Slashdot Mirror


SuSE clarifies "Linux on the desktop" Statement

MrEfficient writes, "ZDNet UK has a story in which Dirk Hohndel, the chief technical officer of SuSE Linux, clears up an earlier statement made by the chief executive, Roland Dyroff, about Linux's readiness for the desktop. "

5 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Linux ready for the desktop if IT support by god_of_the_machine · · Score: 4

    Linux is ready for the desktop already -- if there is a Linux expert available to set the bloody thing up. But for a some users, if you want web browsing over a lan: you can buy/dl Corel Linux, press "ok" and you got Netscape and the internet. For some people that is all you need. Me, I'm not a Linux expert and am still trying to figure out why I need to compile programs in order to get them to run, and searching for antiquated libraries to support the files... ARG! In windows you just double-click SETUP.EXE (and reboot, and reboot).

    But for the end user -- it's all the same: MacOS, Windows, Linux: double-click on the Netscape icon and you got your Internet. So like I said, Linux is easy to use for end users, but they still need an expert to set the thing up for them.

    --

    -rt-
    ** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
  2. the desktop is inevitable given time... by Error27 · · Score: 4

    There are a couple things that need to be finished up...

    OpenGL.
    Games.
    Glide.
    KDE2.
    Gnome2/Nautilus
    Enlightenment2.
    Alsa gets included in the kernel.
    Xfree86.
    Mozilla.
    Better drivers...
    Plug and play kernel
    Abiword, Ksomething word, Gnome something word. etc.

    I forget the rest.

  3. Define 'viable' by yamla · · Score: 4
    The question comes down to what you consider viable.

    I use Linux as my primary desktop operating system and have for a while now. With KDE and a decent office suite, the only reason I ever want to boot back to Windows is to run games. And even here, Linux is catching up. In addition, I find Linux easier to install than either Windows 98 or Windows 2000 Professional, assuming of course that I pick a decent distribution.

    So for me, Linux on the desktop is here now. But what about my mother? She isn't concerned about installing Linux (she wouldn't, nor would she install Windows) and Linux does have a lot to offer. But it also offers her no compelling reason to switch. She has all the software she needs and is comfortable with it. The few times that she buys new hardware, she knows it will work in Windows. She doesn't have to worry about recompiling a kernel or anything like that.

    Linux is viable for her. But not yet compelling. She doesn't want to tinker with her system and she would end up having to learn how to edit config files and the like if she switched. Dists like Storm Linux go a long way to making everything easy to use but the Linux world still lags behind Windows.

    We are getting there. We have the stability. We have the general ease-of-use if you don't need to tinker too much. We have the MS Office compatibility. We are starting to get the games (though the APIs lag significantly). Linux on the desktop is coming (and soon) but it isn't here yet. We're probably 80% of the way there.

    --

    Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
  4. Linux Printing Sucks by hedgehog_uk · · Score: 5


    One of the best things about Windows, in fact, one of the only truly wonderful things about Windows is the printer support. It's very easy to install and configure printers. When I print, to my HP890c I can hit a button in a dialog box that selects 'econofast' mode. This prints quickly (12 secs for a test page), with pretty good (300x300dpi) quality.

    The same test page printed from Red Hat 6.1 takes almost THREE AND A HALF MINUTES to print. This means that a 10 page document would print in two minutes from Windows and over half an hour in Linux. It was quicker to reboot into Windows, print and then boot Linux again, than to print in Linux. This sucks hard.

    I finally managed to work out how to get Linux to print quicker, but it took a very long time and I had to download, compile and read the source to Ghostscript to do it. Your average user couldn't/wouldn't do this.

    I'd love to take time off work to help out with one of the Linux printing projects, but am far too busy at the moment trying to get an interactive TV project on air (I'll try to fix some of the bugs in the print driver though). Maybe in the summer...

    But until Linux printing is as good as Windows, it really doesn't have a chance on the desktop.
    </rant>

    HH

    Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.

    --
    Yellow tigers crouched in jungles in her dark eyes.
    She's just dressing, goodbye windows, tired starlings.
  5. It depends on which desktop ... by HalJohnson · · Score: 5
    Home or corporate? Personally I think Linux/BSD is a very good choice for corporate desktops. Anyone who's ever had to deploy and maintain a farm of Windows machines in a corpororate enviornment knows how much of a headache it is. Even with NT Workstation carefully setup, there are too many things a user can do to damage the installation (and that's not even taking into account the things Windows does on its own).

    I know of at least one place I manage that I'm considering moving away from NT Workstation to either Linux or FreeBSD on the desktops. Its a small shop (about 20 desktops) which relies on a DOS based real-estate management package. The primary reason I'm considering the move is the flexibility I have with the configurations, which brings me to my next point ...

    So many people are convinced that the solution is to "dumb down" the desktop environments to suit the users. Personally I think that idea is way off base, and I tend to agree more with the concept of hiding advanced functionality in order to not overwhelm new users. Although I believe that is also less than ideal. Computers are powerful devices, but everyone seems to think they need to be made as easy to use as an appliance. I'm sorry, but I think it's a tremendeous waste of such a powerful and flexible machine. What we need is a way to educate users. Show them that they can do more with these machines than browsing the web, writing documents, and sending email.

    Its depressing when I see people buy brand new high-powered machines and really not use them for anything beyond the basics. Its understandable that these are the reasons that most people purchase computers (aside from the "me too" hype), but we need to show them some of the wonder that we experience.

    I love technology (and I bet you do too), and I realize everyone isn't like us. But there is more than the web, more than word processing, and much more than email. The real question is, how do we gently push the masses into discovering it for themselves?

    How do we educate them without scaring them away? Or are the wonderful flexible machines we all love not really suited for the general populace? Are we doomed to a world where there are distinct information appliances for the cornerstones, where the PC as we know it is a dinosaur? I hope not.

    (I seem to have gotten semi-OT here, my apologies)