Slashdot Mirror
Bob Young says Linux won't rule the desktop
Wee writes "I just came across this interesting Yahoo interview with Bob Young
in which he says that Linux won't rule the desktop but will instead focus on replacing legacy Unix systems and enhancing Linux's embedded presence. He makes some pretty good points. The oddest quote: "So our opportunity is not to replace Microsoft on the PC. If you've got a perfectly good working PC, why you would go through the angst of replacing it?". Not sure where to start answering that one. My wife (a dedicated Win32 user) liked his car analogy. I need to get her to read 'In the Beginning was the Command Line'..."
yet...
Wait, the author is pointing out the fact that the average mainstream user doesn't want to work harder or relearn PC tasks and GUI's?
Friggin' astonishingly original viewpoint.
------
Today's Top Deals
I don't think one of the primary goals of Linux should be to replace Windows on the Desktop, but rather to offer an alternative Operating System to individuals and corporations who can't (or don't want to) afford the licensing fees and the cost of upgrades.
~.Evanrude
Complacency leads to regression. If we aren't always striving to make things better, everything will deteriorate. With a strong Linux desktop push, the price of competing software (Windows and MacOS) will drop, features will increase, and everyone will be better off.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Desktop is dead. Microsoft owns it and even they are seeing their sales growth slowing.
The future is in the palm of our hands, literally. Small devices are going to be the key to explosive sales in the coming decade. And who is positioned well here?
WindRiver (though talking to an engineer from a company who did business with them, they have LOUSY developer support)
Redhat (it doesn't hurt to be the leading Linux provider in the world)
FSMLabs (creators of RTLinux. Even if they aren't the integrators, they are poised to be exceptional support)
Microsoft (you didn't think the giant was sleeping, did you?)
Maybe it's the Life of Brian... Yeah, where the mobs of people where following him around, claiming that silly and sensible things he would say where completely something else, in the end not listening to reason? Well.. sounds like the linux community.
hehe, RMS could play the guy who sits in the pit for silence. Well, at least with looks.
Contrary to popular belief (at least here), Linux is just not ready for the everyday person's desktop. While it's true that it is getting there, why not focus on it's strengths, and let Linux grow as an OS where it fits in and is accepted?
Windows works. It may not be perfect, but it gets the job done, especially when the job is pure entertainment. That's why I have a computer at home, and I bet that's why a large majority of home computers are bought. I also have a linux partition on there, but I haven't booted into linux in over a year. I simply have no need for it, and everything I use my computer for can be done without problems under windows.
-Space for rent
But I have one too. Everyone thinks different things for Linux. *I* don't think that one person has any say in what should be done.
Sent from your iPad.
The problem that any number of underdog OS's have these days is overcoming consumer inertia. What I mean by that statement is this: once a set of products has hit a certain point and gains consumer acceptance, it is very hard to change the direction that that market is going. Microsoft has done this again and again with both its operating systems and its application suites, both of which are very closely tied together and tend to pull each other along.
What Young is doing is trying to get Red Hat into those markets where there either isn't consumer inertia toward a product or where the market is unsettled. If he can gain acceptance, then his end goal (making money through pushing Linux) is achieved. All in all it is a pretty smart move.
What Linux needs in general is a robust set of applications that consumers can use transparently with Microsoft products. If attractively priced, this could conceivably pull users to the OS, especially in light of Microsofts new licensing trends.
2 more cents down the drain...
Hmmm...
And one of them raises his hand and says "But, I just don't like this. can I have something different?"
The answer would be no, wouldn't it? Wouldn't that suck as much as the current microsoftopoly?
I don't care if my officemates or my parents or my wife runs Linux. I want the choice to run Linux (and continue to interact with them). I want Linux to be allowed by Microsoft to generate a reasonable enough market share that software vendors work with us, produce drivers, etc.. That's it. I'm not interested in replacing one monopoly with another one.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
They should create desktops that "just happen" to use a linux kernel.
Linux is a fine desktop replacement, no worse than Windows or MacOSX. If someone wanted to take on those systems, they needed figure out how to bundle Linux with hardware, attract more developers, and market it. But that isn't even the question.
The real question is: after companies like RedHat have extracted much of the value of Linux and other open source software, where are they going to go? What is their vision for the future? "Replacing X with open source software that magically appears" isn't the answer.
In fact, I doubt that in another 10-20 years, we will even have desktops in the traditional sense, and embedded devices will look very different as well. What kind of vision does Young have for that? Not much, it seems.
Of course, free upgrades for Free software isn't an issue, either. I mean, nobody else does it.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Linux won't rule the desktop
Gee, I don't know how anyone can say that. Between the consistent user interface, the ease of setting up printing, and the huge game library, Linux is a cinch to take over the desktop computers of the world.
*crickets*
--saint
(I'm just bitter -- still trying to set up CUPS.)
Come on, what do you expect him to say?
"Hey, Microsoft, over here! Point all your fire power at us!! We're trying to steal your cash cow!"
I would like to be able to quote an ancient Chinese saying at this point, but I can't remember any, so I'll make one up: "The stupid young stag challenges the dominant male at every opportunity, and gets his young antlers broken. The wise young stag waits until his antlers are strong, and knows he can win." Whatever.
Despite the progress made by people like Ximian, there is just way to much stuff in the way of new users trying to get familiar with Linux.
Even in something very recent (RH 7.2) I still find the following problems:
And let me clarify, I don't mean that it is not possible for Linux to do these things, only that it is not intuitive for a new user to do so.
Now there are certainly those who would argue that they prefer the system not do so much on their behalf, I agree, which is why there should be a toggle - both the new and advanced user can be satisfied! Right now, they are not.
No, Bob is absolutely right. I will say this again and again and again, but no one seems to be listening:
The desktop wars are over. Move on to the next thing.
So Microsoft has won the "desktop" wars. So what? Do you really think that in 5-10 years, people are still going to be using bulky beige boxes to connect to the Internet? No, they are going to be using everything from home entertainment consoles to cell phones to PDAs.
Some of you may remember the days when a "personal" computer was a joke. "Computers" were those giant hulking things that took up an entire room and required their own cooling system. As Bob says, "Microsoft did not convince people to unplug VMS from their Digital VAX systems in 1979. They took advantage of a major shift in technology toward the PC, and they became the de facto standard on the new technology model, being the PC."
The shift in technology now is smaller, faster, wireless, and pervasive. The idea of 'turning on' a computer to 'use the Internet' will become old-fashioned more quickly than you can imagine. By the time a majority of people think that Linux will be ready to rule the PC world, PCs will be the passe way to connect to the Internet. Microsoft is already expanding in this field with the XBox and the tablet PC (which, IMHO, is a natural evolution of the computer.) Anything that is wireless is huge right now.
This whole desktop war is silly. Linux is its best when people don't even know or care what OS their products are running. Look at TiVo. Do I care that it runs Linux? Nope, because it works flawlessly and doesn't require me to know arcane command line tools. TiVo rocks not because it's Linux, but because it does its job and does it well. That's the problem I have with Linux zealots -- they want Linux regardless of whether Linux fits the job or not.
Why is it necessary to force people to relearn something? Instead of parroting Microsoft, let's be innovative. Let's put Linux into the greatest, coolest new devices (TiVo, PDAs, cellphones.) Let's look at where the market will be in 5 years instead of being hyper-focused on beating Microsoft today. Otherwise, Microsoft and the rest of the world will move on, and Linux will be left behind.
(More about this in my journal.)
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Think about that for a minute before you answer. Think about where desktop computing is and where it's going before you answer.
Today's desktops are stressing ease of use and wide application arrays more than anything else. Stability is in there somewhere, but MS has gotten pretty darn good with Win2K and XP, especially if you stick to their office suites.
Linux is NOT easy to use. Sure, it may be easy for US to use, but imagine a secretary, an HR guy, or (God forbid) the boss trying to use it on a daily basis. Give them XWindows and they'll be somewhat happy, but even the best XWindows setup pales in comparison the features and eye candy you'll find on Win2k and XP. And before you belittle that, remember who the end user is. You and I may not care for it, but the vast unwashed masses out there DO. They will demand it, and they don't give two damns about how configurable your window manager is. They want a box that's pretty and functional. Linux does not currently fit that mold very well.
What does Linux do well? It's an awesome server. It stays up longer than Ron Jeremy and Peter North combined, and a competent admin can tweak and tune it all over the place for practically anything. Trying to force that into the desktop market is the classical definition of fitting a nice, sleek roung peg into a very square hole.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Linux may one day dominate the desktop, but it will not much resemble the Linux we know today. Do we really want that? I'd love to see Linux succeed and trounce MS, but I don't want it to compromise the core principals that make it so good today.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I hate it when journalists do this crap.
Bob Young says:
So our opportunity is not to replace Microsoft on the PC.
ZDNet reporter Matthew Broersma says:
Red Hat chairman Bob Young says Windows will continue to rule the desktop!
What a crock! That is NOT what Bob Young said. He said that they have an opportunity to expand their business in new directions. Directions that will be of more benifit to RedHat and their customers then "the desktop".
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
Bob Young continues to demonstrate a good grasp of the market, and the position linux can best dominate in it. Red Hat has been distinguished by better management (from what we can see) than the other linux companies so far, and Young's ability to move to the market instead of the hype is setting Red Hat apart.
Yeah, sure, I don't see Red Hat Linux ruling the desktop. I installed one not so long ago as a development platform, simply because that's the standard in that company. But truth is, for the desktop, it's crap wehen you compare directly to SuSE. Mandrake is supposedly also excellent on the desktop, just as some of the other distros. My SuSE 7.3 rocks for the desktop, and it's way easier to install than, say, W2K.
Don't go saying Linux is not ready for the desktop when you just know Red Hat or Debian or LFS or so. There are distros out there that _are_ ready. Just go and test them.
N.b. I'm not debunking Debian etc - I love those, but not for the desktop. (Running SuSE, Debian, Red Hat, have tried Mandrake and others.)
Linux does not, and probably will never, focus on anything.. that's what makes it interesting.
No.
Example: install Ximian Gnome, which supposedly represents the 'friendliest' Linux GUI.
Now try right-clicking on a compressed .tar or .tgz file. You'll notice there is no option to decompress such files.
These are very common in Linux land, you'll need to decompress them all the time.
If you use Ximian Gnome and need to decompress that file, you'll need to hop out to the command line and issue a command. If you're new, you'll also have to read the help to learn the appropriate arguments.
That is not user friendly.
Bob Young doesn't say Linux won't be on the desktop, he just says that it won't directly displace Windows. I believe the jist of his argument is that Linux will become more important and Windows will become less relevant as users move away from the traditional desktop and towards the internet... Providing that .NET doesn't win. If .NET wins, then the battle is over, and user choice and value will be the losers.
1) The desktop war is only won when everybody has stopped fighting it. Prior to that time, claims of victory from any side is premature.
2) When Windows becomes so proprietary and expensive to develop for, deploy and own, and when Linux remains cheap and open, we might find a critical shift in applications development.
Right now the factor is who is willing to buy commercial software for Linux. It already has an edge in development, but lacks some necessary catalysts to start the transition.
So while I agree that Linux may not rule the desktop any time in the near future, I wouldn't say that it still isn't a possibility for the long term.
Red Hat has given up on the desktop.
That may be smart business, and it may be a lost cause. It is certainly the reason Red Hat is just an average desktop among Linux distributions.
SuSE is better, Mandrake is better, the new desktop focused Lycoris and Elx are better.
I like what Red Hat has done for Linux, and if they want to stay in the server space, I wish them luck.
Someone else will fight on the desktop and I'll be fighting with them.
At work, I wouldn't have access to Excel or Photoshop without hassling management for licenses, either. As a programmer who deals with the web, minor needs for software that fulfills these tasks come up.
Bob Young wasn't talking about me. Let's not confuse having the best software possible with market dominance.
Does Windows XP come with a a zip program pre-installed? I know 98SE and NT don't -- I've got to download one from somewhere and install it before I do diddly-squat with a compressed .zip file. And I've got to do that all the time...
Yes, I do think compress/decompress should be built right into the OS. Compressed folders should be transparent to file-management tools -- that is, when you download a zip or tarball containing multiple compressed files to your hard drive, it should look like a directory, the files contained should be listed just like a directory, and the same commands should move files in and out. But no OS that I know of is actually there yet, and if Linux distros include a command-line program that decompresses standard compressed files, that's better than Windows.
OTOH, I can download (nearly) free GUI compress/decompress tools for Windows, even if the OS integration is not as good as I could imagine. Do such tools exist for Linux? And if they do exist, why in hell aren't they in the standard distros?
Now try right-clicking on a compressed
Well, I'm not sure Gnome qualifies as the friendliest. There are a number of things KDE does better, and this is one of them. In konq, you can right click on a compressed file and either uncompress it right there or open it in Archiver and uncompress it anywhere you want.
And yes, XP does now have unzip capabilities built in, as well as the cd burning software.
Not to get to OT, but another problem I had with Nautilus was that if you opened up a directory with a lot of pictures in it, it would eventually throw up its hands and say there were too many files to read. KDE never did that.
I know you're a troll, but.... Is the Linux community so shallow that when someone speaks what they believe is the truth, they would shun them? I thought the OS movement was about what is true and just, but from what I've seen on /. lately I'm beginning to doubt it.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
I personally like Linux the way it is. To rule the desktop it would have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It would need to have a standardized interface. This defeats the reasons we run linux. We don't all want a vanilla operating system with Internet Explorer integrated when we are running Netscape or whatever. To beat Microsoft the Linux community would have to change in ways that would not be good for the community as a whole.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Where do people go to get support for Linux? The user forums? Those are all populated with two types of people: the newbies trying to get help, and the uber-geeks that look down at the newbs and loose interest half way through a fix to a problem.
How can people find out what is installed and where is it on their computer? There are ways to do this, but no one has made it easy.
What about uninstalling those programs?
Until the ease of use issue is dealt with, Linux won't rule the desktop.
Time to throw a little karma to the wind.
I don't understand why everyone complicates this so much. If you want to capture the desktop market, then you have to cater to what the desktop market wants. That can be summed up in three words: Easy To Use. Here are a few examples of things that aren't easy to use:
- So many configuration options that you don't know where to start, and need a year's education to finish
- A selection of desktop environments, each with a corp of zealots telling you that theirs is better
- A broad base of information that you have to (a) go out and find on the internet, and (b)search through to find your answers.
- Installations with prerequisites that you have to figure out how to find and install yourself
- User account management
- Video, sound, and network card installations that require you to know the model of your card.
If you're attempting to create an operating system with a broad selection of options, you should remember to include the option to not have to mess with these little details.
Unfortunately, this requires the programmers to figure a few things out for the user, and most of us just don't want to do that. Somehow we're always surprised to find out that the user doesn't want to do our work for us.
Mythological Beast
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
...the International Space Station drifts helplessly, out of communication with the ground, with power draining away - because the computers crashed. Some so-called 'desktop' uses really are mission critical.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Do you really think that in 5-10 years, people are still going to be using bulky beige boxes to connect to the Internet?
How many times have we heard the "PC is dying" routine?" For the past 10 years, we have seen multiple occasions where the PC was on it's deathbed, but yet it still exists today. Hell, by now I was suppose to be running a network computer, using office via my web browser, and getting all my content from "PUSH technology." I do agree that there will be many different ways to connect to the Internet, but the PC is here to stay. The more Internet devices we acquire, the more we will need a PC to manage these devices.
Remember the old quotation from Ghandy...
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
On the server side of things they are on the "they fight at you" stage.
On the client, they are at the "They laugh at you", but that is _second_ stage. Considering that focus on the desktop came after focus on the server that is good enough for me. Actually, the relevance of this arguments about the linux desktop is that MS is starting to see scenarios where they stop laughing and start fighting coming closer. Otherwise it wouldn't be news.
I was running Windows as my primary desktop and Linux as my secondary until three months ago. Now it is the opposite. I have got vcl (www.videolan.org) for dvd viewing and xine (xine.sourceforge.net) for all the other video formats. Mozilla for the web. Kmail for mail. Open Office for those nasty MS office files you get sent. And I play wolfenstein (my preferred game) and all of Id games and a lot of free ones on Linux. I use kinkatta and jabber fot instant messaging.
The packaging systems are improving, so I only have to use urpmi against a ftp server everytime I need something.
And kde is getting better and better.
So basically, Linux can do almost all that Windows will do and I get control, and source code, and no crappy restrictions on things like givving applications to my friends, activation, content rights management, etc.
In fact, it is much better value. And I think a lot of people thinks the same way.
That from a home user point of view. If you look at goverment needs, where they can save so many $$$ by not having to pay and audit licences, and use open data formats, Linux has a lot of scope there as well (see korean, chinese, german, french and UK goverments at different stages of linux use on the desktop).
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
That car example is a blatant rip off of the opening paragraph on my paper on Intellectual Property in schools. I wonder if he read the paper, or we just think alike :) I wrote this paper 3 years ago. http://www.thestuph.com/ip.html. The paper has over 40 errors (grammatical and otherwise) that have been pointed out that I have yet to fix. I apologize :)
Jeff Knox
The battle is won, but not the war by any means.
.Net and Microsoft. As long as I know my competitors are sending money to Redmond, I know when times get bad, thier customers...
You are obviously not aware of the poor bastards in our faultering economy that have to deal with the license or upgrade taxes from Microsoft.
IT managers had a taste this year of a slow economy, and when things are bad, the Microsoft tax treadmill on say, 200-300 desktops is a significant piece of money employers would like to use to pay raises, bonuses, health insurance and business opportunities to expand upon. Which, I would like to note, their competitors can't if they have to ship that money to Microsoft.
My entire company in fact, BETS that my competitors will buy into
WILL BE MY CUSTOMERS.
The desktop battle, was won by Microsoft, true, but anyone who says the war is over has never worked in a all IT Microsoft shop in a bad business climate.
The server room battle is now going on, and Linux is winning this battle. Once Linux is firmly entrenched in the enterprise server room...
THEN we will turn our expertise and knowledge and better value all around, towards the desktop.
Uncle Bill and Stevey boy are going to wake up one day and find themselves in a world dominated by Java virtual machines that run everywhere and typically more than not, servers, pda's, cell phones, etc are also running some form of Linux underneath them.
It is already happening.
Those companies that refuse to follow suit will not be able to stay in business against those companies who adopt open source technologies and processes.
Ultimately the new business model for IT is based around people and not hardware or software like it has been for the past 10 years. That is what open source is about.
People/technology not a gadget or a widget.
It is comming, be ready for it.
-hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
The problem that I saw with all the linux hardware vendors, is that they failed to take advantage of Linux' primary competitive advantage over Windows: Cost.
every vendor I looked at (VA, Penguin etc..) tried to break in to the market with high end preconfigured with everything under the sun systems.
what they should have done, is build bottom of the market systems aimed at newbies, with the cheapest possible hardware spec (think packard bell, or compaq presario) and load them up with a cleanly configured kde or gnome desktop,
but - dont put EVERY PIECE OF FREE SOFTWARE IN THE WORLD (tm) on them, but instead cherry-pick, put the best e-mail (but only one) the best browser (but only one) the best office suite (but only one) etc etc, and have them configured properly.
then sell this machine, equivalent in hw & sw to a presario with xp, office, a games pack and an applications bundle, and visualStudio FOR A LOT LESS THAN THE EQUIVALENT MICROSOFT LOADED COMPUTER.
selling high end pre-configured linux boxes is not the way to go, because the people who want one of those, would rather build their own.
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
Have you seen the XP ads? I noticed that Windows is advertised more as an entertainment OS where you can view pics, copy digial pictures, play games, record and play movies, listen to music, scan pics, chat and have fun.
Once a Linux distribution can easily do those things without extra installation/configuration; it'll win the desktop.
You could just buy hot swappable hardware, and test software patches on an identical copy of the machine first, like anyone who's ever worked in IT maintaining mission-critical systems already knows.
Two big servers and a ton of thin clients is still cheaper to buy (except perhaps for small companies) and cheaper to support than hundreds of Windows desktops.
Red Hat won't probably ever be in the desktop, because it is hard to manage with its rpm system. But once it's ready with a nice installer and a good selection of polished packages, with a manageable system there's no reason why IT departments wouldn't love to deploy GNU/Linux... and once people get used to it in the work, the home market is a given.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
It's clearly far superior to win95. Unless you don't count "doesn't crash" as a usability improvement.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
/.
Funny, my Ximian Gnome installation unzips files with no problem. I'm not aware of having done anything special with it, but it handles zip, bzip2, gzip, and tarred gzip - the last three MSwindows doesn't, of course. Are you sure your problem is not in your choice of installation options? I find the default installation of Windows, for example, to be lacking things I use constantly - so I do the "custom install" just like I do on any other OS.
As for "user friendliness", well, I've never seen a user friendly graphical environment - they all restrict the user and cause physical distress to the body. How exactly is "mouser's elbow" to be considered "friendly"? Not that carpal tunnel is any improvement... chord keyboards mounted on the sides of the seat might be worth trying.
Also, I'm curious as to why you think Ximian is any better than any other X environment... Ximian is primarily a laudable but unfinished attempt to co-opt the MSwindows "look and feel".
--Charlie
PS: Miguel rules.
--C
The real place Linux needs to be on the desktop is in organizations that revolve around Unix.
_ __
I am not talking about the secretaries and the suits. Too many times I have seen programmers and even sysadmins fire up Windoze and then spend the rest of the day inside of a telnet window.
Linux distro folks are missing out on selling Linux to the world of Unix hacks whose organizations simply cannot afford a fleet of Unix workstations. Yes, I know the Sunblades are only $999 but Sun seems uninterested in advertising this fact and most IT orgs already have plenty of PCs so the cost of conversion is nothing.
The last place I worked the corporate IT side told engineering after much bitchin' and moaning that they could use Linux but they would get no support. All the folks programming for the web stuff and the complete systems engineering group went to RedHat.
Right now, I work for an organization about to move both software and systems engineering to SuSE linux the hold up being corporate buy-in.
You might not think this market is that large but think really hard about it. There are many IT groups that use Unix as their primary Server OS. Within those organizations they have many developers and admins who work primarily in those *Nix environments. If there was no market for these groups then companies like Exceed would have died years ago.
_______________________________________________
ACK
They certainly don't comprise the majority of UNIX installations, but there are many cases where UNIX is used on the desktop to run "workstation" desktop apps. Examples include many engineering environments (particularly IC design, which is where I work), 3D animation for movies, many scientific and research environments, some high-end CAD environments, etc.
Linux is finally starting to move into some of these areas as older UNIX workstation hardware becomes obsolete and in need of replacement. In IC design, for example, many industry leading front-end tools are now available for Linux. Some of these areas, like 3D movie effects, have generated a fair amount of press recently.
Linux may never rule the traditional PC desktop, but it will gain a foothold in the handful of desktop environments currently occupied by legacy UNIX.
1) Microsoft Operating Systems and products must have copy protection schemes that prevent them from being pirated (heading that way with the release of XP)
2) Microsoft products and Operating Systems can't have "must-have" features that Linux and Open Source alteratives don't offer. I can get by today without ever using Windows and Windows software, as long as that trend continues the possibility of replacing Windows with Linux on everyone's desktop is alive and well (I've already replaced Windows on my desktop)
3) OEM can't continue to ship copies of Microsoft Operating Systems and products with their PC's. This is probably the hardest one to overcome, and I dare say is almost impossible to overcome. Even with some companies offering Linux as an installed option, it is dreadfully difficult to have an average user ask for Linux over Windows when 96% of the PC's they see have Windows on them
4) Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot. I'll give them credit that they have great marketing and a strong hold on the market. The one thing that will truely help Linux is Microsoft hurting themselves.
--It's Pimptastic!--
I do wish it had some decent ones- I tried the Corel suite and found it endlessly irritating (damn unstable.)
But Blackbox is beautiful. I mean, I do things. They happen. I don't use the whole heavy-ass GNOME/KDE lumps, just the bits I need for applications. (though I did have an Enlightenment thing going on for a while.) It's the most responsive desktop I've ever used (except for Be, gods rest its soul.)
Just wish I could do more with it, graphics-wise.
Well, that and lack of Ultima Online. But I can really reboot for that.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
A week ago I installed Mandrake 8.1 on the computer of a friend of mine and his wife. They are complete newbies as far as computers are concerned. After showing them where the browser and the mail program was and setting up their ISP account I turned them loose. They have been happily pointing and clicking with NO problems ever since. They agree that Linux is the best thing since the invention of beer.
Whovever says we're not ready for the desktop has their head stuck where the sun don't shine.
Here's a timeline:
- Mid-nineties: critics - Linux will never succeed in the marketplace server or desktop, it will only be used by hackers;
- Mid-nineties: Linus - we are pushing mainly for server functinality right now;
Result: late nineties: Linux starts to replace where Netwares and NTs have ruled before becoming the fastest growing server OS still only second to NT market share; also displaces different Unices, gets IBM support and is on the way to gain foothold on mainframes.- Late nineties and afterwards: ctirics - Linux is a viable server platform, but it won't be able to do any damage on the desktop
- Late nineties and afterwards: Linus - the OS is "good enough" for server for now, we'll push desktop
Result: [enter your prediction based on the precedent]It's true that Linux will likely never dominate the desktop market. I see a lot of responses varying from this sort of reality would mean the end of Linux, or otherwise, if we accept it, then why bother with desktop oriented packages (i.e. Gnome and KDE).
However, for my, as well as a lot of computer savvy people, not so much the common users, purposes, Gnome and KDE have a lot to offer for us. *Our* desktops can be Linux based and we want our desktop OS to be just as functional. Just because it will never be able to offer the same market that MS can offer, doesn't mean that the desktop market is pointless. Take for example the process of building your our computer. The average person wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole, they would rather go down and get the whole package ready to go. However, some people recognize they can get better deals/better control by building it themselves, carefully examining and selecting each component for just the right end result. There are businesses that thrive by catering to this minority. Linux is in the same sort of category. Though never quite dominant, there is still enough of an interested market to support enough companies on the desktop to provide the most interesting features. And what companies refuse to bring, open source developers will eventually provide, even if it is slow, simply to make their system nicer.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
And you believe that .NET will allow you to do this on anything but a win32/64 platform? Some .NET functionality may exist on other platforms, but the API will be closed and only available to Windows (and possibly Mac) users, and therefore no more cross-platform than win32.
The reason Microsoft is doing this is to allow quicker migration from older platforms, to avoid the fiasco of trying to merge the Win9x/NT codebases, which is a good thing from the point of view of Microsoft and their users, but is largely irrelevant to those of us that don't want to use Windows for whatever reason.
Java already fills the niche for cross-platform apps, .NET is just a way for Microsoft to more quickly abandon its mistakes without having to lose compatibility. And before the many Java-haters start banging on about Java being slow, do you think a .NET app would be any faster? Only marginally at best.
OK, so maybe RH for the home user isn't on the way out like the articly implies, but personally I'm not sad to see it go. Mandrake is a much more home user oriented system, and if you install it in expert mode it's just as configurable as any distro. It also comes with recent versions of most of the packages, and if you tell it not to install something IT JUST DOESN'T (can you tell I've had problems with the Red Hat install?) The best thing: Mandrake's LILO. Try it out, it kicks ass. For those of us who are still bound to M$ unwillingly, Mandrake's LILO makes having a dual boot system extremely easy. Anyway, I think it's great that RH is pushing Linux to one day be dominant "on the internet," but I still think that home users will like the idea of totally free and customizable software, and it's my opinion that Mandrake is leading the way in that market.
~ now you know
Ok, i've said it a few times on slashdot already, and i'll say it again. Get the right tools for the right job. if you're griping about a file manager that allows you to right click on a file with an extension and then perform an operation on it, then download the best filemanager ever, emelfm. You can do everything with this that you can do with explorer and so much more. Christ, stop comparing functions in linux to those in windows, if you have not spent a couple of minutes searching for the tools.
I hated the lobotomized Windows explorer when I actually had Win installed on one of my boxes, and had to replace it with some third party software that I cannot remember the name of now because it was so long ago -- maybe powerdesk or something like that.
Anyway, the point is, that linux can be as friendly as or as esoteric as *you* want it to be. Not like that shite windows, where everything is made for the lowest common denominator -- the dumbass.
And you make it sound as though dropping into a shell is a bad thing. What's wrong with the shell? Don't you want your kids to learn to type fast? And with word completion in almost all of the shells typing commands is downright simple!
edit your profile with the following:
alias packup "tar -czvf"
alias unpack "tar -xzvf"
Except for some hokey city in Florida that used to be a HP-UX shop for some reason, a few cheapo small businesses and some enthusiasts, nobody runs Linux as a desktop.
Noboday, huh? Not, say, Brazil? Or China? Or numerous other countries that happen to not be The One Great America(tm)? Guess again.
Either your head has been in the sand the last year and a half, or you are incredibly ethnocentric. Either way, as an American I find your comments emberrassing to say the least.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
- Maybe you're sick of rebooting frequently.
- Maybe you're sick of the upgrade cycle.
- Maybe you're sick of the EULA BS.
- Maybe you're sick of paying for the privelege of not owning your software.
- In short, maybe it's not, in fact, "pefectly good".
Yeah, it's a bit of a pain to switch over, and yeah, there's a bit of a learning curve. But my next PC will definitely be running a free/Free OS of some sort. To hell with MSFT (unless they suddenly decide to develop their own distro, but probably not even then).You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
One aspect of freedom is choice -- in this case, a choice of applications, a choice of tools, a choice of where your money goes. And just because Linux works well for many applications -- even on the desktop -- does not mean that Windows is *never* a good choice.
I'll lay out some cases in point from my own collection of computers.
My home has more computers than people now -- and in terms of installations, Linux is running about even with Windows. Of my three machines, two are Linux boxes (including my dual-processor IBM workstation and the Toshiba laptop), while the third is a high-end Windows 2000 box. I use the Linux workstations for software development, research, newsgroups, and simulation work, with my e-mail, word processing, and gaming on the Win2K system. It works beautifully; I don't have any hassles when clients and family send me Word files or PowerPoint presentations; why go through the effort of making such things work under Linux when I can have a Windows box at hand? On the flipside, the Linux workstation has vastly improved my coding environment, giving me scientific and exploratory applications Windows can't match. As for the laptop -- well, it ended up running Linux for strange reasons, and I now find it useful to have a portable penguin system.
My wife runs Windows 2K on her rather basic system. She spends her life in e-mail with organizations and companies that are Windows-only; if the Red Cross sends her a disaster plan as a Powerpoint presentation, she can just run it using... uh, Powerpoint. She also games like the rest of the family. I never was fond of emulators (including Wine) -- if you need Windows, why not just use Windows? Good lord, that's like doing all your "Linux" development under Cygwin... (no insult to Cygwin, of course; great product, but not a "real" Unix).
As for my daughters -- the 6 and 11 year-olds share a Windows 98 Pentium 133 that does nothing but play their education titles. No point to Linux there.
The eldest daughter runs a dual-boot system, playing games and learning Photoshop and 3DStudio under Windows while experimenting with Python, Gimp, and 3D rendering with Linux.
Okay, I understand and sympathize with the desire to rid the world of Windows; some days, the Microsoft monopoly makes me want to wipe Windows from all of my systems. I've howled invectives in the direction of Redmond... but then again, I taught my kids some new language this week while trying to get a damned onboard SCSI card working with the latest Linux kernels. Damned aic7xxx driver...
Nothing is perfect; nothing is absolute. Religious zealotry -- of the RMS variety -- turns me off, because I know that brains turn off when beliefs take precedence over rationality. It's not that I disagree with RMS so much as I find his attitude grating and disturbing. Free and open software is taking over my home without excessive conflict; we're doing it when and where it works, and not to win some ideological war.
Freedom is about choice -- if the Linux advocates truly believe in choice, they'll stop attacking those who choose Windows. Make Linux the best it can be, and stop worrying about what Microsoft is doing.
All about me
I use Linux for my desktop (all of my desktops) every day, day in and day out. Will that be the norm anytime soon? Perhaps not. Microsoft has done a very good job of locking competition out of the OEM and reseller sector.
But I would ask the question of where will the "desktop" be in a few years? I'm not sure most of us will be using desktops per se. I think computing is going to go more and more "into the walls."
Aside: The only reason the "netPC" didn't happen is the PC became the netPC (by getting below the $500 price point for a reasonable machine).
If Young's prediction is borne out, it will be because of marketing, not because of merit. People are now mistaking "familiar" for "good." He's probably right that that will continue...
At this point, I don't doubt he'll say anything, wether he believes it or not, to make Red Hat's position look stronger.
So much for a once great guy with a great OS.
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
It's just picky about its friends
Karma whorin' since 1999
As long as there is no main stream applications for Linux OS the windows will rule
by mainstream apps I don't mean word processors, spreadsheets, presentation etc
What I mean is accounting applications for small business, proprietary database applications
I work in a small accounting office and would like to make the change however spreadsheets, word processors just don't cut it
I need Accounting apps (Accpac, Simply Accounting, Quick Books etc.), I need information databases (CCH, Carswells) I need tax apps (Taxprep, Taxbyte) and many many more that are only made for proprietary OSes
Till those are available on the store shelves from all the major vendors Linux will never take off in small businesses
You would switch away from Windows for these reasons:
1) You don't want to be on the upgrade treadmill, in which you pay money to Microsoft every year, and continue to get software that needs more upgrades. One upgrade at $180 may be acceptable, but $180 per year amounts to $1,800 in ten years.
2) You don't want an operating system with a single point of failure: the registry. The registry is a primitive database that is, in practice, not maintainable. If something goes wrong, the suggested fix (from Microsoft) has been to re-load the operating system and all your programs and configurations and driver upgrades.
3) You are worried that some of the security risks of Windows were deliberately put there for surveillance, by order of the U.S. government. It puzzles you that the United States Department of Justice case is being settled with little or no penalty to Microsoft. Would the U.S. government do something this sneaky? Here are links to 600 pages of articles that say yes: What should be the Response to Violence?
4) You want the flexibility that comes from owning the source code. You may never use the source code, but if you have a big company, and you find some kind of problem, having the source code may be the answer. For example, if there is a bug in a driver for 1,000 pieces of equipment you own, and the manufacturer won't fix it soon enough for you, you can fix it yourself.
5) You want to avoid invasions of business privacy forced on you by Microsoft. Microsoft is requiring that the location and owner of each copy of its XP operating system be disclosed to Microsoft.
Bush's education improvements were
He is saying something that 1. isn't exactly what he is doing, 2. what can be interpreted by journalists and PHBs (certainly was interpreted by Slashdot editors and hordes of local trolls) in a way that he is not expecting Linux to be used on a desktop at all. If he wants to clearly explain that he sees desktop as a "territory" that a system has to hold to keep Microsoft from taking over everything else, he MUST SAY SO EXACTLY IN THOSE WORDS. If he want to say that he does not want to play "monopoly takes all" game on a desktop he should better just keep this to himself because the mentality of the public who learned to look at Microsoft with dollar-sign shaped eyes is not ready to accept such an idea yet.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Personally, I dispise Microsoft - and have a general loathing for Windows. However - "one desktop to rule them all" isn't a good idea no matter who is ruling it. If Linux was king of the desktop, some things would be different - but there would still be problems. Being that Microsoft will have to slow down core development (lest they kill the market entirely) Linux, MacOS, and all the boys will be able to reverse engineer the technology to their own needs. My hope is that nobody ever rule over the desktop entirely - but that they invent separately - so that all would benefit.
Oh well
I'm really tired of people that claim they are some sort of expert or
another telling me what I want or don't want.
I want linux on the Desk top and as far as I can tell it got a hell of
a better user and use base going on than any other OS right now. Imagine
when Linux finally makes it to the desk top (in the way people think it
should - beside MS cronnies that can't ever see it as a viable desk top
OS)... When linux does make it to the desk top it wil be in a position
with such a broad standard in application or usage that it will be far
more solid than any other OS.
Then Again, If the Hurd group ever figures out the "Solid Core" and
automate user production of custom servers... There will already be the
GNU software base most preceive as Linux (Linux is just the kernel!!!)
So yeah!, Maybe Linux won't make it to the Desk top as others preceive.
BUT GNU WILL MAKE IT, One way or the other!!!
MS cronnies are out in force! Aren't they!?
"Now try right-clicking on a compressed .tar or .tgz file. You'll notice there is no option to decompress such files."
Hmm, I just opened a standard filemanager window of Gnome (FYI: the program is called Nautilus), right-clicked, and it gave me the option to open it in 'guiTAR', which shows me the contents, allows to extract, etc, with simple clicks. That's just about the same thing that WinZIP gives you on Windows after you first find, download, install, and pay for it.
And when I don't like guiTAR, and select "Other Viewer", it tells me I can set viewers system-wide in the Gnome Control Center under the "File Types and Programs" section. And wo and behold, the Gnome Control Center is not hidden under a "Start" button, but directly under the "Settings" menu on the top panel.
Direct, intuitive, aka user friendly, and leaving me all choices if I want.
Maybe your Linux install is incomplete. I'm just using the gnome that came with standard Debian Woody, nothing special.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
What he said was:
I used to stand up in front of Linux crowds and say, "Linux will never be successful on the desktop," and of course I'd get booed off the stage. And I finally realized the mistake I was making. Linux will not be successful on the PC replacing Windows OS. But we absolutely will be successful on the desktop as a geographic location.
An entirely different thing. Read. Think.
Anyway, I don't think he's right about not replacing Windows on the PC. He didn't count on the monumental greed of Billg. Microsoft's latest license fee grab will drive - is already driving - PC desktop users to Linux in droves.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Linux needs to be an alternative to Windows. It needs to be an alternative. Thats the point of Linux.
It needs to be better than Windows, Linux if its better, will be used by millions of people. Ruling the desktop is not what Linux should aim for.
In fact Linux shouldnt aim for ruling anything right now. And everyone involved with Linux shouldnt bee involved with it so it can dominate and become a monopoly. We dont need Linux to ever dominate anything, the fact that its THERE, that millions of people will use it, this is the reason.
Linux will be very successful on the Desktop, on the Server market, etc. Linux will be a better Desktop solution than Windows at some point, and when it is, people will finally have a choice, Linux or Windows on their desktop.
We want to give choice. Not rule the world.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
And it only gives people more reason to think Linux is a joke and not useful for anything. Afterall unless something absolutely rules in a specific area its worthless.
Linux doesnt rule the Server market, but its competitingg with WindowsNT.
Linux doesnt Rule the Desktop, but in 5 years Linux will be competition for Windows.
In other countries where not everyone has a computer Linux will be very successful, in the USA Linux will get millions of people to switch from Windows.
While most people dont want to learn a new system, theres alot of people, especially younger people who dont mind learning, people who seriously use their computer for a career, and theres millions of them, also people who are just young and want to learn.
What this author is assuming is everyone who has a computer, is an old guy who just uses their computer to check their email and go on AOL.
While about 30-40 million people use AOL, 200 million people in the USA alone have computers, and maybe a billion in the world have computers or are going to get a computer soon.
This means the market is underestimated by far.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Thats as simple as it can get. On your VCR do people care what OS it uses? Hell no. On your video game system do you care about the OS? Hell no.
Do you care about the OS on any of your electronics? Hell no. Computer makers start putting Linux on all computers and people will use it, they will learn the linux system well enough to use it, which would take most people 5 minutes because its not really that difficult.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
And really in my opinion, people dont care what OS is used to click on their mozilla ICON and browse the web, check their email, and look at stock quotes.
Will people notice they arent in windows? Nope i doubt it, the only thing they will notice is lack of Microsoft logos.
Honestly the OS doesnt matter when it comes to what peoeple want to learn, what they know and dont know, what matters is the applications they are using. IF the applications are the same or similar, people wont know the diffrence. The people who know Windows well enough to know the diffrence are also the type of people to learn Linux
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
What distro are you running?
OpenBSD.
And yes why CUPS?
Because it supports my godawfully cheap Deskjet, which Mac OS X won't touch. I've been trying to set up a print server rather than dole out the cash for an unnecessary printer upgrade.
But this is way outside the scope of this thread.
--saint
So there really is a GUI tool for tarballs in Linux with KDE. That's good. What's not so good is that most Linux gurus will still attempt to teach the command-line tools to newbies, never mentioning the easy way...
I'm sure that sure that everyone in China & Portugal is using an English-based operating system that is primarilly command-line... yeah.
Most people overseas use the copy of Windows that came with their computer or a pirated copy in their national lanuage.
Have you ever been outside of the United States? In China you can buy DVD's with every product that Microsoft makes for $15. If one spoke good Mandarin it probaly would be more like $3. When I was in Egypt copies of Windows were to be had for a couple of bucks in the street.
My head may be in the sand -- but yours is in the clouds. Linux is just as tedious for desktop use in China as it is in the US.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Redmond Linux, now Lycoris, is aiming itself as a desktop only system. I was quite impressed with its focus. Built off of Caldera, it takes a simple install program (allowing the user to play games during it) and then works to make the desktop as easy to use as Windows.
It is not completely there, yet. But my Dad, who hasn't used a computer in 10 years, wouldn't be able to tell the difference. To him it would just work.
If you look at the screenshots, you'll immediately realize what the company is aiming for. They have done something with this distribution that no other Linux company has been willing to do. They have made some decisions for the user. They have decided what is installed and how it will look once finished. They understand their target market and realize that their users don't necessarily care about choice. They just want the thing to be semi-intuitive and work.
The Linux kernel has the work part down, and Lycoris has taken upon itself the task of making it semi-intuitive.
One final note. Any desktop Linux company would do well to take a page from Lycoris' playbook. Take a look at their website. It is clean and non-technical. It is decidedly geared towards the end user and doesn't try to bowl people over with technical data. In essence, it is a marketing tool... and a pretty good one in my opinion
Come to think of it, maybe they should.
Just somehow make sure they don't select the 'expert' option when they install (dselect...).
And make a bootable ISO available for woody.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.