTENTION: do not read this sig. It doesn't say much.
My mom can use it! I had to get someone else to install KDE on the laptop, unpack the PCMCIA drivers and that was tough. Once done, my mom loves her laptop; the 40M ram is not enough to run Netscape / KDE well; but, it is enough for KDE's browser.
It would of been a lot easier if I could of bought the computer with Linux preinstalled. In my opinion, that's the biggest missing piece in easy to use linux, because once it's on a laptop you don't have to worry about cables, plugging in the keyboard, speakers, mouse, etc... you just use it. The only vendor I've found that offers Linux laptops without having to search their website or make a special request to customer service is:
http://www.tuxtops.com
I hope some other vendors step in here, as it was, despite my best efforts, I had to pay the Microsoft tax even though I had no intention of ever using Windows.
Ok. This is all IMHO, culled from what I've seen and talked to people and so on. Note that none of these apps are ones that I would need myself, that's why I haven't started work on any of them. I wouldn't know exactly what is/is not needed. But anyway...
...and on to the show-stopper...
Linux still needs 4 apps to be able to be an all-around useful desktop OS. Note: I'm not talking stuff needed by a graphics specialist or anything here, just something that your average corporation could use on all its workers' desktops.
As an aside: why does it need all these? Simple. In a corporation, different people do different jobs. Yet since they all need to share data, they need to use the same OS. Or at least, it helps. Support people usually don't like having to work with disparate systems.
What this means in my company is that I, as a developer, need software development tools. I also have to share documents with the documentation people, who need good writing tools. They have to share stuff with the printers, who need good desktop publication, graphics tools. I also have to work with my project manager, who needs good project management, source code control tools. And, I have to sent in timesheets and stuff to Human Resources, who need good accounting, spreadsheet tools. Finally, I have to talk to my customers and the people in head office, so I need good groupware, email tools. Get the picture? Any OS used on the desktops here needs to be good at a lot of really different things.
Anyway, on with the show. The 4 apps that are needed but aren't here at all yet:
4. A Vector-Based Drawing App
Ok. From what I've been hearing, there are a number of apps that are starting to do this. Sketch, I think... and mebbe a few others. Plus Corel is making rumblings about porting CorelDraw!. Mebbe by the end of the year, we'll have something here. Next!
3. A Quicken Clone
Something to do financial stuff in. Taxes. That sorta stuff. Again, there are a few offerings under development. gAcc is one I've heard of, and possibly somthing on the KDE side as well. Same comments apply as to category 1.
2. Groupware
So... where's the Groupware? (*ahem* Groupware? Oops!) Here, I'm talking about LotusNotes, MS-Exchange -type stuff. Ok, so Exchange isn't very good at it... it's still better than anything we can cough up. I use just some of the stuff that LotusNotes does, and I've yet to see anything similar in Linux. Until there is, it's not ready for corporate. Domino is available for Linux, so maybe something can be built on top of that, but a GUI would be nice as well as the library.
1. Project Management Software
Ok. Where is it? I'll tell you what, it doesn't exist. Something like MS-Project. Something that can correlate resources, schedule a project, mark out deadlines, throw up a Gantt Chart or 2. Every single office suite out there (Applix, StarOffice, KOffice, GNOME Office) has totally ignored this vital application. And until it exists, I can tell you for sure that the company I work for will not be using Linux. This despite the fact that our head of development (no, not me) is an avid Linux fan, and reads this site daily.
So, guys. When's it coming?
(Disclaimer: don't get me wrong. I'm not whining. I greatly appreciate what has been done so far; I'm just trying to point out some things that aren't there yet and really need to be. That Project Management App is a biggie, and so far, I have yet to see anyone so much as discuss it. As I said earlier, I'd do it, but I don't use them on a regular basis, and it's not my itch to scratch, so to speak. Maybe some day when I have more free time than I do now...)
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
The only thing I can think of is the Berlin project. http://berlin.sourceforge.net/
Dunno if that's what you meant, though. If you were referring to something else, I'd like to know about it!
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), we seem to have come to the root of the problem here.
Someone posted a valid complaint, and the only response to it was: "Come back when you have comething to say."
Well, maybe he actually was saying something, and you should think about that, rather than just ignoring it.
Now, granted, he didn't exactly put it in the best of words, but the fact is, a lot of users don't put things in the best terms possible.
If someone comes up and gives a detailed bug report about what is wrong with such-and-such underlying technology, and why it's wrong, and what to do to fix it, that would be nice. But the thing is, that such a person (if they had enough interest to point out the problem in the first place) is probably already working on the development team for that program!
No, your average user who is looking at Linux, is probably going to come back with criticism very much along the lines of, "it looks like shit."
And that's basically what that person did. It may not be nice, it may not be terribly specific, and detailed. It may not even be "substantial," but it probably will be important to that person, otherwise they would not have mentioned it.
Maybe looks don't matter much to you, but they do to some people, and I've heard that sincle criticism many times, to perhaps it warrants more than an off-the cuff remark, and being ignored.
Arrrgh. I never meant to turn this into a rant.
Anyway. Whether you agree that KDE (or any other Linux UI) looks like shit is a different issue. As is whether or not you agree we should be trying to develop to such people. But in no matter which case, saying they found "the single weakest way to criticize KDE rather than stating something of substance" is possibly the worst response possible. It is you doing exactly that which you accuse them of.
It's that bridge between developers (who know in detail what they're working with) and end-users (who usually don't) that we have to try to make. This sort of thing is precisely the reason that Linux is not yet ready for (most people's) desktop.
*steps guiltily off soapbox*
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Hmmm... didn't know about that one.
Mebbe I'll check it out... thanks for the tip!
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
Re: This whole groupware thing. Personally, I am inclined to agree with you. With a few minor exceptions, email and textfiles serve my purposes quite fine.
:-)
All I can say is: try telling that to the IS head at my company. And that's where Linux for the corporate office falls down.
The tech guys (such as myself) can usually handle it just fine right now. It's the other people -- the sort that like big, fancy GUIs for everything -- those are the ones we have to convince.
And they're the ones I would like to be able to convince, since that would mean that I'd no longer have to use Windows at work
When it comes to these sorts of situations, the GUI is all (well... almost all...).
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think you just crossed it.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
O.K., I'm getting sort of pissed. Everybody is bashing, but nobodys being very constructive. "Yeah, Linux isn't ready for the desktop yet. If only KDE/Gnome would...." This is a bunch of bullshit. Sure KDE and Gnome could both be better, but they are both O.K. The worst part about Linux is the lack of thought the distributions put in to the end user experience. They think so much about security, the newest software, making graphical installations, etc. they miss out on one of the biggest bestest things they could do. Fortunately, I think even the average Linux user can contribute quite a bit to the cause here, and everyone is just bitching.
The underlying software of Linux isn't what is making it a difficult desktop transition, things just need a little more thought, polish, and work that isn't even really _technical_ work. Don't you spend atleast a couple hours after a fresh install "taking care of all those things the distribution didn't". You get rid of all the supurflous crap on the panel, change the clock to am/pm from military, fix Netscape's fonts, make shortcuts to the good programs that aren't in any menu, etc. It's like you go and buy a car, but after you get it home, you notice nobody bothered to take the plastic off the seat at the dealers, remove the sticker on the window, fill the tank with gas, or make sure there was air in the tires. We couldn't fix that stuff in windows, because its proprietary, what's your excuse now?
Another example: How many times do you really get to grok a piece of software after using it alot and dragging yourself through poor documentation time and again? Then you think: "Geez, I could write better documentation than that now!" Well guess what, it would probably only take a couple hours on the weekend for a couple weeks, and you could! Why don't you?
How many times do you install Linux, and the grammar and content of some or all of the messages is really, really bad? You catch yourself thinking: "Crap, I understand what that info screen means because I've used Linux for 5 years, but geeez, did they have a native english speaker look at these sentences before they burned the CD?"
We're all creative people. Go be creative. How can we make a better desktop in the framework we have now. I think _ALOT_ can be done.
For instance, one thing I've been contemplating is a "unix-philosophy-howto". Most people find Linux confusing because they don't understand the unix philosophy of doing things. If they did, and had a guided tour through some features at a _conceptual_ level, they'd probably think Unix was damn cool, and not that complicated. I've always wondered why distributions don't have such a thing as the first chapter. That way people would have a good conceptual framework to statr their unix love affair. There are some documents which sort of do this, like the DOS->Linux howto, but not really. I hereby proclaim I will write such a thing.
What about you? When you find something irksome, and you can fix it with just a little work, maybe a couple hours on the weekend, why don't you?
If we all do these things, when Linux gets apps galore, it will be a terrifically wonderful desktop environment.
Just some thoughts. Everyone quit being so negative!
If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide. -Ghandi
About once a month, there's some peckerhead statement about how Linux won't survive if it doesn't get Joe Public acceptance. Ridiculous! Linux and GNU have gotten where they are by pure, no nonsense technical superiority. As they say in drag racing, "when the flag drops, the bullshit stops". It's winning because it's better, and because it provides freedom. Plenty of people are working on the desktop dumb-down, it will be provided, but in the meantime fools like you will continue to predict it's demise based on lack of sales to granny......
No flames here. I agree.
.err file says it is normal. I'd have installed from the rpm, except for the fact that it seems to be the only file I can't download.
Somebody needs to write a book called "How to Think *nix."
I got my start on computers back in 9th grade, fiddling with Apples and TRS-80s. I've been a DOS fan for over a decade and spent a lot of time with OS/2. I enjoy tweaking out my system so that it will do what I want when I want in the way I want.
I want to know how to think *nix so I can figure out weird stuff. Right now, I've recompiled MySQL to upgrade to the latest release but the daemon exits after it starts, and the
Now, my question is, how the *H* do you diagnose problems like these? I've been diagnosing crap for years in home, business, corporate, educational and hospital environments. I've found some STRANGE answers to some STRANGE problems, but I can't figure out a few things like this on my own system.
The Linux world needs to consider how many places a user is going to have to look for configuration information. How does one find answers to questions when nobody else seems to know them either?
The Windows world, bad as it is, does have some things that make it easier for new users. Help files are plentiful and easily found. Help buttons are placed nearly everywhere. This doesn't address every issue, but it does help a user get a lot of answers.
Often, while working on one problem or another, I just want to be able to point at a field and ask my computer, "What the Hell is This?"
A good answer to that question, provided in advance, could solve much.
Now, back to trying to get MySQL to work.
paperbacks.homepage.com
Visit Lockjaw's Lair. He won't bite.
I'm sure glad I didn't wait for a self-proclaimed expert to declare Linux "safe" for the desktop before I installed it. I would have been trapped in 3+ more years of Windows Hell.
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I think SuSE is based on slackware... .tgz packages.(like slackware)
They use RPM since 5.x (x means I don't know) and before, they were using
Moreover, they credit Patrick Volkerding (from slackware) in their user manual...
Someone with the last word on this?
BTW I also find SuSE to be one of the best distros...
And their mascot rules
For Linux to really get onto the desktop, everyone agrees that you need to have a great office suite that is interoperable with MS Office, a good browser, a nice windowing system, etc. When we look at the progress made, all those major points are well under way or in hand, yet the instantaneous transition of the user base to Linux has yet to happen, for the desktop at least.
Why? Because its still insanely hard to use. I don't know why I feel I need to worry about this being called flamebait or whatever on here, but I really believe its the truth. Lurking right underneath the beautiful levels of window managers we always see screenshots for is the world of rc.d scripts, ifconfig, nfs and all the other stuff.
I know computers pretty well and its taken me weeks to get at all proficient in Linux, and just the other night I couldn't get the damn floppy disk to unmount and I had no idea why!
My idea: Let's each work to make Linux the best tool for their area of need and let others worry about whether its worth it for them to adopt. At some point it will, but guessing what the average user wants is not going to get us closer to being on the computer in the living room.
Please comment, I'd love to hear other strategies.
Hotnutz.com - Funny
So what you're saying is you're upset that this fancy car with the automatic transmission doesn't have a clutch? what? Look, just nfs mount an rpm directory for those boxes, then go to each one and do a: rpm -Uvh /mnt/nfs/rpms/* and you're DONE. Each machine will have its own sane RPM database, and you can check each one individually to make sure they installed correctly. After that, you can cron a script to run at night that'll do it for ya and email you the results... Let the machine do the work, not you.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
I don't know. At 1600x1200 on my 21" monitor, with the fonts cranked up to 24 or 28, they look pretty clean. ;^)
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
..to that poll. After being /.ed it'll be extremely accurate.
:)
Unfortunately many of the programs the company I work for are barely being ported to NT now (dang, slow-ass media ratings companies) so I seriously doubt Linux will be able to take over the desktops here for a number of years. Or at least the "regular" folk's machines.
It is looking inevitable though. Linux has a manifest destiny and I can't wait to see it reach the west coast.
--
+&x
FYI, I use a -jmk-neep-medium-r-normal--20-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1 on 1280x1024 17" displays. The `&' may look bizarre at first, but it's definitively impossible to mistake it for an `8' anymore (at every font size).
Totally =)
It's like getting the flexibility of a S/390
N.B. "functional" does not equate to "having lots of features". Some one needs to first do some "systems analysis" to fiind out what's actually needed in an office suite. Maybe the result would be Koffice, which is AFAIK the only example of such a package being put together from "ground up".
Actually its a little more subtle, "No one ever pretends that Unix type systems need either no administration or can be end user administered".<P>
<I>Fine for people who read "News For Nerd", but not fine for someone who wants to plug-n-play their digital camera or their WinNT/Novell network.</I><P>
Why then do both Microsoft and Novell have special training courses for NT and netware?<P>
<I>As bad as DOS/Win3.1 was, anyone could install a driver or a program by running INSTALL.EXE, and you could count the important configuration files on one hand.</I><P>
Of course they'd always know how to sort things out when the pre-packaged installer messed up
Try the following: juggle the PCI cards arround in a workstation, Linux won't mind, Windows will at best consider it is reinstalling drivers, at worst start prompting for disks.
It is interesting to see that CNN's quick poll shows that 70% of users have Linux running on their desktop. This may have something to do with the /. effect, but it is good news anyways.
It's not ready for the desktop... of a win32 user. But give it another couple of months. All we really need is the following:
2.4 Kernel
XFree86 4.0
Easel (Gnome 2.0) or KDE 2.0 (or both)
..After that I think that Linux will really start to take off in the average users home.
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
I love Gnome myself, but I see a lot of good things about KDE (which unfortunatly (or fortunatly) is just a win32 clonetop). I don't see anyreason to get rid of either or make one more used than the other. I often switch between the two. Sometimes in a matter of minutes. I would like to be able to switch between the two of them without having to restart x (or in the case of kdm, log back in). I hope we never see the last of either of them, and I hope we see more of something new. Just my two cents.
~Jester
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
Gnome is far more flexible than KDE is currently. With gnome you have a far more amount of customization and apps (applets, epplets, the like) and has better (i believe, just an opinion here folks) administration tools. KDE is a winclone desktop although they are working away from that. I'm looking forward to KDE 2.0. But as far as administration goes Gnome is far more convienent and useful.
~Jester
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
True.. firewire isn't currently the norm, but there are more things that are supporting firewire, it's just another step to becoming standard.
I'm aware of the compatability issues with getting windows games over to linux. As a former windows gamer I know what it is to forsake some really good games (baldurs gate, planescape torment, diablo, starcraft, etc.). But I can look past that and into the future. What XFree 4.0 does for us is create a better standard to write NEW games for.
As for wine, maybe someday (when it no longer matters), it will be able to emulate anything and everything in winodows, but I could care less about emulating windows, that's what I was trying to get away from in the first place. I don't care about emulating windows games, I care about playing Linux games.
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
Those are the big ones tho. With the addon of USB and Firewire support in the 2.4 Kernel it is a big addition to the general user market. Also the new /dev filesystem is going to be a big improvement.
As for XFree86 4.0 I agree, it's not all that much of an improvement for the general user, except for those general users who are gamers (i am so I'm kind of biased) for which it will be most useful. I can name a dozen people who will switch once they can play some 3d games.
These were the thoughts going through my head..
~Jester
"I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
gnumeric is not all that it's cracked up to be. It cant graph. A spreadsheet that can't graph. Let's see that means that about half of us here don't even see the point of gnumeric. Personally I have never used a spread sheet for anything but to make graphs.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
X isn't the place to look for information on why a program crashed, it's just another program, after all. The core, or, if there isn't one, the source, is. I've used Windows 95 and 98, and various incarnations of the MacOS and they, at least, don't provide core files, though that doesn't surprise anyone, as they don't provide dev tools, either. If you're lucky, they might give you an error message, but even then it's usually not useful information. A core is sometimes useful, with working dev tools.
My point is that elimiation of command prompt necessity is what needs to be done to make Linux an in-DUH-vidual's OS of choice. Shell commands require have a brain cell, which most computer users simply do not. You don't need to use the DOS Shell in Windows 95 and NT, Mac OS doesn't even have one :) but with Linux its still a very intrigal part of the OS. I'm not saying remove it completely. Even when I use Windows I often do many tasks in a DOS prompt because I find it easier. Leave it there of course for people who can, but we need fully point and click configuation of everything, installation of programs and creation of icons with a single click (we're getting closer there), automatic installation and configuation of drivers, and no task that can only be done from a terminal before Linux will become a viable choice for Joe-KnowNothing
There are many desktops ready for linux and many that are not. I will enter the third anniversary
/etc files etc. Though when time allows I intend
of personal computer ownership/use. Three yarns ago I had no idea what a C:\ drive was or bios or
hda... . I remeber asking my sister why she would
want 2 cdroms in her computer. I have always been
a tinkerer which is why I build my own computers
and run linux. I like to learn about things from the inside out, and I understand that this makes me unlike many regular users. I have had many a frustrating hour attempting to set something up
the way I liked with all of the O/S's I have played with (one reason I like x86) and linux has
(mean time spent messing with)provided most of those hours, but I have learned more about computers and computing than I would ever have
had I not discovered it's existance. I just got
off of the phone with a freind who was having problems with a windows box and was able to accomplish some preliminary diagnostic work, but
I will have to visit the machine to finish the job. I just wish that I could telnet into his box
and take care of the problem or know exactly what
I needed to do when I get there.
I have a lovely desktop and rely on the gui for
most of what I do, i tend to avoid the command line as i like 'perty pictures'. Thanks to TKdesk
I can generally avoid typing a bunch of commands to get administrative things done (i.e. editing
to master vi. Point is I am a lazy SOB with too many irons in the fire, but I appreciate the the options available with linux that are not available elsewhere.
I can set up a linux box for my grandmother with
icons for all the programs she might want to use
and she won't run into any difficulties that anyone who has never used a computer before would.
and if she does run into trouble I can telnet into
the box and root around and take care of any issues she may have. In conclusion: If this tinkering idiot can have his way with a box, then
any linux distribution set up to respond to the needs of the user should provide an enjoyable computing experiance.
thanks for your patience
Kent
"When desktop adoption does take place, it will be in large businesses,
because the lack of applications won't affect them,"
He's got it partly right...
They will only change OS if it make then more monney.That's why most companies use windows (desktop) now. Migrating to Linux would cost them big money with retraining personal, hardware upgrades, and administration costs. The gain of a slightly faster and more stable
platform is outweighed by the costs.
That's also why Linux/Apache (or BSD/Apache) is popular on the internet. It's faster, cheaper and more stable than using NT and the cost savings overall outweigh the expenses for most companies.
You come out with a killer app that will save (or make) them big money and it becomes more cost effective to use it won't matter how ready the desktop is. As long a it will make more money they will migrate to it. If they don't their competition will...
AdFuel
Ah, but if you have a clear vision of where you want to take something you can concentrate your development efforts on the things that appeal to the target audience you select. If you try and be all things to all people you inevitably fall into the trap of spreading yourself too thin, and you end up not optimally servicing ethier target audiance. Add to this that some of the audience characteristics are non-compatible. Take the Mac. Very good desktop interface. Easiest computer in the world to use. Sit a gr. 1 student in front of it and with minimal teaching they can run it.
A machine for a geek? I think not. The very things that make linux a machine for you and I make it ill fitted as a generic desktop machine. It's too configurable, too many things you can change. In short, it's too powerful. It's going to be disliked as a corporate desktop because of all these things as well. As an IT manager am I going to want my staff to have to deal with Joe the shipping manager going off and deciding to install a new window manager? No thanks.
So we're going to have to put development time into coming up with some sort of a Zero Admin Kit for linux.
I'm not saying abandon all attempts at making it look pretty. Heck, I'm as much a sucker for a cool looking GUI as the next guy. I'm just saying we need to decide who our target is, and let's face it. It's not my mom :)
Also, I don't *want* to be required to run GNOME, if I want to use linux. Linux is about freedom of choices. To say we're all going to standardize on one particular desktop schema scares me, because it means that unless I essentially want to build my own distribution I'm locked into it.
Not saying my view is right, just think we need to give it a bit of thought every now and again about where exactly we're driving this bus :)
--- Minupla
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
I'm going to get moderated into the floor, but here goes:
Do we really want/need linux to become another desktop operating system? I mean, I dislike windoze as much as the next person. But is there really any real profit in turning Linux into the next windows, with a nice homogenious interface, where every time you turn on a linux box you get the same window manager, the same GUI. These are requirements for a desktop operating system. Consistancy, homogeniality, boringness.
One of the things I *like* about linux is that if I walk through a room with 20 linux desktops atm, I will likely see several different window managers, a couple of consoles, and... variety.
I think every tool has its place. For your average user, windows may be the tool. Sure, linux on the desktop would be wonderful, but frankly I was using Linux when SLS was the only distribution. A mac like file manager is not going to rock my world people. And who is our target audience. People like me, or people who currently use windows. Really?
--- Minupla
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
Unfortunatly VMWare is a resource hog. Personally I've only been able to get satisfactory performance out of it is using a p3 450 and assighning the thing 96-128 meg.
treke
The cogent emaster 110 card is definitely listed as being tulip compliant and RedHat compliant on the first tier. The card worked just fine under Windows 95. I have no doubt that this is definitely a tulip bug. I've been told to email the tulip/redhat people to report it. The main thing is that I did RTFM and the manual was just wrong, and this is not tolerable in an open source project.
a prophet on the burning shore
Recently I set out to finally install RedHat. However, I could not get the Cogent eMaster 110 tx nic to work. The installer correctly identified it as tulip compliant, but something was wrong with autosensing between 10 and 100. I read the relevant ethernet howtos, but there was no clue. Then I discovered the tulip driver page with a grid of options to try, but none worked. Finally, I found posts on tux.org and beowulf.org from people who were having the same problem, but there weren't any follow-up posts from the Linux community. I tried asking for some advice on #linuxhelp and #redhat, but people mostly ignored me. This is the crux of the problem; how does the Linux community expect their OS to be widely adopted by consumers when hardware drivers are still so buggy, no one will help you diagnose or solve the problem even when you say pretty-please, and you're forced to buy a new nic out of desperation? I'm a reasonably skilled computer nerd, so I didn't panic when the install repeatedly didn't work. However, I can easily imagine a less skilled person encountering this aggravating problem and just giving up. It's time for the Linux community to stop ignoring and antagonizing potential "newbies" or else your OS will fade into sysadmin oblivion once again.
a prophet on the burning shore
I can't agree more ...
... :)))
I am thinking about purchasing some good X-server for win32, so that you have the best of both worlds. (I have some small linux router/server)
I could run every X on the server and still have the vast choice of programs on the win32 platform. (esp. Games
regards,
Michael
I really dislike Windows, it looks awful, and whatever problems X11 has with font rendering, Windows is only marginally better, but mostly it is just too unreliable. But, there is a critical shortage of business apps for Linux at this time, I don't mean that there aren't any office suites, there are and they're very good, and I know that there are reliable e-commerce applictions and the like, what I'm talking about are the third party add-ons which support M$Office, I know of several university ,and local government departments that in the last several years switched to M$ Office, not because the clerical workers or the IT staff thought it was in itself a better product than WordPerfect or Lotus, products that these departments had been using previously, but rather because a third party add-on package, in one case an APA formatting tool and in another case some software which allowed Excel to interact with Oracle databases, offered a functionality that couldn't be matched by competing products.
M$'s ubiquity is its biggest advantage, unless you are either a very large company and can afford to develop cutom extensions for Star Office or Applix. or have little need for such extensions, or need ones so specialized that there are no commercial packages available, you'll find it often makes more sense to go with M$ and put up with support headaches when it crashes.
One of the reasons that I like SuSE is that it comes with KDE installed by default. I hope that his statment that they redesigned the desktop in version 6.4 doesnt mean that there switching to Gnome. Nothing against Gnome, but Kde is so much more stable.
This statement does 2 things for them: it gets them free advertising (wow, some linux company is dissing linux. that's worth a read..) AND it lets them "save the day" later on, witha version of linux that "is" ready for the desktop.
I agree that much of linux could be changed to make it easier for the average newbie; However, it's perfectly ready for the desktop. Just not the average computer illiterati or windoze luser.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
richi.
Being a linux guru for a few years now, I realize that as good as the OS is, it has its shortcomings as a mass-desktop solution. I have done some studies on our software where I work and I've discovered that yes, we could in theory switch all of our 500 desktops over to linux. I'd love to see that, personally. The first problem with doing something like this is support. We have people who are literally DUMB. Not Computer Illeterate, but really, honestly dumb. I would be afraid to put a linux desktop in front of them. Also, being the only technician who understands linux, I'd almost be on my own. No vendor support, very little support from our staff. Can linux survive in an enterprise environment? Absolutely. It comes down to a lack of trained technicians to support it that makes it a bit unrealistic at this point. My hopes are that someday this will change.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
My only problem with this argument is that if the average Linux user is a fair bit better with computers then Joe Q Public and the average Linux developer is a LOT better then Joe Q Public.. Why the hell is Joe Q Public the target audience all of a sudden?
;-)
The reason that Joe Public is the target is that people using Linux want to remove other unstable OSs that shall remain nameless. The whole point of using Linux is having a stable operating system. Now what this means is that we want this more stable operating system to become more widely accepted that it already is because we want to see the whole situation of "OS-land" stabilize because we've already see what an unstable operating system does to users and we don't want that. To make this more widely accepted we have to make it popular for the average "Joe" so that he likes it and uses it. This means making it easier for him to use. (I know there's an argument here for making the user smarter but look at the current crop of government education ideas - outcome based education and such - and you'll see that that task will be tougher than making Linux easier to use. It's easier to code Linux than to code a person.
Joe Q Public is a term used by both the companies that want to sell Linux and the people who just want to destroy M$. But are we ever going to appeal to JQU? When the OS is written by hobbyists for hobbyists? By hackers for hackers?
C was written by hackers and it spread across the land so to speak. The point is that almost anything in computers today is based on something that was "hacked" at some earlier period of time. Just because it was written by hackers (a horribly mis-used term today - ugh!) doesn't mean that we want it to stay just with hackers. Linux is screaming to be used on the desktop eventually just because it's far more stable than most things. For that matter I can't think of anything that is more stable at the moment.
It's not like anyone can steer the direction of Linux. Well, I shouldn't say that. Companies like Red Hat, hiring hackers to make Gnome.. That's steering Linux in a way. But at the same time, it's still a level above the competition in complexity and configurability. Why? Because Joe Q User isn't who's downloading and installing it.
I disagree about steering Linux. If you look at how things are set up a large group of voices could submit items to the lists and get them implemented if they wanted. That's the way Linux is set up. It's designed to be developed in the sort of controlled chaos, as it were, which is created by several different voices talking at once. The voices that are saying the same things or are louder than the others get their stuff "heard" and the others don't. Does this make it more technical? Absolutely. Does this mean we want it to be less technical for Joe User? Absolutely.
The Tick - "Spoon!"
"Bah!" - Dogbert
Most PC "users" are not of a technical bent and running Win9x may not be the best option, but it is the easiest. I think a lot of people use Win9x (and AOL and such), simply because it's the path of least resistance...
Hmmm. Our disaster recorvery exercise got pulled for this weekend, so I don't have to work; maybe it's time to try out that SuSE 6.2 budle I inherited two months ago...
Like I need a fourth PC running at home. Ack... ;p
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
1) If you leave the Desktop to winblowz, how will it be before MS makes that desktop work only with MS servers? (Actually, W2k w/ kerberos bastardized by MS may already have done that).
2)IF you doen't like the desktop that some future Linux shows up with, pick one you do like and install it.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
BTW just because Netscape crashes it doesn't bring down my whole system I can
simply xkill it and restart it.
Except for when it locks up the mouse and keyboard as it has been know to do. Netscape sucks and until Linux gets a decent browser, hoping for Opera to get out of alpha, it won't be fit for websurfing, which is the Internet to most americans. However I do find most apps run perfectly.
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
I just installed SuSE after using RH nearly exclusively for the last two years, and I must say I was extremely impressed. Configuration files were where they should be, the /opt directory was home to KDE and Netscape (like it should be). Netscape actually works in the presence of Java (which hasnt in RH since the migration from libc5). Yes I know that SuSE is rpm based, and at one time was based on RH but they've gone their own path. However, I don't think I'm going back to Red Hat. Long live Geeko.
spam, spam, spam, spam, e-mail, news and spam.
When my mom can use linux, then its ready. When the notion of kernel compilation is backgrounded but still available, then its ready.
When drivers become available with almost every device, then its ready.
When software comes on the same disk as Windows , then its ready.
When X is universal, and easy to program for, then its ready.
When there is a serious, compatable office suite. then its ready
When there are "wizards" and automated tasks, so that nmere mortals can accomplish important tasks such as networking, then it is ready
When there is a startup screen to lilo, then it is ready
When linux has a true help system, then it is ready
When linux, and linux users do not put themselves above the average man and adopt the attitude of true community, then it is ready.
Linux and we the linux users do not think of the marketability of the platform. There is no usability, there is little actual community vision for public use, and there is little initiative to make linux really usable. Its going to be a while before this OS as we know it finds itself in the hands of our grandmothers. Non-techie people look for easy of use, and im not about whether bash completes command structures. Real world scenarios. Ease of setup is getting much better. X is starting to get real.. but things are lightyears away from a positive average user experience.
When there is no mention of the world kernel anywhere in basic user setup of linux, then we'll talk.
--jay
>Linux is ugly. I'm not just talking about the prettiness of the GUI, but the general ugliness of the fonts and text.
... everyone who sees my desktop says "Whooaaa!". You have no idea how many people I know would like to run Linux just because of E.
I do not agree with what you said. I have a True Type font server on my box, and it is VERY efficient. It's true that out the box, the fonts are shitty, but with this it's awesome.
I think you forgot to tak about Enlightement. I am using it for quite some time now, and believe me
--
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
This was the T-shirt I was wearing today. What a coincidence :-)
--
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
Strength? Sure. But you must admit it is also a weakness.
/opt/. Uninstalling should be a fast rm -rf.
/usr/local/bin, put them in /usr/local/share, name it. After rm -rf the program directory, deleting broken symlinks is the only thing left, which is trivial to handle.
Packages come with installation methods, but often without any aid for uninstallation. (I don't use rpm at all). A script inside the package that does the uninstallation like make uninstall is a great idea, but I dunno why not everyone is implementing it.
Finding where files are to delete is a chore that shouldn't be there. I personally want to put everything that relates to a program, (say, its own default config file) in its own directory, like
For compatibility tho, something must be all over the place - symlinks. Put them in
I know the strength lies in "doing things your way", but the there's only one optimal way for each person and coincidently, the optimal way of a lot of people seems to be "stick 'em together". It is just the natural human way of doing things.
While you can enjoy your flexibility, why can't we just alter the default so that we can minimize the "administration task performed by users"?
This poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate.[...]
With 64% of those polled saying they run linux on their desktop, I reason don't see the reason why they need this disclaimer. =)
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Roughly translated, "General Protection Fault" means, "We were too lazy to include proper memory management, so all your applications are messed up now, not just the one that crashed. You have to reboot now." (Yes, I know it was a rhetorical question. I just really, really dislike Windows.)
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
...Its the exact opposite for me, unfortunately. In win95, I can play mp3s in the background with no visible speed impact on the GUI and my running apps (but I can still notice it when doing CPU-ish things like unzipping big files etc).
However, in linux (and no its not the WM, I've tried E, IceWM and currently Windowmaker and its all the same) playing MP3s slows X to a CRAWL. Eg. I can time how long it takes for windows to redraw when moved or switched to, in seconds! I've tried XMMS, Freeamp and GQmpeg... all similar results though XMMS was a bit slower.
I am running a K6/2 @ 450, 96Mb ram with a Voodoo Banshee with Darryl Strauss' Banshee X server. Could this just be a driver problem for me? Or will my luck improve in XFree 4.0 due to the new architechture...?
the average joe is too dumb to use something like linux
;)
Gripe #1: Stop beating on people named Joe. I tire of hearing my name mercilessly abused.
Gripe #2: It's not that they're dumb! Let's try not to alienate non-computer-geeks. It's that the average citizen wants an OS that'll start when they flip the ON switch, that'll run the programs they need, and that works 99.1% of the time.
Which makes me wonder why so many people use Windows.
Yes, that was the obligatory anti-M$ comment. To which I will now give the answer:
Because compared to Linux, it's easy as heck to use. Sure, we Windows users have to tolerate an average of a crash a day. Sure, there are Blue Screens. That we don't have to muddle with some ancient CLUE.*shudder*
Don't get me wrong, I'm a DOS man myself. I appreciate Linux. But MacOS and Widnows really are more user-friendly.
-Ravagin
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is NPR! And that means....it's time for a drum solo!"
Karma: T-rexcellent.
The only thing that needs to be eliminated in totality is faith in the government and large corporations. Go ahead, let's end our love for our nation but let us destroy every government and large corporation in the process.
GNOME and KDE should redefine themselves. GNOME should be targetted for say.... sysadmins and such whereas KDE should be the desktop for the masses. Instead of having it be either or, why don't both teams work together to make sure that those 2 critical user types' needs are full met?
I was really, truly excited when I first heard that I might be able to migrate my clients from Windows to Linux, while enabling them to keep some of their apps that have no Linux equivalent. Conversely, I was really, truly disappointed when I found out just how much they want us to pay for the dubious privilege of running Windows on a Linux box.
They should just cut to the chase and license VMWare with a Linux distro, and stop trying to do things the other way around. VMWare is a cool Linux add-on, but they'd sell a hell of a lot more copies if it was reasonably priced, or better yet, if something like Red Hat Professional came with a VMWare license (how could a client argue with that? =p) Think of what that would do for Linux acceptance in the workplace!
Seriously, though, how can I justify adding $300 to each system I install? Most of my clients expect to save money by going to Linux. The margins on workstations are slim enough as it, is without us pricing ourselves out of the market entirely.
Free music from Jack Merlot.
Sheesh. For that much, I'll build a second Windows box next to my Linux box and run Windows in a window, using VNC.
http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/index.html
Which happens to be FREE by the way. And OPEN SOURCE.
VMWare can bite me. Their product is just another proprietary program they want me to bend over and beg for.
Free music from Jack Merlot.
With all due respect, sir, you are either severely deluded, or a lying sack of shit. To claim that Windows 95 hasn't crashed in 4 years is just ludicrous. I have been in the business of supporting many Windows installations for many, many years, and I simply don't believe you. Wait, there IS one other possibility... you haven't turned on the computer. What a troll.
And I am fed up with all this talk about user friendliness.
/music/mp3/artists/britneyspears/lovenotetoprincew illiam.mp3" command? Sheesh. Why do we need this xmms crap that puts all your favorite mp3's into playlists? Dude that is so... windows like.
About GUI's: Whatever happened to the shell prompt?! Can't you people type a simple "cd mpg123
About GIMP vs Photoshop: Bah. Get a good laser printer and make your stuff with GIMP. Who cares about Photoshop, cmyk and pantones?? I don't read those glossy propaganda magazines, that's for slaves of the Man. Gimme 2600 any day.
About RPM's: Any idiot who can't spend a mere 10 minutes pre-configuring and compiling an app before they install it, doesn't need to be on linux. Windows has it all backwards. Only an idiot would download software that is ready-to-run out of the box. Didn't the Chinese once say patience is a virtue??
About grandmama: Oh don't get me started. I am not gonna spend the time to get her hooked up with linux. I'd much rather just stick Windows 2000 on her machine and let microsoft and all those marketers rip her privacy to shreds as she incautiously browses a world wide web littered with cookies and user tracking technology and so on. Of course it ain't my problem if grandmama goes to a website and gets nailed with a piece of trojan horse ActiveX code.
I speak for all old skool t3chi3z when I say the stupid and clueless do not deserve the freedom of Linux. I will personally wage war against all those who would make Linux easier to use for idiots. Keep Linux restricted to the elite!!!
PS: This post is meant to lampoon all those hard k0re elitist jerks in the community. Thank you.
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
"Grandmothers and Uncles didn't and WON'T drive Linux?" Here we go again.... All these dollars flowing into Linux Fever are from Who? Techi, die hards? You are the innovators! We, Grandmothers and Uncles, are the recipiants of your technology. OR... was this OS developed just for the heck of developing it? Who do you think all these new distributions are going to if NOT us? What are you thinking? Don't you realize OUR desire to use this product provides growth, and your opportunity to develop more and better apps. Lastly..were you born using Unix/Linux... or at sometime in your humble existance were you new to the experience yourself? Be grateful that your predecessors were more generous about your lack of ability to comprehend all of the potential while graciously giving you the opportunity and the support needed to grow an appreciation for something new and better.
ah! the internet!! we may still screw up the world but NEVER again will we be able to claim IGNORANCE
CNN is asking: "Do you have Linux running on your desktop computer?"
Let's show 'em, guys!
Your sys admin can set up a web interface to the Exchange server. I think it is called webmail. Now from any computer in the world you can use a webpage that mimics almost all the functions in outlook.
This is very, very useful, because I can avoid going into work as much as possible.
You so right. Us Mac people so happy. No we get new system thing from smart-smart hack people. So happy happy joy for us Mac people. Simple, Simple like we like.
;) Let Mac and Linux flourish, and a thousand OSs bloom!
Have you tried MacPerl on a G4? Python lives nicely on the Mac, too. And of cource we have one or two compiled languages to toy with. You should see the Tex/Latex menu (gooey latex? there's an image!) in Alpha (a Tcl powered text editor). Us Mac users live in a bigger world than you might realize
Linux is not ready because it's still quite young. Linux will take computing to worlds undreamed of by Unix and it (or its progeny) will be for the voice activated virtual environment... and the desktop
Are you experienced? Or have you ever been experienced? Well, I have.
-- J. Hendrix
Yes!
I am a graphic designer, so this is a mission critical feature to me. I see a lot of comments in the Linux world about the joy of text editting and how much better it is than WYSIWYG. Could be trye for them (could be ideology in drag) but it utterly misses the point for me. There are people called "Typographers" who spend entire careers designing type. That is, the visual appearance of letterforms X-based type is a nightmare.
I don't get all bent out of shape eover widget choices or other GUI issues that generate a lot of heat, but this is fundamental.
I bet those guys at Eazel are working on something.
The typo should convince you: I really am a graphic designer ;)
I agree.
;) Then those whoe want it--can have it!
Will someone please start the HOSTILE Linux Distro? Something with no GUI, No X, ed as the only text editor--maybe vi for the Uber Hostile Linux User..
Isn't this sandbox big enough for everyone to play?
Re.Gnome and KDE not being mutually exclusive. Right! Anyone who has bothered to try knows that this is true. I us Gnome because I run LinuxPPC on an aging Mac clone with a teeny monitor and 640X480 screen. Gnome/enlightenment makes it possible (if irritating) to use the huge dialog boxeswhich Linux developers seem to favor--in KDE, I'm screwed. But I like a lot of KDE apps and use them. I love seeing KDE help windows on my Gnome desktop.
That said, whatever theme you've got, IT AINT LIKE A MAC! why? a)fonts (appearance, order); b) consistency of UI; c)control panels (Mac users know what I mean); d)painless addition of harware; e)zero intervention support for multiple filesystem types on removable media (say ZIP for example).
I use the GIMP because I am amazed that it exists. It holds the promise of greatness yet to come. And because it so closely follows the conventions of Photoshop, I can be "fully productive" within it's limitations. But, I am a graphic designer by trade. The GIMP is the functional equal of Photoshop 4 or 4.5. Photoshop 5.5 blows it away. This is not a put-down of the Gimp. The Gimp is great, but it could not replace Photoshop in my work today.
It is inevitable that Linux desktops will continue to mature in ease of use, features and stability (having a stable kernel does me no good if my desktop keeps crapping out). I look forward to great things from Gnome, Eazel and KDE. I hope that their efforts will soon make it possible to replace Mac OS (not because I don't like Mac, but because I love freedom). In fact I believe that this will enevitably occur over time. Ultimately, a continuously improved Linux will replace or augment most proprietary OSs. We just aren't quite there yet, and claiming we are won't make it so.
He's talking about win95, you're talking about NT. They are two completely different beasts as far as reliability. I can understand that you have a server which runs on NT and rarely/never crashes but that does not mean that the same can be said for 95.
Windows 95 crashes often and on every machine I have ever come across - without exception. "Invalid page fault" anyone?. So much so that we don't even investigate beyond "have you tried re-booting yet?" on most occasions. When this isn't good enough the reason is usually because 95 has allowed them to delete missioncritical.dll
At least with NT it's a bit harder.
We really need to start rethinking the whole User Friendly thing. Frankly, I am in tech support, I know how few people can use windows. Most of the so-called windows users will probably faint if you moved a desktop icon, and call me to complain about a virus what makes a system easy to use is familiarity. In dos days the average user was far more capable than in the post win95 era, why ? Because everybody told him he didn't have to know anything anymore. I was there to lod his device drivers for him, I was there to create a desktop shortcut for him...get the picture. Hence the only reason people complain about Linux is because the don't know it. What makes a system desktop ready ? These days, the availabillity of good tech-support, that is more important than anything else. Who cares if it's harder to install hardware under Linux, most win users can't do it themselves under any operating system, anyway it's not harder, it's just different. The tech-support problem is being solved. The only thing left to do before Linux is "desktop ready" is for people to start using it and used to it. They leave the system configuration everything to me anyway. if he can run whatever app he actually uses, and we get some more games, Linux is desktop read. It was desktop ready before X even existed.
"Semper in excretum set alta variant"
the question isn't "Is linux ready for the desktop?"....
the question is "Is your desktop ready for linux?" - Linux isn't for everyone. I don't think it ever will be. Not, at least, while Windows 9x users still think they're being technical by running the "Ad new hardware" wizard.
-FluX
-------------------------
Your Ad Here!
-------------------------
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Unfortunatly, it's a clumsy interface. It feels slow. In fact, it would make me feel like a second class citizen...
Equality of apps, if not, equality of functionality, is required.
Perhaps the Outlook suite is documented to the point we'll see GNU tools to talk with an exchange server?
It's too bad, but this war is a checklist war: If they can do it, we have to do it as well.
Remember, it's not thegeeks we have to convince - it's the suits, who are better off not doing anything risky that would attract overhead attention to any bad decisions they make.
You'll know it's ready when:
What does c) involve? Well, for me, it's groupware. I need access to my Exchange server. I bet you te same thing will hold up most desktop setups in corperate america... most don't use pop3 or imap in-house!
Well, you have to admit, he's right about the linux for the desktop statement. If linux was the only OS available for the home PC, there wouldn't be nearly as many people using computers and the internet wouldn't be what it is. Frankly, the average joe is too dumb to use something like linux.
Dr Fgets Strikes again!
Since you mentioned immediate relatives...my mother works for a small town newspaper that still uses some text based TRS-80 terminals for their mailing system yet she still seems to struggle with the beautiful GUIs presented by Windows applications.
I think, what the general user wants is a clean intuitive user interface that is easy to use. They have just been brainwashed into thinking it has to have tons of dropdown menus and fancy colors and flashing lights. I really think too much importance is placed on having a slick user interface than a useful one.
MS Outlook, for example is a great tool, but has an extremely complex user interface. Many items are buried under levels and levels of menus and forms. And this compexity hasn't changed from 97 to 98 to 2000.
What I'm getting at is... GUIS are nice, but what I think users want is a clean interface not just nifty widgets - be it text or graphic. That doesn't mean the absence of the Window Manager because I couldn't live without having 50 xterms open at the same time.
(But, how do I script together a bunch of GUI applications?)
Back to the original discussion though. I don't believe Linix is ready for the consumer market (I think this is the real argument - not the desktop). The general user doesn't want to have to read books upon books about how to use a computer system when they can have a system that attempts to do everything for you - sometimes with unexpected results. And if Linux doesn't become mainstream, I really don't care. As long as Microsoft doesn't buy the internet and force IE down my throat I'll continue to use Netscape 4.7 with Pine and Star Office to write my reports for school, and I won't have upgrade my machine every time I want to install new software either.
The computer is a tool, not a religion.
Instead of asking this question, why not turn it around?
Is the user ready for the desktop?
This question will probably hit a few nerves in the IT industry.....
Jailbrekr.
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
Linux is not Windows. This is widely considered to be a feature = ). One of the things I tell users who are interested in Linux who talk to me about it is that if they want to use Linux productively, they will need to change their whole philosophy -- get used to non-WYSIWYG editing, compiling their own programs, downloading everything off the net instead of walking into stores and buying it in boxes, understanding window managers and the X window system, etc.
I use only Linux on my desktop here, and personally, I find it considerably more productive than Windows for school work, projects, net stuff, programming, etc etc.
I'd say Linux is more than ready for the desktop; it's that the masses aren't ready for Linux.
--
The more things change, the more they stay insane...
Actualy, that old Lisa team at Apple (or at least some of them) are now making stuff for X. It was just on Slashdot today, I beleive.
----------
Not a typewriter
If only there were more big games for Linux and then I'd have no reason to have a hard drive with Windows on it. Yeah, we have Quake and all the sequals (or their all coming soon), and we have a few more. But, frankly, I don't like Quake. I'm just not a action-shooter person. (I play them every once in a while, but not much).
Thankfuly, theres the linuxgames.com project. If it weren't for them, I don't think there would be any hope ;).
----------
Not a typewriter
"But with the upcoming release of the GUI Managers and the rising number of pre-installed Linux boxen, I think we're getting closer. " Actually that makes sense....plural of ox = oxen .....hmmm I wonder if he really meant it that way
Here is my .02 cents on this:
More people would use Linux if it came all set up. Most my freinds that own Macs just want to e-mail, surf the net, word process, and play games. Right now my Linux is setup for all this after you type "startx". one of my freinds who uses Windows has very little problem using my Linux for her tasks as long as I tell her where I have the shortcut for the file. I think distros should have all of this setup. Instead of seeing links to the RedHat site perhaps they should link to AbiWord. I have faith in Linux.
Everything moves uber-quick compared to Winders, but still certain things lack for me. I still have to watch mpeg, and qt videos in Windows. Linux has a way to come, but it is doable.
Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
My 11-year-old is getting quite good at linux. She wanted koules, so I downloaded the tarball and with a tab bit of help, edited the config file and had a working game in 5 minutes. The problem with linux is that it *looks* intimidating. IMO, linux is *much* easier to use than Winblows, it's just that it takes some time to learn. And, unfortunately, we live in a culture of instant self-gratification.
Easy, people like to have choices, with out having to learn anything. They want all the answers handed to them so they can pick the one they like. The problem w/ Macs? No choices, the problem with linux? No answers. The answer, people stay with what they know.
No body uses Unix on their desk top. Hell, how many people still use DOS? Or ever knew how at all... People want to Think they are making descisions, they like to think they know what's going on, and they want to think that they have options. If they 1) don't See options to change, and 2) Can't figure out how to do so, they get uncomfortable.
Face it, people feel better just knowing that under windows, they canm change the wall paper, much less that when they get sold a new printer, it will work when plugged in. Untill Linux manages that level of user security, it has no chance. Untill the user can make changes with out having to code, and not have to worry about how badly they've messed the whole thing up, they won't move.
-Earthman
Earthman
Say it to me face w/ out wasting space...
It seems very unlikely that Linux will ever replace Windows on the desktop. Yes, the popularity will grow, but eventually our numbers will reach some sort of equilibrium. There's always going to be a large group of users who are more comfortable with windows, or find it reassuring that there's an enormous company behind it, or whatever.
On the other hand, saying that Linux isn't ready for the desktop is silly. For the people who aren't comfortable with windows, it's wonderful. Pandering to those who don't want to switch isn't the way to make it better; working on the things that current linux users need is.
this includes making things easier to install, etc. But anything that would be worth something to Bill probably isn't what we want.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
And the Evil Mister Gates takes credit yet again for something he didn't do.
Everybody knows it was Al Gore that invented the Internet!
Microsoft's VP of Customer Service is Helen Waite. If you are having problems with their products go to Helen Waite.
Right now i love SuSE Linux but i could not really see the non computer people who just use computers for email, internet word processing etc. To be using Linux as a home os. But Linux has come a long way thou and it is around the corner, on becoming a desktop OS.
There are still a lot of applications missing that is stopping *NIX-like (Linux AND
*BSD) operating systems from conquering the desktop. IMO the main reasons are:
1) No real 3D support other than 3dfx chipsets (hey, the kids need/want GAMES. That is, after
what made many ex-Amigans choose the PC platform in '94)
2) no fast full-screen mpeg video playback
3) no stable internet browser (on many systems Netscape just doesn't cut it and Opera isn't an
alternative yet). Soon we'll have Konquerer and Mozilla filling this gap.
4) no easy-to-use GUI email-address management utility i.e. Outlook or Lotus Notes (apparently,
Lotus is considering a Linux port, according to an employee at the Lotus stand at the Cebit)
As far as the installation is concerned, Corel's installation routine is making inroads. I
have seen quite a few open-mouthed (now ex-)Windows users.
From what I'm hearing, a lot of Linux users dual boot into Windows for these reasons. I
like to play counter-strike and am forced to boot/leave Windows (on my HD). If we can get a
lot of these kids to fully switch to Linux we'll have more resources to create more
applications; creating a larger market. Games is a large key to Linux' success.
------------------------------
ask *politely* for ports to Linux, remind companies to check if it works on the BSD
Linux compatibility layer.
Hrmmm.... I'm currently trying to keep four clients on a home network in sync. Every freaking package scatters its files in a combination of network shared and local filesystems, so instead of just loading the wretched thing into /opt/newgizmo and adding a link to the (shared) global desktop, I have to do the ... /opt/gizmo
rpm -qlp | egrep -v
dance and then copy the droppings to each system. Then when it comes time to remove the fool thing, I can't just
rm -r
No, I have to track down all of the little buggers and do the whole stupid thing in reverse. Updates are the worst of both. That's a lot of work for four systems in the same area; just imagine the fun that Corporate IT will have with it. This isn't really a Linux problem; it's a hacker (or hacker culture) problem. Too many of the packages are being set up according to rules that make perfect sense to programmer esthetics and depend on users having their own system administration skills.
RPMs are specifically designed to allow installation without copying files -- just copy rpm itself and install (or give the URL to rpm). And if boxes are just exact copies of each other, you can use rsync and just update everything that chaned.
In Windows copying of installed software is absolutely impossible because of registry and conflicts, and installers are too interactive to be useful, so it's definitely the area where Windows isn't ready.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Are you merely a racist bigot so inbred that you can't spell?
Or have you any useful comment as to why you would prefer one of GNOME/KDE?
Maddog observes that Linux is the only operating system that has ever had world-wide success that was not created in the United States. I'll take what he says a whopping lot over what some Anonymous Coward too cowardly to put name to his words.
Did I forget to mention that you can't spell? No? Oh, well, it probably ought to be underlined...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
The fact that KDE tends to be popular near Germany, and GNOME tends to be popular around North America, provides for all sorts of entertaining "Godwin's Law"-related possibilities. But is largely irrelevant to the people that are actually working on making these into useful systems.
My personal reaction is to sit with the French in the "danger zone," and say Vive la difference!
BOTH desktops can coexist, (particularly in these modern days of 36GB hard drives), and both have valid things to offer.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Let me first say that I have been a Linux user for over 3 years. I have a Debian server, a ThinkPad running Debian and 2 desktops: one exclusively Mandrake 7.0 and the one I'm typing from which is dual-boot Mandrake 7.0/Win98SE (I've been playing Diablo).
Here's why I can expect abuse from the Slashdot community: I'm seriously thinking of purchasing Win2000 and making that my main desktop.
Why, you ask? First, let's consider the things I need in my main desktop: stability and security. We can all agree that Linux provides these. Some may disagree, but Win2000 does provide these things also. Yes, one needs to be concerned about viruses. I would probably use Netscape for my browser, and something else for my email client (Pegasus?) so that things like Melissa wouldn't affect me. I would also purchase a good anti-virus app and update it regularly. Incidentally, I've downloaded tons of stuff from the internet (nudge, wink :), and I've never gotten a virus at home. I got a couple at work in my last job, both Excel macro viruses that did little damage.
BUT!(and here's the rub) ...the problem is that there are so many things that I like to use (notice I said 'like', not 'need') regularly that just plain aren't available on Linux:
1.) A good .mpg/.avi/.rm player. Sorry, xanim doesn't cut it. It won't play anything using the latest codecs, and AFAIK doesn't support full-screen mode. As much as it pains me to say it, Windows Media Player 6.4 is actually quite a good app.
2.) Reliable apps for my Palm III. Yes, I've used KPilot. I've also lost data using it. I've never lost data using the Palm software for Windows. I also can't use AvantGo, which is a really cool app.
3.) Myriad of browser tools, including (but not limited to): Java (I have to turn it off, or Netscape locks up under Linux), Flash (yes, there is a flash player for Linux, but it's not fully featured. Try looking at whatever.nike.com under Linux) and plug-ins. Mozilla should cure most or all of these issues, but it's not due out for 6 months, and we've all seen how software projects get delayed (like the Linux kernel and Debian). I'm not complaining about how long those things takes, that's just the way it goes.
4.) Games: yes, I know, more are coming out all the time for Linux, and I truly thinks that's fantastic. However, I play basically 2 games right now: Diablo and Descent 3. I have to reboot into Windows for both of these.
The crux of the whole matter, at least for me, is that my computer is a tool/toy that needs to do the things I want it to. I would love nothing (well, almost nothing :) more than to completely eliminate Windows from my life. But the (unfortunate) bottom line is that, based on all of the the things I like to do, Win2000 is probably my best option.
Comments, criticisms and moderation are all quite welcome (as if I could do anything about it anyway), but please think before you post or moderate. :)
Cheers.......
Name: | John Doe | Jane Doe
------+----------+---------
Age:| 23| 17
You know what I'm trying to accomplish. But a computer probably wouldn't.
I would guess that you'd need to tie into the handwriting recognition software some system whereby it can be told to attempt to format a certain set of data (which could be selected by drawing a box around it, or something *EXPLICIT* so it doesn't go off all the time) by some criteria that the user selects.
So I might scrawl that down, and then tell the computer to make a spreadsheet out of that by analyzing the location of the data, the lines that seperate it, etc.
The Newton had a lot of useful features that you'd want in this though - defered handwriting recognition (so that it didn't slow you down... you could store it as bitmaps or vectors and recognize it later), the ability sorely lacking in the palm to mix graphics and text, etc.
Using PostScript might not be the best idea in the world though - it can be pretty processor intensive. It takes a G3/G4 to have a fully prettified Aqua in MacOS X right now and it uses PDF, which is better in a lot of ways for display purposes than PS. Defaulting to vectors is probably the way to go, however.
You'd want to thoroughly explore alternative UI's though. A regular desktop GUI wouldn't cut it, and a CLI would be painful to use with a pen in a short amount of time. The Newt was good, better than the Palm or WinCE, but it could be a lot better, given how free-form your data might be.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
There are indeed a few apps with poor UI design (many of those are commercial - look at the Quicktime4 player for Windows). But that isn't the source of the worst problem. The real difficulty with many of the desktop apps available for KDE is that they are untested, undocumented and unfinished.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Now carefully consider what I am saying about ease of use. It really isn't that important. What did people do when they were using DOS or, even worse, Windows 3.1?
You are correct that the "ease of use" factor is a canard. So is the pretty window trimmings factor. So is the GUI installer factor.
The real problem with Unix-like systems is that they demand too much in terms of administration skills. Fine for people who read "News For Nerd", but not fine for someone who wants to plug-n-play their digital camera or their WinNT/Novell network. As bad as DOS/Win3.1 was, anyone could install a driver or a program by running INSTALL.EXE, and you could count the important configuration files on one hand.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
LISTEN TO YOURSELF, you sound like a troll.
No, I sound like someone who cares more about the QUALITY AND STABILITY of linux more than I care about it's proliferation. I want linux to be better, not just preinstalled on more boxes.
Why rush to get something to market? Let linux mature naturally. Don't let the rush for commercial viability (money) in the clueless newbie market drive it.
Linux isn't a silver bullet to slay the M$ werewolf. One of two things will happen if we let linux mature. Either 1, it'll become the most stable OS for the market AND the tools will become available to make it suitable for grandmothers and uncles and it'll be the natural heir apparant to that market, or 2, M$ will feel the heat and improve their OS so well that people won't be waiting for an excuse to jump ship and go to linux.
Do you want to improve the computing market or just hurt M$?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
But even if a new Linux UI could innovate freely, unrestrained by user expectations, designing for the "average desktop" still means designing for a different user community from the current Linux users.
So, I still don't get the motivation: why do people volunteer for projects that largely seem to try to replicate an existing user experience for the non-programming masses? Even if someone really wants to develop software for average users, why try to replicate a paradigm (the Windows/Mac desktop) that seems intrinsically complex, when very easy to use interfaces (appliance like, embedded, etc.) seem actually much more promising.
So, maybe being "ready for the desktop" in the sense of what runs on most desktops today is just the wrong thing to aim for: most people seem to need something simpler (think WebTV, Playstation, and word processor), and expert Linux users probably want something more flexible than a Windows/MacOS desktop workalike.
X11 has a widely-used extension mechanism that makes it easy to add those. That extension mechanism is already used for, for example, direct graphics, low bandwidth transmissions, video mode extensions, double buffering, power management, shaped windows, video, graphics tablets, and a lot of other features you probably consider "standard" (check "xdpyinfo" to see all the extensions your server has). Some extensions that have been created by not included in XFree86 are server-side image compression/decompression, server-side image processing, and server-side video.
Adding antialiased fonts and graphics via such a mechanism isn't hard (the hard part is implementing the low level graphics routines in the server).
It may be good to start from scratch in the long run (as Berlin does), but for practical purposes, I think you can get a lot more mileage out of X11 with much less effort. And there is a lot of infrastructure and functionality in and around X11 that will take a long time to replicate in another system.
Besides Berlin, don't overlook Java. In the long run, it may well be the best replacement for X11. While it is currently only loosely coupled to in client/server applications, you can use it in a way that's similar to Display PostScript. And it improves over DPS in security, stability, and (with a good implementation) performance. Your next C++ toolkit may well be automatically generated bindings to remote Java UI objects.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/28/094
It can import Quicken files and more. Never used it but plan to convert from Quicken2000 soon.
I hate to burst SuSE's bubble, but opening offices in Venezuela is not going to get you anywhere in the Latin American market. Why? Because the Latin American market pretty much means Brazil, period. The rest of the market is almost negligible when compared to Brazil. (I'm not gloating, I'm simply telling like it is.) Witness Conectiva, makers of the best-selling Portuguese distro. They are expanding into the rest of the Latin American market, with the release of a Spanish version of their distro. So if you want to get lucky in Latin America, you want to get your ass down to Rio, not Caracas.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Yeah, I think she could. After all there are packages such as gnorpm and kpackage, plus it is not all that difficult to do a rpm -Uvh filename. Now, as for building a program from scratch, I think she would freak out over that.
I can see it now, grandma compiling apache with -O9.
--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
I'd say Linux is more than ready for the desktop; it's that the masses aren't ready for Linux.
Some people might find fault with this, but I think it is very accurate. Linux will gain favor as it progresses from both sides. Most people who are scared of the CLI are also scared of computers in general. Most of us that have really taken to Linux have been using computers extensively for 10+ years. As this attribute becomes more common of the general populace you will see more poeple who want to take the training wheels off their machines. More and more people will want to take back control of their boxes, after they realize what pawns they have been. At the same time Linux is getting WAAY easier to use and enjoy, with more companies and projects being started every day the overall codebase and capabilites are expanding expontentially. Fun stuff.
--
+&x
I agree with your point C, despite what others have said. Users think of *a program* (ie single entity) and you're violating the metaphor by using a series of files to do the same job.
/usr/bin/.
Your solution is a good idea. I've thought of something along the same lines. Ok now consider this:
Solution #2
What if the VFS was partially user space?
ie. everyone starts out with the default file structure and you can build ontop of that per user.
Im not a kernel developer, but think of the flexibility of this. You don't haveta be root to mount smb shares wherever. You put a program in your ~/apps and when you log in it shows up in
Only your user can see this.
RPM's exist to keep track of where all the files go. Programs are installed in the path (generally
Hrmmm.... I'm currently trying to keep four clients on a home network in sync. Every freaking package scatters its files in a combination of network shared and local filesystems, so instead of just loading the wretched thing into
rpm -qlp | egrep -v ...
dance and then copy the droppings to each system. Then when it comes time to remove the fool thing, I can't just
rm -r /opt/gizmo
No, I have to track down all of the little buggers and do the whole stupid thing in reverse. Updates are the worst of both. That's a lot of work for four systems in the same area; just imagine the fun that Corporate IT will have with it.
This isn't really a Linux problem; it's a hacker (or hacker culture) problem. Too many of the packages are being set up according to rules that make perfect sense to programmer esthetics and depend on users having their own system administration skills.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
(Well, I didn't discover Linux (1.2.8) until '95 or I might have found it acceptable somewhat earlier...)
;)] of the desktops".
I tend to agree with your gripes... but let me add my own:
Gripe #1: When they say "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" what they really mean is "Linux isn't ready for 85% [editor note: this number is for example purposes only and is intended to illustrate only that some number is valid there
Gripe #2: Linux, preinstalled with a GUI and a bunch of applications like many desktop WinPC's, just might be more user friendly than at least the MS variety. [Unfortunately, the fact that they don't come that way makes my point somewhat irrelevant, but it isn't really Linux's fault -- and that is the implication in the claim that Windows is more user friendly.]
Geeky modern art T-shirts
It's XFree86. Granted, it's a stunning update of ancient windowing technology, but it's time to let some things go. We need a window system with real true-type support from the get-go, that doesn't require special libraries (Motif/Lesstif, Qt, and GTK) just to do decent widgets, and so on.
I'm not saying that we should not keep compatibility for X programs, but that it should be a user-layer thing, like eXceed for Windows. There was a story about just such a new-from-the-ground up system a few months ago, but /.'s search is useless. Anyone remember the name/URL of the project?
Right...
What makes Gnome better for sysadmins and Kde better for the masses? I personally think that Kde is a bit ahead of Gnome in some ways but otherwise they do the smae things. What's the difference?
-- soldack
What about if she wants to install a program? Do you really think she can handle RPM?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Face it, a GUI interface, done right, is inherently easier to learn than a text interface. When its done wrong (ie. Blender) it is worse than a text interface. (Don't mention Outlook in my presence btw.) Its also not so much how easy the thing is to learn, but a GUI gives the user a sense of control that you don't get with a CLI. Its a tacticle thing. Finally, a GUI is just better for most of the apps that users use. What to people mainly do with computers (home users)
1. Word Processing, spreadsheets, etc. (Office)
2. Internet
3. Gaming
4. Authoring, document development, photoshop, etc.
These are probably the top 4 uses of computers in the home. In all these apps, the GUI is infinetly more flexible than a CLI. People are naturaly visual creatures, and as long as they are GUIs will rule. Even for things that don't need a GUI (a lot of sysadmin stuff) a GUI is inherently less intimidating. Thats just the way people are. Once you've got experiance with something, then you can say that the CLI is so much more efficient at doing some things, but if you don't it will scare you away. GUIs are also friendlier. Its not so much an ease of use thing as a visually pleasing thing. Why do people build nice looking houses and nice looking cars? There are a bunch more efficient designs than the ones we have now, but people wouldn't want to use them. I am fairly good with the CLI, (bash) and find it usefull for doing many things. Still, I prefer to work in the GUI because it is just more astheticly pleasing.
PS. If you want to script a GUI app take a look the BeOS. BeOS apps can use the messaging system to set up a scripting API. You have to use some lower level language though, like C, C++ or Python.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Trickly down rarly results in a good OS. Consider Windows 2K. I was all ready to spring for it until they started advertising it right next to the RAM (I'm not kidding) at Office Depot. Something that has been designed for a particular purpose makes a much better OS. And yes, I think that Linux should concentrate on servers. I think it is a hopelessly messed up design and would never get accepted by the public. After all, UNIX was made for people who had tunnel vision and couldn't appreciate a GUI. Ease of use? Screw the grandmothers and uncles if they want to use a nice OS? Screw the Linux developers if they want to share their work with more than just the geek community. LISTEN TO YOURSELF, you sound like a troll. (If you weren't paying attention, I was being sarcastic.) People want to see Linux being accepted. It is a nice piece of work and if it wants to survive, then it has to be accepted. Nobody is going to take the CLI away from you, we just want to be able to use the damn OS!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I say let's bring together these things:
Nearly paper-sized (US Letter, A4, whatever) stylus sensitive screens.
A PostScript viewer you can draw on like you'd make notes on paper.
Fast handwriting recognition.
Throw in a Crusoe*, wireless peripherals**, and ubiquitous internet connectivty***.
Blammo! Perfect business appliance.
* - or any other cold, efficient chip
** - like keyboards, A/V I/O, contact lens displays
*** - don't forget to use the 'net for "telephone" traffic too
I would suggest that the home users control the work environment, not the other way around.
Times have changed since the 80s. Now, everybody knows how to use a Windows 95 computer, and they have one at home.
If a company uses Linux, they must:
A. Train users
B. Provide tools for them to work at home
C. Convince users that it is a good change
Why C? Because with unemployment at record lows and the ease of getting a job, management doesn't want to alienate users. Also, the training costs might compesenate for the TCO savings. Also, with Windows, employees can work at home on home computers on their own time. That's free labor. what company wants to give that up?
NO my friends, moving to Linux would risk a palace revolt, the users like getting joke e-mails with virus-ridden attachments from friends elsewhere... and getting away from that would be devastating.
Alex
I generally agree, but I think it is more accurate to say that it is not ready for the *average* user's desktop. Personally, I love it and use it on my workstation at home, but I know that it would not be appropriate for my Mom (not yet). However, the great thing about Linux is that it is progressing by leaps and bounds, and someday it may be ready... IF there are good tools for configuration, etc. My mom would freak if she had to edit a dotfile. Also, people have to be willing to give up Word, etc., and try out one of the alternatives. Just my $0.02.
I know we are all very sensative about these issues so don't flame me if I tresspass on your dogma.
I think the main reason for the success of Windows was brand recogniton
The thing that give Microsoft their start was IBM's selection of Microsoft's purchased CP/M clone as OS for the original IBM PC.
True, the ability of the clone makers to compete thanks to the Phoenix BIOS, etc. are significant reasons for the success of MS, but all of these flow from that original selection by IBM.
Look at the specs for the original PC. It was a real piece of crap. But the business men, who had seen that PCs would be useful when they saw Visicalc on Apple IIs, knew absolutely nothing about PCs.
What they knew was the name IBM and that was the golden key.
If you want to see office Linux boxen, you will have to create the killer office apps. Given the poor functionality of most MS Office components, this really isn't that great a challenge. And the businessmen already know the name Linux. They just have to be given the tools and they will make the change. But only real, working apps will do the job. Not just equivalent funtionality to MS Office, but better. Then they will come.
Now, I don't particularly care. but I think it's inevitable, people will write the apps because they think it's fun, or profitable, the community will keep improving them. It's just a matter of time.
Many people I know were taught Linux stuff before W95, and they find it easier. But, unfortunatly, it is the generally accepted viewpoint that Linux is "supposed" to be harder than Windows or Macintosh.
isomerica.net | Foonetic IRC
Ever used Gnumeric? It is an amazing program, opens ever Excel file I've ever thrown at it.
---
Xiphoid Process Records - http://xiphoidprocess.com
San Francisco based electronic music.
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on point C there. Sticking files "all over the place" is a strength, not a weakness.
/usr/bin or /usr/local/bin) so that users don't have to make "shortcuts". (although it'd be easy to type in the name of a program and make a shortcut because the binary is in a *standard* location)
:)
RPM's exist to keep track of where all the files go. Programs are installed in the path (generally
There are packaging methods that do what you describe, though. They stick the application files in a separate directory, and symlink the needed places in the file tree to there. So it has one place for the application, Unix is happy, and it has your "shortcuts" too. You can do things that way, but you certainly don't have to.
Applications install *libraries* into \WINDOWS\SYSTEM. (it's actually more complicated than that, "\WINDOWS" is really whatever the Windows root directory is set to, but...) These libraries can have multiple versions with the same name, and an *application* can overwrite a needed library that might not be binary-compatible with the new one!
This is one of the biggest flaws in Windows, which Windows 2000 will hopefully help to fix. However, the Unix method of using symbolic links to keep track of library versions, and only allowing an Administrator to install new libraries (that might conflict with the system-wide ones) is *definitely* a good thing.
If you lock users into one model and way of doing things, and only teach them that, sure they'll get used to it. And if you give Linux a default, consistent look-and-feel, people will get used to that too.
Heck, Linux is configurable enough that you could create and distribute a version of it that implements your own braindead file hierarchy, make it look Windows-ish, disable logins and only start X, etc., etc. And some people might even love it. It wouldn't be as powerful as standard Unix, but at least it wouldn't crash.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I think VMWare is the killer app for Linux in the corporate environment.
What you want to do is install Windows 9x under VMWare on every user's desktop in a corporate setting. At the cost of only $100ish extra per seat (if I recall), what this gives you is:
1. A sandbox where you can more quickly recover from Win9x crashes,
2. The ability to "roll back" work before you corrupted your Win9x image,
3. Remote sysadmin of Win9x images (yum!),
4. Linux functionality in case MIS wants to give users access to home-grown tools, and
5. The inability to play 3D hardware-accelerated games at work.
So you get the nice Win9x interface, you get the applications you want, you get Linux applications, and you get better administration and less game-playing. I think Linux is plenty ready for prime time in
For instance, try out cfengine for a way to handle some of your distributed administration pains. As networks grow ad hoc administration becomes more and more difficult. If all you need is to keep your software in sync maybe you should try out Debian with dselect, apt-get, etc. If you need more rdist/rsync or even cfengine will give you more power. Perhaps you will end up at the point where you need to use Kerberos, NIS+, LDAP, etc. There is a long continuum between using a standalone machine and administering a large heterogenous network of systems. Sometimes it's hard to know when to apply new administration techniques -- and often even harder to know which techniques and tools to use (each time you go through the process you get more "experience" and become more qualified to actually administer systems). It sounds like you are at the point where you need to reevaluate your needs and decide on a more powerful scheme to administer your systems.
Just be glad you've got a Unix workalike at your disposal for administration purposes.
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
In reading the article, it got me to thinking about Linux and all that I have had to strugle through. The answers are always there - it may take me time to find them, and I may get to reinstall everything because I goofed something up really bad, but it is getting there.
:)
For example, right now on this har laptop I am using, I have a problem when I boot and forget to take the network card out or forget to put it in during the boot sequence - the machine ends up without networking, so I have to remember to do a ifup eth0 and then everything is fine.... it is an annoyance to me, but if this was in the hands of my mom, she would have a fit. Can't say as I would blame her either.
I don't quite know that I can go along with the statement that there just are not a lot of apps out there. The only two programs I use in Windows are Quicken and Turbo Tax. Everything else I ever ran over on the Microsoft platform I have been able to find most excellent replacements for under Linux. And trust me, I am a hardware junkie from hell. I have so many stupid things that my computer is doing it is not even funny, so don't even start to think to yourself "what, this guy only runs minesweeper?"
I gotta say though, things have come a hell of a long way since I first installed (er, tried) slackware in 1995. I gave up on Linux until the first part of 1999 and I have seen a hell of a lot of improvement since I started mucking with Red Hat 5.1. Now I am a 100% convert.
As for my mom, well, I am tempted to hand her a CD and see what happens... At least now I know enough to fix whatever she screws up.
Well, I share some of the earlier feelings that I want Linux to keep its geek/technically-oriented strengths, including the option to do some cool command-line magic or to use a bizarre set of desktop themes and window managers.
I also, however, hope that the system gains more mainstream desktop acceptance too (say, at least as much as the Mac). We need enough "critical mass" to make it worthwhile for commercial desktop software companies to do ports to Linux, and right now that mass isn't quite there.
That said, I also agree that the combo of KDE/GNOME 2.0 and new applications like WP Office 2000 (the betas are beautiful, much nicer than WP 8) will have a lot of impact on Linux desktop acceptance.
--JRZ
The question people should be asking is, exactly what is a desktop OS? People usually define it as either Windows or MacOS or they say it is what everyone is running on their desktop. Now, don't tell me we need a computer my mom can use because not only have we heard that statement here and in other places a billion times but my Mom stays away from computers. I am sure there are many other Moms who do the same. You should consider if your children can use it, after all they will be the people using tommorrow's operating system, and if you haven't noticed they are more competent with computers.
Well, the above definition is right. A desktop OS is what people use on their desktop computer. It doesn't have to be easier to use, it doesn't need more applications even. Looking at the history of the computer industry can prove my point. It needs the ever important killer app. A killer app has to be either new and very useful or much better than the competition. I don't see the former happening since VisiCalc and the first word processor (AppleWorks?).
Now think. Do you consider the Gimp better than Photoshop? I like the Gimp's interface better but technically Photoshop offers more functionality. The Gimp would need to be much better to be a killer app. I can see it happening.
The Gimp was just an example. I guess some group could make GNU/Linux MUCH easier to use. That pretty much means hiding UNIX. Not only will the slashdotters here be upset but it would not sell well. Users would need a very good reason to switch. The fact that it crashes less (well the kernal anyways, not sure about the rest of the OS) won't cut it. In fact, if you install only the software you need and avoid changing things too much, Windows is stable enough for productivity.
The point of this post is that GNU/Linux can't just be viable. It is viable now for most tasks. Spreadsheets, Word Processors, Printing, Internet, its all their (kinda). But still there is no reason to switch other than promises of improved stability and the Free Software ideology.
Now carefully consider what I am saying about ease of use. It really isn't that important. What did people do when they were using DOS or, even worse, Windows 3.1? They ignored it. And that's exactly what will happen if GNU/Linux becomes a Desktop OS. In fact, companies will strip GNU/Linux of all but the most important command line utilities (save hard drive).
The SuSe CEO says we need applications. Unfortunately it isn't that easy. People need a reason to switch. Why switch to GNU/Linux when Windows 95 works just as well (or better for desktop uses)? Microsoft will have the same problem when the desktop version of Windows 2000 ships. GNU/Linux doesn't just need viable applications, it needs better applications.
That is, if we really want GNU/Linux to be a desktop operating system. This should be a poll. If you think that GNU/Linux should remain in the hands of the above-average computer literates, then GNU/Linux will not become a desktop operating system. GNU/Linux is based on community developmet and if the consensus within the community is opposed to it, Desktop GNU/Linux will not happen. But if you really want GNU/Linux to be an operating system that users can operate BY THEMSELVES without reading a text-book sized introduction, then great! I think Apples original 30 minutes until uptime is a splendid goal.
You decide.
For linux to win the home desktop, it has to win the corporate one. Why did Windows beat Mac? There are many reasons but one is that Windows (or DOS at the time) was used at work. People only want to learn a few things. Multiple operating systems and programs are not one of those things. Sometimes, people want to work on job related stuff at home. Again, you need the work os. Finally, OEMs really have the power. They will put on whatever OS a company wants if they are willing to buy enough systems. Once they start selling Linux to business in serious quantities, they will start to sell Linux to home users. Once people start seeing Linux at work, they will want it at home.
The real question is, "How can Linux win the business world?"
-- soldack
Here it comes again - "The Holy War Against Dumbing Down Linux!"
Unfortunately what the crusaders don't understand is that the average person needs a gradient of learning that Linux just doesn't give them yet.
If you look at several examples from society (pick your own as almost anything learnt fits this criterial) people will most easily pick up something that starts out very light. Eventually they'll move to a higher/heavier configuration/situation but in the beginning they don't want that.
Listen very closely so you understand the situation: The current crop of Linux users almost certainly (by their own admission) consists of exceptions to the normal rules of people.
Before you start heating up my asbestos underware think about it. How many of you are users that can grep a file properly or edit one using vi? How many of you are users that understand networking at a base level? How many of you are users that work in the technology fields?
Add all these things up and you'll find that the average Linux user is smarter or faster or more knowledgable than Joe Public. Remember - Joe Public is who we're shooting at as a target user for Linux. Despite what you may want to convince yourself - until Linux accepts and is accepted by the average guy on the street it will have a very hard time expanding beyond the geek circle.
I know some of you don't want to believe that it will die if it doesn't grow but look at the way this world works - if something doesn't grow then it shrinks. No matter what you do you can never make anything totally stable. The minute it stops growing it shrinks. Period. So if Linux is to survive it must grow. To grow beyond its current limits it will have to accept Joe User and give him something that he can use without being too "high-level". A good GUI (which we've got several candidates for) is a step in the right direction but modes of user operation with scaled complexity would be better.
The Tick - "Spoon!"
"Bah!" - Dogbert
That's right, folks, welcome to 2000: The Third Annual Year Linux Will Really Be Ready For The Desktop.
Highlighted events include:
-- presentations by two more vendors with GPLed hardware drivers.
-- discussion of why StarOffice is, in fact, a perfect and complete replacement for Microsoft Office.
-- announcements from the Gnome and KDE teams about further slavish aping of existing WIMP interfaces.
-- side seminar from old-school devotees: "Why Dumbing Down Linux for the Desktop User is a Bad Thing."
-- hundreds of anecdotes about Linux-using grandmothers and girlfriends.
...and, to close out the year, we have the standard recap planned: "What Linux still needs in order to be a desktop OS."
Be there early to make your reservations for our next event, "2001: The Fourth Annual Year Linux Will Really Be Ready For The Desktop."
--
What I like about Linux is it's it's speed ,stability and flexibility. I don't care as much about ease of use. It's people like us who drove the linux revolution. Grandmothers and uncles didn't and WON'T. It's those people who will continue to use Windows and MacOS for everything.
It irks me that on mandrake's homepage all of their reviews center around how easy Mandrake is for the linux newcomer. I don't CARE about that. I want to know about stability, speed and new features.
I didn't mind a text menu based installer, I didn't need X to install. I'm sure that many of you feel the same way.
Linux developers should be more worred about SERVERS! When you get server quality stability and speed, then you can trickle down to the desktop market.
Look at M$, WinNT was for servers only. Now Win2K is using that base (with several thousand bugs added) to bring many of the features of NT to the desktop. THAT's what Debian, Redhat, Caldera, SuSE and Mandrake should be doing.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I am a hardcore Linux guy but I think this is definitely true.
.twmrc, and doing everything from an xterm instead of Gnome or KDE or whatever. I would like to see Linux succeed in a desktop sense, simpy because as a software developer I'd rather work in an option, Unixish environment than a closed Windows environment. But since Linux is all open source it can never be taken away from me so I'm not too worried either ...
I am the only full-on Linux user where I work. We have had several new employees start who were enthusiastic about trying Linux; each time they tried it for a while and gave up on it, and I can't blame them. I gave them all the help I could but the Linux graphical "shells" (KDE, Gnome) are sooooo buggy it is ridiculous.
Seems to me that the people who make these graphical shells should focus on reducing the bugs rather than coming up with even more bells and whistles and eye candy. Also someone really needs to sit down and organize the released desktop; the default RedHat desktop install is so disorganized and impossible to find anything in, it's ridiculous. And did I mention that it's incredibly buggy?
I think that the very first thing that a Linux desktop needs to be able to do and able to do absolutely flawlessly is, download a RPM or similar package, install it with a few simple clicks, create a "shortcut" to run it on the desktop or in some program menu somewhere, and then run the program. This is what 90% of computer users do 90% of the time (with the running of software happening much more often than the installing, of course), and right now the graphical shells just plain SUCK at this.
I place the blame pretty much squarely with RedHat these days. They've got the money to make it right, but instead they are just going further and further off on a Linux fragmentation path. RedHat seems to think nothing of introducing more and more non-standard system configurations with each release. Surely they must realize that this will fragment Linux just as badly as Unix has traditionally have been fragmented, if not worse.
I love Linux but to be honest I don't see a very bright future for it unless those with the money and power to pull it all together start doing so.
Either way, I will stick with Linux, because even if its popularity faded and we ended up with just as many users as we had back in '94 when I started using Linux, I will still enjoy working on Linux and developing on Linux.
Of course, I'll probably still be using my ancient twm with my 8-year-old
Preface: I am typing this on my Frankenstein Intel-architecture Red Hat 6.1 machine, running the latest GNOME stuff. Its my main line machine: other than my laptop, a junky Toshiba running Corel Linux. All my servers run Debian or Red Hat.
I don't think Linux is ready for the desktop. In fact, I am going to buy a Mac to supplement my desktop needs.
Why? Well, first, I can't stomach buying a supplemental Windows machine. Second, the state of the Linux desktop art is lagging behind in areas that I need it, right now and today. Not things where I can donate my time (which I do), not things that I can contribute code to (which I want to), but things I need, right now, this minute, in order to get my work done and get paid.
The sad thing about this is my machine - this here Linux box - is the best computer I have had, both in terms of hardware and software, I think. I play Quake3, I do network administration, web design, programming, and I have a killer MP3 collection. I talk to my friends on ICQ - at least, when they aren't busy rebooting their Windows machines.
In other words, I get 98% of my work tasks done, and no one cares, no one complains, and they're quite happy with my performance and could care less about what my machine is running.
That other 2%, is when they send me a proposal in Word to review: and not a grocery list, but a huge document with lots of Word cruft. When I can't read it properly, I get yelled at. I have filed bug reports and Abiword, stressed Star Office to its wits end, and run Applix ragged. If I can't get 100% accuracy, I have to work that much harder (fiddling with VMWare, for instance). I have to be able to do EVERYHING that my co-workers do (except reboot/reinstall!) and if that means "straying from the flock" for a while, then I will have to do that.
Don't get my wrong: I love fiddling with VMWare as much as I love Quake3. I love hacking away happily on my machine, optimizing it as much as I can, I love Linux and support it every chance I get. Its the best thing to come along and I consider my self a good supporter of free software, open source, and Linux. Its a time of serious cognitive dissonance in my life.
So anyway, I need something for the simple things: Word/Excel (Lord how I hate it), scheduling, calendar, PIM, etc. I don't want it to require a single minute of fiddling, I don't want it to work at it. I want it to work for me. So I seriously see a little tranlucent blue potty in my future.
I still intend to support Linux, and strive to improve the things that are lacking. I would never have NT, not for all the tea in China. But I think there are certain facts of life that we ignore.
Note: No, no dual booting. I can't close down the 900 things on my desktop to look up a phone number. Why ruin good uptime, anyway?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
I happen to agree with the CEO of this company that Linux is not ready for the desktop. It is a great system, and for a UNIX the infrastructure underneath it is quite solid, at least much better than windows, and it has good developers behind it. The main problems, however, are. /etc, which is okay for people who know UNIX, but face it, its a good idea implemented very badly. What there should be is a straight list of configuration files terminal, sound, network, startup, shutdown, discs, etc. Yet you have a horrible mess with multiple directories and not all config files having the same format. Its fine to keep that, but Linuxconf needs to be expanded to the point where editing a text file is never necessary. /usr /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin /opt and all that, but face it. Its a dumb idea implemented incorrectly. At least in windows program droppings (the files a program leaves on you system) is kept in scope to the \windows\system directory! In linux they install themselves all over the place. The ideal install structure would look like this. There is an apps folder, /apps. RPM installs everything into this folder, letting the user choose the name of the folder. Thus if the user wants to go into the folder for some reason, to make a shortcut or whatever, they know where it is. Adding and removing of programs would be done through RPM, so the frontend will be the same, and the back end will be more sane. /usr/local/sbin (at least on the desktop.)
A) Linux does not have enough fit and finish, its not very polished. Say what you will about Windows, but it is very polished. The stuff underneath may suck, but the outside is nice and shiny. People like shiny things. Point about me: I'll generally use Redhat for examples because I feel that it strikes the best balance between ease of use and included features. Plus, most non techs think Redhat==Linux. (they don't even do the == thing to express equality, they say =) Redhat is generally pretty polished but there are quite a few problems. X still needs to be configured from Xconfigurator because the one in the installer is inept. Second, sound is left entirely to the user, one has to start up sndconfig and enter settings from there. Resolution changes all have to be done from the X config file, blah blah blah. These are all little things and don't have that much to do with the OS, but when a person first uses Linux, it makes a bad impression.
B) Linux has a weird sense of configuration in that it doesn't really have a good driver model. Most users I know are comfortable with the concept of a driver. They don't understand what it does but they know that to install a device, they have to put in the driver disc. DevFS is great, except in UNIX it doesn't define a driver model, just a communications model. In BeOS, a user can just copy a driver into the directory and the device magically starts working. Linux should be that simple. (ie. no requiring kernel patches to install ANY device.) All config files are stored in
C) Software installation has to get a clue. People don't think of their installation as a set of files. They think of it as a directory. Thus there should be something analogous to a program files directory. RPM would ask you for the destination directory, and the app would install there. Tell me what you want about the flexibility of having
D) Linux lacks hardware support. Not only in the case of OpenGL, which is getting better, but in sound and video and input, etc. Even when a driver works, it doesn't take full advantage of the hardware on the system. A sound blaster live! is awesome under windows, but not anything special under Linux because it doesn't support EAX. There is a reason for that. Manufacturers don't like hacks. Sure Aureal is porting A3D to linux, but in what form? Some sort of obscure dll wrapped hack. Linux and other UNIXes desperatly need multimedia APIs and driver models. Just as important this driver model has to be similar to directX. Not for any love of directX, mind you, but because thats what most hardware today accelerates and we want writing drivers to a UNIX media API to be easy as possible.
WIndows users have gotten increadibly used to pampering. Windows is a much friendlier environment to use, even if the UI sucks. People understand it, and it has a lot of features to make life easier. Pervasive right click menus being one thing, context sensitive help, etc. No matter how good GNOME gets, thats not the whole of the system. The linux directory structure needs to be reworked and the concepts of administration need to be rethought. Now don't think you'll sacrifice flexibility in doing this. All this nice GUI config stuff can be done through text files, so if you like CLI, you can edit it directly. And somehow I doubt that you'll miss
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Linux is ugly. I'm not just talking about the prettiness of the GUI, but the general ugliness of the fonts and text.
I've already copied and installed the true type fonts from Windows (following the font deuglification faq), and now it's merely ugly - a step up from hideous I guess. But text still turns out uglier and more unreadable than in Windows, and it makes long term use a strain on the eyes. The system fonts used in KDE and Gnome also tend to be extremely ugly - they should note that good, readable text != fonts made out of thin straight lines.
Let's turn this around: frankly, the average linux-programmer lacks the skill to make joe use linux.
It takes skill to be able to create an interface that people can use whose lives revolve around other things besides computers. Not everyone has that skill. There's a lot of talented linux programmers out there who are very good at creating a stable, flexible core-operating system. There's not a whole lot of skilled interface designers. My guess is that this is due to the fact that being a good interface-designer requires having to be exceptionally good at programming, graphic design and psychology, all at the same time. It's hardly surprising there's not a whole lot of these uebergeniuses around. The alternative is to get a group of people whose combined skills approach the ideal. For its time, I think the Apple Lisa/Mac team was such a group. And if you'll recall, large numbers of people recognized their skills and went out to buy Macs, even though they were then, as now, ridiculously expensive.
We can only hope that such a team will form in the linux community and come up with a new and usable interface paradigm suitable for today's computing power. Most likely, however, as soon as someone does manage to assemble a team like that, it will be bought up by some large corporation. The company that manages to achieve a truly new, workable interface will dominate the market for the next ten years, at least. Betcha Bill Gates would gladly offer half his assets to such a team.
The reason why this is so important is not because the average joe is "dumb", but because the average joe thinks it's a waste of time to fumble with config files and xservers. Only a very small group people actually enjoy this. Most mortals just want to get their work done, go home and look at porn on the Internet.
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/