Slashdot Mirror
The Linux Desktop Obituary
rcriii writes: "Kevin Reichard is announcing the end of Linux on the desktop over at Linux Planet . Having spent the past couple of weeks fighting with Star Office and Netscape, I'd say that he has a point. Let the flame wars begin." I'm still not sure it was ever born in the first place ... although I happily run Linux on all of my desktops. But I'm not exactly the desktop of corporate America either.
You may be surprised to find that most people are not abhorred by Linux because of the lack of office suite.
The things that turn off newbies (and somewhat seasoned newbies) are:
1. The startup screen where tons of information about CPU, ide, scsi, daemons being turned on and so one really scares the shit out of people who either don't know or care about those kinds of things. This should be an easy fix.
2. The nomenclature of the big as well as small apps. Just because some app works well or was developed under KDE, does it have to have 'k' in front of its name? or gnome, or X? Just call the damn thing by its functionality or give it an easily pronouncable name. I always liked Eudora for its name. Its mail capabilities were so so, but the name was a refreshing change from the technically descriptive, trying to sound cool but failing miserably, names. One of the reasons why Yahoo succeeded dramatically over infoseek is because of the name. If you can't think of a better name than XyLoPing++ for your grand creation, don't give up your day job is all I can say.
Many people think the major obstacle toward a desktop acceptance of Linux is Office. This is simply a cop-out. Windows and DOS thrived well before MS got scared by WordPerfect and Lotus and decided to create Office. And people who say Windows is good for newbies because it's intutitive is not true. Compared to Macs, Windows is download user-hostile. The history of the Macintosh is a testimony that newbies don't give a damn about intutitive GUIs and well-designed architecture. There's something else.
It's amazing how little I need office for anything. Even on my windows desktop, I can get by with wordpad for most of the things and the rest can be taken care of by notepad. But as far as I can see, there's not even an equivalent of wordpad in Linux. The advanced editor in KDE really sucks.
One thing I find I DO need on Linux is an outlook type app, but evolution is *almost* there.
So, in summary, I think everything is there for Linux to be a very good desktop machine, all we have to do it clean up some messy details.
Certainly, I would not pronounce the death of the desktop. It's not even in its infancy; it's quite mature.
His point was not that X is a poor GUI, his point was that X is a poor windowing system, and its inefficient, clunky ways automatically drag down any GUI you try to create with it. It is only hard to write a good GUI for unix because X makes it hard.
Every time i've installed linux, the worst and most impossible part has ALWAYS been getting X to work. The biggest shared downside, for both GNOME and KDE, is that you cannot use them without using X as well. It has been this way even on PPC distributions, where you don't have the crazy unpredictable video card issues. FACE IT: the windowing system SHOULD NOT be something that you spend this amount of time agonizing over.
It amazes me the amount of cruft and crap we put up with just in order to be backwards compatible with existing x apps. I have never, ever once seen a good X app, and yet linux usability is basically destroyed by the legacy stuff we drag around in able to be able to run existing x apps. I honestly just wish that mozilla and gnome and the people with potentially usable apps would just give up trying to live up to 14 years of cruft and just throw it out and start over. Apple did it, and in a far more ground-up way. If apple could overcome a far larger amount of "good-enough" syndrome than linux will ever have to throw out everything they had, why can't you people do it enough to make a completed windowing system that isn't designed to make allowances for ICCCM?
The reason why linux is not and will not for the forseeable future be a viable option for inexperienced end-users is that the people who are capable enough and interested enough to do things like get rid of X are convinced that X is good enough. Because pervasively, throughout the system, the techies think that they can just paper over things like X with things like GNOME instead of dealing with them. Well, look: X, even papered-over, is not good enough for 99% of people's desktops. "Period". Sorry.
This sort of attitude is why Linux is dead on the desktop. Sorry, Linux packages suck ass compared to Zip or Stuffit.
I doubt it will be long ... Brought home (old) scsi scanner plugged in and scanned directly into gimp ... didn't even reboot (the computer was already running). It helped that sane scanner modules were sitting in /lib/ ...
I imagine in 12 months the USB support in Linux will rock our worlds ... the Mac does quite well using Darwin based on FreeBSD ... and all the BSDs have had better USB support than Linux for a while. Let kernle 2.4 stew for a while and it'll be there.
Alas, we hardly knew ye...
I guess we just have to admit it, this guy is right. As a server Linux is awesome, no doubt. As a desktop, it is plagued by many problems. Will I still use it after this? Yes, but can I ever see my mom using it, nope. That's not such a bad thing though. It should probably be only used by the tech elite IMHO.
For someone that runs Linux on all their desktops, you certainly seem to be playing a lot of Windows only games every time a story gets posted.
- Mark URL in whatever is showing it.
- Switch to Netscape (or Mozilla).
- Press middle button.
?Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
This is not a problem - it's a design. In that particular case you don't even have to paste into the input filed -- middle button over _any_ part of the browser window except that field causes the browser to go to the URL.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Nonsense. Both are dead or dying and we have a standard desktop: Motif. Don't you read Slashdot? ;)
Many people have commented that the arrival of Mac OS X will make it easier to to port Mac apps to any Unix, since "developers will be forced to port [apps] to Unix". This is totally inaccurate. Mac OS X doesn't have anything approaching a Unix API (although it is Posix-compliant, that only consists of the BSD layer. All the fun stuff that makes the computer usable, like the GUI, is Apple-prorietary). One of the main APIs, Carbon, is a slightly altered version of the traditional Mac OS APIs. The other, Cocoa, is basically NeXTStep's OOP frameworks. A program from either of them is just as hard to port to Unix as before; cocoa programs are probably harder.
Part of the issue isn't set-up time; it's the time needed to keep the damned computer running. Here were I work, we use mostly Solaris-based desktops (X terminals and SunRays), with a small mix of PCs. Guess which set of desktops takes the most IT time? Yeah, the small amount of PCs.
This includes Win2k, as well. The myth that Win2k is easier to install the Linux is just that-- a myth. I can install and set up a Linux box in about 3/4 the time it takes someone to install and set up MS-Windows 2000. And, my box *stays* up, with no random crashing (which even Win2k does, occassionally) and no re-installations (I've lost 3 Win2k installations, in which system DLLs disappear and so Win2k refuses to boot).
I was just interrupted by a call. A Windows machine just died-- "Fatal Exception Error," the user says. They are very frustrated. This is a new machine, with a fresh install of Windows.
No, the issue isn't only installation time. It's also user support time.
And as far as application bloat-- StarOffice is no more bloatful than MS-Office. And if you want a damned good document editor (as opposed to "Word Processor") that takes up very little resources, try LyX. It's far superior to *any* word processor out there; but it takes a different mindset.
Microsoft has pushed us down the wrong road. If you expect Micrsoft Windows on the desktop, then of course Linux will not be a good fit. If you expect power on your desktop, with easy-to-use applications, then change your mindset. Don't expect MS-Windows or MS-Office; learn new tools. Learn LyX, and Gnumeric (which is, honestly, an XML knock-off, but with a better architecture), and Konquerer.
Question the desktop, yes; but also question your expectations.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Interesting. *17* moderation points wasted on this parent post so far.
If Microsoft wanted to muddy the waters, wouldn't they have a bunch of people sign up for Slashdot, post lots of innocuous posts until the got moderation privs, then send in a agent provocateur, and the hell out of him?
This is similar to the astroturf campaign Microsoft did against OS/2 8 years ago. Very sneaky, don'tcha think?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The same was said about Word Perfect back in the WP5.1 days. It took Microsoft less than 2 years to kill Word Perfect, with bundling deals and choking the distribution channels with pre-installs.
Microsoft Word was not superior to Word Perfect for many years after. Granted WP committed suicide by *not* fixing the codebase and releasing a good update-- WP5.1 was *it*. MS-Word didn't catch up to WP5.1 until Office97. (Don't believe me? Try editing tables-- specifically, merging two cells horizontally (or is it vertically?), in anything prior to Word97. This is only one example. There are others.)
MS-Office is *not* the ultimate killer application. It's a matter of distribution and acceptance; and if Microsoft keeps using old-time Mafia tactics to keep the profits rolling in, it won't be long before businesses start looking at non-licensed software. Once OpenOffice (or LyX, or Koffice) is accepted as an alternative, acceptance as a standard will shortly follow.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:59:14 -0500 (CDT)
:4) */
From: Damon C. Richardson
To: kreichard@internet.com
Subject: RE: RIP: Linux on the Desktop
I don't want to offend or "flame" you. However I feel that I must address your opinion story titled "RIP: Linux on the Desktop".
It's interesting that you would start your story with Eazel ( cult following at best) and Corel ( I knew Corel did not have a chance why didn't you?). Also that fact that you jumped on the Mandrake rumor bandwagon is at best "self serving" at worse "unprofessional".
I have been a Linux user/developer for over 6 years now. My slashdot ID# is 913. My wife ( a total enduser ) and I have been using only the linux desktops for over 2 years now. I have seen very many changes in GNU/Linux distributions over those years. The one change that I have allways been able to count on was that the desktop ( and availble applications would improve ). The rate of improvement has been incredible compared to
Windows, OS/2 and the Mac. I don't know what experiance you have that could have lead you to believe that a Linux desktop is a impossiblity for
general computting use. I can only assume that you are one of those Linux users that assumes that you know more then the other guy. Leading to the
conclusion that only someone as smart as you could make the switch.
You have compared One software company to the loose subculture efforts of a larger community. Apples and Oranges. I don't remember a deadline for the take over of the Desktop Market. Your view that Linux should shift efforts to the server space is really a uneducated insult. The fact is
that Linux desktops are now replacing commercial unix desktops. The fact that the choice of desktops should be a indication that people want to use linux as a workstation seems to have escaped your attention.
It would also seem that you have not been paying attention to the efforts of Linux in the server space. It is painfully clear to me at least. That
the desktop use of linux has benifitted just as much from the improvements demanded for use as a server. I also think that the use of linux as a desktop has helped linux to compete in the server space. ( have you ever used CDE? )
Your argument seems to be based on a belief that If it has not happened by now then it never will. I don't pretent to be a Editor. Maybe you should
not pretend to be a expert on the forces shaping GNU, OpenSource, Free Software, or Linux. As far as I'm concerned you have missed the point.
Damon C. Richardson
Senior Software Developer
Vertecon inc.
/* I should note that I don't care about grammer or spelling
Last one in jail is a fascist.
I can't believe this post was moderated up. This has to be some sort of conspiracy between 12 year old users. Please let me know where they are paying you $20 an hour to take "3-4 days" to install Win2k as a DESKTOP CLIENT!!??!!
The author seems a little over-focused on the business aspects of "the Linux desktop". He believes that because Eazel died and Mandrake is having financial difficulties, the sky is falling in. Well, color me unconvinced.
Eazel died because it had no way to make money. Mandrake is having problems because it has never really managed to claw it's way out of Red Hat's shadow. Tough, but have you looked at the number of Linux distributions out there? Can you say market glut?
But these things aren't really relevant. All that these events prove, is that businesses which receive a lot of venture capital funding and don't have any revenue projections will go away. We've seen a lot of non-linux businesses with the same problem suffer the same fate recently.
The fact is that Linux isn't going anywhere. A lot of people use it, as servers, as workstations, and yes, as desktops. And there will always be a community of developers who will add to the body of work that's out there. Whether it's AbiWord or KOffice or GNUMeric or whatever, those applications aren't going to suddenly wink out of existence because some startups' funding dried up. That is exactly the beauty of Open Source -- when the product is free and the source is free, abandonware is an obsolete concept.
And with these desktop projects, as with all other open source projects, people will take up the reins, ant the evolution will continue.
I say give Linux on the desktop time - I switched to a 100% Linux desktop about two years ago and I love it. The important thing is that there are people who have switched more recently that wouldn't have bothered two years ago. Every day all the new functionality and useability which is added to Linux makes it a viable desktop for a few more people who have slightly less of a geek threshold than the adopters the day before. Linux on the desktop may be a niche today, but that niche is growing and given time it will eventually be more than a niche. Once it hits critical mass, expect things to explode as the Microsoft tax will no longer buy anything useful (it buys compatibility with other MS users today).
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
..install their own systems? Outside of the IT departments, almost no one does anything on their machines other than point, click, and print.
Don't try to use Linux as if it were Windows. Windows does that better. The fact that most companies have (or should have) a pervasive network by now, coupled with the fact that each end-user workstation probably needs to perform at most one or two tasks, makes Linux perfect.
One appropriately skilled Linux hacker could probably run an entire small/medium-sized company (about 100 employees) if you left all of the software/hardware decisions up to her. And I don't mean by having her install crap like StarOffice on 100 Red Hat boxes. I mean by asking her to analyze your business and having them suggest the way to make it all come together, with modern technology. If you step back far enough, every system is an embedded system.
The fact that you can totally control Linux means that you can design a more efficient end user experience. If the Linux hacker is appropriately skilled, you needn't even employ them fulltime, ie -- they're a consultant!
This is what Linux companies should (and do) focus on. It is total silliness to try to provide something that looks and acts like Windows, when realistically, Windows is totally ill-suited to a lot of these tasks. Copying Windows means you're just doomed to fail. They do it better, and they have a monopoly. Instead, do something innovative
Windows has it's places, but Linux has so many more.
You could bolt GNOME or KDE on top of MacOS X and the problems that the end users are supposed to be having wouldn't abate one bit. Your ranting is pointless. The problem here does not lie with X at all.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
However, that is not the end of your journey. If the end user gets lost there, it's all in vain.
OTOH despite what you fudsters like to claim, Linux has has GUI central administration facilities for quite awhile now. Redhat's date back to at least version 4.x.
Meanwhile, Microsoft decides not only to be inconsistent about where they put things in the control panel but decide to move them around from time to time.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> does not care wheter the OS crashes or not,
> but he wants to get his work done.
Lesse:
1) System unavailable to do work
2) Work lost due to not being saved
What's that again about getting work done?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Whining about tarballs is a big fat red herring. GUI's have been able to seamlessly integrate with command line tools for as long as they have existed.
Such arrangments are actually simpler than the WinDOS equivalents. "Doubleclick". There's no interface to babysit and no nag screens.
Plus, if you really like nag screens those are available as well in the various shells that have their counterparts from GEM in 1985.
This sort of thing is beyond old news.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Your alarmist fantasies fail to address one critical element: What is going to motivate those who "flee" from Linux? There are still people keeping the Amiga and Atari's alive.
The bulk of software for Linux is still Free Software. That means that all of it can be built upon and freely maintained by all. There are few companies to go under and bury the likes of Calamus. Our current weakness also happens to be a strength if you turn things around.
Nautilus is a great illustration of this.
Linux doesn't live by the same rules as the corpses of the "free market" did.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Not only is the Unix desktop dead, it was
> stillborn. Windows has a truly awesome GUI and
> high-quality browser which is unmatched
> anywhere.
Yeah, it's called Opera and the Linux version has been available for some time now.
Lemming shills put more stock in Exploder than Lemming magazine reviewers do.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...yet despite all of this, it is an Open Source gaming library that allows Alpha Centauri to run on my Linux box.
Free Software is a process that grows geometrically. Such processes can be easily percieved to be going nowhere in the beginning. People forget that that is where we currently are (still) when it comes to the Unix desktop.
How much older than KDE is GNU?
GNU was old before the Linux kernel was called Linux.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
WHO CARES if members of the same bloatware suite can work well together? That simply isn't interesting and never was. Now, if you could plug in your own spreadsheet or wp app into the mix it might be more interesting. However, as much as OLE might make things embeddable it doesn't get around the fact that you still need the "msoffice member app" to be "compatible".
Access working with Word is like StarOffice working with StarOffice. It's not as remarkable as many make it out to be.
OLE is wasted on Microsoft.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The only Linux CD's I've ever had trouble with are betas. OTOH, I had a fun old time trying to get NT5 installed on a bookpc. NT5 doesn't do proper device detection (including telling you what you actually have) and tends to hide from you the fact that there may be a suitable generic driver available. Then there's the whole issue of NT device support.
Win2K is no silver bullet. Don't even try to pretend that it is.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
When I still ran windows, I didn't even want to pay for Office. There were other apps I liked better. The LACK OF CHOICE imposed by the MS hegemony is on of the primary things that drove me away from that platform. More and better apps don't do you a damn bit of good if you can't actually use them in practice due to vendorlock and network effects.
Furthermore, for most users (even WinUsers) StarOffice is more than adequate.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...all this droning on and you don't even bother to address just what is wrong with Unix printing, on Solaris or Linux.
What are you unable to do on either?
Unless you are programming, why do you care about what is supposed to be wrong with BSD or SysV printing?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Do you people bother to THINK when you post?
First you complain that StarOffice is so bound together that it loads up all at once & then you whine that you never think it will be "integrated".
It's ONE PRODUCT, it's already integrated. It's more integrated than msoffice is actually.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
FVWM was good enough. Instead of pouring all those spring breaks and dead weeks into window manager/desktop environment/object brokerage/meaning of life environments the hackers of the world should have focused on writing applications for FVWM. The reason I got into UNIX was how little the large applications of the time were hindered by clumsy window managers.
For the hour glass cursor thing try xalf.
--
W.A.S.T.E.
Okay, so you've described XFree86 version 4. 4.0 was released over a year ago now and while there may have been driver availability problems back then, there should now be support for all current graphics cards as loadable modules. There is a single X server binary, which loads things like graphics drivers, font engines, 3D acceleration support, monitor power management, and most other non-core features as cross-OS (hardware platform specific, so you can't use an x85 Matrox driver on an Alpha machine, but you can use it in Linux, *BSD, Solaris...) loadable modules.
As for the rest of your comments - repeat after me: X11 IS NOT A GUI. X11 is a network-transparent windowing system, which has GUIs implemented on top of it in the form of window managers, 'panels', 'pagers', and so on. You can do some quite amazing things with the flexability of X11+a window manager, including making copies of other GUIs (like Windows, MacOS, BeOS, etc.), at least at the window decorations, mouse behaviour and 'desktop' level, such that it's pretty hard to tell (excepting the apps) what you're using.
The downside of that, of course, is the complete lack of coherence between different apps and the desktop. Personally, the only X apps I run are Netscape/Mozilla (depending on the quality of recent Mozilla builds), XMMS and gvim - everything else runs in an xterm - so I don't worry about consistancy between apps. That, however, is the main problem the two desktop projects (KDE, GNOME) are trying to solve - by producing a load of programs (most of which already exist separately) using a coherent toolkit and (hopefully) design guide, you can produce a coherent desktop.
Paranoia isn't an infectious condition, it's a way of life
Remember the fun of typing DISKCOPY A: B: on a DOS system that only had one floppy drive? Same deal.
It would only be the "same deal" if the way you ejected a disk in DOS would be to type "del a:*.*". Face it, the Macintosh required you do something not just unituitive, but totally antithetical to your instincts that are screaming "if you do this, it will delete all your files!".
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
and that Apple fixed it years ago
Really? I must have been imagining it yesterday when I dragged a Zip disk to the trash, and instead of deleting it, it ejected it.
that offsets..what?
It offset the Macintosh bigots who say that the Mac is the only totally intuitive OS out there. It isn't intuitive, and neither are any of the others. You're just used to its inconsistencies, the way I'm used to the inconsistencies in the OSes I use on a daily basis.
The only intuitive interface is the nipple - all others are learned.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
If you want intuitive check out Mac OS.
Ah yes, the OS where you inuitively drag everything to the trash when you never want it to be used again, except for removable media, where dragging it to the trash means "pop it out so I can use it later". And using the "Eject disk" menu item means "pop it out, but then nag me about it not being in the drive incessantly until I put it back in". Yeah, that's intuitive all right.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Well, my dear friend, you're not in Kansas anymore.
The Mac OS is not intuitive, but it's d*mned f*cking 100% consistent. On the Mac you CLOSE windows and QUIT applications. Every time, all the time. There's no way you can quit a normal modeless application by closing all the windows.
This fact is stated in no uncertain terms in the "getting started" manual. As is the infamous ejecting-disks-by-dragging-them-to-the-trash idiosyncrasy.
I understand that you're scared of the thought that you might have chosen a less consistent OS for your workstation, but hey, you can always bitch about it and spread FUD on Slashdot.
--Bud
Well, in my opinion "file" and "disk" are two different things. Your perception of reality may of course differ.
On the Mac, all mounted disks will have a corresponding icon on the desktop. Insert a disk, and an icon appears. Remove the icon, and the disk will be ejected. Where's the inconsistency in this?
--Bud
It's a file. It's even a file on Macs nowadays.
That one refers to the disk DRIVE and is in no way indicative of the DISK or the FILES on it.
-Bud
The Linux command line tools that you need are quickly being ported to Cygwin. I had XFree running under Win2K the other day. Win2K makes a very OS, and now it's becoming as usable as UNIX.
The following isn't intended as flamebait, although my tone might suggest it ;)... Having killer apps under Linux isn't going to make it anymore appealing as a desktop. I don't know whether it's the flexibility of X or just plain incompetence by the applications programmers for X, but the UIs (including when running KDE) really suck. It's as if the applications programmers are completely clueless about these things. Don't knock Windows (or Mac OS) for how generic or inflexible their UI is... it works, it's consistent and it's far less quirky. It's the quirkiness that really causes problems: for every application you have to learn how it behaves, and how it differs from others (even though it looks the same). And for crying out loud... test the tabbing order in dialogs!
<current pet peeve with X applications>
MAKE YOUR MODAL DIALOGS COME UP CENTRED OVER THE CORRECT APPLICATION WINDOW! I was playing around with Mandrake recently. I had my application window (Netscape or Mozilla, or something) in the lower left of the screen... every dialog appeared in the top-right (which is a long way away at hi-res). In fact, the dialog placement seemed almost random. What with the other Windows on the screen, it's often hard to notice a dialog pop-up when it's so far away from the action.
</current pet peeve with X applications>
Yes, and if XP Home Edition is priced competitively with Windows ME, it might even get installed. Otherwise Windows ME will live on. And while XP has addressed some of the security concerns with Windows, it has opened a whole new can of worms with its new draconian EULA and its adoption of anti-consumer technologies like Secure Audio Path.
It will be interesting to see if Microsoft can actually sell Windows XP. If they price it competitively I think they have a chance. If they expect end users to pay the premium that they have been paying for Windows NT (and 2000) XP will be stillborn.
If all you are copying and pasting is text, then the easiest way to do this is with the middle mouse button. Simply highlight what you want to copy, and then place your mouse cursor where you would like it to go and press the middle mouse button. If you don't have a three button mouse then you have to press both the right and left buttons at the same time (this is why it is important to get a three button mouse).
Once you get the hang of cutting and pasting without needing to keyboard you will find that you begin to wish Windows worked this way as well. It is much faster.
Hope that helps.
I suppose that the difference is that I don't copy URLs into Netscape. If the URL is in my text editor (Emacs) I simply use the browse-url function and it opens it up in Mozilla for me. If it is in a gnome-terminal I right click on it and slide down to "open in browser."
I can see what you mean, however, and in fact I vaguely remember having a similar problem. It just goes to show you how one becomes used to their preferred environment. I still like being able to cut and paste without touching the keyboard (otherwise I would simply use Emacs), but I can see your point.
Software better than Office is essentially trivial: emacs has always been better than Office for actually getting things done. The interface is more straightforward, and it's easier to see what you're doing. If you use LaTeX, you don't need fix your document formatting every time you change anything. Office has enough fundamental design flaws that, on technical merit (including usability) it's not hard to compete.
What Linux lacks is a program that is exactly like Office; this is the niche that StarOffice and such are trying to fill. Since business users want have generally gone through hell to learn how to deal with Office, they want to use this skill instead of learning even an easier and more efficient system. Crippled by trying to have the same functionality and file formats as Office, it's not surprising that Linux fails to have an acceptable program; Microsoft doesn't really have an acceptable version, and they control the standard.
No, I'm afraid you missed the point.
Word and Excel might be the one suite of apps that all users have in common.
But it is not the only app that all users need. There are the remaining 40,000 or whatever. You won't know about those apps until you talk to an individual user.
I guess it depends on what your goal is.
If it's only 10% of the users you are seeking to gain, then maybe I can see your point.
If it's 70%, 50% or even 30%... it will never happen because of those other 40,000 apps.(Actually it's a lot more than 40k)
There is another platform out there already besides Windows which has Office, Quicken, even Internet Explorer and a whole slew of other very popular applications.
And yet it barely has 10% of the market.
The Macintosh.
Linux advocates always seem to get caught up in this "What one app do we need to make this popular?"
The thing is, it isn't one app. It's 40,000 applications that make Microsoft Windows popular.
You have to have an environment where anything that is needed, especially anything sent to you by partners or regulatory agencies... just runs.
I used to run into this same issue back in the days supporting OS/2. At the time it meant we had many users with two desktops. One to run OS/2 and our "standard" apps, one to run all the other apps that didn't work under OS/2.
This is expensive and a nightmare to maintain.
Anyway, it's not just one app... It's everything.
This is so true! It's true because MS Office is primarily how MS has gained control of the desktop and kept control of it. Everyone made such a big deal about the integration of Internet Explorer with the OS. True, this was a big deal and brought about the downfall of Netscape. The real win for MS was creating Office. It became the standard office suite. It didn't run on any other platform. You had to run MS Windows to run Office. Ingenious!
IMHO, the best punishment for MS would have been to make the make the source for Office available.
Personally, I like KOffice, I love Konqueror. I just wish you could import documents from KOffice and StarOffice into MS Office. Can you imagine? You are using Linux in you workplace, because you to choose to, and you could send a co-worker a KOffice document and they could import it with no problem. That would be cool!
I dual-boot Linux and Win 98 on my work laptop precisely so I can exchange documents with my co-workers, otherwise, I think I could stay in Linux all of the time. I'm away from the office right now doing contract work, but when I get back, one of the first things I'm going to look into is a Windows emulator like VM Ware or Wine so maybe I won't have to get out of Linux at all. Then MS Windows will merely be an application I run in Linux
Also, I think Linux should forget about the desktop market and focus on the server market like the author of the article says. Linux is great for me. Most average users probably won't use it because they are not concerned about which OS the use or about the issues with Free Software. Who cares?!? I think Linux could be much more secure and rock solid if Linus and the other kernel hackers didn't have to worry about all of the desktop issues pulling them in so many directions. I say go for making Linux the most secure, stable, powerful, and fast SERVER OS available and forget about the desktop. Besides, I think it works great as it is.
Just my
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
Darn, forgot all about that and considering OSX looks pretty sweet, I might have to get a Mac soon.
By the way, since you brought it up, why do think MS doesn't port Office to Linux? I have my own opinion, but yours would be far more interesting.
Thanks for the reply,
Jason
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
My Linux desktop has never been this usable, and it keeps improving by the day/week/month. The good folks at KDE have been doing wonderful work! And the XFree86 gurus have really picked up the ball the last couple of months. From my own experience I;d say we're only starting to compete. The fight is not over... and I'm confident Linux will be one of the last ones standing at the end of the battle.
:)
:)
Concluding that the Linux desktop is a failure simply because a company that writes a silly Linux/Unix file manager for it fails is really, really stupid! Eazel's business plan was flawed beyond believe! They counted on revenues from "services". However, the services they provided were already commodity items (supposed proper package management, free internet disk space).
And then there's this quote:
Such is the way of all movements: either the professionals take over and the movement evolves, or the movement recedes.
No shit! So the Linux desktop attracts some cheap money, but when that money fails, so does the Linux desktop? Give me a f*cking break
The only thing that's dead or dying are companies with flawed business plans. And for the record, I don't hope the author of this articles tries to make a living by writing, he'll starve
-adnans
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
- The "Desktop" issue is, to some extent, just a popularity contest. If Linux had a larger desktop presence, then Linux Geeks would have more "cocktail-party credibility." Who cares?
- Linux is Open Source Software and Open Source Software is written by Geeks to solve the problems that Geeks have, not the problems that Joe Desktop has.
Ideally, there should be roughly three kinds of computers: an engineering (geek) kind (e.g. Linux), a low-admin server kind (e.g. AS/400), and an appliance kind (e.g. Mac). What would really capture some desktop space would be something like a "Linux Install for Business and Interactive Desktop Operations" (LIBIDO?!). Not only would this thing not need a command line, but it would actually be hard to find it, if it had one at all. It would install with an office suite ready to go. Applications would have strict API and install guidelines. The goal would be to produce a machine with very few options so that it had a repeatable, bullet-proof operation across thousands of installations. Geeks would find this intensely dull and I don't know very many who would line up to donate their precious open-source development time to such a project.Linux is kicking ass in the server market because the people who define what it does (the Geeks) care about the server market. When a critical mass of suitably-motivated Geeks really wants to produce a system that will win the hearts of Corporate Goons and find a home on desktops everywhere, then it will be created.
Until then... well, I'm going to spend the next 10 hours painstakingly customizing the appearance of my titlebars...
They were using the Netpliance iopener for email to inexpensively keep in contact with family and friends. Netpliance had some major financial problems and discontinued the 800 number support, which left my relatives high-and-dry after they became hooked on email.
I've modified their iopeners to run Linux. I set them up with Blackbox as the window manager because the iopener is rather underpowered. The iopener's function keys have iconic labels instead of F1-F12: a weather key with a cloud on it, a news key with a newspaper on it, etc, so I've configured bbkeys to run Netscape and pass the appropriate command line arguements to display the correct URL or email option. (I would have used Mozilla, but it's email support was too slow - 20 seconds to display an email vs 2 seconds in netscape).
Last year my mom traveled the country visiting relatives with her laptop and scanner and digitized all the family photos she could lay her hands on. So, as an added bonus, the iopener is also an electronic picture album and runs CHBG as a screensaver when the system is idle. The grandparents really love this feature.
Sure, I could have done this using Windows, but the non-upgrade price of Windows(since the iopener's originally ran QNX) would have been about twice the cost of the hardware I purchased to convert the iopeners.
A Desktop client should not take 3-4 days to set up(!). It should only take six to eight hours of semi-attended work. Assuming of course that all the media is at hand.
If you properly script things or use Drive Image, you can fully automate the process and have the ability to recover the system in case of emergencies in a small fraction of the time.
Of course these advanced imaging techniques are not covered by the OEM license of your Windows machines. You need to subscribe to a MS Select or Enterprise license for your corporation, else you must purchase a new full license for your OEM machines:
http://www.microsoft.com/business/downloads/lice ns ing/reimaging.doc
I suggest you spend some time (and perhaps a few dollars on a lawyer) to review the Microsoft corporate licensing briefs which may or may not apply to your company. If you're spending as long as you say you are configuring machines, it may save money in the long run to explore your options.
http://www.microsoft.com/business/licensing/volume /briefs.asp
A skilled Linux admin should be able to set up a bare-bones Linux system in little more time than it takes to get the machine off the loading dock and onto the user's desk. All the apps can run remotely without much pain. No local data, smooth backups... it's a tradeoff though, your Network will take a beating and your servers will be big.
Of course, the same argument could be made for Terminal Server, with a multi-k$ price tag thrown atop per workstation.
Alas, as long as MS holds their proprietary document formats, such an option is not at all practical.
Pesky innovators.
It should not be exceptionally difficult to make old X programs work anyway, by making an Xlib replacement that translates the calls and throws away things that cannot be done on the new system. The only X programs that would not work would be window managers. This should be vastly easier than making WINE work. You could also make an "X server" that uses this library so remote X applications work.
There are about a dozen viable replacements (I like the look of DirectFB, but Atheos looks pretty good too though it may have the toolkit problem described below).
There are a few problems with the replacements, though. First is that they often throw out the client/server model and rely on shared memory. In my opinion this eliminates the one good thing about X, which is that programs from many sources can share the screen. I also think client/server can be far faster than shared memory, due to the triviality of making it multithreaded. The problem with X that causes these shared memory ideas is that X has far too many "synchronous" calls, where the call has a return value. The interface needs to be designed to by almost entirely asynchronous, so that thousands of calls can be batched together into a single context switch.
The other problem is too many of the replacements try to force a "toolkit" on the programmer. This is like trying to make a file system that requires you to use MySQL to do all possible manipulations of the files. It is too high level, complex and thus potentially buggy, and it forces you to use current-day designs and precludes any innovation.
Oh please! Name one other email client that automatically executes VBscript attachments. And where did you get this idea that Outlook is the most common email client? Care to point me to the data?
And don't fall for the "but *nix is too secure for viruses" - sure, if my "sparkz" account does something weird, then the / filesystem is safe. But if I can write to my data, I can trash it. So everyone's still vulnerable to viral attacks, Linux is currently pretty safe because it's such a small part of the email and web user-base.
Uh-huh. It is much much easier to just restore the contents of your home directory from backup than to reinstall the entire OS, reinstall all the application, configure them the way they used to be, and then restore your data from backup. And not only that, since the amount of damage this supposed "virus" can do is so limited, there is a much smaller amount of data that needs to be backed up regularly.
Essentially what you're saying is that a car with a seat belt is no better than a car without one cause you can still get killed. Well, sure, but you are many times more likely to die in a car crash if you are not wearing a seat belt.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
the closed source NVidia drivers on the other hand are pretty darn solid and fast. I've heard numerous testimonials that the quake3 actually runs faster under linux. You do have to know what you're doing though. Such as enable all the crazy agp stuff, 32bit dma hard drive access, etc. There are very helpful people to be found on the *nix quake3world.com forums Of course, always post after throughly researching the problem yourself, and after reading the FAQ.
Anyway, if you want to run quake3 fast, you're going to need new hardware. I just recently bought myself a new linux box, gigabye 7dx mobo, athlong 1.33ghz, 266mhz ddr sdram, asus 7700 gf2 gts 32 meg and all the fixins for well under a grand. again the *nix forums on quake3world.com is a great communitiy. There's many places like this on the net, you just have to find them. Disruptor there can probably sell you some hardware for cheap. I believe he runs some kind of business...
One thing you have remember about linux, it started out as a hacker linux, so you're going to need some know how to get things working the way you want them. And also remember, hey, it's free. Which in my mind, that means if things work at all, it's a miracle, and hey, they do. :) I'm totally with you on the "I just want things to work" attitude. But personally I don't mind spending a little time submitting bug reports for debian/mozilla/whatever project it is today working towards the great good of a free os that's really solid, trying to help it have more usable applications.
And yeah, printing sucks, I've yet to find a good howto on how to print to a friggin networked postscript printer. It's needle in haystack time, yeeha! You would think it wouldn't be that difficult, I've followed a few howto's and lpd just sits there with it's thumb up it's butt with no error message that I can tell. Besides the "i can't print" type error messsage :)
---
how the fuck can you claim "The Linux Desktop is dead" when everyone already knows that it hasn't been born yet.
I guess it is something like a premature baby (I am going to go out on a limb here and say 1 month old in the birth calendar) coming out and not surviving.
get real pal.
The desktop is dead because it is in development? Sounds to me like it is alive and kicking away at what needs to be done. Perhaps the author runs in a reverse-time mode or something, but I keep looking at true desktop Linux (Gnome/KDE/XFCE/etc) and keep seeing more and more good things. For example, I just got a little handspring visor (which I went on to name "Manos", the Handspring of Fate) that I rather easily set up to sync with a bunch of Gnome tools, AvantGo, and some other stuff. That there is _real_ desktop material, not serving web pages and/or email. So I wouldn't pronounce it dead before it stops being developed. The BeOS desktop may (sadly) be pretty dead, the NeXT desktop may be dead/mutated, and so on, but the Linux desktop is nowhere near dead...
Posted from the wireless couch.
Try these :
Open a mediaplayer (Microsoft, Real Audio, winamp)
Start to play something. Now enter in a full
screen dos session. What do we hear? (beside
your swears)
You start some printing. Make sure it will
run out of paper, forcing a paper jam might
create too much problem. Now you go in a dos
session and use your favorite line editor.
You are busy editing a program and the
printer runs out of paper. Your are typing
along and all of a sudden : "fucking winblows"
You are back in the GUI with a stupid message
telling you that it ran out of paper.
The best thing is when you're in a network and
share your printer with someone and you have
no clue when someone is going to print anything
or if there is enough paper at the printer.
It doesn't matter whether you are in a dos
full screen edition or any winblows application
the damm winblows OS will decide that it is
more important to ask you if you want to cancel
the printing or add paper specially when you
don't give a fuck either way.
Someone sniffing glue or flour has been importing
one of these bugs in KDE2 but you don't have to
use KDE2, there are other less obnoxious GUI
interfaces for Linux.
- MacOS X is rapidly accumulating many ports of the open source/GNU/Linus userland world for non-GUI apps.
- The Mac software vendors are porting to Carbon, not Qt or GTK. If they're looking at anything else, it's Cocoa.
- As submitted earlier, Qt has been announced for OS X. Can GTK be far behind ?
What I'm really surprised at is the persistence of the (Slashdot-)widespread misconception that porting a GUI app to Mac OS X from Windows or Mac OS Classic is somehow equivalent to porting it to Unix. No, no, no ! I've worked on a lot of nontrivial GUI applications, and I can tell you that the code that talks to something like a POSIX or Unix layer is usually not the interesting part of the project -- it's treated like a commodity, or plumbing, and most Windows/Mac C/C++ implementations have supplied this to various degrees of fidelity for a long time. The interesting bits of OS X are precisely the hard ones: a coherent GUI API and environment. Unless there appears a Carbon for Linux, or OpenStep makes great strides, don't count on Mac OS software going the Linux way.When Mozilla was getting off the ground, my sincere hope was that, a powerful Mozilla combined with web-based applications would provide stiff competition to Windows for uses in business for computers users who mostly consume information, fill in forms, and use email. Web-based groupware and perhaps a few applets could fill in the gaps where most people use Office and Outlook.
The fact that was still no single consistent toolkit or desktop API that all applications used would be sidestepped by narrowing down the universe to the web browser and some Java applications. One could imagine a Mozilla+Linux distribution that could be slim, easily cloneable, and easy to administer, and maintain.
I really thought that such a strategy would play well to the strengths of IBM or other big machine vendors -- polish up a toolkit and Mozilla on the client side, and then start encouraging the use of web application servers on the server side. (Various vendors could then attack the problem of being data- and protocol- compatible with MS products like Office and Exchange.) Most companies have addressed Linux as a server, as far as I can tell. That left Eazel and maybe some of the distro companies to solve the harder, more general, desktop problem. And, in my opinion, trying to fix that kind of stuff requires concentrated programmer effort and management that the Open Source model is just very weak at attacking.
All I have to say is that in order to SHUTDOWN the computer I click on the START menu. um, hello?
That's only for the people who aren't smart enough to hit Control-Alt-Delete, then Alt-S.
Or you could think of it as starting the routine which shuts the system down.
My personal biggest gripe about Linux as a desktop OS is how hard it can be to simply change your resolution or color depth. Try any recent distribution, using either KDE or Gnome, and try to find a shortcut in the menu system for changing your resolution. Doing it via a GUI method takes a lot of hunting around, if it's even possible at all...
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
Funny, my wife insisted that I install Linux to both boxes because she's bloody well tired of the crashes, lockups, lost data, and corruption within the system. I took too long to do the second box (the nice one, that I use for games and she uses for everything) so she set up a dual-boot herself (so I can still play my games).
;-)
I married the perfect woman.
This is too easy....is your wife one of the palm sisters? Is she a voice in your head?
My wife has never encountered a crash, "corruption within the system", lockups, or lost data. Well Sanitarium went in a perpetual loop once (though of course Linux would have magically fixed that third party code right?), but any rational person realizes that their is no such thing as a perfect complex system. She hasn't encountered crashes because previously she worked on NT 4, and now Windows 2000. Amazing how most Linux fanatics with their anecdotes and poor system configuration abilities fail to be able to hodge together their 386 with 70ns EDO SIMM DRAM into a workable reliable configuration, though their anecdotes about the unreliability of NT 4/2000 are held up as proof of something.
I think most Linux users are still suffering flashbacks from the Win95/98 era where crashes were quite common. Windows 2000 (and NT 4 for that matter) are extremely stable, but I doubt many Linux hackers have tried them for any length of time
Agreed, and there is some logic to that given that most home machines ship with Windows Me rather than the astronomically more reliable (secure, capable, etc. etc. etc) Windows 2000. However it is the Linux community that foolishly jumps to cast all "Windoze" under one umbrella, despite the fact that they differ so incredibly.
Having said that I completely understand the direction MS has taken (sustaining backwards compatability while moving forward), and truly it is genius. It's easy to say "Scrap everything and start anew" (I'm sure there are lots of people looking at Linux, which has evolved to have warts and the trappings of a real world system, who express the same desire to scrap it all and start fresh), but when people want to be able to use old hardware and run old programs, compromises have to be made. And along the line MS pushed new abstracted interfaces like DirectX and now they are at a position where they can transition the home market to Windows XP. It should be interesting.
My wife concluded that you must be around thirteen years of age. Max
Whoa! Zinger! Ouch! Touche! My feelings have been hurt.
Well my wife says that you are a stinky and have cooties! (is it kooties or cooties?).
'nuff said
I am not surprised that Linux is not exactly doing well with desktop installations.
The big problem is that Linux still doesn't have the completely seamless support for hot-docked USB and IEEE-1394 devices, which can cause installation problems for many novice users.
Despite what everyone things about Windows 9x/ME/2000 here, you have to admit that having single unified UI and API makes for a lot easier programming when it comes to writing applications. Besides the issue of seamless automatic configuration, Linux has to contend with two different GUI environments, KDE and GNOME. The question is what company is willing to spend the money to write applications for both GUI's?
And with the arrival of Windows XP Home Edition this fall, many of the issues Linux users have been complaining about are being addressed. With tightened compatibility requirements for full WinXP compatibility certification, every program running in its own distinct memory space, and incorporation of firewall capability, Windows XP will have far highly levels of stability than now and customers will complain far less about system crashes caused by memory leaks.
Linux, in my opinion, is already perfect for the server environment, where kernel-level stability is very important and interface issues are not so important. With the 2.4.3 kernel, Linux now can do the extremely high-volume applications that was once the province of Solaris and OpenBSD boxes, as the recent success of the TPC benchmarks with the 16-CPU SGI server machine shows.
But there is hope for Linux, though. The Linux Standard Base (LSB) project will likely become a central clearinghouse for all kernel and API issues, so everyone will more or less be on the same page when it comes to writing Linux applications. This will dramatically simplify programming issues, and eventually will allow Linux to evolve to the point it can have the same ease of automatic configuration that Windows 9x/ME/2000 now enjoys (for the most part).
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
MacOS X is a OS. You can't port an OS to another OS. Now, perhaps you mean port the desktop and the desktop environment, but it will never happen because it's not Open Source and Apple has no good reason to make it so.
But Star Office was just a copy of Word. The question is if an original word processor could be developed open source.
In any event, StarOffice is an open-sourced version of a commercial product that was sold to Sun. Could open source duplicate that? I doubt it; it would have been too mind-numbingly boring.
But perhaps Koffice will prove me wrong; I haven't checked it out yet, most likely because I'm an Emacs hound from way back and find office software sluggish to use compared to the old style control keystrokes of emacs.
If anyone can show me an office suite that wouldn't slow me down in that respect, I might well give it a try. Since that might well be built off of emacs, it wouldn't surprise me if my best shot for something like that might be an open sourced project.
D
----
When I visited the Grand Opening of the Apple Store in Glendale [see my report at http://www.amazing.com/applestore/ ], I saw a great many Digital8 and MiniDV camcorders in the audience. So at least in the Apple market, I can confirm that video editing is catching on.
Of course I have about $ 8k worth of equipment to make videos (Canon XL1 MiniDV camcorder, dual processor PowerMac running Final Cut Pro 2.0, etc). Video definitely attracts free-spending enthusiasts like me. The question is whether you can lure folks like me from Apple; my guess is that it would be tough.
(I use a Macintosh desktop at home and a Linux desktop at work; in my view, Linux is not nearly as nice, but I'd still rather use it than Windows).
D
----
I used to run Linux and MacOS 9 at home, Linux to do text editing on emacs and MacOS 9 to do graphics.
Now MacOS X serves both purposes perfectly and I don't need two computers anymore.
I'm happy as a clam and would recommend it to anyone geeky. The sheer beauty of the interface appeals enormously; nobody does details like Steve Jobs, just go to one of the new Apple stores and you'll see that.
D
----
The cheapest Mercedes-Benz ($25,000) available costs about triple what a Hyundai Accent ($8,500) does.
... well, actually, there's very little difference. The cheapest PC is about $600, throw in $100 for a monitor and you have $ 700. So the actual spread is only about 30%.
The most expensive Hyundai costs about 20% as much ($25k) as the most expensive Mercedes ($121,000).
A shirt from Target costs $12; a shirt from Barney's New York in Beverly Hills costs $ 165.
The cheapest Macintosh ($899 with monitor) costs about
The most expensive packaged system in the Macintosh line costs about $3,500. I'm sure if I wandered around dell.com or compaq.com long enough, I could find comparably expensive systems.
The new iBook is regularly compared favourably with systems costing about 70% more than it, so we can't even make a case for it being that expensive.
The new Titanium iBook is very comparable in cost to similar machines.
In the end, then, Apple is a premium desktop brand that's selling at a price somewhat higher than a "normal" machine, but not consistently so. For notebooks, it's right in the middle of the pack.
Certainly we do not have the wide price spread of cars or houses. (Cheapest house in Key West, Florida: $99,000. Most expensive: $ 6,000,000; cheapest house in Malibu, CA: $400,000; most expensive $15 million).
If you're a smart shopper, you can avoid Apple's worst sins. For instance, if you can spare $2,600, about the price of an average notebook, you can get the gorgeous Titanium PowerBook, a technical tour de force. But don't buy memory from Apple; you'll pay about four times what it's worth. Not even I can defend stunts like that.
But can I defend Apple as being fair value for money, being priced as a premium brand, but a far from outrageous one? Sure.
D
----
A copy of WordPerfect?
... was ... something completely alien and strange. I both liked it and hated it, all at once.
You obviously never saw the DOS version of Word. It was extraordinarily quirky. WordPerfect was a crude reproduction of a Wang word processor; Word was
Word for Windows, on the other hand, was, well, Windows incarnate.
D
----
Word for Windows was radically different from WordPerfect or even Word for DOS. As I remember, WordPerfect's problem was that it didn't have a Windows version for a long, long time, so when Windows became popular, Word for Windows killed off WP.
:-(.
Wordperfect had a blue screen and the whole thing was driven through function keys - you had to take your hands off the home keys and hit F1-F10 all the time.
Word for DOS had a black screen, operated in what passed for a high-resolution graphics mode at the time, used its own character set which was oddly different from anything else, and you had to hit and a letter to run commands.
Word for Windows had the ugly, toylike look you saw on all Windows 3.x programs.
I don't think there was any question about them being very distinct products. In fact, in those days, I preferred Word even before there was Windows. In those days, I quite liked Microsoft and their products; it took the flakiness of Windows to change my mind. Windows and I were pretty much hate at first sight
D
----
Linux on the desktop may be dead, but you couldn't get its corpse away from me with a crowbar.
I just got Applixware 5 in the mail yesterday. It's on sale pretty much everywhere for $49.95 and I must say, it is a welcome replacment for StarOffice.
signal, noise, to me it's all the same.
Word was from the beginning in many ways a copy of Word Perfect
In what ways? The fact that they both proccess words? I think you'll find that neither Word, WordPerfect, WordStar, nor Wang invented that.
(Even early versions of Word had fundementally different UIs and fundementally different operating princples from WordPerfect [which is why there's no Show Codes in Word]. So your statement is boobery.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Well, MS Office (besides supposely being very profitable) is useful because it's of those things that Bill can use to squeeze Steve's balls just to remind each other of the good ol days when they worked out the AppleSoft BASIC licence.
Problem with Office for Linux is that there's no obvious target for ball-squeezing. It's not as if Linus or Alan Cox is going to start worrying about about what to bargin away for the next version of Office.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I looked up gkrellm, and it appears to be a system monitor with all sorts of geeky cook gauges. That's a substitute for an hourglass or Mac-like popup effect? Hopefully you're trolling or perhaps on the wrong slashdot story. To respond to the other guy, Ximian Gnome is on my project lsit.
BTW, I'm nearly always just at shell prompt when I'm using Unix, so I'll see what configuration can be done to fix my particular complaints. I will mention that focusing in Windows 2000 is completely fucked, so again, Windows is not a good benchmark.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Just a note so that you feel better qualified to discuss GUI issues in the future. The reason that MacOS uses the popup effect and the watch cursor and the grayed icon is to provide direct feedback to the users actions. Don't forget that their eyeballs are pointing at the mouse cursor, not reading system monitor tea leaves. ('Hmm, I know that disk read load pattern. Must be mozilla starting up.')
Now, I'm all for you finding a solution that works for you, but the entire discussion is about the "not good enough" failures of the Unix desktop. And trying to bullshit basic failures such as this by pointing at top or whatever is really pathetic and one big reason the whole thing feels half-assed.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
IMO, the focus issues and the lack of a working hourglass cursor (and other basic feedback issues such as this) are the #1 problem of the X11 desktop.
It seems as if development has leaned towards pretty pictures and not towards basic usability issues. Stuff like letting the user know an app is launching is really kindergarten material in GUI design (See MacOS 1.0), and it's still not there yet.
Maybe this is because it's easier for developers to tack things onto Gnome or KDE and not fix lower-level issues in X11, but building a successful GUI on Unix (ie one that works for more than launching xterms) demands systematic approach that fixes ALL of the problems, not just the easy ones.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Well, there's a gaziilion unresolved usability bugs in Windows like your example.
For example, during the W95 beta period we filed a bug that if you created a shortcut to a folder and then tried to navigate through that shortcut in the standard Save As dialog, your file was saved as "Shortcut.lnk.doc" or whatever. This was a normal user opertion discovered within a day or two of beta testing, not some deep bug, and the response we got was that it was serious issue and would be fixed before release.
Turns out it wasn't fixed until Win2000 shipped, 5 years later. Leads one to believe that UI issues aren't exactly top priority over at MS.
The problem at hand is that the Unix desktop community's slogan is apparently "Aim Low" (copy Windows), when usablity flukes should really be the top priority. But 95% of users can't be wrong.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Any post that starts with "I'm an RHCE" and ends with the conclusion that Linux is ready for the desktop has got to be given very little credence.
Maybe you meant to say "Linux is ready for the desktop, if you happen to have a RHCE or other Unix guru in the house willing to donate services".
(BTW, I don't really consider Windows "Ready for the desktop" either. Ever installed a driver on MacOS? You literally drag the thingy into the thingy.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Linux does in fact run office 98. I use it daily under wabi. along with the 5 winsucks only specalty apps we have here at the office.
This is a non-argument. Linux can and does do it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Funny, I run it on all 125 windows NT 4.0 pc's here at the corperate office.
I better let corperate know that we are running a non-existant software package.
Strange how I have it running on that many pc's and it doesn't exist.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Quite interesting, There must be a huge shortage of competent It people in your area, or you are related to the owner. Only a best-buy employee or a boob would need to take that long to install W2K. Cripes it took me 2 days to configure the network unattended installer for W2k,O2K,Mcaffee,and 5 other apps for 6 different hardware platforms. (Note this is a Helluva job to do, the brainturds at microsoft decided that how things were done before needto be changed drastically for no good reason.)
a monkey can install W2k in 3 hours, 5 if drivers need to be downloaded.
you sir need to resign from your job, as you are obviously fudging your way through life.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Linux is not dead on the desktop, but it has never led the life many Linux zelots have hoped. This article forgets that there is a subset of society who want their workstation to be running a Unix (or Unix like) OS in the first place. For them Linux is the ideal.
For those who want to run MS Apps, face it, they are unlikely to ever be available for Linux. For those who want to run Quicken, it's not going to happen.
I personally have been Windows free for over a year now at home and work and have no regrets. As a programmer I can do this, how many others can live without Big Bill's omnipotent embrace? Not likely to happen in my life time.
"Of course there will be people who have had Windows 9x (or even NT) installations that crashed once an hour, but for some odd reason, it usually always seems to happen to those people who are the most fanatic anti Microsofters."
Funny, when you say it that way, you make it seem their fault. OTOH, you could say it this way: Those who have had the most problems with Microsoft products, seem to have the most polarized opinions. Just like I don't like a certain type of car because I owned one, and it was a certifiable lemon. Just like I don't like certain motherboards because when I sold them retail, they had a habit of returning to me with a couple weeks or month (while other brands didn't). Now, are all of those *my* fault, or am I simple a consumer (and businessman) with opinions based on previous experiences? Other than that, nice troll-like comment to end an otherwise fairly decent post.
Have A Nice Day.
That, um, wasn't his point. His point was that doing it one way for networking, and another for disks, is not *consistent*. And stuff that isn't consistent doesn't lend itself to intuitiveness. And I don't see the word Linux in his post at all, though he does promote MacOS. So to flame him for 1/2 of his example, and using Linux as a "counterexample" is fairly blatantly stupid.
Have a nice day.
(BTW: to whomever mod'ed this up as "insightful", lay off the bad drugs. Sheesh.)
You can click on .rpm files in any number of file managers and have them do their thing, you know.
I wouldn't waste my time arguing with anyone that starts off with "I don't care if it's better", though - that's so far from the Linux philosophy that never the twain shall meet. I've been fortunate that my wife actually listens (and mostly understands) when I try to explain why I prefer Linux, but I guess that not everyone is so blessed :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
It takes you four days to set up a Windows client? I'm not sure if I'm more puzzled by your ineptitude or disturbed by the superiority apparently born of it. All you would have to do is set up one Linux client correctly, and then clone the others off of it and update network settings. You would only be bound by the time it takes to physically copy the disk drive. You only have to spend time to set it up once (although I'll admit that this is probably possible with Windows, but it sounds like you're doing your current windows installs the very hard way, so anything would be an improvement :)
Oh wait - never mind, I thought you were speaking from some experience with a Linux desktop, but now I see you were just joking about that. Why don't you troll elsewhere until you can actually put together a convincing one?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Sounds like somebody's jealous :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
That's sort of a tangent, since the described uses were definitely not device-like, but here goes anyway:
At the most basic level, you have to care about what you are doing. If you care about what you are doing, you are interested in doing it the best way possible. If you are interested in doing something the best way possible, and the best way possible happens to be under Linux, then you use Linux for those things. If the best way possible happens to be under Windows, you use Windows for thoose things.
The difference is that Linux users seem to be more highly motivated to make Linux a better way, by helping out to make Linux a better and better way to do more and more things. Windows users (to tar with a very large brush) tend to take what they're given, and upgrade when they're told. "Taking what you're given" seems to me to be pretty far from "making it better".
Sure, if you just want to use a device, then that's not really an issue. If you don't care how well things work, then it's not a big deal. But if you're the "power user" as the poster above referred to, yet you're not interested in using the best tool for the job, you might have a little cognitive dissonance. Nobody said anything about rituals and ablutions, but if you want to get the most out of your device, then you can't just rule out Linux without due consideration.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
That's probably what I was thinking of; my system was at one point a stock Mandrake system. Now if you're installing RPMs that aren't from Mandrake, you've still got problems, and I agree that some sort of common handling of this would be nice. Although it appears that Gnome includes the KDE menu hierarchy too, and I would expect that the reverse would be true too, so anything that tries to install a launcher will get into your (foot/K) menu somewhere. It would be nice to have a little more control over where, though.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I have no problems with people deciding that Linux isn't for them, but the previous comment was along the lines of "I don't care if it's better, I still won't use it". That's the only thing that raised my eyebrows, it seemed incongruous for someone otherwise known as a power user.
On the topic of Quicken, you might be interested in GnuCash, which I've found a pretty good general checkbook replacement with a lot of other neat stuff too. Financial exchange with banking institutions is one of the medium-range goals for the tool, so that might be available sometime after the imminent stable 1.6 release. As far as whether your bank will let you connect with it, well, I'm not sure how they would tell that it's not Quicken on Windows - the protocols they use (like OFX, etc.) are standardized.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Well, they are comparing mp3 at 128 which everyone thinks is CD-Quality. Of course if you have good hearing and speakers you know that 128 is not even close to CD-Quality. I agree that wma sounds crappy, really bad artifacts at all the rates I tried (128, 96, 64). They actually call 64 CD-Quality (in the help file for wma 8)! I will stick with my mp3 at 256, good enough for me, VBR when I need to save a little space. I stick to CD when I am at home.
Q.
I used to bash X a lot based exactly on
the things you mentioned (esp. its
networking capability). Then I realized
that you can summarize problems with X
much more coherently: X is not part of
kernel. Every other X shortcoming comes from
this fact.
And why should it? The PC has become so firmly entrenched in corporate America that a large number of people have to learn the interface as it stands, and their feelings about the desktop do not drive OS sales. There are machines being marketed to people who find PCs too hard to learn, but as far as I can tell, those machines have a simplified version of the standard GUI, not a radically new interface.
So the stalwarts who are still working on KDE, GNOME, and GUI apps for Linux have one consolation: an almost stationary target.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
According to the article World Domination by any one OS is impossible, but lets face it MS got damn close and it is almost certainly a good thing that Linux is there to stop it. Lets face it, nothing else seems likely to.
Linux does currently have its problems on the desktop, but whilst Word/Excel is my document/spreadsheet of choice, I don't expect the situation to stay that way. If/when KOffice is mature enough to read/write Word documents then I will move over. Then all I have to do is get all my games to run in Linux.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Could the lack of a COM / OLE / ActiveX architecture be hurting the desktop environment?
:translation: studies bugs in your water supply) can do more involved work than that, with bigger numbers by far.
Possibly. We'll see soon, since ORBit, Mesa, and Bonobo are available and many applications are being written to use them. But I don't think this is really an issue, since ASCII paste between Xwindows actually fills most users' real needs. (If I'm wrong, though, bonobo should reach maturity in the near future).
but the interoperability between Office products is really helpful and useful and, in my mind, is the main advantage to a Windows-based system.
While individual releases of Office do have excellent compatibility within components, this is a feature also available in StarOffice and whatever the heck WordPerfect eventually evolved into (I forget the name, ask Corel).
Compatibility between versions of MSOffice is less graceful, and compatibility across the Microsoft product line is basically non-existent. For one example, MS Word and MS Works are not crosscompatible; most versions will not read each other's files. Other examples abound.
(On the other hand, this model is responsible for many of the security holes in both MS's OS and desktop app programs.)
I would say "Microsoft's implementation of this model" rather. On the other claw, there may be similar concerns with bonobo, but the open-source nature of GNOME apps makes such problems more fixable than MS's "black box".
For instance, from MS Access (or any other Office product) one can "drive" Excel, Outlook, Word and Powerpoint not to mention other automation-compatible software put out by third parties. This includes exchanging information between applications, creating new instances of an application and creating new documents, all from the VBA IDE.
StarOffice has similar capabilities, but like MSOffice requires aclimatization. You can't learn to do all that stuff overnight, although you may think you did. Try training a person who has never, ever, ever used a computer before to use these features, and you'll see what I mean.
Corel's Office product (still can't remember the name) does all this component integration stuff dramatically better than MSOffice.
A typical Linux user might call this "bloatware," but if you know what you're doing, tasks that are difficult and time consuming in a Linux desktop environment (Netscape/Staroffice, etc.) are trivial using Office 2000 on Windows.
I find everything you've mentioned trivial on StarOffice. The first three weeks nearly drove me insane because of the different interface, though. I wouldn't consider MSOffice more bloated than StarOffice if there weren't a flight simulator hidden in my copy of Excel as an easter egg (no, I'm not kidding, really. Found it reading 2600 magazine in a letter to the editor, and tested it personally).
Visual Basic was created to fulfill all the needs of the desktop workers and works with ALL Microsoft products.
If that was the goal, it hadn't reached it the last time I tried to use it. I am comfortable in at least a dozen programming languages, including most flavors of BASIC, but I see VB as a poorly designed and structured kludge. Perhaps it has matured in the last few years.
Any competing desktop has to deal with a guzillion man-years put in usability and interoperability by the MS juggernaut.
Agreed. That's why StarOffice has gone Open Source, incidentally, to reverse that equation. The OSS movement has more programming resources than Microsoft can afford (more coders, more testers, etc.) so they are beginning to force Microsoft to adopt our standards, such as TCP/IP, DHCP, Kerberos, DNS, etc. MS can try to subvert all these with "embrace and extend", but they simply don't have the resources to win the battle.
On my last job, I did a breakdown on an 86 million dollar budget in one week using Access and Excel. Off the top of my head (please remember I'm not Linux-savy and I'm not flaming here!), I can't think of a similar DB/spreadsheet combo on Linux that would have done the job in that short an amount of time.
StarOffice can do it if the user has experience equivalent to your MSOffice experience. My spouse, for example, (who is an entemologist and plant pathologist working with limnological microbiology
The Corel product, which I saw demonstrated at LWE in NYC and which a couple of my buddies use, is also quite capable of that sort of thing, and it can generate your powerpoint-equivalent slide show automatically when you are done, or set up a dynamic web site based on your work. And the interface is easier than MSOffice (in my estimation).
So, yes, the linux destop is immature. But it's getting better all the time, and once Mahogany gets off the ground, we'll have everything we need with a modest retraining effort.
--Charlie
So forgive me for saying so but he can blow it out his you know what. Who in their right minds are using Netscape on any platform anymore? Konq it up baby, the Linux Desktop is just being born.
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
Upgrades are less frequent, but there's two caveats to that:
1) you can only upgrade when microsoft deems it is okay to upgrade. So, if you want to add some new functionality they haven't made official yet, tough luck. Or if some exploit has been found that they don't have a patch for yet, too bad.
2) when the upgrades do come along, they make an effort to break things to force you to upgrade so you can pay them more money.
Frankly, except for the occasional security patch, old versions of Linux work just fine. My server at home runs Redhat 6.1, and it's pretty stock except for security patches. And really it worked fine when I had RedHat 5.2. I upgraded because I wanted some of the new features, but I was by no means obligated to do so.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Office 98 never existed for the Windows market. It was released for the macintosh, and was essentially an updated Office 97.
This lends no credence to your arguments. If you ever want to be thought of as anything other than a mindless zealot whose ideas and opinions are unimportant, you'd do well to drop the whole "winblows", "windoze", "losedos", "winsucks", "Micro$oft", etc crap.
Why is it so acceptable in this "community" to use such derogatory terms, when if someone were to use "Linsux" everybody would be up in arms and crying foul?
So would you like to show me where this "Office 98 for Windows" exists? As I stated before, it only exists on the Macintosh. (Note: Outlook 98 != Office 98)
So it's not quite there yet, therefore it's dead? Bollocks.
We all agree that linux makes a great server; but was it a great server from the day Linus first made the code available? Nah.
The desktop is far from dead. It may take a little longer, but one pronouncement is not going make all those people working on the various desktops say "well, that's it. Back to windows." They'll continue to work, and some day we'll have a desktop non pareil.
Open Source doesn't adhere to timetables. We'll have a desktop when we have a desktop. Declaring its demise may put that date back a month or two, but it's not going to kill it.
So, you've just stated that Linux needs a user base to survive. What if the userbase dwidled to but a handful? How much support/development would Linux get then?
You seem to be assuming that the GPL is bulletproof armour for Free Software. It sure seems to be, but what pray tell is protecting the GPL? Without a very substantial userbase, as well as the Buzz that comes by being "the Next Big Thing (TM)", lawmakers may actually start listening to the GPLs detractors. Without the GPL having some weight behind it, it could be easily short circuited - as in "Yes Mr. Stallman, they used GPL code and didn't re-release it. You get $500.00. Next case!" See what I mean?
(++Linux_users) == (++people_dependant_on_GPL)>(--FUD_directed_at_Fr
I for one hope that Linux does become a ubiqitous desktop OS - that will entrench the GPL into the everyday lives of netizens everywhere. That will make it good for business. Good for business means more resources for Free Software. Free Software means the Internet can still be safe for free Speech. Free Speech means the world is better for my children.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
People constantly make arguments about the superior reliability of the Linux OS, especially when compared to NT. Linux has a more reliable _kernel_, but it unquestionably does not have a more reliable gui, or more reliable desktop apps. Gnome with enlightenment has constant glitches, and crashes regularly. My new Red Hat 7.1 installation (Gnome/Sawfish) hangs the entire box within 3 days no matter what box I install it on. Even the Linux mail clients, which are comparatively simple pieces of software, are very much in beta (Balsa & Evolution, for example). The desktop software (diagramming tools, documentation tools, etc) are in an extremely primitive state: development on AbiWord appears to have ceased, and Dia is not even in beta.
The sole redeeming feature is the newest release of Mozilla (0.9), which _is nice._ It has gotten dramatically better. However, this is no vindication of the Open Source development model: Mozilla development is done in a traditional "cathedral" way with a paid, professional development staff.
Aside from that one exception, the Linux desktop environment is vastly inferior to its commercial alternatives (OS X & Windows 2000).
Yes, I saw it coming earlier this year. With IBM pumping (quite literally) billions of dollars into Linux development, and putting "Linux everywhere". What with RedHat turning a profit, and of course what with companies such as Sun and HP promising GNOME on the next major release of their OS. Of course don't forget Loki Entertainment staying alive through the worst of it - and gaining the support of Nokia...
Yes I saw it, the end is coming. There is no economy for Linux on the desktop. Just billions and billions of dollars floating around from corporate giants.
Why do we say this each and every time that something bad happens? It's like chicken little "oh the sky is falling oh the sky is falling". It's not the end, there is too much invested in it now. In fact the number of people I know who run Linux as the desktop of choice has easily doubled since early this year.
Is it the end? Hell no...
What is it called so I can use it. Funny, I installed Red Hat 7.1 this weekend. It's settings were NOT centralized in one GUI. Gnome has its own control panel. Sawfish has a control panel of its own. Buried in the Gnome menu somewhere was a tool to change my IP address. I couldn't find where to change my screen resolution.
cpeterso
Now just admit that the total cost of ownership of Linux on the server is ridiculously too high because you're more interested in twiddling settings than you are in solving business problems, and you're half way home.
I'm an RHCE. I was down at SSC (the Linux Journal guys) filling out some paperwork, and I needed to pull an IRS form off the web (I had forgotten my copy). So I'm telling the secretary the website, and we get the form, and Netscape cranks up Adobe Acrobat Reaer, and now we go to print, and... oh, RIGHT, of COURSE it's a Linux box, this is SSC!
I had made the mistake of thinking "secretary == Windows box" and had not twigged to the "K" on her toolbar until the print box said "lpr".
Now, remember, I've been running Linux since 1995, I'm supposed to know what an X desktop looks like. I couldn't tell the difference until it hit me in the face.
Linux not ready for the desktop. Feh. My wife has run Linux on her desktop for three years now. Word Perfect, Netscape, Solitare, Free Cell, Minesweeper, now Hearts is out, Quake, Civ, Gnucash, GIMP, and Samba if you must talk to the EE... she demanded Linux after Windows 95 ate the registry twice in as many weeks. She hasn't missed a thing.
The ONLY thing Linux needs is shelf space at Comp*USA for preinstalled machines. Other than that, we are SO ready for the desktop. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a wuss. I count Microsoft marketroids in the former category.
--
Software is like sex.
It's better when it's free.
-- Linus
Check out this post on comp.os.linux.advocacy, which calculated the uptimes of OSes in the Hot 100 Web sites back in January. The impatient may want to skip to the bottom, where they'll find something like this:The patient could use the article's links to produce a current version of the same stats, and let us know whether anything has changed.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The link that I cited has its own links to where you can find the raw data and do your own analysis. (Actually, I get bogged down in Nocookieland at the Hot 100 site, but I suppose someone who thought the report didn't jibe with their personal observations could poke around and find the list, given sufficient motivation.)
Other than that, I agree with your sentiment. How does the old saying go?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It is a fact that Linux faces many obsticles on the desktop. Although it is catching up fast, there is still a gap in productivity and end user applications, it is still harder to setup and use for non-technical users, and it still lacks certain functional consistency (look at font handling, for example, and I'm not talking about anti-aliasing, but consistency across screen, printing, and applications).
I am 43 years old and work for a company run by 50 year olds. I'm one of only a couple of Linux users around here, and certainly the oldest one. It will be a long time before I can convince the company management to switch desktops to Linux, expecially since there are still perceived and real shortcomings.
But Linux is very popular among technical college and university students. What will happen in another few years when tens of thousands of college students who have grown up on Linux go into the workforce. Certainly some of them will either start their own companies or move into decision making positions in existing ones. You will begin to see Linux on the desktop, and increased demand for Linux applications. The timing will be very good for this because by that time, most of Linux's desktop shortcomings will have been addressed.
Success (if not dominance) on the desktop will take the longest of any area, but it will eventually happen.
I've watched my folks struggle with the concepts of todays desktop. They ask questions about fundamental things: the difference between megabytes and megehertz; the difference between RAM and disk space; what's on the internet vs. what's on their computer; why they can't open an email attachment I sent them. And I realize that none of these concepts are actually relevant to them. They're adjusting their behavior to the needs of the machine.
It needs to be the other way around. And I'm not talking about "intuitive" desktops or "smart" browsers. That's a snazzy veneer on the same flawed paradigm.
Ok so if it is dead ...
;-)
Does anyone have a copy of Windows that I can use to replace my desktop, I hear that its great
My father does graphic design for a living, and while yes, lotsa people use photoshop on whatever platform they choose...
...
The real issue is the the graphics world runs on Quark, 'cuz if there's *anything* you want to publish it has go through Quark so the RIP (rasterizing image processor) can make an actually print of your "copy".
Now if Gimp had a plugin that would export to a file Quark could read; well while i'm dreamin'
use Signature::Witty;
AOL!!!
I agree that Linux on the desktop isn't dead, it just needs more time to catch on. Look at DOS & Windows. When Windows 1.0 first came out, it was incredibly limited and clumsy. Everybody wrote it off as a poor Macintosh clone. It took several more years before Windows matured into version 3.0. Compared to the Mac, it was still clumsy, slow and limited, but more people noticed it. Windows only really took off with the masses when Win 95 was released. It took Microsoft about a decade to get Windows to sell.
And people call Linux dead because people didn't suddenly drop everything and install Red Hat two years after the first useful desktop environments appeared. Bah! Linux on the desktop can be successful, but it takes persistence. It will take a lot more than two years for this to happen.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Imagine installing a fresh copy of Windows ME/2000 on a Pentium and giving it to your grandmother. She's not going to do any better with that than KDE or GNOME unless she's experienced at using Windows.
Windows isn't any easier to use than a well put together GNU/Linux distro (arguably), the real problem is that people know how to use Windows.
WordPerfect.
Corel made it available (and to some extent free), and it compares well feature and ease-of-use-wise with Word. It didn't help.
I had to go back to W2K just to get the following: access, project, photoshop (sorry, but gimp just doesn't cut it yet), autocad, frontpage, soundforge, viavoice... the list goes on and on. I found Linux a perfectly workable desktop (except for SANE - those guys need to fire up a Mac, and maybe they'll rename their app), but it was missing some fundamental pieces.
> It's stupid for Linux to even think of competing there.
Is it? Why? I use Linux on both my desktops, daily and its works perfectly well, even considering both are Debian Unstable.
> When I need to set up a new desktop client, it typically takes 3-4 days, using Windows 2000.
I'd sack you now. It takes me no more than 3 or 4 hours to get a Debian KDE or GNOME machine up and configured from scratch and including the time to download all the packages. That's two money savings! Have you tried Linux on the desktop? Do. Any gripes you have can and will be fixed if you really want them to be.
> If I were to try and use Linux, I would have even longer, downloading the source, copying it, fiddling with unresponsive hardware and looking for drivers that usually do not work.
OK, you've really not tried Linux have you? www.debian.org. What 'drivers' are you talking about? WinModems? On a corporate desktop?
> Then I have to compile, and compile again. And what am I rewarded with?
You can put on your resume that it no longer takes you 3-4 days to install an OS.
In 3-4 days you could probaly learn most of the desktoppy stuff from scratch.
--AP
The clipboard in Linux sucks incredibly. It is nice to be able to select and middle-click to paste when you're in a console, but doing something as simple as copying and pasting a URL into the browser is difficult.
I agree that the clipboard in Linux sucks incredibly, but this isn't why - in at least Netscape 4.x, Mozilla, and Konqueror, you can just middle-click on the HTML display area and it'll paste whatever's in your clipboard into the URL bar and go there.
Middle-click paste is one of the nicest things about X apps, IMHO. It's right up there with sloppy focus and virtual desktops (yeah, you can get the last 2 in Windows, but they always seem to have issues.)
--
I used Linux exclusively on my desktop for five years (until Macos X was available). I found out about this "feature" about a month ago, when someone mentioned it to me. And y'know, I don't really feel bad about not having stumbled onto pasting text onto something that doesn't look like anything else on the system that responds to text, and doesn't give you the slightest clue about its nonstandard nature.
This is a classic case of using the application layer to attempt a hacky fix to problems at the lower layers. It's about as elegant as the fact that in DOS, individual programs dealt with wildcard expansion, because the shell was too stupid to do so. This had small benefits (being able to do: mv *.jpg *.gif) and huge downsides (having * work differently in every program, if it worked at all).
Implicit versus explicit copy is a separate issue from mouse signalled versus keyboard signalled copy. If you want to copy with the mouse, fine; you've certainly got enough buttons to be able to use a different one for copy and select.
But having to explicitly request copy rather than having it be an implicit part of selecting makes the clipboard much more stable and reliable, and therefore more useful.
While I would like to agree with you, I have to point out the above fallacy, which is known as bifurcation.
So it is true that some people who say otherwise may well be liars or wusses, there also other alternatives. I had my girlfriend using Mandrake for some months, Star Office as a word processor. While she has no problem using KDE (at least until some dodgy app fucks permissions and she has to call me to tell her which chmod command to run, an all-too-frequent occurance), Star Office has barely cut the mustard. She wants Windows now, sad to say.
--
You're a suburbanite.
well, maybe not Microsoft, but Apple, yes.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
It's not like Microsoft and Apple just design their interfaces and that's it. They test them. They do task analysis, and fix the bottlenecks that occur. Granted, they can focus more on the advanced user, but like any other component, you have to to logic testing as well as runtime testing. The user is the most complex part of the system, and 99% of the time, its the part that can't be changed. So you adapt the rest of the system to the user. Don't force a user to keep a huge mental map, make it apparent in the interface.
If there's one difference between Microsoft and Open Source, it's that they test their interfaces, we don't.
> The problem is when you have to install and
:8]
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
> upgrade programs.
It's not as though this is any easier in the windoze world though - and you have to reboot just for things to take effect there, too!
> DEB isn't much better - from my experience,
> it'll b0rk completely if it can't find some
> mythical lib like libpakistanicalender.so.1.2.
Now that's just too much. Debian has no aspirations to be one thing (server) or another (desktop) orientated. Of course there are more-"together" offerings around there, like the *BSDs, of course - their ports system rocks - but frankly you sound like you've been tracking unstable and couldn't quite keep up, because I know that in a couple of years' solid use as a desktop system here, tracking unstable, there's never yet been a Debian-specific glitch I couldn't solve.
That said, bear in mind that my idea of desktop use is that I really don't give a fig about 3D-FX cards and the latest wizzo-graphics game, although I know life can be fun when you start trying to work around Mesa and all the assorted OpenGL packages. Feel free to go work on this
> I wouldn't recommend Linux to a newbie for
> anything more advanced than
I wouldn't recommend Linux to a newbie, full-stop.
Face it, guys, sometimes to be a user you have to have a clue. And I'd much rather say `you're an idiot, forget it' than water-down something good and geeky to fit the thickest moron on the planet, any day.
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Most people don't understand how seriously hard GUI programming is... and how much money user testing costs.
It's easy for one person to write a compiler that a bunch of geeks will use. RMS and Linus have shown that the price of a compiler and an OS is darn well close to zero $$$.
But GUIs and user testing costs money. I can ask a few of my friends to look at a design, but next time around I need virgin users I'll have to twist some serious arms or pay for testing. Ouch.
On the other hand, will people pay for good design? The troubles at Apple are a sign that perhaps not.
-- Malcolm
Second Final Word: printing.
/. for years now, and it hasn't changed: There's always some possible challenger that may become usable at some point in the future if the open source development model ever actually started to work for things like this. That, too is not a flame, but a valid observation: the open source model has had its successes, but they tend to be geek-ware infrastructure rather than user code.
Back when NT 4.0 was about to come out, I was working at Sun and we received a briefing on the capabilities of NT4 vs. Solaris.
One of the PowerPoint slides I remember consisted of the following words: "Printing: They can."
It's maddening to realize that not much has changed since then. There are many of us that have *really tried* to use Linux/Unix on the desktop, but sadly, the tools available in the Unix space for this sort of thing remain third-world primitive and five years behind. People who only code (and are light-duty browser users) may be able to get by with Linux, but not the rest of us.
And no, before you flame me, I'm NOT anti-Linux, but I've been saying this same thing here on
I think really this points up a fundamental weakness of the open source development model: without strong central control and authority, no one wants to write the really hard stuff, and there's not enough coordination to ensure it can be done piecewise. It's taken us *years* just to get to the point that we have some services that might be good enough to build apps on, but those apps are even harder than what's already been done, and the starting points are pretty bleak. Just try doing non-trivial spreadsheet work in *any* open source app and compare the functionality gap to Excel. For all Excel's warts (and it has them, believe me), it winds up being the best tool I can find for most what-if/analysis tasks. (Remember Excel is the whole reson Windows even exists: for those of you too young to remember or those not paying attention at the time, Windows came about only because MS wanted to put its wildly successful Mac spreadsheet (Excel) on PCs, too.
This problem cannot be fixed with the current open source development model, and I'm not sure there can be enough of a profit motive to support alternative models, as Eazel so poignantly illustrates.
Like many I've talked to in the community, I've given up - none of my "main" desktop machines now boot into Linux as the default anymore, and I find I spend less and less time there, especially as W2K, for all its faults, is increasingly "good enough" and allows me to accomplish the work I need with less hassle.
I have only one gripe with the article - Linux was never even in the game on the desktop, and most likely never will be, unless it manages to establish a beachhead in embedded devices. That scenario is looking increasingly likely, and Qt/KDE has a shot there, but Gnome continues to sap the efforts that could result in a real, workable alternative...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
That article has been posted around a lot, yeah. Unfortunately it's very wrong. A QWERTY keyboard does not, in any way, shape, or form, promote alternating use of hands. The amount of alternating hand use on a QWERTY keyboard is about as close to nil as it could be. It is very important that you understand this. If you would like an experiment, take an arbitrary paragraph and make a plot of each time a QWERTY keyboard would use the same hand twice, or more, in a row. For example "Anonymous Coward" would be a 1, 7, 2, 1, 4 on a QWERTY keyboard, or 1-2, 2-1, 4-1, 7-1.
The most important design goal of Dvorak is alternating hand motions; this large flaw in that article shows it to be poorly researched. For example, "Anonymous Coward" on a Dvorak keyboard is 1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,2 or 1-9, 2-3. Try this with a bunch of English words, and remember how much of an advantage the alternating hand motion is.
Now, which is simpler: that clearly poor research would come to a bad conclusion, or that clearly poor research would accidentally stumble upon something true?
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
I think only a very few people are attached to MS Office. Most people find it confusing, unpredictable and hard to use, eventually settling into an uneasy truce with it having mastered the minimum necessary to get by on their jobs.
I think you are missing the real value that people do find in MS Office: it is a communication tool.
People need to be able to send formatted text or calculations to each other by e-mail or via a file server. MS office is a lingua franca for this. It is extremely convenient to have a system that generates these and can write them in a format readable by 99% of the world. Remember what document exchange was like before MS office's domination and you'll see what I mean. This advantage is so great that people put up with an application that the majority of user dislike somewhat, and a substantial number of them outright detest.
The key to Microsoft's lock on the desktop is not their control of the Office applications, but their control of the file formats. Right now, Microsoft has every company and governmental agency over a barrel, because so much of their organizational memory is stored and transmitted in a secret format understood only by Microsoft. Microsoft understands this very well. Despite participating in the general stampede towards XML, you don't seem them proposing to replace Office formats with XML and OLE with URIs.
Microsoft's control of the format of so much information could be a nightmare scenario except that it is too smart to push this advantage so far that there would be a backlash. It is content to lock users into its office suite and such desktop OS's as it deems acceptable.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If the author fails to see Linux as a viable desktop OS then he's obviously at odds with all the people who disagree and are using it as such.
I use Linux at home primarily because it offers a software development environment far superior to Windows, and essentially identical to Solaris which I use at work. Sure I could run Solaris for free at home too, but Linux has much better support for the multimedia stuff I'm interested in.
Maybe Linux will replace Windows one day, maybe it won't. Who cares? The point is that for a very rapidly growing number of people it's a preferable alternative, and those people are the only ones that matter. Remember that Linux got to where it is based on volunteer efforts, not based on the contributions of the companies that are now trying to commercialize it. If no one ever makes a buck of Linux it won't matter one iota to the millions of people who still choose to use it and improve it.
Okay. Start with this: why the hell does kwrite automatically copy selections into the clipboard whether I want it to or not? (Did that on RH6.0, anyway; I haven't really paid attention to whether it's been fixed since).
This is a feature in X, not a bug. If you don't like it, you can turn it off. Well, unless KWrite does it explicitly (as opposed to the general way most apps use). Now, the real question is why Redhat doesn't make this easily configurable.
Why are we letting politics dominate our desktop decisions? And why the hell isn't the Linux community trying to forge alliances with the Mac community?
Some might argue that those politics are why we're here. Now, I agree that you can (and people do) go too far with it, but the reason that Microsoft and others can't just assimilate GNU/Linux is because of things like the GPL and decentralization. As for alliances with the Mac community, I think there are hurt feelings on both sides. Plus many developers think Apple has a rather one sided view of sharing. I can't speak on this myself, but i do know that Apple is rather trigger-happy with the lawyers which does keep me the hell away, both from anger and fear of litigation.
Still, i think you have a point about forming alliances. I think first we should look to the other UNIX's, where most any software can be ported with a minimum of effort. Then look towards the BeOS's, Macs, QNX's, etc. The problem, of course, is that all these OS's are competing for a lot of the same users, so there's bound to be some friction.
When the Mac came out, Apple put out the Mac Human Interface guidelines. Microsoft has its own rules for Windows. We have no such thing for either of the significant Linux desktops. Believe it or not, this is a bad thing. For this to work we need some interface guidelines, preferably written by someone using both MacOS and Linux (since Mac users as a general rule are more sensitive to clumsy interface design)
I agree for the most part, but I will say that I've been really unimpressed by Apple type designs (Nautilus, for example). That's not to say that there's nothing to be learned from Mac users, but I'd like to see some of the UNIX spirit in the GUI. Small, powerful apps (or pieces, ala CORBA) that can be linked together with scripts (read "high level languages." Whoops! There's your RAD) rather than these monolithic monstrosities. Power should NOT be sacrificed for simplicity. If there's no way to make something both usable for the average layman and powerful for those of us who're interested, then make to versions that are as compatable as possible. There does not need to be one answer to everything, there should just be one default. We'll get nowhere by copying other desktops. We have to go with what works, and scrap the rest.
As for the matter of open source desktop apps, we only have ourselves to blame. Browser?
Hey, I hear great things about Konq.
If you have nothing at all to contribute to OpenOffice or any of its competitors, you have no
right whatsoever to bitch about articles like this.
Yeah! Anyone who's working on GNOME and KDE but not an office suite should shut their yaps! Wait, no. I think anyone who's happily using Linux as a desktop enviroment has a right to disagree with articles like this. That's not to say there aren't valid points, but there are plenty of problems in the arguements, too. Everyone who wants Linux on the desktop seems to be saying, "Come on! We need to clone these other desktops. Forget what got us this far, let's get in shape and do what Apple/Windows did!" But as I said earlier, we have to use our strengths, and improve where these other GUIs didn't. I don't think choice has to be a bad thing if we also have good standards.
Why can't [g]vim and [x]emacs live side by side? How about a CORBA object for displaying/editing text, and let the user choose vim, or nedit, or kwrite, or emacs, or whatever? Choice doesn't have to be bad.
The Linux world needs to swallow its pride and accept that some decisions do need to be made from above, or at least proposed from above and accepted by a critical mass.
Like the Linux kernel and Linus Torvalds? Or like Perl and Larry Wall? Maybe more like Python and Guido van Rossum? Or GNOME and Migel de Icaza? Granted, there's still room for inter-project cooperation, but with the exception of a few feuding factions, I think we're pretty good about that. Even GNOME and KDE are getting along better these days.
Our desktop flagship programs are huge. Mozilla is about a 20MB source tarball IIRC, and I believe OpenOffice is well over 300MB. This is IMHO unacceptable in a Unix-based community; monolithic office suites are a Bad Thing to begin with, and given that there hasn't been a really core-type feature invented since the multidimensional spreadsheet I have to wonder where all this bloat is coming from (since I don't use it I could be off-base).
My guess is that a lot of it is coming from the feature-cloning with regards to MSWord, though I couldn't say definitely, since I don't use OpenOffice. My point is that for the media to say, "oh, Linux is becoming a viable desktop OS" we need all that bloat. They want to see the "Linux version of/counterpart to" MSWord, Excel, and all those other ones. If you're really just looking for functionality, pick up emacs and LaTeX. If you want all the razzle-dazzle of MSWord, you're going to have to take the bloat that comes with it too.
We need more than developers in the Open Source community, you see. What's missing from the Open Source equation is support personnel like tech writers and creative people.
I couldn't agree more! So much of the current work towards UI design is being put towards making stuff pretty, when what people really want is making the GUI usable. Even some of the people doing GUI design at Redhat make dumb mistakes, such as asking for data that could've been inferred, or making a window pop up in front of the information to enter into the window... In GNOME (last i used it, at least), there's plenty of pretty stuff, but why can't i set up the working directory for a program I launch off the bar? Why can't i easily make global revisions to my application menu without su'ing to root? It almost makes me want to fix these things myself.
Of course, then i found WindowMaker.
-ben.c
Oh, but there is one thing the author forgot: all the millions (billions) of people who can't afford MS products... like MS Office, etc. Lets remember for a second that most of the world hasn't made their decision on the desktop, and desktop software. I guarantee Windows is waaayy too US-centric and too costly to appeal to non-americans. Linux, on the other hand, is being developed for... and by citizens. So... this guy MIGHT have it right... maybe the US has made its decision about a desktop environment (see US weights and measures standard).... but the rest of the world is smarter than that. The best bang for the buck is no-question: LINUX
So Windows has better office-programs and a more consistent UI. It still does not have several desktops and a good CLI for those tasks that are not easily done with a point-and-click interface.
I code. I have tried VC++ version 6.0. It is horrible with this small workplace and the floating windows always covering up the windows showing my source code. I cannot consentrate on my work when I constantly have to search for that other window.
Windows has a 'do-one-thing-at-a-time' philosophy that just does not work for me. As long as Windows is not more flexible, I need me Linux.
There are good things and bad things. Linux will suit some (like me) and Windows will suit others.
There will be a place for both.
Linux on the desktop is dead because the desktop applications, in development for 3 years or so, are incomplete and immature.
The specific examples of Netscape and Star Office are more ports from Windows rather than actually being written from scratch for a unix type system.
Suffering from "Need to be configured by end user syndrome".
Something also present with Office and IE. Even using the various "resource kits".
At least it's possible use a script to set up ~/.netscape and ~/soffice52 for each user, so they don't have to mess around typing information the computer knows multiple times.
Obviously she can't call the guys at GNOME for customer support, or the guys at KDE to ask why Konqueror isn't rending a webpage properly.
You can call Microsoft for "customer support"? Only if you are not using an OEM version. How about asking why IE isn't rendering a webpage properly...
Not only that, Linux tries to mix Server and Workstation too much..
Something which is even more applicable to Microsoft. Who make "servers" which look and feel like "workstations".
...they just want to USE the computer. It's like with cars: The vast majority of people don't give a rat's ass how the engine works, they just want to get in and drive to the store. Filling up the gas tank is the most complicated maintenance they'll ever perform.
If that is really the case then you just wouldn't see Windows in use. Since Windows more or less obliges the end user to perform complicated maintenance on the system.
If the real issue were about use, rather than making sheep like fashion statements, then your typical corporate workstation would have the OS and applications in either ROM or loaded over the network. With user files only storeable on a network file system. Apple makes such systems, Sun makes such systems, Acron made such systems before they died, in the case of Linux there is like like of www.ltsp.org, etc, etc.
The thing that's difficult is installing new programmes, and the lack thereof. If you go to a shop and buy some random chess programme or a spanish course or whatever, it's Windows... even if it was there for Linux, you can't just put the CD in wait for the "Do you want to install xyz programme" box appear and click yes.
Remember this is only a "problem" for a certain catagory of users.
On any kind of corporate network you explicitally do not want Joe/Jane User installing anything. Especially if you are running Windows, too many issues with it breaking things and the risks of being fined huge amounts of money if licencing isn't complied with.
People need to start realising that the "home system" not the "standard".
For preinstalling a system for a specific purpose that can't easily be broken, I think Linux is far superior.
N.B. this "specific purpose" is actually the vast majority of systems on the planet.
Try to protect a Win install in a school from tinkering by students without making it completely useless...
Guess what, suck "tinkering" is not exclusive to students and the kind of staff who tinker are certainly not unique to education.
If you don't want users to install new software, Linux + KDE/GNOME is fine...
And the likes of Windows is something to avoid.
It's stupid for Linux to even think of competing there. Windows 2000 and Windows XP are far superior, at least on the desktop
The obvious exception being multi user support. Very messy and fiddly to administer.
When I need to set up a new desktop client, it typically takes 3-4 days, using Windows 2000.
hardly a ringing endorsement of Windows 2000
If I were to try and use Linux, I would have even longer, downloading the source, copying it, fiddling with unresponsive hardware and looking for drivers that usually do not work. Then I have to compile, and compile again.
Even if you insisted on using this method once you had done one you could simply copy the files to another machine. Or if that is still too challenging check out www.ltsp.org.
Simple things like when you put a CD in your CD drive it automatically pops up a window asking you if you wish to install the piece of software.
Or maybe simple things like asking them what they think they are doing and if they still want their job?
What users want is the ability to easily setup their internet connection.
Given a system which is easy for the system administrator there is absolutly no "Internet connection setting up" to be done in the first place. Unlike certain systems which expect the end user to do all sorts of techie things.
What users want is the ability to easily change the date and time in an intuitive manner.
Why? Any half decent computer system only needs to know the timezone (or failing that the longitude) do get the time and date correct all by itself. Remember the point of computers is to make things easier for the human...
What users want is the ability to get a piece of software that advertises linux support, install it with just a few clicks of the mouse buttons and have it work with no further hassles
Should these same people be customing their company vehicles, remodeling the desks in their workplace or school? ("I don't like my office wall, so I can just knock it down.")
If people want to mess around then they can stick to their own computers. Rather than trying to drive others into becoming the BOfH.
Users don't want 6 text editors, 4 e-mail readers, 3 web browsers, and 2 GUI's installed. They just want one of each that is easy and intuitive to use and offers all the basic functionality.
Guess what, people differ, one person's "intuitive" is another person's nightmare.
I'm not going to argue things one way or another but I have to comment about Windows stability. I used to run Windows 98 at home and I rebooted the machine about once in two weeks or so.. Stability was never an issue.
Now I run Windows 2000 on two machines (a laptop and a desktop) and not ONCE has the OS crashed in the about 6 months I've had them.
At my old job, I had an NT 4 workstation and when I left, I checked the uptime - roughly 6 months. It had never even occured to me to reboot, and I had never any problems with that machine even though I developed software on it and the software in development (obviously) crashes all the time.
In my new job, it's all Win2k for desktops and I've seen no crashes on any of the machines yet.
My point? Linux may be stable but stability is definitely not an issue on the Windows side either, except on the Windows 9x machines. However, even for Windows 9x's, it's nowhere near the problem some Slashdot posters make it out to be. Of course there will be people who have had Windows 9x (or even NT) installations that crashed once an hour, but for some odd reason, it usually always seems to happen to those people who are the most fanatic anti Microsofters.
"All strongly held opinions should be strongly opposed."
And I have no problem managing signatures in KMail or Mutt. Try setting Outlook 2000 to use different signatures when replying or starting a new message. Or acting with different "personalities" based on any kind of rulesets. Or taking your rulesets with you.
What interoperability problems? I cut-n-paste all the time with a variety of unix desktop apps. There's even several nice clipboard programs for when cut-n-paste gets more complicated.
Frankly I wish that widget sets didn't grow into such large desktop projects. After using windomaker for a while, I can conclude that the only thing lacking is a nice file manager, so I use Konqueror. Too bad so many small problems for real usability on the Unix desktop became such a giant holy war. X is pretty clean. OS X *tried* to get it right (XP will, just later and not as cleanly); storing stuff on the desktop is a pretty bad idea. I can't even do one second of work on the average desktop pack-rat's mess.
IE 5.5 is great on a Mac. On a PC it just sucks less than Netscape.
I'd love to see more games, and I really wish that more cards were supported in most games.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
It's Resting.
Pining for the fiords.
Linux on the desktop is great for those of us who use the full functionality it has to offer, or at least a subset of it.
Your average office user though WANTS Windows. Okay, it may crash quite frequently, but let's face it; it's intuitive, and well-designed aesthetically.
Lets keep working on the desktop for ourselves and if others want to use it, great... But lets not forget where our true strength lies: In the Server market.
Bzzzzzt..."AAAAaaaaarrrgh!!!" Thud.
Yes, but GIMP isn't exclusively Linux.
I just got my notice for my 20-year high school reunion. I remember back as a senior, I put down "World Domination" as my life goal (I am serious, I wrote that, I just hadn't figured out how I'd get there). Of course, Linux came along, and I jumped at the chance to make it happen, or at least ride Linus' coattails to glory. Now this guy comes along and tells me that all my Linux/UNIX skills are worthless for my goal! I am crushed. Is he right? Should I give up the dream? Is there any hope? Or should I just change my goals to "get a faster CPU"? Anybody have any advice? ("Get a life" I've already thought about...)
--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I have considered purchasing Mathematica for Linux. I wouldn't purchase anything else. Would you *really* buy MS Office if it was ported? I have Win2K with Office2K provided at my office at school. I run cygwin's bash shell, vim, gcc, python, java, and Mathematica. The only thing I really notice is that Vide is a better file manager than windows.
Ahem. Debian has a menu-management system which makes it insanely easy to get the icons and clickies ready to roll. Speaking as someone who's rolled up a few .debs for personal (mine and my Dad's) use, it really was quite easy.
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
Linux on the desktop is dead! Long live linux on the desktop!
What needs to happen now is for people to realize that fragmentation of the two desktop camps is too expensive and harmful to the community. KDE and GNOME need to go away and a new standard has to emerge -- with a concerted/compatible effort the Linux desktop will dominate just like apache and the kernel itself.
KDE or GNOME? WHO CARES! The right tool for the job is the one who can make the most progress in the least amount of time. "KDE or GNOME?" is the wrong question and is not worth asking. "How do we dominate the desktop?" is the only desktop question worth answering.
He says that Linux, while fine for us techies, isn't useful for your average computer user. I disagree. Linux is of course, fine for us techies, but its also good for normal users IMHO. Who it isn't good enough for [yet] is the corporate desktop.
Most of the "average" computer users I know want three things, web, email, and tunes. What do we have for that, netscape/mozilla/galleon/konq, for email we have evolution, gtkmail, and a dozen other ones that are pretty good, and for tunes, xmms looks just like a player that everyone who owns a computer knows how to use..... Its fine for your average user. Come on, how many people really need Word? People who do corproate work at their home pc's. Which is where it fails. We still don't have a killer office app, and until we do, this guy will be right.
Linux isn't dead on the desktop, were still just too young to sit up high in the chair. But I think were due for a growth spurt.
And to back up my claim, I got quite a few non-techy friends who I have introduced to linux running ximian gnome who love their "new" computer. They can get on the net, they can send mail, and play their mp3's just fine. Some of them have even taken some initiative and learned to do a little more with their systems. Like learning the command line and shell scripting. Needless to say, they exceeded even my optimistic expectations.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
Yeah, I guess I left a few things out. Instant messanging is a mixed bag, but I sort of think of it under email I guess. But some people swear by it, some people swear it off. Digi cams are a lot less common than you'd think, but I have seen em work in Linux. printing, I lkeave out, maybe I'm baised in that, I print next to nothing, unless it is for buissiness use, I personally have no use for a printer personally, and most of ym friends are green freaks who look at printers as tree killers. As for installing/maintaining software, have you used red-carpet? I can teach a monkey how to use that thing, it's so damned easy. Only hard thing is teaching my friends how to find the Linux equiv of some windows program they wanna use..... and explaining to them why Limewire for Linux reaks of goat nads. And as for upgrading hardware, come on, most average users canb't do that in windows without taking the thing in to best and paying fifty big ones for a 10 minute job.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
I have been fighting Gnome, Mozilla and KDE for a week. This resulted in 20 crashes in a morning, followed by a swift reinstall of the OS, no more Mozilla, and sticking with a simple KDE and Konqueror (which is quite a good browser actually, much better than Mozilla).
Now, it makes a killer programming box. emacs, kwrite, etc are great editors for Perl and Java amongst others, and I even got anti-aliasing working on the Voodoo 4500 at home (but not on the ATI at work). KWord and co. still crash far too often. Kmail doesn't grok IMAP. Mozilla is a slug on dope. How can I guarantee a good Word format conversion?
However it is improving. Many Linux distros can install a reasonable desktop from scratch. However, for a lot of things, where are the GUI interfaces? If they exist, they suck in many cases.
Microsoft know about making an easy to use system. Apple moreso. I have no objections to text files for configuration (in fact I encourage it for the obvious reasons), however software installation on Unix is a mess - splattering files all over the place, urgh. Software should install in a single location, in a chroot jail if possible, by default. Think Apple OS X bundles.
The Unix file system is a horror for most non-unix people.
Also, OS updates need to be better and easier for the average user. To update FreeBSD requires that you write a cvsup configuration file, and run cvsup! Don't make a mistake though, or your computer will get knackered.
Still, I remember the days of the Amiga. That was a sensible computer in terms of user friendliness, GUI features, file system and configuration. QNX has also impressed me recently, but it needs to support more hardware.
Final point: As the Unix desktop improves, so does Windows. However, Microsoft may finally shoot themselves in the foot with their licensing. If you don't need to mess with the internals of a Unix system (you get someone else to set it up for you), then things are straightforward (until you buy new hardware) for most people. Click on the pretty icon to run the work processor.
Second Final Word: printing.
See... you're right, but it isn't so far-reaching.
To use your car example... give a car to a 15 year-old and tell them to drive. 100 to 1, they'll make plenty of mistakes. That's why we have Driver's Ed.
So the basic idea is that everyone *has* to learn at some point. Those people that don't understand how to set their VCR clock would never get past, "A computer is just too complicated." So those that *do* try... whether it be at work or at home, will eventually learn whether they want to or not.
Granted, setting up 3D is harder. Setting up sound is harder too, though it's getting much easier than before. But those that don't try at least a *little* probably aren't the ones we need to worry about anyway.
* Also by CmdrTaco
It's pretty bad when even the Taco is trollin' Slashdot! What's the deal? Konquorer not doin' it for you anymore? So is X on the desktop dead too?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Maybe there was a window_placement=random setting somewhere in the global window manager config?
This is currently my biggest problem with KDE2. It doesn't matter where a prorgam tells a subwindow to appear, or where a user tells a window to appear with a -geometry option, the window will damn well appear where the KDE WM tells it to. Which is one of random, smart, or cascade. That's it. There's no choice for "leave it the hell alone."
But hey, I can't complain much. It's not like it's coredumping...
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
The site is slashdotted already... That usually happens at around 100 posts :)... Anyone have a mirror URL?
Ñ'
Select the text in one window, and middle-click in another.
------
I'm not satisfied with the current GUIs either. They're either too inefficient or have dumb usability issues. When I get time (which will probably be several years from now, but I'll do it), I'll write a half-decent desktop system (it'll probably turn into a GNU/HURD distro) that doesn't suck. XFce and fspanel are steps in the right direction, but fspanel is too generic and XFce has gross usability problems.
My first step will be to learn Objective-C. Any good resources?
------
With that in mind, consider where Linux applications come from: they can either be written from scratch, or ported from existing software. And frankly, the commercial software stores and catalogs are where most computer buyers find their applications.
(The point of this post, BTW, is to suggest that Linux tends to make big gains from the willingness of Unix software vendors to port. So feel free to stop reading now if you want....)
O.K. So think about this: Linux has at present acheived its greatest penetration in the server arena. At first it had only native software. Then one by one the commercial software vendors in this space (i.e., the database vendors) ported their products to Linux and established it as a heavyweight.
Next down the line from servers: high-end workstations. We're seeing a lot of porting from commercial Unix apps in the graphics arena; every few days some new 3D app or rendering solution gets announced. Partly that has to do with SGI being so gung-ho, but it's made easier by the fact that porting from one Unix clone to another is a simpler task. The scientific stuff is different, since it's wrapped up in academia and government research. But I take the high-end graphics package porting to be a significant event; it follows the same pattern that the server market experienced with Linux.
So, then, where does this trend leave "the desktop?" Well, there aren't currently too many commercial software products on desktop Unix systems because there aren't any desktop Unix systems. To speak of, anyway. But that's about to change. OS X is forcing Adobe, Macromedia and who knows who else to port their apps to Unix (more or less).
The porting trend says when the high-end workstation market is about as Linux-saturated as the server market is now, the dekstop Unix software houses will have the momentum they need to port their stuff to Linux en masse. So, in short, I'm not worried.
Hmm.... It's only just now dawned on me that I didn't use the word "inertia" in this post after all.
Nate
-- Watch the REAL Jon Katz.
Brian Proffit responded in his own Linuxplanet column that just targeting what works for some other system is selling Linux short. Rather than trying to recreate what's working on Windows, the really exiting developments occur when someone decides to make an app that lets people do something totally new.
And I personally believe that the distribution houses could benefit a lot more from pumping developers into nutty cutting-edge projects than into StarOffice or anything that has a "K" tacked uncerimoniously onto the front of its name.
Not that I have some brilliant idea in mind, of course, but in addition to the dozens of productivity-oriented app projects that are out to mimick what everyone in the Windows world already has on their computers, there are forward-looking projects like video editing (ie, Broadcast2000) that are aiming for markets that haven't been commoditized already.
I think Apple has already thought about this. That's why they're focusing on "tomorrow's" killer apps, in media, rather than today's, in documents. So it's not "you should get a Mac; they can do everything a PC can do... but they're not a PC", instead it's "you should get a Mac, they can do all sorts of neat stuff a PC can't do." That wouldn't be a bad thing for people to say about Linux, would it?
Nate
-- Watch the REAL Jon Katz.
Well, maybe not. Video is more interesting to me than to some people. But really the crux of what I was trying to say is that it would be better to try for up-and-coming "markets" than for already saturated ones.
If I was writing that post again, I might say our definition of "killer app" isn't doing us a lot of good, for the simple reason that it's commoditized and everyone already has it.
Tomorrow's killer app is where the bullseye ought to be, if you ask me. So, it might very well be an IA ...or video, or smellovision or whatever. The big coup would be to be the first player to the market, and not the last.
Nate
-- Watch the REAL Jon Katz.
I'm so tired of the appliance analogy. People think the computer should be as simple and easy as a toaster. Right. Computers do more than just one mechanical trick, ok? Imagine a $100 microwave that's as versatile and powerful at heating as my computer (which is old and slow) is at processing information. I could use it for *terraforming* for fsck sake.
And here are the things that bother me the most:
You actually have to delete the existing contents of the location bar, before you can paste the new one in. You can't select the contents of the bar and delete it after you've copied the URL you want, since the clipboard gets overwritten with the new selection. This goes for any copy/paste work, and is plain stupid.
Cut, Copy and Paste should be explicit operations, not things that happen 'behind the scenes'. Why not make ctrl-middle button copy, and middle button paste?
How would one go about changing this behaviour on a typical Linux distro? What pieces of software need to be modified to make this happen?
Fonts X font handling (rendering is reasonably good) is f*cking useless. I spent about 2 hours last night going through docs, searching through my folder structure and editing fonts.dir files manually, just to get truetype fonts to display correctly (i.e. not overlapping) in the latest builds of Mozilla.
You could call the overlapping fonts problem a bug in mozilla, but it highlighted for me the ridiculous complexity of managing fonts on Linux.
In hindsight, its not so difficult.. you modify the fonts.scale/fonts.dir files in your fonts folders, and you can find out where fonts are being stored by looking in: /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fs/config
However, it took a long time to actually figure this out, and WHY do you need to tell X the number of fonts in the damn file??? Can it not COUNT the LINES? Rendering a single glyph is probably more intensive than counting the number of lines in a file, which it only needs to do when it is restarted. Could they possibly have picked a more unintuitive location for font files? IF theres one thing that the LSB project needs to address, its X configuration.
Filepickers You would think that one of the most useful features of the modern UNIX shells - tab completion, would make an apperance in the GUI file-pickers. Why is this not in there? if bash can do it, why can't the GTK+/GNOME filepicker? KDE may do this, i don't use it enough to know for sure.
When i think about it, there is actually not that much that bothers me about the X desktop, just mainly the points mentioned above.
I'm pretty successful at getting my work done - mostly programming and web development using Linux, but most of the other people in the office just freak out when they see that you cant copy and paste a url into the location bar of the browser.
Thank Christ Eazel have gone out of business. Nautilus was/is a pointlessly slow and bloated application, that didn't actually do anything. I actually hated this app. I only hope the GNOME foundation will be good enough to include Nautilus as an *option*, not a required component of the GNOME desktop.
As an example, Mozilla's filepicker is the worst, slowest, crappest filepicker i've even used.
Why these people thought 'hyuck hyuck, lets rewrite the widget set' is beyond me. This is, of course, purely a Mozilla issue, and not a 'Linux' one, but the problem with Linux on the desktop is that nothing related to the Linux desktop is a 'Linux problem'.. 'Thats an issue with app Z, or toolkit Y, but never with Linux, or X itself. No desktop functionality seems to actually belong anywhere central, and is instead handled by a loose collection of sloppily interconnected components, few of which know anything about each other.
Now i have that off my chest, its also necessary to point out that despite this incredibly poor design, Linux on the desktop is actually usable, and improving all the time.
XFree86 is now pretty damn fast, and i'm sure there is much potential to make it a lot faster in future.
Mozilla is pretty much complete, and even though its still dog-slow compared to browsers on an identically specced Windows machine, it will make the grade, and hopefully keep on truckin to become better, faster and more flexible than anything M$ can squeeze out of their mighty corporate anus
Sawfish and GNOME make a pretty good GUI. I much prefer multiple desktops/panels/window options to MS's super-fast but unconfigurable GUI. Can't comment on other GUIs, since i don't run them.
Overall, i just can't agree with much of what the article says. I don't rely on MS Office to get my job done though (Actually, i haven't even used MS Office in months).
Linux is alive and kicking on the desktop, and will continue to win converts all over the world.
So while this guy proclaims Linux dead and buried on the desktop, i will continue to make my living, do all my work, increase my knowledge of computing, save $$$ on software, code some cool apps, have fun and fight the power on my Linux desktop machines.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
I'm not dead yet...
--
Ever since I got my SBLive! soundcard and 4 channels speakers, I've been less than contented with BeOS. So, I have been faced with the painful prospect of looking for another OS. Although it fills my every need, I am loathe to go to Win2K because of my disdain for non-bash command lines, and my general dislike of Win32 programming. Thus, I am seriously thinking of moving to Linux, although it is essentially a least of three evils decision. So, without further ado, some of the problems with Linux on the desktop. (PS: Linux == the whole Linux system, X, KDE and all.) A) Linux is a server OS. This was driven home to me the other day when some moron on /. went "Linux can't handle hundred of net devices without bringing down the IP stack, and you're worried about you're stupid desktop?" It seems to me that the majority of Linux developers find nothing wrong with developing for the 1% of users, at the expense of the 99% of users. The fact that GNOME uses CORBA (which, at only a few ten-thousands of invocations per second, i pitifully slow compared to the near 100K (16byte) messages per second handled by BeOS (or 400MB/sec of total messaging bandwidth shown with 1K messages)) at the expense of desktop performance. Both GNOME and KDE have tons of featuers that are great in theory, but are of little use in practice. Who really needs RPC to send a message to the taskbar that something should be added? Wouldn't SysV IPC work just as well?
B) Linux is slow. By default, the timeslices are a server oriented 50ms (on 2.4) and the lack of preemptibility in the kernel makes for terrible latency. To the user, the result is that Linux will compile 10% faster, but have a GUI unusablly unresponsive. When Windows2000 is more responsive than our OS, you know you're doing something terribly wrong. This could easily be fixed by splitting Linux into desktop and server versions (both with the same API, just different tuning) but it seems desktop users just don't carry that much clout in the kernel development world. (BTW, yes, theoretically a fork is doable, but in the real world, it isn't feasible). Then, given the fact that KDE 2 (which is the most advanced desktop at the moment) takes a second or two to launch most apps, why would anyone want Linux on the desktop? Certainly those used to fast OSs like Windows (tongue in cheek!)
C) Linux is bloated. KDE 2 sucks up over a dozen megs of HD space, and has a huge memory footprint. (About as big as Win2K). That is simply unacceptable. Sure one could use FVWM, but you can't compare something like Win2K (which has tons of features) to FVWM.
D) Linux is fragmented. My biggest issue is the Linux community's propensity to create new APIs. Although MS is a beast, they do make sure that there is only "one true way" of programming the system. There is something to be said for API coherence. It means that not matter the software configuration, all apps take full advantage of the user's machine. Right now, there are two major sound APIs, ALSA and OSS. On top of that, there are esound and aRts. Then there are the dozens of inbetween libraries. What, you expect me to use them all? Get real. Clue: Linux apps should not need to include "drivers" for the various sound systems. One OS should == one API. And don't even get me started on all the X toolkits.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
*this* got "insightful"?
Ignoring for a moment the intensely irritating "Period", this is by far the most important point made. But even this misses the mark; the problem isn't that "there's nothing as good as Microsoft Office", the problem is that "Microsoft Office doesn't work on Linux". This is the one and only killer application - now and probably for the next five years, only environments which run MS Office have a chance to survive. It doesn't matter that StarOffice and Applix and KOffice are every bit as useful for the majority of users; it doesn't matter that users' attachment to Office is largely irrational (the UI differences between different versions of MS Office are often greater than those between MS Office and StarOffice), and it doesn't matter that MS Office is bloated almost to the point of unusability. The only thing that matters is the perennial question : "Does it run Word?" and until this question can be answered "Yes!" (which presumably means a radically different Microsoft to the one we have now), the gloom will persist.
That said, the sensationalism of the article is completely wrong; there's no "end" in sight, and an actual look-at-the-figures will probably reveal the same slow but steady gains for Linux on the desktop that we've seen over the past eight years. Editorials don't kill operating systems, so everyone just relax...
Here is a letter I wrote to Kevin Reichard:
:-).
Hi,
I believe you do have some points but I also believe you're wrong.
Why be so pessimistic? I mean why are people so astonished that
Linux companies have to downsize or even close? Linux is free
software and no company owns it. You can make a living on selling
Linux (as demonstrated by SuSE), but you can't get rich by
programming a free file browser for Linux (as demonstrated by
Eazel).
But Linux with its Unix roots has lots of features which
make it a good OS for the desktop and I managed to put it on
about 70 corporate desktops where it runs without problems.
Some of those great features are:
- Linux can easily be configured to run on diskless
clients which boot from the server. That's the
configuration we use at our company and it works
great (reliable and fast). At one of our customers
two diskless clients got stolen but not the server
and you can't imagine how astonished he was when
we shipped him two new ones and he could continue
to work at once with not a single bit of data
lost.
- Linux is a multiuser OS, so its default settings
are more secure than those of Windows. Users can't
install software and compromise the system.
- As Linux stores most parameters in the user's home
directory which normally is on a network server,
a network of Linux desktops appears to the user
as a single computer with several identical terminals.
In the Windows world the concept is that each user
has its own PC with its own software installation.
In a properly set up Linux network you can log on
to every computer and have the exact same environment
as on every other workstation.
- As the Linux configuration is based on configuration
files, it is easy for professional system administrators
to set up lots of Linux workstations using automated
scripts. Easy, fast and much cheaper than Windows
software like SMS.
So much about why a Unix based system is better as a
desktop as a Windows based.
Now to the desktop environment: the only thing Linux is
really lacking is a wide range of applications. But that
could be changed, so again why be so pessimistic?
Linux does have a rock solid and easy to use desktop
environment (well, at least one: we use KDE 1.1.2 in
our company and it rocks). Users can configure their
screen savers and start applications. What more can
an ordinary user ask for?
And Linux does have toolkits to program applications
(Qt, GTK, Java/Swing, Motif, etc.).
So Linux has everything it takes to succeed in the
desktop world. So what's the problem?
It is my believe that there is one main problem for
Linux to be successful on the desktop: people want
a standardized look and feel. Every application must
behave as all the others. We need consistent file
select dialogs, consistent scroll bars, menus, buttons
and so on. I mean it's the same reason why Unix failed
in the first place. Users and developers had to
choose from OpenView, Motif, Xaw, etc.
So Linux folks have to unite or you might be right
an Linux will fail on the desktop. Choice isn't as
good for Linux as some people say it is.
Instead of serveral half-baked applications we need
one good browser, one good mail application, one
office suite, etc.
To make things clear: I think users can live with
several toolkits when they all look and feel the
same. It doesn't matter if the application is
programmed in C or C++ as long as the user can't
see a difference.
Let me close with one last remark: maybe you're looking
at the wrong places. Why whine about Corel, Mandrake,
Eazel, etc. and don't mention the new SuSE 7.1
distribution, KDE 2.1.2, Applixware Office Suite,
etc.
SuSE has really gone a long way and is really
easy to install even for a beginner. I can't really
tell anything about the stability of KDE 2.1.2, but
it also has some great developments. E.g. the
konqueror browser is really quite usable where Mozilla
is still a mess. And Applixware is a great office
suite: small footprint, rock solid, programmable in
ELF and it has everything a normal company user will
probably want (except for the talking paper clip
So I hope you won't continue to write such pessimistic
editorials and maybe help to unite forces for Linux.
Best wishes
Michael
3 or 4 DAYS for a WINDOWS PC? I was upset when it took 3 days (elapsed time. About 4 hours dedicated time) in install RH7.1 on a Dell Laptop.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
NOT!!!
Come on, Kevin. Just because you have some problems doesn't mean that everyone has problems, and just because your problems prevent you from using a linux desktop doesn't mean that no one can use a linux desktop. If that were the case, then Microsoft should have fallen a decade or so ago.
The truth of the matter, Kevin, is that you have failed. It's your problem (one that I don't share) that you can't use linux on your desktop. It's you who are dying (figuratively, of course) because you can't live without your dinosaur of an OS.
"values of beta will give rise to dom!"
Let's see:
Linux on the desktop is dead because the desktop applications, in development for 3 years or so, are incomplete and immature.
Linux on the server is alive because the server applications, in development for 6+ years or so, are complete and mature.
So, linux on the desktop is dead. As in, incapabable of life. As in, permanently deceased.
In a couple of years, these applications will still be incomplete and immature... um... why?
Personally, I think Linux on the desktop is in it's infancy, rather than it's deathbed.
I have to say that I can't see how this affects anyone.
Those that want to use Linux, use Linux. Those that don't, don't.
There is no war to win. Linux cannot die as long as there's someone interested in keeping it alive. There's no reason we have to 'win the war for the desktop' today or next week, or next year. There's no endgame where all the scores are tallied and a victor is announced.
As linux becomes easier for Joe User to get around in and be productive in, it will gain market share. And if it doesn't, it's still a heck of a server platform. It may not be great on the desktop today but in a year? two years? There's nothing to prevent it from being great.
There's no way to 'lose the war' until the product is dead, and there's no way to kill this product. We can't lose as long as we try.
-e
Then there's the constant fear of e-mail attachments and ActiveX bombing me or following me around the web because someone chose to install software from some website based on the little friendly prompt that my OS gives me-- should be ok, right? What were they thinking when they enabled that? If I want a plugin I'll install it myself thank you.
It borders on elitism these comments that Linux is not accessible to the average user. I've done desktop support-- I've shown people how to use a mouse. I've seen these people eventually learn the Microsoft way after saying it was too hard. Fact is, they would learn the KDE or Gnome way just as easily, Eazel or no. Perhaps the learning curve would be slightly longer, but teach them they can customize just about everything and they might get a little more excited about their computer.
So how has the Linux desktop enriched my life as a reformed windows user?
installation of flash components into Mozilla plug-ins was very easy, defeating the excuse that I couldn't enjoy all the freaky, bandwidth pig websites.
most of the software I need is installed when I installed my OS-- how long would this have taken with my fresh install of Windows? all day?
The clipboard tool in KDE has a memory, when I hi-lite a URL, it pops up and asks me if I want to open it with Konqueror, Mozilla or Netscape-- I've since added other programs to this list.
Gimp is every bit as easy to use as photoshop, has a huge amount of filters and doesn't crash. Um, it's free. FREE!!!!! Did you hear me, Linux Planet dorkwad, I said free! I don't think I'll get over this one.
i've got 4 desktops now instead of one crowded desktop. I have e-mail, web browser on one. Another has a stealth copy of Maelstrom, that I play in between tasks at work. Another has a couple terminals open where I struggle with the command line after spending many GUI-addled years. Another for misc. crap. How come this feature is not crowed over more?
I can go to freshmeat and browse like mad-- it's all available and the caretakers and developers of the software give you advice if you have trouble with it. Sourceforge is just amazing. Quite a resource.
Cut and paste is becoming more universal.
The command line in Unix kicks the shit out of the DOS shell.
As a phone support wonk, I'm not l33t hax0r, and just a linux newbie (1 year), but I got a legacy database app that we support that uses Paradox for DOS to run under dosemu. That really blew me away-- we have a tough time getting this thing to run on NT/2000.
Finally, with a Linux desktop, I feel like it's really a reflection of how I work, play and interact with this device. Microsoft tries to make you feel like you are owning your computer by putting "My" before everything. But the fact is, you are doing everything their way.
So I'm offended by this shit piece of editorial showing up as a newstory on slashdot. Show a little integrity before causing a FUD rampage. Who the hell are these Linux Planet people anyways-- I went to their contact page and it said "My Desktop" --does that scream windows or what? I think their domain should stripped from them so they can go from Linux Planet to some Microsoft slum.
Most of us already new Linux was not yet ready for the desktop. It was the media pushing Linux as a desktop OS. The rest of us knew it still has work to be done. There is still a chance for Linux to get the desktop market. The community needs to keep plugging away. Microsoft is heading towards paying for software as a service based on use. This shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone.
Linux will stand a big chance of gaining ground on Micrsoft's desktop strangle hold during this time. Linux can do this by offering the users a choice. The apps the we are currently developing would be one choice, and the second would be the web based applicatiions Microsoft provides. That is where they are heading. In this sense, the users will get the best of both worlds.
We need to continue as normal. The media will someitmes like us, and they will sometimes hate us. So what. Life goes on. We'll continue to build roads into the desktop market.
Companies still need to find good methods of incorporating open source methods in to the methods of operations. Some of these companies that closed there doors was because they had no income. You can't have a company with out income. You need something to bring in money from customers on a regular basis.
So, it's business as usual for the Linux community.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
"The American PC game market is a $1.2 billion business..."
Tomi Pierce, "Creating a PC Game," Newsweek Special Issue: Computers and the Family, Winter, 1997, p. 22
By this statistic, let's say an average game is $50 and the average windows gamer actually owns 10 games. This means in a single year, 2,400,000 people bought PC games. (this may be bloated). But being modest, let's say 1 million users bought Windows games in 1997. thats 1 million users! The game library for windows is immense. The game library for linux is pitiful (i.e less than 100 games). It is my belief that when linux wins the gaming market, linux will reign supreme in the desktop market.
-------------------
arcane for life
You're using a bad Windows manager. Lots of Linux users who run it only for 2 hours a week love their E or Sawfish, but as someone who works in Linux 24/7, I've found nothing compares to IceWM.
Why is it good? "Centre dialogs on owner window" setting. Alt+tab moves between windows. crtl+esc brings up launcher menu. Totally Gnome WM compliant. Multiple destops. Stability. Speed and low foot print. But the best feature? A default configuration fully usable without tweaking!!
--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Anybody know the title (and author) of the short story where FNORD first appeared?
I am a software developer and I tried to push Java as the multi-platform solution. Moving away from the windows C++ world. So I convinced my company to use J2EE. We use EJB on the server side with JSP and Javascript front end. Our goal was to have a multi-platform server side solution and and multi-platform web based client. As we move along, we have to drop more and more Netscape browser versions. They are absolutely horrible to support. They don't respond correctly to a lot of our standard stuff. Has anyone tried version 6? Jeez! We had to drop everything netscape except the 4.7X versions. And we've had to bend to make it work in those versions as well. How are we supposed to make a multiplatform web based client without a decent browser on a Linux\Unix machine? Browser support is lagging.
Linux has never been a candidate to replace Office+Windows. We all speculate and hope, but the reality is that aint going to happen in at least the next 4 years if ever. However, the Linux desktop will live on in the many other market applications other than Office. How about, Developement, IT management console, Fortune500 Enterprize Appliances (cash registers, airline reservation desktops, other one-offs), etc. Imagine how many linux workstations companies like Verizon, HP, IBM, Motorola, etc have to have for their various development enterprizes. The Linux Desktop is NOT dead. The Linux Office Application is still a ways a way. While we are all rooting for those Open Office developers, we have to recognize that their battle is uphill.
Someone you trust is one of us.
First of all, Ximian, a great linux desktop, takes about an hour to set up, not 4 days. It takes you 3-4 days to set up a windows client? What the heck are you putting on there that takes that long? What does the hard drive have like a 10rpm governor on it or something?
Someone you trust is one of us.
Strike One: people go with what they know. And people know Windows. There ain't much we can do about this except get 'em started early, before they can taste Windows. Games will help tremendously.
:-)
Strike Two: Trying to get X working on anything but the most common hardware is anything but trivial. I just spent 6 hours tweaking settings in XF86Config* and it's still not right. If there is a graphical utility for doing this (besides xvidtune), I haven't found it. I will say though that Linuxconf is a wonderful tool for system administration. (Number 9 SR9 AGP with an S3 Savage4 chipset [XFree_SVGA] & a Mag XJ810 monitor on RH7.1 (2.4 series kernel): if you got it working @ 1600 x 1200 & 24-bit color, lemme know your timings)
Strike Three: Inconsistencies. There's no common user interface standards for software. Yes, there's the window manager. But, the dialog boxes appear differently, menu commands are in different places in different programs, save & open dialog boxes are different (Nutscrape's SUCKS: why in Uncle George's Name do you have to lose the file name when you're trying to navigate to a directory????).
No wonder Linux-on-the-Desktop is out.
*Yes, I know RH 7.1 doesn't use XF86Config but I don't remember the name of the one it does use at the moment 'cuz I'm on the NT box @ the office
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Obviously she can't call the guys at GNOME for customer support, or the guys at KDE to ask why Konqueror isn't rending a webpage properly. It these things that are preventing it from being a true workstation for the masses.
When is the last time you called MS for support? If you are like most users, the answer is "never."
I think that this argument is functionally equivalent to the "who are you going to sue" argument. There is no real safety (or in this case support) there, but there is a psychological difference in running software "backed" (read any MS EULA to see why I put the word backed in quotes) by a multi-billion dollar company.
MS pushes most of the support out to OEMs. The question, I suppose, is when is the advantage of having "the standard" (what I bastardization of the word) OS/Office/etc out weighed by the ridiculousness of paying for the privilege of supporting MS stuff vs. supporting Free stuff.
This point is being passed in the Intel based server market right now.
Or, are you talking about paid support? There is plenty of that for Linux, and is, in my experience, of better quality. Again, when is the last time you called MS support?
Then the common answer for people that are struggling with Linux and always asking questions is "RTFM", well guess what, there are people out there that don't want to learn about a computer, but just use it. And futher more, I doubt this person has a book on GNOME, and people trying to learn GNOME aren't going to know GNOME has built in documentation
This argument is hollow. The GNOME help system is functionally identical to the windows help system, as is the KDE help system. If there is any difference here it is in third party products (video professor, teach yourself MS office in 28 days, etc.)
Not only that, Linux tries to mix Server and Workstation too much.. Once again, the average geek will like this, but most people don't care if they have a telnet server running, in fact its a huge security risk for the average home user.
This is a problem in general, but try an "all defaults" install of Redhat 7.1. It is easily as secure as a "windows power user's" box with black ice or whatever, and is easier to install. (given like installs. Installing RH 7.1 in a single boot, stock install is no harder than the Win98 equivalent. Much easier than the original Win95 on a system with PIXII and USB.)
-Peter
Get over yourself, man. KDE is not Linux.
No, but it's one of the better window managers that run on Linux. The OSS/Linux movement can't beat Windows on the desktop by simply having a better operating system kernel; it has to have an overall better operating system and user interface.
The shareholder is always right.
Actually it is the people who have 50 icons in their taskbar that cause windows to crash all the time.
Kinda of a side note, but how can MS say that 'Windows Media Audio 8 format (which can store twice as much CD quality music as MP3 in the same amount of hard disk space)' The bitrate at which they encode the music sounds like crap. I've encoded a bunch of songs in WMA in order to get more music on my Nomad II and when I compress them to '96KBps CD Quality' they sound just like an mp3 at the same bitrate!
legally required rant:
Ok, moderators, are you smoking crack? This is the first post to point out the painfully obvious, moderate him up!
On the serious note, this article fails to support its own title. "Death of the linux desktop" it says, but where was there evidence that it's alive? The beauty of open source is that things don't die. Ever. If someone stops developemnt (Eazel being the obvious), so what? those who use it and want it, keep developing! Where's the problem here?
The other thing that just burned me about the article is the mention of Corel linux failing. First of all, Corel linux was a POS to begin with. I couldn't get the POS installed on 3 different machines. There's no options, so I know I didn't screw anything up. My first install attempt, it didn't even unmount the partitions after install! It fsck'd on my first boot, most of the daemons wouldn't start, the OS was UNUSABLE. I tried installing on a laptop, the res was messed up and it put the "Continue" button off the screen. I couldn't even click the Continue button! I never got past the first screen! Corel linux blew chunks. Lots of them. Take them OUT of the equation!
Linux on the desktop is alive and kicking. This article is just blowing senseless smoke. Mozilla is really starting to look good, Evolution beats the crap out of OutHouse, and Open Office is getting there. Wiritng an article like this is poiintless, you've just reconfirmed what we already know.. the linux desktop needs work. Saying that it's dead... STFU. It's not there yet. Development will continue, and I'm reminded every time I sit at a Windoze machine how truly superior it is.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
A Linux hegemony is NO better than a MS one.
You know, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one. A "Linux" "Hegemony" is open to competition inherently. It doesn't lock people in. FreeBSD has linux emulation. AIX has linux emulation. SCO has linux emulation. I dont see linux developers trying to stifle this competition, do you? A linux hegemony is not a corperate monopoly. It's a commoditized marketplace where all entrants are on equal footing.
A linux hegemony doesnt try to extract monopoly profits. It doesn't maliciously put companies out of business. Every can play in the linux space, if they want to. You could take FreeBSD and market it as a linux box if you wanted to.
I think the better way to phrase it is, a Hegemony of Freedom is a million times better than an Hegemony of Vendor lock-in and monopoly profits.
I expected "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" or "Now go away, or I shall taunt you for a second time."
The not-quite-earthshattering line sums it all up:
"This has nothing to do with the quality of the desktop environment, but has everything to do with how PCs are actually used: end users don't use the environment, they use applications."
I absolutely agree. I've used KDE quite a bit and I think it's a really nice piece of software. But the user interaction model is ENTIRELY predicated on the notion that I understand the Un*x structure. It basically augments what I already know. But I can easily just drop out to the shell and go from there. My wife? Um. No, that's not going to happen--she's still afraid of her iBook.
The operating system, as a viewable, tangible and interactable device, is dying as well. The original author is dead-on -- users use applications. The other stuff is just getting in the way. What I ultimately want is to have my computer know what I want to do (through a completely abstracted interface) and provide Photoshop when I need it, or Word, or Telnet -- and let me ignore the rest. File structures need to be more liquid than they are now, and users shouldn't have to worry about all of the details of file naming schemes and modifications dates (let alone file extensions - bah!).
Linux on the desktop will succeed only when it stops trying to be "Linux" on the desktop. Instead, it should be a simplified user interface on the desktop, powered by a great OS. Stitch in WINE and maybe some Mac emulators/runtimes (all in hopes of easing the lives of the users) and make it clear and understandable -- then you'll succeed. Until then, it's looking like either a bad ripoff of Windows or a glorious upgrade to GEM.
---- Please be nice in case my Slashdot karma ~= my real life karma.
It's completely stupid! Yes, I know the problem is that there are a dozen different desktop managers, and they each have their own API. So why doesn't somecreate a generic API that lets you create icons, etc on the whatever desktop you happen to be running? I've installed dozens of apps via RPM, and I had to make icons for all of them. Not only that, but I've had to dig up icons to use.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Alas, poor desktop GNOME
They meant well, I know
But their attempts at creating UI's were of infinite jest though their pixmaps were fancy
They had blindly copied microsoft 1000 times
And now, how abhorrent an imitation it is
My grandmother cringes at it.
Fitts' Law--the menus on their windows breaks. It is at least something they forget at Sun.
Something is rotten in the state of GNOME.
To fork or not to fork
That is the question
Whether tis nobler to suffer the bungling errors Of Gnome's outrageous UI design
Or build up an army of mac programmers
And in doing so, win the desktop
What's in a kernel? That which we know as a good interface with a linux kernel would be just as sweet.
Oh penguincow, penguincow, wherefore art thou my penguincow? Deny Bill his victory and the mac's greatness reclaim.
Sorry. I'm feeling rather poetic and silly today. But I'm already starting to do what you've mentioned. Mac people are best qualified at creating interfaces for grandmothers, which is why I'm creating (albeit slowly) a mac flavored GNOME fork. The current linux user environments were made for geeks by geeks. For them, technology is the ends unto itself and not and a means by which you get work done. On the gnome-gui list, there was an effort to put out UI guidelines. The effort, while not much, could be summed up as "let's go copy microsoft." When I pointed this out, the responses on the list were something to the tune of "Let's go copy Microsoft. We don't care if Apple did it better or it made more sense". Screw forging alliances with linux; it's time to take it over. I also agree with you about StarOffice. It really is big. And all the code comments are in German. Und ich spreche nicht gut Deutsche.
If you want, I can e-mail about the project. I will eventually bring other people in on this.
Ukab T. Great
The major ascendance of Windows happened because the desktop capabilities of Unix workstations let's say 5-10 years ago were so poor that a developer used to have a 30.000$ SGI machine on his desk and a 2000$ Windows box to edit reports.
There was not a half decent word processor on those "graphics oriented" machines!
This inevitably meant that Windows automatically entered everywhere. While it is clear that still, Windows is the first choice if the task at hand is exclusively word processing, companies who are using Unix or Solaris for development are providing separate desktop machines any more. A client access to a centralized Windows server for the rare occasions when you need a Windows app is enough.
In conclusion: almost everybody who is using Linux as a development system (and a very large number of companies are using it), also uses it as a desktop. This in effect stops the further penetration of Windows, and provides a stable user base of desktop Linux.
Lotzi
my parents shouldnt use linux. so why do i care if the desktop dies? hell, if this means that less people will be on the mailing lists. great! it does all i want it to do, if it doesnt i'll add it in. frankly i dont care if cnn ever speaks about linux again, im happy with it, most hackers are, so let the rest of the world fuckoff. if their stupidity banishes them to windoez. good. fuckem.
In addition to making a good developers desktop, Linux is pretty good when supporting users who have absolutely no intention of doing their own system administration.
My Mom calls me all the time asking how to fix something or another on her Windows desktop that I could fix much more easily if she were running Linux and I could simply ssh to her machine.
And for the software that she likes to run Linux is really almost there. She just needs a good mail client, a web browser, and a word processor. I need her to use tools that don't do unexpected things like open unclosable windows (like Netscape & IE), propagate mail viruses (like Outlook & Word), or mess up her registry (like Windows 98).
Personally I think that Linux is getting close to satisfying all of those. Windows doesn't even seem to be trying.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
Ah, good point. But is Microsoft actually going to win the console wars? True they have billions of dollars...
But against them, they don't understand the market, and they aren't even using the tried and true methods of succeeding in that market, but have instead decided to forge their own new path, and ultimately their hardware is more expensive than their competition.
Microsoft hasn't exactly made good on WebTV if you'll recall, and that was their best bet at a grandmother can use it device that I've seen in recent years. It's too sad.
I do think that the console market is a rich oligopoly ripe for upsetting, I just don't think that Microsoft has a guarantee of winning.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
This presumes that you know what the next desktop OS will look like. If instead the industry completely misses the boat, heads off in one direction and interest of the public runs off in another then Linux could very easily cross the finish line first.
Consider TIVO for example. I'm not a big fan of the device, but suppose it caught the imagination of the american public in a major way; it could easily result in a complete displacement of Windows on the consumer desktop.
There are other examples, but that isn't the point. Open source also means that a thousand companies, without any significant value or staff size, are able to innovate however the mood strikes them. And that, I claim, is the very core of invention.
Microsoft's can be displaced just as easily as Nokia surprised and overwhelmed the cell-phone market; all it takes is a blind spot. And right now that blind spot (for Microsoft is in recognizing the value of open source. (Who knows what it will be next year.)
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
I still do all my documents in LaTeX. GUI word processors uniformly suck. Which is more user friendly? Try explaining to a word processor newbie sometime why when they hit backspace on a paragraph boundry, all the previous paragraph's formatting spilled over into the current one. Do that a couple of times and you'll damn well make them learn LaTeX. Sending me a word file will earn you a kick square in the nuts, too. Convert that fucker to HTML. I know Word can do that. If you can't be bothered, I'll kick you square in the nuts.
Your average user's gonna do what? Browse the web, read E-Mail, and play some games. The main problem I see with Linux as a desktop right now is you can't go down to CompUSA and buy a piece of software. Try to explain to Joe Random User why he can't play Black and White on his computer and you'll damn well force him to use Windows. Note that with Broadband, you could just slap a Loki catalog on his system and work out some way with them to bill his credit card. Then he doesn't even have to go down to the brick and mortar.
Your slightly above average user might also want to do online banking (Which my bank handles via the browser anyway) spreadsheets and document handling. Again, it looks like we got two out of three there. Three, if you want to make 'em use LaTeX, which has been suitable for my needs at least.
Your average Linux user is happy as long as they have (Emacs/Vi, Pick one) and a C compiler on their system anyway. Nevermind the rest of that crap.
So Linux doesn't appeal to every plonker on the planet. It wasn't designed to. At some point a design decision was made not to cater to the room temperature IQ demographic. You really can't fight Microsoft on that territory. Well you can, you just don't really want too, since that lot is also the biggest bunch of whiners on the planet. I did tech support for a couple of years. I know. Ironically Linux can be made to work for those people too, as long as they have a knowledgeable person nearby who can set the system up for them and not give them root access. Sounds like this guy's mistake was he tried to set his system up by himself.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If it weren't for the 80,000 Windows games she has installed on that system, I'd format over it with Linux and keep the root password to myself.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Obviously no one here knows anything about Windows deployment tools like Ghost,RIS,Group policies or the plethora of other tools. After initial setup of one desktop you can distribute and manage 100's of machines in the time it takes to get one linux machine setup perfectly for a corporate user... I use all the desktop OS's and for corpoate use nothing beats Win 2000. Sad but true.
GodBrain http://www.godbrain.net http://www.alienfaktor.com http://www.tril0byte.com
...with their new revenue models. As it becomes more and more expensive to run Windows, more and more people will run something else.
What do you teach them to do when, after pressing 'reset', the machine halts during booting with a complaint about a missing driver or GPF? This has happened to me a couple times with Windows 95, and has resulted in several hair-pulling hours of messy reinstallation, not only of Windows, but of several applications too.
I see a lot of people whining about how Linux is "different" and how they just want to use a particular application, and not some linux equivalent that does the same task. Well, if they don't *WANT* to change, then by all means, don't. There are lots of us who want to change because I'd rather cope with a learning curve for a new app than waste my time watching office crash and Windows blue-screen all day long. I have better things to do with my time.
If fear of change was the issue, we'd all still be using MS-DOS and WordPerfect 5.1.
People who refuse to give Linux a try as a desktop system, just because it's "different", are like people who live in a shack and won't move to a newly built mansion because it's "different" and they need to learn the house's layout, paint the walls and buy furniture. But guess what: people actually *do* that.
I think the article is a bit too pessimistic. And I, for one, will also take a stand and refuse to listen to any arguments. But the stand I choose to take (cuz it's really all about choice) is to stick to Linux. I've stopped needing Windows to do any actual work a long time ago.
I also contend your implications that Win2k is more stable than Linux. Back that fact up with some hard data; give me a Win2k server that can match my record 400-day uptime under linux. Also, a default Linux installation is far more secure than a Win2k one this day.
The comment that Alphas are "dead" is worthy of a true troll so we're not even going to get there.
When was the last time you actually used a Linux system? a "prompt"? did you get the news that Linux has graphical logins these days? Anyway, any user with a clue is smart enough to follow the instructions "give login and password, and then type startx at the prompt". I mean, your users *Can* type, can't they?
Finally, trying to diss Linux as a server system is plain dumb. Say what you will, but every statistic available on server operating systems proves you wrong regardins Linux as a server.
Microsoft Windows always has been, and always will be holed up in the desktop market. It's stupid for Linux to even think of competing there.
That's the statement of a troll, I think, but I'll pretend otherwise. 5 years ago, I had to compile everything for linux. I didn't even try to get X running. There was no office software, at all, that I knew of. Mail was text only. Fast forward to today: several office packages, 2 of which are free, to choose from. I enjoy having mutt as a mailreader, so I read from a shell, but it has both inline pgp and can spawn up attachments into StarOffice right from the mail client. Oh, and I don't have to worry that every attachment I'm getting (or every email, for that matter) is some VBScript laden bomb waiting to infect my system with a virus and wipe out all my files.
When I need to set up a new desktop client, it typically takes 3-4 days, using Windows 2000.
About 6 months ago, I needed to update my Linux box (well, wanted to, anyhow, but that's such a fine line for a computer geek
An inferior operating system, matched by shoddy programs that don't work
I've spent months now using netscape and staroffice every single day. Netscape is utterly stable, when you discount Java, which I have off on ALL platforms due to that instability. Try comparing the resources used by the latest linux netscape to those used by IE. Mozilla isn't a 1.0 version yet, but I tried out 0.9, and it seems like its well on its way to being nice.
That said, let's look at what I get that you don't:
I get built-in firewalling/packet-filtering capability, and RedHat 7.1 will even build access lists for me.
I get a variety of mail clients, graphical or shell, which are faster and more robust than garbage like exchange (ever try to close a multi-thousand message box? Better have something else to do for a while), as well as not being easy victims for every virus writer on the planet.
I get system monitors, media players, development tools, games, graphics programs, irc clients, a palm-sync package, cd ripping/burning software, newsreaders, as well as a desktop that is so customizable it makes the pathetic attempts under windows ("Oh, your mouse pointer is now really a mouse, how cute *gag*") worthy of tears. And of course, I get to choose from a variety of office suites that are free, never mind the commercial ones.
Meanwhile, Linux as a server has grown from fun to just amazing. With a vastly improved kernel, now offering fast context switching, and speedy multithreaded I/O, you get software like Apache, PHP, MySql/Postgres/Oracle, sendmail, BIND, etc, all of which put their Win2k equivalents utterly to shame (with the possible exception that MS SQL Server is pretty decent). Want an incredibly fast webserver? TUX in the kernel and you're beating the pants off anything.
This is to say nothing of the true cost of ownership. Imagine an IT world based on linux: you can export X displays without expensive add-ons, you can ssh safely and securely into your client machines, you get built-in packet filtering with logs you can easily transfer and audit, which your users can't override at their whim, AND is fast and free. Linux really COULD be a desktop now. I shudder to think how amazing it will be with some market share. Add to this the incredible stability -- I'd like to see you put a windows box at a colo provider 1500 miles away and feel safe when you walked away!
CompUSA cheap... nice troll, or nice setup, but give me a break -- IT people spend 10x as much time just repairing virus damage on windows garbage than they would converting their whole company to Linux. Games under linux are coming, and when they do, Windows is finished.
I have to say that since I switched to GNU/Linux as a desktop about a year ago (although used it as server OS since 95), I've never been so bored. I actually use it as a tool. When was the last time you got excited about a hammer rather than what you are building. Frankly, what windows users forget is that they spend most of their time installing/deinstalling software, trying to hack the registry, perusing Windows Update, troubleshooting, testing, saving settings AGAIN, rebooting, crashing, etc.
I spend almost no time at all these days on that kind of stuff. I fire up star office and write my docs, spreadsheets, etc, glimmer to code php, mozilla to browse (sure it's not perfect, I've been using it since about 1 and half years ago and man does it blow netscape 4.x out of the water), and gnapster, licq, irc (pick one), xmms to play mp3/ogg files, gimp for graphics (can't stand photoshop anymore), and on and on and on. When was the last time you had over a month uptime on a workstation? a workstation!?
Yawn. Booorrring. No, I'd rather troubleshoot my hammer, screwdriver, than build a cool add-on to my house. Man, nothing beats hacking the screwdriver registry all day instead of actually doing real work.
So, back to work I go... damn the MAN!! I'd rather screw around with the windows registry and break stuff all day than do actual work. I ain't got that excuse anymore.
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
22 may 12:33 PM EST, clicking on the link gives this-
/. users hate Windows or think Microsoft is out to get them!
"Unable to connect to the database. Please email"
Another website falls victim to a SDDDOS (SlashDot Distributed Denial Of Service) attack.
Says their admin-
"Lets check our logs... 5,000 hits sunday... 4,800 on monday... not bad... WTF!! 2,841,182 hits in THREE HOURS on Tuesday?!"
____________________
Remember, not all
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
XML causes global warming.
That was quick.. what about Mac OSX. If it's in some way ported to linuxi wouldn't quite say Linux can't make a good desktop.. Personally i say give it a chance... Yes, it's not doing well now on many points.. that is porb why I am running windows, but if it keeps developing, with that speed, i might just switch some day soon.
Sorry.. your right! I meant the GUI.. I think it is called Darwin or something like that. Anyways... i really think the learning curve for linux is too steap. X helps a bit, but last time i tried to install Debian, i couldn't install X. I tried to apt-get enligthenment and everything else x relevant i could think of, but it turned out that the dependencies where broken :(
That's just way too annoying and time consuming.
I think linux as a desktop right now can be diskribed best as 'Three dead Trolls in a baggie' did. in their song 'every os sucks'
"Now there is l*nix or linux
i don't know how you say it,
or how you install it or use it or play it
or where you download it or what programs run,
but l*nix og linux don't look like much fun.
However you say it it's getting great press
Though how it survive this is anyones guess. Now if you ask me it's great big mess for elitist nerdish smucks."
hehe
and here comes the golden line:
"It's free they say if you can get it to run,
the geeks say, Hey that's half the fun,
yeah but i got a girlfriend and things to get done!"
Not that i really got a girlfriend, but i got things to get done.
it continues:
"The linux OS sucks!
Im sorry to say it but it does"
Well i better stop ranting.. i actually got things to get done.. projekt due on monday!
For the desktop environment, it is a battle between Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft wins the core corporate users (a proper Exchange client, etc), accounting uses (from the low-end Quickbooks to high-end solutions, you KNOW that MS is supported, even if the backend part runs on real iron, although I still see the occaisional 3270 emulator...), etc.
Apple wins where the creative types need the power that Apple provides for graphic design and musical work. Use Photoshop and Illustrator on Windows and Apple, you'll see the difference.
Solaris/AIX/HP-UX fight out the mid-high end with their Unix lines. The power of them is simply unmatched by anything else.
IBM OWNS the high end with their mainframe line. Although more applications are moving to high-end Unix, this space is still growing, albeit slowly.
The low-end (workgroup) server space belongs to NT/W2K. Although AD is a pain, NT4 still works and works well in this space. For managing a group of Windows workstations, NT still rocks.
The low-mid-range (where web servers prosper, etc) there is a battle between FreeBSD and Linux. Linux is winning in terms of installs, FreeBSD still wins in systems that need the capacity and have professional sysadmins. FreeBSD does everything Linux does, with a more sane process. I personally love OpenBSD, buy YMMV. More people learn Linux than BSD. But I know many people that went from Linux to BSD... I don't know ANY that went back. Linux users tend to play around with it, find the mess that is the hacked together internals, and often move to one of the BSDs where the system is designed by a core team (instead of random apps from everyone thrown together). I believe that the BSDs kick Linux's ass, and will continue to do so for a while.
Linux has a REAL core strength, that of a programmer's desktop. If you are developing server side apps, having a REAL server environment is priceless. Even if you want real Iron for the deployment, Linux is more than adequate for testing. Additionally, the desktop environment/programmers tools are BEST supported on Linux. The Open Source ones support BSD as an afterthought, commercial ones barely support it. This is an area where Linux shines. I don't let Linux in the server room, but the programmers work on Linux workstations. The random tools may make Linux servers aggravating, but they are a gem for developers.
The Unix workstation market remains a fight between Sun and HP, although this market is dying off. Linux is making SOME inroads here, as is Apple Mac OS X (several commercial Unix apps are coming over).
Apple Mac OS X shows a lot of promise as a compromise OS for those that want the programming power of Linux with the compatibility that MacOS offers (MS Office, etc.).
I look foward to renewed competition. The BSD process of an integrated OS makes it silly for the desktop, though die-hard fans will use it.
The word of the day is interoperability. A Linux hegemony is NO better than a MS one.
MSFT puts a lot of man hours into the development of Windows, Office and Explorer. Those are the three things that Linux and the community is trying to offer alternatives to.
For some of us, the alternative is now to a point that it's fully usable and functional the way we need it. A few work arounds and quirks are OK, because we will tolerate those inconveniences for whatever reason.
Unfortunately, I would contend that 2000, and probably the first half of this year are a low point for Linux. There were few user innovations over the past 18 months. There were many OS innovations for SMP, server process wakeups, etc., but by and large, Mandrake 8 is the only push forward in the user experience.
Mozilla, and the derivatives, have been stalled in cycles of rapid, expansionistic development that caused huge bloat and sloth. 0.9 has made immense strides in getting all those new features to operate efficiently. Konqueror is a great browser, but it's been missing a few features until recently that made it really awkward at times for some of us (JavaScript, Java....).
StarOffice is a big app. It's slow in some ways. But it is very functional, and deals well with all the office 2000 documents floating around. KOffice and the Abi/Gnumeric suites are on the way, but they are still evolving. Again, they are very capable for some of us, but not all the way there yet.
My point, as I'm obviously burying it in details, is that MSFT is a big, successful software corporation, and they do know what they are doing for the most part. The software now out there (IE 5+, Windows 2000 Pro, Office 2000) are very solid, capable products.
Why does anyone assume that we as a community with a bunch of passionate developers and few corporations contributing would be able to wrest state of the art capabilities and features into being in a year? In two years? MSFT will not stand still. It's going to take time, and possibly may never happen. But dead? Hardly. Stalled? To the outside world I would agree. But I believe given the cycles of development that have been going on over the past 18 months, the "release cycles" are about to ramp up. Indeed they already are. This cycle is more the end-user functionality, rather than the internals that have been a focus.
Let the press jump on and off the bandwagon. Hopefully some of the sensationalistic muck rakers will break a few ankles doing that. But read the odd status update on the projects, and use the milestones. Try to understand the progress and why. Things are improving. But Linux is behind. It's another #2 contender out there, and there is much work to be done. That work is being done. Don't believe everything you read. Check it out.
Cheers.
And it's called OS X.
You can get a major office suite, browsers, and build just about everything -- and this is in the first release. By December, there will no need for everything else. After all, I use a computer to be productive -- and OS X gives me that freedom. It's worth the extra money not to waste my time.
I actually considered doing this. Why not? At least I could show her what the pretty icons do, and wouldn't have to worry about the "I didn't know what this was, so figured I must not need it, and deleted it" effect (particularly with DLL's).
I have plenty more comments about support and webpages not working, but it seems that other readers have done it for me.
--
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
Maybe that's why solitaire and freecell were among the first apps running OK on WINE.
Because Windows sucks!
Doh!
I've always said, it's all about the apps. Office, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, mainstream games, etc. are not available for Linux, and they never will be. Believe me, it's too bad, but that's the way it is.
And don't pretend Linux is easy to install, and that there are no driver issues. Windows and Mac desktops have been honing their approach to configuration for a long, long time, and it shows. Sure, it's not perfect, but pretty much any idiot can figure it out.
Anyway, who cares? Is that what Linux is about, duplicating and replacing Windows? You think Linux is miraculously going to avoid all the problems of the other two leading desktops? I don't think so.
FNORD.
--
--
I like to watch.
--
--
I like to watch.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
But Star Office was just a copy of Word. The question is if an original word processor could be developed open source.
;-)
Well iirc, Word was from the beginning in many ways a copy of Word Perfect, so I wouldn't call it 'original' in any sense. How many ways are there to make a word processor, anyway? Most follow the same general layout, only word has evolved more than the most. And there are obviously word processors that are open source.
And on the other hand, no open source development team would probably give you the 'paperclip'...
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
Well, then idrc :)
:). The thing I remember is that when I began to use wintels (win 3.x), it seemed like everyone used Word Perfect, it was *the* word processor. Then came Word. At first everyone thought Word was just a joke (just like we thought about win), but about a year later everyone was using it.
I (almost) never used wintels before 92 - 93, or something like that (Amiga was still superior
Maybe there were differences between them, I only used them for letters and simple reports, so to me they felt pretty much the same (which made WP the copycat). It might have been different if you used them for something more complex?
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
...(which made word the copycat)... not WP
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
--
"I'm surfin the dead zone
In the twilight, unknown"
Also, take a look at the font de-uglifiation HOW-TO.
Obviously she can't call the guys at GNOME for customer support, or the guys at KDE to ask why Konqueror isn't rending a webpage properly. It these things that are preventing it from being a true workstation for the masses.
That's why small additions like the Ximian MonkeyTalk button in all Ximian GNOME apps are such a good idea. You're stuck, you've tried the help manual (or at least as much as is currently complete) and no go. Click on the Help->Talk button and get simple type and respond interface to talk to other Gnome users (including the Ximian people) and try to solve your problem.
Beyond the somewhat random talk room, there is always commercial support. That's where companies like RedHat will really find their niche - supporting the distributions they have put together. You already pay for MS Windows help desk support, so it is not such a long chalk to pay for Linux desktop support if you need it.
Not only that, Linux tries to mix Server and Workstation too much.. Once again, the average geek will like this, but most people don't care if they have a telnet server running, in fact its a huge security risk for the average home user.. Considering he'll probably be storing webpage passwords on his machine..
This is nitpicking, but Linux doesn't try to mix Server and workstation - the distros package it that way. Don't blame the famous Linux flexibility from embedded to mainframe for the packages that distros choose to installed with it.
That said, recent releases seem to be far more clued up on how much/little to have automatically starting on a workstation install and security levels are starting to look less like swiss cheese. Ditto 3D hardware support working straight away from install is also coming along - it's not completely there yet but it's better than it was 6 months ago.
Then the common answer for people that are struggling with Linux and always asking questions is "RTFM", well guess what, there are people out there that don't want to learn about a computer, but just use it. And futher more, I doubt this person has a book on GNOME, and people trying to learn GNOME aren't going to know GNOME has built in documentation, or what the f*ck is a manpage.
'Users' aren't going to need man pages - developers and system administrators are. And while I think that having GUI administration tools (such as Ximian Setup Tools, which look like they will provide the backends for both GNOME and KDE) for setting up and keep the system running is a major advance for normal users of the Linux desktop, anyone who uses a computer should be expected to put some effort into reading some of the various documentation provided - hopefully this documentation is part of the Help system of the package. In no other sphere of endeavour would you find this 'I have a tool and I'm just going to use it' mentality. Even using a hammer to bang a nail into wood works better if you have actually had some instruction in how to do it. A computer and software is analogous a complete set of carpentry tools, from bradle to lathe, some simple, some complex. Nobody expects to turn out Chippendale furniture without some training. Computers are the same - you should be able to the most basic tasks with 30 seconds of tips, but to carry out the more complete and complex tasks, you are going to have to learn some things.
Thats the only thing I give Windows, I can install it for my parents, show them the icon for IE, put a few games on for my Dad, show him the icons, show my mom the "Word" icon, and how to print, and they're set, happy and have little problems.. I only need to teach them when blue screens pop up, or things lock up, press the reset button and start over. ..
A successful install of the latest distros put you pretty much at this point - a pretty windowing GUI with a completely point and click interface. with little or no need to ever see the command line. If the install doesn't go smoothly, contact your vendor and let them know what died, hung, crashed or was simply ambiguous or unclear. You'd be amazed at what an impact constructive reports and criticism can acheive.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
btw, I bear no ill will to any Linux companies. I wish them all well since they all support the cause. But the failure of a company or two cannot and should not be taken as an indicator of failure for Linux. Linux is not proprietary, so it will continue to grow and evolve even if every last Linux company goes down.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
I think this has been pretty healthy, as all the comments seem to be positive yet not without true critisism. One of the things that always got on my nerves was little configuration things like changing resolution and color depth. In windows, its easy. In linux, it takes a triple-hotkey in X (I think, I fogot exatcly how to do it). What's up with that? There is no reason why something that fundamental should be tucked away in a hot key, its just rediculous. Color and resolution change in windows needs to be copied, it is very intuitive.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
PySol, which comes standard with many Linux distributions, has a very nice version of Freecell (not to mention every other solitaire card game in the world).
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
My idea for the "ideal" would be to have two clipboards: one explicit, and one implicit.
The explicit one would be identical to the Mac ... META-X, META-C, META-V would cut, copy, and paste respectively, using the familiar "explicit" clipboard.
But I've become so accustomed to Unix environs that I can't stand having to actually push buttons to get stuff into my clipboard! It's so convenient to select, and then click, and voila!
So in addition to this "explicit" clipboard, I'd want an entirely separate clipboard that contained simply whatever had been selected last, and could be pasted by either CTRL-INS or a middle-mouse-click. Best of both worlds?
And as for the Netscape "feature" being simply a lousy kluge, I personally like it a lot better than having to paste in URLs up in the location bar. Even if it is a kluge, it's more useful than what it replaced, and I'd want it to stick around even if new clipboard features came about.
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
How many times can that guy say "not ready yet" and then also state that it's already dead?
I suppose people get more motivated when the reward is a game with a nice animation at the end, compared to a nicely-formatted invoice.
Mmmm *DOOL* nicely-formatted invoice Mmmm YEA!
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
And Linux is a hobbyist's OS. That is not necessarily a bad thing. So was almost every other microcomputer OS until about 7 years ago. Is BeOS dead, too, by the way? That would be sad.
You cannot call your clients and say "StarOffice crashes when I try to open the Word 2000 file you sent. Please save it off as Word 6.0 format file and resend it."
hmm... but what about if you're actually using office 6.0? Many small businesses are frequently a version or so out of date, and so actually do spend time getting files re-sent from business partners because the file needs to be converted to these other formats... makes me wonder who's business model costs the user more money and time for 'convenience' and new 'enhancements' sake.
-- If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment. -- Harry F. Banks
Got solitare ;)
http://freshmeat.net/projects/pysol/
well.. i don't know if the goal is to first have every corporate ms-office-user switched, or - world domination - have every other user switched to linux.
linux will thrive, because it's free in every sense. and appropriate applications with appropriate user-interfaces will outrun - in numbers of users and devices not in revenue maybe - closed operating systems. can you say "embeded" or "asia, the east, south america, africa and the rest of the world" or "consumer device".
yup. time will tell.
sn.
Unfortunately due to the /. effect I can't read the article.. But I've always had discussions with coworkers on this topic.. Linux has yet to be a user-friendly desktop. And it probably won't be for at least another year. Sure its the desktop of choice for geeks and techheads alike, but imagine installing a fresh copy of Debian on a Pentium, and giving it to your grandmother? Unless you've done a really good job of making sure everything is working, and you show her how to use things, where is she going to start?
.. and don't get me started in printing in Linux.. sigh.
Obviously she can't call the guys at GNOME for customer support, or the guys at KDE to ask why Konqueror isn't rending a webpage properly. It these things that are preventing it from being a true workstation for the masses.
Not only that, Linux tries to mix Server and Workstation too much.. Once again, the average geek will like this, but most people don't care if they have a telnet server running, in fact its a huge security risk for the average home user.. Considering he'll probably be storing webpage passwords on his machine.. Then there is lack of a good Web Browser, although this will soon be a thing of the past, as I've been using Konqueror myself for months without a problem.. But Netscape bundled by default is horrible.. And then the one topic that is keeping it from being on every machine, is games.. Loki is doing a good job trying to fix that, but even I had trouble getting Quake 3 running properly with a PII 450 and a Voodoo3, It was slow as hell, despite talking with reps at Loki on which Mesa libraries to use and install, only to get a "Well we don't really know" answer.
Then the common answer for people that are struggling with Linux and always asking questions is "RTFM", well guess what, there are people out there that don't want to learn about a computer, but just use it. And futher more, I doubt this person has a book on GNOME, and people trying to learn GNOME aren't going to know GNOME has built in documentation, or what the f*ck is a manpage. I can say the same thing, I don't care about how my Microwave or Toaster works internally, but when I put in leftovers or bread, I expect them to be heated and toasted..
Thats the only thing I give Windows, I can install it for my parents, show them the icon for IE, put a few games on for my Dad, show him the icons, show my mom the "Word" icon, and how to print, and they're set, happy and have little problems.. I only need to teach them when blue screens pop up, or things lock up, press the reset button and start over.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Because they are the only ones that are free. Feel free to create some better ones. As you will soon notice, creating high-quality fonts is not easy, and that's why people tend not to give them away. That's also why MS-Office isn't free...
Also, most applications are written to be portable. While some linux-distributions ship with other and better fonts, or can steel fonts from you windows-partition, the applications still have to use fonts they know are available. (Would you write an application that only worked on Mandrake Linux, or one that aimed for general Unix-compatibility?), which means the old X11 bitmap screen fonts.
X11 font-handling is also unnessecary complicated for end-users, and usually requires root-access, so requiring people to install non-standard fonts to run your application is generally not a good idea.
And of course, netscape font-handling sucks as well. But IMHO X11 is mostly to blame for it's lame and retarded font-handling (although things have improved with XFree86 lately, but such things take time to propagate to applications and libraries).
All movements. Wow, there's obviously a lot of wisdom bottled up in this little sentence.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
That is the last, good shot at anyone making a dent in the microsoft office empire. If you've used it, you know it's extremely compatible with microsoft office documents, so you can reasonably use it to open and edit documents created by windows users, and it's free, so it's got a good advantage over the microsoft competitor, and to top that off, it's on Linux.
Yet, it gets very little help, and almost no press from the Linux community.
If the community is serious, it will throw as much support as it can gather behind openoffice.org. I'd love to see the KDE team drop the well-intentioned, but highly impractical KOffice to contribute to the Openoffice.org effort, a KDE native version for example.
Go to the website... Try Openoffice. If you want to be involved with a project that really will change the standings in the software game, that project is probably the one with the highest potential to make a real difference at this point, yet it's getting very little publicity or support.
________
My mom uses Linux, and she has for close to two years now. She's perfectly happy with it.
Actually, I find that it usually takes a day or two to set up a windoze workstation, including swapping out 50 CDS, searching the net for drivers, and cleaning up the crap afterwards. Linux? One CD and 30 minutes, maybe.
I also have Apache, Postgres and various other server type programs running.
load average: 0.28, 0.20, 0.13
All this article says, under all the overblown, sensationalist statements, can be reduced to one sentence buried halfway into the article: "But as it stands Linux on the desktop is not an entity that is usable by the average PC user when it comes to accomplishing their daily work.". That's a statement that most of us would agree with-- but most of us wouldn't bother to click over to and read.
So what we get is a bunch of flamebait surrounding a state of affairs that reporters have been covering for years. Here's an example of the senseless rhetoric: "Such is the way of all movements: either the professionals take over and the movement evolves, or the movement recedes." Wow. That would've been cut from Catch-22 for being too absurd.
Now, am I saying that everything on the Linux desktop is great? Of course not. The fact that this is essentially identical to articles about Linux two or three years ago should be of concern to anyone who wants Linux on more desktops. A lot of the software still isn't quite there. Mozilla isn't quite finished. A lot of lower-profile tools also aren't quite finished, or not polished yet. So a better question (and one this reporter completely fails to ask) is: is this a natural and expected development cycle for new and useful tools, or is there some inherent obstacle holding back these tools?
Not taken as flamebait here, don't worry. I agree with your gripes about X.
I can't say the opposite for Windows, though.
Today I installed DirectX 8 onto Windows, and after installing (using totally bizarre dialogs to give me the progress, and no indication as to how far through the whole process it had got), I expected the normal "Do you want to restart Windows now? (Yes/No)", I got "Press OK to restart Windows (OK)".
This is not just a break from the standard "Ohmigod! Something changed, reboot now or later" dialog, it would force many users into rebooting immediately, regardless of whether or not that was convenient.
And don't get me started on the "File | Save" and "File | Open" dialogs. It's kind of convenient to create directories using Save, but it's not just a Save dialog anymore. More so with "File | Open" .Whenever I've installed a new app on my mother's PC, I get phone calls saying, "How do I open a file in app X?", to which I reply, "How do you do it in Word?" ... "File | Open" ... "So how do you do it in app X?" ... "Dunno" ... "Take a wild guess" ... "Dunno" ... "File | Open" ... "Oh, I see".
In my experience, nothing is intuitive to the genuinely confused. See SatireWire for details.
#include <stddiscl.h>
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
As soon as we get some decent apps OSX will rock.
---
This
About the gaming industry as a whole.
They see Linux as a threat. Open Source yadda yadda. I have spoken to folks at Papyrus and they'd like to at least have N4 servers but they are "not allowed" to do it.
Plus chances are most gamers are not interested in trying to get their 3D cards to work, or their USB joysticks, yadda yadda. THere is little incentive for the Gaming Industry to care about Linux.
Regrettably games are still a huge draw to the PC users.
---
This
We all know that he who controls the desktop will eventually control the server market
Why do you think this? It isn't currently true. It has never been true. Why would it ever become true?
---
This
So far this discussion has said:
1 - Linux needs more games
2 - Linux needs to have an Office suite "like" Office
3 - Linux needs to be easy enough for my Mom to use it
1 - Linux needs HW support to support games and games dictate HW. Why else would people be buying 32MB video cards? No one who types letters needs that! Games are a huge part of the desktop! Linux could rock here.
2 - Yup. Office bites, no doubt about it. Now try and get your secretary to use Star Office to make your presentation ala Power Point. Last Year at Linux World NYC they were all using Power Point for their presentations. Not Applixware or SO or Corel. They weren't even using WINE. This speaks volumes about Linux' lack of a proper Office suite.
3 - Wrong. All computers are currently too hard to use. I need to do "1337" computer stuff. My Mom needs to surf the web and get her mail. My Mom and the rest of the planet need the computer to be more like the refrigerator. Single purposed, intuitive and reliable.
---
This
--Can't have that fight, what version of Linux are you running?
--Therein lies the problem.
--I posted (way earlier) in this thread that my NY power user wife hated Linux (RH 6.2) and listed some of the reasons she hated it.
--Lots of folks complained that "all she had to do" was run VM Ware, WINE... Anyone could untar, RPMs made everything easy. Load 100 pt fonts for NS, don't use NS use this. Don't do this do that.
--In Windows she clicks on things and they open she has no idea how or why they just do and she's happy. She knows how to ping and tracert and adjust things in the registry but mostly she doesn't have to b/c mostly things work.
--She loves some of the "Linux Things" (RH 6.2) Multiple windows, CRTL-ALT-BkSpace (read she like X-Windows) but everything else is "too hard."
--She's the person Linux needs to win over to win the desktop wars. She isn't even one of those AOL types! She's a moderately experienced user who trains people in PowerPoint (she thought Star Office was a joke like PYST, seriously) and taught her staff how to FTP. And then got her Admin to open the FTP port on their firewall.
--But she finds Linux too hard and too clunky. I'd say that she's on to something.
---
This
But if you're the "power user" as the poster above referred to, yet you're not interested in using the best tool for the job, you might have a little cognitive dissonance
Well that's just the thing... What is better than Quicken? What bank is going to allow some GBanking, or KBank proggy to hook up to their servers and exchange info. You don't even want to say Linux to your bank, trust me.
She is for all intents and purposes a power user (and not a witch by long shot.) She is PowerPoint trainer (amongst other things at her co) and a gen'l pain in the ass to her beleagured Sys Admin who has to "figure out" how to open ports like 20 and 21 on the Corp FW so she can train on "exotic topics" like (that's what her Sys Admin called) FTP.
If she can't see the value of Linux in her day to day computing how on Earth can the AOL set be expected to?
I'm a Sys Admin, I saw the value and worth of Linux around RH5.2 (OK so I came late to the party)but I do this crap for a living.
---
This
--I have Linux on almost all of my machines. I have one purely WIN box in my house and my wife uses that.
.zip files and have them do their job.
--It started with, "I don't care if it's better, I can't run Quicken. I don't want to run something as good as Quicken I want to run Quicken. I can barely see the words in Netscape. Why can't I play The Sims on it? Nothing works. I want Office, I hate Star Office it is ugly. Dell says they can't help me becuase the machine came with Windows 98."
--I gave up after that. She's not a stupid user either. She's a power user for the NT set. She just wants things to work as expected. tar -xvf doesn't make her happy. She like to click on
--I love Linux and tweaking and such but guess what I can't play NASCAR 4 on it.
--Linux never stood much of a chance
---
This
Monkey sense
The end-user is someone like my dad who is sick to death of the Win9x series. Last week it 'intuitively' semi-reversed the upgrade to WinME back to Win98 and refused to boot beyond the DOS prompt.
Yet another reinstall, and 'likely another 13 reboots' (his words). He's got Windows 2000 as well, but it doesn't work with all his hardware or software, so that's not a terribly useful option.
Believe me, end users are sick of shoddy software, they just don't have anywhere else to go (but that's another thread entirely).
Because I already have 2 x86 PCs and not enough room for a Mac as well. Should hell freeze over and Apple port OS X to x86 then I'll give it a try.
Windows 1.0 was released in '85, Windows 3.0 (which is what really conquered the desktop) shipped in early '90. In '88, three years after Win 1.04, hm... that's just about when Windows 2.03 came out. Nobody used it except for the people who'd gotten a taste of Excel on the Mac and couldn't bear to go back to 1-2-3. There wasn't a database program available, there wasn't a word processor except for Write, the only comm program was Terminal (whooo! Terminal!), and the only game that ran under Windows at *all* was Solitaire. In '88, most people who wanted a task-switcher bought Quarterdeck. Some folks had IBM's product (TopView?). Nobody used Windows for task-switching.
Just my thoughts, but...
Okay. Start with this: why the hell does kwrite automatically copy selections into the clipboard whether I want it to or not? (Did that on RH6.0, anyway; I haven't really paid attention to whether it's been fixed since).
I agree with those who say the Linux community is too insular. We sit here and bitch and whine that the world isn't taking us quite as seriously as we'd like, but who's out there hacking OpenOffice to help make a workable MSOffice replacement? Why are we letting politics dominate our desktop decisions? And why the hell isn't the Linux community trying to forge alliances with the Mac community?
I'll start with the last point first and get the flamebaiting out of the way. When the Mac came out, Apple put out the Mac Human Interface guidelines. Microsoft has its own rules for Windows. We have no such thing for either of the significant Linux desktops. Believe it or not, this is a bad thing.
For this to work we need some interface guidelines, preferably written by someone using both MacOS and Linux (since Mac users as a general rule are more sensitive to clumsy interface design) (ducking flames, please hold). Specs like this are not amenable to committee design, so they should be handed down from on high by the toolkit developers for public comment rather than designed by committee. That's one.
The politics have got to go. Yeah, you've got your favorite features; I personally rather enjoy the look (though not the feel) of Athena widgets. Stuff 'em; you can add them later if you need them, but you need something to fit them in with. We have two desktops, which is one too many, and they will probably never be merged. Fine. Let's go with what we have and relegate the rest to the special-purpose bins where they belong; Motif is dying anyway, and it's the only other toolset that really counts. And if we must keep them, let's have XawGTK and QtLesstif around so we don't get confused and have to look at fruit-salad apps.
As for the matter of open source desktop apps, we only have ourselves to blame. Browser? Okay, Galeon's halfway there, but you still need Mozilla. That's ridiculous; AOLTW/Netscape changed the licensing, so there's no reason for separate downloads. Desktop? Sorry, I have no sympathy when OpenOffice goes wanting for developers. You've got a rather useful package there -- huge, but it's got everything you need and an open file format to boot. If you have nothing at all to contribute to OpenOffice or any of its competitors, you have no right whatsoever to bitch about articles like this.
The Linux world needs to swallow its pride and accept that some decisions do need to be made from above, or at least proposed from above and accepted by a critical mass. You fork, you're out. You've just created a new community, and the burden is on you to get it accepted, not to whine about why it isn't.
There is another component to this. Our desktop flagship programs are huge. Mozilla is about a 20MB source tarball IIRC, and I believe OpenOffice is well over 300MB. This is IMHO unacceptable in a Unix-based community; monolithic office suites are a Bad Thing to begin with, and given that there hasn't been a really core-type feature invented since the multidimensional spreadsheet I have to wonder where all this bloat is coming from (since I don't use it I could be off-base). Same with wasting space on skinnable browsers when performance should be the big issue.
We need more than developers in the Open Source community, you see. What's missing from the Open Source equation is support personnel like tech writers and creative people. We need more books like Coriolis Press' Lions-style source commentaries. We need interface designers willing to make stuff look pretty (something I'd love to help with, if anyone wants a Mac user's view, btw). We need Open Source RAD tools like VB or MacOS X Interface builder. It is very much time we reached out to the rest of the world to see what there is to be offered.
Yes, there's the marketing problem as well. Don't expect Linux desktops everywhere next year. But how many people who know only the hype are aware that Linux is coming up on its tenth anniversary?
/Brian
I take it you're not playing Diablo 2 on a desktop...
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
BTW, my laptop, which is my main machine, is currently dual-booting RH7.1 and win98. I think I've succeeded in making my life easier by running Ximian Gnome. They are doing a great job getting all of these disparate packages working together in a simple, net-installable package. I just wish they'd either get StarOffice folded in to their distribution or for the rest of the GNOME office working as well, or better than, StarOffice. Evolution is coming a long, but the other apps have a long way to go. And Mozilla makes a half-decent mail reader.
BTW the win98 partition is mainly used for playing games, and reading the occasional Visio file I get from clients.
gio
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." -- Marx
Still, StarOffice has worked as well for me as a word processor as Microsoft Word does (frequent crashes). The GIMP has worked better for me than any paint package I can afford and it lets me script, too. Between Netscape and Konqueror I can visit most worthwhile websites. I'd hardly call my setup dead. The fact that a desktop this functional can be cobbled together on a budget might even mean the quick revival of the Linux desktop once commercial software licenses become easier to verify.
---
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
When I need to set up a new desktop client, it typically takes 3-4 days, using Windows 2000
When I set up a new desktop client, it takes 3-4 minutes, using Ghost. If I have to do it all by hand, it takes 3-6 hours, depending on what software I need to install, transferring data, etc., with Windoze. Takes about the same with Linux, but I don't have to reinstall it later or get called up about blue screens. It might take me 3-4 days to set up a Netware server from scratch (login scripts, accounts, nds, etc.
If it takes you 3-4 days to set up a Windoze box, you maybe oughtta look for a job elsewhere that in IT. Truthfully, though, if you're that slow, you won't make it at Burger King....
First, there needs to be a winner in the desktop war. Right now, neither KDE or GNOME can win the desktop war - KDE is out because it's centered around a GPLed library which removes commerical concerns (which is why there is an official GTK+ AOL Instant Messenger client but not a KDE one). GNOME is gaining wider commerical support since it's core LGPL libraries allow commerical apps to be built using them. And that is important for a desktop - trying to create a Free Software only desktop is an admirable idea, but if "world domination" is your thing, you have to be prepared to allow people to license on their own terms, something that the LGPL allows third-party application developers while the GPL does not. Not that it matters, since, having tried to write a GNOME application, I now know that the GNOME libraries suck. I'd assume that KDE is much easier to develop for, simply because Trolltech presumably ensures that Qt is easy to develop on, while GTK+ seems to be a case of the Open Source community refusing to rewrite anything, regardless of the need. Which means that a real Desktop Distribution would probably need to create a third desktop system to use to try and get around the problems of the existing systems.
Based on this, the second problem is a lack of a definition of an "application" and what goes where. Under Windows, your application installs into the "Program Files" directory which is nicely hidden from the user by default in Win98+ and Win2000+. There are known hooks to integrate an application with the shell - which is why WinZip can add a "Add to Zip" option to every folder shown via Windows Explorer. The Linux desktop really needs a graphical shell that does things right - Konquerer is really impressive in that respect (first Linux file browser I've seen that looks right, sorry gmc and Nautilus) but unfortunately runs into the third-party closed source app problem thanks to the viral GPL. Under Linux, though, applications often put the binary in /usr/bin, miscellaneous libraries in /usr/lib, and random data in /usr/share. Uninstalling an application becomes a nightmare because little things can hide themselves in miscellaneous directories.
The third thing that really needs to go is XFree86. While there is no question anymore that any new graphical environment must be usable over a network, XFree86 still has major issues with creating new drivers. Windows has tackled this problem, but there is still too much "server" code in what is supposed to be a driver. For a good example, the Render extension wasn't supported until recently on the nVidia drivers. Why should the video driver effect that? Maybe the video driver can offer acceleration of certain features, but it has to offer them natively? The other problem with XFree86 is that you can't easily configure video options while it's running. While Quake III demonstrates that it's apparently possible to make XFree86 set a specific resolution, it seems to be impossible to force a specific color depth without restarting the server. A good desktop would be able to change the color depth without requiring the user to close all open applications.
The final problem is really minor cosmetic problems starting the Linux kernel. Although based on Mandrake it is possible to create a splash screen while the Linux kernel is loading, that is a requirement for a desktop. Most modern PCs BIOS screens contain almost no useful information simply because it confuses the average user. Users are annoyingly inquisitive, they want to know what's happening when the text flys up the screen. Telling them "it's just loading, ignore it" doesn't stop them from wondering. Hiding it puts the user at ease.
These are just my thoughts on creating a good Linux desktop, based on having used Windows and GNOME. Yes, I've got an anti-KDE slant based on licensing issues - if you think I'm wrong about that, please argue from the point of view accepting that there will always be companies who want to develop closed source applications and do it cheaply. I'm aware that you can license Qt from Trolltech for cash, I'm not entirely sure about the rest of the core KDE libraries though.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
It almost completely bridges the gap between Linux and Windows (currently doesn't support 3D games very well).
---------------------------------
This is a very common mistake (I believe), and it's too sad it keeps on being spread
First, there is one thing to underline:
There is nothing under Linux that works as well as Microsoft Office to do a Microsoft Office Work not a period
I really don't think we can win Microsoft at this game, simply because Microsoft writes and can change the rules whenever he wants to. Trying to do a better or a good enough 'Microsoft' Office, cannot work. If after n years of reverse engeneering, hacking, etc.. we get to a decent Linux Office 2000, it won't work with Microsoft office 2003. (well I don't think so)
On the other hand, I really don't see why would we want to do this. Doing a parrallel office, with as much compatibility as possible can be of interest, for the die hard Linux users that also want to do some office-like work, but not as a 'linux king of the desktop` goal.
I think putting linux onm the desktop is something we can do, but not trying to redo the office, and as a mattaer of fact, if this is the goal... I preffer the office, as it will always be the leader by definition. But I don't think the office s *that* good.
What we should try to do instead is (afair, it was what everybody tried to do before this 'desktop fever') find a better way to get job done, and of course, an easier one. Microsoft Office might be the first attempt to ease office work, that doesn't make it the best way to do it.
Now, what i think the problem is for Linux trying to get to the desktop, is that we don't have any solution. not that we don't have a better solution than Microsoft office. the attempts to make some excel like, or Word like or powerpoint like etc.. are bound to fail, not in their attempt to actually offer a good compatibility, but to be the way to put Linux in the desktop
In that sense, a klyx application, that offer something different (not necessarily new but I'm comparing to Microsoft Office tools), yet very useful and easy to use have a much brighter future imho.
So anyway, I think that instead of running (in different directions besides *sigh*) to reproduce a set of tools, we should try to think about some root problems. One root problem is not 'how to do a better microsoft office' but 'how to improve office work with a Linux powered network of pcs' another root problem is not 'how to achieve consistency' but rather 'how to make an easier, more intuitive and more optimal interface' (I'm not saying that consistency is not a perfect answer, maybe it is, but maybe not, I think it partly is anyway, but it's not the point)
... ,hapy fairy tale ending :) etc...)
Of course, I don't have the answer, not even useful starting ideas, but I'm sure it can be done, as long as the problem as been set. We might try I don't know with some RFCs something like that to propose general useful rules for an optimal Office Work, defining the basic concepts like data exchange, security, teamwork etc...
We should then come to define areas of necessity that need to be attended and create some very useful office tools enabling us to actually work better. despite many versions, I don't work *that* better with the new Microsoft Office than with a much older one.
Why can't I easily work as a team on a document like I would work on a cvs project ?
Why don't my office tools help me/make me enforce my quality politics ?
If we had an office consortium just like we have a w3c, and we would then develop for Linux (among others of course, but that's Linux it it about now) an implementation of those concepts, I really think we could win this game. It woud be a much more interesting/useful game anyway
We would then focus on creating much more useful tools, that soon or later would prove themselves much better than the Microsoft Office, thus becoming a standard that microsoft would have to embrace (ok ok and everybody's happy
oh well..
*cheers*
At work, they have us setup each with a compaq IPac, and nt clients. If we want to use the office suite we must login to the terminal server. So my thought is if somebody would write a client, to allow Linux to replace the nt client side, there would be alot of savings, and all the useability of microsoft programs on the server. NOT that our Microsoft Borg Admin would allow it, but it is a idea. I would use that at home!
While the death of Eazel and the shuffle at Mandrake could slow down GUI development, it won't stop it. There are enough users and programmers out there that are satisfied and happy enough with Linux to continue using it. A critical mass of users and programmers exist already to continue to work on Linux. These people will continue developing apps and interfaces for Linux - the only problem is time. I believe it will take at least 4-5 years for Linux to be ready for the desktop. With Linux you have freedom, and with commercial apps they have money. And that money can make incredible things happen (like OS X - the only Unix for the masses out there) in a far shorter timeframe.
Is it a dumbed-down "one desktop is enough for everyone"?
Well, if by a desktop we mean a Windows/MacOS clone, then I'm happy to admit there has never been a serious Linux desktop. I wonder why the idea of a desktop should be defined by winblows, but then again it's no real surprise.
Think of a real desktop. Some people have one desk and they keep the 'tools' neatly organized on the back edge, for example (I'm thinking of a Windows analogy). Others, however, like to have several desks for different types of work, and they like to keep the desk as a clean workspace, so they keep the pens and stuff hidden in drawers. This is kind of like my Enlightenment. I'm infinitely more productive with tools like Emacs in this environment than with any graphical toys.
Anyway. If people want something like Windows, let them use Windows. There's no point in us copying the same desktop look and feel. I imagine if I had a windows interface to my machine, it would be as limiting as real winblows. We can do better than that. Oh, wait, I think we already have. :-))
Come to think of it, just one problem. Or maybe not really. I just remembered the first experiences with Linux, I used Gnome in a rather Windows-like configuration. I wanted to change my thinking, but it was quite impossible to just jump into the cold water of command line. There is still need for a (buzzword alert) migration path. But I'm glad Gnome made it quite obvious that there were a lot more choices, at some point realizing that E can be run without the Gnome-panel that was getting more and more useless to me.
[OT] "They call open source communism, while they promote a Soviet-style central planning of software. The closed source is collapsing under its inherent inconsistencies. All the signs are there. 'Yeah, right, and penguins fly' you may say, but hey, penguins do fly underwater." ;-)
(me, it just looked better in quotes
--
I hit the karma cap, now do I gain enlightenment?
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
It will be at least 5 years before I consider purchasing XP. By then, it may have enough useful features to justify upgrading from 98 or 2000. The price is just too high, with little benefit.
XP's copy protection is what will doom it. win98 and its apps is still more useable than linux. A Linux desktop is mostly price-justifiable, just not when the windows versions can be "borrowed" easily.
I think the shift is slow, but its progressing. It starts with migrating away from MS only dead ends such as VB.
Why do the editors and posters on Slashdot keep insisting that "Corporate America" accept Linux as the best thing since sliced bread and run it on every system in their inventory? Who cares what Corporate America runs on their desktop? There will always be an abundance of software for the Linux desktop regardless of whether there is anyone from a large corporation actually using it. That's because everything that we use on a basic Linux desktop is free software. That's right, free software! It doesn't matter whether company X sees a continued interest in them supporting application Y on the Linux desktop, because the software for Linux is developed free from the constraints of financial expectations.
The only rational reason that I can deduce from this constant evangelizing of Linux by the Slashdot editors would be their own self-interest in seeing their VA Linux stock break above whatever the hell single-digit price it is currently valued at. After all, moron companies that base their business plan on selling something that's available for free are the only ones who stand to profit from large corporations putting Linux on the desktop and demanding large amounts of "accountability" and "support" from these same companies.
--
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Its fine getting engineers to talk to engineers in their own language (code -> code). But what about engineering talking to users? (code -> ???)
Show me one serious gui app that was developed open source. Could Word have been developed open source?
To email, do the obvious.
The article is comparing apples to oranges. Oranges that have been in development for nearly 15 years compared to the apples 2 or 3 even. And in the 2 years I've been involved with the linux thang, WAY more has happened development and usability-wise than Microsloths cathedral could possibly hope to achieve. I think this guy is just looking to ruffle feathers, stir some people up. He hasn't been paying close enough attention to the communtiy to really have a clue IMO. He probably got picked on alot by an older sister as well.
-= jester =-
You are a moron and a troll.
If you take 3-4 days to set up a client you need to find a new career path. Professionals tend to purchase many identical stations, create a stable build, and mass deploy with a tool like ALICE.
What is wrong with the moderators to call this Insightful? Oi!
In other News:
Hindu's Labeled In Afghanistan
Penguin's In Tuxedos
Plus many more wierd and interesting stories.
~~ What's stopping you?
While the multiple virtual displays of Gnome & KDE are big favorites of Linux Desktop cheerleaders, I'll take a bash prompt over either GUI any day.
YMMV, of course. If you like Gnome, use it and be happy. It's got a lot of spiffy features, once you get used to it, and it does have the potential to get better, if developers stick with it.
Enough already. Religious wars about operating systems are sooooo 90's. Let's all get with the 00's
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Personally, I've found that the Linux GUI's have lots of configuration options... it's just a royal pain in the ass to find them.
It is a common site to see a rookie Linux admin sifting through menus looking for one config app or another, only to give up after 10 minutes and run the CLI version of it.
Almost every aspect of Gnome or KDE can be tweaked to your taste, which is a good thing I guess, but the default layout of all the menus and tools is so bizzare and byzantine that it boggles the mind. It almost looks like it was designed by a huge assortment of different programmers... oh wait... it was, wasn't it? [ducks under the rotten cabbages]
I don't think the Linux GUI is a lost cause. I'm sure that more logical structures will fall into place once the dust begins to settle. Besides, some people actually like it, just the way it is. Not me, but some people.
Then there is the famous third-button pasting... Some geeks would die before giving that up.
Personally, on the rare occations when I am actually sitting in front of a Linux box (instead of hitting it remotely), I tend to go to the command line and stay there.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I must make the observation that I see Slashdot changing. When I began posting several years ago, to suggest that Windows even had it's benefits would result in Troll / Flamebait moding. Now, slashdotters seem to have grown up and are taking a more objective look at the issues. Kudos to you!
Actually, this is one of the few times that a journalist hits the nail right on the head.
Not only is the Unix desktop dead, it was stillborn. Windows has a truly awesome GUI and high-quality browser which is unmatched anywhere.
Enlightenment, KDE, GNOME, etc just don't function well enough to ever be a real desktop contender.
Instead of wasting time making Linux as bloated as Windows, we should be improving the server-side features of Linux and increasing performance.
God help my karma for saying this; but Linux is in a real crisis right now. This is merely the first Linux failure.
The bleating of anti-intellectual property fanatics has really attached itself to Linux. This, combined with the failures of dozens of all-Linux companies have seriously damaged Linux's reputation.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
All of the issues people are talking about (Trying to use Linux for a desktop os) seem to remind me of the same struggles I had trying to find new releases for my BetaMax player...Or why were the stores only putting out new games for that damn Nintendo system when I was really looking for new games for my Atari 2600?? Standards burn....The market place burns...I think the key to the Linux desktop is when I can buy a new piece of hardware, and it has device drivers and boxed apps that use those drivers under Linux.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Indeed, Linux can't die, but is death the worst end? As immortal, Linux can still fall into oblivion as a zoombie: anyone said OS/2?
An OS that refuses to die, nor leaves the ICU, looks a very worse ending than a swift, elegant and remarkable death
I really don't believe in what this article says, although the death of Eazel was a great rollback, but KDE keeps going strong.
- Please, ignore everything written above.
Well I don't know. It does not seems that the market for a killer video app is similar in size to that of a word processor. It is more of a niche application. I type email, and docs everyday. I view video maybe several times a month, and and have had the desire to edit a movie maybe once or twice.
So I wonder if there is a market for this stuff.
The next real killer app I see way down the road would be a true AI intelligent assistant, a man or girl friday thing. Answers the phone, handles the spam, takes care of the routine items I delegate to it. Of course, there would be a fantasy element that alot of folks would find enticing. But I digress...
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
This is what is really needed. Unfortunately, the open source community has been diversified and splintered about this. And so this equivalent amount of effort, enough to match the results of something like a MS, has not taken place. This is observable even in projects that have a large amount of community support, such as Mozilla. The raw number of people has been one half or one third it could have been to really get it out in a "timely" manner, resulting in Netscape 6 being beta-ware in fact if not in name.
I happen to think that Linux can make it to the desktop, but that the core applications need to get there too. Otherwise it remains a developers tool set.
The amount of effort that has gone into the OS has to go into the productivity suite.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Jeez, ppl! Grab a spine already! "Linux doesn't have Office, so it will never beat MS on the desktop. Boo hoo!" Get over it. The Linux desktop is still in it's infancy...for those of you who remember Windows 3.1, consider how long it took MS to get to THAT point, let alone to Win2K...
Point is, they've been doing this for a hell of a lot longer than we have...Sure StarOffice isn't the best office suite on the planet, but it's pretty damned good...give it time, it will mature. (and frankly, it's formula editor is beautiful...Office2K's is unusable).
The same is true for pretty much all the other apps mentioned in the article...give them time. Linux isn't ready to be a mainstream desktop today, but that doesn't mean it will never be.
Good things come to those who wait...and better things come to those who get off their lazy asses and contribute code...
I just want to take over the world...Why does that automatically make me EVIL?
What is really needed is decent free software office apps for Windows. Even though their availability isn't by itself a compelling reason for users to change to free software, it doesn't have to be. MS Office is so expensive, and full of so many annoyances, that the open market will force the switch. Consider you are buying a new low/mid end PC for your home. The cost is about $1500 right now, or $2000 with MS office. $500 or 1/3 the cost of the system is a big difference, so much so that major computer manufacturers do not pre-install Office by default on these types of PC's. Before long PC manufacturers will be able to offer users a choice of OpenOffice for Windows at no extra charge. The only advantage of paying the extra $500 for Office would be to share files with other users, but home users for the most part don't share files anyway.
There is always the issue that the availability of free software for Windows could be a reason for users not to switch to Linux. Yet, GNU software was available for commercial UNIX systems long before a free kernel was available. During this time many users and system administrators learned to use and rely upon GNU software. When Linux became available, switching from GNU on a commercial UNIX kernel to GNU on a Linux kernel was not that big a leap. Likewise, once Windows users become accustomed to using inexpensive and powerful free software, the transition to using those same applications on Linux will not seem as difficult.
Bringing up the history of GNU, there was not only the issue of cost at stake, but the fact that GNU software often performed much better or had more compelling features than commercial software from the UNIX vendors. This is equally true with desktop software today. Microsoft's most compelling reason for users to pay to upgrade to their new Office XP software is removing the annoying paper clip character. In open source software, we wouldn't need to pay for upgrades for that, we'd just comment out those lines from the code. There are plenty of annoyance in Office to improve upon in free software.
Once users become familiar with free office software, sooner or later some of them will start installing it at work, at first just to share files with their home systems. As this becomes more widespread, there is pressure on the IT department to offer some sort of support. At first, most IT departments will say they need Office because everyone else has it. But a few innovative ones (and maybe a couple strapped for cash) will switch. And the more that do, the less valid the argument about needing Office to share files with other companies.
And, bang, the #1 reason for not deploying Linux on the desktop will be eliminated.
This will take some time to happen. Just consider how many companies run Apache on commercial UNIX, in spite of the availability of Linux. The period during which both Linux and Windows flourish will be a long one. However, this is how it should be. It allows all the users to enjoy a much smoother transition. And what about Microsoft? As long as they can offer their customers more for their upgrade dollars than just removing Clippy, Microsoft has the potential to do just fine. But for the users out there, it will be a homerun for sure.
As far as UI's go, MS Office (XP included) is just a nightmare.
The toolbars are scattered all over the place. There is a dearth of key commands. Clippy keeps showing up!
If you want to see near a near perfect example of UI design, just look at Adobe's suite of apps. Once you learn one program, the others all just fall in line.
---------------------------
Pooty tweet
DON'T HAVE MODAL DIALOG BOXES.
I'm forever getting a modal dialog box come up on a windows box, asking me a question, and I think 'Oh, let me check'. It's at that point I realise I can't do anything else with the application. I personally find these things really annoying.
Why not have a new GUI? X-Window is damn ugly.
We all know that he who controls the desktop will eventually control the server market.
The report of my death was an exaggeration
Shall we wait and see?
Tom.
Oh arse
In case you didn't read the article at Linux Planet, what he said was it's not the environment, it's the applications. He even specificly mentioned the quality of the KDE environment. There just isn't any "killer apps" (Photoshop, M$ Office, AutoCAD, Illustrator, ProTools, etc.) that businesses require today available for Linux, and in many cases no equivilants. OK, in all fairness, mabey not "require". But how many people can you find with Gimp experience compared to Photoshop experience? And good luck finding a secratary or purchasing agent familiar with StarOffice. It's just not worth the expense to retrain employees for the cost savings of the software. Don't get me wrong, there are many great apps on Linux, but few things that are awe inspiring. Not for the desktop at least. Server side, Linux is still king. And the author never said the poor sales of Corel and the death of Eazel were setbacks, but flags pointing to the direction of the Linux desktop. Sad to say, but untill some of the big software houses, and even many hardware companies support Linux there is little hope. The toughest sell for Linux will always be lack of manufacturer support.
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
Most of the secretaries I have seen in our office cant tell the difference between linux and windows when they look at linux the first time. The only problem is that they dont know when to click and when to double-click. They usually double-click on the desktop icons and open a zillion copies of netscape simultanously.
The article seems a little contradictory, saying that the Linux desktop is entirely dead, but still saying that enthusiasts will continue to work on it. To my mind, continued work on something implies that it's probably not dead.
However, I agree with a lot of the rest of the article. Linux is a superb server platform as far as I can tell. I don't know about truly industrial strength applications since I've never used it that way, but just for setting up a web server, firewall, mail server, QuakeWorld server it rocks. But for desktop productivity... eww. The window managers are slow and clunky (Sawfish is the best that I've found, but that takes an age to start), most of the applications are flakey in a random way that I don't see on Windows - right now the Gnome File Manager keeps telling me that there's no response to a save yourself command, and would I like to remove it? Clicking yes does absolutely nothing. Sure loads of Windows applications crash, but they crash, and stay dead. I can get rid of them. (even kill -9 doesn't seem to work properly). And don't even get me started on the productivity software...
It all comes down to using the right tools for the job. Linux does a great deal of server work for me in the networks I am involved with, Windows does a lot of the desktop work. Even if the Linux desktop is dead (and I don't think it is, it just needs improving) that's not really that big a deal for Linux.
Henry
i don't do sigs. oops.
It is hard to bring a decent desktop to linux,
that will satisfy both flavors of users.
It has gone very far into trying to replace
windows, alas that is very wrong thing to do.
Trying to replace your competitor by building a
better product, when your competitor has a
monopoly on market is completely wrong. What
is the way is to predict a market niche and
shoot for it hard and fast, that will replace,
the fastest growth niche in present day, and
move from there on. Try to run as fast as possible
and as quick as possible to get there first,
and buildup a forstress, to withstand the storm
of monpoly fiend.
Linux was doing quite well. There is too much
effort being spent in replicating windows and
macintosh models. There are some creative movements
though like E17, wich will integrate shell into
desktop more than ever and make configuration of the
look of the environment trivial.
Yes these mundane monster projects will ultimately
add to the value of UNIX systems including linux,
but rather cutting edge software like E17 would
bring attention to linux.
Another thing, don't use markets as a benchmark
of present creativity in a community, especially
enthusiast based. Yes, present market blance
action, as to weed out wouldbe internet businesses,
Companies based on innovation, would strive,
not those who take stuff off the self, and replicate
neighbour's effort with little deviation.
cheers...
Mac and Windows don't have much more to add with each subsequent release. Linux improves by leaps and bounds in each release because, let's face it, it has more room for improvement.
The gap between Linux and Mac/Windows is closing. The commercial GUI desktops are out of runway, and they are basically sitting ducks. It's only a matter of time.
Here is really the worst issue I have found. Like many people, I have a Linux partition and a Windows partition that is used mainly for games. I have installed the 8.0 release of Mandrake (an install that was, by the way, astonishingly simple) and have had no problems at all with any of the software that was installed by Mandrake. If I see an interesting game out on sourceforge that I would like to try, though, it becomes a comedy of errors.
-Download rpm to the desktop. Double-click to extract. It completes. Go to the directory to run it. Double-clicks to the executable do nothing.
-Open a console. Run it from the CLI. It crashes with a library not found error. Turns out the executable is using a programmer's library I don't have.
-Go download the library. It's only available as source. I try to compile it. Woops! Guess I didn't install any development tools when I installed Mandrake.
-Install the development tools from the Mandrake disks. Try to compile the library. What a shock-it's missing a different library, and won't compile.
At this point I've decided I don't need to see Tux trying to find herring this badly (a solid hour has been wasted so far), and I've gone back to Windows to play Serious Sam. Honestly, I don't mind dinking with the system or learning how to use it. Going on a goose chase for files that it seems should ship with the executables, though, is maddening.
Merely competing well in a server environment is likely to be the downfall of any operating system. As much as they need applications and robustness for their suitable purposes, OSes need two things: Exposure and interoperability with the desktop.
Exposure is that intangible need for people in decision-making positions, who, even if they are the ones with the best technical expertise, still only know what they know (if you know what I mean...). MS has exposure, and works very hard - through advertisement, certification and partnerships - to maintain and grow that exposure. But more than those efforts, MS is on damned near every desktop. If you're an MCSE, everyone in your business at least thinks they have a clue as to what that means.
Linux, Sun and AIX have exposure too, of course, but there is much less momentum for their maintaining that exposure. If you doubt this, just ask around among your technical brethern to see who all has worked on a VMS system recently (or ever), or who has done work in Prolog (a fabulous logic-processing language with interfaces to C++ for those non-specialised apps). If these technologies are dying, is is most certainly not from being ill-suited to their task - it's because they're less and less known.
One very easy way to maintain exposure is to maintain some presense on the desktop. Both Solarus and Linux are viable desktop solutions, and even if not everyone in one's office uses them, they can know that they're used and have some understanding of what the people who admin them are all about. The more the office in general realises what technology is being used, the more management realises it, and the less likely it is to be tossed aside because some PHB never heard of it (whatever "reasons" are put forth for such a decision).
Compliance with the desktop is also critical for the server market. It has long been understood - and at times even admitted by some MS people - that control of the desktop can be parlayed into control of the servers. That this is a strategy at MS - and a damned good one - isn't in doubt. Any of the studies showing how well IIS serves up pages to IE (the number one web browser) confirm it. If Linux and Solarus drop off our desktops forever, businesses would be harder and harder pressed to justify them on servers. The shifting of the desktop environment ever-so-slightly away from the standards of communication used by everyone else would eventually make MSes server OSes the only viable choise, because for the task at hand - coordinating, supporting, and serving for MS clients - they would be the best choice. Only by maintaining as much as possible of the business desktop world off of MS Windows can that be averted. When even 5% of business desktops aren't Windows, businesses have to take those into account.
While it may ultimately be true that the Linux Desktop is dead (or, I suppose, is stillborn), I cannot agree with the author's conclusion that this is an OK thing for Linux. If the desktop is dead, the server will follow.
Yo! Moderators! When someone writes that CompUSA is a wonderful place with great prices, THEY'RE TROLLING. Sheesh!
The question is, why? Why hasn't it happened? I think one of the big reasons is user friendliness.
Is it possible that the vast majority of people developing Linux are programmers, and very few are writers, artists, designers (user interface people)? Since it's built by programmers, it suits them just fine, but others struggle with Linux because little emphasis is placed on usability. Programmers are accountable only to other programmers.
How do you solve this problem? User interface people are accustomed to getting paid for their work, and seem unlikely (to me) to work on the UI and documentation for Linux for free.
Perhaps one of the larger companies, Redhat for example, could hire some usability people that could contribute. For example, when the Macintosh was created, there was a significant amount of time/money spent on design and usability. Will that ever happen for Linux?
i really think that staroffice has been doing something for the ms office hold. sure, _large_ corporations aren't moving right away to it, but i'm sure schools, and small business are choosing that path. who wants to pay the 300+ for a word processor and spreadsheet application? also, lots of new budget pc's i've seen are being bundled with staroffice along with Windows ME OS.
We need Micorsoft to hear this and leave Linux alone. Linux will make it to the desktop eventually but it will take the same route it always has, from the ground up. Appealing to the fickle average consumer is an expensive game that is usaully won with money. Most people have noticed that Linux and open source is growing every where but the desktop.
Let's wait untill all that is left is the desktop. Won't it be nice when people ask is my desktop compatible with(insert device her) rather than the other way around. Then we will have won.
By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more. - Albert Camus
Was KDE. Eazel may be dead, but KDE continues to get better and better. Konqueror is arguably the best browser on any platform (and is at least as good as MSIE), and yet is still a relativly new project. KOffice is coming along in leaps and bounds, and given that the KDE team were able to make a Mozilla-beater in far less time, *from scratch* (Mozilla is based on pre-existing NS code remember), I have high hopes. It's already extremely useable for day-to-day tasks, and above all is quick.
I continue to use AbiWord for its MS Word importing features.
Linux isn't dead on the desktop, you just need to look in the right places.
--
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
GPL stipulates that the code must be released, its not monetary issue. If company X is making a billion using my code for 3/4 of thier stuff then I deserve 3/4 of a billion. No judge will argue that. However, the issue that comes up is a license without a value exchange. There haven't been any in court that have stood up. These were cases in where someone gave "free liceses etc" of thier software, tehn they go bought and teh new company revolked the licenses.
Code excahge is a thing large companies do too. "Oh you want to use out code to derive a new product... How about 300K plus your code in return and we will promise not to make a direct competator (i.e. different platforms or differnt product, etc) to your product with our derived works? Deal". Its all about value exchange.
Its going to be tough to argue the GPLed code was licensed for any value at all
Not that Slashdot chose to report it.
Here's an article I wrote on the subject:
According to the open source movement [this article is concerned with open source, not free software (although free software certainly shares some of the funding problems), to clear up any ambiguity], considering a piece of software someone has written, one should not use it unless one has the source code. The reasoning is that if one
has a problem with it, one cannot resolve the issue without outside help. As far as I can see, although this is certainly a distinct advantage for say Google, who with a staff
of highly trained engineers could easily tweak the Linux or BSD kernel to suit their requirements, its advantages in ensuring quality and reliability are far from assured. For
example, in propounding the open source solution in John Goerzen's paper on the ethics of free [open source] software he says that the
famous case of the USS Yorktown, that the 'problem behind all this is proprietary software'.
This claim is one that Mr. Goerzen fails to adequately establish. His arguments can be summarized as follows:
By contrast he argues that from utilitarian grounds open source is better insofar as it tends to maximize the sum total of happiness, and, most specifically that 'free software is the most beneficial for the greatest number of people.'
To consider his first argument, namely that the absence of peer review makes closed source software untrustworthy, I would argue that in fact peer review is *more* rather than less
common with closed source software. To take an example, Microsoft operating systems typically spend upwards of a year in external testing, whereas open source software tends to follow Eric Raymonds's famous
Bazaar principle, where software is released little and often. The difference between the two can easily be seen. Anyone who used an open source OS and GUI environment, simply by
clicking through each option. In my experience there would also be a considerable number of software crashes.
There are a number of reasons for this as I see it:
Since the open source movement is associated with software that is without price, there is little money to fund fulltime programmers, marketing to attract new people to the project,
or commercial testing.
For example, let us consider one of the top open source games, Freeciv, and its nearest commercial competitor, which is probably Alpha Centauri. In the making of Alpha Centauri, the software house would work something like this:
'We need x programmers, x video guys, and x voiceover artists.'
They will then hire those staff and the product will be produced. By contrast, the free equivalent works on a haphazard basis whereby that which is produced is determined by those people who happen to volunteer for the project.
Thus Freeciv is without any sound effects, video, etc., and also has inferior graphics, all of which detract from one's enjoyment of the game (not to mention that it exhibits one of the major problems with open source, namely lack of innovation). Indeed it is my contention that open source is a fundamentally incorrect model for software aimed at the consumer.
Characteristics of the consumer:
little or no programming knowledge (and therefore the so-called advantage of having the source code is no such thing)
low tolerance of technology for its own sake
little understanding of computers
For them, open source software holds no benefits compared to the leading commercial equivalents from Microsft and Apple. As such, the consumer Linux distributions I believe are
doomed. The problems are:
out of software is somehow immoral (a bizarre belief, considering that everyone must make money to survive), they rely on 'donations', on selling services, and on limited and voluntary sales
of products they could download for free. Although to a certain extent the market has wised up to this, as seen by the fact that Corel's Linux division was sold for a miserly £5million,
I still believe that businesses like thekompany.com, and Nautilus, which rely on selling vague services or on giving the core product and charging for addons, it still persists.
It is unfortunate for open source that this socialist tendency persists so much - Microsoft would not be able to afford produce the world's best word processor if they had given
Word away and just charged for the thesaurus.
Still further, the belief that making money out of software is somehow damaging is fundamentally misconceived. While closed source software has grown up, so to has the economy -
high software spending is a *good* thing, not bad.
The massive growth in the economy has been fueled by commercial companies making money, whereas open source ultimately aims at making all software 'free', which would undoubtedly be harmful.
the resources of closed source means that the product will never be as advanced or as easy to use as the paid-for alternative [note that there are certain circumstances where open source can compete].
The common reply to this is that absence of resources is not an impediment, since open source depends on volunteers, but this makes the fundamental assumption that there are enough
people who would rather make software for free than make money making commercial software.
Thus:
Having, I believe, debunked the myth that open source can ever produce a sustainable and complete consumer software ensemble, I return to one of the first arguments made, namely that
closed source impairs does not allow people to learn.
This is a very flimsy argument, and I would in fact argue the reverse - at present colleges and learning schemes are heavily funded by profit-making businesses, but if open source succeeded
these businesses would be redundant, which would in fact cause even greater damage to learning since this funding would stop.
Furthermore, the net result of this would be that people would be discourage from software production as a career, since it would no longer represent a profitable career path, and so they
would probably pursue a career as a doctor or a lawyer. This would be a great loss to the nation, since the quality of software would decline, as highly intelligent students
would go elsewhere.
In conclusion, I'm not arguing necessarily that open source is always necessarily inappropriate, but rather that for consumer software it certainly is.
In more specific cases, it might present a useful solution - for example, for high-end military applications or servers maintained by experts there are certainly advantages to
an open system; however, these cases are relatively restricted - since I see little commercial potential in free software, these have to return to the roots of open source - to
the limited number of highly dedicated hackers producing a small range of software (such as Unix kernels). It is here that there can be union between the two opposites - a movement
that believes in free software, and those who make money out of it. Thus OSX represents a good example of the sort of project open source is ideally suited for - a defined Unix kernel
is the ideal project for open source, in that it requires relatively few resources other than programmer time.
get with the program, man!
Articles like this piss people off and make them prove the writer wrong. Which is good they get more done. This article even started to get me alittle perturbed. :-)
;-) All I have to say is lets take it easy on the rest of the computer world don't totally murder them with our greatness.
But, like posts before have said give linux on the desktop a few years. We have to play a little catch up before we kick ass. I also hope linux is never the only desktop/server/whatever OS becuase then were is the motivation. Also how are you suppose to make fun of companies like micro$oft if they aren't around
-- Tyler >+++++++[-]++++.---------.+.++++.++.
I had a conversation with my gf this morning that made me realize how geeks and "normal" users are different in this regard. I've been learning to fly a Cessna and I mentioned how when I first got into the cockpit I was sort of overwhelmed by all the dials and gauges and buttons and knobs but simultaneously thought "wow, this is *cool*, I can't wait to learn how it all works." She said "Ugh, I hate that stuff -- I can barely stand all the instruments in a car." And she's not tech-averse in general -- she just looks at technology as a tool she can use to get something done, rather than being enamored of it for its own sake.
I really believe this is one of the reasons that it's so hard to build software that satisfies both geek and non-geek users. The geeks (and I include myself) want control, they want to get under the hood, they actually enjoy achieving competence and understanding why things work or don't work. The non-geeks want it to DWIM, to steal a term that's often used in the perl world: Do What I Mean. A truly effective computer for the masses would be so transparent that a user would never have to hear the term "device driver" or "operating system", let alone actually install one or, god forbid, understand what it's there for. Remember that most people can't be bothered to figure out how to eradicate the flashing 12:00 on their VCR. Telling them to read a manual or go to a newsgroup for help isn't going to cut it: They want someone they can call and say "It doesn't work, fix it."
By the way, although I find this attitude alien to me personally, I don't think it does any good to dismiss such users as stupid or unmotivated. Most people have things they want to accomplish so they can get on with living their lives, and computers are only interesting to them insofar as they make it faster and easier to accomplish those goals. It's not a question of motivation or intelligence, it's a question of priorities. You and I may happen to value tackling challenges and achieving understanding, but lots of people just want to, say, pay the bills as quickly as possible so they can spend time hanging out with their kids. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
I've had problems with Linux ever since I decided it could be a viable desktop platform.
For web browsing and word processing, Linux is great. Use Opera instead of netscape. Use nedit instead of M$ Word. If you have to open Word documents, use Wordpad under WINE. Great, fine.
The problem is when you have to install and upgrade programs. You can't just double-click on the cute little box-by-a-computer-with-disks, noo... you have to figure out if you have an RPM or DEB or TGZ-based system, you have to go to a command line and type "RPM -i foo*.rpm" and if it bitches about a dependency, you have to go to rpmfind.net and search for some obscure package that should've come preinstalled in the first place. DEB isn't much better - from my experience, it'll b0rk completely if it can't find some mythical lib like libpakistanicalender.so.1.2. RealPlayer and Loki's installer have some semblance of sanity in them.
Games for Linux? A joke. If you want to run anything more complex than Solitaire, then you're in for a long ride. First you have to find out if your card supports DRI or not. If it does, great. If it doesn't, go to dri.sourceforge.net, attempt to comprehend the incredibly bizarre directions, download and compile a library, try to figure out how to install it, etc. Loki's ports are incredibly shoddy; after more than eight hours of troubleshooting, I could not get either Quake 3 Arena or Unreal Tournament to work on my Mandrake 7.2 system with a Voodoo Banshee. I checked Loki's newsgroups.. and the Unreal Tournament group had FOUR THOUSAND support messages on it. When Unreal Tournament SIGSEGV'd on me, I looked up Loki's web page and found out that I had to compile and install my own Mesa libraries. At this point, I just gave up. Linux is not a viable gaming platform.
I wouldn't recommend Linux to a newbie for anything more advanced than word processing or web browsing. In my experience, for productivity, that's pretty much all it's good for.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
This may shock you, but XFree86 4 already HAS this.
/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/drivers. Tell me what you see in there - yep, a .o file for each card. And you know what? Hardware vendors can even distribute binary-only modules! You know, like NVidia is doing with their drivers.
If you're running XF86 4, look in
Quite amazing, huh?
So what's so bad about X again? If you tell me it uses too much memory, don't believe what top tells you - that includes pixmaps in use by apps as well as as the memory on your video card (which may be counted more than once).
Is it that X is slow because everything is done using a network connection? Think again, because if you're running it locally, it does everything nice and speedy through shared memory and cool fast stuff like that (I don't have the exact details).
The moral of the story: do some research before you bash something.
The Linux "media" is overreacting, once again. The problem isn't that the Linux desktop applications are broken, it's that they haven't been finished and refined. However, when KDE2 takes more than a minute to load a config menu on a 700MHz Duron with a fresh Mandrake 8 install doing relatively nothing until the menu was loaded, you have a problem .
Here's what you do: get your Superman--er, Linus, to help assemble a company solely devoted to developing a good GUI and desktop applications -- and actually charge money for them so the company can post a profit and stay in business (no, not give it out over the net -- if that means changing the Linux license, fine). Screw free software, that approach has given you what you have now: unfinished applications. That's why MS stuff is used everwhere; it WORKS CORRECTLY (nevermind it being Evil Bloatware).
Anyway.. Use this company to dev a GUI based off of KDE2, but running 300% faster and more intuitively. Take Star Office or Word Perfect and impliment changes to make it more like MS Office (i.e. more interoperatable and easier to work with). In the meantime, hire some hardcore OS programmers to sort out all the kinks in the core OS and make them play nicer with each other -- you'll definately get a speed boost.
Operating systems are not about social or political philosophies, social movements, dogma, the latest spewings of RMS, etc. -- they're just ways of getting things done. It all comes down to optimizing speed and getting the OS to not blow chunks every time the user wants it to do something. For this to happen, the Linux "Community" needs to start taking some different approaches.
-----------
-----------
POiT!
I've been advocating this for quite a while now.
X11 just isn't cutting it these days. Sure, it has it's advantages, but what Linux could really use it a complete makover as far as GUI environments is concerned.
Believe it or not, Windows really does have a pretty good window message protocol in place. And the GDI drawing routines really aren't all that slow.
The real goal would be to produce a replacement for X that allowed the use of drivers much like Windows does. This way the environment could be recompiled for any platform, and contributers would only need to install (or create) drivers for the specific hardware they have. (Kind of like how X has different X servers for each video chipset.) Of course, this replacement would have to support previous X applications by running an X server for applications to communicate with. However display and manipulation of these applications would be seemless with native applications. (They would share the same desktop space and could overlap, etc.)
I've been toying with the idea of starting up a project on sourceforge to facilitate the replacement desktop, but my extraordinarily long commute time eats up 90% of my day. So I have no time to work on it. Of course, this could all change, but who knows.
I'm open to comments on the whole idea.
the point was that companies are pulling resources away from desktop linux. the article states that die hard fans will continue development. but the article contends that without professional resources, linux will be unable to compete with mac and windows
look at sourceforge. it is possible to have active projects that move so slowly as to be dead. it doesnt matter if linux moves forward; if it cant keep pace with other desktop oses, its dead on the desktop
the animal doesnt even have opposable thumbs, focker!
Linux on the desktop hasn't even hatched yet! Look at Redhat 7.x, i mean, even an absolute newbie can install the bugger. Now all we have to do is wait for serious apps, and to be honest, i think we will see a lot of growth in this area, where the stuff in Winblows just stays dull&boring... I use Debian everywhere, server, desktop, laptop, i just luv it! Spread the word, there are masses of people out there who can help us, people who are now locked in by their closed-source OS. Let's free them! Umm... by the way, i'm not missing a single app all my Winblows-friends have. do you?
This sig is intentionally left blank
How long did it take for Windows to gain wide-spread, relatively problem-free acceptance on the desktop? 5 years? 10? I think this death knell is a little premature.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
Apparently, one of the reasons Microsoft included games with Windows was as a compelling way to introduce users to the mouse, menu system, etc. In my experience, this seems to work: I suppose people get more motivated when the reward is a game with a nice animation at the end, compared to a nicely-formatted invoice.
"Pie Iesu Domine. Dona Eis Requiem."
It means "Holy Lord Jesus. Grant them rest."
(The two phrases are included in many Catholic funeral masses)
----
One world. One internet. One root. (ICANN policy)
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
It was very easy to set up, it is extremely cheap (we just bought a Pack in a store). And this is extremely reliable and fast to use.
We have 3 PCs with Mandrake 7.2 and one in dual-boot Mandrake 7.2/Win 98. The win98 is only here for accounting and for checking that some of our webpages look good with Exploder. I think in the long term we can remove Windows completely.
Maybe people are trying to give Linux desktop SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)
That doesn't stop me from using it to get real work done, as opposed to fighting with my computer to make it do what I want, the way I want to do it.
Same goes for linux. You simply don't have the level of flexibility in windoze or MacOS required to do real work the way you want to do it quickly.
The OS/2 and Linux environments I use are flexible and allow me to quickly write little tools to handle a specific repetitive task with minimal effort. And there are spreadsheets and word processors as well, for the very very rare times I need them.
Let the windoze users go on in blissful ignorance. I'm 10x (at least) more productive in my linux and OS/2 desktop environments, as "dead" as they may be.
Your comments really did not deserve a 5, maybe a 2 or a three...
i c.asp
You make absolutly no mention of what the user wants from the Desktop...If its for games then I'd have to agree, but for general pupose I can just install SuSE 7.1 with KDE2 and use the apps that came with that, and guess what? Its usable right away. No mention made of Konquerer either, where have you been living? KOffice, despite being beta is looking very good. Yes, with Konquerer you get the odd java problem, but that is due to MS extensions on top of Java. Yes indeed MS added extensions on top of Java that have made it unusable outside of IE5. Try using the Windows version of Opera to see what I mean.
FreeBSD is good, so is OpenBSD (although where is OpenBSD heading? In fact after the purchase of FreeBSd by Windriver I question what the direction for FreeBsD is too...).
Linix is growing, is here to stay and will eventually grow on the desktop.
Case point 1:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/guide/mus
Yup, WMA will sound better because, guess what? Yup, they screwed around with how your MP3's will sound in Windows...I am sure there are many more.
Who is best available to take up some of those migrating? I can only really say two players, this is in order:
Mac OS X
Linux
Only two, so we had better get working! As the Mac is really only Mac hardware related (as far as I know, OS X has not been ported yet) that leaves Linux as the easiest and quickest way to get running.
By the time October comes hopefully we will be in much better shape.
As a caveat, who really cares who gets the majority of the desktop, all that really matters is that a monopoly is broken, consumers deserve to have a choice. Imagine a world where all you could buy was one type of car. I'll stop as I can easily go on...
StarTux
Been there, done that over on linuxtoday and linuxplanet.
- 05 -22-006-20-OP-DT
/ 33 92/1/
You will get this on slashdot tomorrow, so I am might as well post it now. Brian Proffit's rebuttal is here:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001
Original article is here:
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions
Sorry, could not be bothered with html.
I believe Kevin did this about the desktop to rile people up and get them motivated. Whcih seems to be working...
StarTux
i'm right there with you. i use windows for money management (i'd use the java-based app that came with my distro, but i just haven't felt like dealing with it), games, and video-editing. i'd probably be willing to dump windows if i could get a high-performance video editing app.....
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein
I goin' 100% Slack on Thursday and nothing will stop me. I believe that I can still do my work on Linux, though I can't play CS (perhaps a little partition for CS -- ??). Anyhoo, I'll see you all on the other side.
In teh event of an actual emergency this space might provide useful information.
heh.. that's funny, but so near the truth. we just replaced windows with linux in one of our departments. they have everything they need to get their work done, and the first thing out of their mouths was -- and this went on for about twenty minutes -- "does this mean i can't play freecell?"
irb(main):001:0>
Want UNIX tools on your desktop, but with great fonts and a decent window manager/graphics system? Go run Mac OSX - seriously. It's great. Can't beat it, and why would you want to?
Get out and do something DIFFERENT!
42
Cause they're making money on it.
And, just a point about the metrics, but are we talking "boxen sold with OS included by mass market producer" stats (Windows wins) or "boxen created this year and boxen sold without OS and boxen sold with OS". Cause I've got lots of boxen, but they probably only counted the ones I bought with OS installed. And they don't count the ones I download and don't pay someone to use. And they don't count the computers my brother makes from parts.
Oh, you actually believed those stats? Who was providing them, and why?
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Since Linux is in it's (desktop) infancy, where is the shell for Mom and Dad? My copy of Mandrake looks a lot like W.95, but really, it was never written for Grandma/Grampa to use for E-Mail...
As long as Unix is written by Geeks for Geeks it's Never going to be mainstream. (Maybe Good, Maybe Bad. How many of us would still sit around chatting it up if it was as easy and prolific as AOL?)
AFAIK Ace of Penguins has one.
Try Debian 'apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade' all done! pretty easy and unless you're using custom sources no editing of files is needed as apt-config makes it pretty easy. apt is a pretty forward thinking tool and is really innovative when it comes to package management, that type of think will help Linux's viability in any market.
In fact I used to be able to install slashcode (pre bender slashcode mind you) in about 30-40 minutes from install (network connection providing) even faster is your average desktop setup which installs in a painless fashion I run three desktop environments just for kicks. I'm not advocating one tool as the one that will make or break Linux but apt has been one reliable and near indespensable tool. Suddenly we saw several 'ports' of apt-like functionality, up2date and similar package management helpers but apt comes with a maturity level and 'super cow powers'. So for what it's worth give debian a shot you may find as I did that it's not perfect but it certainly straightens out kinks and scratches itches, at least it did mine.
- A Server Operating System
- A High-End Operating System
- An Operating System Designed by People who Know Computers for People Who Know Computers, and not the Masses
Think for a moment: UNIX has been around thirty years. Yet there really isn't a major market for UNIX as a general purpose desktop. As a server application--definitely. As a workstation OS for CADD/CAM, graphics, etc.--sure.Linux is basically UNIX, so it seems to both benefit and suffar from that which is ascribed to it.
Problem is, desktop space is not geeks, engineers, scientists, etc. It's not people who need to know estoic bits of command line knowledge, or need to telnet into their system. It's not people who, once educated to save early and often, can't afford a quick bounce once in a while.
Desktop space is secretaries, accountants, managers, parents, teachers and others who do not, as a primary job function (or even interest) know and love computers. To them, it is just a tool. Many know how to get into their word processing and check their e-mail, and that's about it. I have seen more than a few that, if you MOVE AN ICON, spend a day trying to figure out "what you did to their computer." Add an inocuous piece of software, and any problem, no matter how unrelated, is attributed to "that guy who came and messed with my computer."
For those folks, who make up the majority of desktop space, Linux is just something "computer geeks" play with. True, many will argue that Linux is better/more stable/less evil/cooler/neater/etc. that alternatives, but, an OS that has no applications is basically sucking electricity and little else. Even DOS is stable when sitting idle.
And thus it becomes chicken or egg. Until there is demand for applications, people won't write many for Linux--only the ones that "scratch their itch." Until there are applications that provide the greater functionality and ease of use than what's out there, there will not be a reaon to switch.
Will there be a Linux desktop? Perhaps. It will probably require an effort similar to Linux itself--someone writing a large chuck of it, then many more adding all the various features, until, one day, you have a package. The, it will take putting together a cohesive and consistent package that can be easily installed.
Until the, it will remain something that just "those computer geeks" use.
Though sometimes I wonder if that is what is wanted...
hmm - declaring the Linux desktop dead after trying 1 browser and 1 office suite.
.
Try out Applixware and KOffice and Opera and Mozilla and (the list goes on)
I agree with him about StarOffice - it's almost as horribly bloated as Win98 . . . Applixware save the day for me while I was in school and now also in my office at work.
What a weenie . .
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
Back in '93, my linux box was an interesting toy. Now, it does everything I need, and far better than Windows ever did. To hell with the rhetoric: the proof is in the performance. And I, for one, am never going back.
Long live Linux on the desktop! (Well, on mine, anyway....)
-Carter
Linux should focus where it's best - servers. Playing catchup to the bigwigs in desktop OS is an unprofitable, futile game.
Some OS's are good for small devices, some are good for desktops, some are good for massive systems. Trying to make one do it all is just wasteful and inefficient redirection of resources.
-
How about a Linux distro for NASCAR fans... includes themes so all your titlebars have racing decorations, and a full complement of NASCAR wallpapers.
I believe Mandrake rpms are set up to call Mandrake's menu management system, thus adding at least menu entries (assuming you use the Mandrake hierarchy).
However, M$ now has some of the most obnoxious licensing policies in the industry. Given the high cost (and registration hassles) of XP, the incentive to create Linux desktop apps has never been greater. A really slick, better-than-M$ office productivity suite on Linux would be about the only thing most people would cheerfully pay for.
If Linux on the desktop is as dead as you say, then the logical conclusion is that the market will tolerate M$ licensing antics -- I wonder.
And that's to make it a bloody desktop operating system. The instant you do that, it's just popular software being exploited by big corporations. So what if it's GPL'd? Microsoft will just release Winux and then it won't be your OS. So everyone will have to start over with a new community OS.
I really don't understand why so many people want Linux to gain mainstream acceptance. Its biggest appeal was always that it was a hard core hacker OS, invented by and for the community, with none of the garbage required by the populace at large. Let it stay that way, and let the popular OS's do the pandering to the masses for as long as they can stay in business.
I work in a small IT company that supports Linux on desktops in various, non-IT-related companies. It works like a charm. But not, I repeat, not if you try to run Linux as the regular computer OS where the user is supposed to help clicking to keep the machine running. That is stupid. The idea of building GUI applications to control the underlying OS is stupid. No, this is not a troll. I'm just sharing my experiences of 2 years of system maintenance on Linux machines. Adding a user is 2 minutes of work. But once you install webmin, you'll get called three times for every simple task, to ask if this or that should really be clicked, how it works, where the home directory should be, etc etc. Once you let the Kevin Reichards on this planet do system maintenance, they start whining because they can't find this-or-that.
The great thing about Linux on the desktop is that it works and keeps working, without bit rot. You can install, maintain and upgrade the machine remotely. The associated costs with various "now this problem", "now that problem" is near to zero. No viruses, no "non corporate" looks on the desktop because the luser installed some nasty screen saver ;-)
The Corel and Eazel cases are not chosen that well either. Corel tried to build a distro that anyone could install. They succeeded. But no one was waiting for it and we all knew that beforehand. Same with Eazel. A file manager with services, like "easy software upgrades" (AFAIK). Isn't that root's job?
The remark that "nothing that works as well as MS Office" is not true. The German C'T Magazine (from Heisse Verlag) tests office suites once in a while. StarOffice is as good as MS Office (and a lot better when it comes to correct text/table/graphics placement. There's simply no software around that works as weird as Word in this case). I'd like to invite Kevin Reichard to come over to the Netherlands, to view a law firm, a publisher, a stock broker or a consultancy firm, all running linux on the desktop. For two years now, doing daily work. And still going strong.
my other sig is a 500 page novel
You actually need four hours to install an OS? Last Linux machine I installed (an AMD 700/64Mb) took me exactly 45 minutes. Yes, 45 minutes, including E-mail, desktop, "service packs" (you mean: "latest software", don't you??) and dual boot. I did that remotely, by having the machine boot from NFS so I could log into it. (Well all right, the customer changed a floppy disk). This was done without a disk image. So don't you tell me "Windows installation is easy". It's a bloody nightmare. Yes, I'm serious: you need to be on-site, sit there, change CD's, answer stupid questions, wait, wait and wait. "And get paid" yeah right. Yuck!
my other sig is a 500 page novel
Linux dead? Duh. That's what they said about Elvis.
my other sig is a 500 page novel
The second reason that Linux on the desktop is dead is that there is a dearth of commercial apps for it. Common browser plug-ins simply don't exist for Linux users. There is no Adobe Photoshop (no, GIMP is not the same -- the graphics world runs on Photoshop). Web sites are being designed around Internet Explorer (not something I like, but neither is it something I control) and there is no IE for Linux.
Most businesses need to know that they can interoperate with their suppliers and customers. They can't afford to be behind the curve waiting for the Linux community to release some sort-of-compatible-most-of-the-time application.
As a server, Linux is fine. The average server runs a few apps and that's it. They don't need to understand file formats from other apps on other operating systems. They don't need the latest and greatest browser plug-ins. It's a whole different world.
Sorry, but I have to agree with the author of the original article.
Why is it that every distro of Linux I have ever installed has the ugliest, most unreadable fonts ever conceived by man? Why must Linux versions of Netscape default to Hideous Serif in 3pt size? It's like Microsoft and Apple share some kind of patent that give them exclusive rights to attractive, readable fonts that default to a normal size.
No. A pronoun can be similarly singular. It can also similarly be singular, although in this case, there are a bunch of people who will yell at you for splitting a verb phrase, even though there is really nothing wrong with doing so, according to the vast majority of grammarians.
PIII 450MHz 384MB memory Voodoo 3 3000.
X Server? Can't tell you for sure, it's the most up to date accelerated version offered to me when I install Mandrake 8.
This is a serious question.....
I use an out of the box Mandrake 8 install on my machine and while I prefer using it (and KDE2) to Win98 (which is on the other partition) the speed of both the windowing environment and the applications under GNU/Linux is nowhere near what I could get under Win98.
Question: Why?
Personally I agree with an earlier post about ditching X11 and starting again.
I meant two things by interoperability. 1.) For programmers, there's a standard set of widgets that have a standard set of behaviors. These widgets rely on the proprietary, binary format methods that you are describing. 2.) When I'm in any program in Windows, rest assured 9 times out of 10 I can press Ctrl+A,Z,C,X,V and they'll all do the same thing in each program. I can right-click on any text almost anywhere in the OS and get some options to copy or print. It's not just the small amount of shortcuts that I can list here, but so much more (File menus, File formats, Icons, etc.) and some things I couldn't list because they're so transparent to the user. I don't care HOW this is accomplished, but things like that are why Windows is so ubiquitous. I realize that linux COULD have all of these things, but it doesn't unless I want to build them myself. I think that is worth a lot to your average user.
And I have no problem managing signatures in KMail or Mutt...I'm not debating that Linux in general and Linux apps in general aren't more flexible than Windows. They are! (There, I'm not a troll or a marketroid :) Linux is the OS that you can build yourself, and a lot of programs for Linux are programs that people can get the source for and make all the modifications they want. This is not what the average desktop user wants, they want what I described above.
Seriously, I'm a fairly intelligent guy and I still can't figure out how to change the Display resolution in KDE without doing it through a bunch of config files. Linux on the desktop behaves like it was built by a bunch of disparate programmers not working together because it was. This doesn't matter so much for the command line because all you have to deal with there is TEXT. On the desktop there's a lot more to deal with. Therefore, I think that until IBM or Apple (or a large group of very dedicated programmers that can organize themselves without having the project split 50 ways) decides to go head to head with Microsoft, I don't think Linux will be ready for the desktop.
Umm, in 5 years win2k will be Windows 2006. So if Linux will just be catching up to win2k in 5 years, I'll probably still be using Windows.
As for Macs, being tied to a proprietary OS is one thing, being tied to a proprietary OS AND hardware is just too much.
Oh, you're right. In Windows I have to select the text I want to copy AND press Ctrl+C then Ctrl+V where I want to paste. However can you close the program that has the high-lighted text and then paste in X? What if you don't have a middle mouse button? What if you had a two button mouse and then installed a three button mouse just to get said functionality. Would the OS recognize it without asking you about it? These question's and more answered tonite at 11 on 'Why Linux Isn't Ready for the Desktop'.
Give me a break, you're going to compare ANY versions of NS/Mozilla, Word Perfect, and GIMP that you can get on Linux to IE 5.5, Word 2000, and Photoshop for Windows 2000!?
I'm sorry, but apps that you can get for Linux, that your average desktop user are going to WANT to use are about 5 years behind the ease of use and interoperability that Windows 2000 has to offer.
OOOH, you can get Quake & Civ geee, that really makes up for the other 90% of the games that only get released for Windows!
Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a wuss.
Yeah, good one. "My OPINION is right, so that makes you wrong and therefore a liar and a weakling!". Go back to elementary school buddy, you're not ready for the real world yet.
I enjoy Debian for my desktop use, which mainly consists of: Opera 5.0 for browsing, BlueFish for web publishing, Pine for mail/news, and ircII to keep in touch with the pals. This accounts for 90% of what I need a computer for, which is pretty good.
However, AbiWord, Applix and other word processors are nowhere near what Word offers, neither in terms of facilities nor compatibility with the original Microsoft Word. Previously, being the only Linux user in a marketting department fuled on Win2000 prooved that 90% compatibility claimed by Star Office is simply not good enough either. If your business includes dealing with Word files sent as Request For Pricing queries by customers, you need the real thing, not some script-foo magic that renders the document useless for anything but Emacs.
As a side issue, Linux acceptance is nowhere near where it could be, even in the IT field. I used to work for a company that had two famous Debian contributors on their team. When the admin asked what I wanted on my workstation and I answered Debian, his reply was a disdainfull "Debian?! Yuck! I don't trust that shit! It's either Win2000 or Red Hat." I reluctantly chose Red Hat, but eventually had to switch to Win2000 so I could handle the constant flow of Word and Excel files coming in from my collegues in Marketting.
For the above reasons, I do not foresee Linux making it outside the programming and service deployment business any time soon.
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
Yeah, it appeared in the 'Illuminatus!' trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea.
"...Fear the people who fear your computer"
Good thing I didn't successfully convince my mom to reformat her virus-laden PC with Linux. Would have been an interesting experiment, though.
You drank my drink, you drunk!
Fuck you CmdrTaco for posting such a troll-desirable, flamebait-inspiring *article*.
If only you would gain some sense perhaps Linux would be regarded as more of a serious product rather then as a hacker tool. If the most popular pro-Linux site is so juvenile, what does it say about the GNU/Linux Operating System?
Of course, Windows 2000 has all of the features, plus good apps. But its command line is less useful, and that's what I use most of the time, so I'll stick with Linux. I'm hardly an average user, though.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
Pardon me if this has already been mentioned, but you can now get a download of Gnome 1.4 for Solaris here:
:)
http://www.sun.com/software/gnome/
The irony being that a desktop system developed for a clone of UNIX is now being adapted for use as the default desktop on an "established" UNIX!
Its [The US government's] decisions mean nothing in the rest of the world.
I can't agree with you there. If you were right, the NMD program wouldn't have half a dozen countries threatening to beef up their missile supply.
SIG: 11
...it is somewhat flawed in my opinion. Bonobo is based on Corba and Microsoft OLE. It is an attempt at achieving a common programming interface for implementing reusable software components and compound documents. The weakness of Bonobo is that it brings with it all the complex abstractions and unwieldy charateristics of Microsoft OLE and Corba, things like QueryInterface and reference counting.
While Bonobo goes a long way to automate a good portion of the task of connecting components together, it does not go far enough IMO. A proper paradigm for compositional software architecture should follow the example of hardware connectors and plugs. Connecting two components should be 100% safe and automatic. There should be no need for the programmer to query interfaces or count references. Just connect and disconnect components and the system should take care of the rest automatically and painlessly.
Here are some charateristics of what I think is a good compositional software environment:
1. Automatic enforcement of type and secure password compatibility. Just connect, the system takes care of the rest.
2. Symmetrical connectors (male, female)
3. Prioritized message passing only. No function calls.
4. Symmetry. Unidirectional message flow (e.g. from male to female). Bidirectional communication requires two connectors.
5. Multi-connectors: single male connector sends messages to multiple female connectors.
6. Prioritized Queue components.
There is more but you get the idea. If I said something above that mischaracterizes Bonobo, please do correct me.
Because Linux is Free, it can never really 'die', neither on the desktop nor embedded device nor server. What kind of power does this guy think he has to be able to call the end of Linux?
The only entity that could possibly bring an end to Linux anywhere is the U.S. Government by declaring the GPL null and void (GPL = (void)NULL);
Dancin Santa
The article says that nothing out there is as good as Microsoft Office. The unspoken assumption to that line is:
"Nothing is as good as Microsoft Office at being Microsoft Office."
And probably nothing ever will be. Linux is fine as a desktop, or an Office Tool, when judged on its own terms. MSOffice doesn't always make sense, be people are used to it. Things that are essentially text documents are stored as Microsoft Word documents. No we don't have a program that readlily lends itself to destop-publishing every tiny little note you want to write, but I think we can edit text with the best of them.
We also don't read MS Office documents as well as MS Office. Actually, neither does MS Office - a fact that people are sure to start complaining about with the upcoming release of Office XP.
When I started using Linux, it was for three reasons:
1) Cheap (6 CD's for 24 quid) 2) Stable (or so I'd heard) 3) Lots of development tools 4) A true hackers OSOK, so I can't count, but anyhow...
The beauty of Linux for me is that it is made by hackers, for hackers. It is the OS for the technically elite. This is a GOOD THING
The problem with 'average' users (ie the have-nots) is that the want it easy. They would much rather sacrifice stability, functionality and expandability for a set of fancy new graphics. In fact, one guy who heard about Linux from his list of Quake3 servers asked of it, as his first question, 'so, does this Linux thing look as good as windows?'. My response? Yes, but if you need to ask that you aren't technically inclined enough to bother.
The fact is that in the right hands, it is one of THE most powerful operating systems available, simply due to the amount of incredible software available. Thanks to emacs, LaTeX, xfig and the pstools, I can create the best looking and easily the most readable technical reports and assignments in our university group. The others look on and say 'how do I get word to do that'. Simple. You can't. I put in the time (about 30 minutes, thanks to the simple tag structure) to learn TeX, and am reaping a lifetime of benefit.
Cold hard fact #1. I have not used an office suite of ANY KIND, including KOffice and SOffice etc. in over 18 months, and even before that, I repeatedly complained about the lack of any actually useful features in the bloated offerings. I would sooner an advanced automatic layout controller and equation editor than flashing text and 'clippy'.
So, yay! Maybe we can finally put this 'Linux is good enough for the technically incapable' thing behind us, and leave it where it belongs, with the hackers!
Equating Eazel with the entire Linux Desktop is silly. The guys at Eazel were obviously clueless, 11,000,000 and all they made was a file manager. Don't tell the guys at the Kompany, Gnome.org, Ximian, or XFree86.org the the Linux desktop is dead - I wouldn't want to be responsible for a the rash of suicides there.
I use KDE and It runs just fine. I'm a newbie of less than a year and I have no real problems getting things done in Gnome or KDE. Eazel was supposed to be the "killer" app for Linux. I never bought into that. I'm running SuSE 7.1 and I took me about an hour to install - all my hardware was recongized no problems. And, the GF2-MX with the lastest NV drivers kick ass - UT never looked so good. I say let Eazel die. The only ones that thiught that it was going to skyrocket Linux into the desktop arena were the mis-informed.
My games kick ass on Linux - UT, Heretic2, SOF, etc. Just give it time to build up a list. Lokigames have more than doubled their catalog in less than a year. And, if you really fell like an adventure you can install M$ games in Wine - a lot of people do.
Your wife has the right to pay Microsoft for software and to use it. However, that doesn't mean Linux on the desktop is dead. Instead, it means that there's more choice for desktop users than there was 3 years ago.
So you can't play NASCAR 4 on Linux? Is that the fault of the operating system or the company that developed the software? Neither. it is the fault of the users for not demanding it. When there are enough users willing to pay for NASCAR 4 on the Linux platform, they'll make it.
Or maybe they could GPL it and charge for download, CD distribution and support.
--
--
Unscrample my email, win a prize.
Amongst all the sound and fury, I'm not seeing anyone asking the simple question: who cares if Linux never takes off on the desktop?
Who cares if Linux never beats Windoze on the desktop? Who cares if it never even beats MacOS? What exactly do we win as individuals if it does? Commercial Linux distros need this to happen, but (sorry guys) if it never happens and they die, Linux still goes on.
Am I happy hacking Linux? Yes. Am I happy using Linux? Yes. Am I happy supporting other happy Linux hackers? Yes. Would I be happy supporting hordes of griping Joe Sixpacks and Suzi Cubicles? No!
Frankly, screw them. Home and corporate users have a real choice right now; that most of them still use M$ just shows that they want to be taken care of, and that applies to corporate IT as well - they want the low risk, works 90% of the time, phone drone support solution. Fine, but I don't ever want Linux to be that solution, because the bigger Linux gets (in every sense), the more it will become like Windoze. Releases will be done to coincide with trade shows and shareholder meetings, not when features are complete.
No, I'm quite happy with Linux the way it is, thanks. Sure, I still have a Windoze boot for games, but I don't see that it makes me a hypocrite because Linux != Windows, and personally I hope it never does.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"The" killer app ;)
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
I guess this kind of article isn't looked very well upon, but it is pretty relevant for a lot of Linux users out there, like it or not.
... "just give it time." Well, we heard that crap 2 years ago and I'm tired of waiting. While I'm sure it doesn't matter to a lot of the more "hardcore" Linux users out there -- and probably makes some glad a lot of people will be leaving so it can regain it's coolness through obscurity -- I certainly don't plan on staying with an operating system that doesn't grow with me. There are alternatives out there. And the "hey, this is nifty" crap is starting to be outweighed by the "hey, I need some better applications."
Linux does offer a splendid environment for network related serving/daemons and programming. However, there are lots of Linux users out there who do not use it for these purposes. They, in it's current state, use Linux for web browsing, MP3 playing/ripping, graphics work, text editing, occasionally word processing/spreadsheets. Some like a desktop environment, others prefer window managers like Window Maker by themselves. In any event, there are problems. as I see them:
1. Desktop environments. Not everyone likes KDE. I personally do not; KDE is overbearing. GNOME is dead, like it or not. When the file browser GNOME settled on takes up 75% of CPU time when it does not even have a window open there is obviously a problem.
2. Productivity software. Where is it? Openoffice lost several components that Staroffice had and doesn't seem to be making a great deal of progress. Corel's commitment is more or less dead. All the other choices are half-assed, including Applixware.
3. Web browsing. I am tired of people thinking what is available is acceptable. I am tired of the sheep bleating mentality: "Oh, you dislike Mozilla. You're uninformed." Give me a fucking break. Mozilla is awful, people, and I don't know how people can speak well for it when it runs so poorly and crashes all the time. Alternatives are Opera (equally awful, and payware), Konqueror (decent), Nescape 4.7 (nowhere) and other miscallenous programs.
4. All the others, CODECs, etc. There are so many applications out there that we don't have anything close to. So many file formats we can't view.
In short, I guess my point is Linux is a niche player at this point and time. We have heard people state Linux will advance on the desktop
mwtr / THIS SIG HAS BEEN PRAYED OVER AND MAY BE USED AS A POINT OF CONTACT (ACTS 19:12)
Are there any projects underway for making the linux filesystem easier to cope with for beginner users. I realize changing the file structure would be a politcal and technical mess, so what about a virtual layer, something between the operator and the machine.
This, from the real world where software is stable and ready for the end user...
"Now I'll show you how to use Outlook Express... It's a pretty decent e-mail application that's included by default on your system." <click>
"Ok, here's how you create a message blah blah blah"
"Now that we've sent you a message to yourself, we can reply to it by clicking on this button." <click>
45 year old husband and wife (average users...) - "What just happened?"
"Ahhhhhhhhhh, crap! This little box on the screen may pop up periodically on your screen. It means that your application has crashed. It's probably a good idea to restart whenever you get one of those."
"But, why does it do that?"
"I don't know, I really don't know..."
Ironically, it's not any harder to explain the KDE crash dialog than it is to explain the Windows one. Imagine that....
So, which desktop is on its way to death? My former music instructor who has little technical experience attempted to install Linux because he heard it was stable. How long will it be before either Microsoft releases more stable software or loses a lot of really pissed customers. Losing work because your OS can keep from tripping over itself is frustrating.
Rather than the death of linux on the desktop, we are watching it grow up. For geeks, it's already there. For many consumers including several recent clients, it's already there. For my example above, it's almost there and really not that different except for configuration.
Neal Stephenson (ack, probably spelled his name wrong) wrote a little piece about exactly that. The jist of his argument was this:
The user complained that they didn't know how to maintain linux so it wasn't an option. The other speaker, comments that they can't maintain Windows either... Way too true...
Give it up, I'm using Linux on my desktop(s) right now. Linux is definitely not dead on my desktop...
Let's be honest: by interoperability you mean "apps and OS work together through proprietary, binary format methods that prevent interoperability with the rest of the world."
You are forgetting of course that microsoft expose an interfaces to word \ excel \ outlook through COM \ OLE so programming with them is a breeze. Or perhaps you didn't know that?
"If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" - Will Rogers
Wow. I read the right post. I, too, would LOVE to see a linux app with the functionality of Quickbooks. I was actually thinking seriously about starting a website related to this topic. I would love to assist someone in doing this. I am a pretty experienced QB user, and I think I know which features are important.
Linux excels as a server because of it's Unix heritage(it's not unix of course don't want to piss off the open group ;-) ). When I think of a desktop environment I think of the kind of integration that Windows or the Mac or OS/2 has. I'd like to be working in AbiWord and insert a Gnumeric Spreadsheet right from AbiWord. Their needs to be a consistent interface and a consistent model for developers and users to hope to appease the masses. Netscape on Linux is bad and Mozilla ain't there yet and doesn't have the support for plugins that it's Windows/Mac browser counterparts do. I love unix/linux but I ain't gonna pretend that we are close to providing a replacement for Windows/Mac on the desktop.
Rest assured Linux will live on. (Which isn't to say that it will necessarily become a viable desktop competitor for a while yet.)
I prefer the term Anux myself. :)
3-4 days to set up a windows 2000 desktop at $20/hr?!?!?! God, they need to get rid of you and hire me. At my old company, I could take my time and have a win2000 machine up in 4 hrs, even given only adequate hardware. That includes office 2000, service pack 2 and setting up their mail etc.
I got laid off last month, and here I am stuck at the fscking university making beans for pay. Seriously, your company needs to HIRE ME!!!
He hit the nail right on the head. I've been trying to move completely over to linux from windows for the past year, but have had to resort to using win4lin and office and adobe products in order to interact well with my coworkers and the rest of the world. I gave up last week and got a notebook computer running WinME. I'll keep the linux box around for apache and some data processing code that just has to run and be available online (no substitude for linux stability). I'll be following a similar path on 2 of my 6 computers at home that run linux. Such a shame that the effort and talent of the open source community are locked in duels (Gnome vs KDE, python vs Perl, and myriad others)rather than being unified for a common purpose/product.
-- Instant Karma's gonna get you! [320848 = 2*2*2*2*11*1823]
Every time I fire up Star Office 5.2, it takes a long time to get going. Now, bear in mind that I am running with only 64MB of RAM. Still, I get as much accomplished as I did with MS Office before I became 100% Linux.
Why?
Well, I chalk it up to the fact that I am simply not wasting time anymore restarting the app or the OS, my cheeks wet with tears from weeping over my lost work.
But, Hey! If people want to beat their head against a wall, I say let them. (And, hey, why not install Outlook while you're at it, suckers!)
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
It seems that these types of articles appear sporatically over the years on Slashdot, and they make similar mistakes. This and the recent anti-GNOME articles makes me think Linuxtoday should be FUD-today. Sorry for the cheap shot ;)
Funny that the article mentions Eazel and Corel as the 'omens' that Linux is dead, and that the blood of an operating system is money. Strangely, I recall KDE and GNOME existing before the IPO craze. I recall when Caldera/Ransom Love were not so concerned with being 'commercial', and when Redhat worked just as hard without so much money. People existed before the promise of money and we, the developers, can ensure that the good work carrys on.
Lets look at the arguments "Linux is too hard to use" and "theres too much choice". Linux has made great strides in the usability sense, and I am uncertain of why 'choice' is bad thing? Lets also not forget that Win32 operating systems and office products cost large sums of money, and attained this feat through anti-competitive measures. I can't recall being offered the source to Win32 and Office products...
My point isn't to be inflammatory and I hope I have not come across as such. However, I do tire of seeing such statements/articles that completely ignore the largest reason we use Linux and develop these wonderful, free products and applications: We want to. If a company helps me, wonderful. However, its reason and monetary contribution could mean little to me, and certainly those reasons are not how I gauge my success.
Star Office is no competition for MS Office.
It looks and works just like.... MS Works. No thanks, I gave up that all-in-one crap back int he bad old days of DOS...
I like having my loosly coupled application suite. K-Office has more promise for me than Star Office does.
For me, the biggest failing of Linux as a desktop tool is the lack of a unified control interface. In windows, I can control everything pretty much either from right clicking on the desktop or from the control panel. In KDE, you have half a dozen different places you have to hunt for stuff to work, each with it's own look and feel and quirks.
The second biggest failing is the application install process. This is getting WAY better than it used to be, but there are still far too many hoops to jump through to get something working.
While anti-aliasing of fonts was a recent boon, a real killer app for the linux desktop would be the ability to emulate cleartype-style font rendering and to have fonts as clean and clear as those that come with windows. Font sizing and readability always seems to be a major hassle in Linux, but never in windows or mac os or BeOS.
People always complained that there is no standard desktop on Linux. We had two competing desktops, KDE and GNOME.
Now after the hype is over and GNOME is dead or dying we have what everybody wanted: A standard desktop: KDE.
I think this is a step forward to desktop dominance, now commercial developers know what to develop for.
Roland
First, they don't address the needs of the traditional UNIX/Linux user community. Those users want tools that they can use to put together applications quickly from the command line after looking at a couple of concise manual pages. For desktops, Gnome and KDE fail to support that kind of usage. Gnome and KDE are complex C/C++ systems that require a lot of time to get started with and a lot of effort to build applications for. If UNIX/Linux users wanted that, why wouldn't they just switch to the "free" copy of Windows that shipped with their PC?
The second problem is that Gnome and KDE (plus all its applications) are oriented towards the past. Putting together desktop apps by laboriously writing widget creation code and laying out widgets in some "visual designer" is so 1990's. That's what Microsoft used to do. And building huge, complex, do-everything applications harks from an era where vendors needed to cram whatever functionality they could onto a single CD-ROM because they only got one shot at reaching the end user; with the Internet, we don't need that anymore.
So, where should the Linux desktop really go? Here are some ideas:
The Linux desktop needs to do more than just be a better implementation of dated Windows/Macintosh ideas in order to succeed.
When / where was the beginning?
Could the lack of a COM / OLE / ActiveX architecture be hurting the desktop environment? I am no MS pundit, but the interoperability between Office products is really helpful and useful and, in my mind, is the main advantage to a Windows-based system. (On the other hand, this model is responsible for many of the security holes in both MS's OS and desktop app programs.) For instance, from MS Access (or any other Office product) one can "drive" Excel, Outlook, Word and Powerpoint not to mention other automation-compatible software put out by third parties. This includes exchanging information between applications, creating new instances of an application and creating new documents, all from the VBA IDE. A typical Linux user might call this "bloatware," but if you know what you're doing, tasks that are difficult and time consuming in a Linux desktop environment (Netscape/Staroffice, etc.) are trivial using Office 2000 on Windows. Visual Basic was created to fulfill all the needs of the desktop workers and works with ALL Microsoft products. Any competing desktop has to deal with a guzillion man-years put in usability and interoperability by the MS juggernaut. On my last job, I did a breakdown on an 86 million dollar budget in one week using Access and Excel. Off the top of my head (please remember I'm not Linux-savy and I'm not flaming here!), I can't think of a similar DB/spreadsheet combo on Linux that would have done the job in that short an amount of time.
Maybe Eazel failed because Nautilus was simply not that great? I installed it twice - I wanted to like this darling of the Linux press - and I uninstalled it twice. Did nothing for me. If it hadn't been given all the early press and hype, would anyone even notice that Eazel went under? I doubt it.
The Linux desktop is not dead, it's not old, it's not even middle-aged. At most, it's just moved out of mom and dad's house. Give it a little time.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Did you consider that the current level of technology is higher than when those MS applications were first developed? Faster processors, more average RAM, etc. all give developers more to work with nowadays, and they can develop larger, more complex, and more useful apps.
While I use Linux regularly and I definitely don't believe it has "died", it might be a good idea to keep this in mind.
Back in the 80's, one of the marketing guys at our company told me about a meeting he had recently attended with Bill Gates. He told me that Bill smelled pretty bad, and could use a shower. Of course he gave me no physical evidence to prove this, but I have no reason to doubt his story either.
But back then, Gates was only working on his first $billion, so I doubt that he had the resources to hire personal hygene advisors yet :).
And nothing else to say. Linux will NEVER be what M$ OS is to regular users. Every programmer that I met that has ever tried linux loved it! Linux is for power users... Like slackware said: EXPERT FRIENDLY
Nothing else to say (I wish I had said this before)
Don't worry, I'm late [to|every]day
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
My daughter wanted a computer...Instead of buying a new one, I broke out a relic from the parts closet, added some memory and a HDD, and loaded Mandrake 8.0 on it. She is using Windows9x at school, and I was curious to see what her reaction would be when presented with Linux, KDE, Gnome, etc.. By and large, she didn't really seem to notice much of a difference. She asked a few questions, like "Where's PowerPoint?", but once I gave here alternatives, she was happy. She hasn't been a "user" long enough to have developed any ties to any particular application. She's actually started to tell her friends about how cool Linux is, and finds it frustrating that the software she has been using at home is not available on the Win9x platform ::grin::
I have to believe that Linux on the desktop is still in its infancy. We've noticed at home that when we install everything from a distribution, there's usually 15-20% of the desktop applications/applets that either don't work well, or don't work at all. Admittedly, we can usually get the latest sources, recompile, etc.. and get things running. This is fun for me, but my daughter (as a user) finds these things to be tedious...although she's not a Microsoft bigot, she's still a part of the Nintendo generation that just wants to slap in a CD, and play...
I see application maturity as the barometer of Linux desktop acceptance...As the applications mature, the desktop penetration will follow.
Lastly, I usually create a user account for my daughter, so she can set up a Backstreet Boys theme, and I don't have to look at it. Unfortunately, it seems like if you don't log in as root, you get a whole lot more application errors. Multi User Mode is great, but not at the expense of application stability.
Just my two cents...
Thanks!
my
How come, with such an intelligent group of people, we haven't realized that to combat the current popular desktop environments we need to properly identify one aspect at a time and dominate it.
What is the goal of the free-software developers?
Are they looking for a better way of getting their jobs done?
Do they want *NIX to become a viable replacement for the public?
I don't know the answer to this, but I don't think anyone else does either. If the community wants to replace Windows with a better OS and a better desktop environment, then why don't we somehow rally around the best availible solution and fix it. Maybe it's StarOffice, maybe KO office, I personally don't care.
I want what most computer users want, applications that do exactly what I want them to do smoothly and elegantly. I want to be able to learn how to use the application to 50% of it's capacatity within 30 minutes of installing it. I want it to play nicely with the existing standards(yes this includes Excel and Word).
What will have to happen for the community to realize that we are better off working together on thousand of people working on one project than having thousands of people working on thousands of projects?
Laugh at my ignorance while I learn Rails - a Real ne
"Dead", for an OS, means that nobody is writing new applications for the OS or supporting new hardware. A dead OS is one that's falling so far behind the forefront of application development that it becomes practically useless.
MSDOS is dead. VMS is probably not dead but may be close in spite of a few yet-unmatched technologies. Mac OS is not, and neither is Linux by a long shot!
What Linux has going for it is easy to underestimate. It's a true community project -- a great development platform because of its freeness. IMHO it has more potential than any other OS because the software and libraries being written today are the building blocks for tomorrow's software, and so on. This cannot happen for proprietary environments like Windows since this level of sharing is not encouraged.
Yeah, I'm one of those many users who has a dual Windows/Linux desktop. My wife and I use Windows for things such as Quicken, Cakewalk, Finale, and games. But I use Linux for everything else - web browsing, ssh, development, analysis, basically everything related to my research work. I don't have a problem with this division! Use the right tool (or OS) for the right job. I use Windows NT with Exceed connecting to Linux+OSF1 at school, but I would much prefer the Linux desktop because it is much more configurable and I feel much more productive. So many of the apps I use are supported naitively in Linux and not Windows. I would say that my own needs are different than the "average user", but there is no such thing really. For myself and a great many others, Linux is not just a viable alternative for a desktop OS, it is the superior one by far! Linux is not dead, but growing and thriving.
What always gets me is the "Help" menu item found in just about every new GUI application, which for most applications only leads to an "About" option. Why bother with the "Help", it's not like anyone will ever write any documentation.
In addition to web, e-mail and tunes users want instant messaging, games, printing capabilities, ability to scan pictures and download pictures from their digital camera. Furthermore, everyone should expect that their $1000 computer has the flexibility to easily add new features like the latest enhanced web browser or instant messaging utility and all the new plug-ins that they can get for it. How easy is it for a user to install ICQ on their Linux machine? What about upgrading their web browser or installing a more recent e-mail program? How about when the user upgrades from dial-up to high speed DSL? How easy is it for the average user to make that upgrade or for the high speed ISP to provide a simple set of instructions on how to do it? The fact is adding new software in a Linux environment is not as simple as under windows and the odds of success is much lower.
You are correct, users want to be able to plug their new USB device in and start using it and they don't want to have to screw around with new drivers. Does Linux do this? If I bring home my brand new USB scanner and plug it in, can I begin scanning hassle free? I thought not. Make it happen and Linux will be one step closer to the desktop.
I run RH 7.1 on my laptop. I bring it to school with me. I'm taking a sci-fi writing class right now and we're in this brand spanking new room in the journalism library. I had booted up Linux earlier and my laptop was sleeping in my bag when someone asked the definition of some word. Remembering a little app in my utilities folder called "GDict" I grabbed my computer from my bag and plugged it in to the RJ-45 jack on the table (high tech classroom). I did a quick network reload and in a matter of seconds I had gotten the definition for the word. People were impressed. They had never seen anything like it. I'd like to see M$ do that, what I did today. Linux on the laptop is not dead, people just don't know about it. GDict is a useful program. Linux distros come with the useful stuff that (I think) are neccessary for a computer on the Internet - FTP, IRC, etc... We can't lament over this stupid article. Linux is so much cooler than anything else out there, and StarOffice isn't that bad either.
Peace.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
Simply put, with all this talk of copy restrictions/cdr access etc etc on the new Windows OS's, I think you can expect a high demand for a OS that lets the user do whatever the hell he damn wants. The day I can't rip mp3s from my cd drive or "backup" my tribes2 cd is the day I switch to linux (i already dualboot linux/win98 but you get the picture)
On my desktop Linux is _very_ alive!
I'm doing all the tasks I used to do on windows, writing letters with kword, managing email with kmail and doing a daily upgrade with apt.
If I wanna check out a new app I just do a simple apt-get. Hell this saves time! I don't have to run to the store and buy a package that would usually flush my system down the toilet.
And of course I don't have to pay for each package (but I would definitely pay a monthly fee for it!).
Thanks to Loki I also can play many high quality games!
And who said Konqueror isn't as usable as the IE ?!
The guy at Linuxplanet really didn't get the point he should start using his propriearity clean and smoothly easy Windows NOW!!! But please stop talking about tings he doesn't really know about.
maybe give VQFs a try
You take 3-4 days to set up a client (of any kind), and moderators mod you up to +4 Informative? Do you have several friends with mod points today or something. Man, if it takes you more than 4 hours you should be fired as a clueless twit!! Moreso, if it takes an additional 10 hrs to get a linux client running.
It's supported on 99.999 % of the hardware out there
Probably 99.999% of the stuff at CompUSA (where you're probably working as a checkout clerk). The rest of us know that the world of computers is comprised of more than what comes from hallowed halls of the WalMart of Computerdom. Besides, try downloading a copy of Mandrake 8.0. I find it a nice replacement for that stack of driver CDs and floppies that you get when you put together a new system.
Wrong!
I submit that Microsoft Word, only one piece of this monstrosity of a... what is it, a program? An OS? A bug? To continue, Word is more complicated to use, more frustrating to learn, and more work to account for all its quirks and failures, than a decent Linux OS in its entirety.
Give me an inquisitive, fresh mind, LaTeX, and a simple text editor, and I'll have him or her creating letters, reports, web pages, pdf documents, and much more in a week.
Give me a fresh mind and MS Office, and maybe I can get them sending me a snail mail letter in that time...maybe.
Linux applications are not more complicated. They are simply not MS applications. And since the better part of our computer-using community here in the US has spent the last decade consuming brain cells with knowledge about how to deal with the Office monstrosity, they have little tolerance for learning something new. How are they expected to know that it won't be as painful this time, and pay off in the end? And lots of them are repressing the memories, so they don't even remember how painful it was to learn Office in the first place. Most likely, this is the case with our original author here.
Funny, my wife insisted that I install Linux to both boxes because she's bloody well tired of the crashes, lockups, lost data, and corruption within the system. I took too long to do the second box (the nice one, that I use for games and she uses for everything) so she set up a dual-boot herself (so I can still play my games).
;-)
I married the perfect woman.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Amusing how the WinFanatics(tm) are so eager to jump into the fray throwing silly insults as they go. I found your pathetic attempt at trolling mildly amusing. My wife concluded that you must be around thirteen years of age. Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
The end. HA! Things take time. Look how long windows has been around and look how long people have been throwing memory/disk at it to make it work right. Everyday my company has to reboot some damn windows box. Everyday netcool alarms appear with windows boxes going down or rebooting or some other error message associated with that "stable" pile of crap they call and operating system. I use ONLY use linux(SuSE to be exact). The problem is this: NO standards for exchance of documents. Meaning, every office suite has its proprietary way of saving a file. A proprietary way of formatting the text. People have to reverse engineer the wind0ws crap, just so they can get it to convert into koffice or StarOffice(which is a bloated pig). Those are just my thoughts. Nothing is dead because an entity is in its early development stages. Atleast when you submit a bug to KDE, the next day or two someone updates the tree. Submit a bug to MacroHard and see how long it takes them to get it fixed.
The Glass is 1/2 Empty Damn it.
Any time anyone declares "the death of" whatever, it's usually not.
Some people will still use linux on their desktops, and some wont. Some people will use windows, and some wont. Hell, some people still are using OS/2.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Who ever said Linux was supposed to be a desktop OS? It sucks when it comes to that realm, but it rocks as a development and server oriented OS.
My linux box serves as a print server for my G4 PowerMac (I won't buy another printer), a private ftp and http server (for web development), and a programming workstation (for my CISE degree classes).
If I want a desktop OS, I'll use my Mac. If I want a server, I'll use my Linux box. Plain and simple.
I first tried Linux 2 years ago when I was getting my CS degree. It was RH 5.2 and it was a nightmare! The setup was confusing. Configuration consisted of editing a multitude of text files. The documentation was just as confusing. And there were very few quality apps for everyday computing tasks. I have since sworn off Linux -- and subsequently gained new interest -- multiple times. I have tried RH 6.2 (which took a huge leap in hardware compatability and ease of setup), Caldera 2.3 and just recently I installed Mandrake 8.0 (which I found is very easy to use). I agree with most people here that Linux is in its infancy when it comes to the desktop. Given time to mature, it could become a great contender. I don't see Windows going away, but maybe Linux on the desktop will force MS to innovate and stop bringing us crap. Then maybe healthy competition will reign and we will all benefit. (I'm I only dreaming?!?)
so can Linux developers! Apple has taken BSD Unix and NeXTSTEP and made it extremely accessible to the great unwashed (those who greatly fear command lines in this case). I have been using it since the beta and while the GUI could use some work in the area of speed and needs a few missing things put into place, it is quite usable for the vast majority of people, Mac or Windows users. I had some friends over this week who were windows/linux users and they had absolutely no trouble with OS X's GUI and in fact they quite liked it. So my point it, why can't Linux do the same? I say they can and will do it. Certainly eventually *someone* will manage to organize a project to make Linux as easy to use as the Mac OS or Windows. It is really only a matter of time and one thing about Linux is that it does seem to evolve a bit more slowly than commercial OS's. However it also doesn't suffer from the bloat and stupid mistakes which result from rushed developement. In the meantime, it may even be benefitial to some people to have to fight with getting it set up. One friend who was a complete dolt at computers fought and fought with Linux and finally got it set up as he liked it and now uses is 90% of the time as his desktop OS. Because of his ordeal, he is no longer a computer dolt having learned so much in the process of getting Linux running.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Dead? The Linux desktop is already more advanced than the traditional UNIX desktop! Why do you think that Sun and HP are going to include GNOME into thier next major OS release... Can you really call CDE a quality Desktop interface? It was better than the rest, but it still sucks...
Hello Everyone,
I'm replying to this msg. from RH Linux 7.1 with the KDE2 desktop. I just installed it this evening and from begining to end it took less than 45 minutes to send my first e-mail.
The problem with Linux is not the OS itself it's in the apps, or lack of, that that have been ported to it. Linux, as far as OS's go, is an extreemly stable and snappy operating system.
I submit that when effective converters are written for office documents more people will see what I and many others see.
Namely: "What protection error???" & "What blue screen of death???"
PS. Who here thinks, as I do, that it's time for revolution when just to install an OS you have to register with big Bill?
"Annie. Get your gun."